As smoking continues to claim over 700,000 lives each year in the European Union, public health experts and tobacco harm reduction (THR) advocates have long urged lawmakers to focus on practical, evidence-based solutions. But despite progress in some regions, the European Commission (EC) appears poised to take a step backward. According to Clearing the Air, the infamous taxes on reduced-risk nicotine products—such as vapes and nicotine pouches (NPs)—that the EC proposed earlier this year, will be introduced by Summer. A move that many fear could undermine one of the most promising strategies to end smoking-related death and disease.
To add insult to injury, this push for punitive taxation comes at a time when countries like Sweden are showing what’s possible with a pragmatic, THR-based approach. Swedish MEP Jessica Polfjärd has emerged as a powerful voice of reason within the European Parliament, calling out the dangerous trend of overregulating alternatives that have helped her country achieve the lowest smoking rate in the EU.
Writing in Borås Tidning, Polfjärd warned that EU proposals could endanger the very products, namely snus and nicotine pouches, that helped Sweden reduce daily smoking to nearly 5% nearly 15 years ahead of the EU’s own 2040 target. While traditional snus is already banned across the EU (with Sweden holding a lone exemption), newer oral nicotine products like white snus (pouches) are increasingly in the crosshairs of EU regulators.
Europe’s silent killer – fear, not smoking
Polfjärd challenges the idea that unfamiliar products are automatically dangerous, calling fear-driven regulation “a real threat to public health.” She argues that Sweden’s success should not be viewed as an anomaly—but as a blueprint. In contrast to countries like Germany and Greece, where more than 20% of adults still smoke daily, Sweden proves that access to safer alternatives works.
Instead of bans and taxes, Polfjärd advocates responsible regulation: protect minors and enforce quality standards, but do not block adult smokers from accessing effective harm reduction tools. “Tobacco and nicotine use won’t vanish overnight,” she notes. “What we can do is offer better alternatives to help people quit smoking and improve their health.”
Sweden has shown the way, but no one is following
Spain’s recent attempt to impose sweeping restrictions on nicotine pouches and most vaping products is a prime example of the overreach Polfjärd warns against. The Spanish Ministry of Health submitted a decree through the EU’s TRIS system that would effectively ban nicotine pouches by capping their content at 0.99mg, prohibit flavours in all e-cigarettes, and lower nicotine limits in e-liquids from 20mg/ml to 15mg/ml.
But the backlash has been swift. Six EU countries—Italy, Sweden, Greece, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania—have issued formal objections, triggering a mandatory three-month standstill period. These “reasoned opinions” are rarely filed and indicate serious legal and economic concerns. Sweden’s government, in particular, called the proposed pouch limits “disproportionate” and said Spain had failed to demonstrate why less extreme measures wouldn’t suffice.
The Spanish competition authority (CMC) has also raised red flags, demanding stronger scientific justification before clearing the proposal. The unusually high number of objections reflects broader unease across the EU about sacrificing consumer choice and public health gains in the name of political optics.
Will the EU listen to its own members on tobacco reform?
Meanwhile, back in Brussels, Hoekstra’s plan to tax reduced-risk products is facing internal resistance. At least three member states—Greece, Romania, and Italy—appear supportive, while others like Croatia, Cyprus, and Bulgaria, remain unconvinced or uncommitted. Hoekstra is reportedly lobbying these hesitant governments to support the tax hike, a move some insiders say he is making under pressure from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s office.
Critics have accused Hoekstra of prioritising ideology over evidence. In a recent session of the European Parliament, he falsely claimed that “vapes kill just like cigarettes”—a statement widely dismissed as unscientific, even by staunch anti-smoking groups. Public health experts say comparing vaping to smoking is not only misleading, but dangerous, as it disincentivizes smokers from switching to safer alternatives.
Environmental advocates are also baffled. As the Commissioner responsible for climate change, Hoekstra’s decision to expend political capital on taxing vapes has raised eyebrows. “It tells you everything you need to know about Europe’s climate priorities,” said one activist as quoted by Clearing the Air. “Why is the climate chief spending his time undermining harm reduction instead of focusing on emissions?”
Europe’s fork in the road: tax harm reduction or embrace it?
Ultimately, the question Europe must answer is this: will it reward countries like Sweden for pioneering a successful, low-risk model, or penalise millions of smokers trying to make healthier choices? Raising taxes and imposing bans on safer products may seem politically expedient, but the long-term cost—in lives and credibility—could be devastating.
If the EU is serious about reducing tobacco harm, it should follow the data, not dogma. That means embracing—not eliminating—safer alternatives, and ensuring that adult smokers can access them affordably and responsibly. Sweden has shown the way. It’s time the rest of Europe caught up.
Leaked EU Plan to Tax Nicotine Pouches Sparks Economic, Political, and Criminal Concerns
