Samuel Gawith and additives

[kabot]

Hi,
I have for a long time believed Samuel Gawith tobaccos to be free from additives. (except from the toppings used in a few blends). But today I came across an old post on a newsgroup stating the opposite.

post
I quote a part of the post:

Samuel Gawith for a time followed suit, but had problems with mold

a few years back. My understanding is they now use propylene glycol

in tobaccos destined for the United States. Other than that, they

follow the old rules (so far as I know; likewise for GH&C).
ALL tobacco manufacturers use propylene glycol (or - rarely - sorbitol)

as the carrier for "American-style" aromatics, including the Gawiths.
Craig Tarler (Cornell & Diehl) and Gregory L. Pease (company by same

name) do not ADD propylene glycol to their premium tobaccos. If they

notice it in tobacco delivered, they send it back, but there can be a

a significant amount present. Acutally, even GH&C tobacco has been

found to have trace amounts of propylene glycol, presumably due to exposure before receipt by Gawith and not detectable without expensive

gas chromatography equipment.

One thing I find strange is the "they now use propylene glycol

in tobaccos destined for the United States". Is it likely that they would have separate procedure for US bound shipments?
If there is any truth in this I guess I will start stocking up on GLP and C&D instead of SG.

 

[oldgeezersmoker]

Back in the late 90's there was a lot of controversy on ALt Smokers Pipes over statements like this. Not sure what the current state of play is, but only primary leaf processors (most "blenders" are not) really know for sure. Also, I do not believe Propylene Glycol is used as a mold retardent, but I could be wrong. Tobacco, in general, is a heavily processed agricultural product. These debates are really kind of pointless.

 

[judcole]

The idea that a small concern - comparatively speaking - like SG would have separate processing for tobacco heading for the US seems a bit unlikely.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

When has Samuel Gawith ever claimed to be casing and PG free? Did they use to put it on advertisements or something? Or was this just an idea from guys at the watering hole telling fish stories?

 

[kabot]

When has Samuel Gawith ever claimed to be casing and PG free? Did they use to put it on advertisements or something? Or was this just an idea from guys at the watering hole telling fish stories?

Hi Cosmic. I can't recollect that they themselves have stated such a thing. But It seems to be a common misconception though. I'm sure that I have read several reviews/comments about how their tobacco is manufactured according to century old techniques and without additives. All fish stories it seems.

 

[clickklick]

The minute you read "no additives" its a fish story.

 

[hawky454]

They must use it very minutely if they use it at all. I get a strange mouth feel from blends that contain it, ie, McClelland and I just don't get that at all from the Gawith's.

 

[johnbarleycorn]

I have never met a SG blend that I didn't like (yet). So whatever they put in it, I hope they keep doing what they are doing!

 

[mortonbriar]

I really only notice PG with the OTC pouches, and aromatic bulk maybe I have noticed (hazy memory) but certainly the pouches. As for all the brands/blends that I have smoked out of tins, or bulk that is non aromatic (or close to it) I never notice the PG in the same way so assuming it is there it is acceptably discrete as far as I am concerned. The brands I have tended to smoke are Mclelland, Sam G, G&H , Pease, Macbaren, Rattrays, Newminster and Peterson.
Isaac

 

[woodsroad]

These debates are really kind of pointless.

Agreed.
Without cites and verifiable lab analysis, all of this is conjecture, and not terribly useful.

 

[toobfreak]

I have never met a SG blend that I didn't like (yet). So whatever they put in it, I hope they keep doing what they are doing!

Amen to that, Brother!

 

[deathmetal]

Is it likely that they would have separate procedure for US bound shipments?

American government regulation pretty much demands such things.

 

[woodsroad]

American government regulation pretty much demands such things.

As in...?

I can't think of anything that would demand separate production for the US market.

 

[deathmetal]

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp189-c1.pdf
Check this out. Of all preservatives, some are approved and the others are lawsuit blind spots.

 

[woodsroad]

Interesting, but the word "tobacco" doesn't appear anywhere in that document.

It reads like an intern's summer work project.

 

[kabot]

I wonder if there would be a market for a eco/fair trade type of tobacco. I know that if SG would release such a version of their FVF I would be willing to shell out twice what I normally pay for a tin. And I would gladly accept the risk of mold. Irrational as it might be.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

When the settlers first found tobacco and the natives that were smoking it, they saw that the natives were mixing the tobaccos with berries, syrups, and other stuff. All it takes is for someone to go to a tobacco barn, pull down a leaf, crumble it and smoke it to see why no one would buy "pure" unadulterated tobaccos.
Now, Virginias can aged to a more palatable tobacco, but it will be nothing like FVF.

However, if you'd like, I can send you a few leaves of Virginia or a burley that I have grown and let you try to smoke it.

But, there is definitely a reason why people may say that they want pure tobacco, but when faced with it, they real;ize quickly that it sucks and burns like paper and cardboard.

 

[toobfreak]

I'd pay a truckload of money to get a blend that's simply pure tobacco.

Listen to Cosmic before he decides to take you up on that bet. No you wouldn't. You might not want syrupy, goopy aros or Lakelands, but even the most straightforward english blends like 965 or Gaes 4:1 have had the leaf seriously conditioned to get it into a smooth, cool-burning and flavorful state, otherwise it would taste like you were sucking off of a pack of lit paper matches.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I think that Greg Pease is the only blender that I know of that states that he doesn't use any preservatives, but he has admitted that there is the possibility that the leaf that he uses "could" have been cased before he gets it. But, of course anti-molding chemicals are used, as we saw with his blends getting caught up in the C&D issue. But, of course he uses alcohols and such to top some of his blends, so... I think that he still tries to stay as true as possible to this notion of keeping the tobacco as unadulterated as possible. And, there are people who say they even like it. ::

 

[kabot]

I think that Greg Pease is the only blender that I know of that states that he doesn't use any preservatives

So in other words it can be done? Why then are other blenders/manufacturers unable? Is it simply because it is more convenient to spray some synthetically produces chemical over the tobacco than to ensure the proper moisture level? Or what is the problem?
As far as I know tobacco was produced and sold successfully for many a years under the old British purity laws. Not any more. The rules were relaxed. And it really boggles my mind that it does not piss people off.