The EU Commission wants to tax away the alternatives that could make Europe smoke-free as early as 2040

The EU Commission has proposed a common tax directive for tobacco and nicotine products. Pouch Patrol can already present Haypp Group’s consultation response to the Swedish Ministry of Finance. And the company – which represents more than a million nicotin pouches users – offers both criticism and praise for the proposal.

By taxing snus and other harm-reducing alternatives lower than cigarettes, Sweden has, for example, successfully reduced smoking drastically. The result: the country has the lowest proportion of smokers in the EU – especially among young people, where almost no one smokes anymore. The new proposal will counteract the desire to reduce the number of smokers in Europe.

“The EU’s proposal to harmonize minimum tax rates on less harmful nicotine products is harmful and prevents countries from using differentiated tax rates,” says Haypp Group’s Head of Communications Markus Lindblad, and continues:

“Sweden’s successful tobacco and nicotine strategy has meant the country only has 5% smokers – something no other EU country is even close to. The Commission should see the country as a role model for reducing smoking.”

The new proposal threatens the possibility for other countries to follow Sweden’s example of becoming smoke-free within the Commission’s 2040 timeframe. If minimum taxes on snus and nicotine pouches are harmonized, we risk losing the tools that have saved lives and drastically reduced smoking.

Now it’s high time to make your voice heard. Your personal experience can make a difference. Help decision-makers make the right choice by giving them the right information. Use Haypp Group’s statement as a basis and tell your own story. Tell how you managed to quit smoking thanks to smoke-free nicotine products and show why these alternatives are crucial for public health. Let them know that the Commission’s proposal risks increasing smoking rather than reducing it.

Here is a summary of the consultation response:

Support for increased and harmonized minimum taxes on smoking products

Haypp supports the proposal for higher and harmonized minimum tax rates for cigarettes, cigarillos, cigars, and smoking tobacco. They emphasize that smoking is very harmful and that excise taxes are the most effective policy tool for reducing consumption.

The EU’s current tax levels are considered too low, contributing to slow declines in smoking – in some countries, the proportion of smokers has even increased. At the current rate, the EU is expected to reach its goal of fewer than 5% smokers only around 2070, far past the official 2040 target. If taxes on these products are to be regulated based on their harmfulness, a maximum tax would be more relevant. Haypp is suggesting that full harmonization of these taxes is not necessary.

Support for common legislation on nicotine products

Haypp also supports the idea of including all consumer nicotine products – such as nicotine pouches, chewing tobacco, and e-liquids – under common EU legislation.

However, they stress that tax levels should be differentiated based on the products’ relative harmfulness, with significantly lower taxes on less harmful alternatives. Sweden’s long-term success with lower taxes on snus is highlighted as an example, having contributed to the lowest smoking rates in the EU, especially among youth.

Criticism of harmonized minimum taxes on nicotine products

Haypp does not support the proposal for harmonized minimum tax rates on nicotine pouches, chewing tobacco, and e-liquids. They argue that the proposal ignores differences in harmfulness, thereby risking putting dangerous and less harmful products on the same economic footing.

Such a tax structure, according to Haypp, would remove incentives for smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives, threaten Sweden’s successful tobacco strategy, and at worst lead to increased smoking – especially among young people and women.

The company also warns of negative effects on tax revenues and increased risks of smuggling and illegal trade if tax levels on these products are significantly increased.

Conclusion

Haypp believes that:

• Yes to higher and harmonized minimum taxes on cigarettes and other smoking tobacco.
• Yes to common legislation for all nicotine products, but with clear differentiation based on health risk.
• No to harmonized minimum taxes on nicotine pouches, chewing tobacco, e-liquids, and similar products, as this risks counteracting public health goals.

You can read Haypp Group’s full consultation response here.