Talk:Snus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are some tasks you can do:

Copyedit: Parse for readability by a general audience (i.e. not just scientists or researchers)
Verify: Everything ;) And cite sources where needed.
Expand: Find any and all peer-reviewed studies and link to an abstract, and state if the full text is available

[edit] Content for inclusion?

Should there perhaps be a mention of the littering problem associated with snus? I don't know about Sweden, but here in Norway you can find the empty cans and used pris'es littering just about anywhere. Zuiram 03:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the addition of whisky or rum to loose snus for added taste might also be added, but I don't have a good source for this. The local tobacco specialist offers it, at no added charge, though. Zuiram 03:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why has Camel Snus and the Taboka snus, both the very first American versions of snus and cited by verifiable sources, been removed? deronde

I was about to add Camel to the list after recieving something in the mail from them advertising their Snus. Can someone offer a good reason why it should not be included? I don't believe it's in stores yet but they do manufacture it. DraxusD 20:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I almost think there should be a new section for the American brands, now that we have Taboka, Marlboro Snus and Camel Snus on the market. Since Taboka redirects to Snus, there should definitely at least be a clear explanation of why it's considered Snus since they don't call it snus on the packaging or marketing for the product. Allen p 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate among Public Health researchers

Hi, all. Just added this section, among a couple smaller edits and two additional links. I'm a new Wikipedia author, and tried to keep it NPOV, but I welcome any edits for clarity and neutrality. As a recent convert from cigarettes to snus who orders it from Sweden for shipment to the US, I want to make sure that the research, which shows that Snus is a viable and safer (and less stinky) alternative to smoking, is available to those who seek it. I will also attempt to find and add any references to resarch which opposes these findings. --NightMonkey 07:20, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Why is this article at Snus? Is this really a more commonly-known name for Snuff? Rick K 21:24, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Snus is also known as Makla in North-Africa and is consumed there since about two centuries or more. I'm afraid that the "myth" of the broken glass in the snus could be true for some Makla, although definitive information is hard to find and concerne perhaps local quasi home made products. The most famous Belgo-African snus is Makla Ifrikia. It is freely abailable in many tobacco shops in Belgium, although the less dangerous, with respect to the level of nitrosamine, swedish product is not BruMar (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why snus?

While Snus is often referred to as snuff, it goes through a very different manufacturing process than, say, American chewing tobacco (Mail Pouch) or American snuff (like Copenhagen, Skoal, et al). And since this is a process crafted by the Swedes, they get the right to name this form of tobacco... Also significant is the research indiciating a significant and favorable difference in cancer rates and other tobacco-related health effects in snus, which are still present in other forms of tobacco, including other forms of snuff. --NightMonkey 18:59, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Then it is NOT sometimes called snuff, and I will delete that. Rick K 19:15, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it _is_ sometimes called snuff, generally outside Sweden. It's more that it is considered a form of snuff, rather than the only snuff (or the Swedish word for snuff). I do believe that it is a bit confusing for non-Swedish readers, since snuff is most often associated with tobacco that is snorted, rather than this form which is used more like chewing tobacco. Also, historically, Swedish snus was, in the 18th and 19th centuries, snorted, IIRC, which only adds to the confusion. --NightMonkey 23:44, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that "snus" is consumed in North Africa since more than two centuries, but also in South Europa under the name of MAKLA. The most famous brand is Makla Ifrikia, currently produced and sold by a Belgian Company (sifaco benelux) in a (rather cute) gray metallic can (20g). It seems utterly weird that the European Union refuses the selling of the swedish snus in Europa by pretexting not to introduce new addictive products, given that makla has always been sold and consumed in many European countries since a very long time. BruMar (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health warnings

I lived in sweden for a while and on my packets of snus that I bought, most of them had a warning stating 'this tobacco product can harm your health and is addictive' (in swedish, obviously). I asked a friend of mine about the indirect wording on it and he said that they used to say that snus caused cancer but they had to change it because some study couldn't prove it did cause cancer. Has anyone else heard about this? zaius 15:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have heard the story, too, though I have no idea if it's true or not...

