“The Health Effects of Snus”:
an argumentative characterisation of a Swedish reaction to the
Tobacco Products Directive (2014/40/EU)
University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Humanities
M.A Discourse and Communication Studies (DCS) Student: Steffi Johansson Öhman
Supervisor: Dr. C. Andone Second Reader: Dr. B. Garssen 18/06/2018
Abstract
This thesis investigates one example of attempting to influence supranational legislation by the means of argumentation. The case at study is a twenty-eight page report on the health effects of the Swedish tobacco product, snus, published in 2016 by the Snus Commission. The thesis’ three aims were to characterise the report as an argumentative activity type, to uncover which arguments were given as a reaction to Directive 2014/40/EU (the Tobacco Products Directive) and ultimately to see how these arguments were being used strategically in order to resolve the difference of opinion at hand.
The investigation showed that the authors of the report were well aware of the difficulties, obstacles and considerations that had to be taken into consideration while attempting to influence supranational legislation. This was made visible by the selection of arguments and by referring to experts within each medical field that could “prove” that snus is less dangerous than stated by the EU. It was also made clear by the number of diseases mentioned by the report. Finally, by adding the impact on the human body while using snus during pregnancy, the authors of the report also attempted to balance between reasonableness and effectiveness.
Keywords: Argumentative Activity Type, Argumentation, Strategic Maneuvering, Snus, European
Acknowledgments
As this thesis marks the end of my time as a student at the University of Amsterdam, it is my honour to thank each and everyone who has helped me come this far.
Thank you Dr. C. Andone for your insightful advice, critical remarks and overall guidance during the production of this thesis. Your excellent knowledge in the fields of Argumentation Theory and European Union Law has been a tremendous help to me during this time.
Thank you Dr. B. Garssen for agreeing to be the second reader of this thesis.
I wish to thank the entire DCS Department at the University of Amsterdam for the many valuable life lessons provided during my time as a DCS Student. I also wish to thank my class-fellows for the support and the many great memories we have shared together.
Thank you Patrik Strömer for sharing your expertise in snus with me and for your willingness to always help a student out.
Thank you Antonia Spiring. My dearest friend. Your friendship and help during this period means the world to me.
Thank you Gwyneth DeLap for helping me figuring out the ins and outs of the English language. Thank you Simon Hallgren. Your superb knowledge in European Union Law never fails to help me out.
I wish to thank my parents for supporting my decision to pursue my Master’s Degree abroad. It has not always been easy, but with your support it was well worth it.
A humble thank you to Stockholms Borgerskap, Uno Oldenburg and Inger Oldenburg, for providing me with the financial means to pursue this Master’s Degree.
Thank you to my friends back home for supporting me. You know who you are.
Ten slotte wil ik Dyon F.M. van Stigt van harte bedanken voor de steun die je mij hebt gegeven. Zonder jou zou er geen scriptie zijn geweest. Bedankt voor alles.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 5
Introduction
Chapter 2 9
The report “The Health Effects of Snus” (2016) as an argumentative activity type
2.1 Argumentative activity types 9
2.2 Starting points 14
Chapter 3 17
Arguments in response to the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU: an analytic overview
3.1 A summary of the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU 18
3.2 Analytic overview 21
3.3 Analysis of the arguments’ strategic function 25
Chapter 4 30
Concluding remarks
Chapter 1
Introduction
The European Union is a complex organisation consisting of multiple institutions that serve several goals and values. Promoting peace, offering freedom, combating discrimination and establishing an economic and monetary union constitute merely a sample of these goals. All EU Member States share the same values, which include: respecting human dignity, maintaining individual freedom, equality and democracy, respecting human rights as well as establishing and maintaining European Union Law (Article 2–4 TEU). Thereby, the EU influences a great deal of the daily life of its twenty-eight Member States and, subsequently, the circa 508 million citizens of the Union.
The Tobacco Industry is one of the areas which falls under the European Union Law jurisdiction. In order to regulate this massive industry, the EU established a directive regarding 1
these products. The Tobacco Products Directive of the European Union (2014/40/EU) regulates 2
how tobacco products, such as cigarettes and various national varieties of oral tobacco, can be manufactured, sold and marketed within the EU. All twenty-eight Member States are obliged to comply with Directive 2014/40/EU, since European Union Law has primacy over domestic law. In 3
practice this means that a certain tobacco product can be allowed onto the domestic market of a EU Member State, but simultaneously denied onto the European market. Such is the case of the
Swedish tobacco product snus.
Snus is a finely ground or cut, moist smokeless tobacco product originating from Sweden. The product is not new neither in Sweden nor in Scandinavia. Instead, the product has been
produced in Sweden since the beginning of the 19th century and is to this day also utilised in other Scandinavian countries.
Furthermore, snus is sold both loosely and in small sachet portions and is to be consumed by placing it below the user’s lip in order to receive the desired amount of nicotine. Snus belongs to the category of smokeless tobacco and it is the smokeless character of the product that enables it to be used indoors without causing any second hand harming on others.
Moreover, snus is sold through general dealers such as grocery stores and smaller kiosks or
A directive is a legislative act of the EU. The directive sets out a goal that all EU Member States must achieve, without
1
dictating the means of achieving that result. The individual Member States devise their own laws on how to reach the set goals (Article 288 TFEU). “EU directives represent an acceptable compromise between the needs of EU integration and the diversity characterizing the Member States’ legal systems” (cf. Craig and de Búrca, 2015: 106).
Repealing Directive 2001/37/EC.
2
The Supremacy Doctrine in accordance with Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL, 1964.
stands. It is also sold in bars and nightclubs through vending machines, where the customer scan their ID card in order to receive the product. This is required due to strict age limit regulations in Sweden, where the allowed age to purchase tobacco products is set to eighteen years.
Directive 2014/40/EU prohibits Sweden from selling or distributing snus to other EU
Member States since Sweden’s entrance into the EU in 1995 . Directive 2014/40/EU does not apply 4
to Norway , where snus is sold legally. This is the result of Norway currently only being an EFTA 5
Member State and not an EU Member State. Another market in which snus previously has been sold, is the Danish one. The product was allowed onto the Danish tobacco market by the Danish Government. However, this action did not comply with Directive 2014/40/EU. Thus resulting in the European Commission suing Denmark for selling the product. The indictment was made public in a press release by the EU Commission on July 10, 2014. The demand of snus and the subsequent ban on the sales of the product, can therefore not only be seen as a Swedish matter, but rather a
Scandinavian one.
The EU has coherently upheld a less positive view of snus in the official documents on the 6
product. The EU Commission argued in a press release on 26 February 2014 that snus causes addiction and has negative health effects, while attracting in particular many young individuals.
