I would like to express my personal and professional apprehensions over the draft legislation proposed by the Latvian government, which aims to impose stringent regulations on the production, distribution, and consumption of tobacco-free oral nicotine pouches, commonly referred to as 'tobacco substitutes' or 'pads' within the draft Law.
I possess extensive expertise and comprehensive understanding on the detrimental effects of smoking on the overall well-being of the general population. Additionally, I am well-versed in the potential benefits presented by alternative products such as oral nicotine pouches, which have the capacity to significantly mitigate these adverse consequences.
Nicotine pouches are devoid of tobacco and do not generate smoke during usage. These products are designed as a substitute for conventional cigarettes, offering smokers an alternative option. The primary components of these products consist of microcrystalline cellulose, water, flavors, and nicotine. There is no evidence to suggest that any of these substances possess carcinogenic properties.
Based on our current comprehension, the proposed legislation would entail a significant reduction in nicotine content inside the products, specifically to a level of 4 milligrams per gram, among other provisions. The establishment of a significantly low threshold will have a substantial influence on the efficacy of the pouches/pads as a viable substitute for traditional tobacco cigarettes. In the event that smokers are unable to obtain the necessary nicotine dosage, they will likely refrain from transitioning to alternative methods and persist in their smoking habit. The ineffectiveness of standard nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), chewing gum, as a mean of smoking cessation for all smokers could be due to a small level of nicotine.
In various European Union member states, namely Czechia, Denmark, Sweden, Slovakia, and soon Hungary, the regulation regarding nicotine limits in pouches of tobacco products varies. Some countries have not established a specific nicotine limit, while others have put it within the range of 12-20 milligrams per pouch. This range is comparable to the nicotine content typically obtained from a cigarette by a smoker. The establishment of a comparatively low threshold in Latvia lacks a valid health rationale, particularly in light of the higher thresholds implemented in other European Union member nations.
Furthermore, the aforementioned legislative proposal in Latvia also intends to prohibit the sale of all flavored nicotine pouches, with the exception of those that are tobacco-flavored. Many individuals who are attempting to cease smoking need access to goods that do not evoke the sensory experience associated with the taste of tobacco.
It is worth noting that non-tobacco nicotine pouches are presently being consumed on a daily basis by about 2 million individuals residing within the European Union. A significant proportion, if not the majority, of these customers have transitioned towards being non-smokers as a consequence. This public health accomplishment is commendable and demonstrates that by implementing appropriate regulations, as opposed to the excessive restrictions proposed in Latvia, health objectives can be attained. It underscores the existence of alternative, less constraining strategies that can effectively yield the desired outcomes pursued by Latvia.
If regarded absolutely essential, such limitations should be grounded in substantial scientific evidence. In this particular instance, the proposition put forth by Latvia contradicts scientific data that has been recently published. The German Federal Risk Agency (BfR, Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung) asserts that the adoption of harm reduction principles may lead to a decrease in health risks for individuals who transition from smoking cigarettes to using nicotine pouches. (1) Furthermore, the implementation of quality control measures through standardization and regulatory practices is deemed beneficial in mitigating the potential hazards associated with the use of nicotine pouches.
Furthermore, the Committee on Toxicity (COT) of the UK government asserts that the utilization of oral nicotine pouches, manufactured in accordance with appropriate production standards and consumed as advised, as a substitute for conventional cigarette smoking, would be linked to a decrease in the overall risk of detrimental health consequences. (2)
It is anticipated that you will concur that, considering the scientific perspective, the provisions outlined in the preliminary legislation surpass the essential requirements for safeguarding public health. Furthermore, it is plausible that the government's aims could be accomplished through alternative measures that are less constraining and do not hinder the efficient operation of the domestic market.
[1] https://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/health-risk-assessment-of-nicotine-pouches.pdf
[1] https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/Publishable%20%20COT%20Oral%20nicotine%20pouches%20-%20final%20v1-0%20Acc%20V.pdf
