Finland and Sweden are moving in different directions in nicotine policy. While Sweden is approaching a smoke-free society, Finland embraces tighter restrictions on smoke-free alternatives. Mirita Saxberg, CEO of Savuton Nikotiiniala ry (SNA), believes more Nordic coordination is needed to reduce smoking without boosting illicit trade. 

Finland is moving toward tougher regulations for nicotine pouches and other smoke-free products, amounting to some of the most far-reaching regulatory frameworks in Europe. As a result, the country’s nicotine manufacturing sector created a new national industry association, as previously reported by Snusforumet. 

Snusforumet caught up recently with Mirita Saxberg, CEO of SNA, which began operations in the summer of 2025 and counts the largest players in the country’s nicotine pouch sector as members. 

What’s needed for Finland to successfully reduce smoking without creating a growing grey market? And could a Nordic framework be the solution to increasing cross-border trade and unequal regulations? 

You built Finland’s nicotine industry association in just six months. Why was the need for a single industry voice so urgent? 

SNA was established quickly because nicotine pouch regulations changed unusually extensively and simultaneously during 2025 and 2026. At the same time, tax increases, product restrictions, import regulations, and later also producer responsibility (2027) were being prepared. In such an environment, it becomes increasingly important to bring research-based knowledge into the discussion. Without a collective expert voice, the debate risks becoming simplified and the real consequences overlooked. 

Finland is tightening its regulatory framework significantly between 2025 and 2027. Where do you believe the balance between public health goals and market realism is lacking in today’s legislation? 

A smoke-free Finland is a desirable goal, but achieving it requires balanced nicotine policy and a functioning legal market for smoke-free alternatives. If regulation or taxation instead pushes consumption outside the regulated market, the result could be weaker protections for young people, a growing grey economy, and lower tax revenues. 

Protecting young people is a central part of your message. Which measures do you believe are most effective in reducing access for minors? 

The most effective protection for young people consists of licensed sales, strict age verification, and banning online sales. The greatest risks can be found in illegal channels that lack age verification and there’s no way to verify the origin of the products. Measures that make legal products significantly more expensive than in neighboring countries risk shifting consumption to these unregulated channels and thereby weaken youth protections. 

Are there signs that the upcoming tax increases and restrictions could increase the grey market in Finland? 

Yes. Already today, tax losses are estimated at around €200 million annually because a large share of nicotine pouches are untaxed products from abroad. Consumption has therefore already partly shifted outside the legal market. If tax levels are raised further above those of neighboring countries, incentives for cross-border trade and illegal trade will increase, which in turn weakens the state’s tax base. 

Which aspects of the Swedish model are most relevant for Finland? 

In Sweden, smoking has declined to around five percent of the population, lung cancer mortality among Swedish men is less than half the EU average, and cancer incidence is significantly lower than in the rest of Europe. This development is linked to a policy focused on reducing the harms of tobacco smoking and the availability of smoke-free alternatives. Risk-based taxation – where cigarettes are taxed more heavily than snus – is also a key lesson for Finland. 

Is there anything Finland does that Sweden should study more closely? 

In Finland, minors generally cannot obtain nicotine pouches or other nicotine products through legal retail, as on-site age verification works well. This structure offers important lessons for other countries, particularly from a youth-protection perspective. Other than that, however, the lessons move in the opposite direction: Finland has more to learn from the Swedish model than vice versa. 

In Finland all forms of snus are banned, in Denmark the rules are unclear, and in Norway nicotine pouches are illegal – how can one talk about Nordic unity when policies differ so much? 

Even though national regulations differ, the overarching goals are shared: protecting young people, combating illegal trade, and improving public health. Cooperation can be built around these common objectives. 

Do you see a risk of increased tensions between countries when regulatory frameworks differ, particularly regarding cross-border trade and personal imports? 

Large differences in price and regulation lead almost inevitably to increased cross-border trade. At the same time, high taxes make countries more vulnerable to illegal trade and organised crime. This underscores the need for Nordic coordination to protect both public health and tax revenues. 

Looking five years ahead, what would successful Finnish nicotine policy look like according to SNA – from a public health, tax and regulatory perspective? 

A successful policy would result in a clear reduction in smoking, lower access for young people, a smaller grey economy, and more stable tax revenues. This requires risk-proportionate taxation, a functioning legal market for smoke-free alternatives, and continuous monitoring of the real-world effects of regulation. At the same time, nicotine pouches must remain legally available at a reasonable price level so that consumption does not shift outside regulatory oversight. 

Finally, how should Finland use its influence in the EU to ensure that harm reduction and risk-proportionate regulation gain traction in European nicotine policy? 

At the EU level, Finland should promote risk-proportionate regulation, better information regarding tax revenues, youth access and illegal trade, as well as joint measures against the grey economy. Many studies show that reducing harm from tobacco smoking has significant potential to prevent death and disease. As a result, it should be a central pillar of European nicotine policy.