The need for regulatory adjustments for tobacco consumption was recently debated heatedly at least in the Austrian National Council. A decided amendment to the Tobacco Act is now intended to ensure, among other things, a flavor ban for heated tobacco products. The chairman of the parliamentary health committee, Gerhard Kaniak (FPÖ), speaks of justified measures here, as it is about being able to counteract the harmful health effects of smoking. At the same time, he sees a need for improvement in the area of youth protection and stricter regulation of nicotine-containing products such as e-cigarettes and Nicotine Pouches. But how can these best be combined with a Harm Reduction approach? Because using risk-reduced cigarette alternatives can demonstrably reduce the smoking rate even faster, allowing the harmful effects of smoking to be contained.
Implementation of the Delegated Directive (EU) 2022/2100 pending for 2 years
According to this EU directive, heated tobacco products may no longer contain flavors in the future. What is already valid in Austria for cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco should therefore also apply to so-called tobacco sticks for heating.
 |
A solution in the form of an amendment to the Austrian Tobacco Act has now been unanimously decided in the National Council - one could say at the last minute. Because this had already been pending for 2 years and an EU infringement procedure could just be averted.*1 - © Image: AdobeStock |
>> Read more on the topic here: EU Tobacco Directive and Nicotine Pouches
Smoking damages health - yet every 4th Austrian smokes
That smoking damages health is generally known. Kaniak emphasizes:
"I am not revealing a secret when I tell you: Smoking damages health - most of you know that."
Referring to alarming data within the EU*1, Kaniak points out the health consequences of tobacco consumption:
"Currently, it is estimated that there are about 700,000 deaths per year in Europe, including the UK, and about 27 percent of all cancer cases are attributable to smoking."
And referring to the above-average smoking rate in Austria - which is currently supposed to be around 25 percent - it continues:
"So almost every fourth Austrian smokes - that is two percentage points above the EU average and is certainly a motivation for all of us to make an effort to lower this proportion in the interest of health."
If flavors fuel consumption, it becomes understandable, in light of such data, why a national flavor ban for smoking tobacco already exists.*2 The former is suggested by a recently published article from Der Standard - it states that, according to the WHO, a ban could protect young people.*3
The fact that a now decided flavor ban for heated tobacco products could dampen the consumption of tobacco sticks in a similar way is plausible - although this form of consumption is indeed less harmful than smoking.
Reducing the smoking rate in terms of (public) health - thus achieving a significant goal that can effectively counteract the harmful effects of smoking - would certainly also bring the topic Public Health and Nicotine Pouches into focus. After all, such smoke- and tobacco-free alternatives are considered lower-risk - though not risk-free - alternatives to tobacco cigarettes and can significantly facilitate quitting. Consequently, one might argue for relatively lower-risk alternatives compared to cigarettes, thus easier access to them, and perhaps even against a flavor ban. However, for Nicotine Pouches, stricter regulations are now also desired in addition to the current changes.
Amendment of the Tobacco Act does not (yet) regulate nicotine-containing products like Nicotine Pouches
Kaniak critically notes here that the amendment passed by the National Council only regulates a very limited area:
“It only covers the labeling of heated tobacco products and the non-marketing of flavored heated tobacco products.”
Kaniak calls for additional measures and specifically refers to Nicotine Pouches:
“What is personally important to me: That we also find a regulation for the many other nicotine-containing products - for the liquids, for the nicotine pouches, and similar products, which also have an increasing share in the Austrian market and for which there are still no suitable regulations.”
If these are considered an opportunity in terms of risk minimization and if the smoking rate can be reduced with more accessible cigarette alternatives, the question arises as to how exactly sensible measures that do not counteract a harm reduction approach could and should be implemented.
Possible stricter regulations are certainly on the table in terms of youth protection. There are also considerations for inclusion in the tobacco monopoly and thus better controllable age restrictions. Based on the flavor ban for heated tobacco products, such a ban would also be conceivable for Nicotine Pouches - and this through a similar line of argumentation.
On the topic of youth protection and Nicotine Pouches, there seems to be consensus
At the beginning of the year, the Greens already sent a draft for a new tobacco and nicotine addiction law for review. In particular, it emphasized a national sales ban on nicotine pouches for those under 18.*4
 |
The Tobacco and Non-Smoker Protection Act (TNRSG) is to be expanded with a new version by the Tobacco and Nicotine Addiction Act (TNSG) to include the category of new nicotine-containing products without tobacco additives.*4 - © Image: AdobeStock |
Kaniak supports the improvements in youth protection regulations that come with the draft, although he identifies regulatory gaps - especially concerning remote sales outlets. Thus, monitoring an age restriction there is hardly possible, which at least suggests the inclusion of such products in the tobacco monopoly.
