So I read through the WHO study on snuff a while back and just recently revisited it and, while at the end they say there’s no conclusive evidence nasal snuff causes cancer or something to that effect, most of the studies they cite do find 2-3x higher risks of oral/throat/etc. cancers in the snuff-taking groups. But that’s just the way it looked to me, I’m not a scientist; they never say anything about there being anything wrong with the studies but I must be missing something. I’m just looking for someone more knowledgeable about interpreting this sort of thing than me to give me his/her opinion. The study’s here, an easy way to navigate it is to just ctrl-f “nasal”. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol89/mono89.pdf Edit: see, in particular, the section starting on page 229 Edit 2: never mind jeeze I never noticed before but there are bracketed explanations of the problems in the studies, mostly lack of control for smoking You all can ignore this thread!
I haven’t read the study and I’m not going to look at it now, but I’ve got a few comments. You have to understand what “no conclusive evidence” means. It’s certainly different from “conclusively proved not to cause cancer.” Cigarette smoking was a public health specialist’s dream: You have hundreds of millions of people, from both genders and all sections of society, all using very similar products in a very similar way for long periods of time. With that evidence base, you can draw very meaningful conclusions. With pipe smoking and, even more, with snuff, you don’t have that. With pipes and snuff, people use them in many various ways, with many different types of tobacco. With snuff, most people who use it have also used other tobacco products, so how do you separate the impacts of those different products? Then, some people might use snuff very occasionally, others every day. The pool of people who have only used snuff, but use it very frequently, must be tiny. So, no conclusive evidence about anything. IF - if - the thing about 2 - 3 times higher risk is true, well, how common are those cancers anyway? Pretty rare? Then add the stuff about the unreliablity of the data, and you’re left guessing. All I can say for sure is that cigarette smoking made me feel crappy and short of breath and stinky, and snuff does none of those things. Quite the opposite, it helps me stay at my correct weight, helps me get through a day’s work, gives me a lot of pleasure. I’ll rest on that, rather than these vague studies with meaningless conclusions.
This is a vague and snarky comment but the WHO is not to be trusted. They like junk science and tend to bury studies that don’t fit with their agenda. Just sayin’.
Most of snuffers are former smokers, so I think that most cancers in snuffer are caused by irreversible damages made by cigarettes.
That might be true in the states but I don’t know if it applies in India and Africa where the studies were done, anyway they were fundamentally flawed studies.
"There are suggestions that nasal snuff use increases the risk for certain cancers, including oral cancer. " “Uranium-235 and -238 were reported only in Indian nasal snuff, each at about 2 pCi/g tobacco (Sharma et al. 1985)” “However, they found significantly elevated levels of HPB-releasing Hb adducts in users of nasal dry snuff (median 236 fmol/g globin).” "Nasal snuff users also showed high levels of haemoglobin adducts; HPB-releasing adducts were not correlated with the amount or type of snuff used. " “High concentrations of nicotine (0.3-0.6 mg/mL) have been reported to cause DNA damage in explant cultures of human nasal epithelia (Sassen et al. 2005).” "Pronounced depression of body weight gain in snuff + HSV. Hyperplasia of the forestomach in 50% of snuff exposed. carcinomas in the oral cavity. " "Snuff enriched up to double the amount of TSNA gave 1 papilloma in oral cavity, but significant increase in liver tumours; controls only subjected to surgery, no irritating control material. Snuff extract showed a protective effect against TSNA. " “Hyperplasia from mock snuff dipping. Invasive buccal carcinoma in 50% of animals on snuff + HSV.” “1 additional nasal tumour in snuff group. Snuff+HSV and NQO+HSV increased tumours at distant sites. High content of NNN and NNK in the Swedish snuff used (33 µg/g NNN and 4.6 µg/g NNK; Cotton pellet dipped in saline as control material. Effects on weight gain. Moribund animals. Inflammatory changes of the lip” "The tumour promoting effects of snuff was further studied by the group of Hirsch (Larsson et al. 1989) in rats that had been initiated with 4-nitroquinoline-N-oxide (4-NQO), or inoculated with herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1). The previously described protocol was used, but with a treatment period was extended until 70-94 wk (moribund animals). In the group treated with snuff only, 4 tumours were found in 3 rats among 13 surviving animals; one squamous cell carcinoma in the oral cavity, one in the nasal cavities, one was a colon adenocarcinoma, and one a skin fibroma (benign) of the skin. In the group exposed to snuff plus HSV-1, 13 tumours were found in 8 animals, out of which 7 were malignant, whereas in the rats only exposed to HSV-1, there were 3 tumours. However, except for one salivary gland sarcoma and one gingival haemangioma, there were no oral cavity tumours in the animals with combined exposures. A cotton pellet dipped