Last week, four EU states banded together to object to Poland’s proposed new nicotine pouch and e-cigarette rules. Praised by neoprohibitionist “medical experts”, criticised by those with a basic pulse of liberty left in their body, it seems that the battle lines over these policies will be fought on their potential incompatibility with EU single-market rules rather than public health policy.
What are the proposed Polish rules?
The new tight Polish rules have been in the works for a while. We wrote about them here in late 2024. While some of the regulations are sensible enough (20mg strength limits, banning sales to under-18s), others go too far by banning online sales or restricting flavours to tobacco only. Indeed, many have suggested that limiting flavours to tobacco amounts to a de facto ban, because:
Not many producers actually make tobacco flavours.
Consumer polls suggest mint, menthol, and fruit flavours are what people want, with tobacco flavour pouches rarely featuring in any significant way.
Of course, just like the Sweden v Spain situation last year, battling back against these excessive regulations is about more than common sense public health policy. Instead, because nicotine pouches are among Sweden’s most popular exports, any effective bans can be seen as limiting the EU single market by making it hard for certain countries to sell lawful products across borders.
Which countries have joined Sweden?
When Spain tried to effectively ban nicotine pouches by limiting strengths to a ridiculous 0.99mg, Romania, Czechia, Croatia, Greece and Italy joined Sweden by opposing the decree. This time, Romania, Slovakia and Greece have joined Sweden to oppose these measures that amount to little more than a backdoor ban.
Why Czechia, Croatia, and Italy haven’t joined this time around isn’t clear. It could be that the 0.99mg limits were just so egregious that the had no choice but to object. However, I’d argue that tobacco-only regulations are at least in that ballpark.
What happens next for Poland?
Now that Sweden, Romania, Slovakia and Greece have objected to Poland’s proposals, the next steps will involve some of the EU’s characteristically glacial speed. Things can go one of three ways under the Technical Regulation Information System (TRIS) process. Poland can:
Keep the draft on hold.
Amend it to make it less restrictive.
Let it proceed and risk a legal challenge later.
For now, Poland will need to justify why its flavour restrictions, nicotine caps, and other limits are proportionate and necessary. While some of that will be fairly straightforward, removing all flavours should rightly be seen for what it is: an attempt to destroy the potential of nicotine pouches in Poland by making them less appealing to adults and therefore harming the country's attempts to drive down smoking prevalence, which currently sits at around 27%.
What can the UK do to help?
Brexit means that the UK can’t do much to formally vote, object, or file a member-state detailed opinion in the TRIS process. However, it can help in a limited way by backing the harm reduction argument publicly. Indeed, the UK government has previously stated that nicotine pouches are likely lower risk than smoking and that any rules governing the product should be evidence-based and proportionate.
Four things that the UK can do to protect pouches in the EU
Here are four easy steps that the UK government could take to help ensure our European brothers and sisters have access to pouches.
Provide a public example of how a sensibly regulated approach to pouches does not lead to rampant youth use or rising smoking rates.
Support the credible scientific case that pouches are lower risk than cigarettes and that treating them like tobacco is both illogical and dangerous.
Get in touch with ministers, researchers, and public health voices to impress the importance of pouches to smokers, even if the UK can’t vote on regulations.
Help shape the debate indirectly by showing that youth protection and adult harm reduction can be balanced without blanket bans.
Final thoughts
It’s a shame that it comes to technical arguments over access to the single market to keep nicotine pouches as a viable option for some EU citizens. The harm reduction argument is the strongest and most ethical; it’s a shame it’s not enough to convince some lawmakers.
