Tobacco Industry: 4,000 chemicals

R.J. Reynolds Publishes Cigarette Ingredients by Brand; Shows Stupidity of FDA Tobacco Law and Demonstrates that Anti-Smoking Groups are Full of Crap
Proving untrue the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids’ assertion that the FDA tobacco law will allow us, for the first time, to find out the ingredients in cigarettes, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company has published online the complete list of ingredients for each of its cigarette brands, along with the maximum amount of each ingredient.

January 25, 2010
By Michael Siegel

As R.J. Reynolds points out, most of the additives are either commonly used in foods and beverages, explicitly approved for use in food by the FDA, or generally recognized as safe for use in foods.

Here is the complete list of ingredients, other than tobacco, used by R.J. Reynolds in the manufacture of its cigarettes:AcetanisoleAcetic AcidAcetoinAcetophenone2-Acetylpyrazine3-AcetylpyridineAmmonium Alginate
Ammonium HydroxideAmyl ButyrateAmyl OctanoateAmyris Oiltrans-AnetholeAnisic AldehydeAscorbic AcidBalsams, PeruBeeswax ResinoidBenzaldehydeBenzaldehydeBenzoic AcidBenzyl AlcoholBenzyl BenzoateBenzyl CinnamateBornyl AcetateBrown SugarButanoic Acid, 3-Methyl-, 4-Methylphenyl EsterButanol, 3-Methyl-, Benzoate, 1-Butyl Alcoholn-Butyl IsovalerateButyric AcidCaramel ColorCaramel (Plain)CarbonCarbon DioxideCardamon OilCarob Bean ExtractCarrot Seed Oill-CarvoneCaryophylleneCaryophyllene OxideCelery Seed OilCellulose FiberChicory ExtractChocolate LiquorCinnamaldehydeCinnamon Bark OilCitralCitric AcidCitronella OilClary Sage OilCocoa (Extract, Powder, Extractive, Tincture, Distillate, Absolute)Coffee Beans, GroundCoriander OilCorn SyrupDamascenoneDavana Oildelta-Decalactonegamma-DecalactoneDecanoic AcidDextroseDiammonium PhosphateDiethyl Malonate2,6-DimethoxyphenolDimethyl Benzyl Carbinol ButyrateDimethyl Sulfide3,4-Dimethyl-1,2-Cyclopentadione4,5-Dimethyl-3-Hydroxy-2,5-Dihydrofuran-2-one2,5-DimethylpyrazineDodecahydro-3A,6,6,9A-Tetramethylnaptho-(2,1-b)-Furandelta-Dodecalactonegamma-DodecalactoneEthyl AcetateEthyl BenzoateEthyl ButyrateEthyl CaproateEthyl CycloteneEthyl DecanoateEthyl HeptanoateEthyl LevulinateEthyl MaltolEthyl Methyl Phenyl GlycidateEthyl MyristateEthyl NonanoateEthyl OctanoateEthyl PentanoateEthyl Phenylacetate3-Ethyl PyridineEthyl Vanillin4-Ethyl-2-Methoxy-PhenolEthyl-2-Methylbutyrate2-Ethyl-3,5(or 6)-Dimethylpyrazine5-Ethyl-3-Hydroxy-4-Methyl-2(5H)-Furanone2-Ethyl-3-MethylpyrazineEucalyptolFenugreek Absolute/ExtractFenugreek SeedFig Juice ConcentrateFuraneolGeraniolGeranium Bourbon OilGeranyl AcetoneGlycerides, mixed decanoyl and octanoylGlycerolGraphiteGuaiacolGuar Gum

