The Swedish government has issued a Detailed Opinion on Austria’s proposed regulation of nicotine pouches under the EU’s TRIS notification procedure, signaling growing concern in Stockholm about how national restrictions on smoke free nicotine products are spreading across the EU.
“Sweden is issuing what is known as a Detailed Opinion, which is the strongest tool available to us. The Swedish government is standing up for snus. It is an important industry for Sweden and many Swedes use snus,” says Minister for International Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade Benjamin Dousa.
Under the TRIS system, member states can react to draft national legislation that may affect the functioning of the EU internal market. A Detailed Opinion is the strongest formal response available in the procedure and requires the notifying country to respond to the concerns raised.
Austria’s proposal introduces a regulatory framework for nicotine pouches and related nicotine products. Among other things it would regulate nicotine levels, introduce reporting obligations and establish stricter rules for marketing and youth access.
We have still not seen the detailed opinion but some of the main concerns in Sweden relates to how nicotine strength is defined in the proposal. Austria proposes to express nicotine limits in milligrams per gram of product, rather than per portion and the limit is significantly lower than the Swedish industry standard. Using different measurement methods across member states risks creating regulatory complexity and market fragmentation. If countries define nicotine limits differently, manufacturers may be forced to adapt products for each national market, increasing costs and potentially restricting cross-border trade. This is particularly relevant for Swedish producers, since Sweden is the largest market in the European Union for nicotine pouches and they are a significant export product.
The Austrian proposal does not provide a clear justification for why the nicotine limits should be expressed in this way or how this approach better serves the stated public health objectives.
Beyond nicotine pouch regulation itself, Sweden also raises concerns about restrictions on distance and online sales, which are included in the Austrian proposal. E-commerce plays an important role in the distribution of nicotine products across Europe, and a general ban on distance sales could have significant consequences for cross border trade. Under EU law, such far reaching restrictions normally require strong evidence that less intrusive alternatives, such as robust age verification systems, would not be sufficient. The proposal also includes a ban on disposable e cigarettes.
The decision to issue a Detailed Opinion should also be seen in the broader European context. Last year Sweden and several other member states have raised strong objections to proposals in France and Spain that would effectively remove nicotine pouches from their markets. The French proposal has been widely criticised as one of the most extreme regulatory proposals ever put forward for a consumer nicotine product in the EU, while the Spanish proposal introduces nicotine limits so low that they would in practice function as an indirect ban.
Compared with those initiatives, Austria’s proposal is far less aggressive. It includes measures aimed at strengthening youth protection and controlling marketing practices, which are legitimate policy objectives. Nevertheless, it is clear the Swedish government believe that parts of the proposal could still create unnecessary barriers within the EU internal market.
Stockholm’s decision to move from a standard comment to a Detailed Opinion suggests that patience with restrictive national approaches may be running out. After several controversial proposals across Europe, Sweden appears increasingly willing to use the stronger tools available in the TRIS procedure when national legislation risks undermining nicotine pouches. The European Commission should take note of this. The move also comes as discussions in Brussels are intensifying ahead of potential revisions of both the Tobacco Products Directive and the Tobacco Excise Directive, where trust in the Commission’s ability to act as an impartial and balanced arbiter on nicotine policy appears to be increasingly strained.
As the debate over nicotine pouches intensifies across Europe, the Austrian notification has become another example of the growing tension between national public health initiatives and the functioning of the EU internal market. Sweden, which has achieved the lowest smoking rates in the EU largely through the widespread use of smoke free nicotine products, increasingly sees restrictive national measures and potential EU level interventions as a threat to one of Europe’s most successful public health outcomes.