| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, LHRB 156, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-0007, USA; 2 Research and Development Department, Swedish National Food Administration, Uppsala, Sweden
* corresponding author, rodu{at}uab.edu
CONTROVERSY
Most health professionals recognize that smokeless tobacco (SLT) use is associated with oral cancer. However, many have an exaggerated perception of the magnitude of the risk, and there is little understanding or discussion of historical and contemporary scientific data relevant to the association. This review by Rodu and Jansson establishes that SLT use carries only modest risk for oral cancer, and it further describes the key agents in SLT that play important roles in raising—or even lowering—this risk. In other words, it challenges conventional perceptions about SLT use and provides interesting and surprising information about SLT products.— Olav Alvares, Editor
Abstract (I) Introduction (II) SLT Types (III) Epidemiologic Studies (IV) Tobacco-specific N'-nitrosamines (TSNAs) (A) TSNAS—HISTORICAL LEVELS (B) TSNAS—CURRENT LEVELS (V) Other Putative Carcinogens (VI) Cancer-inhibiting Properties of Tobacco (VII) Conclusions and Policy Implications Acknowledgments REFERENCES
| Abstract |
|---|
 Top Next |
|---|
Key words. Smokeless tobacco, oral cancer, case-control studies, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, anti-oxidants
| (I) Introduction |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
, which also provides information on carcinogenic risk from the Monographs program of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an authoritative source of information on carcinogenic risk assessment. Potential cancer inhibitors in SLT have received very little attention. But they exist, and they are found in rather impressive concentrations, mainly as anti-oxidants.
|
This review is limited to SLT as used in Western societies, mainly in the United States and Sweden. Smokeless tobacco is indeed used by many cultures in many parts of the world, including the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. However, SLT products in these countries are considerably different from those used in the West. For example, in India, SLT processing is performed by individual farmers and small companies with little control over fermentation and curing, which increases the production of TSNAs (Brunnemann et al., 1985). In India, SLT is not homogeneous, since the tobacco is often combined with betel leaf (Piper betle), sliced areca nut (Areca catechu), and/or powdered slaked lime (Muir and Zaridze, 1986), additives that enhance the toxicity as well as the psychotropic effect of tobacco (Wary and Sharan, 1988; Thomas and MacLennan, 1992). In addition, Indian SLT users often smoke concurrently, thus confounding the effects of SLT use (Hirayama, 1966; Jayant et al., 1977).
SLT is not a homogeneous category, even if we limit our review to American and Swedish products. Three distinct types of SLT—chewing tobacco, moist snuff, and dry snuff—are used in the US (in Sweden, moist snuff is practically the only type of SLT product used). All of these products are held in the mouth, usually between the buccal mucosa and gingiva, but they are distinctly different from each other with respect to the tobaccos, the procedures used in their manufacture, and the populations that consume them. Furthermore, each SLT type may have a distinct profile with regard to the agents discussed in this review, and with regard to the risks that result from their use. Thus, an understanding of SLT types is a prerequisite to an understanding of SLT-associated oral cancer.
| (II) SLT Types |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
Moist snuff consists of fire- and air-cured dark tobaccos that are finely cut. It is now the most popular form of SLT in the US; sales of this product have increased by 77% over the past 15 years (Federal Trade Commission, 2001). Moist snuff is also very popular in Sweden, where it is called ‘snus’. One reason for the popularity of moist snuff in both countries is that it has become more user-friendly. Traditional moist snuff users place a ‘pinch’ of the finely ground tobacco between the gingiva and buccal mucosa. But the tobacco is difficult to keep in place, and the resultant migration is esthetically displeasing. Modern moist snuff products are sold in small, pre-portioned pouches similar to teabags. These products remain stationary in the mouth and generate very little juice. Thus, they can be used discreetly, with no expectoration.
There are important differences in the way that American and Swedish moist snuff products are manufactured. Traditional American products undergo fermentation, which imparts characteristic flavors but often also results in higher concentrations of unwanted bacterially mediated by-products, especially TSNAs and nitrite. In Sweden, moist snuff is exposed during manufacturing to a heat treatment akin to pasteurization, giving a virtually sterile product.
Dry snuff is a fermented, fire-cured tobacco that is pulverized into powder, and its original use was through nasal inhalation. Women in the southern US have used dry snuff as an oral form of tobacco since the early 1800s (Rogozinski, 1990; McGuirt and Wray, 1993). However, this type of use is declining, and sales have fallen almost 60% in the past 15 years (Federal Trade Commission, 2001).
| (III) Epidemiologic Studies |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
shows summary RRs for chewing tobacco, moist snuff, dry snuff, and a fourth exposure category, SLT unspecified as to type, in which the type of SLT was unclear or undetermined.
|
RRs for moist snuff were reported first in 1977 (Wynder and Stellman). Another study appeared in 1988 (Spitz et al.), and five additional studies were published from 1993 to 1998, as this product came under intense scrutiny (Mashberg et al., 1993; Kabat et al., 1994; Muscat et al., 1996; Lewin et al., 1998; Schildt et al., 1998). Similar to chewing tobacco, summary RRs are low for moist snuff, with three RRs at or below one and the highest RR at 1.2. Two of the seven studies were Swedish, both appearing in 1998. Interestingly, these studies have received considerable attention in the medical community because they are considered as showing no oral cancer risk for Swedish products. They formed the basis for the Swedish government’s decision in 1999 to recommend to the EU that the warning labels be removed. In fact, the warning labels regarding oral cancer were removed in 2001 by EU directive for smokeless tobacco products (European Commission, 2001). Notably, the other five studies forming the summary RRs for moist snuff are American, and they reported RRs very similar to those from the Swedish studies.
Fewer studies evaluated RRs for dry snuff. The first appeared in 1962 (Vogler et al.), followed by studies in 1981 (Winn et al.), 1988 (Blot et al.), and 1994 (Kabat et al.), spanning a period of 32 years. In these studies, RRs for dry snuff use a range from 4 to 13, although the confidence intervals for these estimates are wide.