Snus backers such as Swedish snus manufacturers Swedish Match (2017, March 24) on the other hand, have built their business on the notion that tobacco-related diseases such as lung or oral cancer are lower in Sweden than in any of the other EU Member State. This despite of having similar levels of tobacco consumption. This result allegedly is due to Swedes mainly using snus instead of cigarettes. Swedish Match's claims were backed by the Special Eurobarometer 458 survey: Attitudes of Europeans towards tobacco and electronic cigarettes (2017, May), where the lowest smoking rates in the EU were found in Sweden (7%) followed by the UK (17%).
The Snus Commission funded by the Swedish Association of Manufacturers, followed up on 7
The Treaty to waiver all rights to sell snus to other EU Member States was signed in 1992 (15/05/1992).
4
However, different regulations apply to the Norwegian tobacco market. For example the application of anonymous
5
tobacco packaging.
Such as in directives, reports, press releases and other types of informative materials on snus.
6
Swedish: Snuskommissionen.
7
The Snus Commission is an independent commission that produces reports on matters related to Swedish snus. The Commission is financed by the Swedish Association of Snus Manufacturers, which is a coalition of companies in Sweden that manufacture, market and sell snus. However, since the Commission’s conclusions are independent of its financiers, said financiers were not able to attend meetings or provide feedback on the contents of the report either (the Snus Commission, 2016: 4).
Four individuals make up the commission: a physician, a journalist, a former politician and an associate professor and researcher on tobacco and nicotine (the Snus Commission, 2016:5).
this track by issuing the report The Health Effects of Snus in 2016 (May 10). In the report, the Snus Commission argues that every other EU Member State has a higher tobacco-related mortality rate than Sweden relative to population size, and that snus is less dangerous than other tobacco products i.e., cigarettes. This resulted in the Snus Commission arguing that the European ban on snus should be lifted.
Research that has been carried out concerning the Swedish snus mainly focuses on the health effects of the product. Little attention has been paid to questions that aim at researching Swedish snus from the field of argumentation. It is therefore the goal of this thesis to enter this unexplored area by reviewing some of the arguments given as a reaction to the Tobacco Products Directive (2014/40/EU), by reviewing the Snus Commission’s report The Health Effects of Snus (2016).
The initial aim is to characterise the report as an argumentative activity type. A second aim is to uncover which arguments the report provides as a reaction to Directive 2014/40/EU. Finally, a third aim is to uncover how the arguments put forward by the report are being used strategically to resolve the difference of opinion between the EU and the Snus Commission. These aims have received hardly any attention up until now, but would be worthwhile with the Swedish snus lobbyists’ tenacious attempts at influencing the EU decision-makers as well as the snus
manufacturers’ adaptations to the legislation by developing legal variations of snus, top of mind. The research questions of this thesis are formulated as follows:
1. How can we characterise the report The Health Effects of Snus (2016) as an argumentative activity type?
2. Which arguments does the Snus Commission give to react to Directive 2014/40/EU? 3. How are these arguments used strategically in order to resolve the difference of opinion?
The outline of the thesis is as follows. I will first characterise the argumentative activity type(s) under which the report falls (Sect. 2.1). This will answer the first research question. Followed by a brief explanation of the concept of starting points to understand the roles of the participants in the difference of opinion, i.e. the EU and the Snus Commission (Sect. 2.2). Thereafter, a summary of the Tobacco Products Directive (2014/40/EU) follows (Sect. 3.1). The summary of Directive 2014/40/EU was added in order to create further notice on the constraints that EU directives create for the EU Member States. Lastly, the analytic overview follows (Sect. 3.2,
3.3). The analytic overview will answer both the second and the third research question. The concluding remarks follow (Sect. 4).
Chapter 2
The report “The Health Effects of Snus” (2016) as an argumentative
activity type
The chapter will start off by characterising the selected report as an argumentative activity type. This characterisation is done by reviewing the report’s content as well as its arguments, audience and aim. The second section of the chapter (2.2) is dedicated to the concept of starting points, where Van Eemeren & Houtlosser (2005), Van Eemeren & Garssen (2009) as well as Van Eemeren (2010) will act as the benchmarks. The description of starting points is provided in order to understand better the roles of the participants in the difference of opinion at hand, i.e., who is the proponent respective the opponent.
2.1 Argumentative activity types
Van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2005) introduced the concept of communicative activity types , to 89
distinguish between particular institutionalised communicative practices, in which argumentation plays an important role. Van Eemeren & Houtlousser (2005) see communicative activity types as culturally established communicative practices that to some extent have become conventionalised since they to a certain degree are institutionalised. This concept was later further developed by Van Eemeren & Garssen (2009):
Communicative activity types are conventionalised communicative practices whose conventionalisation serves the institutional needs of a certain domain of communicative activity through the implementation of a specific genre of communicative activity (Van Eemeren & Garssen, 2009: 3).
Van Eemeren (2010: pp. 129-162) distinguishes between the communicative activity types and the instances of these activity types. The communicative activity types concern the type of
conventionalised communicative practice, e.g. a presidential debate. Whereas the the speech event is the token of the practice, e.g. a specific presidential debate. Argumentation plays a vital role in
The integrated pragma-dialectical theory also refer to these as “activity types” or “argumentative activity types” (Van
8
Eemeren & Houtlosser 2005).
The term “activity type” was introduced by Levinson in 1979. Levinson’s definition “fuzzy category whose focal
9
members are goal-defined, socially constituted, bounded, events with concurrents on participants, setting, and so on, but above all on the kinds of allowable contributions” (1992: 69) differs from Van Eemeren & Houtlosser’s definition.
some of these communicative activity types.
Further, according to Van Eemeren (2010: pp. 129-162) it is through the use of the
appropriate genres of communicative activity that the argumentative activity types are designed to serve their rationale, viz. the institutional point. This point reflects the exigency in response to which the activity types come into being. There are also hybrid argumentative activity types in which several genres of conventionalised communicative activity are activated together, e.g. the political interview which combines deliberation with disseminating information in order to inform the audience.
The four stages of a critical discussion is Van Eemeren’s (2010: 146) point of departure, while making an argumentative characterisation of a specific communicative activity type. These four stages are:
1) the initial situation (confrontation stage), 2) the starting points (opening stage),
3) the argumentative means and criticisms (argumentation stage), 4) the outcome of the exchange (concluding stage).
This division is helpful in order to give an argumentative characterisation and how the constitutive stages of the process of resolving a difference of opinion on the merits, are represented in a specific communicative activity type. These communicative activity types impose extrinsic constraints on the possibilities for strategic maneuvering, which is why it is necessary to take the
conventionalisation of the activity type into account when analysing strategic maneuvering. The institutional point and the conventionalisation together determine the institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering (Van Eemeren, 2010: 146).
