The FDA’s decision to allow information on the relative risks of certain nicotine pouches raises a broader issue than just marketing. If the aim is to reduce smoking, adult smokers must also be given accurate information about the difference between cigarettes and smoke-free alternatives, writes Samuel Lundell, chairman of the Swedish Snus Users’ Association.
DEBATE. For a long time, the Swedish debate on nicotine has treated all products almost as if the risks were the same. Cigarettes, snus, white snus and other smoke-free alternatives are often lumped together in the same discussion. This is despite the fact that there are major differences between products that rely on combustion and those that do not.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now taking a welcome initiative.
For the first time, the FDA has authorised certain types of white snus to inform consumers that switching completely from cigarettes reduces the risk of several serious diseases.
This does not mean that nicotine products are risk-free. But it does mean that one of the world’s most influential health authorities recognises an important principle: that people have the right to accurate information about relative risks.
That principle should go without saying in Sweden too.
Because if the aim is to reduce the number of people who smoke, we need to have the courage to talk about the differences between the various options. Someone who smokes and is unable to give up nicotine needs different information to someone who has never used nicotine.
The Swedes also seem to agree. In a recent survey by Demoskop, commissioned by the Swedish Snus Users’ Association, 55 per cent said that consumers should have the right to information about the fact that certain tobacco and nicotine products pose lower health risks than others. Only 23 per cent disagreed.
This shows that many Swedes already understand something that the public health debate sometimes overlooks. There is a difference between reducing nicotine use and reducing the harm caused by nicotine use.
Sweden has become an international role model by having the lowest proportion of smokers in Europe and, according to the WHO’s definition, is now classified as a smoke-free country. One key reason that is often highlighted is that Swedish smokers have had greater access to snus than smokers in other countries.
Nevertheless, our own risk communication here in Sweden is still reluctant to speak openly about these differences.
There is no need to copy the FDA’s decision word for word. But Sweden should at least have the courage to ask the same question. Are we really helping smokers to make better decisions by failing to present the full picture? Telling the truth about risks is not marketing. It is a prerequisite for people to be able to make informed and healthier choices.
Samuel Lundell
Chair of the National Association of Snus Users
