Doctors say that smokers should switch to Swedish snus in order to evade

the risk of getting cancer from smoking. That is what was told in an article
online a few days ago in the Lancet. Snus is a smokeless tobacco that has
a way lower risk of getting you cancer as compared to smoking.

Found out in the nation of free snus Sweden was that the risk of
protracting cancer from the use of tobacco was a whole ten times less
should you be using snus instead of cigarettes.

Why Sweden? In this case it is because of the ban on snus sales in the rest
of EU and the not so banned use of it in Sweden being the one country
with the highest number of snus users and also the highest number of
people not getting lung cancer using tobacco products in the entirety of
the whole European Union! Now things are quite different in the US with
smoke-less tobacco being sold without any of the restrictions placed upon
it within the European Union and with active sales going in right now, what
with Swedish snus being superior and all…

"We should not delay in allowing snus to compete with cigarettes for
market share," Dr. Jonathan Foulds of the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey and Dr. Lynn Kozlowski of the University of Buffalo
said in analyzing two studies published in The Lancet.
"The banning or exaggerated opposition to snus in cigarette-rife
environments is not sound public health policy," they wrote.

The studies that were made were done from the data gathered from
280,000 people, over a 20 year period of time, that were using snus in
Sweden and the data were then projected onto the nation of Australia
were snus is at the present not allowed for in any way whatsoever. The
health consequences that were made out from this study made it quite
clear what was the cause of the lesser amounts of cancer cases in the
Australian populace.

What you will be told from the producers of the Swedish snus is that part
of the production is solely dedicated towards the eradication of the
possible carcinogens from the end product. However there are still more
than 30 unique compounds that are recognized as being carcinogens and
in so making it far from the perfectly harmless product still. In 2004, the
Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice upheld a ban on the product
saying that snus was to dangerous to be used because of these
ingredients. However still there is none of the consideration being made as
to the data and the projections that were to be taught from the two
studies made herein. In fact there has been no mention yet of these hard
data studies and the true bearings as to why snus is the substance that is
banned as opposed to cigarettes.
International researchers followed 279,897 male Swedish construction
workers from 1978 to 1992. About 26 percent were snus users, 37 percent
were smokers and the rest never used tobacco.
For smokers, the incidence rate of pancreatic cancer was 13 cases per
100,000. That rate dropped to 8.8 cases per 100,000 for snus users.
Among those who did not use tobacco, the rate was 3.9 cases per
100,000.

From the studies you could also find that the incidence of oral cancer was
less in those that used the snus in the place of cigarettes though there still
was the occurrence of mouth lesions due to the placement of the snus in
its place below the upper lip. Also there was mention of the effects that
the substance may have on pregnancies and in complicating heart
situations further for those that have a challenged cardiovascular
situation. It was clear from the modeling study that in case the ban was
lifted that there would be a direct improvement upon the general health
situation should the snus be available and the effects would be great
enough to improve the total health situation even when added in those
that would start anew with snus since the effects of smoking on health are
so vast as compared to those from choosing snus.

In Sweden already there is a situation that is highly favorable to the health

of the general population with one of the lowest smoking rates over the
globe with less than 20% of the population being smokers with a switch
from cigarettes onto snus. The health advantages being obvious and a
choice that is humane made available it is only to look to the Swedes for
all your hesitancies to stand still. Snus is from the studies the one
denominator made available to tackle the horrible issue that is smoking.

"As with all tobacco products, snus is not completely risk-free," said Jean
King, director of tobacco control at Cancer Research UK. King, who was not
connected to either study, said that while snus could help smokers quit, it
would be important to prevent snus from being adopted by new users.

However he is not the only one to draw other conclusions from it alone…

"For a smoker, quitting all tobacco use is best, but failing that, switching to
snus is a good idea," said Dr. Peter Hajek, professor of clinical psychology
at Queen Mary University Hospital in London. Hajek was not involved in
either study.
"If a sufficient proportion of smokers switched to snus, lifting the ban could
be in the public interest," Hajek said.

So there you have it already, two things that you should consider and think
about, one thing that you know, snus will decrease deaths and give
smokers a second lease on their lives that they might have not otherwise
have had readily available to them. Should smokers then not be given the
chance to quit and the chance to live life anew with snus as an option?

Source:
Affiliations

a. School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Herston,

Queensland, Australia
Correspondence to: Prof Wayne Hall, Public Health Building, University of
Queensland, Herston Road, Herston QLD 4006, Australia

Swedish Snus Much Safer Than Smoking But Linked To Pancreatic Cancer
Main Category: Smoking / Quit Smoking News
Article Date: 10 May 2007 - 12:00 PDT
| email to a friend | printer friendly | view or write opinions |
Article Also Appears In
• Cancer / Oncology
• Alcohol / Addiction / Illegal Drugs

rate this article

Swedish "snus" - an oral, smoke free tobacco - has proven much less
harmful to health than conventional smoking tobacco. Snus causes no
increased risk for lung or mouth cancer for never-smokers and could
produce a net health benefit to the population if smokers switched to
using it. But users of snus are twice as likely to contract pancreatic cancer
than never-smokers. The findings are revealed in two Articles published
early Online and in an upcoming edition of The Lancet.

In the first Article, Dr Coral Gartner, School of Population Health, University

of Queensland, Australia and colleagues assessed the potential population
health effects of snus in Australia to estimate the difference in life
expectancy between never-smokers and those with varying scales of
tobacco use, including switching from tobacco to snus.

They found little difference in health adjusted life expectancy between

smokers who quit all tobacco and smokers who switch to snus.

The authors conclude: "Current smokers who switch to snus rather than
continuing to smoke can realise substantial health gains. Snus could
produce a net benefit to health at the population level if it is adopted in
sufficient numbers by inveterate smokers.

"Relaxing current restrictions on the sale of snus is more likely to produce

a net benefit than harm, with the size of the benefit dependent on how
many inveterate smokers switch to snus."
In the second Article, Dr Olof Nyrén, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Karolinska
Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden and colleagues studied around 280 000
Swedish construction workers tobacco consumption habits from 1978 to
1992, and then followed them up until 2004.

They found no increased risk of lung or oral cancer in snus users

compared to never-smokers, but did find that snus users were around
twice as likely to contract pancreatic cancer than never-smokers. But
smokers were still more likely to contract pancreatic cancer than snus
users.

The authors say: "Our finding is at odds with the perception that use of
Swedish moist snus has no demonstrable carcinogenic risk.

"If valid, it will have important public health implications, since snus has
been proposed as a way to reduce harm in nicotine addicts."

In an accompanying Comment, Dr Jonathan Foulds, Tobacco Dependence

Program, University of Medicine and Dentistry, New Jersey School of Public
Health, USA, says: "The papers in The Lancet, when added to mounting
epidemiological evidence, indicate that we should not delay in allowing
snus to compete with cigarettes for market share, and we should be
prepared to accurately inform smokers about the relative risks of
cigarettes, snus, and approved smoking-cessation medications.

"In light of all the available evidence, the banning or exaggerated

opposition to snus in cigarette-rife environments is not sound public health
policy."

www.lancet.com