During the summer, the European Commission conducted not one, but two consultations to gather information for its revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), the first being a call for evidence that closed on June 15, and the other being a questionnaire that remained open until August 14. Commission officials are now processing the results of the consultations to feed them into their wider impact assessment to guide the next steps in their proposed revision of the directive.
The questionnaire drew harsh criticism from the tobacco harm reduction community for trying to conflate alternative nicotine products with tobacco, classifying young people as those from the ages of 10 to 24, and was intentionally made “impossible by design” to get a fair measurement of public attitudes. Unlike past EU consultations that have mostly attracted responses from special interests, trade associations and NGOs, these two engagement exercises drew an enormous reaction from outside of the Brussels Bubble, with 95% of the contributions coming directly from citizens.
The Call for Evidence received over 82,000 contributions where responses were overwhelmingly against the Commission’s earlier proposals for restrictions on tobacco harm reduction products (e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches, snus …) while the Consultation had over 41,000 valid responses to the questionnaire. With less than 5% of the responses coming from the usual EU policy stakeholders, the feedback provides an excellent opportunity for the European Commission to actually hear what more than 120,000 Europeans think of their proposed regulation and gather a large amount of genuine lived experiences from those concerned mainly about having continued access to tobacco harm reduction products.
Activists often want to stress the value of lived experiences in framing a policy debate, especially on issues like pesticides or ultra-processed foods. They usually embrace the lived experience route because they lack data or scientific evidence. In the case of tobacco harm reduction though, pro-nicotine advocates have data, scientific evidence and an army of walking witnesses who are happy to share their experiences of the battle to quit smoking and reclaim their health. People (like myself) have personal stories to tell and would go through the laborious effort of registering a European Commission account to share their lived experiences … by the tens of thousands.
A Deaf Consultation?
I cannot begin to express how offended I am when I hear European officials repeating anti-harm-reduction activists' claims about the large numbers of contributors to EU tobacco and nicotine consultations serving merely as tobacco industry shills. In their sheltered world, they cannot seem to be able to imagine having their own (positive) views on alternative nicotine products.
A vast majority of these individuals made the effort to register personal accounts on the EU consultation website, go through the security verification processes to be able to share their lived experiences with the hopes that other smokers could continue to have tools like e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches to reclaim their health and live longer lives. They are not agents of some mythical industry lobbying force. If anything, a large number of ex-smokers despise the tobacco industry for their addiction. What sort of heartless bastards would try to denigrate the worth of their stories because they don’t fit with their political agenda?
The entire point of a European Union consultation is to inform policymakers of positions they may not be aware of. It evolved as a key part of the EU’s stakeholder dialogue strategy articulated in the 2001 White Paper on European Governance to address the problem that Brussels was out of touch. This consultation process is not just about a regulation on a harm reduction strategy; it is a bellwether to determine if the European Union can be in touch with the interests of European citizens.
More than 120,000 citizens have spoken up, mostly on tobacco harm reduction tools, but officials do not seem interested in listening. Instead we find the European Commission playing games with the consultation process, trying to manipulate the questionnaires to restrict and guide the responses by conflating tobacco with safer nicotine alternatives, providing unrealistic age categories and refusing to accept the value of harm reduction on such a vital health strategy. Anyone with a background in health policy management should be ashamed of such a performance.
Since the European Commission will likely not respect the value of such lived experiences on tobacco harm reduction, I thought it might be an idea to share some of the contributions to emphasize how important it is for these voices to be taken into account if EU regulators want to have a rational policy on tobacco and nicotine that is fair to consumers and best promotes public health. I could not read all of the contributions but I filtered a fair number (provided at the end of the article), enough to see the trends and key arguments that Europeans took the time to express.
The entire point of a European Union consultation is to inform policymakers of positions they may not be aware of.
A Selection of Real Lives, Real Experiences
Reading through pages of contributions might be a strange way to spend a Sunday afternoon, but I was impressed by the depth of perspectives and proposals. While I would like to think I have heard most of the arguments on tobacco harm reduction, I will be the first to admit that I had learnt quite a few things from the comments submitted in the consultations. Let’s hope that European Commission officials approach this exercise with the same open mind.
The selection of contributions is divided into two groups: lived experiences from people who were finally able to quit smoking with e-cigarettes; and vape shop/tobacconist owners concerned about the effect on their business and the rise in black markets. I have copied some of the more interesting contributions at the end of this article, but will integrate their ideas into the following general assessment.
