Eight EU Member States have called on the European Commission to consider a far-reaching new approach to nicotine regulation as part of the forthcoming revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and Tobacco Advertising Directive (TAD).
In a joint letter dated 6 October 2026, the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, France, Hungary, Latvia, Slovenia and Spain argue that the existing framework has not kept pace with new nicotine products, technologies and marketing practices. They call for a shift from what they describe as a reactive system towards a “proactive and preventive framework” intended to anticipate future products and close regulatory gaps.Â
The proposals go considerably further than addressing individual regulatory gaps. They include a proposed market freeze on new nicotine products, broad flavour restrictions, maximum nicotine levels, plain packaging, tighter advertising and online-sales rules, and greater freedom for Member States to prohibit nicotine pouches.
These are proposals from eight Member States for consideration during the revision of EU legislation. They are not adopted EU-wide rules.
A Proposed Market Freeze
The most significant proposal is what the signatories explicitly describe as a “market freeze.”
They ask the Commission to prevent new products containing nicotine or substances with “nicotine-like properties”, as well as devices used to deliver them, from entering the EU market. The proposal would extend even further to products containing neither nicotine nor nicotine-like substances where they resemble products that do.Â
The letter then proposes a mechanism: banning all non-TPD-regulated products containing nicotine or nicotine-like substances as consumer products.Â
This raises important questions about scope. Preventing entirely new categories from entering the market is not necessarily the same policy as prohibiting products that already exist legally outside the current TPD framework.
The letter does not set out how existing products would be treated under such a system, whether transitional arrangements would apply, or precisely how concepts such as “nicotine-like properties” or products that “resemble” nicotine products would be defined.
Those details would matter considerably in translating the proposal into workable legislation.
Nicotine Pouches Face Particular Scrutiny
Nicotine pouches receive specific attention.
The letter characterises them as closely resembling oral tobacco and argues that they can be viewed as circumventing the EU prohibition on snus. It also raises concerns about youth marketing, addiction, smoking-cessation claims and dual use.
These are the positions advanced by the signatory governments. Some of the language, particularly claims about the degree of harm and effects on cessation, would require consideration against the wider evidence base rather than being treated as established simply because it appears in the letter.
The policy request itself is clear. The eight countries want Member States to retain the ability to introduce strict national measures, explicitly including a total ban on nicotine pouches, as well as stricter measures for other tobacco-free nicotine products.Â
That creates an important issue for the TPD revision. The signatories are simultaneously calling for stronger EU-level regulation and substantial national freedom to go beyond the European baseline.
The question for policymakers will be how to reconcile those objectives with the TPD’s role in harmonising rules across the internal market.
Wider Restrictions on Existing Products
The proposals extend well beyond market access.
The signatories call for strict maximum nicotine levels across products, a broad flavour ban, standardised products and devices, and plain packaging. Significantly, they argue that products permitted to remain on the market should be regulated “to the same extent” in order to prevent consumers moving between categories.Â
Advertising restrictions would also be expanded across tobacco and nicotine products, associated devices and communication channels including social media. The letter proposes obligations on social-media platforms to remove prohibited promotional material and prevent such material from being uploaded.Â
The signatories also call for action on cross-border distance sales, arguing that online availability can undermine national restrictions. Environmental considerations form another part of the proposals, with Member States seeking sufficient flexibility to introduce national restrictions, including bans, to reduce environmental impacts.
Taken together, this is therefore considerably broader than a proposal simply to stop new nicotine products entering Europe. It could affect how products are developed, packaged, marketed, distributed and sold.
Where Does Risk Differentiation Fit?
The letter’s stated objective is particularly important for understanding its regulatory philosophy.
It ultimately calls for a framework that prioritises reducing tobacco and nicotine use and seeks to phase out nicotine dependence across the EU.
That raises a wider question for GINN about proportionality.
Youth protection, responsible marketing, product standards and effective enforcement are legitimate regulatory objectives. Emerging nicotine categories should not exist outside meaningful standards simply because they are new.
But applying equivalent restrictions across products can become more difficult to justify where their characteristics, exposure pathways and risk profiles differ substantially.
A cigarette involving tobacco combustion is not the same product as a tobacco-free oral nicotine pouch. Recognising that distinction does not mean describing pouches as harmless or opposing their regulation. It means asking whether regulatory intensity should be informed by evidence about the characteristics and risks of individual categories.
This is particularly relevant given the letter’s proposal that permitted products should be regulated “to the same extent.” Preventing substitution between categories may be one regulatory objective, but substitution can have different public-health implications depending on which products consumers move from and to.
Harmonisation or Greater Fragmentation?
There is also a structural question for the EU.
The letter acknowledges that the TPD is rooted in Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and therefore has a role in harmonising national laws and removing barriers within the internal market. At the same time, the signatories argue that Member States should have ample scope to impose stricter national measures.Â
Finding the appropriate balance will be important.
A common European framework could provide clear product standards, consumer protections and enforcement mechanisms while giving businesses and consumers greater regulatory certainty. Extensive national derogations, by contrast, could leave the same product legal in one Member State and prohibited in another.
The TPD revision will therefore need to address not only how strict regulation should be, but also how coherent it should remain across the Single Market.
A Significant Position Ahead of the TPD Revision
The eight-country letter should not be mistaken for EU law. It represents a negotiating position submitted to the European Commission as the TPD and TAD revision develops.
Nevertheless, its breadth makes it significant.
The proposals point toward a regulatory model focused increasingly on preventing new nicotine categories from reaching consumers, reducing product appeal and preserving national powers to impose stricter restrictions or bans.
For GINN, the forthcoming debate should also consider an alternative question: can regulatory gaps be addressed through clear standards, controlled market access and effective enforcement while still recognising meaningful differences between products?
A future-proof framework should protect young people and non-users, require credible evidence, establish enforceable product standards and respond to genuinely emerging risks.
It should also ensure that proportionality and risk differentiation are not lost in the effort to close regulatory gaps.
SourceÂ
Joint Letter on the revision of TPD and TAD, 6 October 2026, submitted to European Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare Olivér Várhelyi by ministers representing the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, France, Hungary, Latvia, Slovenia and Spain.
