Brussels – The revision of the Tobacco Excise Directive (TED) reignites the European debate on the regulation of nicotine products, intertwining taxation, public health, and the free movement of goods. At the heart of the debate lies Sweden’s position, which defends its harm-reduction model, while tensions with France are mounting following the crackdown on nicotine pouches. In Brussels, the first to sound the alarm is Swedish MEP Johan Danielsson (S&D), who directly links the tax issue to the future revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD): “In my view, the government should not make concessions on the TED without knowing what it will gain in the future revision of the TPD. If Sweden is to give up its veto, there must be a clear guarantee that the snus tradition will be protected,” he told Eunews.
For Danielsson, the risk is of a watered-down compromise that undermines a well-established national model: “You cannot accept something so important and hope it will sort itself out later.” This stance reflects a growing skepticism towards the European approach to nicotine, which is also seen as inconsistent from a health perspective. “I find it strange that some countries consider nicotine under the lip to be the main danger,” he observes. “In France, 25 percent of smokers are under 25, compared with 3 percent in Sweden. And among young Europeans, the average use of e-cigarettes is 6 percent, compared with 2 percent for nicotine pouches. The priorities seem a bit odd.”
It is the French situation that has turned the political debate into an open confrontation. Since 1 April, Paris has introduced very strict restrictions on nicotine pouches, with potential consequences for European citizens traveling there. “Swedes risk extremely harsh penalties in France for a product that is widely used and considered a cultural tradition in Sweden,” Danielsson claims. “This is not a serious health policy. It is a disproportionate ban that is out of touch with reality.” The implications go beyond the symbolic level, and directly affect freedom of movement: “If even a fraction of the 668,560 Swedish tourists expected in France were to bring white snus with them, many ordinary citizens would risk detention or heavy fines.”
For this reason, the MEP has called on the European institutions: “We have asked Ursula von der Leyen whether she considers this ban proportionate. If the answer is yes, she must explain on which scientific evidence it is based. If it is not, she must state what action she intends to take to defend free movement and the single market.” The pressure is also being directed at the European Parliament. Swedish Socialists have sent a letter to Roberta Metsola, stating: “If France proceeds with such extreme sanctions, the European Parliament cannot continue to meet in Strasbourg as if nothing has happened. We have asked President Metsola to intervene and suspend sessions until the French authorities reconsider.”
They added that this position will remain in place as long as French law allows for potential prison sentences of up to five years for individuals found in possession of nicotine pouches. Specifically, the letter states: “The prospect of Swedish citizens being deprived of their liberty or punished with a heavy fine while visiting France, solely for the possession or use of nicotine pouches, is clearly absurd and wholly unacceptable, especially given that these products are widely regarded as less harmful alternatives to smoking.” And, “if France proceeds with the ban accompanied by such severe and disproportionate penalties, we urge you to call for the Strasbourg sessions to be suspended until proportionality is restored in France and EU citizens can travel there without the risk of punitive measures for using a nicotine-based product that is lawful in their Member State of origin”, the letter continues.
On a different front, but reaching similar conclusions, is the other Swedish MEP, Charlie Weimers (ECR), who defends the national model as a successful example for the whole Union. “Sweden is the EU’s ‘smoke-free‘ country thanks to snus and nicotine pouches,” he notes. “Nicotine consumption has not fallen dramatically, but the type of product has changed: people are using less harmful alternatives. And we can see this in the data on cancer and cardiovascular disease,” he explains.
According to Weimers, banning or penalizing these products risks having counterproductive effects: “France’s decision to criminalize nicotine pouches is a serious mistake. For thousands of people, they have been a means of quitting smoking. Taking this option away risks driving them back to cigarettes.” The issue thus returns to the TED and the proposal for European tax harmonization: “The proposal is five times the current level in Sweden,” he emphasizes. “We apply a risk gradient principle: higher taxes for the most harmful products, lower ones for the least harmful. The Commission rejects this approach.” A criticism that also takes on a political dimension: “The Commissioner for Health Olivér Várhelyi has said that all nicotine-based products are equally harmful. I wonder which studies he is basing this on. He does not have the facts on his side.”
Hence, the appeal to Brussels: “The European Union should learn from Sweden’s success. Evidence-based harm reduction, with strict regulation and access to lower-risk products, saves lives.” But at the same time, Weimers asserts national sovereignty: “France is free to ban nicotine pouches, but should not impose tax increases at the European level that undermine the Swedish model. Similarly, Sweden must be free to tax these products as it sees fit.”
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
