When it comes to public health and consumer habits, the evidence is clear: regulation is far more effective than banning. Recent developments in both the United States and Sweden provide a compelling case for this approach, particularly for harm reduction policies that seek to mitigate the dangers of tobacco and nicotine consumption.
In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken a groundbreaking step by recognising certain Modified Risk Tobacco Products (MRTP), such as Zyn, a nicotine pouch product manufactured by PMI, and Swedish Match’s General Snus, as alternatives to cigarettes for adult smokers who cannot or will not quit.
This decision reflects a pragmatic acknowledgment of consumer behaviour: banning products rarely eliminates their use; instead, thoughtful regulation can guide consumers toward safer alternatives.
The success of snus in Sweden exemplifies this principle. With snus and other smoke-free alternatives widely available, Sweden has achieved the lowest cigarette consumption rates in the EU. The public health outcomes are staggering: Sweden reports 21% fewer smoking-related deaths, 31% fewer cancer deaths, and 36% fewer lung cancer deaths compared to EU averages. This progress demonstrates that regulated access to harm-reducing alternatives can save lives without compromising public safety.
Europe should consider the examples of Sweden and the United States. Both countries have demonstrated that evidence-based regulation, rather than prohibition, can yield remarkable public health benefits. Sweden’s success in slashing smoking rates through the availability of snus and other smoke-free alternatives has provided a clear blueprint: empowering adult consumers with safer alternatives reduces harm, saves lives, and alleviates long-term public health burdens.
Meanwhile, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a global precedent by rigorously evaluating and authorising products that meet strict Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) standards. These decisions are grounded in scientific evidence and real-world consumer behaviour, recognising that while quitting entirely is ideal, many adult smokers are unable or unwilling to do so. By acknowledging this reality, the FDA has made it possible for adult consumers to access less harmful alternatives, while implementing measures to prevent misuse, particularly among youth.
Europe, however, continues to lag behind, clinging to outdated policies that fail to address today’s public health challenges. The 1992 ban on snus, imposed across the EU with the exception of Sweden, is a stark example of policy inertia that prioritises prohibition over harm reduction. This approach not only ignores overwhelming scientific evidence but also denies millions of adult smokers the opportunity to make better choices for their health. As a result, Europe’s smoking rates remain stubbornly high, burdening healthcare systems and contributing to avoidable deaths.
Encompassing evidence-based policies would allow the Union to turn the tide on smoking-related harm. By legalising and regulating smoke-free alternatives such as snus and nicotine pouches, the EU could mirror Sweden’s public health achievements—reducing smoking prevalence, lowering tobacco-related illnesses, and ultimately saving thousands of lives. Regulation would also provide greater oversight and accountability, ensuring that products meet safety standards, marketing remains responsible, and access is restricted to legal-age consumers.
Furthermore, adopting a harm-reduction approach does not mean compromising on public health objectives. It means innovating and evolving to address real-world challenges pragmatically. Europe has an opportunity to lead by example, showcasing how progressive policies can balance individual freedoms, consumer choice, and public health protection. Countries like Sweden have already proven that harm reduction works; the United States has reinforced this by integrating science-backed policies into regulation.
Brussels could abandon anachronistic prohibitions to support modern, evidence-based policies. This will not only improve public health outcomes but also foster a more informed and responsible society. This is not just a matter of regulatory reform; it is a moral imperative to ensure that adult smokers are given better choices and that Europe’s public health systems are equipped for a healthier, smoke-free future.
The lesson here is simple: banning products drives them underground, increasing risks and reducing oversight. By contrast, regulation allows governments to enforce safety standards, promote harm reduction, and safeguard public health. It is time for Europe to welcome a more productive to abandon its counterproductive approach and recognise that regulation, not prohibition, is the key to progress. By following the examples of Sweden and the United States, the EU can create a safer, healthier society— one where public health and individual freedoms work in harmony.
Photo by Raphael Andres on Unsplash
