Organic Tobacco: Green Gone Bad?

My understanding is that there are pesticides and such being used on tobacco plants. Europe has a different standard for what is acceptable, so sure, why not offer poison free of contamination.

Incidentally, the US military has been looking at and converting to lead-free small arms ammunition for years now.

There are lots of nasties used in the growing and curing of tobacco. It might not mean much to a two pack a day addict, but someone who shells out 5 bucks for a nice cigar might appreciate there not being any added poisons in it.

The main benefit, of course, is to the environment where the tobacco is being grown.

4000 chemical compounds including 599 additives for only 5$ what a deal. Green tobacco has only 3 less additives. Big change! You should pay more for less it must be better quality!!

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm

Yes well - I personally won't smoke anything I can't grow in my own backyard.

Its because that Tobacco is organic!

I thought all tobacco was organic.

"Whats the benefit here, all natural toxins?"

Thats about the some of it.

No insecticides no flavors no extra nicotine

all natural

Maybe (most likely) the additives, insecticides, and added nicotine contribute to the carcinagenic nature of the tobacco products. If this is true (probably), then removal of these substances and just using the natural raw leaf is 'safer' though not completely safe. Let's face it, people enjoy their vices, and if there is a 'safer' alternative to quitting something that they enjoy, then they will just switch to the tobacco without the DDT or whatever the hell is being used and be happy.

Right. Even though the add has a disclaimer on the bottom saying it is not safer. This generation never reads the whole paragraph.

The consumer wrongly assumes it is safer.

Organo-chloride pesticides are banned in the united states, so no DDT from US tobacco. However, they are still used in third world nations. Though organo-chlorides pesticides themselves have never shown a strong toxicity or carcinogenicity (contamination with dioxin is a different story). Burning of some cyclic organo-chlorides can lead to dioxin formation. The pesticides used in the US have very short residence times, organo-phosphates and carbamates. These compounds hydrolyze and degrade really fast. The after harvest man-made additives used to improve tobacco, such as ammonia, are not nearly as toxic or carcinogenic as the compounds found in tobacco. One thing to keep in mind is that many of the strongest toxins are derives from plants, not purely created by man (except dioxin). These compounds are immobile plants natural defenses to animals and bacteria, or wste being transported or stored by the plants. Maybe it would just be better not to smoke.

What people don't seem to realize is that Nicotine is a super-toxin.

Here is two charts that are used on my hazmat course

First toxicity rating chart

Then a sample table for some common chemicals

The following table shows the relative acute LD₅₀ for various chemicals:

Approximate Acute LD₅₀'s

For Some Common Chemical Agents

(Oral Administration-Mouse)

A few drops of pure nicotine in your blood will litteraly kill you faster then a bullet!

When you smoke it , your lungs provide is a direct link to your blood.

We can even calculate how many cigarettes it will take to kill you depending on your brand and nicotine content. (without cancer.... just drop dead in the street)

One thing to keep in mind is that many of the strongest toxins are derives from plants, not purely created by man (except dioxin).

True. It's ironic that natural pyrethrins are OK for use in certified organic farming. The safer synthetic pyrethroids, which have a shorter half life, are not allowed. (Neither is highly toxic to humans, but they are not good for fish and beneficial insrects.)

Free range chickens are another idea that sounds good, but doesn't work, in practice, as the consumer is lead to believe. To be considered "free range" chickens need only have access to something outside their cage during their 6-7 week life. As the birds near maturity, many can barely walk, because they are bred to grow far too fat, far too fast. So they have no interest in going outside to read poetry and bask in the sun. The first time many "free range" chickens are actually outdoors is when they are barbecued.

The toxins used on tobacco may be what caused it to be so dangerous. Organic tobacco may be much safer for those people who enjoy it and for those around them. Horrors, it may be that organic tobacco smoke might be as safe as burning leaves in your yard. Then what would the anti-smoking Nazis do? Oh, right, attack what we eat.

True enough. I recall when the cancer stick companies were caugt adding stuff that helped produce addiction one US company started a slogan of "no additives - pure tobacco." Kind of an oxymoron if there ever was one.

But I suppose tobacco grown without insecticides and other additives would be less dangerous than the "inorganic" kind.