Ex-Smokers Thanks to Vaping
People who succeeded on their journey to quit smoking are usually very open to share their experiences. The Call for Evidence allowed them to tell their stories and use the opportunity to help regulators understand what works and what doesn’t. One thing they consistently said did not work were the pharmaceutical smoking cessation tools (nicotine patches, gums, lozenges…) adding that it was only when they were introduced to e-cigarettes that they were able to stop (with comparable ease). Pascale from France shared how, before vaping, whenever she tried to quit with pharmaceutical cessation products, she “would gain weight, suffer from digestive issues, and, above all, fall into a depression—a severe depression.” Quitting an addiction is a challenge that can only be measured by the addict so advice from people like Pascale who fight for their health on a daily basis should be respected.
Those who quit smoking via vaping largely believe that the variety of flavours is essential to prevent them from falling back into cigarettes. One of the ideas the European Commission is considering is to restrict e-cigarettes to having only tobacco flavours or impose all out flavour bans. Thierry in France states “it is quite difficult to forget about tobacco and make a clean break when you constantly have that taste in your mouth.”
Panagiotis, in Greece, finds any proposed flavour ban ridiculous: “Like all new vapers, I started out using tobacco-flavoured e-liquids. A few months later, I switched to fruit flavours because I no longer liked the smell of cigarettes—even the smell associated with vaping. If the legislation you are planning effectively restricts non-tobacco flavours, what exactly are you proposing? That we go back to smoking cigarettes or seek out products on the black market?”
I suspect many people like Panagiotis would have no qualms shifting to illicit markets should ignorance prevail in the TPD regulation.
it is quite difficult to forget about tobacco and make a clean break when you constantly have that taste in your mouth.
There is also a concern among vapers over the proposed limits on nicotine levels. Pascale in France, a cancer survivor, warned: “I still use 20 mg, and if I were to lower that level, I would go back to smoking.” An anonymous French ex-smoker explained the logic of higher limits: “Like any drug, a gentle withdrawal is better than a harsh one. Nicotine—properly dosed and gradually reduced to zero—was a huge help in my journey to quit smoking. Had I been restricted to lower limits, I likely never would have stopped smoking cigarettes.” Panagiotis added that the US has had nicotine levels 2.5 times higher than the present European limits and there have been no adverse effects.
Many of the contributions questioned the European Commission’s strategy of grouping tobacco harm reduction products with tobacco. While there is agreement that tobacco advertising should be banned, smokers need to be able to be informed about how vaping or nicotine pouches can effectively help them quit. And no one felt the restrictions on vaping in public spaces or claims of risks from second-hand vapes were legitimate. It was interesting to learn that some vapers feel ridiculed in airport smoking boxes (where they have to suffer second-hand tobacco smoke).
Sébastien from France left perhaps the most striking comment on the risks of the present European Commission regulatory pathway. Raising taxes or imposing restrictions on flavours or nicotine strengths all in the name of protecting young people, he argues, is equivalent to condemning millions of smokers to early deaths. The vaping ban on young people just needs to be enforced and it is shameful that the EU is not focusing on saving lives. This regulation is not simply about tobacco products, it is about trust in the European project. Sébastien asks: “Do you think that with this kind of approach … citizens will continue to believe in Europe or support the European project for much longer? I am pro-European, but the way things are going, it is no longer tenable.”
It should come as no surprise that the anti-EU extremist political parties are speaking out against the revision of the TPD and promising to freeze nicotine tax increases. If Brussels fails to get this policy right, a rather large population will lose their faith and trust in EU regulators. This process is not about giving the health zealots and easy pass; it is putting European Union credibility under the microscope.
Vape Shop Concerns
One of the points frequently mentioned in the lived experiences of those who were able to quit smoking via e-cigarettes is that they relied on excellent advice. This was more often than not provided by vape shop owners (doctors are encouraged to prescribe pharmaceutical solutions), who are usually passionate ex-smokers. As a first point of contact for smokers trying to quit, the vape shop owners are not only a source of general knowledge, but can put the smoker on a programme with nicotine dose limits and flavours to meet the consumer’s objective. It should not go unnoticed that vape shop owners are often the targets of the most severe regulatory proposals. They indeed had a few points to make in this consultation.
