Clearing the Air has now seen the full version of the EU Commission’s smoke free environments recommendation after Euronews got the initial scoop, but before the document was made public, expected tomorrow morning.
The Commission specifically recommends that vaping is banned:
- Indoor spaces
- Designated outdoor recreational areas where children may be present
- Outdoor spaces of restaurants, bars and cafes
- Bus, tram and train stops
- Any outdoor associated to a place of work
- Any outdoor spaces related to healthcare including hospitals, nursing homes and other such places
- Any educational facilities, including universities
- Any outdoor area in which members of the public are likely to congregate
- Spaces associated with buildings that are open to the public
- Private cars
While the Commission did conduct a limited consultation on the new Recommendation, it does not mention in its preamble the views of vapers; and, tellingly, it seems to have relied on “targeted consultation activities” - likely to mean consulting only with the Non-Governmental Organisations that the Commission knew would agree with its predetermined position. None of the consumer activists Clearing the Air asked were consulted during these “targeted activities”.
The Commission seeking to only ask questions of those who will supply the answer they are looking for is not new in tobacco control: earlier today, Clearing the Air covered the story of how the Commission is currently under investigation for doing the same thing in its awarding of a contract to the European Network for Smoking Prevention.
The Commission leans heavily on the WHO for its evidence base and permission structure for such a draconian suggestion. In its explanatory “recitals” it cites discredited evidence from disgraced tobacco control professor Stanton Glantz, who settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with a former postdoctoral researcher in his department before retiring.
Both studies cited by the Commission have been heavily criticized by others working in tobacco control. The first - which claimed that risks from vaping were similar to those from smoking - was branded a “serious misinterpretation of the epidemiologic evidence” by four independent academics with a long history in the field.
A similar paper from Glantz was retracted by the journal that published it because of concern from the editors “that the study conclusion is unreliable”.
