Talk:Snus

Archives (Index)

2013 2015 2018 2019 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Source funded by the tobacco industry

This article includes the following web page as a source: http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org (added as a source back in 2013). The main author of this source is listed as "Carl V. Phillips". The page says that he "works as a consultant and advisor for various organizations and companies involved with tobacco harm reduction". Digging a little further, many of the articles written by this author (e.g. 1, 2, 3) are funded by the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company, a subsidiary of Altria (formerly Philip Morris), and one of the largest manufacturers of smokeless tobacco.

Furthermore, TobaccoTactics (a research project of University of Bath) has identified Carl V. Phillips as having received financial backing from the tobacco industry: https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/carl-v-phillips/.

I believe this source should be removed as per WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SPONSORED. – Mandelbr0t (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, not a good source.

However, it was used as a source for a bad paragraph in general, so I simply removed the myth and rephrased the paragraph. Wikipedia isn't Snoopes, it's an encyclopedia. KristofferR (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The whole article has a broadly pro-snus tone to it, which suggests there may have been some COI editing. --Ef80 (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ef80 As opposed to "anti-snus"? In the "Health Effects" section, citation 2 reports contradictory results within the very study itself, variously reporting no cancer risk or increased cancer-specific mortality, yet it is confidently asserted snus use is a risk factor for these various illnesses tied to that citation. Significantly, the authors state that snus use "probably increases" risk of esophageal and pancreatic cancer, and "may increase the risk" of other cancers. They are obviously uncertain of their results, but if I didn't read the study, I would come to the conclusion that snus use must increase the risk of these cancers.

Citation 3 is an analysis of various smokeless tobacco products as opposed to only snus. I quote, There appears to be some difference in this effect based on the type of SLT product used. The authors use a "snus/snuff" category, whatever that means. Snus is uniquely produced compared to any other form of snuff. And curiously, the authors cite controlling for smoking, but nothing else. Exercise levels? Diet? Alcohol consumption? Family history? Nothing is mentioned about them in what is freely available of the study.

Citation 4 says nothing about its results in the abstract, nor does it specify an analysis of snus specifically, and there's no telling what it says without paid access to the article.

There is a transparent lack of rigor in assessing the health risks of various tobacco and nicotine products on this website insofar as it regards claims of positive or neutral effects, as opposed to negative, and this article is no different. But surely there is no bias against these products here that should be accounted for, and any source that claims otherwise must be dismissed as "COI editing" on account of its funding, with no impartial assessment of the actual citation, right? Clarissa Richardson (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I seem to have touched a nerve. --Ef80 (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove "Creative use" section?

The section about creative use feels really out of place, just like vodka tampons would, if we had added a "Creative use" section on the Vodka article. In my mind it conflicts with several notability requirements, like WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:SUSTAINED etc.

Most importantly of all, it just feels stupid, and cheapens the article quality to include the latest teenager scandal of some Danish tabloids. KristofferR (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Health risks

Parts of this section, which has a warning label, are muddled and have little to do with the subject of the article. I've tried editing it. Material cut appears below. Chrismorey (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Reduced smoking is not something unique in the United States, but rather a global trend that is most likely due to a greater awareness of the harmful health effects that smoking comes with. However, the United States is not a heavy smoking nation, but there are other countries that have significantly more problems with a large proportion of the population using cigarettes. Most are found in Europe, where The big problem with smoking in Europe is something that

• Someone came in a couple of years ago and insisted on radically expanding the "dangers" section, ignoring 200 studies showing the risks are minimal, and instead lumping snus with American dipping tobacco. I just stepped back knowing they would get bored eventually. The majority of the prose should be on the product and history, not dangers. Obviously snus has risks (pancreatic cancer in particular) but the risks are a fraction of a fraction of other tobacco products, and really, we should be presenting the studies that demonstrate this instead of generalized "tobacco is bad" stuff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Studies on snus

"Snus users had lower systolic blood pressure than tobacco nonusers in the unadjusted data." Do we really want this in an encyclopedia? If it is unajusted, it does not mean much. In general, I feel the article should rely more on reviews and healthcare recommendations than single studies, per WP:SECONDARY. Ffaffff (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I will remove that bit then. Ffaffff (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Upperdecky

Upperdecky is common name 2600:1017:B01F:1063:C571:CF2:893B:4556 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)