Damiano from Italy didn’t have to cite the street battles between rival smuggling rings in Australia fighting for the illicit contraband market. He used common sense to warn the European Commission that “the proposed regulations concerning tobacco products will only harm the sector's legal supply chain by limiting consumer choice and steering consumers toward unregulated products that are easily obtained via online platforms or illegal sellers—particularly regarding innovative products that are undoubtedly less harmful than traditional cigarettes.”
Unipetrol in Czechia is a sales point for tobacco and alternative nicotine products. They are concerned that the proposed regulation will not adequately protect legal and controlled sales channels. They state: From a retail perspective, it will be crucial how any revision translates into product range, packaging, product exposure, information obligations and marketing communication at the point of sale. ... Overly complex or difficult to enforce regulation may lead to a shift of part of demand away from the standard distribution environment, which could undermine both consumer protection and the effectiveness of market surveillance.
There is enough history to show that overly restrictive, prohibition-based policies will not promote public health, protect consumers, monitor market trends or collect state revenues. It will, however, produce a thriving market for organised crime. One hundred years after the great American Prohibition failure, we have far better access, communication and distribution channels for interested parties to circumvent irrational regulations.
Why would the European Commission ignore history, common sense and well-established market mechanisms?
The Radykalne Centrum in Poland concludes that the European Commission lacks a proper understanding of how their policies impact SMEs. The Tobacco Products Directive, in particular, “suffers from an analytical gap regarding microeconomic aspects”. They state: “Undermining the stability of these entities through poorly justified regulations threatens the survival of certain local value chains. Unlike large corporations, SMEs lack the financial buffers to absorb such profound market disruptions. Furthermore, regulatory barriers affect the competitiveness and financial stability of SMEs. EU SMEs currently operate amidst a drastic rise in fixed costs (driven by the energy crisis, inflation, and supply chain disruptions). The introduction of additional restrictions imposes disproportionately high compliance costs on smaller firms.”
Not only is the European Commission’s proposed regulation going to encourage black markets and organized crime, it will also undermine the one sector it would need to rely on for market surveillance, consumer protection, revenue collection and youth age-control enforcement. How do you spell “Stupid”?
It is safe to assume from the level and quality of the citizen engagement and advice found in these two Tobacco Products Directive consultations, that the European Commission has a lot to learn about the value of tobacco harm reduction.
The EU’s Learning Experience
None of the entries I had read in the consultations spoke positively about tobacco or smoking, outside of the agricultural sector, and no one was arguing against strict controls being imposed on youth vaping. But it seems widely known among the contributors that if the European Commission pushed through with their prohibitionary, precautionary regulatory ambitions against alternative nicotine products they have been advocating, then they will be supporting the tobacco industry and the increase in illicit trade and black markets will make it much harder to protect young people.
The health activists campaigning against tobacco harm reduction products like e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches do not have evidence or credible scientific publications to back their claims. And they do not enjoy lived experiences they can use to sway the policy debates. As Clive Bates recently said, they are stakeholders without a stake.
Without any scientific basis, without lived experiences and without common sense, what do these activists have?
Money ... and lots of it. Michael Bloomberg has contributed $2 billion ($1.6 billion paid up and $400 million pledged) to control the debate and is literally funding the entire WHO tobacco control / MPOWER policy implementation. So as long as the funding spigot stays wide open and communications experts can run expensive campaigns to try to discredit lived experiences, the 120,000 pleas for common sense will go unheard in Brussels.
I feel that the consultation respondents are much more reasonable and better informed than the present European Commissioner for Health in charge of this dossier, who somehow seems to believe that tobacco harm reduction tools like e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches are as dangerous, if not more, than smoking. Commissioner Várhelyi has claimed he is carrying out the EU’s commitments as a member of the WHO and signatory to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This then pre-empts any influence from the consultation contributors as the European Commissioner feels obligated to bend the knee to Michael Bloomberg.
The European Commission needs to filter the tens of thousands of messages based on lived experiences from the European public, consumers, shop owners, and distil them into a rational policy. This would result in a much more effective regulation in service to the European public than providing a group of activists with a budget to produce a politically desired framework report designed to be transposed into regulation. Given the reactions in the past from the anti-industry health zealots, I have very little confidence in DG Santé actually respecting the European consultation process or the voice of European citizens.
European public health will suffer, more people will continue to smoke, organised crime will benefit and the public will remain even more confused about tobacco harm reduction tools (or fed up with the European project given how the voices of common sense and lived experience were completely ignored). But the European Commissioner for Health will be able to stroll into the WHO in Geneva with his head held up high ... so something positive will come out of this ridiculous regulation.
