Additives
Tobacco casings, toppings and additives.
Comments [ new ]
- Re: Additives
- Posted by Jo on Wednesday, 26-Sep-2007
A good one a day vitamin will go a long way toward keeping people healthy. We can't all eat everything we need each day as far as vites and also if you get sick your body can't fight off other things.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ topic | top ]
It is kind of an insurance for when you do expose your body to unseen things that can harm you. One thing for sure it can't hurt.
- Detailed additive proportions
- Posted by Hua Kul on Monday, 03-Sep-2007
I came across the web site for Danish cigarette manufacturer House of Prince and found an interesting page that gives specific quantities for some of the additives they use. Here is a link to that page, [link]. If you click on the specific brand it gives a table of additives, such as this:
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ topic | top ]
Prince Rich Taste
Additive Maximum use level Purpose
(% of tobacco weight)
Cocoa powder 0.31 Adjustment of taste
Chocolate 0.20 Adjustment of taste
Flavour 0.07 Adjustment of taste
Glycerol 4.54 Humectant
Liquorice 0.40 Adjustment of taste
Maple sugar 2.47 Adjustment of taste
Rum 0.90 Adjustment of taste
All of their brands seem to have the same percentage of glycerine, 4.54%. Is this pretty standard for all cigarette tobacco? When a manufacturer says it's tobacco has no toppings or casings would it still have a humectant such as glycerine?
--Hua Kul
- Re: Detailed additive proportions
- Posted by Smokin n Jokin on Monday, 03-Sep-2007
From what I've been able to learn from the internet; poor source of information that it is; tobacco additives are not regulated in the U.S. So a manufacturer could claim anything they want; including that the disclosure of additives would be a violation of trade secrets.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | topic | top ]
DISCLAIMER: I am not an authority on either tobacco additives or tobacco regulation and the above comment is strictly an objective opinion.
- Re: Detailed additive proportions
- Posted by Dave L on Monday, 03-Sep-2007
There are lists of approved additives (600 - 2000+, no idea about their regulation) and in a number of countries manufacturers are required to provide a list of ingredients. The list doesn't have to be very detailed/specific ("Flavour"). I'd love to see, and would be a lot more likely to support, manufacturers who did this voluntarily in the US.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | OP | topic | top ]
From what I know, I would say that all but the flavor and rum (toppings) are casing ingredients, i.e. 'no casings' means no humectants. The use of Glycerin and Propylene Glycol is quite common. In addition to helping the tobacco retain moisture and flexibility, the later helps to prevent mold.
- MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by Karen on Monday, 25-Sep-2006
To a question posted farther down by Kim from Seattle, most filters are made from cellulose acetate I do belive (google search). I, too, wish there was a more natural alternative and have wondered if the filter releases harmful gases when hot. Lung cancer wasn't that prevelant until the '50s. Has to have something to do with modern tobacco practices. Overuse, chemical manipulation, pesticides, use of filters... something. Filters were once even made of abestos--got some tobacco companies in trouble!! Modern tobacco, like everything else, has too many additives and no one is stopping the big companies from doing this--too busy complaining about cigarettes in general, I suppose. D&R's turkish is the only thing I smoke, and even then only a few a day. There are no additives or casing. Good stuff.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by Warren on Monday, 25-Sep-2006
> Filters were once even made of abestos--got some
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
> tobacco companies in trouble!!
Much of asbestos lung cancers are in fact due to virus SV40 which contaminated polio vaccine given to millions in USA and around the world:
[link]
[link]
Nite also that smokers exposed to asbestos have fewer "asbestos" lung cancers than nonsmokers:
-- QUOTES ( [link] )
1. Smoking has a protective effect on immunological abnormalities in asbestos workers.
0429. Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy (Poland). Lange, A. "Effect of Smoking on Immunological Abnormalities in Asbestos Workers.
2. Relative risk of lung cancer for asbestos workers was "highest for those who had never smoked, lowest for current smokers, and intermediate for ex-smokers. The trend was statistically significant. There was no significant association between smoking and deaths from mesothelioma," [emphasis added].
0565. University of London, School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "Cancer of the Lung Among Asbestos Factory Workers."
[Many other studies show similar findings for asbestos workers].
