Join Together
Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Study Sees Few Cancer Risks from Smokeless Tobacco
August 4, 2009

Share Share Email
email
Print
print
SubscribeSubscribe
Research Summary

A new research review concludes that smokeless-tobacco use poses little cancer risk to users -- and far less than smoking tobacco -- but the findings were immediately challenged by another tobacco researcher.

MedPage Today reported July 29 that researchers Peter Lee and Jan Hamling analyzed 89 previously published studies and concluded, "Any effect of smokeless tobacco on risk of cancer, if it exists at all, is quantitatively very much smaller than the known effects of smoking."

The authors, both of PN Lee Statistics and Computing, said that smokeless tobacco use only appears related to oropharyngeal and prostate cancer, with risk increasing by 36 percent and 29 percent, respectively. But Lee and Hamling even cast doubt on these data.

The U.S. National Cancer Institute, however, says that chewing tobacco and snuff contain 28 known carcinogens, and critics pointed out that Lee is a consultant to the tobacco industry. University of Florida researcher Scott Tomar said that no serious researcher would argue that smokeless-tobacco use is as harmful as smoking, and questioned the methodology and conclusions drawn by Lee and Hamling.

The study was published in the journal BMC Medicine.

This article summarizes an external report or press release on research published in a scientific journal. When available, links to the sources are provided above.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by maxwood on 04 Aug 09 06:46 PM EDT
1. Consider the alternative: the "Either-Or" situation here is not between smokeless tobacco and no tobacco, but between smokeless tobacco and the most dangerous drug administration modality in the history of the planet, hot-burning overdose cigarettes. 2. A similar choice exists with the electronic cigarette: (a) I have not found one mention anywhere of a single case of poisoning-- can toddlers chew through the plastic housing of a cartridge? (b) again, the choice is between switching to the e-cig and continuing to smoke hot-burning overdoses. 3. Some theorize the opposition to smokeless and e-cig is from Big Pharma with its own plans to profit off nicotine gum, patch etc. I have been in a Walgreens and seen the prices on the boxes, $20, $40 etc., just across from the (high tax) $7 cigaret packs. It almost seems Big Pharma would prefer to see a few million more die from cigarettes than survive by switching to some nicotine delivery system which Big Pharma itself doesn't sell.

Posted by ichoosefreedom on 04 Aug 09 11:58 PM EDT
What about the carcinogens in Nicorette? How about the study that showed the danger of the nicotine REPLACEMENT products? You Tobacco Control people are SO hypocritical and your funding provided by big pHARMa shows through. Carcinogens in baby shampoo and lotion and Nicorette are "safe", according to J&J spokespeople and yet when a study shows smokeless tobacco IS safe, you all have a fit. What's the matter? Will your Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funding be cut if you don't continue your charade?

Posted by marbee on 05 Aug 09 12:06 AM EDT
I read an article about a boy that OD'd on Nicorette gum given at school with parental knowledge. So, very quietly, pharmaceutical nicotine is pushed on 12 year old kids. If anyone doubted that the anti-smoking crusade leads back to Johnson & Johnson, the cat is totally out of the bag!

Posted by marbee on 05 Aug 09 12:12 AM EDT
Sorry, WITHOUT parental knowledge!

Posted by SmokersOrphan on 05 Aug 09 04:32 AM EDT
I'd be about the last to defend big pharma, but I'd never defend cigarette manufacturers. I wonder how much blood money the last two posters got for stating their opinions. The anti-smoking crusade may get funding from big pharma, but its manned by friends and family of smokers that have suffered and all-too-often died for their addiction. What kind of monster can marginalize 200,000+ Americans dying every year, and state that the money is all that counts? Oh yeh.. Big tobacco.

Posted by stopthehate on 05 Aug 09 09:32 AM EDT
Anti-tobacco programs ARE NOT funded by Big Pharma - another Big Tobacco LIE! Of course we acknowledge that smokeless tobacco is safer than cigarettes, but they still cause cancer, and NRTs do not, even though they have other problems, they are MINIMAL by comparison to tobacco use. It is frustrating that they people whose lives you are trying to save keep attacking you with lies.

Posted by NotHatingJustSaying on 07 Aug 09 09:49 AM EDT
I think you'd have a tough time painting big pharma as dedicated to saving lives. Of course they aren't opposed to it, but they're only going to do what is profitable. ED takes precedence over a great many more serious and disabling diseases just because the elderly have the money. And you'd rather have somebody dependent on a treatment than cured. Why do we only lock up the poor drug dealers?

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Submissions are held for review and approval.
Please read the guidelines before posting.

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

Guidelines for comments