The communicative activity type can also shape the contributions of the involved discussion parties, thus making it discipline the conduct of strategic maneuvering by the involved discussion 10
parties. This materializes as the parties must take the activity type’s rules and conventions into account, when striving to balance the dialectical aim of reasonably resolving the difference of opinion with the rhetorical aim of obtaining a discussion outcome in their favour (Van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2006: 385).
In Van Eemeren & Houtlosser’s view (2006: 383) the gap between dialectic and rhetoric can be bridged by the introduction of the theoretical concept of strategic maneuvering. This concept
See Pilgram (2009). The communicative activity types “ ‘discipline[s] the conduct of strategic manoeuvring’ by the
10
refers to the efforts arguers make in argumentative discourse to reconcile aiming for rhetorical effectiveness while maintaining the dialectical aim of reasonableness. Strategic maneuvering also manifests itself in three ways in argumentative discourse: 1) in “the choices that are made from the ‘topical potential’ available at a certain stage in the discourse, 2) in ‘audience-directed framing’ of the argumentative moves, and 3) in the purposive use of ‘presentational devices’ ” (Van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2006: 383). These three aspects of strategic maneuvering can be distinguished but will usually work together (Van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2006: 383). Lastly, Van Eemeren & Houtlosser (2006: 384) state that a party exhibits a “fully-fledged ‘argumentative strategy’ if the party’s
strategic maneuvering in the discourse consistently converges with respect to choosing from topical potential, adapting to audience demand, and utilising presentational devices”.
The report
The twenty-eight page report The Health Effects of Snus by the Snus Commission (2016) 11
consists of two unnumbered chapters: “snus and its health effects” and “the Snus Commission’s conclusions and recommendations”.
The report further claims to serve multiple purposes. The first one is to focus on the health aspects of snus by reviewing previously performed research on the product and its links to any major and commonly occurring diseases . This review is done by utilising meta-analyses as well as 12
major research studies. The second purpose is to discuss snus’ potential as a tool for smoking cessation. Lastly, the third purpose is to discuss snus’ potential to minimize harm from a European perspective. These purposes are all pursued by utilising argumentation from expert opinion, in which multiple experts from all over the world (e.g. from Australia, India, Serbia and the United States) are consulted. However, the emphasis remains on results from Swedish research teams since snus is a predominantly Swedish phenomenon. Moreover, the emphasised topical research was recently conducted, meaning that few instances of referring to older research can be found in the report (the Snus Commission, 2016: 6).
The Snus Commission justifies the publication of the report in the foreword. This
justification is done by stating that snus has become a controversial subject as a result of the many underlying preconceived notions about the product, but also due to the clear political agenda. The
As from here referred to as “the report”.
11
The report mentions the following diseases: oral health diseases, stroke, arteriosclerosis, cardiovascular disease,
12
latter primarily refers to the Swedish agenda rather than EU’s, although this is not explicitly stated. Furthermore, the commission states that they wish to address “some misunderstandings and thereby refer to a more fact-based and resigned debate” further adding “this will thus also serve as input for the political system and the decision-making processes that are under way regarding tobacco” (the Snus Commission, 2016: 4).
The initial situation as well as the starting points can be found in the report's summary. The summary indicates that the issues for discussion are 1) that there is an absence of reliable
corroboration between snus and cancer, 2) that any link between tooth loss and other oral illnesses and the consumption of snus cannot be substantiated and 3) that the consumption of snus does not 13
affect the risk of cardiovascular diseases (the Snus Commission, 2016: 2). The report disclaims that it does not constitute a complete review of all available research on the matter, but does at the same time suggest legislative changes on an EU level, by changing the classification of Swedish snus. Such a change would ultimately result in the EU ban on snus being lifted, which appears to be the ultimate goal of the Snus Commission (the Snus Commission, 2016: 2).
The argumentative means and criticisms can be found throughout the report, e.g. in the summary, in the foreword, but also in the chapters’ subsections reviewing each of the respective diseases that the report covers. Finally, the outcome of the exchange can be found in both the initial summary as well as in the second, and final, chapter “the Snus Commission’s conclusions and recommendations”.
With the above-mentioned aspects in mind I will suggest that the report The Health Effects
of Snus by the Snus Commission (2016) constitutes the speech event, within the communicative
activity type of reports. The selected report does not, unlike health brochures or reports made by governments or non-profit organisations, aim to give health advice to help the general public make choices about health issues (van Poppel, 2012: 97). Instead, the report targets two main groups according to Patrik Strömer, secretary-general at Svenska Snustillverkarföreningen, with special 14 15
insights into the works of the Snus Commission. The first target group includes decision-makers and opinion-makers in Sweden whereas the second one targets “internationally active people and organisations”. Furthermore, according to Strömer, the report was “developed as a benchmark for further argumentation [on the snus issue]”. The report’s anticipation of a more knowledgable
The inclusion of oral health issues is motivated by that area being “especially prone to misunderstandings or even
13
myths” (the Snus Commission, 2016: 7).
P. Strömer, personal communication, April 6, 2018.
14
A non-profit association of companies and organisations that manufacture, market and sell snus.
audience is noticeable mainly due to the use of specialist jargon and terminology. However, since the report lacks a description of what snus is, this further reinforces the impression that the authors of the report anticipated an informed audience.
Furthermore, the report is utilising argumentation from expert opinion by quoting experts 16
in various areas, i.e. experts in tobacco products or medical doctors. The use of argumentation from expert opinion makes the report appear to have consultative features, although it does not directly articulate an aim to provide health advice to the general public or to consult an individual patient. The report is further arguing that the EU should change the classification of snus because the consulted experts can provide research that backs the claim of snus being less dangerous than other tobacco products. Meantime the report clearly has both political and judicial aims, in form of the desire to lift the EU ban on snus. It should therefore also be considered having promotional features, although it does not directly exhort to selling the product.
Since the report concerns the health effects of utilising snus, it clearly falls under the domain of health communication. Concurrently, the Snus Commission is also funded by the snus industry 17
and could therefore also be seen to have a political agenda with their work, which further is backed by the previously mentioned statement in the foreword. Thus, resulting in the report also falling under the domain of political communication. Van Eemeren discusses the possibility of overlapping domains in Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse (2010). According to Van Eemeren (2010: 130) there are some communicative domains in which certain generally recognised
conventionalised communicative practices have been established, and among them both the domains of medical communication and political communication are found. Thereby, making it possible that the report could belong to several domains. However, one of the domains always remains dominant over the other. In other words, there exists no, or few, occurrences where the domains are equally dominant (Van Eemeren, 2010).
According to Wagemans (2011: 331) the expert may be characterised as “someone of whom the arguer believes the
16
addressee to put certain intellectual trust in”. Furthermore, this kind of argumentation can be characterised as “argumentation that renders an opinion (more) acceptable by claiming that the opinion is asserted by an expert” (Wagemans, 2011: 331).
