BY JACOB SEITER Cigar Smoke vs. Cigarette Smoke, Just as Bad?

Cigars Mostly grown in Central and South America (warm and humid climates):  Cuba, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras, Brazil, but also Connecticut, Switzerland, and the Philippines Come from tobacco plants that can grow up to 6ft. (Just over 15 leaves/plant) Takes an avg. of 5 yrs to make a cigar- touches pairs of hands

Growing Planted to produce seedlings: 2 months Dug up and replanted in fields in order to mature: another 2 months  Wrapper plants are covered and individually tied Leaves picked 2-3 at a time-from bottom up Cured (Dried) in barns for days

Fermenting and Ageing Fermented in large piles (high pressure and heat)  Develops flavor and aroma, remove ammonia, sap, tar, and nicotine  Restack, respray  Can take a few months to a few years (multiple rounds) Then aged in large bales  At least 2 yrs, often more, to further dry and develop flavors

Rolling Filler leaves are rolled by hand with lower quality wrapper leaves called the binder leaf Then further rolled with the wrapper leaf by highly trained worker (10yrs or more) Capped with a small piece of a leaf and gum arabic (acacia tree sap)

Finished Product Kept in cedar boxes at 70˚F and 70% humidity to keep tobacco from cracking

Is Cigar and Cigarette Smoke Different? Cigar smoke is more detrimental to your health:  Has no filter  Much larger size and much stronger tobacco Cigar smoke is not as bad for your health:  Rarely inhaled because it’s so strong and people want flavor from the cigar - more likely to develop oral or esophageal cancer which is much less prevalent than lung cancer among all smokers

Research Experiment done in Europe to compare risks of lung cancer in cigar smokers and cigarette smokers Study included 5500 male subjects that had some form of lung cancer and 7100 male subjects than did not have lung cancer as the control Info on subjects was collected from hospitals in Germany, Italy, and Sweden:  What they smoked, age when started smoking, how much they smoke, occupational exposure to other carcinogens Used odds ratios to make comparisons between case and control subjects

Odds Ratios of Lung Cancer for Various Categories of Tobacco Use: Category of Tobacco used # of case subjects # of control subjects Odds ratio Nonsmokers Cigars, pure smokers Cigarillos, pure smokers Cigars and Cigarillos, pure smokers Cigarettes, pure smokers Mixed smokers

Odds Ratio of Lung Cancer for Cigar and Cigarillo Smoking # case subjects# control subjectsOdds Ratio NonSmokers Duration of Tobacco Use, y: > Avg. consumption of tobacco use, g/day: > Cumulative consumption of tobacco, g/day x y: > Age at start of tobacco use, y: < >

Analysis of Odds Ratios for Cigarette, Cigar, and Cigarillo Smoking Category of Tobacco Use Duration of Smoking (Increase in risk for 1 yr) Avg. Consumption (Increase in risk for 1g/day) Cumulative Consumption (Increase in risk for 1g/day x yrs) Pure cigarette smokers Pure cigar/cigarillo smokers

Conclusion: This study says that cigar smoke probably has a carcinogenic effect on lungs that is comparable to that of cigarette smoke Even though the OR for cigar smokers is lower than that of cigarettes in the first table, it is most likely due to:  Cigar smokers tend to smoke less b/c they are so strong, and expensive  Cigar smokers tend to start later in life Overall cigar smokers have less exposure to tobacco smoke

Conclusion But many other similar experiments have been done:  Some say the same thing  Some still say cigars are less harmful  Some still say cigars are more harmful But done in different areas of the world and use different definitions of parameters Hard to come to final conclusion b/c so few cigar smokers only and really hard to get accurate data on something that takes +20 yrs to determine the effects

References 1.) Boffeta, P., Pershagen, G., Joeckel, K., Foraastiere, F., Gaborieau, V., Heinrich, J., Jahn, I., Kreuzer, M., Merletti, F., Nyberg, F., Rosch, F., Simonato, L. “Cigar Smoking Lung Cancer: A Multi-center Study From Europe,” J. of the Nat. Cancer Inst. 91, ) 322,1544,00.html 3.) 4.)