Sweden, Snus and the EU – Free to be addicted. 

Snus, the Swedish tobacco product containing nicotine was negotiated to be exempted from the EU’s restriction on tobacco products when Sweden became a member in 1995. Now the tobacco-free nicotine pouches, known as “white Snus”, have managed to find a loophole in the EU regulations against tobacco and gained popularity in several large member states, causing France to ban nicotine pouches starting in 2026. However, actions like these do not address the root of the issue. But why is a Snus restriction seen as impossible in Sweden, what consequences does this exemption have for the EU and how should the Union address the matter in the future? 

Snus – Threat or Saviour 

Snus is often advertised as a healthier alternative to smoking, with Snus not affecting the lungs or blood vessels in the same way as smoking. Studies have shown that there have been zero cases of death related to Snus. However, the combined results of studies around Snus and health effects are vague and sometimes contradictory. According to the Swedish medical advice site 1177 those who use Snus with tobacco have a heightened risk of colon cancer, esophageal cancer, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes type 2 as well as damaging the mucous membrane in the mouth. Snus also contains nicotine that causes raised blood pressure that can lead to cardiovascular diseases. Snus or white Snus addiction might not cause lung damage like smoking but it is harmful to other aspects of life, such as overall well-being and one’s sense of control over actions and decisions.

Swedish version of French wine – Snus as Culture 

Snus advocates often portray it as an important part of Swedish culture, comparing the prohibition of Snus in Sweden to banning wine in France– something unthinkable. But is Snus really this Swedish cultural symbol and source of Swedish national pride? Snus is used by 16% of the population in 2024. It can be described as a habit that is an undeniable part of Swedish society. However, that does not automatically mean that the usage of Snus has cultural value and is a source of pride for most Swedes connected to Sweden’s national identity. When people talk about Snus as a culture, they probably refer to it as something that is a recurrent use in society. However, usage frequency does not automatically make it worth preserving, especially when it involves addictive substances. It is unlikely that people who actually represent Sweden in different official situations internationally ever highlight the usage of Snus as cultural pride, because ultimately when selecting positive things that represent a country the use of addictive substances is not something one would choose.

Free to be addicted – Snus and Self determination 

Some argue that any EU proposal to restrict or raise the price of Snus in Sweden is unthinkable, even suggesting that such a move could lead to Sweden leaving the EU. Such a proposal would probably lead to discontentment among the Swedish population, not necessarily because of Snus itself but because it would symbolize the very aspect of the EU that many Swedes already resent; reflecting a perception that such EU proposals are pushed by EU bureaucrats who neither understand nor care about Sweden or Swedish people and merely impose rules upon them. Or to use other terms; it can be seen as letting go of self-determination on national affairs to a higher institution by some perceived as distant– a well known point of criticism of the EU. In contrast to Sweden, Finland did not vouch for an exception for Snus even though it had a similar use at the time. However, a Snus ban did not spark a great uprising. Although some Finnish parties, such as Samlingspartiet, are working towards legalizing Snus sale in Finland, it does not seem like a pressing issue. In that context, one might ask whether restrictions on Snus in Sweden would be as dramatic as some claim. 

On the subject of self-determination, it is also worth asking who one should give up some self-determination for, and whether giving up that control is justified. The question is whether it is preferable to entrust this loss of self-determination to a democratic institution that claims to act in the interest of public health among its member states, or a company whose primary goal is selling addictive substances.

The creation of a monster – Swedish Snus and the EU in the future 

Finland illustrates how an immediate ban on Snus worked relatively effectively, as no discourse had time to form around the issue unlike Sweden, where such a ban became unthinkable. This same method could be implemented in regards to white Snus in EU countries to protect its citizens from the negative effects of nicotine addiction. However as long as Snus is still allowed and produced in Sweden the use of Snus will remain, as will the continuing production and development of Snus or nicotine pouch products as well as the advocacy for continued and sometimes even expanding allowance of Snus in the EU. But in order to deal with the root of the problem, things get more complicated.

When it comes to the issue of Snus in Sweden, the EU has everything to lose by intervening as it risks fueling Swedish anti EU-sentiment. At the same time, Sweden as a nation has everything to win on Snus restriction from a health and quality of life standpoint. To promote Snus restrictions in Sweden as a political party would be suicide. The only way Snus could be restricted in Sweden could be through an EU proposal, something that is unlikely in the current state of the issue. With the Swedish exemption for Snus in the EU tobacco regulation, both the EU and Sweden have created something of a monster that is becoming increasingly harder to tame. The Swedish exception for Snus in the EU tobacco regulation has made room for the creation of a Snus advocacy movement pushing Snus as a cultural symbol and therefore creating a situation where restriction of Snus is perceived as something unthinkable. This perceived impossibility of Snus restriction in Sweden is like a self-playing piano sustained more by unproven belief than by sound arguments or evidence of its societal value. Ironically, the very nation and community most strongly advocating for the continued allowance of Snus may ultimately bear the greatest health losses, while also affecting others. Free to be addicted. To minimize the harmful effects of Snus, EU and Swedish policy makers should carefully examine arguments made by its advocates and make an objective assessment independent from the often one-sided public discourse. Their goal should be to determine the actions that best serve their citizens they are responsible caring for, rather than avoiding the issue and leaving Snus advocates in control of the debate.