Recent reporting from Vejpkollen highlights a growing clash between Sweden and Brussels over proposed EU tax reforms that could dramatically reshape the nicotine pouch market. At the core of the dispute is a question of principle: should safer nicotine alternatives be taxed in the same way as cigarettes, or should taxation reflect their much lower risk profile? For Sweden, the answer is clear.
The EU’s Proposal
In its upcoming budget cycle for 2028–2034, the European Commission is considering a plan that would not only introduce new excise duties on nicotine pouches but also divert 15 percent of national tobacco tax revenues directly into the EU budget. The proposal envisions sharp tax hikes across the board, including an estimated 650 percent increase in excise duty on nicotine pouches—an additional SEK 25 per can in Sweden. Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson has already called the plan “completely unacceptable,” warning that it would undermine public health progress, erode national sovereignty, and weaken incentives for smokers to switch to safer products.
Sweden’s Experience with Harm Reduction
Sweden is not opposing the EU out of political convenience, but rather out of experience. The country has one of the lowest smoking rates in Europe, with prevalence already around 5 percent. This milestone has been achieved largely through the availability of non-combustible alternatives such as snus and, more recently, nicotine pouches. For decades, Swedish consumers have shown that when safer products are accessible and affordable, smoking rates decline significantly.
The government’s position is rooted in three convictions. First, taxation should follow scientific evidence, meaning that less harmful products should not be taxed as harshly as cigarettes. Second, decisions about taxation belong with member states, not Brussels, especially when national harm reduction strategies have proven successful. And third, revenue generated from nicotine products should remain within the country to support health services, regulatory enforcement, and consumer protection—not be diverted to EU institutions.
Risks of the Current Plan
If adopted, the EU’s plan could undermine harm reduction efforts in several ways. By raising pouch prices to levels comparable with or even higher than cigarettes, the incentive for smokers to switch would erode, stalling progress in reducing smoking-related disease. Heavy taxation could also fuel illicit trade, pushing consumers toward unregulated and potentially unsafe products. Furthermore, a one-size-fits-all tax system ignores the diversity of successful national policies and risks deepening regulatory discord within the EU. Sweden’s firm opposition means that consensus on the directive will be difficult to achieve, raising the likelihood of compromise or delay.
GINN’s Perspective
At GINN, we believe taxation must be guided by evidence, not ideology. The Swedish model demonstrates that risk-proportionate regulation works, driving down smoking rates while keeping safer alternatives accessible. Penalizing these products with punitive taxes is not only scientifically unsound but also counterproductive for public health.
The EU now faces a choice. It can follow a path that recognizes the fundamental difference between combustion and non-combustion, supporting smokers in their transition away from cigarettes. Or it can adopt measures that will fuel illicit markets, erode trust, and slow the decline of smoking-related disease. Sweden’s stance is a reminder that successful harm reduction deserves to be supported, not punished.