Eight studies provided RRs for SLT-unspecified, five of which appeared between 1957 and 1969 (Wynder et al., 1957a,b; Peacock et al., 1960; Vincent and Marchetta, 1963; Martinez, 1969). Additional studies appeared in 1992 (Maden et al.), 1993 (Mashberg et al.), and 1998 (Schwartz et al.). RRs for SLT-unspecified range from 1.5 to 2.8, and most are statistically significant. For all sites, the summary RR is 1.9 (CI = 1.5–2.3), which is intermediate between the low risks reported for chewing tobacco (1.2, 1.0–1.4) or moist snuff (1.0, 0.8–1.2) and the higher risk for dry snuff (5.9, 1.7–20). The intermediate risks for this SLT category probably reflect the use of either the lower- or higher-risk products among different groups within these studies.
The distinctive risk profiles of moist snuff and chewing tobacco, on the one hand, and dry snuff, on the other, have gone largely unnoticed. Prior to the review in 2002 (Rodu and Cole), the low oral cancer risk associated with chewing tobacco had been discussed briefly in only one article (Mattson and Winn, 1989). No distinction in risks had been made between dry snuff and moist snuff, even though these products are considerably different with regard to tobacco content and processing.
The majority of epidemiologic studies regarding SLT and oral cancer have limitations. Most of them did not control for confounding by two strong determinants of oral cancer, cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Only six studies partially controlled for smoking (Martinez, 1969; Winn et al., 1981; Blot et al., 1988; Kabat et al., 1994; Schildt et al., 1998; Lewin et al., 1998), and those that did not may be affected by either positive or negative confounding. Positive confounding by smoking would occur if SLT users smoke more than do non-users. This would result in an artificially high RR for oral cancer among SLT users. On the other hand, negative confounding is plausible and would occur if smoking rates are lower among SLT users than among non-users. This would result in an artificially low RR for oral cancer among SLT users.
Only three studies (Winn et al., 1981; Lewin et al., 1998; Schildt et al., 1998) controlled for alcohol use, where only positive confounding is likely. Thus, control for alcohol consumption in all studies probably would have reduced somewhat many of the RRs presented.
Many of the published studies did not define the specific anatomic sites studied. Although the oral cavity is the major site of interest in epidemiologic studies of SLT use, in many studies RRs were reported only for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx combined, or even for the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx combined. Nomenclature was not particularly consistent even for oral cancer, seemingly a well-defined entity. For example, although most studies used the same subsites to comprise oral cancer, four included the lips and/or major salivary glands (Vogler et al., 1962; Martinez, 1969; Wynder and Stellman, 1977; Schildt et al., 1998). Furthermore, four studies (Winn et al., 1981; Maden et al., 1992; Muscat et al., 1996; Schwartz et al., 1998) specified oral cancer in their titles, but the entity actually studied was cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx combined. However, even with these limitations, the results of these studies, spanning a period of 40 years, are reasonably consistent. The use of moist snuff and chewing tobacco imposes minimal risks, while the use of dry snuff is associated with higher risks.
Research related to smokeless tobacco keratosis (STK) also supports the epidemiologic evidence that SLT use has low risk for oral cancer. STK represents a thickened layer of keratin on the surface epithelium at the site of SLT use, largely a result of local irritation (Greer and Poulson, 1983; Greer et al., 1986). STK has been defined by the WHO as a separate and distinct entity from other keratotic lesions—which we will designate oral leukoplakia for this discussion—frequently related to smoking. These distinctions are based on the following characteristics: location within the oral cavity, frequency of occurrence, frequency of dysplasia, and rate of malignant transformation (Axéll et al., 1984; Bouquot, 1991).
STK occurs at the site of SLT placement in up to 60% of SLT users (Grady et al., 1990; Sinusas et al., 1992), within 6 months to 3 years of initiation (Greer and Poulson, 1983; Greene et al., 1993). The frequency of its appearance is dependent on the type of ST used. Moist snuff, which is more alkaline than chewing tobacco, more often leads to STK (Greene et al., 1993). However, moist snuff in pre-portioned pouches causes less-pronounced mucosal change and fewer cases of STK than does the loose form (Andersson and Axéll, 1989). In contrast, oral leukoplakia occurs in less than 1% of the general population, primarily in long-time smokers 40 to 60 years old (Bouquot and Gorlin, 1986; Bouquot et al., 1988). Smoking-related leukoplakias most commonly involve the floor of the mouth, ventral tongue, and soft palate, sites that account for 75% of oral cancer in the US (Bouquot et al., 1988; Silverman and Gorsky, 1990).
There are distinct differences between STK and oral leukoplakia regarding frequency of dysplasia, which is a condition that precedes and often indicates a developing carcinoma. Dysplasia is seen infrequently in STK (less than 3% of cases) (Smith et al., 1970; Roed-Petersen and Pindborg, 1973; Axéll et al., 1976; Bouquot and Schroeder, 1993). Furthermore, even when dysplasia is present in STK, it usually is found in earlier stages than in oral leukoplakia (Mincer et al., 1972; Kaugars et al., 1989), where it is seen in about 20% of cases (Waldron and Shaffer, 1975).
