Across Europe, smoking remains one of the most pressing public health challenges, yet the EU’s approach to achieving a smoke-free goal is in trouble. With the current anti-harm-reduction strategies, the EU is projected to miss its target of reaching a 5% smoking rate by 2040 — by a full 60 years. Countries like Germany still have smoking rates of around 30%, and 15% of adolescents are also smoking. This data suggests that the existing approaches, especially strict anti-vaping measures, have not only failed but could be worsening the situation. Instead of reevaluating these ineffective policies, some EU policymakers are doubling down by proposing even stricter restrictions, including limiting access to less harmful nicotine alternatives like vaping, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco products. It’s a troubling strategy, especially when safer options are being restricted while traditional cigarettes remain accessible.

In contrast, successful harm reduction models in Sweden and New Zealand have achieved significant public health victories by taking an entirely different approach. Rather than simply imposing bans, these countries have enabled smokers to switch to less harmful products like snus, vaping, and nicotine pouches. Sweden, for instance, has Europe’s lowest smoking rates and has drastically lowered its rates of smoking-related diseases, including cancer. By supporting access to less harmful alternatives, Sweden has proven that harm reduction works and that pragmatic, consumer-friendly policies are key to encouraging people to quit smoking.

New Zealand offers another compelling example of effective harm reduction. In the last five years, New Zealand has managed to halve its smoking rate, largely by focusing on accessible, regulated alternatives. Today, the country is on track to become the next country to achieve smoke-free status, with less than 5% of adults smoking. New Zealand’s success is a testament to the effectiveness of consumer-friendly regulated, risk-reduced nicotine products in delivering faster, better results for public health. By prioritizing science-based policies that address smokers’ needs, New Zealand has demonstrated that sensible regulation of safer alternatives can drive meaningful change, rapidly cutting down smoking rates.

As the EU continues to grapple with ineffective policies, Sweden’s and New Zealand’s experiences offer a compelling roadmap. Rather than restricting safer alternatives, EU policymakers should focus on evidence-backed harm reduction. A regulated framework that distinguishes between smoking and safer alternatives could help the EU make real strides towards a healthier, smoke-free future.