Yes, it's true. The same thing happened in Norway too. Norwegian scientists haven't documented one single case of cancer because of snus. An Norwegian article about this: http://www.lommelegen.no/art/art847.asp

Yeah, see the quote i put in at tobacco#snus. Theoretically, it must be causing some cases, since the carcinogen level is still higher than zero, but there is a limit to how low an additional rate of cancer we can detect versus all the other causes. according to the state of massachusetts, the concentration in snus is 40 times lower than in American chewing tobacco (see my edits to the same article)Gzuckier 03:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS, I forgot to mention that (according to the studies, I wouldn't personally know) snus use is not popular among women, and as a result, the tobacco-related death rate in Swedish women is the same as that in Europe in general, while the rate in men is much lower than in European men. Gzuckier 15:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although it's hard for scientists to prove that snus can cause cancer, it's quite usual that the snus acts corrosive under the lip. If you are an avid user of snus then you might have to change side now and then. And btw as of today, nothing has been changed on the packets of snus. I'm a Swede btw. =) --84.217.14.48 00:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, the nicotine itself is probably responsible for that; but it's not a carcinogen, that's mainly the nitrosamines which result from heating proteins in the absence of oxygen, i.e. smoldering tobacco in cigarettes, firecuring American style snuff, and, of course, frying meat on a flat hot surface instead of "flame-broiling" it on an open grill. (although there is evidence that any repeated long term irritation, especially to tissue which is primed for growth/repair anyway, like the inside of the mouth, can be carcinogenic; like all the asbestos problems, for instance) Gzuckier 15:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

this snus lack of carcinogenicity was also reported in (i think it was the new york times but I can't find it online now) last week. i put some stuff re this in the tobacco#snus article; I think this article and that should be merged, with the detail of the relatively benign health effects coming over here linked from a mention, and the rest of the snus stuff over there. I'll do it eventually if nobody else wants to. the eventual snus/health article should be linked from the other tobacco/health articles too. this is interesting stuff. Gzuckier 03:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, I have to disagree - I like having a seperate Snus article from Tobacco. I think that the special mentions of the Public Health debates would potentially bloat the Tobacco article, and it is hard enough to underscore the apparent difference between Swedish snus from American snuff. We don't want people to get the impression that _snuff as a whole_ has an apparent lower rate of cancer. Snus developments appear to merit very specifc treatment as compared to other, more "static" articles about Tobacco. --NightMonkey 09:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's leave it status quo. Thanks for the comment. Gzuckier 13:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The health issue isn't really about cancer, it's about snus being extremely harmful for one's mouth. It doesn't say on the box that "snus causes cancer", it says that it's harmful for one's health and of this the doctors agree.

It DID say that snus causes cancer a few years ago, and the comments mentioning that wording are a few years old. 217.208.0.149 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, snus will cause changes in the mouth over time. Your gums will withdraw somewhat from your teeth, and the point where the face above the lip meets the gums (I'm sorry, I have no idea what the right term for this would be) will be raised. Speaking both from experience and from common knowledge (in Norway) here. YMMV, of course. Zuiram 03:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use among women

The article states that ...since women are much less likely to use snus.... It's probably a fact that more men than women use it, but I don't know about "much less likely to". I'm also under the impression, although I don't have any statistics to back it up, that the use among women is increasing. Does anyone have statistics on this? (Entheta 16:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC))

In many circles the use of snuff among women appears to be considered gross- also among women themselves. My friend had to decline a 'pris' offered to him in consideration for his girlfriend. The origin of this notion, however, is totally unknown to me. Personally I find teabag-style snuff much more comfortable than smoking cigarettes, which in my opinion seems to leave an aftertaste far longer. GSchjetne 20:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean snuff or snus? Confusing me :-)

Other than that, I don't see why it is "gross" to use snus - it's far more clean than smoking, and you don't smell like a dead rabbit in your mouth afterwards. But yes, it is true that snus is still seen as something men has more right to do than women - probably related to past views of the whole thing. --80.217.189.168 01:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd wording there from myself, women of course have the same right, but it's not as widely accepted. A man doing it wouldn't raise many eyebrows, if a woman, it might. Also, I too had a girlfriend that got mad if I took a snus while being with her. I understand that, however, as much as I understand not wanting to be with a person that smokes. --80.217.189.168

Some companies have started to segment snus towards women. They are making snus with tastes such as mint, mocca etc. instead of for example general taste or whisky. They also make snus boxes that are designed to look more appealing to women.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.114.252.226 (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC). Yeah. In Sweden at least

some women smoke cigarettes
few men smoke, except at parties
plenty of men use snuff
snuff is seen as more acceptable now than (say) in the 1970s, outside the working classes
"teabag" snuff, when introduced, increased its popularity since it's easier to handle

But as noted above, real statistics is needed. Jgrahn 21:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian snus retailers' statistics state that an increasing number of women have been buying it lately.

