Latest TSNA results from Timberwolf moist snuff (dip)

[NonServiam]

I e-mailed Swedish Match about a year ago inquiring about current TSNA levels of Timberwolf, Redman, and Longhorn moist snuff, which is made by their sister company Pinkerton tobacco. I never received a response.

Last night, I e-mailed Pinkerton tobacco directly, and received a response today! The last test showed that their products had 7 ppm TSNA, which remained unchanged with shelf life. Now, they've got it down to 5 ppm! That's damn near at the snus level of 2 ppm.I know there is more to the x+y=Cancer equation than just the TSNA's, but they do play a major role. Plays a major role for me when it comes to my choice in American moist snuff.

The e-mail correspondence was as follows:

"Hello,

I have been a user of TimberWolf for years now. For a short time, I switched to General brand snus, manufactured by your parent company Swedish Match.

I made this switch because of the lower TSNA (tobacco specific nitrosamine) count (cancer causing agents).

Swedish Match snus rates at approximately 2 ppm.

With what available research/studies I have found, it appears that TimberWolf averages at approximately 7 ppm and remains unchanged despite shelf life. A huge difference compared to other American moist snuff brands which can rate as high as 127 ppm!

Since the PACT Act took effect, I could no longer justify ordering snus from Sweden due to the imposed Government taxes and ridiculous shipping rates.

That said, I switched back to TimberWolf which is made by Pinkerton a subsidiary of Swedish Match (as I'm sure you already know).

I am aware that Pinkerton also manufactures Red Man and Long Horn moist snuff.

I can't find any TSNA studies on Longhorn, nor Red Man. Could you please tell me if Longhorn or Red Man possesses the same low TSNA count as TimberWolf.

I messaged Swedish Match some time ago, but never received a reply. I hope to receive a reply from you, even if it is simply "I'm sorry, I really can't answer that question."

Also, this question might be easier for you to answer. Red Man and TimberWolf are both comparable in price, if not identical.

However, Longhorn has a very tempting lower price. What results in Longhorn having this lower price? Is the Longhorn snuff derived from a less premium/desirable part of the tobacco leaf? Or is Longhorn the tobacco that is swept off the floors of the TimberWolf line? Just kidding!

I would very much appreciate your reply,

Sincerely,
A long time TimberWolf customer!

P.S. Thank you for the coupons!


NonServiam,

All three of our moist snuff have a 5 ppm on a wet basis of TSNA's. So in that regard, you are even across the board with any of our products. The difference in price for Longhorn is based on different ingredients and Marketing decisions not on lower quality tobacco.

And as for your love of General snus, we are increasing the number of US retailers that carry the product. You can check www.generalsnus.com the WHERE TO BUY and see if there are any local retail outlets.

Thank you

[lxskllr]

That was a pretty good response. I'm actually a little surprised they gave you a knowledgeable reply.

[NonServiam]

That was a pretty good response. I'm actually a little surprised they gave you a knowledgeable reply.

I was too! If she just happened to pull it out of her ass, then she must have a rose garden in there, because her response was not only prompt, but she states it with much confidence.

I'm thinking it was probably a copy and paste from their database, but still...it was a response, and a pleasing one.

I'm glad to hear they are still doing quality control and striving to keep their tobacco product at the lowest TSNA possible given it's fire cured rather than steamed and pasteurized like snus.

[Snusify]

The Timberwolf tsna levels have been a 5ppm for a while. I am not sure we should be concerned about American Dip anymore given all the hype that came out as a backlash to the TV adverts in the 80's. Back then they said dip was worse for you than cigarettes and they had 2 high profile mouth cancer cases to shout about.

In reality the cases of mouth cancer in America has steadily fallen yet the uptake of smokeless tobacco increases 7% a year. A study done by the Royal College of Physicians in London found there as no association between Snus and American Dip and oral cancer.

[Frankie Reloaded]

Lamer question: But you have to spit when using the dip, right? Lower lip placement, spitting the juice?

[lxskllr]

Lamer question: But you have to spit when using the dip, right? Lower lip placement, spitting the juice?

Yea, that's typical. Some people gut it, but when I dipped, I'd throw up if I swallowed too much juice.

[Darwin]

TSNA levels notwithstanding the main health culprit in the use of dip sees to be the mechanical aggravation of the product. From all I've read the cut of dip tends to irritate the gums, with subsequent health problems, to a far greater extent that does snus, loose or otherwise. It appears that this factor renders the relative TSNA levels of dip moot for even the worst dip "offenders" in such wise are at far far lower levels than the carcinogenic disaster area represented by cigarette smoke. So whatever problems dip may or may not have health-wise if every smoker in the country switched to it the overall health of tobacco users would take a great leap upward. The salient advantage of snus over dip is not so much its lower levels of carcinogens but rather its significantly greater levels of social acceptability, or to be more accurate its social invisibility.

