Ireland’s plan to restrict vape flavour names to “Tobacco” and “Unflavoured” has been delayed after Italy and Greece formally challenged the proposed rules at EU level.
Both countries submitted “detailed opinions” through the European Commission’s Technical Regulation Information System, or TRIS, raising potential concerns about barriers to trade within the EU single market.
The intervention has extended the bill’s standstill period from July 7 to October 7.
Ireland cannot complete the adoption of the notified technical rules during that period. It must also tell the European Commission how it intends to respond to the objections.
Only two permitted flavour names
The Public Health (Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products) (Amendment) Bill 2026 would introduce sweeping controls on the appearance, packaging, advertising and retail display of vapes.
It would restrict colours and imagery on products and packaging, ban devices designed to resemble toys or other everyday items and place new controls on nicotine pouches and other non-tobacco nicotine products. Sales of pouches to under 18s would also be prohibited.
Its most significant measure for adult vapers is presented as a restriction on flavour names rather than flavours themselves.
Under the schedule attached to the bill, the only permitted names would be “Tobacco” and “Unflavoured”. Retailers would also be prohibited from selling products with variant names that imply another taste, temperature, texture or oral sensation. In practice, that would remove legally labelled fruit, dessert, drink, menthol and other non-tobacco flavours from the Irish market.
The health minister would retain the power to add or remove permitted names through later regulations.
Italy questions whether the rules go too far
According to Vaping360, Italy’s detailed opinion questions whether Ireland’s proposed packaging, presentation, flavour-name and display restrictions are necessary and proportionate.
Italy is reported to have asked Ireland to show why less restrictive policies would not achieve the same public-health objectives. It also raised concerns that separate Irish product standards could obstruct goods lawfully marketed elsewhere in the EU and create uncertainty for manufacturers trying to comply with both Irish and EU requirements.
Greece also submitted a detailed opinion. Its objections reportedly focused on compliance costs and the risk of fragmenting the European market.
The Commission’s public TRIS entry confirms that both countries filed detailed opinions on July 7, although it doesn’t reproduce the full arguments contained in them.
Government points to youth vaping
Ireland notified the European Commission of the bill on April 2. The government said the restrictions were the minimum needed to address youth vaping and argued that less restrictive measures would not provide its chosen level of protection.
During the bill’s second-stage debate, the government acknowledged that vapes may be less harmful than smoking but said they were not harmless.
Figures presented to the Dáil showed that current vaping among Irish 15 and 16-year-olds fell from 18 per cent in 2019 to 16 per cent in 2024.
Experimentation also declined, from 39 per cent to 32 per cent, although daily vaping rose from five per cent to seven per cent.
The bill has completed its stages in the Dáil and moved to Seanad Éireann, where it was listed for second stage in July.
Objections don’t defeat the bill
A detailed opinion is not an EU veto. Under Directive 2015/1535, it extends the normal three-month standstill period to six months where another member state believes a proposed technical rule may obstruct the free movement of goods.
Ireland must report the action it proposes to take in response. It could amend the bill, provide further evidence for its approach or seek to proceed once the standstill expires.
The intervention nevertheless forces the government to defend why broad restrictions affecting adult consumers and products sold legally elsewhere in Europe are needed to tackle youth use.