If Nicotine Pouches and Co. were actually included in the tobacco monopoly, one might see a simultaneous price increase, which would likely hinder smokers willing to quit from switching to such products. But what about the taxation of products included in the tobacco monopoly? Does inclusion in the tobacco monopoly require mandatory taxation under the tobacco tax?
Could higher taxation for Nicotine Pouches be the result?
That inclusion in the tobacco monopoly could also lead to a tax increase/levy seems likely. This would also align with the current plans of the EU Commission. Here, in addition to planned tobacco tax increases, there also seems to be a desire for a new minimum taxation for such products.
>> More on the topic: Tobacco tax and nicotine tax: Could Snus and Nicotine Pouches soon become more expensive?
Currently, no tobacco tax is levied on nicotine pouches - they are only subject to sales tax. And although a monopolization of nicotine pouches without tobacco tax would be theoretically conceivable, fiscal considerations speak in favor of introducing a moderate consumer tax or a nicotine tax.*5
This would also be in line with the tobacco monopoly in Austria and common practice - last year at an industry meeting, the immense potential of nicotine pouches as a possible new source of tax revenue was already emphasized.
In any case, one can distinguish between the mere inclusion of products in the monopoly and tobacco taxation, as these are two different legal bodies - namely the Tobacco Tax Act (TabStG) and the Tobacco Monopoly Act (TabMG).*6 As part of a harm reduction approach, it would then be obvious to facilitate access to risk-reduced products like nicotine pouches with lower taxation in the event of inclusion in the tobacco monopoly - so that a monetary incentive for switching to risk-reduced alternatives, meaning quitting smoking, remains.
In practice, a monopolization of nicotine pouches without (full) tobacco tax burden would be conceivable if the legislator restricts sales outlets to increase youth protection and control, while at the same time wants to treat the products as a less harmful alternative with tax benefits.
Is a flavor ban for Nicotine Pouches sensible?
There seem to be some voices currently advocating a possible flavor ban on nicotine pouches - although these products, even more than tobacco heaters, are considered a risk-reduced alternative. If such a ban could come, it would likely be argued from the perspective of youth protection, in order to protect young people, as the WHO believes.*3
However, it can be assumed in advance that flavors in risk-reduced products can also be useful for switching and consequently for quitting smoking, because such products may be even more attractive to smokers who want to quit. To draw a possibly even less harmful alternative into comparison: Nicotine gums are currently available with flavors, and such flavors would certainly make the products more attractive for a successful cigarette exit. Furthermore, there are some Nicotine Pouches that even have the same active ingredient as nicotine gums.
>> You can read more about it in: Nicotine Polacrilex in Snus and Nicotine Pouches
It is therefore in a way a balancing act between youth protection and a practical harm reduction strategy that still needs to be mastered.
No Gold Plating, but a solution with "common sense and brains"
Kaniak also comments on this topic and refers to the announced steps on the topic of youth protection from the Ministry of Health:
“The State Secretary said in the committee meeting that she will take up the issue. I hope that a regulation will be found that is primarily in the interest of youth protection, which is naturally beneficial to the health of all Austrians, but which – like the current regulations – is not excessive, does not engage in gold plating, but is a solution with common sense and brains.”
A nationally applicable youth protection also seems sensible for Nicotine Pouches - this cannot be denied. However, for a flavor ban, a successful approach to risk minimization should also be considered. In any case, it can be noted for a possible inclusion in the tobacco monopoly and the (possible) accompanying price increases: The incentive to switch to lower-risk products and thus quit smoking should not be undermined by excessive price increases. A sensible approach here would be a lower tax burden than for conventional smoking tobacco products, so that these products can still be offered cheaper than conventional cigarettes.
----------------------------------------------
Sources (last accessed on: 24.07.25):
*1 https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2025/pk0679
*2 https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2025/pk0649#XXVIII_A-GE_00001 ; https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2025/pk0679
*3 https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000272164/world-no-tobacco-day-who-wants-ban-on-flavored-tobacco-products
*4 https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000252796/greens-introduce-ban-on-sale-of-nicotine-pouches-to-youth; https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/de/Gesetzliche-Neuerungen/Begutachtungsentwurf/tobacco-and-nicotine-addiction-law
*5 https://www.trendingtopics.eu/black-red-pink-wants-to-issue-licenses-for-e-vapes/
*6 https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10004877; https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10005006 ; https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Glossareintraege/T/tobacco-tax.html?view=renderHelp
