The European debate and the upcoming directive on the regulation of nicotine pouches also affect Moldova
This relatively new nicotine-containing product has been subject to regulation in some EU countries, while in others it has been completely banned. As Nick Ricketts, President of Oral Products at Philip Morris International, told InfoMarket, most EU markets have introduced regulations for nicotine pouches, such as standards for nicotine content, flavors, marketing, and age verification, but there are also countries that have opted for a ban. Nicotine pouches lie at the intersection of public health, youth protection, tax and customs control, and policies to reduce the consumption of conventional cigarettes.
Proponents of a strict approach point to the risk of youth engagement with nicotine, the appeal of flavors, and the difficulty of controlling online sales. Industry representatives, on the other hand, argue that bans do not eliminate demand but drive the product into illegal channels, where the state loses the ability to control product composition and the age of buyers, and forgoes tax revenue. In markets where nicotine pouches have effectively been banned (France, Germany, Belgium), there has been a rise in illegal and counterfeit products. Instead of a complete ban, as Nick Ricketts notes, a more effective approach is to introduce a framework of standards. In such a model, uniform requirements are established for all market participants: restrictions on nicotine levels, rules regarding flavor types, marketing requirements, and mechanisms to prevent access by minors.
The United States, Italy, the Czech Republic, and Morocco are cited in the materials as examples of more formalized regulation. According to a PMI representative, in the U.S., manufacturers must submit a scientific dossier for the product, and only then is the product approved for sale. Italy and the Czech Republic are cited as markets with more transparent standards, while Morocco is cited as a country that has recently implemented standards with nicotine limits.
Germany is cited as an example of an ineffective ban. In that country, due to oral consumption, pouches were classified as food products, but under other laws, nicotine is prohibited in food products. In effect, the sale of pouches is banned.
However, according to an Ipsos study on the German nicotine pouch market in 2025, in Germany—where there are 1.5 million users—nicotine pouches remained available in stores one year after the ban. A mystery shopping survey conducted in 1,256 stores across the country revealed that 15.8% of stores sold pouches; in 60% of cases, the nicotine content exceeded the limit; and 13.6% of the products turned out to be counterfeit (the share of illegal cigarettes in Germany is 0.8%). “This example is important for regulators not as proof of the ineffectiveness of any ban, but as a signal that a prohibitionist model requires significant oversight resources, including in retail and online commerce,” notes Nick Ricketts.
Sweden is presented as a contrasting example: a country where the smoking rate has fallen below 5%. By comparison, the average rate across European Union countries is around 24%. Furthermore, the rate of cancer in Sweden is now 2.4 times lower than the European average. Sweden’s low smoking rate is attributed to the long-standing popularity of snus and the spread of nicotine pouches, which entered the market in 2014.
According to Nick Ricketts, the practical question for Moldova is which regulatory model the government will deem most effective. In the absence of clear rules, the market may develop through gray channels, including online sales and informal retail, which will make it difficult to verify the age of buyers and the composition of products. A complete ban would also require constant monitoring of compliance; otherwise, the ban could create an incentive for illegal supply.
If the path of regulation is chosen, the state will need to define permissible product parameters, labeling rules, advertising restrictions, seller liability, and a mechanism for removing non-compliant products. But the most sensitive issue remains the protection of minors. Nick Ricketts states that PMI applies marketing restrictions, sells products through its own age-verified channels, and trains sellers in channels that the company does not directly control. At the same time, government agencies must be able to verify compliance with age restrictions, monitor online sales, and impose sanctions on violators, regardless of manufacturers’ statements.
Nick Ricketts notes that for Moldova and other countries in the region, the debate over nicotine pouches is not simply a choice between allowing or banning them. The more significant question is whether the state can establish a regulatory framework under which the product, if allowed on the market, will be subject to clear controls: with restrictions on nicotine, flavors, and marketing; a ban on access for minors; seller liability; and a mechanism for removing illegal products. Without such a system, the market could go underground, and with weak oversight, even a formal ban does not guarantee the protection of consumers and minors.
When asked whether nicotine-containing products will ever disappear, Nick Ricketts said, “I don’t believe in a future without nicotine. Just as I don’t believe in a future without alcohol or a future without coffee.” He noted, however, that it is important to establish a sound regulatory approach and restrict minors’ access to nicotine products and alcohol as much as possible. // 10.06.2026 – InfoMarket.
