This is a letter that Zero wrote the other day to the Edmonton Journal. Snus is being introduced to Canada (testing now in Edmonton) and already the anti-tobacco lobby is complaining. Give me a break...
Anyhow, here's the letter:
To the Editor,
I write in response to the criticisms voiced by Dr. Els, Dr. Campbell, and Robert Walsh [big guns in the anti-tobacco lobby] with respect to Imperial Tobacco's test marketing of a new smokeless tobacco product in Edmonton. To first disclose my interests, or lack thereof, I make note that I am not, nor have I ever been, employed by or have ever held any financial interests in any tobacco-related industry. I write this letter as a scientist with the intention of hopefully informing the Canadian public on this issue.
Let me first say that I abhor smoking. The list of evils one can associate with this activity is long and well known. I have lost family to smoking related cancer and would wish such suffering on no human being. That said, I feel compelled to point out the misinformation and lack of information contained in Dr. Els' letter. I would really expect a physician to be better informed on the matter.
The first key point which must be raised is the fundamental hazards as relates to tobacco. Nicotine, according to the available medical literature, is not in and of itself a known carcinogen. It is an alkaloid, a broad family of chemicals which contains things like caffeine, codeine, quinine, and many others. The carcinogenic properties of cigarettes derive largely from its means of delivery - namely, cigarette smoke.
Popular North American oral tobacco products like Skoal and Copenhagen are also known to be carcinogenic, contributing primarily to cancers of the gastrointestinal system. In these cases it is the processing of the tobacco which produces the carcinogens. These types of oral tobacco product are cured or fermented, a process which alters the flavour of the tobacco, but also gives rise to the production of a family of chemicals known as Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs). It is these chemicals which are dangerous to human health.
The new product being introduced by Imperial Tobacco, snus, is of Scandinavian origin. Produced primarily in Sweden, snus processing is entirely different to tobacco products we are familiar with in North America. Snus is produced using a pasteurization process which results in dramatically lower levels of TSNAs in the finished product. This secret has been long known to the Swedes who, despite having a similar level of tobacco consumption per capita as the rest of Europe, has much lower levels of tobacco-related disease. The Swedish medical community has studied snus for many years now and have found little if any significant correlation between the use of snus and an increase in the incidence of gastrointestinal cancers. This is a dramatically safer tobacco product than anything North Americans are used to seeing.
Dr. Els suggests that there is little evidence that snus would help smokers quit, but there is a wealth of evidence in Sweden to suggest otherwise. Among adult males, Sweden has Europe's highest per-capita consumption of smokeless tobacco (in the form of snus), the lowest cigarette consumption, lowest lung cancer mortality rate, is among the lowest for oral cancer mortality, and has the lowest percentage of smoking-related deaths in the developed world. A substantial peer-reviewed body of medical literature supports the conclusion that snus is directly responsible for this outstanding health record.
I think we have simply heard for so many years that tobacco in all its forms is evil that we have perhaps closed our minds to the possibility that this statement may not be correct. I implore Dr. Els and his colleagues to properly research the issue before making blanket statements which are demonstrably incorrect. Subjectively, I know a great deal of people, myself included, who have quit smoking by switching to snus with little to no effort. More than just quitting, the overwhelming majority of people I have met who have switched to snus find it to be such an appealing product that they greatly prefer it over smoking and have shown no desire whatsoever to go back to cigarettes. The Swedish statistics seem to support this view.
The reality of the situation is that no effort of government, lobbyists, health professionals, or any other group or product in any country has been as successful in helping people quit smoking and reducing the incidence of deadly cancers as snus has done in Sweden. Certainly it is not an entirely harmless product, but neither is a cup of coffee. I think we have to direct our concerns logically in this instance, and to ignore the potential for snus to bring about real, positive change in the health of tobacco consuming Canadians is undeniable. Quitting tobacco use altogether is certainly preferable, but arguing that harm-reduction is not a viable solution is no different than arguing against condoms in favour of abstinence. It is naive and simply unrealistic. To pass up this incredible opportunity in an illogical and reactionary adherence to an outdated ideology does a disservice to Canadian smokers everywhere.
In closing, it remains to be seen whether Imperial Tobacco's product will uphold the high standards set by its Swedish counterparts. I would implore the Canadian medical community to perform their own studies and to press the tobacco companies to make their products as safe as possible. With cigarettes this was simply not possible, but with snus there is a real opportunity for the medical community to offer a positive contribution to making these products safer.
