Between its core principles of evidence-based regulation and the free movement of goods, nicotine policy is fragmenting across the EU at a pace that is growing harder to reconcile. A crucial philosophic divide at the heart of the EU debate is whether all nicotine products should be put on a level playing field or if regulation should correspond to a risk continuum. Sweden, widely seen as the European poster country for tobacco harm reduction, has had the lowest smoking rate in the EU through the use of snus and smokeless products like nicotine pouches. The substitution effect, which brought people to stop using combustible tobacco, has turned into what can be measured, in the form of lower smoking-related diseases as well.
Keeping the blinkers on
Yet Europe has not acknowledged this success. Instead of going this route, some quarters in the EU seem to be headed for the opposite path. A recent flashpoint has been France’s crackdown on nicotine pouches. The introduction of harsh penalties, including imprisonment for possession, has enraged Swedish politicians and raised fundamental questions on proportionality and single market legal coherence. This is not simply a matter of regulatory divergence to Swedish stakeholders, but rather an affront to the fundamental tenet that legitimately marketed goods in one Member State should travel freely in other states.
The fallout of that dispute has permeated into wider EU policy-making fora, most notably the ongoing review of the Tobacco Excise Directive (TED) and expected revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), declaring that harmonized taxation policies should NOT distinguish between high-risk combustible products and much lower risk alternatives, such as vapes. Swedish representatives have spoken out against the move. The worry is simple: uniform taxation or outright bans on vaping products which flatten the risk gradient, remove all incentives for smokers to switch, and create an impregnable fortress of cigarettes protecting itself from competition.
Those who oppose the existing EU trajectory argue that such policies are not only scientifically dubious but also an attack on public health. In fact, the data show again and again that nicotine itself is addictive but not the culprit behind smoking-related disease. Combustion is. Failure to recognize this difference exposes policymakers to the temptation of placing completely different products under a single regulatory umbrella—a move which could delay or even reverse declines in smoking prevalence.
Conflicting motions that would end if only the evidence were considered
If, on the one hand, the Swedish-French dispute draws attention to ongoing continental European tensions, developments in Ireland suggest a parallel trend line. Irish policymakers are mulling various restrictions on where vapes can be sold, with dispensing to pharmacies suggested as a solution to increasing youth vaping rates. Political pressure to act is mounting as estimates suggest one in five Irish teens has tried vaping.
Even more concerning, the policy has stalled smoking cessation rates and is not considered a successful public health intervention. Tobacco-related crime, meanwhile, has exploded; black-market nicotine products are lucrative. The above outcomes exemplify one of the key risks of over-restriction: when safer alternatives become less accessible, consumers do not simply disappear—consumers adapt, and often in ways that not only work against health goals but also run counter to the intentions of regulation itself.
The challenge for Ireland will be to navigate legitimate concerns around youth uptake while protecting harm reduction pathways for adult smokers. Limiting access to pharmacies might stem impulse buys from minors, but in turn could further medicate a consumer good or indeed create barriers for smokers who want to quit. While ultimately, pharmacies themselves are not up to the task of handling the logistics and commercial aspects of a mass-market product category.
The continued divergence among member states (and between Europe and other jurisdictions) illustrates a more fundamental problem: a clear lack of a singular, cohesive approach to evidence-based nicotine regulation. Whereas some countries have found that harm reduction and risk-proportionality are key, others continue to regard any nicotine use as equally toxic and cling to abstinence-oriented strategies.
The science on the topic is clear – we know what works
With the evidence that has come to light, it is increasingly hard to justify this disconnect. Regulatory authorities in various nations, including Sweden and the UK, have recognized that non-combustible alternative nicotine products can also contribute to lower smoking-attributable harm. At the same time, there is more evidence from independent research that non-combusted products can be helpful in quitting smoking when properly regulated.
On this basis, the current direction of travel for the EU seems ignorant, outdated, and counterproductive. Focusing on restrictive strategies rather than practical harm reduction swings the pendulum towards the behaviours policymakers aim to eliminate. Placing high taxes, prohibiting, and making it difficult to access, may satisfy a political need, but does little to deal with the basis of smoking.
Moreover, the EU’s goal of becoming “smoke-free” by 2040 will be hard to achieve if it does not develop a well-thought-out plan that includes a comprehensive range of harm-reduction measures. The experience of Sweden suggests that change is possible, but only if policy, consumer behavior, and market realities align with what science says.
Well-researched regulations, not senseless restrictions
The real question for the EU is not whether to regulate nicotine, but how. A blanket strategy across a wide product range is rarely successful. Instead, a balanced framework that differentiates by risk, supports adult smokers in their efforts to transition, and employs youth use prevention measures in the first place, is what delivers the desired results.
With arguments still raging from Stockholm to Paris to Dublin, one thing is clear: the direction of travel matters. If that is the case, today the EU runs the risk of embarking on a trajectory in which policies noble in intent (or allegedly so) will have just ever so exactly the antithetical outcome.
