Sweden seems to have taken the lead when it comes to the formulation of public health strategies as it adopts conventional wisdom in its bid to become the world’s foremost champion in reducing smoking rates.
A few months ago, Swedish policymakers legislated a law that slashed taxes on snus, a form of nicotine pouch that’s less harmful than cigarettes—by a striking big marginal percentage.

The move by Swedish lawmakers has been hailed as a milestone that will save lives and is a lesson in nuanced governance that could revolutionise public health in Kenya and other African countries.
The debate about the safety and regulation of alternative nicotine products often finds itself tangled in a web of misinformation and ideological rigidity.
While naysayers continue to lump all nicotine products together in a campaign against public health, the Swedish government recently proposed a 20 per cent tax cut for snus alongside a 9 per cent tax hike for cigarettes.
Though formulated as an economic policy, the move is a public health strategy grounded in science and factual differentiation between various nicotine products based on their risk levels.

Sweden’s proactive approach to tobacco harm reduction provides a roadmap for Kenya and other countries in Africa that are grappling with the devastating consequences of smoking-related diseases.
As a result of the bold move, Sweden is on the verge of achieving “smoke-free” status, a feat largely attributable to its evidence-based policies.
With a remarkable 5.6 per cent smoking rate that’s quickly approaching the World Health Organization’s ‘smoke-free’ threshold of 5 per cent , Sweden also boasts of Europe’s lowest incidence of smoking-related diseases and is 17 years ahead of the European Union’s 2040 target for achieving the same status.

So, what makes Sweden so successful in reducing smoking? It’s simple: the government relies on real data rather than scare tactics and chooses to guide smokers towards better options instead of just punishing them.

Instead of treating all nicotine products the same, Sweden offers a practical, risk-based approach to regulating alternative nicotine products like snus, nicotine pouches, and vaping.
This includes risk proportionate taxation, as well as other means through which smokers can be better informed about the availability of less harmful products. This focused approach has helped thousands of smokers switch from cigarettes to less harmful options.

Unlike traditional cigarettes, nicotine pouches or vapes do not burn tobacco, which is the main source of harmful carcinogens. For instance, Public Health England, a highly respected body, estimates that vaping is 95 per cent less harmful than smoking.

Alternative nicotine products are not only less harmful but are also more effective in helping smokers quit. But for that to happen, they must be accessible, affordable and acceptable. And this is exactly what Sweden’s new tax strategy is also doing, continuing a long-standing policy to differentiate products based on their risk levels.

In Africa, where over 70 million still smoke, an average of 8,000 Kenyans lose their lives annually due to smoking-related illnesses.
African countries could significantly reduce this devastating toll if governments adopted a Swedish-style model of tobacco harm reduction.

Instead of vilifying all nicotine products, there should be a move towards understanding and promoting lower-risk alternatives like nicotine pouches and vapes. The benefits are twofold: we can save lives today and reduce the long-term public health burden.

However, the path to such progressive policies is strewn with obstacles, not least of which is the lobbying power of anti-tobacco activists.
Interestingly, most of the lobby groups are backed by foreign funding and are deeply entrenched in their ideological beliefs. Their stance is often rooted in a draconian form of tobacco control that essentially boils down to a ‘quit or die’ ultimatum, an approach that has repeatedly been shown to be ineffective.

The urgency for a shift in tobacco harm reduction policy in Africa cannot be overstated.
Already, Sweden’s model has been approved to work and comes with minimal financial impact.
African countries, Kenya included, can successfully reduce tobacco smoking if they follow suit and make science-based, practical policies the new norm in public health.

The writer is chairman of the Campaign for Safer Alternatives (CASA).