However, the number of women using it is still very low. It is generally considered gross by the female population. Some brands (e.g. Mocca), with smaller bags (less visible and less irritating) and more pleasant taste, have been more successful.

Loose snus appears particularly distasteful to them, which makes sense, as the tactile experience is similar to stuffing dirt/soil under your lip. Personally, I found the taste and tactile impression of loose snus superior to that of portion snus when I started using it, but now my taste has changed sufficiently that the "messiness" of the loose snus is no longer worth the difference.

Also, snus does have a distinct smell to it, which some find offensive. And you have to get rid of it somewhere, which involves pulling a saliva-soaked "teabag" or mush out of your mouth, finding some acceptable place to put it, and cleaning your fingers afterwards. Men have a tendency to wipe their fingers on their pants, which I gather women don't like to do, as well as throwing them just about anywhere, which I find offensive myself.

FWIW, I have not seen any women use anything but the smaller versions. And on most womens' faces, the protrusion would be quite noticeable. Zuiram 03:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The myth of the broken glass content

Should there be a mention of the still widely believed (false) myth that snus once upon a time contained small pieces of broken glass in the mixture? - 80.202.123.190 18:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Widely believed? Never heard about it. (Entheta 18:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

ABSOLUTELY FALSE!

The myth where I grew up (in Ohio) is that shredded fiberglass was one of the ingredients in Kodiak, Copenhagen, etc. This supposedly helps the tobacco injest itself into the bloodstream, becoming more addictive. I have heard over the years that this is indeed false.

<sarcastic>Right.. because otherwise, chaw t'baccy is harmless.</sarcastic> (not counting snus, or course) (ps targeted at the myth propagators who are not here to defend themselves, not at the above poster) Gzuckier 19:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was discussing this with some Norwegians and it is still a widely held view that glass fragments were used. I think it should be mentioned in the article.

This is indeed a pretty common myth, see for example this FAQ by GothiaTek: http://www.gothiatek.com/bazment.aspx?page_id=80#bazAnchor_1748 Fuelbottle 12:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that this was a myth. A friend of mine once said that General, a brand of snus, used to contain powdered glass to help create microtears in the gums. If it is a myth, that should be mentioned. If it is something specific to that brand, that should be mentioned too. Zuiram 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Youc an sometimes see what looks like broken glass in snus boxes. I think it's chrystalised somthing. Let's see what I can found out about it. // Liftarn (talk)

That is most likely crystallised salt. 217.208.0.149 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Snus is know as Makla is North-Africa and South Europa. It is a traditional way for Africans to consume tobacco through Makla. About the "myth" of broken glass, I have heard it only about some belgo-african Makla, never about north european or american snus. To protect myself against those broken glass I am used to put the loose makla in piece of tea bag paper. To be sure I have no serious evidence above the way it affects the gums when taken loose. But some swedish snus have a similar, although different effects, some of which persists even with the tea bags. I think I will ask fellow chemists to dig dipper on that question. I have not found evidence such possible silice cristal, perhaps used only for the texture, can be harmful. Open question. BruMar (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] external links?

should't the external links headline be moved up?johan_h 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No. --NightMonkey 01:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

Since we're no longer listing Snus dealers here, would whomever is adding "www.swedish-snus.com" please not do it again? Here's who owns it:

Domain Name: WWW.SWEDISH-SNUS.COM

Registrant:
   Not Applicable
   northerner scandinavia ab        (info@northerner.com)
   hantverksvagen 15
   askim
   vg,43633
   SE
   Tel. +00.4631681991
   Fax. +00.4631681993

Creation Date: 24-Sep-2002
Expiration Date: 24-Sep-2006

Thanks. --NightMonkey 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Seems like we have some vandals here. 213.50.9.50 -> just removed my comments above and replaced them with linkspam. I reverted the edits of my comments. --NightMonkey 11:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture removed

Snus Röda Lacket and Prismaster

I just removed this image, uploaded from an anon IP. Nothing terribly wrong with it (it isn't obscene). It's more aesthetics - 2/3rds of the photo is background, not subject, the flash reflection obscures the name on the snus can, and the prismaster is a bit too dark. --NightMonkey 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links removed

I removed these two links from "General Media Links":

Tobacco Harm Reduction Taking Hold; Reduced Risk Benefits of Swedish Snus Gaining Awareness in American Society, U.S. Newswire, April 24, 2004
Smoking, but not using snus, increases risk of diabetes

The first was a link to a Press Release from Swedish Match (the Swedish tobacco giant). The second was a link to a fake "blog" from "The Swedish Institute" that is fully funded by the Swedish Government. Here's a snippet from it's mission: "...The Swedish Institute (SI) is entrusted with precisely this task: to inform the world about Sweden and to organise exchanges with other countries in the spheres of culture, education, research and public life in general. In performing this task, the Institute seeks to promote Swedish interests. The SI also has special assignments in the field of international development cooperation. Much of our work is undertaken in cooperation with Swedish embassies and consulates-general around the world.

