Considerate Pouchers Sweden has formally submitted its response to the Swedish Government’s consultation on the European Commission’s proposal to revise Council Directive 2011/64/EU on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to tobacco and tobacco-related products (Reference: Fi2025/01535).
The proposal seeks to expand EU-wide excise taxation to new categories of products, including nicotine pouches, heated tobacco, e-liquids (with and without nicotine), and even nicotine-free products. While the Commission’s stated goals are harmonisation, public health protection, and tackling illicit trade, we are deeply concerned about the disproportionate impact these measures would have on consumers and Sweden’s proven harm reduction model.
In our response, we emphasized:
- The 600% tax increase proposed for white snus and nicotine pouches in Sweden, which would undermine affordability and risk driving consumers back to cigarettes.
- The lack of justification for taxing nicotine-free products, which carry no addiction or health risks.
- Sweden’s world-leading harm reduction success, where smoking rates have fallen below 6% thanks to affordable and accessible oral nicotine alternatives.
- The danger that excessive taxation will fuel illicit markets and create unintended substitution back to combustible tobacco.
Why Affordability Matters
Keeping smoke-free products affordable is not just an economic issue. In Sweden, affordable nicotine pouches have played a critical role in dramatically reducing smoking rates, reducing disease and death, and saving healthcare costs.
As Sweden’s Minister of Finance, Elisabeth Svantesson, recently stated:
“The government wants each EU country to be able to tax tobacco and nicotine based on its relative harmfulness. And for us, it is obvious that the tax revenues should benefit Sweden… When the EU Commission presents its proposal, I will continue to fight for Swedish snus.”
This highlights two essential principles:
- Risk-based taxation must guide EU policy
- National tax sovereignty matters: Sweden should retain the ability to set excise law in ways that align with its public health achievements and fiscal needs.
If safer alternatives become too expensive, vulnerable consumers – especially low-income groups – may shift back to more harmful combustible products. That would be a step backwards in public health, not forwards.
We urged policymakers to safeguard Sweden’s evidence-based approach and to adopt proportionate, risk-based taxation that keeps safer alternatives accessible to adult consumers.
Download the full response Bu yerga
UZ 
EN 
UK 
FI 
FR 
DE 
SV 
ES 
CS