As delegates prepare to head to Warsaw for the 13th Global Forum on Nicotine (GFN26), Snusforumet catches up with Patrik Strömer to discuss Sweden’s smoke-free success, the ongoing debate about nicotine pouches, and what upcoming EU decisions could mean for millions of smokers and nicotine consumers. 

New figures show that fewer than five percent of Swedes now smoke daily, reaching the WHO’s definition of smoke-free well ahead of other countries in Europe.  

Yet just as Sweden’s experience attracts renewed international attention, policymakers across Europe are moving in the opposite direction, with nicotine pouches facing restrictions, new taxes under discussion, and fresh regulatory battles looming in Brussels. 

Those tensions are likely to be a major theme at this year’s Global Forum on Nicotine in Warsaw.  

Ahead of the conference, Snusforumet spoke with Patrik Strömer, Secretary General of the Association of Swedish Snus Manufacturers, about Sweden’s smoke-free achievement, the future of nicotine pouches in Europe, and what is at stake as the EU prepares to revise both tobacco regulation and taxation. 

Sweden has just been confirmed as smoke-free. After decades of advocacy, how does it feel to arrive at this moment?

It’s an important milestone, but above all it’s confirmation that this approach works. 

Sweden didn’t become smoke-free through bans or by forcing people to quit nicotine. We became smoke-free because as the country tightened the rules for smoking, Swedes had ready access to a less harmful alternative and chose it instead of cigarettes. 

That’s the reality. 

Unfortunately, many in Sweden’s public health community still refuse to acknowledge the role snus has played in that success.

I can only hope that policymakers outside Sweden pay attention to what the Swedish experience is actually telling us about the importance of providing consumers access to alternatives to smoking.

Despite this, nicotine pouches are facing bans or severe restrictions in a growing number of EU member states. How alarmed are you by this trend? 

Very alarmed.

Nicotine pouches are a smoke-free alternative for adults who would otherwise smoke. If you remove those alternatives, you don’t remove the demand for nicotine. 

You risk pushing people back towards cigarettes or into unregulated markets.

What’s worrying is that many of these decisions are being made before the evidence has been properly considered. Once restrictions are introduced, they can be very difficult to reverse. That’s why it’s so important to get the policy discussion right from the beginning. 

The WHO recently released a report that was sharply critical of nicotine pouches. What was your reaction? 

I wasn’t surprised.

The WHO has consistently been reluctant to recognise the role that lower-risk nicotine products can play in reducing smoking. The problem with that approach is that it ignores a fundamental fact: not all nicotine products carry the same risks.

If smokers are told that smoke-free alternatives are essentially no different from cigarettes, some will see little reason to switch. That’s not a public health success.

The conversation should be centred on relative risk and real-world outcomes. Sweden’s experience shows why that matters.

It’s quite ironic that Sweden, the country with the EU’s lowest daily smoking rate, ranks only 24th on the most recent Tobacco Control Scale. Meanwhile, the top-ranking countries have daily smoking rates that are at least twice as high. 

The EU’s Tobacco Products Directive revision — TPD3 — is moving forward. What are the stakes for snus and nicotine pouches? 

The stakes are extremely high.

TPD3 will help determine how these products are regulated across Europe for many years to come. Done properly, it could create a framework that recognises the differences between combustible cigarettes and smoke-free alternatives.

Done badly, it could reinforce the same thinking that has kept the EU snus ban in place for more than three decades.

The key principle is simple: regulation should reflect risk. That sounds obvious, but it’s still something we have to keep arguing for. 

There’s also been significant debate about the EU Tobacco Excise Directive revision, which could mean a substantial tax increase on nicotine pouches in Sweden. How serious a threat is that? 

It’s a serious concern. 

Tax policy influences behaviour. If lower-risk products become significantly more expensive, while cigarettes remain readily available, some consumers will make choices based on price. 

The principle should be straightforward: products with very different risk profiles should not be treated as though they’re the same. Taxation should encourage smokers to move away from cigarettes, not make that transition more difficult. 

Sweden recently adopted this approach, and it’s been effective. If Europe is serious about reducing smoking, fiscal policy should support that objective. 

What do you hope to get out of GFN26 specifically? 

GFN is one of the few places where researchers, policymakers, consumer advocates, and industry representatives can have open and evidence-based discussions about these issues.

I’m particularly interested in hearing how debates around TPD3 are developing in different member states. Every country has its own political realities, and understanding those differences is important if we’re going to make progress. 

I also find it valuable to meet people who are working on these questions from different perspectives. You always leave GFN with a better understanding of both the challenges and the opportunities ahead. 

What’s the one message from Sweden that you most want GFN26 delegates to take home this year? 

That smoke-free success is possible. 

The Swedish experience isn’t a theory or some utopian ambition. It’s a real-world example of what happens when smokers have access to lower-risk alternatives. 

We now have one of the lowest smoking rates in Europe and some of the lowest rates of smoking-related disease. Those outcomes matter. 

If the goal is to reduce smoking, the lesson from Sweden is clear: make it easier for smokers to move away from cigarettes, not harder.