With the prevalence and degree of dysplasia low, it is not surprising that malignant transformation in STK occurs only rarely. For example, one prospective study found no case of cancer in 1550 individuals with STK followed for 10 years (Smith, 1975), and a second study reported no case of oral cancer among 500 regular SLT users followed for six years (Christen et al., 1991), while a retrospective study of 200,000 male snuff users in Sweden found only one case of oral cancer per year, an extremely low frequency (Axéll et al., 1978). In comparison, a follow-up study reported that 17% of oral leukoplakias transformed to carcinoma within seven years (Silverman et al., 1984).
| (IV) Tobacco-specific N'-nitrosamines (TSNAs) |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
The conditions favoring TSNA formation have been studied intensively over the past decade (Bush et al., 2001), allowing leaf growers and manufacturers to use several strategies to minimize TSNA levels in SLT products. One promising line of investigation involves the development of tobacco cultivars that produce low concentrations of alkaloids, with special emphasis on the inhibition of nornicotine and NNN formation (Shi et al., 2000; Bush et al., 2001). TSNA formation may be inhibited in principle by the elimination of nitrate-reducing microbial activity (e.g., Enterobacter spp.), while maintaining activity of other flora that impart desirable flavor properties. Other reductions are possible through the careful manipulation of humidity and temperature conditions during curing. The substitution of heat exchange methods for traditional flue-cured tobacco also results in substantially lower nitrosamine levels (Peele et al., 2001). Whatever proprietary methods have been used, manufacturers have substantially reduced the TSNA concentrations in finished SLT products, as we will illustrate in the following section.
Only two TSNAs, NNN and NNK, are considered to be potential carcinogens. Both of them are classified by IARC as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) (IARC, 1985a), based on the fact that there is sufficient evidence of their carcinogenicity in experimental animals but no data in humans. On the other hand, both NAT and NAB are designated by IARC as not classifiable with regard to carcinogenicity (IARC, 1985b). For NAT, there are inadequate data in experimental animals and no data in humans. For NAB, there is limited evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals and no data in humans.
(A) TSNAS—HISTORICAL LEVELS
The presence of TSNAs in SLT products has been documented in the research literature since the late 1970s, with most of the relevant work performed by laboratories at the American Health Foundation. Most of their studies focus on moist snuff brands, although occasionally levels are reported for chewing tobacco and dry snuff.
Fig. 2 shows the range of TSNA levels for American and Swedish moist snuff products, as reported from 1981 to 2002 (Hoffmann et al., 1979, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1995; Hoffmann and Adams, 1981; Österdahl and Slorach, 1984; Brunnemann et al., 1985, 1987, 2002; Chamberlain et al., 1988; Djordjevic et al., 1989, 1993). Swedish products had TSNA levels from 7 to 17 ppm in 1981 and 1983; thereafter, almost all products had levels under 10 ppm. American products were tested much more often. Although some products matched the low Swedish TSNA levels, others tested as high as 300 ppm, and individual products demonstrated levels above 100 ppm as late as 1993. However, studies from 1995 (Hoffmann et al.) and 2002 (Brunnemann et al.) indicated that most products in the US achieved TSNA levels below 20 ppm, which we confirmed in our extensive analysis of contemporary products (see below).
|
Compared with moist snuff, chewing tobacco and dry snuff have been studied far less often. In 1985, the TSNA level in chewing tobacco was 3.5 ppm (Brunnemann et al.), and in 1989 it was 2.3 ppm (Djordjevic et al.). Dry snuff products were evaluated in two studies in 1987 (Adams et al.; Brunnemann et al.) and one study in 1989 (Djordjevic et al.); TSNA levels in these studies ranged from 25 to 143 ppm.
NNN and NNK, classified by IARC as Category 2B carcinogens, are considered the most important of the TSNAs. Fig. 3 shows combined NNN+NNK levels in Swedish and American moist snuff products over the 1981–2002 period. Most Swedish products consistently had NNN+NNK levels under 10 ppm. Throughout the 1980s, most American moist snuff products had levels under 40 ppm, and there was a clearly declining trend. However, until the mid-1990s some individual products had NNN+NNK levels above 50 ppm.
|
(B) TSNAS—CURRENT LEVELS
As we have noted, there was considerable interest in TSNA levels in smokeless tobacco products during the 1980s and early 1990s, with numerous studies involving mainly moist snuff products. But we have noticed that there have been only three studies in the last ten years, and only one study since 1995, which reported levels on only two SLT products. This is particularly ironic, since there has been considerable discussion recently about smokeless tobacco, especially with regard to its potential as a ‘harm reduction alternative’ for inveterate smokers. In fact, during a Congressional hearing on this topic in June, 2003, there were many comments about TSNA levels in American and Swedish products. Unfortunately, the comments were not specific or particularly fact-based, because there were essentially no publicly available data on TSNA levels in currently available SLT products.
In conjunction with this review, one of the authors (CJ), from the Swedish National Food Administration (SNFA) in Uppsala, Sweden, analyzed TSNA levels in SLT products. American SLT products were purchased in Birmingham, AL, on two separate occasions and shipped by courier to Uppsala for evaluation. Two new SLT products (Revel, USST and Exalt, Swedish Match) are in limited test markets in the US, so we requested, and received, products from the manufacturers. Analyses were also performed on five popular Swedish moist snuff brands. For comparison, we also purchased two popular brands of American cigarettes.
SNFA scientists recently developed a rapid, selective, and sensitive method for routine analysis of all four TSNAs in tobacco products (Jansson et al., 2003). The method involves ethyl acetate extraction of TSNAs followed by quantification by liquid chromatography and mass spectroscopy, and it has been used to analyze moist snuff products on the Swedish market. Sample preparation was modified only slightly for chewing tobacco and dry snuff samples.
Table 2 shows the levels of TSNAs in tobacco products available to American and Swedish consumers in 2003. Almost all products exhibited TSNA levels below 10 ppm. Levels in chewing tobacco were very low, ranging from 1.5 to 4.7 ppm. The two American cigarette brands had TSNA levels of about 7. Among moist snuff products, Swedish brands were consistently lowest, with values ranging from 2.0 to 2.2 ppm. In comparison, traditional American moist snuff ranged from 7.3 to 12.3 ppm, which is higher than Swedish products but far lower than historical levels. It is of interest to note that the three American moist snuff products in pouches had TSNA levels lower than those found in loose form, from about 5 to 7 ppm.
|
The most surprising results involved dry snuff products, which had TSNA levels from 41 to 1219 ppm. Two of the products, Red Seal and Bruton, had higher levels than any previously published (1096 and 1219, respectively). These levels were confirmed by independent analysis from a second laboratory.