Helichrysum Absolutegamma-HeptalactoneHeptanoic Acidomega-6-Hexadecenlactonegamma-HexalactoneHexanalHexanoic Acid3-Hexanoic Acid1-Hexanol2-Hexen-1-ol
cis-3-Hexen-1-yl Acetatecis-3-HexenolHexyl AcetateHexyl PhenylacetateHigh Fructose Corn SyrupHoneyHydroxyphenyl)-Butan-2-one, 4-(para-Invert Sugaralpha-Iononebeta-Iononealpha-IroneIsoamyl AcetateIsoamyl ButyrateIsoamyl IsovalerateIsobutyl Phenylacetate2-Isobutyl-3-Methoxy PyrazineIsobutyraldehydeIsovaleraldehydeIsovaleric AcidJasmine AbsoluteLabdanum AbsoluteLactic AcidLauric AcidLemon OilLemongrass OilLevulinic AcidLicoriceLicorice Extract PowderLime OilLinaloolLinalool OxideLinalyl AcetateLinoleic AcidLovage RootMaltolMate Extractpara-Mentha-8-Thiol-3-oneMentholl-Menthone2-Methoxy-3-Methyl-Pyrazine2-Methoxy-4-MethylphenolMethyl DihydrojasmonateMethyl Linoleate/Methyl Linolenate2-Methyl Pentanoic AcidMethyl Salicylatetrans-2-Methyl-2-Butenoic AcidMethyl-2-FuroateMethyl-2-Pyrrolyl Ketone2-Methyl-3((5 or 6)Furfurylthio)pyrazine6-Methyl-3,5-Heptadien-2-one
6-Methyl-5-Hepten-2-one4-Methylacetophenone2-Methylbutyric AcidMethylcyclopentenolone2-Methylpyrazine5-Methylquinoxaline3-Methylvaleric AcidMyristic AcidMyrrh AbsoluteMyrrh ExtractMyrrh OilNerolNeroli Bigarade OilNerolidol2,6-Nonadien-1-olgamma-NonalactoneNonanoic Acidgamma-OctalactoneOctanalOctanoic Acid1-Octen-3-ol2-Octenal, (E)-Olibanum OilOrange OilOrange Oil TerpenesOrange Sweet Terpeneless OilOrris Root ExtractPalmitic AcidPatchouli OilPogostemon cablin BenthPatchouly Absoluteomega-Pentadecalactone2,3-PentanedionePepper Oil, BlackPeppermint Oil, TerpenelessPeru Balsam OilPhenyl-2-Propenoic Acid Ethyl Ester, 3-Phenyl-2-Propenoic Acid, 3-PhenylacetaldehydePhenyl Acetic AcidPhenethyl AcetatePhenethyl Alcoholalpha-PinenePiperonalPotassium CarbonatePotassium SorbatePropyl AcetatePropylene GlycolPrune Juice ConcentrateRose Oil (Turkish)Rosemary OilSalicylic AldehydeSandalwood Oil, YellowSodium CarbonateSodium CitrateScotch Spearmint OilSucrosealpha-Terpineolalpha-Terpinyl Acetate5,6,7,8-Tetrahydroquinoxaline2,3,5,6-TetramethylpyrazineThymolpara-TolualdehydeTriethyl Citrate3,5,5-Trimethyl-1,2-Cyclohexanedione2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexene-1, 4-Dione4-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1-enyl) but-2-en-4-one2,3,5-Trimethylpyrazinedelta-Undecalactonegamma-Undecalactone2-UndecanoneUrea
Valerian Root Oilgamma-ValerolactoneVanilla OleoresinVanillinVeratraldehydeVetiver OilViolet Leaves AbsoluteWaterWheat AbsoluteR.J. Reynolds also provides the specific combination of ingredients present in each brand of its cigarettes. For example, the ingredients in Camel Filters Hard Pack are:

tobacco

water;
glycerol;
brown sugar;
propylene glycol;
high fructose corn syrup;
sucrose;
cellulose fiber;
cocoa;
licorice;
diammonium phosphate;
ammonium hydroxide; and
natural and artificial flavors.
The Rest of the Story

The stupidity of the FDA tobacco law, crafted by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and supported by the major, national anti-smoking groups, is that in response to this list of ingredients, the FDA has the authority to eliminate every single one of them …

… except for the tobacco.

This may come as a surprise to the anti-smoking groups, but the one ingredient in the cigarettes which makes them the most hazardous consumer product on the market is …

… the tobacco.

I feel like organizing a “It’s the Tobacco, Stupid” march on Washington, D.C., and show up at the doorstep of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to inform them of the breaking news that the tobacco is the ingredient which makes cigarettes deadly, and they can remove all the other ingredients if they wish, but cigarettes will still be deadly and kill hundreds of thousands of people each year.

Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that Camel Filter Hard Packs will be any less hazardous if the FDA bans the use of glycerol, brown sugar, propylene glycol, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, cellulose fiber, cocoa, licorice, diammonium phosphate, ammonium hydroxide, and natural and artificial flavors.

