tobacco Archives - Amazing Health Advances

Some E-Cigarette Chemicals Mimic Nicotine, Possibly Bypassing Regulation

The AHA! Team — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:21:24 +0000

Duke Health – In what appears to be an effort to bypass public health regulations covering vaping products, some tobacco companies have begun replacing nicotine in e-cigarettes with related chemicals that have similar properties but unknown health effects, Duke Health researchers report. In a research letter appearing Aug. 7 in JAMA, study authors at Duke and Yale University also found that the quantity of these chemicals, known as nicotine analogs, are not accurately disclosed on the packaging. “Vaping products containing nicotine are subject to federal laws that prohibit sales to people under the age of 21,” said study co-author Sairam V. Jabba, D.V.M., Ph.D., a senior research scientist at Duke University School of Medicine. Nicotine analogs are currently not subject to the FDA process “Nicotine analogs are currently not subject to the FDA process and have not been studied for their health effects,” Jabba said. “Our analysis of some of these analog-containing vaping products sold in the U.S. found significant and concerning inaccuracies in the ingredients these products claim to contain and what they actually contain. Further, it’s possible manufacturers are attempting to avoid FDA tobacco regulation.” One chemical, known as 6-methyl nicotine, has been shown in rodent experiments to be far more potent than nicotine in targeting the brain’s nicotine receptors and more toxic than nicotine. Another, called nicotinamide, is marketed as targeting the same brain receptors as nicotine, despite evidence it does not bind to these receptors. The nicotine analogs were included in flavored e-cigarettes, which prior research has indicated are preferred by youths and those who vape for the first time. Jabba and colleagues, including co-senior author Sven Eric Jordt, Ph.D., analyzed an e-cigarette product sold under the brand name Spree Bar, which comes in at least nine flavors and is listed as containing 5 percent 6-methyl nicotine. Study results showed the actual amount of the chemical was about 88% less than labeled. The e-cigarettes also included an artificial sweetener that is up to 13,000 times sweeter than table sugar, and an artificial coolant that mimics menthol’s effects. A second brand of e-cigarettes — marketed as Nixotine, Nixodine, Nixamide and Nic-Safe – contained a nicotine analog called nicotinamide, also at levels lower than the labels indicated, and combined with undisclosed amounts of 6-methyl nicotine. This brand did not include sweeteners or coolants. These products appear to be designed to circumvent the laws and regulations “These products appear to be designed to circumvent the laws and regulations in place to protect people — especially children — from the harmful effects of smoking and tobacco use,” Jordt said. “We do not know what these chemicals do when they are heated and inhaled. These are questions that should be answered before we allow products on the market.” In addition to Jordt and Jabba, study authors include Hanno C. Erythropel, Peter Silinski, Paul T. Anastas, Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin and Julie B. Zimmerman. Yale’s Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science received funding support for the study from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (U54DA036151), and the Center for Tobacco Products of the FDA. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the FDA. To read the original article click here.

The post Some E-Cigarette Chemicals Mimic Nicotine, Possibly Bypassing Regulation appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Prevalence of Nicotine Pouch Use Found to be Low Among U.S. Adults

