What's In a Cigarette? FDA to Study I...

What's In a Cigarette? FDA to Study Ingredients

There are 114 comments on the The Daily News story from Jan 19, 2010, titled What's In a Cigarette? FDA to Study Ingredients. In it, The Daily News reports that:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is working to lift the smokescreen clouding the ingredients used in cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily News.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Amused

Nashville, TN

#107 Aug 22, 2010
Amused wrote:
Why is ammonia there?
Time's up.

RJR opted to put ammonia into Winstons and Salems in an effort to catch up to Philip Morris's Marlboro and Kool after those products surged ahead in market share. It seems ammonia increases the alkalinity of the tobacco smoke.

And so, you ask (at least, you do if you are reading the cue cards)? Higher alkalinity increases the percentage of the nicotine that is immediately available to the body. "Free" nicotine, they call it. The result is that the smoker gets a much higher immediate gratification from the same amount of nicotine.
dfgdgdf

Barnsley, UK

#108 Aug 22, 2010
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#109 Aug 23, 2010
It appears that, a little over a decade ago, there was significant controversy over Winstons. RJR developed a program to make Winstons additive-free, and got in trouble for suggesting that it was a "safe" cigarette.

Here's a page from the Federal Trade Commission on that one:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1999/03/winston.shtm

I guess there's concern that advertising an additive-free cigarette might increase smoking and thus damage the public health because of the harmful components in tobacco smoke that do not come from the additives.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#110 Aug 23, 2010
I got curious about why chlorine should be present in tobacco products. In googling around I found no direct explanation, but it is mentioned a lot in relation to fertilizers, and there is a limit on how many pounds per acre can be spread on tobacco crops.

Chlorine has historically been a prominent component in pesticides, and that may be a major source.

Along the way, I found several rants against FDA regulation of tobacco products, citing the lack of authority to regulate pesticide and fertilizer use. While this may well limit the effectiveness of FDA action, it is reason for appealing to the USDA rather than attacking the FDA.

Smoking is a major problem in the US and in the world, and FDA action can help in addressing it here. If the shortcomings of the act draw attention to harmful inactivity of the USDA, then take the positive approach and demand changes in the way THEY regulate tobacco growing.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#111 Aug 23, 2010
The current attacks on the FDA authority claim medicinal benefits for nicotine, a certainty that smokers will simply smoke more and/or inhale more deeply if nicotine content in cigarettes is reduced, and that the FDA has clearly said that nicotine itself is harmless because other nicotine-containing products have been approved. This is shortsighted at best and suggestive of tobacco industry manipulation and half-truths.

The nicotine replacement therapies are accepted largely BECAUSE they can avoid the majority of contaminants and BECAUSE they offer some hope of weaning the addict from nicotine altogether.

How do any medicinal benefits of nicotine depend on smoking tobacco if the other delivery systems are available? The argument claims a defense of the addictive component of tobacco smoke, condemns the additives and contaminants in smoking products, and then appeals to the reader to resist regulation of smoking because the addictive component is available through other avenues.

NRTs depend on tobacco growing, because there is no other commercially viable source for nicotine. The major tobacco companies have sponsored a lot of research into genetic manipulation of tobacco to increase nicotine content. They have looked at ways to make nicotine more readily absorbed, and balanced that against the appeal to the consumer of the smoke itself. With smoke out of the picture, it should be possible to grow tobacco with extreme levels of nicotine, for the sake of producing NRTs at a much lower cost.
ants

Chiefland, FL

#112 Aug 24, 2010
Jerry wrote:
I had a problem with FSC cigarettes. I was getting headaches after a while and couldn't figure out what I was doing. I exercise and eat healthy, so I was perplexed.
After doing some research, I found out about e-cigs.
I ordered a kit and have been satisfied ever since. I've been smokefree for about a week now and haven't had a single craving.
Here's a link to show you what I mean: http://bit.ly/c7VG9P
the only thing about e-cigs is that they STILL have nicotine. they are still ADDICTIVE.
ants

Chiefland, FL

#113 Aug 24, 2010
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Time's up.
RJR opted to put ammonia into Winstons and Salems in an effort to catch up to Philip Morris's Marlboro and Kool after those products surged ahead in market share. It seems ammonia increases the alkalinity of the tobacco smoke.
And so, you ask (at least, you do if you are reading the cue cards)? Higher alkalinity increases the percentage of the nicotine that is immediately available to the body. "Free" nicotine, they call it. The result is that the smoker gets a much higher immediate gratification from the same amount of nicotine.
and ammonia cleans toilets. it's just disgusting to put those chemicals into your mouth. i mean, come on, formaldehyde, big tobacco??? you must love preserving the people you murder.
ants

