Pouches – Smoke Master

A Welcome Coincidence for Sweden, as Its Election Could Derail EU Tobacco Tax Deal Over Snus and Nicotine Pouches

admin — Sun, 06 Sep 2026 15:40:48 +0000

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.

Source link

Nicotine Pouches Are Not Cigarettes. Regulation Should Reflect the Difference

admin — Mon, 03 Aug 2026 02:01:17 +0000

There is a marked contradiction in the global nicotine market: while combustible cigarettes—the products responsible for the vast majority of tobacco-related illness—are still available in nearly every convenience store, smoke-free alternatives have to go through lengthy regulatory reviews, meet with political opposition and are frequently the subject of calls for prohibition.

Nicotine pouches are now finding themselves involved in the same debates that had earlier concerned vaping. Since these products do not contain tobacco leaf and produce neither smoke nor an aerosol, critics are increasingly referring to them as the ‘next Juul’. Tobacco harm reduction experts have consistently highlighted that this way of putting it is inflating legitimate worries regarding youth use and leading to exaggerated restrictions which will ultimately only benefit cigarette companies by removing lower-risk alternatives from the market.

The latest decision by the US Food and Drug Administration regarding ZYN provides an opportunity to redirect the debate towards evidence.

What does the reduced risk status by the FDA mean for the pouch market?

Last June, Swedish Match USA received the FDA’s modified-risk status for 20 of its ZYN nicotine pouch products. The licence enables the company to claim that using ZYN rather than cigarettes reduces the risk of mouth and lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

The FDA specified that the approval does not imply that nicotine pouches are harmless, appropriate for people who have never used them or approved as medicines to help people quit smoking. Furthermore, the decision does not automatically extend to every pouch currently on the market.

The order does, nonetheless, show a significant regulatory recognition of the fact that adults who wholly substitute cigarettes for prescribed nicotine pouches are able to lower their risk of disease. The FDA has determined that the claim is scientifically accurate with respect to the approved products, understandable to consumers, and likely to contribute to better population health. The importance of the ZYN ruling is partly because progress has been slow.

Nicotine pouches have had to go through the FDA’s Premarket Tobacco Product Application process, a system that was originally designed with quite different products in mind. Manufacturers and retailers have objected to the lack of detailed, pouch-specific guidance, the lengthy review times, and the uncertainty regarding how the agency evaluates flavours, nicotine delivery, and effects on the population.

A guideline for Asia

Yet, the FDA’s order should likewise draw attention in the Asia-Pacific region, since cigarette smoking is found there together with the widespread use of hazardous traditional oral tobacco products. Nicotine pouches are used similarly to local products like gutka, khaini, and zarda, but their makeup is essentially different. They do not contain tobacco leaves and can be produced according to controlled standards regarding the ingredients. On the other hand, some of the local smokeless products contain high levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines and may be mixed with areca nut, which in itself is linked to cancer.

The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) has recently reiterated that regulators should not classify cigarettes, traditional smokeless tobacco and tobacco-free pouches as being in a single, undifferentiated category. A reasonable regional response should therefore be neither simple approval nor a complete ban of alternative products. Governments could establish a separate product category with restrictions on nicotine concentration, requirements for testing contaminants, rules regarding manufacturing, mandatory health warnings, child-resistant packaging and post-market surveillance.

Nicotine pouches’ growing popularity in the UK

The Haypp and Northerner Nicotine Pouch Report 2026 looked into the experiences of 2,082 UK customers and examined purchasing data from over 50,000 individuals. Nicotine pouch sales at the two retailers rose by 60% in 2025. Almost one in two of those surveyed stated that they had started using pouches as part of an effort to quit smoking, and a large number said that they were using them as they moved on from vaping or that they were alternating between lower-risk products.

Convenience and discretion were major selling points. Since pouches need no batteries, do not have to be refilled or inhaled and can be used in places where smoking and vaping are not allowed, purchases by female customers increased more than three times in 2025. This indicates that the unobtrusive format may be attractive to those who do not like to carry visible nicotine products or feel judged for using them in public.

Will Costa Rica choose prohibition?

Meanwhile, a proposal in Costa Rica to limit most oral nicotine products, despite their risk level, shows how easily regulation can lose sight of comparative risk. People’s advocacy groups have stated that the measure might include tobacco-free pouches and could thus reduce access to certain medicinal nicotine products, although cigarettes would still be allowed. This policy discussion once again raises an important question: what outcome occurs when a government removes safer products but continues to allow the most hazardous one to be sold?

The demand for nicotine will never vanish; people might start smoking again, buy unregulated pouches or resort to informal cross-border suppliers. As a result, prohibition will substitute regulated products with ones that have looser age checks, uncertain ingredients, and no reliable supervision during manufacturing – a pattern we have sadly become all too familiar with.

Regulation should follow the continuum of risk

Sure, nicotine pouches are addictive, and therefore measures need to be in place to protect young people and/or never users. Marketing should focus on adult nicotine users rather than on those who do not currently use nicotine, and the regulators should keep an eye on the oral effects, the safety of the ingredients, and the patterns of dual use.

Yet the fact that there are such concerns is no reason for pretending that pouches and cigarettes pose comparable risks. The way the FDA has handled its modified-risk assessment, albeit taking way too long, provides a more suitable approach—evaluating each product separately, requiring supporting evidence, and allowing comparisons between products if the science supports doing so. This type of information enables consumers to realise that switching completely makes a difference and that continuing to smoke means they will still retain most of the risk.

Public health ought to make the most dangerous nicotine products as unattractive and difficult to buy as possible—not the other way around. Although nicotine pouches will not be suitable for every smoker, they should serve as a complement to, not a replacement for, effective alternatives such as vaping and medicinal nicotine. Nevertheless, by expanding the range of acceptable substitutes for cigarettes, they can help to advance tobacco harm reduction and provide more adults with a practical means of giving up combustion.

Nicotine Pouches and Oral Health: The Latest Evidence on the Risks and Their Solutions

Source link