The SI has some 90 members of staff and receives annual government funding of approx. SEK 220 million. The SI Board, which is appointed by the Government, comprises the Director General and representatives of various public sectors."

Sorry, no pres releases (unless novel - i.e. not referencing already publicly available information), and no government propoganda. --NightMonkey 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brands listed, or not?

I just took a look at Cigarettes article, and noticed that, at least when I looked, there were no brands listed there. Should we remove the wikilinks to specific brands? Is that a form of advertising, and thus a no-no? Thanks. --NightMonkey 11:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Brands and manufacturers" list is a mess. Jakob Ljunglöf, Swedish Match and various single brands (most with red Wikilinks) all in the same list. I came upon the snus article whilst trying to clean up after a linkspammer who has been creating sub-par articles for various brands in order to post links there; it seems like the brands list is an invitation to people like that. If specific brands are to be mentioned, which I think they might, it would be better to have a short description of each brand rather than just a list of names. --Bonadea 12:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snus Cancer Link?

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=644&date=20041118

"As if the horrific breath and stained teeth aren’t argument enough to stop, researchers have now sounded a new cancer warning bell about the snus habit. A study carried out by the World Health Organisation and released this week followed 10,000 Norwegians, of whom two-thirds were snus-lovers. The results show that users of the popular chewing tobacco increase their risk of contracting mouth or pancreatic cancer by 67%."

Sounds a little biased to me but is this worth including/following up?

Well... as usual, reality is more messy and prone to puffing up by the media and advocacy organizations. This appears to be the study mentioned, it's the only Norwegian snus pancreatic cancer 10,000 person study I could find, even though it doesn't mention WHO, and the dates match (the date of publication of the study is 2005, the date of the article above is 2004).

Limited data are available on the carcinogenicity of smokeless tobacco products in organs other than the mouth. Snus is a smokeless tobacco product widely used in Norway. We studied 10,136 Norwegian men enrolled since 1966 in a prospective cohort study, 31.7% of whom were exposed to snus. The relative risk of pancreatic cancer for snus use was 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12, 2.50); that of oral and pharyngeal cancer was 1.10 (95% CI = 0.50, 2.41), that of esophageal cancer was 1.40 (95% CI = 0.61, 3.24), and that of stomach cancer was 1.11 (95% CI = 0.83, 1.48). The relative risks of cancers of the lung (either all histological types or adenocarcinoma), urinary bladder and kidney were not increased among snus users. The increase in the relative risk of pancreatic cancer was similar in former and current snus users and was restricted to current tobacco smokers. Our study suggests that smokeless tobacco products may be carcinogenic on the pancreas. Tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines are plausible candidates for the carcinogenicity of smokeless tobacco products in the pancreas.

Speaking skeptically (let me hurriedly state that I am not prosmoking, I would be more than happy if smoking were to disappear from the face of the earth, I am not protobacco or prosnus, I am just in the habit of approaching every scientific paper skeptically and every press release from an advocacy group regarding scientific research super skeptically, even (especially!) those I agree with on principle) the first thing that jumps out is the news statement that "users of the popular chewing tobacco increase their risk of contracting mouth or pancreatic cancer by 67%", which is of course quite false; the research states that they increase the risk of pancreatic cancer by 67%, and the risk of mouth cancer by about 10%, a statistically insignificant amount. (Pancreatic and oral cancers have about the same incidence rates, .01% per year[1]). Next quibble, logically, is that they have not properly corrected for multiple comparisons; the accepted false positive error rate is by convention 5% (thus the references to 95% CI), i.e. you expect to have no more than 1 result erroneously identified as statistically significant out of 20 experiments. But this experiment actually contains numerous measurements; the rates of oral cancer, pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lung cancer, adenocarcinoma lung cancer, bladder cancer, and kidney cancer. That looks to me like 8 measurements, and therefore they have in effect gone from 95% confidence to 1-(8*.05)=60% confidence, which no scientist would consider meaningful. (If you don't follow all that, look up the multiple comparisons article.) Next quibble is the oddity that the effect is only found in smokers; but found in both current snus users and in those who were former users. In other words, even if you quit using snus 50 years ago (this was a 40 year study) but have been smoking since then, you were at risk compared to other 50 year smokers who never ever used snus; but if you have been using snus for 50 years and not smoking, you were not at increased risk over other nonsmokers who never used snus. Makes you wonder what the hell mechanism could snus initiate 50 years ago that would only show up in smokers decades later? On the positive side, however, is evidence (not here, background) that nicotine, which snus delivers a lot of, stimulates cholecystokinin, which stimulates pancreatic growth, which makes the pancreas perhaps more sensitive to snus use compared to the other cancers which are more caused by the nitrosamines created by smoking or flue-curing chewing tobacco, and are not present in snus. So, if you postulate that snus sort of sets the pancreas into a sensitive mode, and the smoking carcinogens later trigger it....?? Anyway, my verdict would be definitely not proved, but still not dismissible as patently ridiculous.

