{"id":12547,"date":"2024-11-19T14:12:34","date_gmt":"2024-11-19T14:12:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/exclusive-eu-vape-ban-proposals-lack-robust-scientific-basis-say-italian-and-romanian-governments\/"},"modified":"2025-01-06T16:09:46","modified_gmt":"2025-01-06T16:09:46","slug":"exclusive-eu-vape-ban-proposals-lack-robust-scientific-basis-say-italian-and-romanian-governments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/post\/exclusive-eu-vape-ban-proposals-lack-robust-scientific-basis-say-italian-and-romanian-governments\/","title":{"rendered":"EXCLUSIVE: EU vape ban proposals lack \u201crobust scientific basis\u201d say Italian and Romanian governments"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a><\/div>

The EU\u2019s proposals to ban vaping in all public spaces \u201clack a robust scientific basis\u201d and \u201cshould not have been included\u201d in the European Commission\u2019s proposal for Smoke Free Environments, according to a  declaration from the Italian and Romanian governments seen by Clearing the Air<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The declaration comes as the Council of Ministers prepares to adopt a proposal that recommends that EU Member States ban vaping in all public spaces, indoor and outdoor.<\/p>\n

In unusually strong language for diplomatic communications, the declaration also makes clear that both countries intend to ignore the parts of the recommendation that they don\u2019t like, citing national sovereignty:<\/p>\n

The Recommendation \u201cdoes not create any legal obligation for Member States\u201d according to the declaration, and \u201cdoes not establish any regulatory precedent for future discussions within the Council on European tobacco policy\u201d. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cFor these reasons, Italy and Romania maintain their political concerns regarding the appropriateness of certain recommendations\u201d, it concludes.<\/p>\n

The declaration also hits out at the European Commission\u2019s process for proposing the recommendation, noting that the \u201clack of an adequate impact assessment\u201d also contributed to the two nation\u2019s concerns.<\/p>\n

That lack of an impact assessment is already the subject of a complaint to the EU Ombudsman by Spanish vapers group UPEV, which claims that the Commission\u2019s decision to propose the new rules without an impact assessment amounts to maladministration by the EU executive<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The declaration is an early warning to the Commission and anti harm reduction Member States that – for these two governments at least – measures that aren\u2019t properly justified won\u2019t get through the legislative process.<\/p>\n

The European Parliament, which will offer a non binding opinion on the new rules before the Council adopts them, is likely to vote on its position next week. Discussions remain ongoing between the Parliaments political factions as to whether it will criticise any part of the new rules, but the outcome there remains far from clear.<\/p>\n

\u200d<\/p>\n

………………..<\/p>\n

\u200d<\/p>\n

Receipts attached, please follow download link at the top of the article. Translation as follows:<\/p>\n

\u200d<\/p>\n

DECLARATION BY ITALY AND ROMANIA Council Recommendation onSmoke- and Aerosol-Free Environments <\/p>\n

Italy and Romania support the need to safeguard public health and agree on the importance of taking appropriate actions to prevent risks associated with smoking, endorsing the objective of protecting the population of the European Union from passive smoking. <\/p>\n

However, we wish to emphasise that the procedure applied for the discussion and approval of this Act by the Council required better timing and methods to enable proper debate among Member States. Similarly, we regret that many significant comments and amendments proposed by Member States were not adequately considered and included in the text. <\/p>\n

Given the nature and scope of this Act, discussions and finalisation should have aimed to achieve consensus among the parties, takin due account of the concerns and national priorities clearly expressed by MemberStates. Politically, consensus-based positions are always the most appropriate path forward. <\/p>\n

Furthermore, as reiterated on multiple occasions, we regret the lack of an adequate impact assessment for this Act, which would have served as the basis for a proper evaluation by the Council of the proposed recommendations. <\/p>\n

In light of the above, we express our hope that future discussions within the Council on this subject will take into greater consideration all the issues raised by Member States. <\/p>\n

Regarding the assessment of the substantive aspects of the recommendations included in the Act, it is noted that generalised measures concerning products emitting aerosols in certain outdoor areas\u2014specifically service establishments and workplaces\u2014lack a robust scientific basis and adequate impact assessment, therefore, such measures should not have been included in the Act. <\/p>\n

Similarly, the introduction of recommendations for broad and generalised measures related to outdoor areas, which are not clearly identified and are associated with concepts such as areas of intense pedestrian traffic, lacks legal foundation. This generates potential uncertainty about their meaning and proper implementation and, consequently, should not have been included in the Act. <\/p>\n

Finally, it is emphasised that this Act adopted by theCouncil, by its nature and scope, does not create any legal obligation forMember States to define their national legislation, taking into account national competences and specificities in its implementation. <\/p>\n

Furthermore, it does not establish any regulatory precedent for future discussions within the Council on European tobacco policy. For these reasons, Italy and Romania maintain their political concerns regarding the appropriateness of certain recommendations, as outlined above, as well as their ongoing evaluation, as Member States, of the proper national implementation of this Act.<\/p>\n

\u200d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The EU\u2019s proposals to ban vaping in all public spaces \u201clack a robust scientific basis\u201d and \u201cshould not have been included\u201d in the European Commission\u2019s proposal for Smoke Free Environments<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":990004,"featured_media":12553,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[257],"tags":[],"slider":[],"class_list":["post-12547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/990004"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12547"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12547\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15952,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12547\/revisions\/15952"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12553"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12547"},{"taxonomy":"slider","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/slider?post=12547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}