Summary:
- The EU Commission has announced that it will propose changes to the EU’s laws on safer nicotine products next year, a year earlier than previously expected.
- There’s a good chance that the Commission will want to take a maximalist approach and ban as much as it can. Think all vape flavours, all pouches, and any other safer products someone might come up with in future.
- This is an ambitious timeline and there’s quite a few steps before the Commission can make such a proposal.
- Anyone who can take part though even small acts of resistance should do so, as ultimately, that’s what will decide whether and to what extent the Commission can get away with the bans it wants.
And there we have it…
After several false alarms, it now seems close to certain that we’ll be blessed with a proposal to change the EU’s rulebook on safer nicotine products – known as the Tobacco Products Directive or TPD – sometime next year.
The EU Commission, which will propose the legal changes, is openly hostile to safer nicotine products and people who use them, so it’s fairly safe to say that vapers, pouch-ers, snus-ers, iQOS-ers (almost certainly not a word) and any other kind of -er isn’t going to like what it contains. Think flavour bans, entire-products bans, online sales bans. Think bans in general. They like bans.
But the proposal, when it comes, will be the first step in a process of agreeing the new law where we do have allies. Whether the bans that public health zealots and their pet bureaucrats in the Commission desire actually make it onto the statute books depends in large part on normal folk who like using safer nicotine products. People like most of our readers.
There are quite a few points at which we – and yes, I’m a person who likes safer nicotine products too – have a role to play. So as we head into 2026, now’s probably the time to explain what those are.
Wait. So the European Commission can just ban stuff whenever it likes?
No, although I’m sure they wish they could. When I say “we’ll get a proposal”, what I mean is that the Commission will adopt a draft law that changes the current rules on safer nicotine products across Europe. That draft will then be amended by EU countries and Members of the European Parliament. If the two sides can agree on the same text, it’ll become EU law.
But that’s getting a little ahead of ourselves. 2026 will be about how the Commission produces and justifies its proposal. There are quite a few steps between this week’s announcement that there will be a proposal in 2026 and the proposal coming into being.
When in 2026 should we all be expecting this disastrous shitshow wonderful gift from Brussels?
Probably shortly before next Xmas, although the Commission has given itself some wiggle room for that to bleed into early 2027. But it’s how we get there that’s important.
I’m afraid I need to get a little bit nerdy now. Before the Commission can propose changes to the law, there are a few procedural steps it needs to take. In theory, these are supposed to make sure new laws are well thought through.
- Publishing the “evaluation report” – seems rather obvious, but if you’re going to change an existing law, it’s a good idea to check how it’s performing today. That’s what this step is, in theory. In practice, expect a document that serves as a pretext for a decision that the current law isn’t restrictive enough and more bans are needed.
- Conducting an “impact assessment” – again, seems obvious, but you should probably have an idea what your new law might do in the real world before you propose it. That’s what this phase is all about. I’m told by people in the know that there’s a study in the works by the EU’s Joint Research Centre, and the Commission has committed to a thorough impact assessment before any change to this Directive. But – if they really want to push through a proposal quickly, they might try and skip this altogether. It’s legally dicey but technically possible, and has already been done this year on a health policy (the Critical Medicines act).
- A “consultation” on various policy options – which will only happen if there’s an impact assessment. A call for opinions will go up on the EU Have Your Say website, with a fixed period of time (usually 9-12 weeks) to respond. The Commission often likes to do this over the summer because, you know, no one else needs to go on vacation. If they go ahead during or before the summer, we’ll know there’s a serious push to get all this done quickly.
- Drafting a proposal – fairly self explanatory. This will be done by the “true believers” in DG SANTE. Whatever they come up with will be truly atrocious.
- Institutional jiggery-pokery – I won’t bore you with acronyms and procedures, but the proposal written in DG SANTE will be passed up the Commission’s chain of command for various levels of consultation and approval. This will be when the grown-ups get involved, and hopefully moderate some of the worst excesses of what the tobacco controllers want to do.
- Adoption – the proposal is agreed by the Commissioners themselves, usually on a Wednesday. Cue photo ops, press conferences, self-congratulatory op-eds in the press and so on. Have a sick bucket at the ready; but remember, this is now where the European Parliament and Member States get to tear it to pieces.
Isn’t there a proposal to massively raise taxes on safer nicotine products that’s already in the works?
Yes, but that’s technically a separate legal act, and it’s with the European Parliament and the Council right now.
It’s not without consequence for the TPD though. Especially in the European Parliament, its passage will be seen as a litmus test for future votes on TPD: in other words, if the Commission’s tax proposal gets defeated or watered down in Parliament, that will both embolden harm reduction supporters among MEPs and reassure pragmatic countries that there is a groundswell of opposition to bans and restrictions on safer nicotine products.
The EU is anti-democratic anyway. There’s no point trying to influence it.
Actually, we’ve seen this movie before. Back in 2013 the Commission caught everyone off guard by proposing to ban vapes and pouches entirely. It was only constant pressure by vapers, who wrote to their MEPs, insisted on meeting them where they could, and even came to Brussels to protest, that saved vaping at all. None of us would even be here today if that campaign hadn’t happened.
This time, we’ve a massive advantage: we know what’s coming, when it’s coming, and there’s already a good community of people who can organise to try to stop it. The headwinds are there too though: a well funded campaign by ideological NGOs financed by enormous philanthropic organisations who think we’re all evil bots, “corporate sock puppets”, or both (if that’s even possible).
I don’t have the time or the inclination to become a lobbyist.
Yeah, neither do most people. Sadly, the alternative is blanket products bans, which will suck for all of us. Fortunately, for most of us, it won’t take all that long or be all that hard.
OK. Fine. What do we need to do?
There’s two things that’ll be fairly simple.
- Write to your MEP about it (part 1) – you can do this whenever you want, and it’s better if you use your own words if you have the time to sit and write an email. That said, it’ll probably be more effective if you do that when a key milestone hits.
- Write to your MEP about it (part 2) – there’s a specific group of MEPs examining the nicotine tax proposals. We’ve created a tax calculator, and in the New Year we’ll update it with a functionality allowing you to write to them telling you how much the EU’s tax grab will cost you personally.
- Respond to the EU’s consultation – whenever this comes, and readers of this site at least will be told as soon as it opens, send in a response. We’ll probably build some kind of tool to help you if you don’t have time to complete all the forms yourselves.
OK fine, That’s three things. Two and a half, really.