3. "Over the 22 years of follow-up, exposed workers have had a very high risk of respiratory cancer, mostly of the lung. The risk has been dose related and has been much higher in nonsmokers and ex-smokers than in current smokers. The epidemic began to subside shortly after exposure to chloromethyl ethers ceased. The mean induction-latency period was 17 years. Most of the lung cancers in the moderate and high dose groups have been small cell carcinoma," [emphasis added].
1388. Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital (Philadelphia). Weiss, W. "Lung Cancer Dueto Chloromethyl Ethers."
Method: "A cohort of 125 workers (91 exposed to chloromethyl ethers) have been followed since 1963, and semi-quantitative estimates of degree of exposure and records of duration of exposure have been maintained. Information on smoking habits was obtained at the beginning of the observation period."
"Marked atypia were found only in workers chemically exposed to BCME (4.8 percent of smokers and 6.2 percent of nonsmokers). The biological mechanism for increased injury in nonsmokers...has not yet been determined [emphasis added]."
[Index number not recorded]. Labour Protection and Hygiene Centre, Laboratory of Cytology (Romania). Herivan, R.: Constantinescu, V.; Melinte, L. "BCME, Soot, Smoking and Lung Cancer.
4. "Presence of chronic respiratory symptoms at baseline was inversely related to cessation of smoking. Respiratory impairment was positively associated with smoking cessation, but failed to reach statistical significance," [emphasis added].
1544. DHHS, PHS, CDC, NIOSH. Ames, R.G. "Respiratory Effects of Exposure to Diesel Emissions in Underground Coal Miners." Funding: NIOSH.
5. "Lung volume parameters were found to decrease with age, but there was no significant modification related to tobacco consumption."
0241. Institut D'Etudes Et Recherches Pneumophtisiologiques (Institute of Studies on Tuber-culosis). France. Keisbauer, J.P. "Longitudinal Study of the Methods of Early Detection of Respiratory Diseases in a Population of Cab Drivers."
--- ENDQUOTES ---
In short: the anti-smoking "science" as presented by media and taught to kids in schools is fraud from A through Z.
As to filters, you're best off smoking additive free, preferably organically grown (due to radiactivity of some fertilizers) high nicotine tobacco in non-filtered sticks. The way tobacco leaf was meant to be smoked, the way Indians did it for thousands of years (or my ancestors for centuries). The closest to this healthy ideal is Natural American Spirit tobacco:
[link]
- Re: MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by Wazmo Nariz on Tuesday, 26-Sep-2006
I've been compiling information on the use of pesticides by the tobacco industry, and it isn't a pretty picture; plus it's kinda hard, since, unlike damn near anything else, there is scant information regarding government oversight regarding pesticides and tobacco (but the picture become fairly clear why when you look at who is contributing to campaign coffers of various politicians involved in that sort of legislation). I'll try to collate information and see about posting some of it here...or at least links to the info if I decide to post it elsewhere. It might deserve a site all its own....
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
But you're right on about the Ramback; I smoke two or three sticks of straight R a day (the rest of the time spent with either Windsail Platinum or McC Virgina sticks). A turkish is always my first smoke of the day along with an espresso to get the circulation going and the synapses firing. Ain't nuthin' mo betta.
- Re: D&R additives
- Posted by Dave L on Tuesday, 26-Sep-2006
Mark Ryan: "we put little or no
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
additives on most of our blends because i do not want to affect the natural
taste of our premium tobaccos. most leaf dealers do not want to process
tobacco without some casing as it can mold in a couple of weeks (if moisture
is right). many customers do not understand that dry tobacco is a
consequence of leaving off the casing and they mistaking think it is stale.
wet tobacco is actually the enemy of quality. most companies shower their
tobacco in casings. casings are used as a humectant and anti-microbial. it
is applied early to open the cells so they can better receive the chemical
flavorings. casing are required by law by some countries before tobacco can
be shipped outside the usa. they are ubiquitous."
While I might be blamed for storing it in a place that probably gets too warm in the summer, the worse case of mold I have seen was in an airtight jar of Ramback. While I like the idea of minimal additives, they're not all bad.
It should be noted that only Rimboche is advertised as having "No casings or flavorings added".
