The ban on sale of nicotine pouches in Belgium challenged due to lack of scientific base for decision.
Pouchforum.eu has previously written about the upcoming ban on nicotine pouches in Belgium that will enter in full force the 1 October this year. It is now being challenged on the grounds that Federal Minister of Health Frank Vandenbroucke did not wait for an opinion of the Superior Health Council and did not take into account recent scientific research on the subject.
Le Soir writes about the challenge of the royal decree quoting parts of British American Tobacco (BAT)s press release. While pouchforum is pleased with any attention given to this subject Le Soir describes Nicotine pouches as a product where “The nicotine level of this tobacco-free product can reach up to 90 mg, which is almost nine times the level of a normal cigarette.”
None of the major manufacturers that produce the absolute bulk of nicotine pouches in Europe has any products that would even get near to that. In fact there are voluntary agreements to limit the amount of nicotine per pouch to significantly lower figures. As such, while what Le Soir writes is true, it is in no way representative for the product.
In the case of the challenge of the Belgian ban it is British American Tobacco (BAT) that has decided to go against this decision on the basis that “research from Germany and the UK has clearly demonstrated that nicotine pouches are a less harmful alternative to cigarettes”. While adding that this product “is not without risk and can be addictive”. BAT continues to refer to publicly available statistics that Sweden, where this product is legal, common and widely available, will soon have a rate of smokers limited to less than 5%, while in Belgium, this proportion is still around 20%.
This is not the only example of prohibitionist bans that are being contested. The Finish Medicines Agency FIMEA recently stated that nicotine pouches can no longer routinely be classified as medicinal products unless they are specifically marketed for a medicinal purpose, or it can be proven in some other way that they are typically used like medicinal products. This, perhaps unintentionally, removed one of the most restrictive national rules for import of nicotine pouches in Europe. Previously bringing the same nicotine pouches that are sold in any supermarket in for example Sweden was considered smuggling prescription medicine and could be punishable by thousands of euros in fines or even imprisonment.
In Fimea’s view, nicotine pouches are used as consumer products. “The regulation of nicotine pouches should be included in tobacco legislation,” says Eija Pelkonen, Director General of Fimea. “The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has already begun preparations for the amendments to the law.”
Pouchforum welcomes this development, both the more accurate classification in Finland and that a rushed Belgian ban is contested, allowing adult nicotine users to make a choice of preference instead of being referred to products with a higher risk.
However, one should not interpret this as Finish authorities are against a ban. Only that nicotine pouches by definition should not be regulated by the normal set of rules for medicinal products. It is presently not clear if the amendments are intended to create a well-regulated market in line with the new classification or if the ministry will continue to persist on a abolitionist road and ban the most likely least harmful nicotine product on the market.
We do agree that nicotine pouches are a product that eventually will have to be regulated with a purposeful set of rules, including a ban on sales and marketing to minors, labelling requirements and an upper limit for nicotine content. All of this to address the actual potential problems such as use by risk groups, consumer safety an allowing adult nicotine users to make an informed choice. On the other hand we consider it is a fundamental mistake to ban a low risk product because there is a consumer demand.