The results of this analysis appear to confirm several trends from previous studies. First, the level of TSNAs in most contemporary smokeless tobacco products is very low. This indicates that manufacturers have achieved considerable success in controlling the conditions under which TSNAs are produced. The biggest improvement has been among products in the moist snuff category. Currently, the highest TSNA levels are around 12 ppm, with many products currently under 5.0 ppm. This is especially encouraging because the RRs for cancer among moist snuff users are historically low. Thus, it is likely that current users have even less risk than users four or five decades ago. The same holds true for chewing tobacco; all tested products have TSNA levels under 5 ppm. The high TSNA concentration in dry snuff brands is disturbing, especially since long-term use of this SLT type appears to be associated with higher risks for cancer of the oral cavity and related sites.
[NB: Two dry snuff products with atypically high TSNA levels were re-tested in June, 2004. TSNA levels were as follows (parts per million, dry weight):
Red Seal: NNN-3.7; NNK-0.8; NAT-1.3; NAB-0.2; Total TSNAs-6.0
Bruton: NNN-5.6; NNK-2.2; NAT-1.9; NAB-0.3; Total TSNAs-10.0]
| (V) Other Putative Carcinogens |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
.
|
Polonium-210 is a radiodecay product of Radium-226, which is itself a product of Uranium-238 decay (Watson, 1985). Although Radium-226 is located primarily in uranium-bearing ores and associated soils, Polonium-210 is disbursed widely in the environment by rain and other weather events, because an intermediate decay product, Radon-222, is an extremely mobile gas. IARC has not definitively classified polonium-210 (IARC, 2001). The dominant mechanism of plant deposition is from surface absorption (rather than from root uptake) and transfer to edible foliage and seeds, berries, or fruits. Food ingestion is the major source of polonium-210, and the diet supplies from 1 to 10 picoCuries (piC) per day. Polonium-210 in tobacco is derived both from fertilizers and from airborne particles that are trapped by leaf trichromes (Hoffmann et al., 1987). In 1987, an American consuming 10 g of moist snuff per day was exposed to about 1 to 7 piC daily from polonium-210 (Hoffmann et al., 1987). In 1989, Swedish moist snuff users were estimated to have a polonium-210 exposure consistent with that from three dental radiographs, and it was concluded that the risk to ‘snus’ users was so small that no special measures or other actions were necessary (Samuelsson, 1989).
Formaldehyde is primarily produced as an industrial chemical and has widespread use in manufacturing (IARC, 2004b). It has been classified by IARC as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based primarily on exposure among workers in certain industrial settings, as well as on animal research. Formaldehyde is also present as a natural product in the environment and in most plant and animal systems. For example, endogenous formaldehyde is present in human blood in concentrations of 2 to 3 mg/L, which is unaltered by exposure to the substance in ambient air (IARC, 1995). It is present in various concentrations in a wide variety of foods, from meat and poultry (up to 6 µg/g) to fish (6 to 14 µg/g) to fruits and vegetables (2 to 26 µg/g) (Möhler and Denbsky, 1970; Tsuchiya et al., 1975). In 1987, the concentration of formaldehyde in moist snuff was about 5 to 7 µg/g (Hoffmann et al., 1987).
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are produced in the incomplete combustion of organic compounds, so they have been present in the environment since the advent of fire (Lijinsky, 1991). More specifically, they have been present in human diets since man began cooking meat. One of the most common, and intensely studied, PAHs is benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), which has been classified by IARC in Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) (IARC, 1983). The major dietary source of BaP is charbroiled meats, but plants also contain measurable amounts of BaP due to direct surface contamination of plants from environmental sources (Zedeck, 1980). Thus, in addition to charcoal-broiled steaks (1 to 50 ng/g), dietary sources include leafy vegetables (1 to 50 ng/g), tea (4 to 21 ng/g), and cereals (up to 4 ng/g) (Zedeck, 1980; Verschueren, 1983; Lijinsky, 1991). In 1987, some moist snuff brands contained low levels of BaP (< 0.1 to 4 ng/g), while others contained concentrations up to 63 ng/g (Hoffmann et al., 1987). BaP in SLT is largely from fire-curing (Hoffmann et al., 1987), so the concentration of BaP in any brand of moist snuff probably reflects the proportion of fire-cured tobacco used in that blend.
Lead and lead compounds are considered by IARC as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), primarily based on evidence from animal research (IARC, 2004a). Throughout much of the 20th century, the major source of lead in the environment was from atmospheric contamination from combustion of lead-containing fuels (Sanstead et al., 1974). Absorption from dietary sources is limited, because lead in the soil is not readily taken up by most plants. In addition, lead in livestock is largely deposited in bone tissue, which limits its transfer to meat consumers. Fruits and vegetables remain the largest sources of dietary lead, and the average diet supplies about 50 µg per day, with a maximum daily intake of 150 µg set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (WHO, 1998a). In 1987, an American consuming 10 g of moist snuff per day was exposed to about 3 to 16 µg of lead daily (Hoffmann et al., 1987).