The funders were not able to comment on the outcome of the report according to the Snus Commission (2016: 2).
2.2 Starting points
According to Van Eemeren et al (2007: 89) the central activity of the opening stage are the starting points of a discussion and the indicators of them. The starting points have played a crucial part 18
since the early classical dialectics, since a dialectic was interpreted as a critical dialogue. In this critical dialogue the opponent tries to refute the standpoint of the proponent “on the basis of the concessions the proponent makes in the course of the dialogue in response to strategic
questions” (Van Eemeren et al., 2007: 89). Thus resulting in that the aim of the proponent is to answer the opponent’s questions without making concessions that can be questioned by the opponent.
A similar procedure is applicable in pragma-dialectics, there called the critical discussion. In a critical discussion the defence of a standpoint does not start on the basis of a specific question. Instead it is the result of a non-specific expression of doubt regarding the standpoint in question (Van Eemeren et al., 2007: 89).
The most important difference between the classical dialectic and pragma-dialectics’ critical discussion is that in the latter, the dialogue in which the concessions are obtained precedes the argumentation stage of the discussion. Instead, the dialogue takes place in the opening stage of the discussion and the involved parties lay down their mutual concessions and agree to regard these as shared starting points for the discussion. However, in argumentative practices the “dialogue about the starting point” often remains implicit. Sometimes it is even assumed that the opponent shares insights, needs, views or wishes with the speaker or writer (Van Eemeren et al., 2007: 89). Generally, verbal traces of these references are found in discussion or text. According to Van
Eemeren et al. (2007: 92) it is rare to find a direct and explicit proposal from one discussion party to the other, to accept a certain proposition as the shared starting point for the discussion. Instead other tools such as questions can be utilised. These questions are used as a means of implicit proposals to accept a proposition as a starting point. Usually the question for someone to accept something as the
Cf. Forgács (2014) and Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) also discusses starting points.
18
Forgács (2014: 241–249) discusses strategic maneuvering within the pragma-dialectical framework with certain respect to the selection of starting points in the opening stage of a discussion to frame the arguments. Forgács paper is a reaction to Van Eemeren (2009).
According to Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969: 65–94) all argumentation must proceed from a point of agreement. The bases of agreement is further divided into two categories; facts, truths and presumptions; values, hierarchies and loci. Other important aspects of the starting points are “the choice of data and their adaptation for argumentative purposes” as well as the “presentation of data and form of discourse”. Part two of The New Rhetoric (1969: 63–185) is dedicated to starting points.
shared starting point is done implicitly either by asking the opponent if they think X is the case or by attributing a specific starting point to someone. The latter can be done by utilising rhetorical questions or by stating that X has been, or should be, accepted in the context (Van Eemeren et al., 2007: 92). However, no such questions are found in the report, neither implicit nor explicit.
Van Eemeren et al. (2007: 89) emphasises the importance of having an understanding of the different verbal turns of phrase that are being utilised to highlight the shared starting points. It is also important to establish the extent to which the arguments and criticisms are founded on as shared starting points. This is important in order to create an understanding of the different verbal turns of phrase that are used to bring up the shared starting points (Van Eemeren et al., 2007: 89).
Furthermore, according to Van Eemeren et al. (2007: 90), the party who starts the
deliberation in the opening stage (T1) can only make one move to open a dialogue.This move is to suggest to the other party (T2) that they should accept the certain proposition (X) as the shared starting point for the discussion in question.T2, on the other hand, has the possibility to respond in various ways: by rejecting or accepting the proposal as a shared starting point for the discussion. This leaves T1 with the option of either accepting the rejection or to ask for clarification regarding the rejection. Meanwhile T2 immediately can accept the proposed starting point or propose that T1 should accept another proposition (Y) as the discussion’s starting point. In the follow up, T1 can then accept or reject Y as the discussion’s starting point (Van Eemeren et al., 2007: 90).
Figure 1. “The dialectical core profile for establishing a starting point” (Van Eemeren et al., 2007: 90).
The report
With support from Van Eemeren et al. (2007), I suggest that the Snus Commission should be considered being the party who starts the deliberation in the opening stage (T1), since they initiate the discussion on the issue of snus. This is done by the means of a specific report that reacts to Directive 2014/40/EU. Thus causing the EU to become the other party (T2). I reached this conclusion since Directive 2014/40/EU does not invite to a discussion on the topic of tobacco products, it simply states the regulations that each EU Member State are obliged to comply with. In the combination of the EU’s lack of an invitation to a discussion together with Recitals (20) and (32) of the Preamble of Directive 2014/40/EU (see Sect. 3.1) , it becomes clear that EU is the protagonist of the standpoint of not allowing oral tobacco products such as snus, onto the European market (except in Sweden) by maintaining the EU ban on snus. At the same time, the EU is also the antagonist of the standpoint of allowing oral tobacco products such as snus, onto the European market (except in Sweden) by lifting the EU ban on snus.
What follows is a brief explanation of the argumentative features of EU directives, thenceforth a short review of the concerned EU directive, viz. Directive 2014/40/EU.
Chapter 3
Arguments in response to the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU:
an analytic overview
Before providing a thorough review of the relevant sections of Directive 2014/40/EU, this chapter will demonstrate what EU directives should argue for and how they do so in practice by making use of insights from Andone & Coman-Kund (2017) and their explanation of the argumentative patterns of EU directives.
According to Andone & Coman-Kund (2017: 76) EU directives are important legislative instruments used by the Union to adopt a common legal framework in various policy areas.
Directives concern a substantial change in the state of affairs and not minor changes. For the latter, EU implementing acts are made available. Further, the EU directives are distinctive due to these being binding as concerns the achievement of the goals, but without explicitly stating how the implementation should be performed. Thus, they delegate some decision-making to the addressed Member States to implement the directives. Andone & Coman-Kund (2017: 77) note that this system has resulted in that the measures and policies enacted in the EU directives are not always being fully applied or are being applied incorrectly by the Member States.
Moreover, according to Andone & Coman-Kund (2017: 77) it is particularly the preamble 19
of the EU directives that reveals the argumentative character of the directives. It is here that the EU legislator typically advances a standpoint in which a certain courses of action is prescribed. This is done by pointing at the desirable consequences of the action, which thus results in the preamble showing features of pragmatic argumentation. Andone & Coman-Kund’s (2017: 78) working assumption is that the argumentation provided in the preamble of the Union’s directives serves to convince the Member States (the addressees) of both the legality and the the desirability of these legal instruments with the aim to induce the highest possible degree of compliance. They have based their assumption on the empirical observation that EU directives usually comprise
recommendations to follow a certain course of action. This is done by pointing at the necessity as well as the added value of doing so. Andone-Coman-Kund’s (2017: 78) conclusion is that this type of argumentation only can be explained as attempts at convincing a critical opponent (the Member
Andone & Coman-Kund’s (2017: 77) definition of the term “preamble” refers “to the first part of the directives
19
preceding the main (prescriptive) part of the legal text ending before ‘[the European Parliament and the Council of the European union] have adopted this directive”.
