As nicotine pouches come under increasing regulatory pressure across the EU, several Member States – including Belgium, the Netherlands and France – have already moved to ban them – a clear signal of where parts of the debate are heading. The assumption is simple: remove the product and the issue disappears. The reality is less accommodating. Pushing products out of the legal market that millions of adults actively choose to consume is not effective policymaking; it suggests a debate drifting away from reality.

Ignoring consumers does not make them disappear. Demand exists – and it will not vanish because a product is banned. Remove the legal options and consumers adapt, often by turning to the shadow market.

History shows us that the result is predictable: less transparency, less oversight, less control.

Policy that signals, not solves

Against that backdrop, the current approach appears somewhat puzzling. European policymaking prides itself on evidence, proportionality and better regulation. Yet the growing attraction of bans points in the opposite direction: highly visible measures that signal action without necessarily solving the problem.

Proportionality is meant to ensure that regulation addresses a recognized risk with the least restrictive yet
effective response. The real question, therefore, is not whether concerns need addressing, but whether prohibition is the right tool. Too often, policymakers appear to start with overly restrictive measures rather than
understanding the nature and complexities of the issue at hand. The assumption is that consumer demand can be engineered away. Experience suggests otherwise.

A more credible framework would start from current reality: nicotine use exists, and consumers make choices. The role of policy is to manage that reality – not pretend it can legislate it out of existence.

The consequences are not theoretical. As national bans proliferate, they begin to collide with one of the EU’s core principles: the free movement of goods. France has gone particularly far, extending its ban beyond sale and manufacture to the possession and transport of nicotine pouches. As a result, a product that is legal in one Member State can become illegal in another – not just for sale, but even for possession.

The absurdity is easy to picture: a Swedish MEP travelling to Strasbourg could, in principle, face sanctions for carrying a product that is perfectly legal in Sweden. At that point, this is no longer just a nicotine debate – it becomes a test of how seriously the EU takes its own Single Market principles.

The cost of getting it wrong

There is also a broader credibility problem. When regulation starts to ignore how people actually behave, it loses trust. And when trust erodes, compliance tends to follow. Sweeping restrictions also risk weakening regulated markets, with consequences for jobs, investment and innovation.

None of this is an argument for a regulatory free for all. Quite the opposite. Strong, targeted rules – including strict safeguards to prevent youth access – are essential. But regulation and prohibition are not the same thing. One works with reality; the other tries to override it, often with predictable results.