article_detail

 

April has opened a new chapter in Europe’s tobacco control debate, with the European Commission earlier this month releasing an initial report evaluating EU tobacco policy under the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD).

 

As the first step in the long-awaited revision of the TPD – last overhauled in 2014 – the Commission’s apparent regulatory direction on novel tobacco and nicotine products, such as vapes, has drawn criticism from NGOs and medical experts alike. For example, in the Medical Observatory on Harm Reduction’s (MOHRE) 9 April letter to EU Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, the organisation’s researchers rightly express support for stronger tobacco control measures to protect minors and non-smokers, yet warn that the Commission’s report gives insufficient weight to independent scientific evidence on harm reduction.

 

As the EU progresses the TPD revision, properly reflecting the different risk profiles of combustible tobacco products and vaping devices will be essential to meeting the public health goals. Crucially, policymakers will need to regulate the market for new tobacco and nicotine products through clearly defined sales channels, while reining in irresponsible and dangerous commercial practices from both Big Tobacco and certain independent vaping firms, ensuring new rules both stop the industry using vapes to hook young people on nicotine and steer them toward tobacco, while preserving vaping’s role in helping adult smokers quit.

 

 

Across Europe, a policy fault line is widening. Although the scientific evidence in favour of tobacco harm reduction continues to grow, the Commission appears tempted by an overly restrictive approach that could undermine hard-won progress against smoking. Yet regulatory differentiation between novel products such as vapes and traditional tobacco must still go hand in hand with stronger oversight. Europe’s challenge with the revamped TPD is therefore to preserve the harm reduction support of vapes for adult smokers while tackling abuses within the vaping market itself, notably by clamping down on the vaping manufacturers deliberately making their products accessible to non-smoking young people outside regulated points of sale.

 

Reflecting the broader European debate, vaping has also attracted intense media scrutiny in France. In March, the influential programme Complément d’enquête examined how the tobacco industry is investing heavily in the fast-growing e-cigarette market, highlighting how vaping has drawn in the sector’s giants despite health controversies and strict advertising rules. Earlier this year, a separate investigation broadcast on France.TV and YouTube’s Slash enquêtes presented a journalist as having “infiltrated” the vaping industry, when in fact her placement was in the tobacco industry. Yet this coverage, while raising legitimate concerns, has too often missed the nuance needed to inform an effective TPD revision.

 

Indeed, Big Tobacco’s presence in France’s e-cigarette market is a real concern, particularly given the risk of tobacco companies using novel products to normalise nicotine use among young people, but this is not the whole picture. Tobacco companies account for only 15% of the French market, while the wider sector is largely driven by the e-liquids of independent players, with this market structure creating its own risks given that sales points remain insufficiently regulated. The danger is not only PMI’s expansion into vaping, but also the ability of fast-growing actors such as JNR – which has reportedly captured 40% of the French market – to target their products to teenagers through informal channels.

 

 

This media coverage in France notably came on the heels of a report released by France’s health agency, ANSES, in February. The television investigations that followed were joined by alarmist print media headlines, often appearing to place the cancer and cardiovascular risks of tobacco and vaping on the same level. Yet that reading goes far beyond what the report itself actually says.

 

Crucially, the ANSES’s review of more than 2,500 studies analysing cancer and cardiovascular risks does not in any way support the fearmongering interpretation seen in parts of the media. On the contrary, the agency states that vaping represents a reduction in harm compared with smoking and can be recommended as a smoking cessation tool for adult smokers. Yet that does not mean treating such products as harmless.

 

Although vapes are objectively safer than cigarettes, they remain addictive nicotine products and potentially pose health hazards – even vaping companies acknowledge that these new products cannot guarantee zero risk given the lack of clear, long-term medical research. Accordingly, the ANSES report supports offering vapes to smokers for a limited period only to help them quit, while making clear they should be prohibited for adolescents and avoided by non-smokers.

 

In France, the medical community has also commented on the ANSES report’s publication, with Dr Alice Descheneau, president of the Société Francophone de Tabacologie, saying that “vaping is an effective way to quit and less dangerous than cigarettes,” and Catherine Delorme, president of Fédération Addiction, noting that “the risk-benefit balance clearly favours vaping.”

 

 

Moving forward, the EU’s approach to novel products in the TPD revision should be guided by such nuanced, science-based positions on vaping, rather than blunt equivalence with smoking. A tough line on Big Tobacco remains essential, but it should not obscure a core public health distinction: vaping has a lower risk profile than combustible tobacco, while still requiring stronger regulation to prevent abuse.

 

 

A key priority for the new TPD should be to regulate the market more effectively, making it more viable for legitimate firms supporting smoking cessation, while stopping Big Tobacco from using novel products as a Trojan horse for youth nicotine addiction and preventing certain bad actors in the independent sector from pushing vapes into the hands of teenagers through unregulated sales networks.

 

To curb this cynical targeting of youth, the TPD should require vapes to be sold only through official channels, such as tobacconists and specialist shops, as France’s rejected Article 23 of the PLF proposed, with much tougher penalties for sales outside these authorised points of sale. Moreover, this regulation should introduce minimum taxation for vapes, set below tobacco levels to reflect their different health profiles, yet high enough to help fund future public health efforts linked to vaping’s potential long-term health impact.

 

Finally, the EU must also use the TPD revision to introduce an effective, tobacco industry-independent traceability system for vaping products. Here, the United Kingdom is leading the way, having recently selected a private consortium composed of Cartor Security and SICPA to operate its new vaping traceability scheme. Aligned with the WHO FCTC Protocol’s independence and technical requirements, this model offers a blueprint the EU should now adopt, including for tobacco products, as it seizes this once-in-a-generation chance to replace its existing ineffective and industry-aligned system.

 

 

In the end, the TPD revision will only succeed in reducing tobacco use and its wider health impact in the EU if it is shaped by evidence rather than blunt regulatory instinct. Looking ahead, the Commission’s approach must protect minors and non-smokers without treating all products as if they carry the same risks, which means curbing irresponsible commercial practices in the novel products market while preserving harm reduction as a credible tool for adult smokers.