Selections from the EU Consultations
Here are a few of the thousands of lived experiences shared with the European Commission’s Call for Evidence to help shape their policy deliberations.
Ex-Smokers Experiences
Pascale (France)
I am 57 years old; I had breast cancer in 2018, followed by lung cancer in 2020. I decided to quit smoking immediately after my first cancer diagnosis. A doctor recommended e-cigarettes to me, and they saved me. In the past, whenever I tried to quit—using patches, lozenges, or other nicotine substitutes—I would gain weight, suffer from digestive issues, and, above all, fall into a depression—a severe depression. I can honestly say that once I started using my e-cigarette, I never smoked again. My recovery was made possible by that—and by the fact that I was guided and advised by reputable vendors who genuinely cared about making it work for me. I beg you: do not kill vaping. Do not lower nicotine levels or restrict flavours. I still use 20 mg, and if I were to lower that level, I would go back to smoking.
Thierry (France)
I tried practically every stop-smoking aid on the market, and despite dozens of attempts, I never managed to quit cigarettes. Then I discovered vaping, and I finally succeeded in quitting within a few months (though it took some time to find the right gear and flavours for me). I am writing this today to highlight the importance of flavours. I struggled to quit when using tobacco-flavoured e-liquids at first, as they didn't allow for a clean break from smoking. In contrast, fruity or dessert flavours not only add an element of enjoyment that helps take your mind off cigarettes, but they also facilitate a faster transition away from your former life as a smoker. After all, it is quite difficult to forget about tobacco and make a clean break when you constantly have that taste in your mouth. Please understand that flavours play a crucial role in the success of electronic cigarettes.
Anonymous (Spain)
I am not a doctor or expert. I'm just a person who smoked for over fifteen years and has tried to quit many times without success. I have anxiety and, although I know that smoking does not cure it in any way, for me it has always been closely linked to managing moments of stress. I tried patches, gum, quitting cold turkey. I held out for a while and started smoking again. Each relapse made me feel worse, because it seemed like everyone could quit except me. A few years ago I switched to electronic cigarettes. Not because I thought it was healthy, but because I was tired of coughing, smelling like tobacco, and feeling like I had no alternative. I haven't smoked cigarettes since. Would I like not to depend on anything? Of course. But if I'm honest, I think that if the electronic cigarette had not existed, I would still be smoking today. And I know I'm not the only one.
Anonymous (France)
Quitting smoking is a battle. Beyond the superficial reasons that initially drive us to start, there are often deeper reasons that keep us hooked. Vaping was a lifesaver for me. I regained my lung capacity and energy, and the periods of wondering "Who am I without a cigarette? How do I live without one?" almost completely vanished. Of course, there is a major psychological aspect to smoking. Vaping is just a crutch. But what a crutch! Patches and smoking cessation programs never helped me quit for more than three weeks, whereas thanks to vaping, I haven't touched a cigarette in six years. It isn't a perfect solution, naturally, but today—thanks to fruity flavours—I vape without nicotine and have no desire to go back to cigarettes. The very idea actually disgusts me. There is still the work of quitting vaping itself, of course, but that is entirely up to me. Well, me—and the traumas I experienced, as well as the policies supporting the tobacco industry that were in place when I was thirteen. Do not ban or lower nicotine levels in vaping products. Like any drug, a gentle withdrawal is better than a harsh one. Nicotine—properly dosed and gradually reduced to zero—was a huge help in my journey to quit smoking. Had I been restricted to lower limits, I likely never would have stopped smoking cigarettes. Do not ban fruity or non-tobacco flavours; doing so would prevent the 30-to-80-year-old demographic from quitting smoking. Leaving the world of tobacco behind while retaining the pleasure of the "smoke" and the "throat hit" is what allows for a gradual transition to a life free of both tobacco and vaping.