It's not going to stop me from enjoying the occaisional cigar or pipe. Besides, I have a sure fire cure for Nazis.

"Killing me softly with his song..."

You're obviously thinking of Woody Guthrie's guitar, which bore the slogan: "This Machine Kills Fascists". OOOOH-RAH!

A few things that no one has touched on: Additives -

Saltpeter - to keep the cigarette burning and suppress a persons sex drive

Glycerin - to keep the tobacco moist. While I like Glycerin as the base of a salve, I don't like smoking it. However, without it, the cigarette would burst into flames instead of smolder.

I guess that 'natural tobacco' doesn't have the additives and pesticides.

Nicotine is basically a pesticide. The salt, nicotine sulfate, mixed into alcohol is better than Deet. Problem is that nicotine is absorbed through the skin, as it is in Deet. Spray your clothing, not your skin.

There are no 'health' benefits to tobacco whatsoever. It is a mild central nervous system stimulant and a autonomic nervous system depressant, which relaxes you and sharpens your thinking, but that only lasts long enough to hook you on nicotine. There is no reason why this plant should be used for anything, least of all smoking.

I know that God never created anything without a purpose, but you gotta wonder what He was thinking of when he created tobacco. The Platypus I can explain but tobacco? God knows, there are better things to smoke.

Orpheuse

>>there are better things to smoke

each to his own poison then.

Obviously , God create tobacco to save the colonists at Jamestown, and to justify the slave trade.

I remember reading the book, Papillon, years ago. When they were stuck on some tiny island beset by biting flies, they chewed tobacco and spit on their skin to keep them away.

Tobacco tends to pick up radioactive elements from the soil and fertilizer. There is a school of thought that it is this, rather than the chemical constituents, that is the major carcinogen in tobacco smoke.

If the major contributor to this is the fertilizer, and fertilizer is not used in "organic" tobacco, then maybe this is a positive.

Tad

Well, this should not be considered unusual, as all plants passively uptake various heavy metals, including mercury, lead, and radionuclides in the soil-water solution around the root zone. This is actually one of the surprising adverse effects of organic farming. The organic compounds in manure chelate heavy metals, increasing their mobility, leading to higher concentrations in the soil-water in the root zone that is uptaken by the plants. Inorganic fertilizers do not increase metals mobility as effectively, as long as the pH is adjusted (as is the case for all commercial fertilizer mixes). Plants can actually utilize their own organic compounds to mobilize metals local to the roots, this is utilized to mobilize calcium magnesium, iron and other nutrient metals. This capacity to uptake large quantities of metals and concetrate them actual make phytoremediation of metals contaminated sites possible.

"...phytoremediation of metals..."

Precisely! And sometimes with relative precision; wild mustard has an affinity for selenium, for example.

It does the smokers/chewers no good, but if there's less fertilizers and pesticides going into the environment, why try to stop that?!?

My grandfather and father both had tobacco allotments (small - 1 acre) and the stuff is godawful on land. Without lots of fertilizers, you have to pretty much do "slash and burn" agriculture, moving to a new field every couple years. Ditto for pesticides unless you have lots of children you're willing to put out rubbing against a toxic weed to pick worms off.

Well, in part the poor quality of the soils and conditions in area where tobacco is grow contribute to the use of fertilizers and rate of fertility loss. Its ability to be grown in those areas is locally beneficial to economies that do not have many high value agricultural options, unlike Florida, California and Texas. In better soils, other crops are grown that are easier to grow, have higher profit margins for the farmers, and less publicity and political fallout. Nearly all profitable crops, however, will eventually deplete the soil, and this is why the practice of crop rotation occurs, rotating in alfalfa about every 3 to 5 years to replenish nitrogen into the soil. so it really isn't the nature of the plant, it is actually reasonably durable, but the practices of the growers and the conditions that they attempt to grow in, unlike the more modernized practices utilized in the larger agricultural areas.

Well, I'm afraid I disagree. The same land that tobacco ruins has previously grown truck crops, hay, and soybeans without the need for much fertilizer. And, of course, the old allotment system dictated high yields per acre. I suspect the only thing near as bad on the land is Christmas trees. But, you might be from a different part of the country than me (southern highlands) and find altogether different effects.

Hmm not sure bullets could ever be non-toxic, it is just a matter of dosage that might change.