Anyhow, here's the letter:
To the Editor,
I write in response to the criticisms voiced by Dr. Els, Dr. Campbell, and Robert Walsh [big guns in the anti-tobacco lobby] with respect to Imperial Tobacco's test marketing of a new smokeless tobacco product in Edmonton. To first disclose my interests, or lack thereof, I make note that I am not, nor have I ever been, employed by or have ever held any financial interests in any tobacco-related industry. I write this letter as a scientist with the intention of hopefully informing the Canadian public on this issue.
Let me first say that I abhor smoking. The list of evils one can associate with this activity is long and well known. I have lost family to smoking related cancer and would wish such suffering on no human being. That said, I feel compelled to point out the misinformation and lack of information contained in Dr. Els' letter. I would really expect a physician to be better informed on the matter.
The first key point which must be raised is the fundamental hazards as relates to tobacco. Nicotine, according to the available medical literature, is not in and of itself a known carcinogen. It is an alkaloid, a broad family of chemicals which contains things like caffeine, codeine, quinine, and many others. The carcinogenic properties of cigarettes derive largely from its means of delivery - namely, cigarette smoke.
Popular North American oral tobacco products like Skoal and Copenhagen are also known to be carcinogenic, contributing primarily to cancers of the gastrointestinal system. In these cases it is the processing of the tobacco which produces the carcinogens. These types of oral tobacco product are cured or fermented, a process which alters the flavour of the tobacco, but also gives rise to the production of a family of chemicals known as Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs). It is these chemicals which are dangerous to human health.
The new product being introduced by Imperial Tobacco, snus, is of Scandinavian origin. Produced primarily in Sweden, snus processing is entirely different to tobacco products we are familiar with in North America. Snus is produced using a pasteurization process which results in dramatically lower levels of TSNAs in the finished product. This secret has been long known to the Swedes who, despite having a similar level of tobacco consumption per capita as the rest of Europe, has much lower levels of tobacco-related disease. The Swedish medical community has studied snus for many years now and have found little if any significant correlation between the use of snus and an increase in the incidence of gastrointestinal cancers. This is a dramatically safer tobacco product than anything North Americans are used to seeing.
Dr. Els suggests that there is little evidence that snus would help smokers quit, but there is a wealth of evidence in Sweden to suggest otherwise. Among adult males, Sweden has Europe's highest per-capita consumption of smokeless tobacco (in the form of snus), the lowest cigarette consumption, lowest lung cancer mortality rate, is among the lowest for oral cancer mortality, and has the lowest percentage of smoking-related deaths in the developed world. A substantial peer-reviewed body of medical literature supports the conclusion that snus is directly responsible for this outstanding health record.
I think we have simply heard for so many years that tobacco in all its forms is evil that we have perhaps closed our minds to the possibility that this statement may not be correct. I implore Dr. Els and his colleagues to properly research the issue before making blanket statements which are demonstrably incorrect. Subjectively, I know a great deal of people, myself included, who have quit smoking by switching to snus with little to no effort. More than just quitting, the overwhelming majority of people I have met who have switched to snus find it to be such an appealing product that they greatly prefer it over smoking and have shown no desire whatsoever to go back to cigarettes. The Swedish statistics seem to support this view.
The reality of the situation is that no effort of government, lobbyists, health professionals, or any other group or product in any country has been as successful in helping people quit smoking and reducing the incidence of deadly cancers as snus has done in Sweden. Certainly it is not an entirely harmless product, but neither is a cup of coffee. I think we have to direct our concerns logically in this instance, and to ignore the potential for snus to bring about real, positive change in the health of tobacco consuming Canadians is undeniable. Quitting tobacco use altogether is certainly preferable, but arguing that harm-reduction is not a viable solution is no different than arguing against condoms in favour of abstinence. It is naive and simply unrealistic. To pass up this incredible opportunity in an illogical and reactionary adherence to an outdated ideology does a disservice to Canadian smokers everywhere.
In closing, it remains to be seen whether Imperial Tobacco's product will uphold the high standards set by its Swedish counterparts. I would implore the Canadian medical community to perform their own studies and to press the tobacco companies to make their products as safe as possible. With cigarettes this was simply not possible, but with snus there is a real opportunity for the medical community to offer a positive contribution to making these products safer.
Comment