Why haven't the cigarette companies used genetic engineering or other scientific techniques to develop a cigarette that doesn't contain carcinogens and other harmful ingredients? It would be good business for them.
2007-06-18 08:11:35 · 9 answers · asked by Maurice P 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Agriculture
a couple of decades ago, "R&D" developed a smokeless cigarette that was touted as "safe". Everybody hated it. The product fizzled out due to lack of interest. The FDA had nothing to do with it.
in 1965, the surgeon generals office won a victory by pushing through a bill that required a warning label on cigarette packages. Until just recently, the FDA did not regulate cigarettes. In 1996, the FDA won a landmark ruling labeling cigarettes as a nicotine delivery system. Since then, they have been playing legal games with the cigarette industry to develop sensible guidelines. I have no knowledge of any real successes.
And not everything that burns is carcinogenic by the way. complete combustion of organic compounds yields carbon dioxide and water.
Below is a link to an msds for nicotine. states oral LD50 for rat is 50 mg / kg. that's the concentration that causes death of 50% of rat test subjects. cyanide LD50 for rat is about 4 mg/kg. Rat LD50 for DEET (some bug sprays) is about 300 mg/kg. nicotine is 10 x 's less toxic then cyanide but nearly 10 times more toxic than DEET.
So my answer is this. Scientists working in cigarette research and development cannot make a product that is both safe and contains nicotine because nicotine by itself is toxic. If you're concerned about safety or your health, quit smoking and stay away from nicotine.
2007-06-18 08:45:26 · answer #1 · answered by Dr W 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
first let me say that I know exactly where you're coming from. I quit smoking just over a year ago for health reasons, but i still crave cigarettes ALL the time. I honestly love smoking - everything about it.
The sad truth is that tobacco contains the carcinogens - it's not added to the cigarette. So what about adding nicotine to something less harmful, like cloves or herbal cigarettes? Well, those are unfortunately just as harmful as tobacco. Human beings simply aren't meant to inhale pure organic smoke - it's not good for us.
I hope somebody DOES come up with a cigarette that isn't harmful to our health, but I doubt it will happen. ...and thanks for asking this question... now you got me wanting a smoke.. haha.
2007-06-18 09:24:52 · answer #2 · answered by dvas1147 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One of the greatest attributes to nicotine and tobacco are the addictive effects. If you are addicted you will continue to buy, and buy, and buy. As a smoker for 25 years, one of the hardest things I have done was to quit. A cigarette still smells good to me (frreshly lit, not the stale ashtray) but I won't start again because I dont want to have to quit again. Most genetic engineering will not alter basic plant characteristics. They can select for low nicotine and decrease the level, but it won't hook people so bad.
Not all burned products are carcinogenic. Smoke is irritating to the lungs and as such is probably carcinogenic, but you don't have to inhale the smoke.
Silicosis from inhaling dust particlles can cause cancer, and infact smokers are more susceptible to particulate injury to the lungs than non smokers.
2007-06-18 10:24:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nicotine is harmful to humans, it's poison. There's enough nicotine on a cigarette to fit on the head of a pin. Any more could kill you. Anything that burns is carcinogenic, a carcinogen is as simple as a particle; it could be a piece of dust. Did you know that candles are classified as carcinogens? Burning anything and inhaling it is not going to be healthy.
I am a smoker btw
2007-06-18 08:16:59 · answer #4 · answered by Pfo 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They have developed cigarettes that you heat the end to give off nicotine but much less tar. They didn't go over very well.
2007-06-18 08:27:31 · answer #5 · answered by Jabberwock 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why can't R&D develop a cigarette that doesn't wind up starting brush fires?
Why can't R&D develop a cigarette that's non-addictive?
Why can't R&D develop a cigarette that can't be chucked into the street, contributing to litter?
Why can't our spineless congressmen just outlaw the sale of this dangerously defective product?
2007-06-18 08:15:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The FDA won't let them. The tobacco industry has tried several times to come out with far less harmful cigarrettes, but the FDA called these "drug delivery systems" which effectively meant that they were illegal until someone would pay billions to do testing on them.
So in short, it's never going to happen because the FDA won't let it happen.
2007-06-18 08:28:44 · answer #7 · answered by mikeburns55 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
aren't the chemicals naturally in the tobacco? You would just have to have pure nicotine and no tobacco...so use the patch.
Get off of smoking!! You're not only killing yourself, you're killing me too!
2007-06-18 08:14:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
They are trying!
And I have little doubt they will succeed, sooner or later...
2007-06-18 08:17:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