Surveillance of moist snuff: total nicotine, moisture, pH, un-ionized nicotine, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines.

In 2005, approximately 2.3% of U.S. adults used smokeless tobacco. Moist snuff leads all types of smokeless tobacco in revenues and marketing expenditures. The U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that smokeless tobacco use can lead to nicotine addiction. The National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health has classified smokeless tobacco as a human carcinogen. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) are potent carcinogens in smokeless tobacco products, and the pH of the product influences the content of un-ionized nicotine which is the form of nicotine most rapidly absorbed in the mouth. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 40 top-selling brands of moist snuff to measure nicotine, moisture, pH, un-ionized nicotine, and TSNAs, including 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL). The study findings indicate that moist snuff brands varied widely in content of rapidly absorbed, addictive un-ionized nicotine (500-fold range) and of carcinogenic TSNAs (18-fold range). Product characteristics such as packaging and moisture content appeared to be correlated with concentrations of un-ionized nicotine, and flavor characteristics of low-priced brands may correlate with TSNA concentrations. These findings warrant further study in light of (a) the marketing of smokeless tobacco for use in places where smoking is prohibited, (b) the promotion of smokeless tobacco as a harm-reduction product, and (c) the ever-expanding number of highly flavored smokeless varieties brought to the market.

Capacity of state and territorial health agencies to prevent foodborne illness.

The capacity of state and territorial health departments to investigate foodborne diseases was assessed by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists from 2001 to 2002 with a self-administered, Web-based survey. Forty-eight health departments responded (47 states and 1 territory). The primary reason for not conducting more active case surveillance of enteric disease is lack of staff, while the primary reasons for not investigating foodborne disease outbreaks are limited staff and delayed notification of the outbreak. Sixty-four percent of respondents have the capacity to conduct analytic epidemiologic investigations. States receiving Emerging Infections Program (EIP) funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention more often reported having a dedicated foodborne disease epidemiologist and the capability to perform analytic studies than non-EIP states. We conclude that by addressing shortages in the number of dedicated personnel and reducing delays in reporting, the capacity of state health departments to respond to foodborne disease can be improved.