Draft COP11 documents indicate that the European Commission is still open to supporting a ban on safer nicotine products, directly contradicting last week’s agreement among EU Member States that such bans were off the table. So far, the Swedish delegation has offered no resistance.

On Friday, EU countries reached a consensus not to support any COP11 language that could enable bans on products like nicotine pouches. This followed strong pushback from several Member States to earlier Commission drafts that kept the option of prohibitions open. The final Council text accordingly revised agenda item 4.5 to reflect national concerns.

But over the weekend, the Commission delegation in Geneva appeared to break from that mandate.

Snusforumet has reviewed unpublished draft EU responses to two proposals from non-EU Parties. The documents show that the Commission’s negotiators are not aligned with Member States on tobacco harm reduction.

Pouch ban back on the table?

A proposal from Brazil, the Maldives, Panama, and Thailand encourages Parties to consider banning novel nicotine products, including nicotine pouches – precisely the outcome EU capitals rejected on Friday.

Yet the draft EU response states that the Union “can support the proposed draft decision… with amendments” and even reintroduces language suggesting that regulatory measures “could include prohibiting… all novel and emerging nicotine products, including… nicotine pouches.”

At the same time, a proposal from Saint Kitts and Nevis to establish an intersessional working group on harm reduction, an approach closely mirroring Sweden’s own ongoing evidence-gathering efforts, is rejected outright. The draft EU reply claims there is “no need to establish” such a body.

The contrast is stark: last week, Member States agreed no bans; by Sunday, the Commission had circulated texts that reopen the possibility of bans while dismissing a proposal intended to strengthen the evidence base for harm-reduction policies.

Will Sweden support harm reduction at COP11?

Whether the Swedish delegation will publicly oppose the shift remains unclear. Only weeks ago, Sweden’s Minister for Healthcare told Parliament that Sweden would defend harm reduction and the role of snus—a key factor in Sweden achieving the EU’s lowest smoking rates.

Responding to claims that harm reduction was merely an “industry narrative”, Christian Democrat minister Elisabet Lann stated:

“The harms from snus use are significantly lower than those from smoking. This is a position we promote in all contexts where we have the opportunity to do so.” 

Despite this, Sweden has yet to object to the Commission’s drafts, even though they contradict both Swedish policy and the position agreed unanimously by EU capitals on Friday.

As COP11 opens in Geneva, one question dominates: How has the Commission been able to circulate positions that revive the prospect of bans and reject harm-reduction work, despite a clear and recent mandate from Member States to do the opposite?