Stories

New research is shedding light on the impact of snus on oral health, highlighting a clear link to gum damage. Evidence indicates that regular use can lead to gum recession and localized inflammation, particularly in areas where the product is placed. At the same time, findings remain inconclusive when it comes to tooth decay and more severe periodontal disease. The results point to a nuanced risk profile and underline the need for further research, especially regarding newer nicotine pouch products.

Belgium is calling for stronger EU-wide action on vaping as concerns grow over rising use and potential health risks, particularly among young people. The country’s health minister has described vaping as an “epidemic,” warning that e-cigarettes contain numerous chemical substances that may pose risks when heated. Proposals include stricter limits on ingredients, tighter control of flavours, and a bloc-wide ban on disposable e-cigarettes, reflecting measures already introduced at national level. The push highlights increasing pressure for more harmonized regulations across the European Union, as current rules differ between member states. At the same time, EU officials emphasize the need for stronger cooperation and better use of scientific research to guide future policy decisions. The debate signals a broader shift toward stricter oversight of vaping products as part of evolving public health strategies in Europe.

Thailand is moving to tighten control over nicotine pouches as authorities respond to growing concerns about their availability and marketing. The government is increasing enforcement measures, particularly targeting sales channels such as social media, tourist areas, and retail outlets. Nicotine pouches are being treated under existing tobacco laws, meaning strict restrictions apply to their advertising, promotion, and display at points of sale. Officials have emphasized that even legally imported and taxed products must comply with these rules, and violations can lead to penalties. The move reflects a broader effort to limit youth access and reduce the visibility of emerging nicotine products in the market. At the same time, the situation highlights ongoing regulatory ambiguity, as these products remain available despite increasingly strict enforcement.

Growing attention is being paid to how taxation of nicotine products can shape both consumer behaviour and public health outcomes. Governments are increasingly using fiscal policy not only to raise revenue but also to discourage the use of higher-risk products such as combustible cigarettes. At the same time, the rise of alternatives like e-cigarettes and heated tobacco is complicating traditional tax frameworks. Policymakers face the challenge of aligning taxation with relative risk in order to support harm reduction while maintaining regulatory consistency. The debate highlights broader tensions between economic priorities and the goal of reducing smoking-related harm.

The latest parliamentary discussions in the United Kingdom highlight ongoing efforts to tighten regulation of vaping and tobacco products through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Lawmakers are focusing on introducing stricter oversight measures, including product registration schemes, enforcement coordination, and new taxation mechanisms such as vaping duties and duty stamps. A key objective is to reduce youth uptake while maintaining incentives for adult smokers to switch from combustible tobacco to less harmful alternatives. At the same time, policymakers are grappling with how to effectively tackle the illicit market and ensure compliance across the supply chain. The debate reflects broader tensions between public health goals, regulatory burden on businesses, and the role of vaping within harm reduction strategies.

Heated tobacco products are increasingly being discussed as part of the broader tobacco harm reduction debate, particularly for smokers who struggle to quit using traditional methods. These products heat tobacco instead of burning it, potentially reducing exposure to harmful chemicals compared to conventional cigarettes. Evidence suggests they are likely less harmful than smoking, though still not risk-free and generally considered more harmful than vaping. The key question is not only their relative risk, but also how effective they are at helping people move away from combustible tobacco at a population level. Supporters argue that, for some smokers, they may serve as a useful alternative when other cessation tools do not work, and therefore deserve a place in harm reduction strategies.

The debate on e-cigarette use and oral health continues, with a recent CoEHAR review focusing on vaping's impact on oral microbiota. While e-cigarette users show varying oral microbiota compared to non-smokers and smokers, the changes lack consistency, making it hard to pinpoint a definitive vaping-related bacterial profile. Changes in the oral microbiome don't necessarily indicate disease, and definitive conclusions on vaping's oral health effects are limited by small, cross-sectional studies. More extensive, longitudinal research is needed to understand the long-term risks associated with vaping on oral health. Prof. Polosa emphasizes the preliminary nature of claims linking vaping to oral harm, indicating a need for stronger evidence.

A Swedish Member of the European Parliament is raising concerns that upcoming EU regulations could undermine the country’s long-standing harm reduction approach to smoking. Sweden is often highlighted as a leading example in Europe, having achieved very low smoking rates largely through the widespread use of alternatives such as snus and nicotine pouches. The warning reflects growing tension between national public health strategies and potential EU-wide rules on nicotine products. Supporters of the Swedish model argue that stricter EU measures could reverse progress by discouraging smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives. At the heart of the debate is whether EU policy should accommodate different national approaches or impose more uniform restrictions across member states.

Growing attention is being paid to how effectively smokers can be supported in quitting, particularly within the evolving landscape of EU health policy. Experts in addiction medicine emphasize that many patients struggle to quit using traditional methods alone, highlighting the need for more practical and accessible solutions. Increasingly, harm reduction approaches - such as the use of safer nicotine alternatives - are presented as a viable pathway away from combustible tobacco. Evidence suggests that these alternatives are significantly less harmful than smoking, which remains responsible for millions of deaths globally each year. The debate now centers on whether policymakers should actively support these tools as part of a broader strategy to reduce smoking-related disease across Europe.

The IMF emphasizes risk-proportionate taxation on nicotine, alcohol, and sugar products to align with harm caused, challenging current tax policies. Economist Christoph B. Rosenberg and tax expert Marius Van Oordt discuss the need to adapt taxes based on harm levels of new products like vapes, emphasizing the importance of combining tax and health data for policymaking. The article points out the success of different tax strategies in countries like New Zealand and the negative impact of misaligned taxes in places like India and Ireland. The IMF's support for harm reduction advocates is seen as influential in shaping healthier societies.