"No _chemical_ flavorings or casings added." (emphasis mine): Cockstrong, Ramback, Vengeur Light, Windsail
"No chemical flavorings added.": Don Giovanni, Ramback Gold, Vengeur, Windsail Platinum
"no casings": WinterGold, Wingate Light
- Re: D&R additives
- Posted by Kerry on Tuesday, 26-Sep-2006
I appreciate your posting of Mark Ryan's comments about additives.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
I am still a fan of D&R tobacco and smoke their blends almost exclusively.
The thing that still bothers me about all tobacco companies including D&R is the semantics. Either state there are "ABSOLUTELY NO ADDITIVES!" or list the ones that are used including flavorings and casings, etc. In other words list ALL OF THEM!
By stating "no chemical" flavorings or casings, it leaves a lot of room for doubt and suggests intentional obfuscation.
It is obvious from many posts (including some of my own early posts as well) here on this forum that very many people think, or at least their impression is, that most (if not all) D&R tobaccos are "additive" free. Obviously, this is not the case. I believe this is due to the terms used to describe the additives as you partly addressed above.
It may not be the industry standard, but I think it would be best if all tobacco companies would list all the additives, including casings, flavorings, etc., that they use to process their tobacco products. As a consumer, I think I have a right to know. If all these additives, no matter why they are added to the tobacco, are safe, then what is the problem with listing them? Patents? Copyrights? Trade secrets? P_LEASE!
Why not put it all right out front and be done with it. To some small degree I think the companies that don't say ANYTHING about their additives are actually more honest about the situation. They aren't saying what is added, but they are not trying to obfuscate the issue.
Also, as I am a fan of D&R, I think it would be a great move for D&R to be one of the first to do this. Face it, eventually the government will force them to anyway. Why not get and stay ahead of the curve?
In any case, as Mark stated, casings are not all bad and I am sure that many folks wouldn't like their favorite tobacco if it didn't have those flavorings added. I'm just saying let us know what we are putting into our bodies. I don't think that is too much to ask.
Just another couple of my pennies.
- Re: MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by Karen on Thursday, 28-Sep-2006
Thanks for the links. Here is a book for those who like to read. Interesting read, "Tobacco" by Iain Gately. Just factual, no "You-shouldn't-smoke-it-will-kill-you" crap. Begins with the introduction of tobacco to the Europeans, and the rest,as they say, is history. I like my turkish unfiltered, though I don't like tobacco strands in my mouth. Any good suggestions to avoid that from those who roll?
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by Dominick Versetto on Thursday, 28-Sep-2006
Get a small Swiss Army Knife with a good pair of scissors on it, or use a good cigar cutter.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
dominick
- Re: MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by Wazmo Nariz on Friday, 29-Sep-2006
Most of my friends in the UK who RYO use a small piece of thin cardboard rolled up placed inside at one end when skinning up for just that purpose. Conversely, you could knock out the little insert in one of those small plastic tar-blocker gizmo and stick one end in that....
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by Matt on Friday, 29-Sep-2006
Snip off the ends and pack it like a regular cigarette. Any cigarette that has been well rolled will pack no differently. After that, just light the unpacked end and smoke from the end that's been packed down.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by Chris on Monday, 02-Oct-2006
Lung cancer may not have been that prevalent until the 1950's, but then it takes a good thirty to fifty years for lung cancer to manifest in a smoker (when it does...a relatively small percentage of smokers relative to the total develop lung cancer), so the increase in cancer rates observed in the 1950's fits in fairly well with the observed rise in cigarette smoking and proliferation of packaged smokes post-WWI. Not to mention that back then it wasn't uncommon for the average smoker to get through 40-60 high-tar unfiltered gaspers a day...there were no restrictions on smoking, so people could smoke all day long, and did. Inhaling that much smoke into your lungs on a daily basis is going to cause some damage.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Mr
- Posted by Newby on Sunday, 16-Oct-2005
Is your average rolling tobacco better or worse for you than your standard, manufactured cigarettes. I was just wondering because I bought some Bali Shag and it had the disclaimer that sad something about chemicals known in the state of california to cause "reproductive harm" amongst other things.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: Mr
- Posted by V.B. on Sunday, 16-Oct-2005
The worst, i think, has to do with the number of cigs smoked per day. Moderation (and a bit of self-control) can go a long way in keeping one's "vices" below health disaster levels. That said, even the most famous mass produced cigs have a tremendous number of artificial additives, not to mention reconstituted tobacco (i.e., pressed dust!). More over, the use of ammonia in practically every brand (pioneered by Marlboro in the late 50s), acts as a sort of "free base" agent on nicotine, alowing its absorbtion at a much faster rate. This may explain why smokers of MYO cigs usually find themselves smoking less. Once they are off "free basing" nicotine delivery, the drop off from the nicotine "high" is much more gradual. (The role of ammonia in Marlboro was discussed in Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co. internal report in 1991 (or so) investigating this very susseful brand for competitive strategies. This report is part of a huge database of tobacco papers made available as part of the recent settlement with the government).
