ArticleAug 15, 2007
Further step toward new view of snus
That snus is a significantly less harmful alternative to cigarettes is a
viewpoint that is gaining a stronger foothold in the scientific community.
One example is the scientific committee that recently evaluated the health
effects of smokeless tobacco on behalf of the EU. In the May issue of the
respected magazine, The Lancet, two scientists demanded that snus
should be allowed where it is prohibited today.
It was the scientific committee, Standing
Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified
Health Risks (SCENIHR), that received
the assignment from the EU Commission
to investigate the health risks of smokeless
tobacco products, including Swedish snus.
The committee presented a preliminary report
at the beginning of July, which is also based on
a review of a large number of scientific studies
and reports, and particular attention was paid
to Swedish experience of snus.
The committee states that, while smokeless
tobacco contains nicotine, which is addictive,
and other health risks cannot be excluded,
the committee nevertheless subscribes to the
Harm Reduction perspective, meaning that
Swedish snus holds a unique position among
smokeless tobacco products. It is significantly
less harmful than cigarettes and there are
major health gains for smokers exchanging
cigarettes for snus.
"Hopefully, this can be the fi rst step toward a
reassessment of Swedish snus within the EU,"
says Lars-Erik Rutqvist, Vice President, Scientific
Affairs within the Swedish Match Group.
This is also recommended by two reputable
American tobacco researchers, Jonathan
Foulds and Lynn Kozlowski. In an editorial
in the May issue of the respected medical
magazine, The Lancet, they wrote: "It is a
perverse public-health policy that makes an
addictive drug (tobacco) widely available in
its most harmful form (cigarettes), yet bans
or fails to properly inform consumers of the
availability of that drug in a much less harmful
form (snus)."
Lars-Erik Rutqvist, who is a cancer specialist
and professor of oncology, welcomes the
acknowledgement published in The Lancet.
"It is a historic event. A medical magazine,
least of all such a respected magazine as
The Lancet, has never before expressed in an
editorial that a tobacco product could be good
for public health. It is completely unique and a
clear political standpoint."
Current regulations are unreasonable
Lars-Erik Rutqvist believes that SCENIHR's
report and The Lancet's position should have
consequences in quite a number of areas. In
particular, political decision makers should be
infl uenced and the EU's ban on snus should
be lifted and replaced by factual, scientifically
based demands on the content of smokeless
products, according to Rutqvist.
"This would lead to a ban on some other
smokeless products that are sold within the
EU today, but not on Swedish snus, which
is presently prohibited. This proves that
the regulations currently applicable are
completely unreasonable."
At the same time, he is well aware that the
road to lifting the ban on snus will be long
and politically complicated. In large parts of
the EU's public health establishment, there is a
strong reluctance to change policies that have
been in effect for the past 30 years. He believes
that this also applies to the Swedish National
Institute of Public Health.
"The National Institute of Public Health
should be pragmatic and regard snus as an
important feature in public health work
instead of ideologically concentrating on the
fact that snus is addictive. It is also strange that
all energy is focused on snus, when there are
still more Swedes that smoke than use snus."
He believes that the consequence is that
Swedes in general are misinformed by the
authorities. "There seems to be an element
of fear of changing society's tobacco policies,
at the risk of `losing credibility´. I believe the
opposite; credibility is at risk when more
and more data contradicts government
information. Sooner or later people will begin
to realize that they are being misinformed."
Clear picture
In recent years, new scientifi c reports on snus
have been published on a regular basis. "This
will probably continue," emphasizes Rutqvist.
"But all this new research will not change the
big picture: everyone is now aware that the
risk associated with snus is dramatically lower
than that related to cigarettes. My colleague
Freddi Lewin and I have had this opinion for
more than ten years and it was considered
extremely politically incorrect by some. It is
very gratifying that The Lancet is now saying
the same thing."