Moving forward, I find this more current overview of the literature, including the study dissected above:

Smokeless Tobacco, Swedish Snus, and Pancreatic Cancer

Megan Dann Fesinmeyer, MPH, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute for Public Health Genetics, University of Washington, Box 357236, 1959 NE Pacific Avenue, Seattle, WA 98195

Objective: The health risks associated with tobacco vary according to the type of tobacco used. Swedish snus, a type of smokeless tobacco (ST) particularly low in carcinogens, has been advocated as a relatively safe product. Although snus and other STs present a lesser lung cancer risk than cigarettes, these products may carry serious, uncharacterized risks. We performed a literature review of studies investigating the association between all types of ST and pancreatic cancer, and identified knowledge gaps that could be targeted by future research.

Methods: We performed a literature search using PubMed from 1966 to 2005 and included published cohort and case-control human studies examining the association between ST (including snus) and pancreatic cancer risk. Four such studies from the United States and two from Norway were identified. In total, these six studies included 1,383 pancreatic cancer cases, although the two Norwegian cohorts shared some subjects.

Results: Three out of six studies found that use of ST increased pancreatic cancer risk, with statistically significant odds ratios ranging from 1.67 to 3.5, although adjustment for potential confounders (smoking, alcohol, age, race) varied. Definitions of ST also varied between studies, including products of differing toxicity such as snus, chewing tobacco, and inhaled snuff. ST exposure in study populations ranged from 1.3% to 19.7%. Much additional work is needed to clarify the association between ST and pancreatic cancer, to elucidate the ST-related etiology of the disease, and to develop strategies to reduce pancreatic cancer risk among tobacco users.

i.e..... definitely not proved, but still not dismissible as patently ridiculous, just like I said. So who wants to write all this into the article? Maybe me! But not today! Gzuckier 18:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the article reflect this debate already, sussinctly and without unnecessary bloat? It mentions "chewing tobacco" as well as "snuff" or "snus", which muddies the waters a bit. If that is a translation issue, we should wait for a better translation. :) --NightMonkey 15:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I mean; it takes longer to add a short succinct summary than it does to just dump a huge amount of text. Gzuckier 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Another study was published in 2007 in the Lancet linking Swedish snus to pancreatic cancer, abstract available here. In regards to the previous comment about the problem of multiple comparisons in the earlier (Boffetta et al.) study, that is a good point. However, there is a biological reason to suspect that snus could cause pancreatic cancer, because snus contains TSNAs which are able to induce pancreatic tumors in lab animals - in fact, TSNAs are the only component of tobacco capable of inducing pancreatic tumors in the lab. So, although Boffetta looked at multiple cancer sites, the Bonferroni correction (dividing the confidence level by the number of comparisons) is overly conservative in this case.

--Pensivefrog 20:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(I cleaned up your comment indentation a bit) Thanks for the info. Your addition to the article, however, doesn't link to the study you link to above (at least, I don't think it does ;) ). The link in the actual article is to a study that appears to only cover TSNA's effects on rats, in general. However, the possible relief from risk that snus may provide is precisely that there is a marked reduction in the level of TSNAs that are present in the tobacco used in Snus (to varying degrees by brand and make) as compared to other preperations. As such, the in-article link may not be appropriately labeled, as it isn't a study of Snus and cancer, per se, but TSNAs and cancer. The link you mention above in your comment, however, does seem germane - that should be added. It is unfortunate that I don't have a subscription to The Lancet to see the full text. ;) --NightMonkey 22:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Algeria link

Just wanted to add that this product is very common in Algeria in as well. They sell it everywhere, on the street, in stores. It used to come in little tin cans but now they sell it in bags. It goes by the name of "Chemma" and walking around any city you will see lots of tin cans of chemma on the ground.

