The corrupt EU

[sharesnusinfo!]

Read this (In Swedish tho) very interesting article of snus in EU and the danger of smoking:

http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt...er_7343264.svd

[Bigblue1]

google translator says this: And cannot differentiate between snus and snuff so read snuff as snus..... Other than that the translation is pretty coherent....

EU turns a blind eye to snuff to replace cigarettes


Sweden smoke the least and sniffs the most, and thus has the lowest proportion of tobacco-related disease. Despite these facts, the EU continues to ban snus. The attitude is cynical. A review of European decision-makers' contacts with the manufacturers of nicotine replacement therapy would be appropriate. This was written by Professor Robert Nilsson.


July 16th, 2012 at 14:19, Updated: July 16, 2012 at 15:05
FOCUS | SNUFF IN THE EU


The choice should be easy between smoking serious complications and snuff marginal risks.
Robert Nilsson
The new EU Tobacco Directive will not allow Swedish snus. The question now is how far its institutions, supported by DG Health and Consumer Protection (SANCO), are prepared to go to cover up the state of scientific knowledge and thus save their face.
Sweden has failed to make the obvious connection between low number of smokers, reduced mortality from lung cancer and chronic lung disease, and high proportion of snus users clearly. Thus we are forced to suffer through yet another lost decade - until the next review - and, at worst, witness seven million new victims of rökepidemin only within the EU.


Sweden stands out with a low percentage of smokers - far less than 13 percent - well ahead of runners-up Portugal and Slovakia and 23 percent. In several other countries in South and Central Europe, the proportion of smokers catastrophically higher. Within the EU, the average proportion of smokers among the population 28 percent, compared to 29 percent in 2009. A measly percentage point reduction after 3 years of expensive anti-smoking campaigns, tax increases, hidden sales and a steady stream of innovative and stronger nicotine replacement therapy in increasing audience ratings flavors like pineapple, raspberry and mint. The old snuff country Finland has increased the number of smokers by 4 percent, the ban on production of tobacco in stores in spite. Today, smoke more than the country's accession to EU, which banned snus.




Prior to snuff or may not be even discussed, it is important to understand that cigarette and its ill effects is the normal state in Europe. Under the EU's own statistics from May 2012 harvests smoking 695 000 European lives every year. These are all familiar with, but still adds an unholy alliance of European officials, politicians, and some scientists down the tremendous force of the prohibition on the Swedish snus, while the cigarette is free from any restriction of trade.


As with many foods contain snuff carcinogenic substances, but we classify, for example, corn, peanuts, Brazil nuts and figs as a carcinogen when they contain small amounts of aflatoxin, one of the most potent carcinogens known to science.


The so-called tobacco-specific nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from a health perspective the most potentially troublesome substances in tobacco. Therefore, it is more appalling, that the EU allows other smokeless tobacco products as nasal snuff ("snus"). A recent analysis of a large number of such smokeless tobacco products shows that in comparison with the Swedish snus may contain more than 30 times as high levels of nitrosamines and up to 400 times higher levels of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon benzo (a) pyrene. These commodities are not trivial, and can be purchased anywhere in the EU, and they are exported everywhere in the name of free trade.


One might think that a price nasal snuff may not be as dangerous as a serving of plain snuff placed under the upper lip. This is completely wrong. Nitrosamines and nicotine from nasal snuff is taken up efficiently in the nasal mucosa and nicotine content in the blood of a van "smell snuff" can was as high as that of a heavy smoker.


In hopes of getting a scientific support for their branding of snuff, added Sanco in late 2005, a team of experts to assess the health risks of smokeless tobacco. The only cancer that this expert could point to, was a shaky statistical association between snus and cancer of the pancreas. Furthermore, it was said, that there is an increased risk of fatal heart attacks among snus users. Recent research results have not confirmed these ill-informed conclusions.


Well to note, was Sancos working not comment on the degree of risk. In this case, it's become quite clear that the risk of cancer was up to 1000 higher in smokers than among users of Swedish snus. The summary, written together by Sanco bureaucracy, nor did justice to the report's subject matter on several important points.


How could things go so wrong with that in the EU Commission? In the U.S. federal government decisions are brought to federal court even in technical matters relating to risk assessment. In one case up to the Supreme Court. For this reason it has been necessary to develop logical decision based on sound scientific principles. While the new independent European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) makes use of modern rational methods of risk assessment similar to those found at the U.S. government is Sancos risk assessments are often subject to all manner of arbitrariness and extraneous political interference. Certainly deliverables many factual investigations also on behalf of this Directorate, but the conclusions then drawn, and the reasoning behind the decisions are shrouded in mystery in the corridors of power. Eurocracy do not need to justify their decisions.


All nicotine-containing products are addictive, but this applies to some extent, the nicotine preparations in pharmacies. Snuff is not the answer for those who want to be free from nicotine addiction. But the choice should be easy between smoking serious complications and snuff marginal risks.


The atmosphere gets worked up when tobacco is discussed. Seemingly obvious scientific criteria as an actual hazard weighed against the real risk of loss in values, private morality, and unrealistic ideas about the tobacco industry duperande influence.


As to undue influence can be noted that while each member of the Sancos workgroup was asked to supply detailed information about their possible links with the tobacco industry, where you really are not interested in the corresponding information on close contacts with the manufacturers of nicotine replacement therapy. Nicotine preparations is worth billions, and snuff is seen naturally in parts of the pharmaceutical industry as an unwelcome rival.


Sweden smoke the least and most snuff. We have thus the lowest proportion of tobacco-related disease. It is with these facts in the back that the EU continues cementing ban on snus. Particularly cynical appears the EU's attitude towards the millions of smokers in the poor former Eastern Bloc countries who can not afford the drug industry's nicotine products.


ROBERT NILSSON


Professor Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Viterbo, Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Vinca, Belgrade, Stockholm University

[Snusdog]

Good article

Thanks Jimmy and Blue

Hopefully, the outcry will gain some momentum and attention

The anti-tobacco zealots have over stepped.......and now ironically........are costing lives and promoting the ill health of the greater population

[alexdal]

this article should be given to all journalist.

In Europe maybe 0.5% know what is snus or snuff or other smokeless tobacco form.

[Frosted]

It feels like pissing in the wind.