States) to act in compliance with the envisaged legal instrument.
Going back to the preamble of the EU directive, they typically propose a course of action 20
by pointing at the desirable consequences of such an action. By advancing this prescriptive
standpoint, the EU legislator tries to counter potential non- and miscompliance or possible litigation by the Member States. This prescriptive standpoint is subsequently supported by several arguments with the aim of demonstrating the maximum effectiveness of the proposed action. Furthermore, directives always contain a positive prescription (Action X should be carried out) and the directives demand that the Member States adopt specified measures to comply with EU requirements, because only by complying with the directive the problem will be removed or will be a fundamental step towards solving it later on (Andone & Coman-Kund, 2017: 81).
3.1 A summary of the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU
Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC2122 is based on a proposal from the Commission and is the current version of the directive that regulates the tobacco industry within the EU. Sections (20) and (32) as well as Article 151 of the directive, concern Sweden’s derogation from the prohibition of selling “certain types of tobacco for oral use” (Directive 2014/40/EU: 127/6). Unfortunately for this study, it 23
turned out to be rather difficult to come to the actual discussions underlying the decisions made by the EU that ultimately lead to Directive 2014/40/EU. However, the underlying reasons for the EU ban on snus were listed in the leaked OLAF report (2013: 7) on the controversy between the 24
company Swedish Match and the former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy,
EU directives can only propose actions that have been explicitly agreed upon by all Member States in the Founding
20
Treaties (Andone & Coman-Kund, 2017: 81).
Also known as The Tobacco Products Directive or internally as “TPD-2”.
21
TPD-2 was already implemented before the Snus Commission came into existence and subsequently received their
22
first task, according to Strömer (personal communication, April 6, 2018). Snus included.
23
European Anti-Fraud Office.
John Dalli . The reasons listed in the OLAF report (2013: 7) follow: 25
1) It has been proven that smokeless tobacco products are a major risk factor as regards cancer, 2) New tobacco products for oral use which have appeared on the market in certain Member States are particularly attractive to young people and the Member States most exposed to this problem have already placed total bans on these new tobacco products or intend to do so, 3) There is a real risk that the new products for oral use will be used, above all, by young people, thus leading to nicotine addiction, unless restrictive measures are taken,
4) In accordance with the conclusions of the studies conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, tobacco for oral use contains particularly large quantities of carcinogenic substances.
Furthermore, “the use of snus was considered to be significant enough to justify an exemption regarding Sweden, although a ban was placed on the trade of snus with other EU Member States” (OLAF report, 2013: 7). It is therefore evident that the reasons to not allow snus onto the European market derive from the areas of health aspects and effects of the product.
The nine page long preamble of Directive 2014/40/EU also provides argumentation. It is in the preamble evident that the decisions leading up to the directive are based on multiple factors, all relating to mainly the health aspects and effects of snus as well as research on the product. Other reasons include a desire to further harmonise the approach to regulation on the ingredients of tobacco products by the means of a revised directive, as made evident by Recital (15) of the Preamble of Directive 2014/40/EU:
(15) The lack of a harmonised approach to regulating the ingredients of tobacco products affects the smooth functioning of the internal market and has a negative impact on the free
movement of goods across the Union. Some Member States have adopted legislation or entered into binding agreements with the industry allowing or prohibiting certain
ingredients. As a result, some ingredients are regulated in certain Member States, but not in others. Member States also take differing approaches as regards additives in the filters of cigarettes as well as additives colouring the tobacco smoke. Without harmonisation, the obstacles to the smooth functioning of the internal market are expected to increase in the coming years, taking into account the implementation of the FCTC and the relevant FCTC guidelines throughout the Union and in the light of experience gained in other jurisdictions outside the Union. The FCTC guidelines in relation to the regulation of the contents of tobacco products and regulation of tobacco product disclosures call in particular for the removal of ingredients that increase palatability, create the impression that tobacco products
Swedish Match accused Dalli of bribery. Dalli had allegedly promised to lift the EU ban on Swedish snus. In return
25
have health benefits, are associated with energy and vitality or have colouring properties.
Recital (20) of the Preamble of Directive 2014/40/EU argues about the general prohibition of the sale of oral tobacco products, the lack of in-depth knowledge on such products as well as Sweden’s exemption:
(20) Given the general prohibition of the sale of tobacco for oral use in the Union, the responsibility for regulating the ingredients of tobacco for oral use, which requires in- depth knowledge of the specific characteristics of this product and of its patterns of
consumption, should, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, remain with Sweden, where the sale of this product is permitted pursuant to Article 151 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.
In Recital (20) of the Preamble of Directive 2014/40/EU, the EU draws the conclusion that not enough in-depth knowledge on the characteristics and the consumption patterns of snus exist. Thus, resulting in the EU ban on snus.
Recital (32) of the Preamble of Directive 2014/40/EU also argues for Sweden’s exemption:
(32) The prohibition of the sale of tobacco for oral use should be maintained in order to prevent the introduction in the Union (apart from Sweden) of a product that is addictive and has adverse health effects. For other smokeless tobacco products that are not produced for the mass market, strict provisions on labelling and certain provisions relating to their ingredients are considered sufficient to contain their expansion in the market beyond their traditional use.
From Recital (32) of the Preamble of Directive 2014/40/EU it is evident that the EU labels products like snus as addictive with adverse health effects. Because snus targets the mass markets, according to the EU, it should not be allowed to be sold except for within Sweden. Recital (32) of the
Preamble of Directive 2014/40/EU makes it appear as if snus were not produced for the mass market it could be sold within the EU like other allowed tobacco products. Comparable products, such as cigarettes, also target the mass market but are allowed to be sold in the entire EU. Thereby the snus ban is even more intriguing.
In Directive 2014/40/EU, and in particular Recitals (20) and (32) of the Preamble, it is clear that the EU is the protagonist of the standpoint of lifting the EU ban on snus. At the same time the EU is also the antagonist of the standpoint of maintaining the EU ban on snus. These are important
facts in order to better understand the roles of the participants in the difference of opinion that exists. Knowing each party’s standpoint in the difference of opinion at hand, is also useful when attempting to uncover which arguments the Snus Commission give to react to Directive 2014/40/ EU. The standpoints in combination with the provided arguments are also of importance when we have a look at how these arguments are being used strategically in order to resolve the difference of opinion.
What follows is the analytic overview.
3.2 Analytic overview
This section analyses the Snus Commission’s report in order to uncover which arguments the Snus Commission give as a reaction to Directive 2014/40/EU. A secondary aim is to uncover how these arguments are used strategically in order to resolve the difference of opinion.