Panagiotis (Greece)
Is it even possible to raise the issue of passive vaping? And in outdoor spaces, no less? Is this some new kind of nonsense? Please enlighten us vapers: what exactly happens to someone? Because my wife, who suffers from chronic asthma, experiences absolutely no discomfort when I vape in bed right next to her in a small bedroom. I was a smoker for 13 years, having started back when I was a university student. When I decided to quit, I went to a vape shop and stopped smoking that very day. I have been an ex-smoker for five years now, and my life has truly benefited from it. Any European foolish enough to propose lowering the maximum nicotine concentration should ask the FDA in the US; there, vaping liquids with levels around 50mg/ml have been used for 15 years without any adverse incidents. So, in the US—where the limit is 2.5 times higher than in Europe—nothing happens, yet here in Europe, we see phantom "dangers" where there is neither the probability nor the possibility of harm at the 20mg/ml level? It’s unbelievable! While the Commission acknowledges that smoking rates in Europe have declined since the introduction of the TPD2 Directive, it displays incredible hypocrisy by failing to attribute even 1% of this reduction to vaping and other smoking alternatives. With 15 million Europeans recorded as vapers, this is a case of tragic hypocrisy. Congratulations, Europe! Like all new vapers, I started out using tobacco-flavoured e-liquids. A few months later, I switched to fruit flavours because I no longer liked the smell of cigarettes—even the smell associated with vaping. If the legislation you are planning effectively restricts non-tobacco flavours, what exactly are you proposing? That we go back to smoking cigarettes or seek out products on the black market?
Sébastien (France)
I quit smoking over 13 years ago using vaping—with high nicotine levels and a variety of flavours, but definitely not tobacco! 98% of vapers are like me: we vape to quit smoking. The very idea of taxing a product that helps so many people is outrageous. Eliminating flavours, undermining effectiveness, and forcing people to stick with the taste of cigarettes by mandating tobacco flavouring is downright sadistic! All this to "protect young people." Protect them from what? In France, smoking rates among young people are plummeting. While some do vape (instead of smoking or to quit smoking), they represent a tiny minority compared to the millions of adults involved; furthermore, the sale of vaping products to minors is already banned—what more can be done? Enforce existing laws, perhaps? Instead of sacrificing millions of lives—because that is the reality of the situation, plain and simple. Hindering vaping "to protect the youth" restricts access for everyone, thereby massively reducing the number of attempts to quit smoking and actual successful quits. This translates into a staggering loss of human life. Do you think that with this kind of approach—which could well be described as criminal (neither vaping nor nicotine kills, unlike cigarettes, which kill one in two smokers)—citizens will continue to believe in Europe or support the European project for much longer? I am pro-European, but the way things are going, it is no longer tenable. It is unacceptable to cause so much harm—especially when done with full knowledge of the facts, given that the science regarding the relative risks of vaping versus smoking is now very solid. It is shameful—truly shameful.
Vape Shops
Damiano (Italy)
In my view, the proposed regulations concerning tobacco products will only harm the sector's legal supply chain by limiting consumer choice and steering consumers toward unregulated products that are easily obtained via online platforms or illegal sellers—particularly regarding innovative products that are undoubtedly less harmful than traditional cigarettes. In a sector already subject to heavy regulation, these new rules would serve only to damage legitimate operators.
Unipetrol (Czechia)
From a retail perspective, it will be crucial how any revision translates into product range, packaging, product exposure, information obligations and marketing communication at the point of sale. The role of legal and controlled sales channels should be taken into account in the impact assessment. Overly complex or difficult to enforce regulation may lead to a shift of part of demand away from the standard distribution environment, which could undermine both consumer protection and the effectiveness of market surveillance. Finally, we recommend that the forthcoming regulation should take into account the differences between the different categories of tobacco and related products. A differentiated and evidence-based approach, taking into account the nature and manner of use of each product, can better meet the objectives of protecting public health without imposing unnecessary burdens on legitimate retail sales.
Radykalne Centrum (Poland)
The Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) lacks an adequate assessment of its socio-economic impact on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Commission’s evaluation of the TPD suffers from an analytical gap regarding microeconomic aspects. It fails to recognize the scale of this market (1.3% of EU GDP) and the jobs it generates (approximately 2 million across the EU). Small farms and local SMEs make up a significant portion of the market. Undermining the stability of these entities through poorly justified regulations threatens the survival of certain local value chains. Unlike large corporations, SMEs lack the financial buffers to absorb such profound market disruptions. Furthermore, regulatory barriers affect the competitiveness and financial stability of SMEs. EU SMEs currently operate amidst a drastic rise in fixed costs (driven by the energy crisis, inflation, and supply chain disruptions). The introduction of additional restrictions imposes disproportionately high compliance costs on smaller firms. While large corporations can afford relocation and legal services, for SMEs, this entails a drain on investment capital, reduced profitability, or even bankruptcy. Such regulatory policy favors non-EU entities and undermines the foundations of European entrepreneurship.