I would love to know more about it. Chewing tobacco (snuff, smokeless tobacco) is manufactured in many places, from Brazil to India, but I think Swedish and Danish snus is very different. Although the actual tobacco comes from Asia, it is fermented and blended locally and unlike other smokeless tobacco produts, snus is very moist. It is also not as aromatic as Indian or Arab stuff. Roobit 00:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there an article on wikipedia about this? When I was staying near Barbés-Roucheouart(?) in paris, i bought some Algerian snuff called "devil under the lip" or something similar/Marxmax 00:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History preserved here

Here's the History that I removed, as it had been tagged "Unverified" for quite some time, and definitely has problems, NPOV-wise and Verifiability-wise.

== History ==

{{Not verified}}Snus came out of snuff which was first used in the year 1560 by the queen of [[France]] ''[[Katarina de Medici]]'' as a cure for headache. [[Jean Nicot]], French ambassador in [[Lissabon]], told her to take tobacco and make it into a powder(dry) and sniff it up her nose. It apparently worked and soon became very popular in the higher society of France. This snuff quickly spread through Europe and the Swedish high society began using it around the year 1640. When Napoleon fell however, the snuff fell out of fashion and people began smoking cigars instead. Around 1790-1800 Swedish farmers began putting the snuff under their lips instead of sniffing it and they produced it themselves. The snus got more and more popular and brands began to pop up. "[[Ettan]]" was the most popular and the biggest brand in 1822. Between 1846 and 1930 a lot of swedish people emigrated to America and so the snus was also seen there and became sort of a trademark for Sweden and Swedish people.

--NightMonkey 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we need verifiable sources, I've put the history here for cleanup, both in terms of grammar and sourcing. No original research, please.

==History==
The history of Swedish tobacco starts around [[1638]], during the [[1700s|1700's]], the main use of tobacco was in [[snuff]]. But it wasn't until the late [[1700s|1700's]] that anything resembling snus as it is known today came into being, due to the style at the time in Sweden of tucking the tobacco under the top lip, in a sort of combination [[snuff]]-[[chewing tobacco]] style. By the [[1820s|1820's]], [[Jacob Fredrik Ljunglöf]] had started to manufacture snus, with the brand name of [[Ettan]].

--NightMonkey 10:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I did source it, at the bottom of the page in references, the two websites that had history of snus on them. What was wrong with them?. J.P.Lon 01:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

A new article, called Snuff (tobacco) was recently started. Merger? --Camptown 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As much as Dipping tobacco should be. Or less so. J.P.Lon 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You shouldnt merge snuff and snus, they are two totally different things, for one snus goes on the gum, snuff up the nose.

Agree, a "see also" at the bottom of the pages should be included though.--Njård 20:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we put this to bed yet? I would have thought this would be a resounding No. J.P.Lon 16:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Removed. --NightMonkey 07:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering the stubby nature of the main snuff article and the fact that the Swedish product is always referred to as "snuff" when translated, I think the articles should be merged. At the very least, a sizable summary of this article should be included in snuff (tobacco). Trying to pretend that the two concepts are entirely unrelated won't make anyone the wiser and seems to be a good example of POV forking (if not a particularly offensive one). Do keep in mind that that snus isn't a modern term and that this very word was (and is still) used to refer to the kind of tobacco which was historically snorted.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a kind of snuff!

Snus simply isn't a kind of snuff. Calling snus snuff is a bad translation, plain and simple. Snuff is a dry, finely ground powder consumed nasally. Snus is a moist, less finely ground material (couldn't be described as powder) put in the mouth temporarily.

I've seen Swedes do some pretty strange things, but snorting a Göteborgs Rapé vit portion isn't one of them.

Although a few Swedes translate "snus" as "snuff", it's a bad translation not used either by Swedes with good English (although all Swedes have what I consider good English, I mean the really good ones) or native English-speakers --- as a native English-speaker living in Sweden, I can personally attest to that fact. Everybody just calls it "snus" in English. It is commonly used as a verb in both languages ("Do you snus?"/"Snusar du?").