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
By the way, I have nothing against moderate tobacco use, and have been a smoker for many years. I just dislike the taste and marketing strategies of mass produced cigarettes.
- Re: Mr
- Posted by Dave L on Monday, 17-Oct-2005
I'm pretty sure that is a generic warning that must be on all tobacco products sold in California. It would be really nice if listing ingredients was required on all tobacco products. A standard disclaimer about 'light' tobacco is that its not any less dangerous. Even American Spirit, who has a no additive organic blend, says "No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette".
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: in need of some recommendations/additives
- Posted by G on Monday, 25-Jul-2005
Here is one more article on sugar and other additives:
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/apr98/candy.html
"Consider, the sugars produce catechol when heated: a co-carcinogen that intensifies the cancer-causing effect of other carcinogens contained in the cigarette. The licorice present in cigarettes contains an acid that produces cancer-causing hydro-carbons when burned..... "
- Additives [was Re: MYO Mailing List]
- Posted by dave on Friday, 28-Jan-2005
Hi,
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
Does anyone know if they put all the chemicals and crap in "roll your own" tobacco,that they put in pre rolled,packaged cigarettes?
David Lawson
- Re: MYO Mailing List
- Posted by Ray on Tuesday, 01-Feb-2005
I would assume so since I googled quite extensively and could not find any info except for american spirit which needs some sugar at least to take out the harshness.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by G on Tuesday, 01-Feb-2005
I read a study showing that in general RYO tobacco has a higher % of additives. This is because manufactures try to compensate for the tobacco being exposed to air frequently and potentially becoming dry and harsh.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
American Spirit does not have any sugar or anything else. Some of the D&R blends are listed as additive free. Unless its explicitly stated, I would assume sugars and preservatives/humectants at least are present. Check this link for example to see the additives in all the Peter Stokkebye lines. http://www.peterstokkebye.com/cig_manuf.htm
- Re: MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by Dale on Tuesday, 01-Feb-2005
This is why I prefer the D&R blends that state as per their website contain no additives & I wonder if the so often referred to chemical additives that supposedly affect the burning rate so common (or so we are told!) by the major pre mades are a regular additive to MYO/RYO tobacco and how one can find out. There are many natural flavorings/casings added to almost everything we consume today unless its certified organic! hell-there's even smoke flavoring added to some meats-read some food labels & try to think back to chemistry class! There are many additives artificial & natural we would be better without yet again many we are better with.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by Kim on Monday, 04-Sep-2006
Hi, I'm new on this forum. I appreciate all your posts! I looked up the D&R site and didn't find where it said there is no additives. I did order a can of the "Dutch" style and some hemp papers however. I am partial to Bali Shag red. But I too have been wondering about additives...and I'm trying to find an all cotton filter, preferably non-bleached. This is so far impossible to find. I tried Rayo filters and found it makes the cig taste funny. Plus, what are they made of? Why don't any of them say? I find that disturbing. My friend says it's filters give you cancer not tabacco! LOL Any ideas about cotton filters? Thanks again for all your informative posts!
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
Kim from Seattle
- Re: MYO Mailing List/additives
- Posted by Rob on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2006
Some D&R brands DO have flavorings & casings (fancy word for syrup flavoring) added such as Rowland,two timer, penhooker & Penhooker light & three sails says "NATURAL preservatives added" [link]
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
follow the link & read each tobacco description & this will tell you which has what but OVERALL I think D&R has some of best RYO around!