Talk:List of additives in cigarettes

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discrepancies Among Other Articles Related to the Topic

I noticed that this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcinogens only lists 33 known carcinogens, while "List_of_additives_in_cigarettes" states 69. Which one is it? All of the articles surrounding cigarette smoke seem to be very outdated, and the sources don't agree with each other. There's a big difference between 33 and 69 and it would be nice if someone could find a reputable source with a definitive figure.

Thoraxcorp (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ddsurfsca

I was wondering why cigarettes recently have been going out while being smoked. was something taken out of them, as an additive that kept them from going out? or was something added to them such as some sort of flame retardant? Please help me with this I have been researching this for a while now.

ddsurfscaDdsurfsca 10:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Here is an interesting article on "fire-safe" cigarettes that might answer you question on why cigarettes go out while being smoked.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=228784 ````tlc920 4/23/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.176.4 (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...

"...all these chemical compounds have been approved as additives to food..."

Now, I may be wrong on this, but I'm fairly sure Ammonia is not an approved additive to food, you know with being a carcinogen and all. Please clarify. --George The Man 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I drank some ammonia (with Senega) the other day. Its used for chest infections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.255.133 (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the accelerates were removed as part of the agreements with many European countries that have banned additives to cigarettes. It's cheaper to not buy them at all than to buy them just for the manufacturing process for US use cigarettes because of the quanty discounts. Poor DJCC. Philip Morris is the only one I know of that still uses them in some American cigarettes. Lostinlodos 03:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonia is still used in food processing, and has been claimed to be useful for killing bacteria in "pink slime" (the product made from fatty slaughterhouse trimmings and mixed with ground beef). Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all SciMathGuy (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No merge

There is a huge difference between cigarette additives and (mainstream) smoke consituents. The latter being the result of the combustion of the former. I am removing the merge tag. Popo le Chien 08:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why so many?

Will someone please explain to me why the cigarette companies have to add up to 599 additives? how many chemicals can be used to enhance flavour? or whatever they are used for. 599 just seems way too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.117.202 (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As in why do they still?, Because the American Big 6 (including the five listed here), made agreements with American chemical manufactures INCLUDING DUPONT, many years ago that are sill valid. The reason the harmful chemicals have not been ordered to be removed from the otherwise relatively-safe tobacco, officially is because, as stated above, there are all cleared ON THEIR OWN for FOOD consumption, though I recognize other reasons that wouldn't fit in a wikipedia page including this talk board. ;) Lostinlodos (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but speaking from a strictly chemical standpoint, thats an extremely stupid reason. Burning something then inhaling it is vastly different than eating it. Even something simple and safe like silicon dioxide (a component of sand) can be carcinogenic and will cause respiratory problems when inhaled. Additionally, many compounds change into something totally else while undergoing pyrolysis ... For example, its not out of the question to wonder if the benzaldehyde in the Almond oil (on the list) could react with d/l-Alanine (on the list) to produce the mild stimulant drug phenylpropanolamine - right in the cigarette as it burns, depending on if whatever else in there catalyzed it or inhibited it... and those are just two substances from the first letter of the list!!! Zaphraud (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm...

Can someone please translate this article into english? Thanks. Drahcir my talk 02:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, layman's terms for many of these chemicals would be helpful, or grouping them into families that can be labled with layman's terms. --160.79.83.254 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so umm yeah, i'm pretty sure ciggerettes don't have Caffeine in them, i'm just saying- zak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.138.16 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

of course the only thing cigarettes don't contain is apparently tobacco The Impartial Truth (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additive Free

Why is there no link to an article listing brands of additive free cigarettes and why does Wikipedia not have such an article? I discovered a Wikipedia article on Natural American Spirit additive free cigarettes but no link to it from this article. And Wikipedia may have other such articles that are unknown to me. Isn't it likely that readers will come to this fine article that you have written looking for a list of additive free brands containing only tobacco and would want such an article? Thank you. rumjal 08:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered an unlinked Wikipedia article on additive free Winston. There should be a link to the above. I am not sure if "additive free" means one hundred percent tobacco or not, but an article should discuss this. rumjal 08:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Standard Winston cigarettes are not additive free. They have rebranded some of the American Spirit line as part of the Winston line only, which are also sold as RJ Free. Lostinlodos (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of category and redirect

I had a thing on my talk page about it. Maybe that we could delete Category:Cigarette additives and then make there have a redirect from the category.

~~EBE123~~ 21:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Gross

I can't believe how much is in one cigarette. That is so gross!!! It is amazing how these chemicals were not tested when they were burned!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.24.200 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comprehensive list of all additives. It does not mean that all additives were in every cigaret. Furthermore, the list was compiled in 1994 and does not reflect current law on cigaret additives.Euonyman (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a list of what could be added to tobacco in 1994. This is not all found in a regular cigarette. The Impartial Truth (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of ammonia could be difficult

Since ammonia is a gas ... Some knowledge of chemistry is really helpful. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonia occurs naturally in tobacco during the curing process, especially the bale method of tobacco maturation for cigars and barrel fermentation for pipe tobacco. Sometimes it also used as a fumigant to rid harvested tobacco of pests, particularly tobacco worms and their eggs, which are nearly microscopic.Euonyman (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

list is out of date

The list was prepared from documents almost two decades old. Everything pertaining to cigaret additives changed in 2009, when the federal government banned the sale of flavored cigarets.Euonyman (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of additives in cigarettes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images should be discussed before being removed.

See this diff.