The AHA! Team — Tue, 20 Aug 2024 04:45:40 +0000

Keck School of Medicine of USC via News-Medical – A new study found that the prevalence of nicotine pouch use was low in U.S. adults despite a 641% increase in sales of the products between 2019 and 2022. Researchers say the findings raise questions about who is using the millions of nicotine pouches sold in the U.S. and why. Nicotine pouches, a new commercial tobacco product, contain a crystalline powder with nicotine, flavorings (including fruit, mint or candy) and other additives. They do not cause respiratory harm and are perceived by some as an alternative to help adults who smoke tobacco quit. Nicotine pouches have recently gained attention over concerns that their flavors and trendy social media marketing campaigns are attracting youth users. However, limited data on usage among adults has been collected since the new products entered the market. Now, a study from the Keck School of Medicine of USC and the University of Nebraska Medical Center analyzed nicotine pouch use in a nationally representative sample of 39,557 U.S. adults. The study found that 2.9% of adults had ever used nicotine pouches, with 0.4% reporting current use. The majority of adults currently using pouches also currently smoke cigarettes. Additionally, 5.2% of those who attempted to quit smoking in the past year and had relapsed back to smoking reported using pouches to help with their cessation efforts. The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was just published in JAMA. “The low prevalence of nicotine pouch use in adults surprised us, given the rapid increase in sales. But it’s also possible that the sales are being diverted to adolescents, who were not represented in this survey.” – Adam Matthew Leventhal, PhD, study coauthor, professor in the department of population and public health sciences at the Keck School of Medicine and executive director of the USC Institute for Addiction Science Patterns of pouch use Data for the study were collected through the Current Population Survey (CPS) Tobacco Use Supplement in September 2022. The CPS is a monthly survey of U.S. adults that uses rigorous research methods to ensure its participants represent an accurate cross-section of the country’s population, making the results reliable enough to influence important policy decisions. The Tobacco Use Supplement includes straightforward questions about cigarette smoking, attempts to quit smoking and-;for the first time in September 2022-;the use of nicotine pouches. Of 39,558 survey respondents, 2.9% had ever used nicotine pouches, and 0.4% were currently using them. Adults who currently smoked (10.8%) or formerly smoked (6.7%) were more likely to report ever using nicotine pouches compared to people who had never smoked (1.1%). Current use of nicotine pouches was also higher among adults who currently smoked (1%) and formerly smoked (0.7%) compared to those who had never smoked (0.2%). Pouch use, both past and present, was lower in adults under 65, but higher in males and non-Hispanic whites. Among those who currently smoked who tried to quit in the past year, more reported trying to switch to e-cigarettes (21.6%) than nicotine pouches (5.2%) to help them quit. One question raised by the findings is whether adults who use nicotine pouches may be using them to “top off” nicotine in situations where they cannot smoke or use other tobacco products, Leventhal said, rather than as a way to quit smoking. Instead of reducing the health risks of cigarette smoking, that use pattern could actually make nicotine dependence more severe. Based on the study results, Leventhal estimates that of all U.S. adults who currently used nicotine pouches in 2022, about 35% had previously smoked cigarettes and 25% were currently smoking cigarettes. The remaining 40% of adult pouch consumers had never regularly smoked cigarettes and could be at risk for developing nicotine dependence. “In summary, we didn’t see a large population of adults using nicotine pouches, and fewer appear to be using them in a fashion that would potentially reduce their harm from smoking cigarettes,” Leventhal said. Regulating nicotine pouches New nicotine products typically go straight to market before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews marketing applications and decides whether to authorize or ban each product. That decision involves weighing potential public health benefits, such as whether a product provides a safer alternative for adults who smoke, against risks, such as whether it may increase nicotine dependence among youth. Applications from major manufacturers of nicotine pouches are currently under review by the FDA. “Regulators can take our data and put it into that equation,” Leventhal said. “What our study suggests is that there’s not a large population of adults who smoke who are using these products to quit.” This study is part of the USC Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, one of seven national centers supported by the NIH and FDA to collect evidence that can inform tobacco product regulation. In collaboration with the University of Michigan and other institutions, USC researchers are also conducting a parallel study to investigate adolescent use of nicotine pouches. They are looking at how pouch use relates to shifting teen usage patterns of other nicotine products, including e-cigarettes. About this research In addition to Leventhal, the study’s other author is Hongying Daisy Dai from the College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute [U54CA180905] and the National Institute on Drug Abuse [R21DA058328]. Source: Keck School of Medicine of USC Journal reference: Dai, H. D., et al. (2024). Prevalence of Nicotine Pouch Use Among US Adults. JAMA. doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.10686. To read the original article click here.

The post Prevalence of Nicotine Pouch Use Found to be Low Among U.S. Adults appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Toxic Heavy Metal Found in Food and Tobacco Products Being Linked to Higher Risk of Death from Viral Respiratory Illnesses