[horus]

The Timberwolf tsna levels have been a 5ppm for a while. I am not sure we should be concerned about American Dip anymore given all the hype that came out as a backlash to the TV adverts in the 80's. Back then they said dip was worse for you than cigarettes and they had 2 high profile mouth cancer cases to shout about.

In reality the cases of mouth cancer in America has steadily fallen yet the uptake of smokeless tobacco increases 7% a year. A study done by the Royal College of Physicians in London found there as no association between Snus and American Dip and oral cancer.

Yup. I think more snusers should give good American snuffs a try. They're both varieties of moist snuff, the American just tends to be fermented and smoky. The flavored/long-cut stuff is nothing like snuff and is disgusting but the good natural finecuts like Redman and Copenhagen are worth trying.

[snusjus]

Lamer question: But you have to spit when using the dip, right? Lower lip placement, spitting the juice?

When I use dip, which is a rare occurrence, I place it in my upper lip like snus. I don't have any problems, as salivation does not occur in the upper lip; thus, spitting is a redundancy. Placing any form of tobacco in the lower lip will require spitting, as tobacco juice is going to pervade the mouth due to salivary glands.

[Frankie Reloaded]

Thanks. So it might be worth a try

[chadizzy1]

A study done by the Royal College of Physicians in London found there as no association between Snus and American Dip and oral cancer.

I don't think that's accurate. I know of the study, but I believe it was a snus only study.

There is definitely a link between American moist snuff and oral cancer, that has been well documented.

Does it happen fast, frequently, and rot your face off as the health nuts will tell you? Of course not. But it has/does/can happen.

With snus, it hasn't happened nor has it been observed to happen.

I don't think we can say that "there is no link between "dip" and oral cancer", because there is.

[stubby2]

Brad Rodu did a piece recently about TSNA numbers in smokeless

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com...ltria-and.html

The numbers have been falling as US makers have refined the processing. Given a choice between smoking and dip, dip is far less risky. With all I have read about smokeless most of the dangers we hear about are coming from anti-tobacco zealots without and any solid science behind it. I'm a whole lot less convinced on the dangers of dip then I had been in the past. But... I'm quite content with the snus. The spitting is a big turn off for me. Now if Copenhagen came out with a snus that tasted the same as their dip I would be all over it.

[Snusdog]

Remember, TSNA is but one factor in a much bigger equation. The TSNAs in snus and dip can be equal ............and yet one is safe to swallow the other is not.

some things being equal........is not all things being equal...........its those other things that keep me clear of dip (after 25 years of using it)

[Snusify]

I don't think that's accurate. I know of the study, but I believe it was a snus only study.

There is definitely a link between American moist snuff and oral cancer, that has been well documented.

Does it happen fast, frequently, and rot your face off as the health nuts will tell you? Of course not. But it has/does/can happen.

With snus, it hasn't happened nor has it been observed to happen.

I don't think we can say that "there is no link between "dip" and oral cancer", because there is.

The study was not just on snus it was a comprehensive study on Tobacco risk smoked or otherwise.

read page 146 of the study http://bookshop.rcplondon.ac.uk/cont...18f017edce.pdf

[Snusify]

Here is a section of the document that shows they found no link between american dip and mortality through oral cancer.

Please note that this does not apply to the practice of dipping dry snuff which is proven to case oral cancer.

In one of the largest studies, Henley et al examined the association between exclusive use of oral tobacco (compared with never tobacco users) and mortality from various causes in
the Cancer Prevention Studies (CPS-I and II) conducted by the American Cancer Society.41 The CPS-I analysis included 7,745 exclusive smokeless tobacco users (median age 62) and almost 70,000 never tobacco users recruited in 1959 and followed up to determine cause of death by 1971. CPS-II analyses included 2,488 smokeless users (median age 57) and over 110,000 never tobacco users recruited in 1982 and followed up to determine cause of death by 2000. The studies both ascertained tobacco use at the outset of the study and assumed that use did not change throughout the follow-up period (Table 8.6).41
Neither analysis found evidence of a statistically significant increase in the risk of death from oral cancer. The adjusted hazard ratio estimate in CPS-I was 2.02 and 0.9 in CPS-II. The confidence intervals on both of these estimates were wide. The CPS-I estimate is derived from a larger number of smokeless tobacco users but with shorter follow-up and included only 13 deaths from oral cancer. The CPS-II population of 2,488 smokeless users with a median age of 57 at enrolment and followed for 18 years generated only one death from oral cancer in exclusive smokeless tobacco users and none in former users. Together, these findings suggest that any effect, if present, is very small. Five-year survival from oral cancer has been around 50% for the past 30 years,42 and so it is unlikely that the lack of effect was due to a large number of incident cases occurring but not causing death.
Accortt et al analysed the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-1) in the United States, comparing the incidence of oral cancer in 414 smokeless tobacco users and 2,979 never tobacco users.43 The participants were aged 45–75 at enrolment in the mid-1970s and were followed up around 10 years later. No cases of oral cancer were observed among the smokeless users, and it was concluded that the standardised incidence rate was not increased among smokeless users.