A version of the following public comment was submitted to the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on State Affairs and the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue on February 25, 2026.
I appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on why Wisconsin should align its tax and regulatory policies with the growing scientific consensus that safer nicotine alternatives to cigarettes represent one of the most significant opportunities to reduce smoking-related death and disease.
The case for tobacco harm reduction
Cigarettes remain the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the United States, accounting for approximately 480,000 deaths per year. In Wisconsin, smoking kills an estimated 7,500 people annually.
Despite decades of progress, roughly 28 million American adults still smoke. Many of these smokers have tried to quit using traditional cessation methods such as nicotine patches and gums—which have a failure rate exceeding 90%—and have been unable to do so. For these individuals, safer nicotine alternatives offer a viable path away from the most dangerous form of nicotine delivery: the combustible cigarette.
The scientific basis for tobacco harm reduction is well established. The principal harm from tobacco use stems not from nicotine itself, which, while addictive, is not the primary cancer-causing agent, but from the combustion of tobacco and the inhalation of the resulting smoke. Products that deliver nicotine without combustion, such as nicotine pouches, heated tobacco products, e-cigarettes, and snus, pose a fraction of the risk of cigarettes. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognizes a “continuum of risk” regarding nicotine products, with cigarettes being the most dangerous and non-combustible alternatives being far less harmful.
This framework underpins the agency’s regulatory approach, which requires all new nicotine products to demonstrate that they are “appropriate for the protection of public health” before they can be legally sold. To date, the FDA has authorized multiple nicotine pouches, e-cigarettes, and snus products. The FDA has also authorized a heated tobacco product, IQOS, for sale. Each of these authorizations reflects a determination that the product provides a net benefit to public health, taking into account both current tobacco users and the potential impact on non-users, including youth.
International evidence supports tobacco harm reduction
The United States is not alone in recognizing the public health potential of safer nicotine products. Some of the most compelling evidence comes from international experience.
Sweden provides the most striking example. Swedish men have used snus, an oral tobacco product, for over a century. Because most Swedes who want to use nicotine opt for snus instead of cigarettes, Sweden enjoys the lowest smoking rate and the lowest rate of lung cancer in Europe. Sweden is on the verge of becoming the first country in Europe to reach the World Health Organization’s threshold of a “smoke-free” country, defined as having a smoking rate below 5%. Sweden also has the highest life expectancy in Europe, in part due to its lower smoking rates.
The United Kingdom has been a global leader in embracing tobacco harm reduction as official public health policy. Public Health England (now the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities) has repeatedly stated that e-cigarettes are approximately 95% less harmful than smoking. The U.K. government has actively encouraged smokers to switch to e-cigarettes as a cessation tool, and the National Health Service offers e-cigarettes as part of its quit-smoking services. The U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has also approved a medicinally licensed e-cigarette for prescription to smokers.
New Zealand has similarly embraced tobacco harm reduction. The New Zealand government’s Smokefree 2025 action plan explicitly recognized the role of vaping as a tool to help smokers quit, and the country’s regulatory framework taxes heated tobacco products and e-cigarettes at significantly lower rates than combustible cigarettes. New Zealand’s Ministry of Health has stated that vaping products are “significantly less harmful than smoking tobacco” and has supported the availability of these products as part of its broader strategy to reduce smoking prevalence. This approach has contributed to a dramatic decline in smoking rates, with daily smoking among adults falling from 13.2% in 2018 to 6.8% in 2023.
FDA premarket and modified risk tobacco product authorizations
The FDA’s regulatory framework provides two important pathways relevant to this discussion. The premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) pathway requires manufacturers to demonstrate that a product is “appropriate for the protection of public health.” The modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) pathway goes further, authorizing manufacturers to communicate to consumers that their product presents a lower risk of disease compared to cigarettes, provided they can substantiate such claims with rigorous scientific evidence.
To date, the FDA has granted MRTP authorization to General Snus smokeless tobacco products and the IQOS tobacco heating system, allowing them to carry a claim that switching completely from cigarettes to these products reduces the risk of certain diseases.
The FDA has also authorized 20 ZYN and six on! PLUS, nicotine pouches through the PMTA pathway, with the agency’s director of the Office of Science, Matthew Farrelly, confirming that “the data show that these nicotine pouch products meet that bar by benefiting adults who use cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco products and completely switch to these products.” Swedish Match has also submitted MRTP applications for ZYN products, seeking authorization to communicate the relative risk reduction these products offer compared to continued cigarette smoking.