AHA Publisher — Wed, 30 Dec 2020 08:00:48 +0000

Sara Middleton via NaturalHealth365 – If you know any cigarette smokers in your life, there is no better time than now to encourage them to quit. Why? Because even though there have yet to be specific studies looking at the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on people who smoke, plenty of prior research on other viral diseases suggests that smokers are probably at an increased risk of COVID complications and premature death. This makes intuitive sense, of course; smoking damages your lungs and increases systemic inflammation. But, what many people might not realize is that increased heavy metal exposure is one of the significant smoking risks, too – and unfortunately, even nonsmokers may be risk of it, too. COVID Warning: Toxic Heavy Metal Found in Food and Tobacco Products Being Linked to a Higher Risk of Death from Viral Respiratory Illnesses Cadmium is a naturally occurring metal. And, yes, it’s found in high concentrations within tobacco products as well as other common goods such as, batteries and fertilizer. Because of its widespread presence in the environment, cadmium can easily seep into soil and water via pollution – and therefore leech into plants and animals we eat. Unfortunately, long-term chronic exposure to cadmium increases the risk of health problems including kidney, bone and (notably) lung disease, according to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OHSA). Recently, a team of researchers from the University of Michigan School of Public Health published the results of their study in Environmental Health Perspectives. They wanted to clarify if and how heavy metal exposure could contribute to severe COVID illness. The researchers had to look to earlier research to support their hypothesis, given the current lack of peer-reviewed studies on heavy metals and COVID-19. To do this, they assessed health data of 16,000 people who took part in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1988-1994 or 1999-2006. Specifically, the researchers looked at cadmium levels in both smokers and nonsmokers from this large sample. After adjusting for factors like age, sex, race, weight, cholesterol, and blood pressure readings, the researchers determined: People with 80 percent higher levels of cadmium than all others were 15 percent more likely to die of the flu or pneumonia compared to people in the bottom 20 percent of cadmium levels Even in nonsmokers, those with the highest levels of cadmium exposure were 27 percent more likely to die of viral infections compared to people with lower levels of the metal Overall, their analysis confirms earlier research showing that exposure to cadmium – whether through food or cigarettes – increases the risk of serious illness or death from the flu and pneumonia. Their research supports the idea that this heavy metal could also be contributing to current pandemic deaths, and that by reducing heavy metal exposure for all people (whether they smokers or not) is an important public health measure. Action Step: Here Are Some of the Foods Most Likely to Absorb Heavy Metals, According to Research Other than not smoking, you might be able to reduce your risk of cadmium exposure by avoiding certain foods known to contain high levels of it. These foods include: Animal organs such as liver and kidneys Soybeans Cereals Rice Leafy veggies including spinach and lettuce Other veggies including carrots, radishes, and zucchini Of course, you don’t have to swear off veggies forever. Other plants, such as cabbage and broccoli, generally have lower levels cadmium yet very high levels of protective antioxidants – so consider working these into your weekly diet more often. The key here is to have a variety of healthy, organic plant-based foods to reduce your overall risk of exposure to heavy metals. Being well-hydrated with clean water (daily) and occasionally doing an effective detoxification program – throughout the year – is not a bad idea either. When it comes to animal-based foods, eat only the highest quality possible from grass-fed or pasture-raised sources. Naturally, there are always pros and cons to every food choice … but, making the effort to eat (and live) better is certainly worth it. Sources for this article include: Studyfinds.org, NIH.gov, NIH.gov, NIH.gov, OHSA.gov, Tandfonline.com, Sciencemag.org To read the original article click here. For more articles from NaturalHealth365 click here.

The post Toxic Heavy Metal Found in Food and Tobacco Products Being Linked to Higher Risk of Death from Viral Respiratory Illnesses appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Effects of Tobacco on the Immune System

AHA Publisher — Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:00:40 +0000

Osman Shabir, M.Sc. via News-Medical Net – Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths and illnesses within the USA, with approximately 480,000 people within the USA dying from smoking-related illnesses each year. Smoking tobacco increases one’s risk of developing a variety of serious health conditions, some of which may be fatal, as well as contributing to the ill health of others in close proximity, such as family members and friends. The most significant risk factor for lung cancer is smoking, accounting for around 7 out of 10 cases of lung cancer in the USA. However, it is not only lung cancer that smoking causes, it can also cause cancers of the mouth, throat, larynx, esophagus, bowel, bladder, cervix, kidney, liver, stomach and pancreas. Smoking does not only increase the risk of cancer but also can massively increase the risk of developing many cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and impotence (erectile dysfunction) in men. Furthermore, due to smoke inhalation, the lungs can also become damaged, leading to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pneumonia. Smoking can exacerbate pre-existing respiratory conditions, including asthma, bronchitis, and the common cold. Tobacco and Immunity Although carcinogens within tobacco and cigarettes are to blame for the increased risk of cancer, numerous other compounds act as pro-inflammatory and immunosuppressive agents, including nicotine, formaldehyde, ammonia, carbon monoxide, benzopyrenes, tar, acetone, hydroxyquinone, cadmium and nitrogen oxides. Of these, nicotine is known to be immunosuppressive that can lead to decreased neutrophilic phagocytic activity as well as affect chemotaxis and cell signaling, in addition to inhibiting the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) thus impairing the ability of neutrophils to kill pathogens. Within the lungs, smoking triggers a cascade of inflammatory agents in which macrophages lead to tissue destruction and further release of inflammatory agents that lead to persistent chronic inflammatory syndrome. For example, macrophages, when activated, release interleukin-1 (IL1), which leads to the stimulation and proliferation of helper-T cells (CD4+), which themselves activate killer-T cells (cytotoxic effector CD8+). The macrophages in smokers’ lungs have a reduced ability to phagocytose inflammatory agents and dying cells within the lung. The Brain A study by Hillmer and colleagues investigated neuroimmune function in smokers using neuroimaging among 16 tobacco smokers compared with 19 non-smokers, of which 8 smokers and 9 non-smokers were subjected to a mild immune system activation by the administration of 1ng/kg lipopolysaccharide (LPS) intravenously, an endotoxin. PET imaging was performed 3 hours after LPS injection and measures of immune activation using [11C]PBR28 in different regions of the brain. Baseline measures, as well as changes in metabolism, were recorded. Concerning the baseline measures of immune activation (before LPS injection), no significant differences were found between smokers and non-smokers. However, after injection of LPS to stimulate an immune response, the neuroimmune response was significantly reduced in the striatum and cortex of smokers compared to non-smokers. However, this effect was brain region-specific and not seen globally across the brain of smokers. This study presents findings that the immune system within the brain is dysfunctional in certain vital areas involved with motivation, desire, and executive control. In summary, smoking leads to profound changes within the immune system characterized by mixed inflammation and immunosuppression throughout the body. Recent studies have shown that the brain may have a much weaker neuro-immune response to systemic infection and inflammation, though no differences to baseline immune activation were found. Future research investigating how the restoration of the immune system could help smokers quit, as the brain areas affected are key areas involved in motivation and desire. This article has been modified. To read the original article click here.