If anything, banning these additives would be counterproductive because such an action would give the public a false sense of security about the improved safety of cigarettes and would divert attention from the real problem: the tobacco. In addition, it would essentially result in the government fraudulently deceiving consumers into believing that cigarettes have been made safer by virtue of the removal of the non-tobacco ingredients.

Remember – the removal of non-tobacco ingredients (i.e., additives) is already in place for one brand of cigarettes. Winston cigarettes contain only tobacco and water (look them up on the website if you don’t believe me).

Does the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids truly believe that Winston cigarettes are safer than other brands? Do the national anti-smoking groups believe that by removing all additives, R.J. Reynolds has taken a step in the right direction? Do these anti-smoking groups truly believe that if all cigarette brands were required to take the step that Winston has taken, and remove all the additives, that the world would be a better place by virtue of the improved safety of cigarettes?

In fact, the anti-smoking groups don’t believe this, as evidenced by their action when Winston promoted its cigarettes by advertising the absence of any additives. The anti-smoking groups forced R.J. Reynolds to put a special warning message on Winston ads, stating: “No additives does not mean a safer cigarette.”

This is why the anti-smoking groups are full of crap. On one side of their mouths, they are arguing that finding out the ingredients in cigarettes is a great thing and will save countless lives by allowing us to somehow make cigarettes safer or less addictive. On the other side of their mouths, they attack R.J. Reynolds for taking precisely such an action – with its Winston brand – and for having the gall to suggest to its consumers that the removal of additives was a positive step for public health protection.

If the anti-smoking groups are not willing to assert that Winston cigarettes are in any measure safer or less addictive than other brands of cigarettes, then clearly the entire FDA regulation of cigarette ingredients is a complete and utter sham. Furthermore, the anti-smoking groups have been lying and massively deceiving the public by arguing that the revelation of the ingredients is a huge step forward for public health protection.

This is worth repeating. If the health groups are correct, and understanding the ingredients in cigarettes is going to lead to some measure of public health protection, then must it not be the case that Winston cigarettes have added some measure of public health protection by completely eliminating all ingredients other than the tobacco (and some water)?

Unless the anti-smoking groups are willing to concede that Winston cigarettes are safer or less addictive than other brands, then they are completely full of crap.

And since the anti-smoking groups would not in their right mind assert that Winston cigarettes are safer or less addictive then other brands, they are completely full of crap.

The rest of the story is that the disclosure and regulation of cigarette ingredients/additives is a complete scam, designed to make it look like the health groups and politicians have done something to protect the public’s health, when in fact, even those very same health groups and politicians readily acknowledge that even the complete removal of every one of these ingredients and additives does not confer the slightest degree of improved safety or lowered addictiveness to cigarettes. Not a single one of these groups or politicians would argue that Winston cigarettes have a public health benefit compared to other cigarette brands.

In other words, they are all full of crap.