MRTP authorization serves a critical public health function by correcting widespread misperceptions about the relative risks of nicotine products. Research consistently shows that most Americans, including smokers, incorrectly believe that products such as e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches are just as or more dangerous than cigarettes. These misperceptions deter smokers from switching to substantially safer products. As former FDA Center for Tobacco Products Director Brian King wrote in the journal Addiction in 2023, “[O]pportunities exist to educate adult smokers about the relative risks of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, using evidence-based approaches.”
Early evidence suggests MRTP authorization can have positive effects. Following General Snus’s MRTP authorization, sales increased relative to non-snus smokeless tobacco, suggesting substitution from higher-risk products to lower-risk ones, a net public health benefit.
Importantly, there was no increase in youth use of General Snus following the MRTP authorization.
The case for risk-proportionate taxation
The rationales for taxing cigarettes are well established: to offset the external costs smokers impose on non-smokers through increased healthcare expenditures, to deter use, and to discourage youth initiation. However, these rationales do not apply with equal force to products that pose a fraction of the risk of cigarettes. Taxing safer nicotine alternatives at rates comparable to cigarettes is counterproductive because it eliminates the financial incentive for smokers to switch, thereby keeping more people smoking.
The literature consistently shows that higher taxes on safer nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes, result in more cigarette smoking. An analysis of Minnesota’s 95% wholesale tax on e-cigarettes found 32,400 additional smokers than there would have been without the tax.
A separate analysis found that for every e-cigarette pod eliminated by an e-cigarette tax, 1.9 additional cigarette packs are sold.
Research on young adults aged 18–25 found that e-cigarette taxes were associated with reduced vaping but were similarly associated with increases in smoking, with the authors concluding that “the unintended effects of … taxation may considerably undercut or even outweigh any public health gains.”
These substitution effects are not surprising. Because safer nicotine products are substitutes for cigarettes, policies that make them more expensive relative to cigarettes predictably drive consumers back to the more dangerous product. Risk-proportionate taxation is essential to ensuring that the tax system supports rather than undermines public health. Taxing lower-risk products at the same rate as cigarettes sends a perverse signal to consumers that the products are equally dangerous, compounding the problem of risk misperception.
The principle of risk-proportionate taxation is straightforward: Taxes on safer nicotine products should always be substantially lower than those on cigarettes, if they are taxed at all.11
The wider the tax gap between cigarettes and safer alternatives, the stronger the incentive for smokers to switch, improving their short- and long-term health. Products that have received MRTP authorization from the FDA have met the most rigorous scientific standard for demonstrating reduced risk, and this should be reflected in the tax code.
Regressive impacts and economic considerations
Smoking is disproportionately concentrated among lower-income households. For smokers who wish to quit but have been unable to do so through traditional methods, the chance to switch to a product that delivers nicotine without the smoke that may one day kill them represents a significant opportunity. When safer alternatives are also cheaper than cigarettes, the economic incentive reinforces the health incentive, creating a powerful motivation for smokers to switch.
Conversely, taxing safer alternatives at rates comparable to cigarettes removes this economic incentive and disproportionately burdens the populations most in need of affordable harm reduction options. High taxes on safer nicotine products represent one of the most regressive forms of taxation, penalizing consumers for making a choice that improves their health and reduces the burden on the healthcare system.
Conclusion
We respectfully urge the Assembly Committee on State Affairs and the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue to consider the following principles as Wisconsin approaches the issue of tobacco taxation:
First, Wisconsin should adopt a risk-proportionate approach to the taxation of nicotine products. Taxes on non-combustible nicotine products should be substantially lower than taxes on combustible cigarettes.
Second, Wisconsin should avoid following the example of states that have imposed punitive taxes on safer nicotine alternatives, which the empirical evidence shows leads to increased cigarette smoking and worse public health outcomes.
Third, policymakers should consider the regressive nature of high taxes on safer nicotine products and the disproportionate impact on lower-income smokers who would benefit most from affordable alternatives to cigarettes.
Aligning Wisconsin’s tax policy with the FDA’s scientific framework and the international evidence on tobacco harm reduction would represent sound fiscal policy and, more importantly, would save lives by helping smokers transition away from the most dangerous nicotine product on the market.