The post Effects of Tobacco on the Immune System appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Consider the Evidence When You Make Life-or-Death Decisions

AHA Publisher — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:00:18 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – In the 1940s and ’50s, the American Medical Association was not only saying that “smoking in moderation” wasn’t a problem, but that, on balance, it may even be beneficial… After all, most physicians themselves smoked, so how bad could it be? With such a position taken by one of the country’s leading medical groups, where could you turn if you just wanted the facts? According to one tobacco company ad, “science advances new data that may completely change your idea of cigarettes!” And what might those new data tell us? “She was too tired for fun…and then she smoked a Camel.” (You can see the unbelievable ads in my video Evidence-Based Eating, starting at 0:29). In another ad, baseball legend Babe Ruth told us, “Now! Medical science offers proof positive!” that the brand he was hawking is the safest to smoke of all the leading cigarettes—well, he told us, that is, when he still could talk, before he died of throat cancer. Now, some of the science-based evidence did leak out, causing a dip from an average of 11 or so cigarettes a day per person down to 10, as you can see at 0:50 in my video, but those who got scared of possible health risks from smoking could always choose “[t]he cigarette that takes the FEAR out of smoking!” Even better, why not choose the cigarette that “gives you the greatest health protection?” Had a SmokingFacts.org website existed during the time of these outrageous ads making such outrageous claims—a site that delivered the science directly to the people, bypassing commercially corruptible institutional filters—it would have featured a study of Seventh-day Adventists in California in 1958 that showed that nonsmokers may have at least 90 percent less lung cancer than smokers. With so much money and personal habit at stake, there will always be “dissenters.” Given the seriousness of these diseases and the sum total of evidence, though, we shouldn’t wait to put preventive measures in place. If you’re a smoker in the 1950s in the know and privy to the science-based realities of smoking, you realize the best available balance of evidence suggests your smoking habit is probably not good for you. So, what do you do? Do you change your smoking habits, or do you wait? If you wait until your physician tells you—between puffs—to quit, you could have cancer by then. If you wait until the powers that be officially recognize it, like the Surgeon General did in the subsequent decade, you could be dead by then. It took more than 7,000 studies and the deaths of countless smokers before the first Surgeon General report against smoking was finally released in the 1960s. Wouldn’t you think that after the first 6,000 studies or so, they could have given people a heads up? One wonders how many people are suffering needlessly right now from dietary diseases. Let’s fast-forward 55 years to a new Adventist study out of California warning Americans about the risks of something else they may be putting in their mouths: “Vegetarian diets are associated with lower all-cause mortality.” It’s not just one study either. According to a recent review, a total sum of evidence suggests that mortality from all causes put together, including many of our dreaded diseases were significantly lower in those eating more plant-based diets. As well, “[c]ompared with omnivores, the incidence of cancer and type 2 diabetes was also significantly lower in vegetarians.” So, instead of someone going along with America’s smoking habits in the 1950s, imagine you or someone you know is going along with America’s eating habits today. With access to the science, you realize the best available balance of evidence suggests your eating habits are probably not good for you. So, what do you do? Do you change your eating habits, or do you wait? If you wait until your doctor tells you—between bites—to change your diet, it could be too late. Just like most doctors smoked back then and didn’t tell their patients to change, despite the overwhelming evidence published for decades, most doctors today continue to eat foods that are contributing to our epidemics of dietary disease. In health, Michael Greger, M.D. This article has been modified. To read the original article click here. For more articles from Dr. Greger click here.

The post Consider the Evidence When You Make Life-or-Death Decisions appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.