---

White House undermining EPA on cancer risks, say congressional investigators
April, 2008
Josef Hebert, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON – The U.S. government is undermining the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to determine health dangers of toxic chemicals by letting nonscientists have a bigger – often secret – role, congressional investigators say in a report obtained by The Associated Press.
The administration’s decision to give the Defence Department and other agencies an early role in the process adds to years of delay in acting on harmful chemicals and jeopardizes the program’s credibility, the Government Accountability Office concluded.
At issue is the EPA’s screening of chemicals used in everything from household products to rocket fuel to determine if they pose serious risk of cancer or other illnesses.
A new review process begun by the White House in 2004 is adding more speed bumps for EPA scientists, the GAO said in its report, which will be the subject of a Senate Environment Committee hearing Tuesday. A formal policy effectively doubling the number of steps was adopted two weeks ago.
Cancer risk assessments for nearly a dozen major chemicals are now years overdue, the GAO said, blaming the new multiagency reviews for some of the delay. The EPA, for example, had promised to prepare assessments on 10 major toxic chemicals for external peer review by the end of 2007, but only two reached that stage.
GAO investigators said extensive involvement by EPA managers, White House budget officials and other agencies has eroded the independence of EPA scientists charged with determining the health risks posed by chemicals.
The Pentagon, the Energy Department, NASA and other agencies – all of which could be severely affected by EPA risk findings – are being allowed to participate “at almost every step in the assessment process,” said the GAO.
Those agencies, their private contractors and manufacturers of the chemicals face restrictions and major cleanup requirements, depending on the EPA’s scientific determinations.
“By law the EPA must protect our families from dangerous chemicals,” said Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the Senate committee’s chairman. “Instead, they’re protecting the chemical companies.”
The EPA’s risk assessment process “never was perfect,” Boxer said in an interview Monday. “But at least it put the scientists up front. Now the scientists are being shunted aside.”
The GAO said many of the deliberations over risks posed by specific chemicals “occur in what amounts to a black box” of secrecy because the White House claims they are private executive branch deliberations.
Such secrecy “reduces the credibility of the … assessments and hinders the EPA’s ability to manage them,” the GAO report said.
The White House said the GAO is wrong in suggesting that the EPA has lost control in assessing the health risks posed by toxic chemicals.
After years of stops and starts, the GAO said, the EPA has yet to determine carcinogen risks for a number of major chemicals such as:
-Naphthalene, a chemical used in rocket fuel as well as in manufacturing commercial products such as mothballs, dyes and insecticides.
-Trichloroethylene, or TCE, a widely used industrial degreasing agent.
-Perchloroethylene, or “perc,” a chemical used in dry cleaning, metal degreasing and making chemical products.
-Formaldehyde, a colorless, flammable gas used to making building materials.
Environmentalists say these chemicals have been widely found at military bases and Superfund sites and in soil, lakes, streams and groundwater.
The findings, after an 18-month investigation by the congressional watchdog, come at a time of growing criticism from members of Congress and health and environmental advocates over alleged political interference in the government’s science activities.
Last week, a confidential survey by an advocacy group of EPA scientists showed more than half of the 1,600 respondents worried about political pressure in their work.

---

From: ASH Scotland mailto:AScotland@ashscotland.org.uk
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke

Dear Iain,

Thank you for your enquiry. Information on the chemical make-up of tobacco smoke is listed below:

In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer published Volume 83 of their “IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans” which was entitled “Tobacco smoke and Involuntary smoking”

The first section on ‘tobacco smoke’ provides a review of the literature on tobacco smoke constituents and cites various reports/articles that have researched the chemical make-up of tobacco smoke. The IARC report does not list all the chemical constituents itself, but provides full references to the primary research which discovered how many chemicals were present, and which you may wish to track down.

The documents they cite (and which you may wish to obtain) are listed below:

Green, C.R. and Rodgman, A. 1996. The tobacco chemists’ research conference: a half century of advances in analytical methodology of tobacco and its products. Recent Advances in Tobacco Science 22: pp.131-304.

Jenkins, R.A., Guerin, M.R. and Tomkins, B.A. 2000. Mainstream and sidestream smoke. In: The chemistry of environmental tobacco smoke: composition and measurement 2nd ed. Boca Radon, Florida: Lewis Publishers, pp.49-75.

Roberts, D.L. 1988. Natural tobacco flavor. Recent Advances in Tobacco Science 14: pp.49-81.

A table of the carcinogens identified in tobacco smoke is provided in:

Hoffman, D., Hoffman, I. and El-Bayoumy, K. 2001. The less harmful cigarette: a controversial issue. A tribute to Ernst L. Wynder. Chemical Research and Toxicology 14: pp.767-790.

You will also find details of tobacco smoke constituents (including carcinogens) in the following 2 reports:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2006. The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: a report of the Surgeon General [online] Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and HealthPromotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Available from: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/ [accessed 15 November 2006]

California Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Proposed identification of environmental tobacco smoke as a toxic air contaminant, Part B: health effects. [online]Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Available from: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/environmental_tobacco/pdf/app3partb2005.pdf [accessed 15 November 2006]

For further information on what ingredients are added to cigarettes during manufacturing, you may wish to visit the websites of some of the tobacco manufacturers, 2 of which are listed below.

http://www.gallaher-group.com/products/ingredients.asp
http://www.bat-ingredients.com

I hope you find this useful.

j.

Jennifer Ross
Senior Information Officer
ASH Scotland
Tel: 0131 220 9480
Web: http://www.ashscotland.org.uk