Germany has effectively banned nicotine pouches, yet sources show products remain widely available driving consumers toward unregulated grey markets instead of reducing their consumption. As more European countries consider similar bans, and with the EU Tobacco Products Directive revision on the table, policymakers must weigh their own chances of pushing consumers to the grey economy.
A growing number of European countries, including Belgium, France, and the United Kingdom, have already moved to ban or restrict disposable e-cigarettes. Germany, which has the highest number of smokers in the EU due to its large population, introduced some of the strictest nicotine pouch regulations on the continent, effectively pushing a legal, lower-risk product off the shelves for over 10 million smokers.
Under the German law, nicotine pouches fall outside the Tobacco Products Act entirely as they contain no tobacco; instead they are classified as novel foods. This results in a situation where a product designed to help smokers quit is being treated the same as new ingredients on the supermarket shelves. Since nicotine is not permitted in food, the result is a de facto product ban.
The situation results in a paradox where the very feature that makes nicotine pouches less harmful than cigarettes – the absence of tobacco – is precisely what made them illegal.
On the other hand, some interpretations treat them as pharmaceuticals, and since it is not clearly determined whether they should be classified as a food or medical product, the result is a regulatory limbo that keeps them off sales regardless.
Yet, although the ban removed the regulation, it did not remove the product. Within months of the ban, nicotine pouches were widely available through unregulated channels, at higher prices, with no quality controls. The result was predictable to anyone who has studied prohibition as the demand simply shifted instead of falling.
The consequences of Germany’s ban were twofold: Smokers no longer had easy, legal access to a tobacco-free alternative, and the risk increased of users coming by unsafe, untested, and unregulated nicotine products via the grey market.
Germany’s example has implications for Europe more broadly. As the EU Tobacco Products Directive revision is coming, Brussels will be watching what member states have done. If Germany’s approach is seen as a template rather than a cautionary tale, the same failure could be written into EU-wide law.
For contrast, neighbouring Austria has a different approach. While Germany left nicotine pouches in regulatory limbo, Austrian regional governments have already recognized that nicotine pouches should be treated similarly to tobacco products.
But undoubtedly, Sweden stands as the strongest case for harm reduction over prohibition, becoming the first country in the world to reach smoke-free status, hitting the milestone 16 years ahead of the EU 2040 target, with just 4.5 percent of Swedish-born adults still smoking.
And while there are several examples to look at throughout the continent, the EU has a choice: treat Germany as a lesson, or repeat it at scale. The key question is whether this regulation reduces harm, or whether it simply relocates it. And the evidence offers a clear answer to this question. Policymakers drafting the TPD revision must not hand Europe’s nicotine market to the grey economy.
At the end of the day, effective nicotine policy is not about eliminating products. It is about keeping consumers inside a regulated, accountable system. Drive them out of it, and you do not end the market. You just lose control of it.