Since the twenty-eight page report is far too extensive for this thesis, only a selection of arguments emphasised in the report will be analysed and subsequently discussed in this study.This selection of arguments is based on two factors: first, that all selected arguments support the main standpoint of the report and second, that the selected arguments can be related to the keywords of 26 health effects and/or snus research, which are the two main reasons provided by the EU for not
allowing snus on the European market. The selected arguments will be presented in the same order as they appear in the report.
As previously concluded (Sect. 2.2) the Snus Commission constitutes T1, which results in that the EU make up T2. What follows are the identified starting points:
T1 (the Snus Commission):
I. Protagonist of the standpoint of lifting the EU ban on snus. II. Antagonist of the standpoint of maintaining the EU ban on snus.
T2 (the EU):
I. Protagonist of the standpoint of maintaining the EU ban on snus.
The EU ban on snus should be lifted.
II. Antagonist of the standpoint of lifting the EU ban on snus.
According to the report’s table of contents the primary arguments given by the report revolve around the health effects of snus and the previously performed research on snus. These health 27
effects are further divided into subsections on the most major and commonly occurring diseases. The argument structures follows.
The standpoint is:
1. The EU ban on snus should be lifted
The provided arguments are:
Snus and research (p. 7–9)
1.1 Research claiming to show negative effects of using snus is often not performed correctly 1.1.1 It often turns out that the research pertained to something other than Swedish snus 1.1.1.1a In international studies, snus is often classified in the same group as other forms of
smokeless tobacco
1.1.1.1b Swedish snus differs from other smokeless tobacco products
1.1.1.1b.1a Swedish snus is pasteurised during the manufacturing process, meaning that it is heated
1.1.1.1b.1b The heating process drastically reduces the quantity of nitrosamines
1.1.1.1b.1b.1 Nitrosamines is a substantial factor behind the fact the Swedish snus does not at all have the same types of health effects as other smokeless tobacco products that are used orally
1.1.2 Underlying factors were, in performed research on snus, often omitted 1.1.3 The research pertained to something other than normal snus consumption
Snus and ill health (p. 9)
1.2 There is no certain correlation between snus and ill health
1.2.1 Individuals with unhealthy dietary habits and who do not engage in physical activity run a higher risk in general than others of experiencing various forms of ill health
This includes an overview on how snus is being researched around the world.
1.2.1.1 Research on snus sometimes disregard these factors
Snus and oral health issues (p.10)
1.3 Using snus is not a risk factor in developing periodontitis
1.3.1 Major studies indicate that cigarette smokers have a significantly higher risk of severe periodontitis than snus users
Snus and stroke, arteriosclerosis or other cardiovascular diseases (p.10–13)
1.4 Studies show that there is no link between using snus and the risk of stroke, arteriosclerosis or other cardiovascular diseases
1.4.1a Studies show that the cardiac capacity during physical exertion is unaffected by snus
1.4.1b Studies conclude that it is unlikely that snus has any material impact on the risk of suffering from atrial fibrillation
1.4.1c Studies were unable to support the hypothesis that snus increases the risk of myocardial infarctions
1.4.1c.1 The same studies conclude that nicotine cannot be the contributing factor of myocardial infarctions for smokers
1.4.1c.1.1 There is no corresponding effect for snus users
1.4.1d Studies indicates that there is no increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest among snus users 1.4.1e Studies conclude that there is no increased risk of stroke among snus users
Snus and diabetes (p.14)
1.5 It is not certain that using snus results in the risk of diabetes
1.5.1a Diabetes is strongly connected to environmental factors such as dietary habits 1.5.1b Studies on the corroboration between using snus and diabetes show various results
1.5.1b.1 There has been no reliable corroboration between snus and diabetes in studies on “normal consumption” of snus 28
The “normal” daily consumption of snus in Sweden is a third of a can (the Snus Commission, 2016: 9).
Snus and cancer (p.14–17)
1.6 There is an absence of reliable corroboration between snus and cancer
1.6.1a The consumption of snus does not significantly increase the risk of rectal or colon cancer 1.6.1b The consumption of snus does not significantly increase the risk of gastroesophageal cancer 1.6.1c The consumption of snus does not significantly increase the risk of pancreatic cancer
1.6.1d No link between snus and any type of gastric or oesophageal cancer can be found
1.6.2 There are research overviews related to the link between snus and cancer that indicates a link 1.6.2.a 1 These studies do not pertain to Swedish snus
1.6.2.1b These studies have methodology issues
1.6.3 When assessing the overall scenario, there is no proven link between snus and cancer 1.6.4 When discussing potential links between snus and cancer product development should be
taken into consideration
1.6.4.1a Comparisons over time indicate that the presence of nitrosamines declined significantly in snus between 1980 and 2002
1.6.4.1b The more refined a product becomes, the lower the levels of hazardous elements 1.6.4.2 This should be taken into consideration in the discussions henceforth
Snus and Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease (p. 17–18)
1.7 No studies on the link between Swedish snus and Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease have been conducted
1.7.1 Studies have been conducted on the link between Alzheimer’s disease and nicotine which points in the direction that nicotine inhabits Alzheimer’s disease
1.7.1.1 Since snus contains nicotine, it might have the same effect as other nicotine products
Snus and pregnancy (p. 18)
1.8 We advise pregnant women against using snus
1.8.1a Nicotine affects the brain’s development in the foetus during pregnancy
1.8.1b Foetus exposed to nicotine during pregnancy may increase the risk of a lower birth weight 1.8.1c Foetus of mothers who use snus may develop a positive association with nicotine
Snus as a harm reduction tool (p. 19–22)
1.9 Snus should be used as a smoking cessation tool
1.9.1a Sweden has the lowest percentage of smokers in Europe
1.9.1b Only 1 per cent of the Swedish population uses both snus and cigarettes on a daily basis 1.9.1c The percentage of tobacco-related ill health and death is lower in Sweden than in any other
developed nation
1.9.2 Groups that used snus as a smoking cessation tool were significantly more inclined to to succeed in completely ending their use of cigarettes
1.9.3 The potential of snus to minimise harm can also be regarded from a European perspective 1.9.3.1 If the entire EU were to have the same levels of smokers as Sweden then 200,000 fewer
men and 1,100 fewer women would die of tobacco-related diseases every year
1.9.3.1.1 The substantially lower figure for women is due to the fact that it is more common for men to switch from cigarettes to snus in Sweden
1.9.4 The US FDA recommends introducing Swedish snus in the US as a smoking cessation tool 1.9.4.1 Snus has the potential to mitigate the adverse health effects of other types of
tobacco use
1.9.4.1.1 Ill health is reduced when an individual transitions from being a smoker to being a user of snus
3.3 Analysis of the arguments’ strategic function
This section analyses the reconstructed arguments that were given in the report. This analysis is done in order to uncover how the arguments are strategically utilized in order to resolve the difference of opinion at hand, thus also answering the third research question. I will have a look at all three previously presented aspects of strategic maneuvering in order to determine the strategic functions of the report’s provided arguments.