In summary, it would appear that moist snuff consumption does not result in exposure to levels of lead, cadmium, polonium-210, benzo(a)pyrene, or formaldehyde that are out of proportion to levels of these compounds found in the general diet or common foods. However, this conclusion must be made with caution for several reasons. First, only one major study of these compounds in moist snuff has been performed, and this was published in 1987. It is possible that the concentrations of these compounds in moist snuff have changed since that time, just as processing refinements by manufacturers have resulted in lower TSNA levels. Second, although we have compared concentrations of these compounds in moist snuff with those in foods, the route of exposure and putative absorption will vary greatly. For example, foods are ingested, providing the opportunity for prolonged contact of these contaminants with mucous membranes designed to maximize absorption (i.e., stomach and small intestine). On the other hand, trace levels of compounds in foods are diluted by the volume of fluids and solids that are consumed, with the overall effect being low exposure over a large number of tissues and organs. There is very little information about the absorption and metabolism of contaminants resulting from SLT use. It is possible that SLT use results in higher exposures of very limited mucosal surfaces, because users habitually place these products in the same location for years or decades. However, pre-packaged products may modify the SLT user’s mucosal and systemic exposure to contaminants.
| (VI) Cancer-inhibiting Properties of Tobacco |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
Of all the chemical constituents in the tobacco leaf, there are two classes of compounds that may inhibit carcinogenesis. The first is the carotenoids, of which lutein, ß-carotene, neoxanthin, and violaxanthin are found in greatest concentrations in tobacco (Leffingwell, 1999). There is experimental evidence that ß-carotene inhibits formation of cancerous lesions (Garewal, 1995). It can also produce clinical regression in about half of oral leukoplakias, but few lesions resolve completely (Garewal et al., 1999). The second category is the phenolic compounds, which probably comprise the major anti-oxidants in tobacco (Wahlberg and Ringberger, 1999). Polyphenols from black and green teas have been studied extensively in animal and cell culture models of carcinogenesis. Interestingly, polyphenols exert an inhibitory effect on lung tumorigenesis by NNK at both the initiation and promotion stages (Chung et al., 1993; Yang et al., 1998). As we noted earlier, NNK is an important TSNA.
Recently, one of the authors collaborated with an independent laboratory on a study evaluating the anti-oxidant properties of tobacco products available in the US (Rodu and Ou, 2000. The investigation involved the oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) assay, which uses fluorescence to measure inhibition of damage to ß-phycoerythrin, a protein isolated from Porphyridium cruentum, by the peroxide radical, one of the most common reactive oxygen species in vivo. The ORAC assay has been used to measure the anti-oxidant capacity of a wide range of biological samples, from pure compounds to fruits, vegetables, and animal tissues (Cao et al., 1995; Ou et al., 2002).
Table 4 contains information on the ORAC activity and phenolic content of the tobacco products tested. The anti-oxidant activity of SLT products, measured as ORAC, varied from 66 to 196 µmole TE/g on a dry weight basis. Chewing tobacco products had among the highest levels (Oliver Twist), while moist snuff products had a broad range. There was a strong correlation between ORAC level and total phenolic content (R2 = 0.96). The general range of ORAC activity in the tobacco products was similar to that reported in fruits and vegetables (Prior and Cao, 2000).
|
Further studies will be needed to determine the extent to which anti-oxidants in tobacco products are biologically available to tobacco users, or whether their presence plays any role in risk modification. It is known that tobacco combustion produces a chemical mix rich in reactive oxygen species, and that smokers have low plasma levels of anti-oxidant vitamins such as ascorbate, tocopherols, and carotenoids (Stegmayr et al., 1993; Traber et al., 2000). On the other hand, SLT users have plasma levels of these vitamins that are similar to those of non-users of tobacco (Stegmayr et al., 1993). Certainly, a potential benefit of anti-oxidants in SLT is at the site of placement in the oral cavity, where they may inhibit the actions of carcinogens.
| (VII) Conclusions and Policy Implications |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
In the 1970s, developments in analytical chemistry allowed for the identification and quantification of TSNAs in tobacco products, and in the 1980s and 1990s several studies reported TSNA levels in SLT products. During this period, TSNA levels in chewing tobacco and Swedish moist snuff were reported to be very low. American moist snuff products had higher levels in the early 1980s but showed substantial declines by the mid-1990s. Remarkably, as TSNA levels declined, the number of published reports also declined, resulting in little recent data. As we report in this review, TSNA levels in current products, with the exception of dry snuff, are very low.
Swedish Match, the principal manufacturer of Swedish moist snuff, has adopted a voluntary standard for TSNAs and other contaminants discussed in this review. It is called the Gothiatek standard, and in February, 2003, a group of European tobacco research and policy experts recommended its adoption by the European Union as the standard for all products (Bates et al., 2003). The standard is exacting and sets low levels for contaminants. There are some questions concerning the adoption of a standard for SLT products. First, there is virtually no information correlating levels of TSNAs (and other contaminants) with risk for oral cancer or any other disease. Second, because American consumers are accustomed to much different tobacco flavors than are Swedish consumers, modification of some Gothiatek targets may be required for American products. For example, all Swedish moist snuff products that we tested have TSNA levels at about 2 ppm, well below the Gothiatek limit of 10 ppm (dry weight). But another Swedish Match product (Exalt) on the American market has higher TSNA levels (5.8 ppm), suggesting the important influence of American taste expectations in product manufacturing.
But there are reasons to endorse the adoption of toxicity standards for SLT products. Tobacco is an agricultural product, and the quality from year to year varies with environmental conditions. The adoption of standards would promote further research and development into means for achieving further contaminant reductions. Most importantly, standards may encourage the communication of factual information to consumers. They have a fundamental right to information about SLT products, just as they have access to information about nutritional and toxic aspects of the foods they consume.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Top |
|---|
Andersson G, Axéll T (1989). Clinical appearance of lesions associated with the use of loose and portion-bag packed Swedish moist snuff: a comparative study. J Oral Pathol Med 18:2–7.[Medline]
Axéll T, Mornstad H, Sundström B (1976). The relation of the clinical picture to the histopathology of snuff dipper’s lesions in a Swedish population. J Oral Pathol 5:229–236.[Medline]
Axéll T, Mornstad H, Sundström B (1978). Snuff and cancer of the oral cavity. A retrospective study. Läkartidningen 75:1224–1226.
Axéll T, Holmstrup P, Kramer IRH, Pindborg JJ, Shear M (1984). International seminar on oral leukoplakias and associated lesions related to tobacco habits. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 12:145–154.