Unless there are any objections within a couple of days, I propose to remove the reference to snuff. EmmetCaulfield 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if Swedes who live in Sweden (the overwhelming majority of whom aren't trained translators and, in fact, don't speak "good English") don't translate what they perceive as a uniquely Swedish product into "snuff", doesn't mean that it should dictate the use of the term in this article. If you look up snus in Swedish-English dictionaries, the translation is "snuff"; snusa is "take snuff" and snusdosa is "snuff box". Swedish makes absolutely no linguistic distinction between the type of snuff that is inhaled and the type that is placed under ones upper lip.[2] If you look up the article snus in Nationalencyklopedin, the article covers both the dry and wet types of snuff without any need for finger-wagging warnings about confusing the two. It's very, very obvious that the snuff that goes under your lip is a direct development from the type that goes into your nose. No one denies that Swedish and Norwegian snuff is fairly unique, but please stop patronizing and boring our readers by inserting tedious and overly partial disclaimers about what to call the product.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point you are trying to make, but think you might need to also see that English speakers use the term "snus" to refer to specifically the smokeless tobacco marketed as "snus" in Sweden and Norway that is meant for oral use. I reverted that edit, however if you have English well-sourced articles to confirm your point of view, I'd accept it. ~~However, I reverted the deletion of the paragraph on second-hand smoke and the lack thereof as well - you don't mention why you deleted that one, and don't see a valid reason on it's face.~~ Edit: I see that I misread the diff, sorry. Cheers! --NightMonkey 23:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making a point, I'm saying the article appears to be pretty misleading. English speakers seem to be calling this type of snuff (or whatever) dipping tobacco. As for providing sources that snus translates to "snuff", in English, I've already referred to NE and something tells me this is not what you're actually questioning.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The word snuff to me, and (I suspect) most other native English speakers, conjures up an image of a Dickensian fop snorting pinches of powder taken from a little silver box. That there is no linguistic distinction in Swedish is irrelevant, since 1) the lack of distinction between things in not portable between languages, and 2) the use of the word snus in modern vernacular Swedish to mean "nasal powder" appears (to me) to be archaic. Swedish does not require a distinction between snuff (nasal powder) and snus (oral non-chewing tobacco) because the former is obsolete.

Maybe the problem arises because Americans use the word "snuff" to mean what I call "snus" and the use of "snuff", in the sense of nasal powder, is as obsolete in American English as it is in Swedish. However, the word "snuff" has exactly one meaning in Hiberno-English or British English and that is the sense of nasal powder. Perhaps the best solution is a qualification along the lines of "called snuff or dip in American English" or somesuch?

I have no problem whatsoever with snus being classified as a kind of dip (I only became aware of this word today while watching NCIS), but it simply isn't "snuff" in the English that I speak natively. Going further, to merge the snus article with the "dip" article seems sensible, but to merge it with "snuff" would, IMHO, be wrong.

Finally, my intention to delete what I perceived to be an inaccurate translation was a good-faith effort to increase the accuracy and improve the quality of the article. I don't think the use of dismissive and insulting words like patronizing, boring, tedious, and partial is constructive or useful.

EmmetCaulfield 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American "Snus"; Brands and manufacturers

OK, here's some problems I see with the page as it is now.

Section: Brands and Manufacturers

I've been using Cigarettes as a major guideline for the structure and content of this page. Notice that on that page most mention of tobacco companies is absent. Since Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, and this information is easily obtainable elsewhere, it doesn't belong here.

American "Snus"

All of the scientific research referenced here is based on experiments done with European-made Snus. Some discussion among the researchers indicate that the preperation of the tobacco may be the reason for its differing health effects as compared with other tobacco products (steam cured vs. fire cured, etc.). In the absence of evidence that the American branded "Snus" is created in the same way and with the same "recipie", until other evidence is presented by reputable sources, I think that we should be very careful not to conflate the two in this article.

I'm removing "Brands and Manufacturers", and references to American Snus, though I'm not against having some mention, provided that there is some mention of the lack of evidence of similarity between the American version and the European.

Cheers! --NightMonkey 03:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On second look, I just moved and embellished the mention of American Snus introduction. --NightMonkey 03:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And, to be clear, I should have said in my first note above "...I'm not against having some mention of American Snus." --NightMonkey 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing to consider: While Taboka is made in America, and I agree that its similarity may come into question. However, Camel SNUS is made in Sweden and imported and sold here as Camel brand. It is the first American company to sell it, but its still made in Sweden... thus, it is real SNUS! 70.152.73.35 09:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, anonymous IP. Do you have any good sources to prove that the recipe for this new American "Snus" is the same as the Swedish preparation? --NightMonkey 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Best I could find is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/business/09adco.html?ex=1312776000&en=c124fd2a328758e1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.73.35 (talk)

Hrm, that article conflates Snus with "smokeless tobacco" in general, and doesn't delve anywhere near the studies we've presented here. It really muddles the issue more than clarifying, but specifically to our discussion, it doesn't detail recipies or ingredients. --NightMonkey 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhymes with noose?

