About Pepper Spray

by Andrew Maynard on November 21, 2011

A guest blog by Pulitzer Prize winning science writer Deborah Blum.

As images and videos of UC Davis students calmly being “pacified” with pepper spray spread across the internet this weekend and outrage grew over the apparent indiscriminate use of this chemical agent, I wanted to write something about the risks of associated with exposure to the spray.  But I was stymied by a surprising lack of information on long term physiological and psychological impacts.  I was pleased therefore to see that award-winning science writer and author Deborah Blum had managed to pull what information is available into a highly informative blog over at PLoS One Blogs.  Deborah very kindly allowed us to reproduce her blog post here – the original can be read on her blog Speakeasy Science – AM

One hundred years ago, an American pharmacist named Wilbur Scoville developed a scale to measure the intensity of a pepper’s burn. The scale – as you can see on the widely used chart to the left – puts sweet bell peppers at the zero mark and the blistering habenero at up to 350,000 Scoville Units.

I checked the Scoville Scale for something else yesterday. I was looking for a way to measure the intensity of pepper spray, the kind that police have been using on Occupy protestors including this week’s shocking incident involving peacefully protesting students at the University of California-Davis.

As the chart makes clear, commercial grade pepper spray leaves even the most painful of natural peppers (the Himalayan ghost pepper) far behind. It’s listed at between 2 million and 5.3 million Scoville units. The lower number refers to the kind of pepper spray that you and I might be able to purchase for self-protective uses. And the higher number? It’s the kind of spray that police use, the super-high dose given in the orange-colored spray used at UC-Davis.

Photo courtesy: California Aggie

The reason pepper-spray ends up on the Scoville chart is that – you probably guessed this -  it’s literally derived from pepper chemistry, the compounds that make habaneros so much more formidable than the comparatively wimpy bells. Those compounds are called capsaicins and – in fact – pepper spray is more formally called Oleoresin Capsicum or OC Spray.

But we’ve taken to calling it pepper spray, I think, because that makes it sound so much more benign than it really is, like something just a grade or so above what we might mix up in a home kitchen. The description hints maybe at that eye-stinging effect that the cook occasionally experiences when making something like a jalapeno-based salsa, a little burn, nothing too serious.

Until you look it up on the Scoville scale and remember, as toxicologists love to point out, that the dose makes the poison.  That we’re not talking about cookery but a potent blast of chemistry.  So that if OC spray is the U.S. police response of choice  – and certainly, it’s been used with dismaying enthusiasm during the Occupy protests nationwide, as documented in this excellent Atlantic roundup -  it may be time to demand a more serious look at the risks involved.

My own purpose here is to focus on the dangers of a high level of capsaicin exposure. But as pointed out in the 2004 paper, Health Hazards of Pepper Spray, written by health researchers at the University of North Carolina and Duke University, the sprays contain other risky materials:

Depending on brand, an OC spray may contain water, alcohols, or organic solvents as liquid carriers; and nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or halogenated hydrocarbons (such as Freon, tetrachloroethylene, and methylene chloride) as propellants to discharge the canister contents.(3) Inhalation of high doses of some of these chemicals can produce adverse cardiac, respiratory, and neurologic effects, including arrhythmias and sudden death.

Their paper focuses mostly, though, on the dangerous associated with pepper-based compounds. In 1997, for instance, researchers at the University of California-San Francisco discovered that the “hot” sensation of habeneros and their ilk was caused by capsaicin binding directly to proteins in the membranes of pain and heat sensing neurons.  Capsaicins can activate these neurons at below body temperature, leading to a startling sensation of heat. Repeated exposure can wear the system down, depleting neurotransmitters, reducing the sensation of the pain. This knowledge has led to a number of medical treatments using capsaicins to manage pain.

Its very mechanism, though, should remind us to be wary. As the North Carolina researchers point out, any compound that can influence nerve function is, by definition, risky. Research tells us that pepper spray acts as a potent inflammatory agent. It amplifies allergic sensitivities, it irritates and damages eyes, membranes, bronchial airways, the stomach lining – basically what it touches. It works by causing pain – and, as we know, pain is the body warning us of an injury.

In general, these are short term effects. Pepper spray, for instance, induces a burning sensation in the eyes in part by damaging cells in the outer layer of the cornea.  Usually, the body repairs this kind of injury fairly neatly. But with repeated exposures, studies find, there can be permanent damage to the cornea.