Bates C, Fagerström K, Jarvis M, Kunze M, McNeill A, Ramström L (2003). European Union policy on smokeless tobacco: a statement in favor of evidence-based regulation for public health. Available at http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/eusmokeless.html
Blot WJ, McLaughlin JK, Winn DM, Austin DF, Greenberg RS, Preston-Martin S, et al. (1988). Smoking and drinking in relation to oral and pharyngeal cancer. Cancer Res 48:3282–3287.
Bouquot JE (1991). Reviewing oral leukoplakia. Clinical concepts for the 1990s. J Am Dent Assoc 122:80–82.[Abstract]
Bouquot JE, Gorlin RJ (1986). Leukoplakia, lichen planus, and other oral keratoses in 23,616 white Americans over the age of 35 years. Oral Surg 61:373–381.
Bouquot J, Schroeder K (1993). Oral leukoplakia and smokeless tobacco keratoses are two separate and distinctive precancers. Oral Surg 76:588–589.
Bouquot JE, Weiland L, Ballard D, Kurland L (1988). Leukoplakia of the mouth and pharynx in Rochester, MN. 1935–1984. Incidence, Clinical features and follow-up of 463 patients from a relatively unbiased patient pool. J Oral Pathol 17:436.
Browne RM, Camsey MC, Waterhouse JAH, Manning GL (1977). Etiological factors in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 5:301–306.[Medline]
Brunnemann KD, Genoble L, Hoffmann D (1985). N-nitrosamines in chewing tobacco: an international comparison. J Agric Food Chem 33:1178–1181.
Brunnemann KD, Rivenson A, Adams JD, Hecht SS, Hoffmann D (1987). A study of snuff carcinogenesis. Vol. 84. Lyon, France: IARC Scientific Publications, pp. 456–459.
Brunnemann KD, Qi J, Hoffmann D (2002). Chemical profile of two types of oral snuff tobacco. Food Chem Toxicol 40:1699–1703.[Medline]
Bush LP, Cui M, Shi H, Burton HR, Fannin FF, Lei L, et al. (2001). Formation of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in air-cured tobacco. Rec Adv Tobacco Sci 27:23–46.
Cao G, Verdon CP, Wu AHB, Wang H, Prior RL (1995). Automated assay of oxygen radical absorbance capacity with the COBAS FARA II. Clin Chem 41:1738–1744.[Abstract]
Chamberlain WJ, Schlotzhauer WS, Chortyk OT (1988). Chemical composition of nonsmoking tobacco products. J Agric Food Chem 36:48–50.
Christen AG, McDonald JL, Christen JA (1991). The impact of tobacco use and cessation on nonmalignant and precancerous oral and dental diseases and conditions: a comprehensive review. An Indiana University School of Dentistry Teaching Monograph. Precancerous condition, pp. 7–13.
Chung FL, Morse MA, Eklind KI, Xu Y (1993). Inhibition of tobacco-specific nitrosamine-induced lung tumorigenesis by compounds derived from cruciferous vegetables and green tea. Ann NY Acad Sci 686:186–201.[Abstract]
Djordjevic MV, Brunnemann KD, Hoffmann D (1989). Identification and analysis of a nicotine-derived n-nitrosamino acid and other nitrosamino acids in tobacco. Carcinogenesis 10:1725–1731.
Djordjevic MV, Brunnemann KD, Hoffmann D (1993). The need for regulation of carcinogenic n-nitrosamines in oral snuff. Food Chem Toxicol 31:497–501.[Medline]
European Commission (2001). Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. June 5, 2001. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_194/l_19420010718en00260034.pdf
Federal Trade Commission (2001). Report to Congress for the years 1998 and 1999. Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/reports/tobacco/smokeless98_99.htm.
Garewal H (1995). Antioxidants in oral cancer prevention. Am J Clin Nutr 62:1401S–1406S.
Garewal HS, Katz RV, Meyskens F, Pitcock J, Morse D, Friedman S, et al. (1999). Beta-carotene produces sustained remissions in patients with oral leukoplakia: results of a multicenter prospective trial. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:1305–1310.
Grady D, Greene J, Daniels TE, Ernster VL, Robertson PB, Hauck W, et al. (1990). Oral mucosal lesions found in smokeless tobacco users. J Am Dent Assoc 121:117–123.[Abstract]
Grasso P, Mann AH (1998). Smokeless tobacco and oral cancer: an assessment of evidence derived from laboratory animals. Food Chem Toxicol 36:1015–1029.[Medline]
Greene JC, Ernster VL, Grady DG, Robertson PB, Walsh MM, Stillman LA (1993). Oral mucosal lesions: clinical findings in relation to smokeless tobacco use among US baseball players. Monograph. 2. Smokeless tobacco or health, an international perspective. NIH publication No. 93-3461, pp. 41–50.
Greer RO, Poulson TC (1983). Oral tissue alteration associated with the use of smokeless tobacco by teen agers—Part 1. Clinical findings. Oral Surg 56:275–284.
Greer RO, Poulson TC, Boone ME, Lindenmuth JE, Crosby L (1986). Smokeless tobacco associated oral changes in juvenile, adult and geriatic patients: clinical and histomorphologic features. Gerodontics 2:87–98.[Medline]
Hecht SS, Rivenson A, Braley J, DiBello J, Adams JD, Hoffmann D (1986). Induction of oral cavity tumors in F344 rats by tobacco-specific nitrosamines and snuff. Cancer Res 46:4162–4166.
Hirayama T (1966). An epidemiological study of oral and pharyngeal cancer in Central and South-East Asia. Bull World Health Organ 34:41–69.[Medline]
Hoffmann D, Adams JD (1981). Carcinogenic tobacco-specific n-nitrosamines in snuff and in the saliva of snuff dippers. Cancer Res 41:4305–4308.[Medline]
Hoffmann D, Adams JD, Brunnemann KD, Hecht SS (1979). Assessment of tobacco-specific n-nitrosamines in tobacco products. Cancer Res 39:2505–2509.[Medline]
Hoffmann D, Brunnemann KD, Adams JD, Hecht SS (1984). Formation and analysis of n-nitrosamines in tobacco products and their endogenous formation in consumers. Vol. 57. Lyon, France: IARC Scientific Publications, pp. 743–762.