Forgive me, but I don't think snus rhymes with noose, because I assume -oose in noose is pronounced the same as in moose? Then snus does not rhyme with noose. Drogo 14:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the Scandinavian pronounciation of snus doesn't rhyme with English word noose, but the way I have heard English-speaking people pronounce snus, it does rhyme with noose. --Kvaks 21:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A few years ago I asked an Englishman to read out from my snus tin and he said it in a way that rhymes with bus. 217.208.0.149 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm British, and I thought it rhymed with noose - either that, or worse, but not bus. 84.92.192.93 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear wording?

This is a small edit, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one confused before I made it. (And I don't have a lot of experience here.) In the Types section, it says "The weights may vary, but the most sold snus labels share their weight." My initial confusion was if the most sold types of snus tended to weight the same ("share their weight")... at which point I might expect portions that weighed twice as much to come half as many to a tin. Or whether labels on the most popular types of snus tended to divulge their the weights of the portions on the label. I think the latter is the intent of the sentence, in which case I propose the word "share" be changed to "divulge" or "specify". But I actually think the whole sentence should be rewritten as I think we have a grammatical problem. It sounds as if snus labels are being sold rather than snus. Perhaps something like "Most of the popular brands will specify the weights of these variants on their label." Weddingexpert 04:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niccotine free snus

What about niccotine free snus like Onico[3]? Should it be mentioned? It's based on maize fibres instead of tobacco. // Liftarn (talk)

[edit] Use in Denmark?

"Snus is sold mainly in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark" - I believe that Snus has been illegal in the EU since 1992, with the exception of Sweden. How can it therefore be a big seller in Denmark? Grunners (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Snus is used, mainly by Africans, under the name of Makla, or Chemma, in many european countries (Belgium, France, ...). Thanks to the widespread interdiction of smoking in public places in those coutry, more and more European begin to be interested in Maklas. Makla Ifrikia is one of the most strong and famous snus I have ever tasted. It is sold in almost every Tobacco shop in south european countries. BruMar (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Makla vs snus

Several people have mentioned makla. Anyone who have enough knowledge about both snus and makla to make a judgement whether it should be mentioned in the article or not? Should it be regarded as the African version of snus or as a different but similar product that should have its own article? /Jiiimbooh (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Makla and snus, in my opinion (which has been raised by both my reading and personal experience) is that they are definitely the same type of product: Moist or wet, humid, tobacco that you consume without smoking nor chewing, only by putting the tobacco in loose form, or after enclosing it in prepared or self-rolled tea-bag paper, right under the lip. According to Pr R. Molimard, the belgo-african maklas are produced with *Nicotiana rustica*, a wilder form of tobacco which would be richer in nitrosamin et nornicotin. But this is not an argument for separating them as type of product, imo. Last change: 16 mai 2008. BruMar (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think in the absence of evidence, conflating Swedish snus (which has a growing body of scientific and medical research on its health effects) with other oral tobacco products, is potentially a disservice to readers. American oral tobaccos (Skoal, etc), Gutka and other oral tobaccos have widely different potential health effects than Swedish snus. Perhaps taking the Gutka article as an example might point to creating a separate article on Makla. --NightMonkey (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish snus vs. all other moist oral tobaccos

Hi. I've been doing more research on the current scientific literature and scientific discussion availabe concerning snus, and it has become apparent that, within the medical and scientific communities, there is a growing apprehension about the potential confusion among current and potential users of smokeless tobacco between the various types and brands marketed as "snus". There is concern that the American tobacco companies recent embrace of "snus" creates questions about its similarity or non-similarity, materially, to Swedish snus, and whether, at a basic level, it is the same substance with the same medical effects as the Swedish vareity. Since, in the research, the specific source of oral tobacco being studied is important (Swedish snus vs. American snuff (Skoal, et al)), I think that the article should be more explicit, reflecting this distinction. It would appear that, to be more accurate, the article must start to identify the specific origin and location of manufacture of the "snus" being discussed. This seems inelegant in terms of article bloat (replacing every instance of "snus" with "Swedish snus", where it is ambiguous), but the only other option I can think of is to break out seperate articles on each sub-type, and have this article become a "disambugation" page linking to the sub articles. Any comments? --NightMonkey (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: To do