Die Tageszeitung is an iconic Berlin newspaper. Formed in 1978, it’s known as a bastion of progressive left-wing politics. Many people consider it to have captured the alternative spirit of the Grey City, with its political critiques and a strong focus on environmentalism, social justice, gender equality, and more.
The daily print edition will stop near the end of this year, meaning the online version, Taz.de, will be all that’s left of the outlet. Despite its unique cooperative ownership struggle, some readers have criticised the direction of the paper over the last few years, with some speculating that the paper has drifted to the right on particular issues.
Whatever the truth, the paper still holds an essential place for alternative or radical views, even if some of the output from Taz.de isn’t capable of escaping its ideological trap. Case in point: this recent article on Philip Morris Germany’s attempt to reverse the nicotine pouch ban in Germany.
What does Taz.de have to say about nicotine pouches?
Taz.de isn’t a place you come for balanced news. It’s meant to be the Berlin home of anti-establishment thought. However, remarkably, they are indistinguishable from the establishment on nicotine pouches.
Their analysis of nicotine pouches is done through the lens of anti-capitalism. While it’s good to look at things from different angles, it’s disappointing when the story just can't escape the narrative, which goes something like tobacco sales are declining, and pouches are a last-ditch effort from the evil moneymen of big tobacco to addict kids.
Reducing the world down to these childlike ideas works for some. But it means missing out on a great deal of complexity and nuance. We can see the perils of this kind of “thinking” with this statement: “Nothing is yet known about the exact harmfulness of the pouches because there are no long-term studies.”
This is, of course, total nonsense. Snus has been used in Sweden since the 18th century and in pouches since the 1970s. To say we know nothing about nicotine pouches is simply bad journalism. There is already an incredible amount of research on snus, and only a fool could ignore the product's role in Sweden’s smoke-free journey.
Yes, snus and nicotine pouches are not the same product. But what ingredients are contained in nicotine pouches that could warrant this sort of caution? What mechanisms of harm do people speculate are involved here? How many years of testing would even satisfy them?
Vaping has been around for almost two decades. People still suggest that’s not enough time to know the long-term effects. These arguments are not and have never been about long-term health. Instead, they’re a naked attempt to grind innovation to a halt.
If you’ve got room for more sophistry, Tag.de has got plenty on offer.
Unchallenged opinions
Later in the article. the Green MP Linda Heitmann goes totally unchallenged, stating: "Those who smoke early in life are more likely to become addicted later - this applies to nicotine, regardless of whether it is smoked, vaporized or put under the lip."
There are some studies that could be interpreted to support the fact that people who start smoking early are more likely to vape or smoke in adulthood. But we don’t see vapers or pouches move toward smoking as they become adults. Instead, harm reduction products are diverting youth away from smoking.
Another questionable statement comes from CDU member of the Bundestag Tino Sorge, who says, "Young people and pregnant women in particular face serious risks due to the amount of nicotine they consume, which can even be higher than with cigarettes."
Recent University of Nottingham research refutes this prejudice, stating, “A new analysis of trial data on pregnant smokers has found that the regular use of nicotine replacement products during pregnancy is not associated with adverse pregnancy events or poor pregnancy outcomes.”
Of course, the Tag.de article does not challenge these unscientific claims. Instead, it presents them as factual, authoritative statements on medical issues, even though they are from politicians.
While that’s not entirely unexpected, it contrasts sharply with the treatment of Torsten Albig, the director of external affairs at Philip Morris Germany. Albig rightly questions why pouches can be bought from outside the country but not inside. He reasons that it amounts to a loss of taxable income for Germany. Moreover, he suggests it’s unfair on German retailers.
Of course, his arguments are largely dismissed, and he is labelled as a lobbyist. And sure, obviously Albig is talking up his book, so to speak. But the point remains: pouches are banned because they are regulated as food, and German regulations don’t allow nicotine in food. It’s clear this is a scenario where the regulations are not fit to govern the product. Instead, we just get a load of health alarmism from people with limited expertise on the matter.
Final thoughts
No one goes to a left-wing news outlet for balanced, well-reasoned articles. But that’s no excuse for the author to let their anti-capitalist meanderings perpetuate conspiracy theories and misinformation about harm-reduction products. Tag.de, it’s time to step up your game.