Chiefland, FL

#114 Aug 24, 2010
Hugh Jass wrote:
I got curious about why chlorine should be present in tobacco products. In googling around I found no direct explanation, but it is mentioned a lot in relation to fertilizers, and there is a limit on how many pounds per acre can be spread on tobacco crops.
Chlorine has historically been a prominent component in pesticides, and that may be a major source.
Along the way, I found several rants against FDA regulation of tobacco products, citing the lack of authority to regulate pesticide and fertilizer use. While this may well limit the effectiveness of FDA action, it is reason for appealing to the USDA rather than attacking the FDA.
Smoking is a major problem in the US and in the world, and FDA action can help in addressing it here. If the shortcomings of the act draw attention to harmful inactivity of the USDA, then take the positive approach and demand changes in the way THEY regulate tobacco growing.
believe it or not, stuff found in battery acid's in tobacco products. the tobacco companies add so many ingriedients that people aren't even aware of!
ants

Chiefland, FL

#115 Aug 24, 2010
eventually people are going to realize what the tobacco industry's are doing. there are more and more regulations everyday.

some people say they have the right to smoke, it's a free country. but all of the non-smokers, the MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION, have the right to breathe clean air and let their kids do the same. we have the right to prevent ourselves from diseases coming out of the smoke every time we leave a restaraunt. smokers can push and push regulations away, but in the end majority rules.
Sonnie

United States

#116 Aug 24, 2010
ants wrote:
i want to know why the tobacco industry has to be so greedy that they overlook life. its so crazy that they do this!! it aggravates me that people are blogging about their addiction when others are being taregeted to start. tobacco companies market a product that when used as intended WILL kill you... how can they do that?? im in an organization called cat (coallition against tobacco). counties all over florida are adopting this tobacco-free partnership aspect. maybe you should look into it. they even offer cessation classes too. actually, they offer a lot of things and its an organization that saves lives and really makes a positive impact.
How long ago did they remove cigarett commercials off T.V.? Long time ago. But yet they will advertise condoms. What does that teach our children. "Oh it's o.k. to have sex at an early age as long as we use a condom" Wrong! I would rather see cigarett commercials than have my 14 year get so caught up in sex that "oops" we don't need a condom, then pop up pregnant and they have a hard life thereafter having a child.
NOPE

Nashville, TN

#117 Aug 25, 2010
ants wrote:
<quoted text>
the only thing about e-cigs is that they STILL have nicotine. they are still ADDICTIVE.
THere are other things about them.

One is that they don't NECESSARILY have nicotine. I've already seen one or two websites referring to THC cartridges, for instance. Difficult to tell the difference, I would think, from a few feet away.

Another is the lack of any regulation of consistency in the product.

Then there is the need to draw much harder on them than on a traditional cigarette.

I guess there are several "things" about e-cigs, beyond the price.
Jerry

Miami, FL

#118 Aug 26, 2010
ants wrote:
<quoted text>
the only thing about e-cigs is that they STILL have nicotine. they are still ADDICTIVE.
Actually, I ordered a bottle of 0nic e-liquid and I was impressed by how it still has that "throat hit" that cigarettes give off.
To me, e-cigs aren't so much about quiting nicotine as it is quiting cigarettes.
Just an update, I'm enjoying my e-cig. I still haven't touched a cigarette and everyone is happy for me. I don't smell like an ashtray anymore, which is great.
Jerry

Miami, FL

#119 Aug 26, 2010
NOPE wrote:
<quoted text>
THere are other things about them.
One is that they don't NECESSARILY have nicotine. I've already seen one or two websites referring to THC cartridges, for instance. Difficult to tell the difference, I would think, from a few feet away.
Another is the lack of any regulation of consistency in the product.
Then there is the need to draw much harder on them than on a traditional cigarette.
I guess there are several "things" about e-cigs, beyond the price.
Wow, those concerns sound for real. I guess I'd still would rather have an e-cig than a proven killer in cigarettes. As for the thing about the hard draw, I don't notice it on mines much. It's not like a cigarette draw, but it's not enough to get me to go back to cigarettes.
Jerry

Miami, FL

#120 Aug 26, 2010
Good luck to everyone in their quest to rid themselves of cigarettes.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Altria Group Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News California raises smoking age to 21, tightens v... (May '16) Sep '17 ThomasA 61
News Supreme Court: Altria can be sued for 'light' c... (Dec '08) Feb '17 Martin garey 7
News EU Supports Joint Operation of Illicit Cigarett... (Dec '16) Dec '16 Well 2
News Philip Morris seen getting serious about Altria... (Dec '16) Dec '16 Mugs mahone 1
News Is this Large Market Cap Stock target price rea... (Dec '16) Dec '16 Mugs mahone 1
Market sentiment (Feb '14) Oct '16 Mugs mahone 7
News Altria Group: An Attractive Investment (Apr '14) Jul '16 Mugs mahone 2
More from around the web