Hoffmann D, Harley NH, Fisenne I, Adams JD, Brunnemann KD (1986). Carcinogenic agents in snuff. J Natl Cancer Inst 76:435–437.
Hoffmann D, Adams JD, Lisk D, Fisenne I, Brunnemann KD (1987). Toxic and carcinogenic agents in dry and moist snuff. J Natl Cancer Inst 79:1281–1286.
Hoffmann D, Brunnemann KD, Venitt S (1988). Carcinogenic nitrosamines in oral snuff (letter). Lancet 1:1232.
Hoffmann D, Djordjevic MV, Brunnemann KD (1991). New brands of oral snuff. Food Chem Toxicol 29:65–68.[Medline]
Hoffmann D, Djordjevic MV, Fan J, Zang E, Glynn T, Connolly GN (1995). Five leading US commercial brands of moist snuff in 1994: assessment of carcinogenic n-nitrosamines. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:1862–1869.
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (1983). Benzo(a)pyrene. Vol. 32. Lyon, France: IARC Monographs, p. 211.
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (1985a). 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK). Vol. 37. Lyon, France: IARC Monographs, p. 209.
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (1985b). N'-nitrosoanabasine (NAB). Vol. 37. Lyon, France: IARC Monographs, p. 225.
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (1985c). N'-nitrosoanatabine (NAT). Vol. 37. Lyon, France: IARC Monographs, p. 233.
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (1985d). N'-nitrosonornicotine (NNN). Vol. 37. Lyon, France: IARC Monographs, p. 241.
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (1987). Tobacco products, smokeless. Suppl 7. Lyon, France: IARC Monographs, p. 357.
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (1993). Cadmium and cadmium compounds. Vol. 58. Lyon, France: IARC Monographs, p. 119.
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (1995). Formaldehyde. Vol. 62. Lyon, France: IARC Monographs, p. 217.
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (2001). Some internally deposited radionuclides. Vol. 78. Lyon, France: IARC Monographs.
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (2004a). Lead and lead compounds: lead and inorganic lead compounds, organolead compounds. Vol. 87. Lyon, France: IARC Monographs (in preparation).
IARC monographs on re-evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (2004b). Formaldehyde. Vol. 88. Lyon, France: IARC monographs (in preparation).
Jansson C, Paccou A, Österdahl B (2003). Analysis of tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines in snuff by ethyl acetate extraction and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatog A 1008:135–143.[Medline]
Jayant K, Balakrishnan V, Sanghvi LD, Jussawalla DJ (1977). Quantification of the role of smoking and chewing tobacco in oral, pharyngeal and oesophageal cancers. Br J Cancer 35:232–234.[Medline]
Kabat GC, Chang CJ, Wynder EL (1994). The role of tobacco, alcohol use, and body mass index in oral and pharyngeal cancer. Int J Epidemiol 23:1137–1144.
Kaugars GE, Mehailescu WL, Gunsolley JC (1989). Smokeless tobacco use and oral epithelial dysplasia. Cancer 64:1527–1530.[Medline]
Leffingwell JC (1999). Leaf chemistry. In: Tobacco: production, chemistry and technology. Davis DL, Nielsen MT. editors. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.
Lewin F, Norell SE, Johansson H, Gustavsson P, Wennerberg J, Bjorklund A, et al. (1998). Smoking tobacco, oral snuff, and alcohol in the etiology of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a population-based case-referent study in Sweden. Cancer 82:1367–1375.[Medline]
Li Q, Krauss M, Maher M, Bokelman G, Gadani F (2003). Reduction of tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) by increasing endogenous antioxidants in burley tobaccos: a review of results from field experiments. In: 57th Tobacco Science Research Conference, Vol. 57. Raleigh, NC: Tobacco Literature Service, North Carolina State University, pp. 31–32.
Lijinsky W (1991). The formation and occurrence of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons associated with food. Mutat Res 259:251–261.[Medline]
Maden C, Beckmann AM, Thomas DB, McKnight B, Sherman KJ, Ashley RL, et al. (1992). Human papillomaviruses, herpes simplex viruses, and the risk of oral cancer in men. Am J Epidemiol 135:1093–1102.
Mahaffey KR, Corneliussen PE, Jelinek CF, Fiorino JA (1975). Heavy metal exposure from foods. Environ Health Perspect 12:63–69.[Medline]
Martinez I (1969). Factors associated with cancer of the esophagus, mouth, and pharynx in Puerto Rico. J Natl Cancer Inst 42:1069–1094.
Mashberg A, Boffetta P, Winkelman R, Garfinkel L (1993). Tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking, and cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx among US veterans. Cancer 72:1369–1375.[Medline]
Mattson ME, Winn DM (1989). Smokeless tobacco: association with increased cancer risk. NCI Monogr 8:13–16.
McGuirt WF, Wray A (1993). Oral carcinoma and smokeless tobacco use: a clinical profile. In: Smokeless tobacco or health: an international perspective. US Department of Health and Human Services, NIH Publication No. 93-3461, pp. 91–95.
Mincer HH, Coleman SA, Hopkins KP (1972). Observations on the clinical characteristics of oral lesions showing histologic epithelial dysplasia. Oral Surg 33:389–399.
Möhler K, Denbsky G (1970). Determination of formaldehyde in foods. Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und -Forschung 142:109–120.
Muir CS, Zaridze DG (1986). Smokeless tobacco and cancer. An overview. Vol. 74. Lyon, France: IARC Scientific Publications, pp. 35–44.
