As Europe’s attempt to overhaul tobacco and nicotine regulation approaches a critical point, Sweden’s election is threatening to delay agreement on new EU tobacco taxes, at a time when stronger scientific evidence emerges for vaping as a smoking-cessation tool.
The dispute extends well beyond tax rates. At its heart is a fundamental question for European tobacco policy: should cigarettes and smoke-free nicotine products be progressively regulated in similar ways, or should taxation and regulation reflect their very different risk profiles?
Sweden, which has become central to this debate, coincidentally goes to the polls on September 13, only one day before EU diplomats are expected to resume discussions on the Tobacco Excise Directive (TED). With coalition negotiations potentially following the election, Stockholm may be unable to adopt a firm negotiating position immediately.
This matters because EU tax decisions require unanimity. Ireland, which holds the rotating Council presidency, hopes to secure an agreement in October, potentially at the October 9 ECOFIN meeting. But Sweden has firmly resisted proposals affecting nicotine pouches and snus, and political uncertainty could lead Stockholm to abstain rather than block or endorse a final compromise.
Sweden must continue to fight for its success
The Swedish position is particularly significant given that its nicotine market looks very different from much of Europe. Eurostat data show that Sweden had the EU’s lowest smoking prevalence in 2023, at 8%, compared with an EU average of 24%. Yet newer Eurostat figures place Sweden second for daily use of the broader category of tobacco and related products in 2025, which is ridiculous to say the least.
Sweden has historically experienced widespread snus use and more recently growing uptake of nicotine pouches, while maintaining exceptionally low cigarette smoking. Smoke Free Sweden’s Delon Human has therefore urged the incoming Swedish government to defend risk-proportionate taxation. He argues that narrowing the price advantage of smoke-free alternatives over cigarettes could weaken the incentive for smokers to switch. That principle—lower risk, lower tax—is increasingly important as Brussels considers not only the TED but a much broader overhaul of European tobacco policy.
Cochrane confirms vaping outperforms NRTs
The regulatory debate comes as the evidence supporting vaping for smoking cessation has strengthened again. The often-referenced recent Cochrane review published on August 26 examined 80 randomised trials involving 29,861 smokers and concluded that nicotine e-cigarettes help more people quit than traditional nicotine replacement therapies such as patches and gum. Cochrane describes the evidence that vaping increases cessation compared with NRT as “high certainty.”
World Vapers’ Alliance director Michael Landl said the results strengthen the case for formally incorporating vaping into European smoking-cessation policy. He argues that increasingly restrictive regulation risks limiting access to precisely the alternatives capable of helping smokers leave cigarettes behind.
Brussels want to “modernise” tobacco framework
The evidence arrives at another pivotal moment. The European Commission closed its latest public consultation on revisions to the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and Tobacco Advertising Directive on August 14, with legislative proposals planned before the end of 2026.
The Commission says that existing tobacco-control legislation has contributed to declining smoking and tobacco-related mortality, and believes that the rapid emergence of novel nicotine products—particularly their use among young people—requires the framework to be modernised. Harm reduction advocates agree that youth access requires effective controls but dispute the idea that this necessitates regulating non-combustible alternatives increasingly like cigarettes.
Nicotine abstinence vs harm reduction: what will prevail?
This distinction increasingly separates two competing visions for European policy. One seeks ultimately to reduce or eliminate nicotine consumption itself. The other prioritises eliminating cigarette smoking, accepting that some consumers may continue using nicotine through substantially less hazardous products.
Taxation can powerfully influence that choice. If cigarettes and smoke-free alternatives become similarly expensive, some of the economic incentive for switching disappears. Excessive restrictions could also encourage cross-border purchasing and illicit markets rather than eliminating demand.
The EU consequently faces a broader decision than whether to raise taxes or restrict flavours. It must determine what outcome its nicotine policy is designed to achieve. Sweden provides one real-world example of a market where nicotine consumption persists, but cigarette smoking is exceptionally low.
With both the TED and wider tobacco legislation under review, Brussels has an opportunity to place that distinction at the centre of policy: maintain strong protections against youth uptake and smoking while ensuring adult smokers retain affordable access to regulated alternatives. If Europe’s ultimate objective is reducing smoking-related death and disease, taxing and regulating nicotine according to risk rather than treating every product like a cigarette may offer the more effective route to a smoke-free future.