The provided arguments emphasise the report’s topical potential and can be viewed upon as a reaction to Directive 2014/40/EU, since the directive particularly mentions the risks of acquiring various diseases by utilising oral tobacco products such as snus. The report does not cover all diseases that are affiliated to the use of snus. Included are instead nine of the most frequently debated diseases with connection to the usage of snus. These nine diseases constitute more
by a will to focus solely on any major and commonly occurring diseases, thus also leaving out some of the possible diseases that can occur as a result of utilising snus.
Moreover, although the provided arguments on the relation between snus and pregnancy (1.8–1.8.1c) do not directly support the presented standpoint and are not mentioned in either Recital (15), (20) nor (32) of the Preamble of Directive 2014/40/EU, these arguments relate to my
previously presented argument selection criteria, meaning that the arguments relate to the keywords of either health effects or research. I also opted for including the pregnancy arguments primarily to show how the Snus Commission work with the topical potential and ultimately how they anticipate critical questions. The authors of the report presumably anticipated criticisms regarding the
correlation between tobacco use (snus in this case) and pregnancy, since this correlation is being debated in regards to other tobacco products as well, i.e. cigarettes. The likely scenario is thus that the authors of the report opted for including their standpoint on snus and pregnancy in the report. The inclusion of arguments that are not in favour of the product (snus) nor the presented standpoint can be regarded as a sign of self-awareness from the authors of the report’s side. This decision contributes to the report’s credibility. The Snus Commission's act of balancing between rhetorical effectiveness and dialectical reasonableness as instantiated here embodies the concept of strategic manoeuvring.
Further, I have some remarks on the report’s audience demand. First, it is not stated anywhere in the report, nor anywhere on the Snus Commission’s website, who the intended audience is. The lack of a clear audience obstructed me from fully comprehending the report’s purpose. However, what I initially can state, is that the report noticeably is anticipating a more educated audience and subsequently also is adapting to it, by the means of content selection and language use. The impression that the authors of the report anticipated an informed audience is further reinforced by excluding information on what snus is and by using specialist jargon and terminology. These decisions make up a part of the utilised presentational devices. They are also a part of how the Snus Commission strategically manoeuvres between being reasonable and effective, meaning that if a more informed audience was anticipated the demand of an explanation of their product is not imperative.
Furthermore, my initial apprehension was that the decision-makers and opinion-makers in the EU were the report’s primary target groups. This turned out to be wrong when a third-party was consulted to clarify the audience, viz. Patrik Strömer secretary-general at Svenska
Snustillverkarföreningen, with special insights into the works of the Snus Commission. Instead it 29
primarily targeted makers and opinion-makers within Sweden, and secondarily decision-makers and opinion-decision-makers outside Sweden. However, it should be noted that there is a possibility that the Snus Commission would formulate the audience differently than Strömer did, since Strömer did not contribute to the writing of the report.
Thereto, it appears as if the report's provided arguments constitute a reaction to Directive 2014/40/EU by answering to the standpoints on snus’ alleged health effects, as provided in the directive . The use of argumentation from expert opinion further adds to this, since several experts 30
from well-renowned medical institutions and/or authorities around the world are being consulted, instead of merely Swedish ones. This further reinforces the vague impression of the intended audience, since the provided arguments correspond with the snus issue having to be discussed on a supranational level rather than on a domestic one. Hence the gap between my initial impression of the report’s intended audience and Strömer’s advisory opinion on its addressed audience.
With this being said, I suggest that a clarification of the intended audience is required in order to gain understanding of both the report’s intended audience as well as how the presented arguments adapt to the beliefs and preferences of the addressed audience. This clarification would preferably be included in the report’s preface or secondary, be stated on the Snus Commission’s website.
Furthermore, the authors of the report are attempting to “prove” the EU wrong on their beliefs of snus’ health effects, by utilising argumentation from expert opinion (e.g. arguments 1.1– 1.1.1.1a, 1.1.3, 1.4–1.4.1e, 1.6.2–1.6.2.1b, 1.7–1.7.1, 1.8–1.8.1c, 1.9–1.9.4). By utilising the experts, the report simultaneously attempts to “prove” that the arguments provided by Directive 2014/40/EU are inaccurate. Thus, they make the use of argumentation from expert opinion a strategic manoeuvre, since it aims at removing any possible doubt that the opponent may have on the correlation between snus and the mentioned diseases, i.e. resolving the difference of opinion. By “proving” the EU wrong through the use of research and experts, the aim appears to be to make the EU change their position towards the snus ban. If the EU would change their position toward snus in the direction desired by the Snus Commission, that would eventually result in the EU ban on snus
Strömer was consulted because the Snus Commission never responded to my email request about clarifying the
29
report’s intended audience.
It should be noted that Directive 2014/40/EU does not mention any specific diseases. Instead it only mentions the risk
30
of acquiring diseases as a result of consuming tobacco. However, the official health warnings that must be applied to all tobacco products sold and distributed within the EU, mention specific diseases such as cancer, heart attack, stroke and oral diseases (Directive 2014/109/EU).
being lifted. Thus also resulting in that the difference of opinion can be resolved. However, as long as both T1 and T2 maintain their respective positions towards the snus ban the difference of opinion is unlikely to be resolved.
Another means of strategic manoeuvring that can be found in the report, is the use of pragmatic argumentation (e.g. arguments 1.9.1a–1.9.3.1). In pragmatic argumentation the
standpoint that a certain action should be carried out, can be seen being defended by pointing out that the action leads to a desirable result (Snoeck Henkemans 2017: 93). In the mentioned example it is stated that fewer individuals would die of tobacco-related diseases and deaths every year in the EU, if the EU had the same levels of smokers as Sweden. This type of argumentation can be placed into a “positive version” of the argument scheme of pragmatic argumentation, and is a subtype of causal argumentation (Snoeck Henkemans 2017: 95). The pragma-dialectical characterization of this scheme, in accordance with Snoeck Henkemans (2017: 95), follows:
1. Action X should be carried out, because 1.1 Action X will lead to positive result Y, and
(1.1’) (If action X leads to a positive result such as Y, then that action should be carried out)
The reconstruction for the above-mentioned specific example (1.9.1a–1.9.3.1) follows:
1. Snus should be used as a smoking cessation tool (X), because
1.1a Using snus a smoking cessation tool (X) leads to fewer tobacco-related diseases and deaths (Y), because
1.1b Using snus a smoking cessation tool (X) led to fewer tobacco-related diseases and deaths (Y) in Sweden, and
(1.1b′) (If using snus as a smoking cessation tool (X) led to fewer tobacco-related diseases and deaths (Y) in Sweden, the same results should therefore also apply to the other EU Member States and that result is desirable)
By claiming that the use of snus as a smoking cessation tool will have desirable effects on the general health of the European Union citizens, the authors of the report try to convince decision-makers that the legislation should be changed by utilising a two-levelled argumentation technique: pragmatic arguments and comparison argumentation. Utilising the latter type in this case, implies that the Swedish results should also apply to the other EU Member States, if they perform Action X
(like Sweden did). This also implies that there are similarities between Sweden and the other EU Member States, thus making the argumentation fit the form a is X, because b is X. The EU is X, because Sweden is X. However, this study does not intend to present any answers to whether there actually are enough similarities between Sweden and the other EU Member States to draw any conclusion regarding if this comparison is applicable or not. Instead, that should be properly evaluated in another context. This example, where Sweden acts like a role model for the rest of the EU, can be found throughout the entire report. However, Sweden is not being portrayed as a role model in Directive 2014/40/EU. Instead, Sweden is only ever mentioned in the context of the nation’s exemption from certain legal rules.