"at least 69 can cause cancer." This is true for some additives in cigarettes in some countries. Wikipedia always wants the international perspective.

Some American brands are sold in other nations. See: Marlboro (cigarette), and:

It looks like many of these chemicals are found in cigarettes outside the USA too. See:

--Timeshifter (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the purpose of including an anti-smoking PSA image in a list article about materials added to tobacco. Mfernflower (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It further illustrates the deadly dangers of some of those chemicals as discussed in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additive-free tobacco is only marginally less hazardous than your standard mass-produced affair [1] so I feel your idea is rather misguided. Mfernflower (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That article from bmj.com does not prove the relative hazard of cigarettes with and without added chemicals. That is not even what the article is about. It is about the effect of advertising. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/27/5/498

Why are the images present?

Timeshifter, why have you put these images back, please? Your explanation makes no sense to me, and the images really do not belong in this particular article, as i pointed out in my summary. I'll not argue the point, if there is a good reason for their presence, but so far none has been offered.... In addition, not to nit-pick, but the additions about cigarettes elsewhere in the world are clearly misplaced, as well: The lead paragraph specifically states that the article applies, as documented, only to American manufactured cigarettes intended for distribution within the United States by the listed companies, so anything about Marlboro overseas or other cigarettes outside the USA is irrelevant. Thank you.Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my previous replies in the section above this one. Some of these additives are found in cigarettes outside the USA too. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, Timeshifter. So, as far as i can work it out, is that really the images don't belong? Reasons given above: (1) The additives are present in cigarettes in some other nations and WP "wants the international perspective" ~ irrelevant, as the images have nothing to do with additives; (2) the images illustrate the dangers of the additives ~ no they don't, they illustrate some of the dangers of smoking. So, to repeat myself from above, the images do not really belong in this article/list; they belong in List of tobacco warning messages, i would say. Pinging Mfernflower who also had an opinion in the section above. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 10:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are canvassing. WP:Canvassing. You can be blocked for that.
The images illustrate the dangers of smoking tobacco and the additives in tobacco. You don't seem to acknowledge that. Are you saying that those cancer-causing additives and other toxic additives are some kind of fake news, and that tobacco is solely responsible for the ill health? --Timeshifter (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply; apologies that its's taken me a week to come back ~ to be honest i entirely forgot about this discussion.
"[C]anvassing" ~ don't be ridiculous. I pinged the sole other editor who expressed an interest in the topic in the section you pointed me to.
I still don't understand your point. The dangers of smoking (which the images illustrate; they say nothing about the additives) are not the subject of the list. Again, this is a list of additives ~ specifically, because that's what is available, a list of additives used in the US. Illustrations from packets from the Philippines and Brazil, if i'm remembering correctly, do not add to the readers' understanding of the article/list. Thus, they don't belong. Please don't double down and apparently say i'm denying facts which clearly isn't the case; i am simply attempting to keep the irrelevant facts from distracting our readers. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 13:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lindsay. You wrote previously:
"the images illustrate the dangers of the additives ~ no they don't, they illustrate some of the dangers of smoking."
"The dangers of smoking (which the images illustrate; they say nothing about the additives) are not the subject of the list."
From the article: According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute: "Of the more than 7,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, including hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia. Among the 250 known harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke, at least 69 can cause cancer."
So Lindsay, the images show the dangers of smoking. And those cigarettes contain some of those additives. Are you saying that those additives don't contribute to some of the dangers of smoking? --Timeshifter (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I truly don't understand why you keep referring to the dangers of smoking, whatever they are. This article is a list of additives to cigarettes in the US; the dangers are irrelevant. WP isn't here to reform society (though i hope we can have that effect through the spread of knowledge to people who need it); WP:WPISNOT is useful, it says Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, and that's why i removed the images and am continuing to argue for their removal. Perhaps i am exceptionally stupid, but i cannot for the life of me understand what you are saying they add within the bounds of WP's purpose and remit. And perhaps i am very poor at explaining, but that last is the point i have been trying to make. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 09:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay. You wrote "the dangers are irrelevant". You quote WP:WPISNOT (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not): "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". The dangers of some of the additives is accepted knowledge regarding this subject. Same as in the article Composition of electronic cigarette aerosol. And it has a warning infographic from the CDC in the article: Commons: File:Electronic Cigarettes, What is the bottom line CDC (page 2 crop).jpg. I suggest you read WP:NOTCENSORED (Wikipedia is not censored). It is part of the same guideline that you quoted from: WP:WPISNOT. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article: "599 Ingredients That Can Be Found in Cigarettes"

MrOllie. You deleted this reference: "599 Ingredients That Can Be Found in Cigarettes." By Terry Martin. November 15, 2016.

See diff. I wrote in my edit summary before you reverted me: "Sources are listed at the end of the article. They are high-quality sources."

It seems you ignored that, and reverted me. Sources listed at the end of the article are high quality:

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2000 Surgeon General's Report Highlights: Tobacco Products.

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Selling Tobacco Products in Retail Stores.

3. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - An Overview.

4. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. General & Brand Specific Ingredients. 2020.

5. National Cancer Institute. Harms of Cigarette Smoking and Health Benefits of Quitting.

The article contains "The List of 599 Additives in Cigarettes (1994)". It gives the history of how that list came out.

The article also has this: "To date, 7,000 chemical compounds have been identified in cigarette smoke, including about 250 harmful and 69 carcinogenic chemicals." Reference #5 backs that up. That info is in the Wikipedia article too.

Next time please read and understand the edit summary. And please stop the edit warring. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_additives_in_cigarettes"