0.7 TSNA for V2 products.

[truthwolf1]

Although Snus on average contains very low levels of TSNA I was curious which brand actually had the lowest percentage. From this link below it looks like V2 products win.

http://www.snus.name/snus-tsna.php

[snusjus]

The graph is a little bit outdated, because more recent ones show that SM brands have levels of TSNAs in the 1.2 - 1.6 range. Still, V2 snus has a very low level of TSNAs, perhaps even lower now.

[Xobeloot]

V2 = WIN!

[KarlvB]

The graph is a little bit outdated, because more recent ones show that SM brands have levels of TSNAs in the 1.2 - 1.6 range. Still, V2 snus has a very low level of TSNAs, perhaps even lower now.

SM is actually in the 0.8-1.1 range according to one of the more recent official studies commissioned by the Swedish food authority

http://www.slv.se/upload/dokument/Ra...enskt_snus.pdf

The problem I see with the TSNA debate at the moment is that there hasn't been a consistent annual review of the TSNA levels in all brands on the market.

The clearest example of that was the drop in General from 2.5 in 2002 to 1.6 in 2003 to the levels shown in the article above. I wouldn't be surprised if most SM product currently come in under the 1.0 level. In fact Gellivare did, and I think Skruf and Gotlands do as well by now.

I am basing my assumption about Gotlands and Skruf on two things. Skruf was found by SLV to have the lowest level of TSNA (apparently) and Gotlands was developed in conjunction with the Bengt Sändhs snusfabrique which according to the study above already showed low levels of TSNA.

Basically, I think the know how is there in the industry and as the harm reduction argument gains pace I expect that we will see further reductions in the future.

But good on V2 to take the initiative and do an independent test of their products. Other small manufacturers should follow their lead.

http://www.v2tobacco.com/snus-quality-standard.php

[RobsanX]

The problem I see with the TSNA debate at the moment is that there hasn't been a consistent annual review of the TSNA levels in all brands on the market.

The mechanism is there with Gothiatek, but I'm not sure how many companies outside of SM subscribe to it...

[KarlvB]

The mechanism is there with Gothiatek, but I'm not sure how many companies outside of SM subscribe to it...

As far as I am aware Gothiatek is a SM only standard and SMs attempt to differentiate itself so they won't allow other firms to use it.

Also, I think it is much more valuable for the regulatory body (the Swedish National Food Administration) to conduct these tests so that there is a standardised testing procedure such as the one detailed in this article

"Analysis of tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines in snuff by ethyl acetate extraction and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry"
Journal of Chromatography A
Volume 1008, Issue 2, 8 August 2003, Pages 135-143

"A rapid, selective and sensitive method for routine analysis of the four tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines, N′-nitrosonornicotine, N′-nitrosoanatabine, N′-nitrosoanabasine and 4-(methyl-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone in snuff has been developed. The nitrosamines were isolated by ethyl acetate extraction and analysed by LC–MS–MS. Except for evaporation and filtration, no additional clean-up steps are needed in the proposed method. The detection limits for standard in solvent are between 0.0005 and 0.001 μg/ml (0.005 and 0.01 μg/g)."

[Zero]

Yeah, it sounds to me like Gothiatek™ is a vaguely/barely (if at all) patentable process which has been given a trade name by SM for the purposes of branding, etc. I don't really expect that the actual methods used in the production of SM snus or, for example, Gotlands snus, are all that much different. Low TSNA seems to be a byproduct of the snus making process - something endemic to the sweating and pasteurising method itself rather than because of anything secret and amazing that SM does with Gothiatek.

[RobsanX]

I personally think that Gothiatek came about because there is no regulation of snus outside of the food purity laws. If the government gets a wild hair and decides to start regulating it, then SM can lobby the gov. to use their process as the model, thus providing a seamless transition. That, and to mitigate any future litigation like what has happened to U.S. cig makers. Gothiatek serves many roles past, present, and future.

[Premium Parrots]

can't they lower the levels simply by adding alittle more fairy dust?

[Xobeloot]

can't they lower the levels simply by adding alittle more fairy dust?

No, They have already tried the fairy dust approach. It failed.

V2 uses a single tear from a unicorn in every production run to purify the snus. They extract said tears by forcing the unicorn to watch Tom Cruise movies in 48 hour incriments. Any longer would prove fatal to the animal.

[bakerbarber]

Uh huh...

[ponysoprano]

can't they lower the levels simply by adding alittle more fairy dust?

No, They have already tried the fairy dust approach. It failed.

V2 uses a single tear from a unicorn in every production run to purify the snus. They extract said tears by forcing the unicorn to watch Tom Cruise movies in 48 hour incriments. Any longer would prove fatal to the animal.

LMAO...like "Borat" and Gypsy Tears to ward off AIDS! Ahhh I've been away so long!

[Faethwur]

So I've been reading about TSNAs in tobacco products and I see that there is a wide range of levels, and different values from different sources. However I do notice that Snus is consistent in obtaining low levels. Cigarettes on the other hand ranges from 5 to 1000 ug/g, and I noticed that dry snuff ranged from 40-1200???

Now I understand the range for dry snuff is dependent on brand and such, however the TSNAs for Marlboro and Camel cigarettes were much lower than this. I do believe that smoking is not the best choice due to the act of inhaling the smoke. But what does it mean when the TSNAs in dry snuff is so many times higher than the most popular cigarettes? I am sure that not having to smoke the stuff outweighs the possible detrimental effects of the high TSNA levels, but what is your take on it? And does the TSNA level in cigarettes depend on each cigarette, how you smoke it etc..

Any answers would be greatly appreciated, thanks! BTW I've been out of snus for a month now, I have Long Horn for now because I found out its Swedish Match so that kind of helps, and I have no idea where to get Red Man Fine Cut natural in Seattle.

[chainsnuser]

To my understanding there are two different dangers in tobacco, the smoke and the TSNA's.

The smoke, from epidemiologic research, appears to be at least 50 times more dangerous than the TSNA's, or in other words: even the highest TSNA-count is negligible, compared to inhaling smoke.

I don't know, who started the TSNA-discussion, regarding tobacco. I know the "NA"-discussion about barbecue-meat, beer etc., but regarding tobacco, I really don't now, who started it all, because it really appears to be negligible. Maybe it was Swedish Match with that obscure "Gothiatek-standard" or it were some anti-tobacco-Nazis. I'm really not sure.

Cheers!

[Grim]

Keep in mind that Dry Snuff was retested and actually has SIGNIFICANTLY lower levels comparable to Moist American Snuff.

According to Toque, their snuff has such low levels of TSNAs that they had to retest for any to show up.

Im just not entirely convinced about these reports, because all reports you look at differ from one another.