France vs. Harm Reduction: The Misguided Ban on Nicotine Pouches

In a surprising move, France has announced its plan to ban nicotine pouches despite growing evidence that these products are significantly less harmful than cigarettes. This decision marks a setback in ongoing efforts to reduce smoking-related harm and improve public health outcomes.

What are nicotine pouches?

Nicotine pouches are small, discreet packets containing nicotine and flavourings but no tobacco. Unlike cigarettes, which produce dangerous byproducts like tar and carbon monoxide when burned, nicotine pouches deliver nicotine in a cleaner, smoke-free form.

Public health experts recognise that these products, as part of a harm reduction strategy, can help smokers reduce their exposure to harmful chemicals and, ultimately, quit smoking altogether.

Why does France want to ban nicotine pouches?

The French government’s decision to ban nicotine pouches seems to be driven by concerns over the rising popularity of these products among young people. The government argues that nicotine pouches could serve as a gateway to nicotine dependence or even smoking, although there is little evidence to support this claim. 

However, banning nicotine pouches is a misguided move, as it disregards the broader benefits of harm reduction—offering smokers a safer alternative to cigarettes. Instead of restricting access to a product that helps reduce smoking-related harm, France should focus on regulating nicotine pouches according to their risk and promoting education. This would allow smokers to make safer choices without pushing them back to smoking, or driving them to search for these products on the black market.

France should follow Sweden’s example.

Sweden has taken a different approach, and it has paid off. With one of the lowest smoking rates in Europe (just 5.3%), Sweden’s success can largely be attributed to its embrace of snus, a smokeless tobacco product similar to nicotine pouches. While other countries have restricted or even banned smokeless tobacco products, Sweden has allowed snus and other safer alternatives to remain widely available, helping many smokers transition away from cigarettes.

This approach contrasts with more restrictive policies in other countries, showing that harm reduction—rather than bans—can lead to better health outcomes by giving smokers safer options.

Conclusion

This decision to ban nicotine pouches is a regressive step in the fight against smoking-related diseases. Instead of restricting safer alternatives, France should follow Sweden’s approach—supporting harm reduction while educating the public on the risks and benefits of these alternatives. Embracing such policies could help reduce smoking-related harm and improve public health outcomes in the long run.