France has responded to objections from Sweden over the country’s plans to ban nicotine pouches. But the defence delivered by France to the European Commission is sorely lacking. Here are five serious shortcomings in the French response that reveal the proposal is based on anything but science.

When France notified the EU in February 2025 of its proposal to ban nicotine pouches, the news was met with criticism from several member states. Sweden ultimately put its foot down by deploying the EU’s strongest tool: filing a detailed opinion with the European Commission, arguing that the French proposal violates EU trade rules and harms public health.

‘Lazy policymaking’ by France

Now France has responded to the objections, but the response contains several fundamental flaws.

“It’s clear France is trying to ban a product it doesn’t understand,” says Patrik Strömer, Secretary General of the Association of Swedish Snus Manufacturers.

“When it won’t even consider measures other than a total ban, it’s obvious French regulators haven’t taken the trouble to examine the regulations in more experienced consumer markets, such as Sweden. This is really lazy policymaking.”

Snusforumet has reviewed France’s defence of its nicotine pouch ban and has identified five of the most glaring shortcomings:

1. Incorrect interpretation of EU law

France claims that nicotine pouches are not covered by harmonised EU legislation and can therefore be banned nationally. However, the case law of the European Court of Justice shows that even products outside the directive must be treated in accordance with the principles of free movement.

2. Scientific deficit

France claims that nicotine pouches pose a particularly great health risk, especially for young people. However, they rely on old studies on nicotine in general and ignore current research that shows that the product is significantly less harmful than cigarettes.

3. Unreasonable proportionality

A total ban is difficult to defend when less extreme measures, such as age limits and warnings, are already used in other EU countries. Yet France claims that only a ban can protect public health.

4. Double standards on risky products

While nicotine patches are banned, significantly more dangerous products such as cigarettes cans still be sold. This undermines the credibility of France’s public health argument.

5. No consumer perspective

France completely ignores the fact that many people use nicotine patches as an alternative to smoking. The products have the potential to reduce tobacco-related harm – an aspect highlighted by several other EU countries.

France’s response comes just weeks after Spain submitted its own “ideological” defence of a similar ban to which Sweden also objected.

The dispute over certain EU member states’ proposed bans on nicotine pouches has emerged at the same time as the EU is reviewing the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), which currently doesn’t cover nicotine pouches.

If France chooses to move forward with the ban despite current objections, the matter could be raised with both the European Commission and, by extension, the European Court of Justice. There, justices may be asked to examine whether the measure contravenes the EU’s fundamental principles of free movement and proportionality.