LEADER. When Benjamin Dousa defended the government's action on nicotine pouches in the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the focus returned to the issue of Sweden's low smoking rate. But the real question remains unanswered: why does the Public Health Agency of Sweden seem more interested in dismissing certain explanations for smoking in Sweden than in investigating them?
Vejpkollen's editor-in-chief writes about trust, knowledge and a debate where some answers seem to be more authorised than others.
- This is an opinion piece. Do you think differently? Please comment or contact the editorial team for replica!-
The Public Health Agency of Sweden claims that there is no evidence that snus, nicotine pouches or e-cigarettes have contributed to the sharp decline in smoking in Sweden.
This is a reasonable objection in itself. Correlation is not causation.
But then, of course, another question arises: why does the authority seem so totally uninterested in finding out whether there is actually a connection?
Clear signs - no investigation
Sweden currently has the lowest smoking rate in Europe. At the same time, the use of smokeless nicotine products has increased significantly. Nicotine use as a whole, however, has remained at about the same level since 2019. Whether this is related or not, we don't know for sure.
But the strange thing is that our public health authorities seem to be more concerned with dismissing this hypothesis than with trying to investigate and analyse it.
This is where the issue stops being about nicotine and starts being about trust.
Some opinions not allowed?
In recent weeks, several Swedish politicians have had to defend themselves before the Constitutional Affairs Committee after highlighting the possible role of snus and nicotine pouches in Sweden's low smoking rate. The politicians have been accused of doing the bidding of the tobacco industry. Researchers, debaters and organisations arguing along the same lines often face similar accusations.
It is difficult not to get the impression that some conclusions are more authorised than others.
No evidence - just opinion
Those who claim that smoking bans, tax increases or information campaigns have contributed to the reduction in smoking are rarely confronted with the same type of evidence as those who point to snus, nicotine pouches or vejpning. Although these arguments are also largely based on correlations and interpretations.
The result is a strange public dialogue where the question is no longer about what actually happened, but about what explanations are considered acceptable.
The user perspective must be valued
For those who have met people who have switched from cigarettes to snus, nicotine pouches or e-cigarettes, this seems strange. Hundreds of thousands of Swedes testify that they left smoking behind with the help of smoke-free alternatives. If their experiences are not enough evidence, that is perfectly reasonable. But they should at least be interesting enough to be investigated.
Instead, they are often dismissed as anecdotes, hearsay or industry propaganda.
Can we trust the Public Health Agency?
That is where the issue of trust arises.
Because when an authority seems more interested in defending an established explanatory model than testing alternative hypotheses, people start to wonder what's really going on.
And when people stop trusting authorities to actually seek answers to uncomfortable questions, the consequences are far more serious than the outcome of a single research debate.