Ultimately, it can be said that several noticeable testimonies exist on how influential the EU directives are. The Snus Commission has since the launch of the report published an additional three reports on the issue of snus, two of them in English: Snus saves lives (2017) and The Betrayal
of Smokers (2017) to further keep the snus issue top of mind. The third one , concerns the Swedish 31
state’s “domestic problems” with snus.
Moreover, Swedish snus manufacturers, such as Swedish Match, constantly adapts to the snus issues’ current status quo. In the case of Swedish Match, this is done by developing a new, legal variation of snus called Zyn. The product contains nicotine and resembles snus in both its appearance and usage. However, it is the product’s tobacco-free character that makes it legal on other markets than simply the Swedish one. A product like Zyn is merely one example of a case where a snus industry party has managed to find loopholes in the legislation or other means of eluding the legislation, in order to proceed with the daily business and all of its associated business goals. I will therefore suggest that it is likely that the snus issue will continue to catch the affected industry parties attention, as long as the EU ban on snus prevails. I find it equally as likely that the industry parties will continue utilising various means to continuously increase their revenue and/or to win new markets, e.g. by argumentation and/or product development.
Only available in Swedish.
Chapter 4
Concluding remarks
The first aim of this thesis was to characterise the report The Health Effects of Snus (2016) as an argumentative activity type. The investigation showed that the report served multiple purposes; to focus on the health aspects of snus, to discuss snus’ potential as a smoking cessation tool and to discuss snus’ potential as a harm-minimiser from a European perspective. The conclusion was that the report The Health Effects of Snus (2016) constitutes the speech event, within the communicative activity type of reports. Further, the report falls under the domains of health communication due to its obvious focus on health effects as well as the domain of political communication due to its political agenda to encourage changes in EU tobacco legislation.
The second aim was to uncover which arguments the Snus Commission give as a reaction to Directive 2014/40/EU. The investigation showed that the Snus Commission was the party that started the deliberation in the opening stage (T1), which automatically made the EU their opponent (T2) in the difference of opinion. Furthermore, the provided arguments stemmed from
argumentation from expert opinion and primarily concerned the correlation between snus and research, ill-health, oral health issues, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and pregnancy. In nearly all instances, with the exception of pregnancy, the consulted experts could “prove” that no link existed between snus and any symptoms from the disease in question. Thus, also resulting in that the report appeared to have anticipated criticisms from anyone with an opposing opinion than that of “the EU ban on snus should be lifted”. This conclusion was reached since the report covered additional diseases, adding to those initially provided by the EU in Directive 2014/40/EU.
The argumentation from expert opinion also concerned snus as a harm reduction tool, where the report concluded that it is desirable to utilise snus instead of cigarettes as a harm-minimiser in other EU Member States, since this would lead to fewer tobacco-related deaths in the EU. The related arguments showed pragmatic features, which in certain instances also showed combinations with levels of other arguments, e.g. argumentation from similarity. This was the case when
similarities between Sweden and the other EU Member States were referenced in the case of “snus as smoking cessation tool”. This also constitutes a part of how the report’s provided arguments were used strategically in order to resolve the difference of opinion, which was the third and final aim of the thesis.
reasonableness and effectiveness, primarily by the means of utilising argumentation from expert opinion to “prove” the EU wrong but also by the use of pragmatic argumentation, such as in the case of using “snus as a harm-minimiser”.
Finally, I want to emphasise that a case study like the present one, naturally only can say so much. Whereas a study with the potential to be more extensive could say something more general about how actors, such as lobbyist groups, attempt to influence EU legislation and ultimately attempt at resolving the difference of opinion at hand. However, since this case study only concerns one published report written by one lobbyist group, the results will naturally be very specific to the certain context in which the report belongs to. Thereto, the report is written by a Swedish lobbyist group which makes it even more specific to one country’s code of conduct in regards to influencing supranational legislation.
A study with the potential to involve several reports from several Swedish lobbyist groups or several lobbyist groups from different EU Member States, may show more general results when it comes to the correlation between choosing arguments in an attempt to resolve the difference of opinion at hand. My hope is that this thesis may shed some light on the difficulties, obstacles and/or the considerations one must take into consideration in the process of attempting to influence
List of references
Andone, C. & Coman-Kund, F. (2017) Argumentative patterns in the European Union’s directives: An effective tool to foster compliance by the Member States? Journal of Argumentation in
Context 6:1, p. 76–96), Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Craig, P., and de Búrca, G. (2015) EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (6th edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eemeren, F H. van & Houtlosser, Peter. (2006) Strategic manoeuvring: A Synthetic Recapitulation.
Argumentation 20: 381–392.
Eemeren, F H. van, Houtlosser, Peter & Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (2007) Argumentative Indicators
in Discourse. Vol. 12., Dordrecht: Springer.
Eemeren, F. H. van & Garssen, Bart (2009) 'In varietate concordia' - United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument
cultures: proceedings of OSSA ’09 (p. 1–15), Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of
Argumentation.
Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
European Commission. Press release. (2014, July 10) Tobacco products: Commission refers
Denmark to the EU Court of Justice for not banning the sale of all forms of snus,
available at europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-812_en.htm (accessed 28 April 2018).
European Commission. Directive 2014/40/EU. On the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC,
available at ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/tobacco/docs/dir_201440_en.pdf (accessed 28 April 2018).
European Commission. Directive 2014/109/EU. Commission Delegated Directive 2014/109/EU of
10 October 2014 amending Annex II to Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the library of picture warnings to be used on tobacco products, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
(accessed 29 May 2018).
Forgács, G. (2014) Strategic Manoeuvring and the Selection of Starting Points in the Pragma-