in saline represented the control material used in the sham operated animals. The cited contents of NNN and NNK in the Swedish snuff used, were also significantly higher (33 µg/g NNN and 4.6 µg/g NNK) than reported elsewhere for Swedish snuff from this time period (Larsson et al. 1989). " “Three case–control studies from Kerala, India (Sankaranarayanan et al. 1989a, Sankaranarayanan et al. 1989b, Sankaranarayanan et al. 1990b) have reported on the association of nasal snuff use and oral cancer subsites among men” “There is sufficient evidence that the use of a wide variety of STP causes cancer in humans. The pancreas has been identified as a main target organ in two Scandinavian cohort studies. Several studies from the USA have also provided additional support for a causal association between the use of smokeless tobacco and pancreatic cancer.” " Risks of oral cancer were strongly associated with the use of American dry snuff in a sub-group of non-black (“white”) women in one large case-control study. Several studies from the US reported an increased risk for oral cancer in smokeless tobacco users, most of them among users of chewing tobacco. Four studies in India and Pakistan (excluding subjects using areca nut) and one study from Sudan have reported large increases in the risk for oral cancers related to the use of various STP. There is inadequate evidence that STP cause lung cancer. " I think I should stop reading those kind of things. Now I’m worried and I better see the doctor.
@Roderick actually it IS about nasal snuff. They have even made separate studies about German, American and British ones. Here it is: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph\_risk/committees/04\_scenihr/docs/scenihr\_o\_013.pdf
Some people get cancer others don’t. It is a risk I am willing to take. we are but visitors to this time,Our purpose is to observe, to learn ,to grow, to love , and experience all life has to offer and then leave making the world better than when we arrived.
"There is evidence, that heat, tar, nitroso-nor-nicotine (NNN), 4-(methylnitrosoa- mino)-1-(3-piridyl)-butanone)(NNK)andother polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are capable of inducing malignancy. Obviously the snuffuser is not exposed to those, which are products of burning. NNN and NNK are presented in the rough tobacco and their quantity rises in the process of preparation of snuff, so that contained in 1 g of snuff is higher than in one cigarette. Both NNN and NNK have been found to be carcinogenic specically in the nose in the mink, when applied systemically. Their combined administration has stronger carcinogenic effect, than any of them given alone. The carcinogenic effects are partially attributed to substances arising from their metabolism by the nasal cells. " http://www.researchgate.net/publication/9049763\_Nasal\_snuff\_historical\_review\_and\_health\_related\_aspects/file/50463516f60bd173bb.pdf "Smokeless tobacco use and cancer of the upper respiratory tract.Rodu B, Cole P. University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL 35294-0007, USA. rodu@uab.edu The most recent epidemiologic review of the cancer risks associated with smokeless tobacco use appeared in 1986, when 10 studies were available. This review describes 21 published studies, 20 of which are of the case-control type. We characterize each study according to the specific anatomic sites and according to the type of smokeless tobacco products for which it provides relative risks of cancer. The use of moist snuff and chewing tobacco imposes minimal risks for cancers of the oral cavity and other upper respiratory sites, with relative risks ranging from 0.6 to 1.7. The use of dry snuff imposes higher risks, ranging from 4 to 13, and the risks from smokeless tobacco, unspecified as to type, are intermediate, from 1.5 to 2.8. The strengths and limitations of the studies and implications for future research are discussed. PMID: 12075196 " (this is an answer to your own question asked 7 years ago) Maybe I’m just going mad, but the more I read the more I worry. My grandpa died on cancer when I was a child, I think I got a cancerophobia or something because of that. Since then I’m concerned about a single pimple on my body, immediate aching, feeling dizzy etc, man, I’m just waiting for doctors to say “You really need treatment, but psychiatrist one”. It does not matter if I stopped snuffing, I’d find another body part to feel worried of. What is interesting, I stop worrying after some examinations, for example I stopped to think I’ve got stomach cancer after three seeings doctor and USG. On the very next day I have found something in my nose, I related that to snuff, and now… you can see yourself. What is most sadly, even if I really had something dangerous in my body doctor wouldn’t even notice that before it is too late. Charms of living in Poland. Eh. Why I am saying all those above - to warn you before getting fixated on anything, because it can really screw up your daily life. And to encourage you to see the doctor regularly - smokers do have screening examination from time to time, why shouldn’t we have? Also, it could provide really priceless informations about snuff influence on health in long-terms. Ok, I’m a bit calmer now. 
double the rate on something rare. Oh nooooooo… Or as a scientist person (cancer is their speciality) double not much is only twice not so much.
