To the Swedish Government: ”Stand up for public health and say no to unreasonable nicotine taxes”

The EU wants to slow down harm reduction by making smokeless nicotine products more expensive - while Sweden is the clearest proof that a different approach works.
This is the view of a number of consumer-driven organisations that are now calling on the Swedish government to reject a nicotine policy that they say threatens the Swedish model.
”The EU wants to weaken incentives to quit smoking and risks driving more people back to cigarettes across the Union,” say the organisations.

Open letter to the Swedish government:
Say no to the EU compromise on harmonised nicotine taxation.

To the Swedish Government,

We are writing this letter on behalf of several consumer-driven organisations with thousands of members across Europe. As the EU Tax Directive on Nicotine Products (TED) is now being negotiated, we are concerned about what it could mean - not just for us, but for developments across the EU.

A majority of us use e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches to stay smoke-free. For us, tax levels are crucial. If the price difference between cigarettes and smokeless alternatives is reduced, an important incentive for many to remain smoke-free is also reduced.

Sweden represents an important principle

But it is about more than just our situation. It is about a principle. Sweden has long chosen to differentiate between more and less harmful nicotine products in taxation. For many of us in other EU countries, the Swedish approach is proof that such a policy works in practice.

The compromise proposal now on the table - although toned down compared to previous versions - goes in the opposite direction. Failing to clearly distinguish between cigarettes and smoke-free alternatives in tax policy not only threatens our, and future generations', ability to remain smoke-free. It also undermines the principle of harm minimisation - a principle that has served Sweden well and which more countries should be given the opportunity to follow.

Counteracts harm minimisation

Against this background, we believe that Sweden should say no to the compromise now being discussed in the Council. If necessary, you should use the right of veto.

The proposal risks going against the objective of reducing smoking. In practice, less harmful alternatives are treated almost like cigarettes. The compromise text talks about “avoiding taxation that leads consumers to switch from cigarettes to other products”. This means limiting the financial incentives for smokers to quit and use snus, nicotine pouches or e-cigarettes instead.

Threatening the Swedish model

For Sweden and Swedish consumers, this is of course more than just a technical tax issue. Sweden has the lowest proportion of smokers in the EU and the lowest tobacco-related mortality. One important explanation is that many have switched to smoke-free alternatives, as our Swedish members can attest. If Sweden is forced to abandon its model, it will send a clear signal to other Member States that risk-based taxation is no longer possible in the EU. This would affect millions of users beyond Sweden's borders.

Sharp increase in tax on nicotine pouches

The compromise proposal includes a minimum tax on nicotine pouches of around SEK 1 200 per kilo. This is a high level that does not take reasonable account of the difference in risk between cigarettes and smokeless products. Nor does the high tax take into account the role that smokeless nicotine products have actually played in reducing smoking to very low levels in Sweden (5.4 per cent).

Nicotine tax on nicotine-free e-liquid

The proposal also includes a uniform tax of €0.30 per millilitre of e-liquid - including for nicotine-free liquids. Imposing the same tax on nicotine-free products as on those containing nicotine seems not only difficult to justify, but completely illogical. The model makes it relatively more expensive to vejpa for those using low levels of nicotine or no nicotine at all, as the tax is levied per millilitre and not based on nicotine content. Surely this cannot be seen as a good policy?

Hurting those who should be protected

If this tax proposal goes through, it will penalise the least harmful products on the nicotine market and is likely to drive many users back to cigarettes, with a high risk of growing the black and uncontrolled market.

Experience and studies from several countries show that when less harmful alternatives become more expensive, smoking increases - especially among young people and people with small economic margins.

Dare to resist

Many consumers already feel that their perspective is given little space in EU discussions on tobacco and nicotine. It has also emerged that certain organisations are openly suspicious of those of us who represent consumers, i.e. those who will be directly affected by the measures proposed. In this situation, it is crucial that Member States have the courage to stand up for workable solutions and protect the groups that are directly affected.

We therefore invite you to:

Say no to the current compromise and use veto if necessary. Do not agree to proposals that penalise harm minimisation.
Require taxation to clearly distinguish between cigarettes and smokeless alternatives such as snus, nicotine pouches and e-cigarettes.
Safeguard the possibility for both Sweden and other Member States to pursue policies that reduce smoking, for example through tax policy.

Sweden's position does not only affect Swedish consumers. It affects us all. Stand up for public health and an evidence-based nicotine policy.

Yours sincerely

APORVAP (Portugal)