What changes do companies and trade associations want to see when the EU revises the Tobacco Products Directive?
“Not all tobacco and nicotine products have the same risk profile and should therefore not be treated as if they posed the same health risks,” writes the Swedish Food Federation in its consultation response to the European Commission ahead of the revision of the TPD.
Common rules within the EU, differences between cigarettes and smokeless nicotine products, and measures to combat illicit trade. This is the message from Nordic industry organisations and companies in their response to the European Commission’s consultation on the forthcoming Tobacco Products Directive, TPD3.
– New regulations must be enforceable. Companies that comply with the regulations should not face higher costs whilst unregistered operators reach the same consumers without being subject to equivalent checks, writes the Swedish e-commerce company Snuset.se in its submission.
Calls for common rules
A recurring point raised in the consultation responses is the need for more harmonised legislation within the EU. The Danish Nicotine Industry Association, the Swedish Food Federation and Snuset.se argue that the current national differences create uncertainty for both businesses and consumers. Differences in rules governing ingredients, product notifications, labelling, flavours and sales are highlighted as barriers to the single market.
– “The current national differences in definitions, notification procedures, ingredients, labelling, flavours and marketing create legal uncertainty and an uneven playing field,” writes Snuset.se in its consultation response
The company wants nicotine pouches to be subject to a common European regulatory framework. At the same time, it believes that Member States should not be allowed to introduce new national requirements that would recreate a patchwork of different rules.
– “Harmonisation should not allow for additional national requirements that would recreate the current fragmentation,” the company writes.
The Swedish Food Federation also emphasises the importance of the single market and calls for common definitions and more predictable processes.
– “Differences between Member States create uncertainty for businesses, hamper cross-border trade and risk distorting competition,” the organisation writes.
At the same time, the Swedish Food Federation emphasises that EU rules should not go beyond what is necessary.
– A revised regulatory framework should include clear, common definitions, predictable processes and consistent application. At the same time, the rules must not go beyond what is necessary.
Denmark warns against a dual regulatory framework
At the same time, the Danish Nicotine Industry Association raises the question of how common EU rules should relate to existing, comprehensive national legislation. The organisation notes that Denmark has already introduced several of the rules currently under discussion at EU level. Before the EU introduces new common rules, the Commission should therefore investigate whether the issues in question really require overarching legislation.
– Otherwise, there is a risk that the EU will force Member States to harmonise an already extensive regulatory framework, the organisation writes.
The tobacco industry is also calling for analyses of the costs to businesses and Member States, including administrative burdens, the restructuring of production and the impact on tax revenues.
– The economic impact on businesses and Member States’ tax revenues must be taken into account. The economic and administrative burden on manufacturers also needs to be analysed, writes the Tobacco Industry Association.
Want to see the difference between smoking and a smoke-free environment
In their consultation responses, organisations including the Swedish Food Industry Association, the Swedish Nicotine Industry Association and Snuset.se point out that cigarettes, e-cigarettes, traditional snus and nicotine pouches have different characteristics and risk profiles. The organisations therefore argue that they should not automatically be subject to the same regulations.
– “Not all tobacco and nicotine products have the same risk profile and should therefore not be treated as if they pose the same health risks,” writes the Swedish Food Federation.
The organisation warns that regulations which treat products with different risk profiles as equivalent may have unintended consequences.
– Legislation that treats products with significantly different harm profiles as equivalent risks undermining public health efforts, reducing the quality of consumer information and, in some cases, driving users towards more harmful or unregulated alternatives, according to the Swedish Food Federation.
Snuset.se puts forward a similar argument and would like to see product-specific regulations.
– Combustible tobacco products, smokeless tobacco, nicotine pouches and e-cigarettes differ in both their characteristics and their use, and should not automatically be subject to identical regulations.
The Danish Nicotine Industry Association also welcomes the opportunity to create a separate category for smoke-free nicotine products within the directive.
– Smoke-free nicotine products have a significantly different harm profile to cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products. This should be reflected in the regulations where relevant, writes the Nicotine Industry Association.
Sweden is held up as an example
Several of the bodies consulted refer to Sweden’s low proportion of smokers and argue that the Swedish experience should be included in the Commission’s impact assessment.
– “Sweden’s experience shows that it is possible to combine low smoking rates with a regulatory framework that distinguishes between smoked and smoke-free products,” writes the Swedish Food Federation.
Snuset.se highlights that adult customers report having switched from cigarettes to nicotine pouches and other smoke-free products. At the same time, the company emphasises that this is based on experience from the retail sector and among users, and does not constitute a claim that the products are equivalent to a smoking cessation medicine.
– ‘However, the potential impact of the regulation on adults’ decisions to switch their source of nicotine from combustible cigarettes should be assessed,’ the company writes.
“Sweden is ahead”
The Snus Commission also highlights developments in Sweden and argues that Sweden’s exemption from the EU ban on snus has made it possible to study how access to snus affects smoking.
– Since Sweden joined the EU in 1995, the country has served as a full-scale experiment into how snus can help reduce smoking in a country, writes the Snus Commission.
The organisation points out that Sweden has the lowest cigarette consumption in the EU and a low rate of tobacco-related deaths among men.
– “What the EU is aiming to achieve by 2040 – a smoke-free society – Sweden has already achieved,” writes the Snus Commission in its consultation response.
Fact box: The organisations behind the consultation responses
The Snus Commission is a Swedish advocacy platform that works on issues relating to smoke-free nicotine products. In its consultation response, the organisation states that it is funded by the Swedish Snus Manufacturers’ Association but operates independently and has no interest in increasing snus use.
The tobacco industry is a Danish trade association whose member companies operate in the nicotine and tobacco sector.
Swedish Food Federation (Livsmedelsföretagen) is a Swedish trade association for the food industry. Its member companies also include firms that manufacture and sell tobacco and nicotine products.
Snuset.se is operated by Get This Globe AB, a Swedish e-commerce company specialising in the sale of snus and nicotine products. The company submitted its own response to the European Commission’s consultation.
Smoke-Free Sweden is an international public advocacy initiative working to reduce harm in the field of tobacco and nicotine. The consultation response was submitted by the organisation’s spokesperson, Philip Weyde.