I resonate with what basement_shaman said, above. One of the biggest risks to health is, actually, stress; living in semi-permanent stress gives rise to lots of health problems.
I agree with @Bob. Even with the types of snuff on which the study is based, they talk about 2x the risk compared to cigarettes for oral cancers only. But most people who die from smoking related disease die of lung cancer or heart conditions. Oral cancers are quite rare. Look at other studies and you’ll see the risk of oral cancer from smokeless tobacco is actually LESS than from smoking - without even factoring in lung cancer and heart attack. Google “You might as well smoke” for a good study that puts the overall mortality risk from smokeless at around 2 percent of the risk from smoking. And that’s ALL smokeless, including dip and so on, nasal snuff is generally agreed to be the safest of the lot. Personally, I factor in the fact that I tendto put on 15kg or so when I don’t use nicotine. Snuff is GOOD for you!
You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco ST is usually only linked to one life-threatening disease, oral cancer (OC), and even that association may not apply to the types of products that increasingly dominate ST use in the West [1]. Claims of OC risk are largely based on a single study [2] and are contradicted by a substantial portion of the evidence about modern moist snuff [3-6]. Claims are sometimes also made about links to cardiovascular disease and pancreatic cancer, though the evidence supporting these claims is even thinner and more equivocal. The lack of clear evidence of a strong association with any diseases is not due to lack of research; there have been extensive attempts to find health risks from ST, including in Swedish populations where prevalence of use is high. While it is impossible to ever rule out small associations between an exposure and a disease, there is ample evidence to rule out, with a very high degree of confidence, the possibility that the combined risk of life threatening diseases due to ST use is anything close to that from smoking. Even if we were to believe the commonly cited estimates for the risk of OC from ST, that risk is still lower than the estimated risk due to smoking for OC alone (a very small fraction of the total risk from smoking). If we further allow for the possibility that ST creates small, yet-undetected risks for some other diseases, the risks from the many diseases caused by smoking still clearly dwarf possible risk from ST. The most frequently repeated estimate conservatively puts the risk of premature mortality from ST use at 2% of that from cigarettes [7,8]. The Royal College of Physicians recently stated that the risk from ST might be as low as 1/1000 that from cigarettes [9]. The Royal College and another recent high-profile report suggest an upper bound estimate of 1/10 the risk [10], but the available epidemiology suggests that the true value is extremely unlikely to be this large. Whatever the exact magnitude, the conclusion must be that cigarettes are considerably more harmful than ST.
Everything I have read about smokeless tobacco seems to verify that the risk of developing cancer (particularly with nasal snuff and Snus which no know scientific data has genuinely confirmed that either does in fact engender cancer) is extremely low when you compare it to that of individuals that use combustible forms of tobacco. However, even if there is a slightly greater risk of developing cancer with snuff, life is full of risks. Personally, I would rather die when I am going to die, engage in harm reduction practices with my tobacco consumption and enjoy life. Versus giving it all up and being unhappy and bitter because I gave up what I enjoy doing. All I have to say is enjoy the snuff, smokeless tobacco and smoke in moderation (if you care to) and do not worry about it life is far too short.
Funny how all these cancer researchers only look at the chemicals found in tobacco and not any of the 200+ chemicals big tobacco companies spray on their cigarettes
@n9inchnails Not really… given that their #$#%##$ lobbyists are hard at work making sure we’ve only their “products” to choose from you know
It’s also worth noting that most tobacco is contaminated with radioactivity, a problem that is set to increase with the ongoing Fukushima meltdown. So to prove their anti-snuff case, the WHO and our Governments would have to demonstrate that it is snuff tobacco use, and not our Governments’ own addiction to nuclear weapons, nuclear testing, nuclear power, and irresponsible nuclear waste disposal that is to blame for any nasal (or lung) cancers from which we may suffer. Polonium and Lung Cancer; J Oncol. 2011.
Thanks @Roderick!
I choose to enjoy my habit rather than read ignorant anti tobacco propaganda.