Muscat JE, Richie JP, Thompson S, Wynder EL (1996). Gender differences in smoking and risk for oral cancer. Cancer Res 56:5192–5197.
NIDCR-NCI (2003). Name your poison. Available at: www.nidr.nih.gov/health/pubs/chew/snuff4.gif
Österdahl B, Slorach S (1984). N-nitrosamines in snuff and chewing tobacco on the Swedish market in 1983. Food Add Contam 4:299–305.
Ou B, Juang D, Hampsch-Woodill M, Flanagan JA, Deemer EK (2002). Analysis of antioxidant activities of common vegetables employing oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assays: a comparative study. J Agric Food Chem 50:3122–3128.[Medline]
Peacock EE, Greenberg BG, Brawley BW (1960). The effect of snuff and tobacco on the production of oral carcinoma: an experimental and epidemiological study. Ann Surg 151:542–550.[Medline]
Peele DM, Riddick MG, Edwards ME, Gentry JS, Nestor TB (2001). Formation of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in flue-cured tobacco. Rec Adv Tobacco Sci 27:3–12.
Prior RL, Cao G (2000). Analysis of botanicals and dietary supplements for antioxidant capacity: a review. J Assoc Off Anal Chem Int 83:950–956.
Rodu B, Cole P (2002). Smokeless tobacco use and cancer of the upper respiratory tract. Oral Surg 93:511–515.
Rodu B, Ou B (2000). The antioxidant properties of tobacco. Tobacco Sci 44:71–73.
Roed-Petersen B, Pindborg JJ (1973). A study of snuff induced oral leukoplakias. J Oral Pathol 2:301–313.[Medline]
Rogozinski J (1990). Smokeless tobacco in the Western world. New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 42–44.
Samuelsson C (1989). Medical consequences of polonium in snus. Läkartidningen 86:2290–2291.[Medline]
Sanstead HH, Allaway WH, Burau RG, Fulkerson W, Laitinen HA, Newberne PM (1974). Cadmium, zinc and lead. In: Geochemistry and the environment. Vol. I. The relation of selected trace elements to health and disease. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Schildt EB, Eriksson M, Hardell L, Magnuson A (1998). Oral snuff, smoking habits and alcohol consumption in relation to oral cancer in a Swedish case-control study. Int J Cancer 77:341–346.[Medline]
Schwartz SM, Daling JR, Doody DR, Wipf GC, Carter JJ, Madeleine MM, et al. (1998). Oral cancer risk in relation to sexual history and evidence of human papillomavirus infection. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1626–1636.
Shi H, Fannin FF, Burton HR, Bush LP (2000). Factors affecting nicotine to nornicotine conversion in burley tobacco (abstract). Tobacco Chem Res Conf 54:27.
Silverman S, Gorsky M (1990). Epidemiologic and demographic update in oral cancer: California and national data—1973 to 1985. J Am Dent Assoc 120:495–499.[Abstract]
Silverman S, Gorsky M, Lozada F (1984). Oral leukoplakia and malignant transformation; a follow-up study of 257 patients. Cancer 36:563–568.
Sinusas K, Coroso JG, Sopher MD, Crabtree BF (1992). Smokeless tobacco use and oral pathology in a professional baseball organization. J Fam Pract 34:713–718.[Medline]
Smith JF (1975). Snuff-dippers lesion. A ten-year follow-up. Arch Otolaryngol 101:276–277.[Abstract]
Smith JF, Mincer HA, Hopkins KP, Bell J (1970). Snuff-dipper’s lesion. A cytological and pathological study in a large population. Arch Otolaryngol 92:450–456.[Medline]
Spitz MR, Fueger JJ, Goepfert H, Hong WK, Newell GR (1988). Squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract. Cancer 61:203–208.[Medline]
Stegmayr B, Johansson I, Huhtasaari F, Moser U, Asplund K (1993). Use of smokeless tobacco and cigarettes—effects on plasma levels of antioxidant vitamins. Int J Vit Nutr Res 63:195–200.
Texas A&M University (2003). Don’t be a dip—ingredients. Available at: http://dontdip.tamu.edu/quitting/anotherreasonquit.htm
Thomas SJ, MacLennan R (1992). Slaked lime and betel nut cancer in Papua, New Guinea. Lancet 340:577–578.[Medline]
Traber MG, van der Vliet A, Reznick AZ, Cross CE (2000). Tobacco-related diseases. Is there a role for antioxidant micronutrient supplementation? Clin Chest Med 21:173–187.[Medline]
Tsuchiya K, Hayashi Y, Onodera M, Hasegawa T (1975). Toxicity of formaldehyde in experimental animals—concentrations of the chemical in the elution from dishes of formaldehyde resin in some vegetables. Keio J Med 24:19–37.[Medline]
Verschueren K (1983). Handbook of environmental data on organic chemicals. 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Vincent RG, Marchetta F (1963). The relationship of the use of tobacco and alcohol to cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx or larynx. Am J Surg 106:501–505.[Medline]
Vogler WR, Lloyd JW, Milmore BK (1962). A retrospective study of etiological factors in cancer of the mouth, pharynx, and larynx. Cancer 15:246–258.[Medline]
Wahlberg I, Ringberger T (1999). Smokeless tobacco. In: Tobacco: production, chemistry and technology. Davis DL, Nielsen MT, editors. Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 452–460.
Waldron CA, Shaffer G (1975). Leukoplakia revisited. A clinicopathologic study of 3256 oral leukoplakias. Cancer 36:1386–1392.[Medline]
Wary KK, Sharan RW (1988). Aqueous extract of betel nut of north-east India induces DNA-strand breaks and enhances rate of cell proliferation in vitro. Effects of betel-nut extract in vitro. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 114:579–582.[Medline]
Watson AP (1985). Polonium-210 and lead-210 in food and tobacco products: transfer parameters and normal exposure and dose. Nuclear Safety 26:179–191.