The more worrisome effects have to do with inhalation – and by some reports, California university police officers deliberately put OC spray down protestors throats.  Capsaicins inflame the airways, causing swelling and restriction. And this means that pepper sprays pose a genuine risk  to people with asthma and other respiratory conditions.

And by genuine risk, I mean a known risk, a no-surprise any police department should know this risk,  easy enough to find in the scientific literature. To cite just three examples here:

  1. Pepper Spray Induced Respiratory Failure Treated with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
  2. Assessing the incapacitative effects of pepper spray during resistive encounters with the police.
  3. The Human Health Effects of Pepper Spray.

That second paper is from a law enforcement journal. And the summary for that last paper notes: Studies of the effects of capsaicin on human physiology, anecdotal experience with field use of pepper spray, and controlled exposure of correctional officers in training have shown adverse effects on the lungs, larynx, middle airway, protective reflexes, and skin. Behavioral and mental health effects also may occur if pepper spray is used abusively.

Pepper spray use has been suspected of contributing to a number of deaths that occurred in police custody. In mid-1990s, the U.S. Department of Justice cited nearly 70 fatalities linked to pepper-spray use, following on a 1995 report compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union of California. The ACLU report cited 26 suspicious deaths; it’s important to note that most involved pre-existing conditions such as asthma. But it’s also important to note a troubling pattern.

In fact, in 1999, the ACLU  asked the California appeals court to declare the use of pepper spray to be dangerous and cruel. That request followed an action by northern California police officers against environmental protestors – the police were accused of dipping Q-tips into OC spray and applying them directly to the eyes of men and women engaged in an anti-logging protest.

“The ACLU believes that the use of pepper spray as a kind of chemical cattle prod on nonviolent demonstrators resisting arrest constitutes excessive force and violates the Constitution,” wrote association attorneys some 13 years ago.

Today, the University of California-Davis announced that it was suspending two of the police officers who pepper-sprayed protesting students. Eleven of those students were treated by paramedics on scene and two were sent to a hospital in Sacramento for more intensive treatment.

Undoubtedly, these injuries will factor into another scientific study of pepper spray, another acknowledgement that top of the Scoville scale is dangerous territory. But my own preference is that we start learning from these mistakes without waiting another 13 years or more, without engaging in yet another cycle of abuse and injury.

Now would be good.

Deborah Blum is a Pulitzer-prize winning science writer and a professor of journalism at the University of Wisconsin. She has written five books – most recently The Poisoner’s Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York. Her earlier books concern supernatural research, the science of love and affection, the biology of sex differences, and ethical issues in primate research. Deborah writes for the blog Speakeasy Science at PLoS One, and can be found on Twitter as @deborahblum.

No related posts.

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Endeavoring Mama November 21, 2011 at 6:54 pm

BEAUTIFUL! Educational and an obvious reason not to trust anyone wielding a can of human rights violator. What kind of person already knows the risks, has seen the damage and still has the cajones to pull the trigger on his fellow man? A person not worth the material used to make his badge.

Reply

Gaythia Weis December 2, 2011 at 12:39 pm

I’m very gratified to see Deborah Blum’s highly informative piece reach a broader audience by it’s re-posting here.

I believe that there is a need for a risk assessment of policing techniques that includes not only immediate health impacts but also long term outcomes. In my opinion, our society would be better served by police methods that focused on community engagement rather than pseudo-militaristic confrontations.

Reply

Sters December 28, 2011 at 5:07 am

You are right about a greater community engagement, but we also have to consider that the paper spray is used to stop or calm down aggressive behaviors and not for people that are reasonable and can have a civilised discussion. I think there some rules on using it and you can only use it in self defence, no matter that you are a civil or not.

Reply

bytemanics October 4, 2013 at 3:18 am

I completely share your opinion. Thank you for this very interesting article. I like this blog.
bytemanics

Reply

pozycjonowanie October 16, 2013 at 11:59 pm

My developer is trying to convince me to move to .net from PHP.

I have always disliked the idea because of the costs. But he’s tryiong none the less.

I’ve been using Movable-type on various websites for about a year and am
concerned about switching to another platform. I have heard excellent things about blogengine.net.
Is there a way I can import all my wordpress content into it?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 5 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: