As the European Union seems set on moving ahead with restrictive tobacco/nicotine policies which do not work, individual member states are being urged to take autonomous informed decisions based on science, not outdated ideologies.
A briefing by We Are Innovation (WAI) has urged the European Union (EU) to revamp its regulatory strategies if it hopes to achieve its “smoke-free” goal by 2040. The report, titled “The EU’s Smoke-Free Future and the Role of Innovation—Findings from the Special Eurobarometer 539,” highlights that 24% of Europeans still smoke, leaving the EU way behind its set target. To be considered “smoke-free,” a country must reduce smoking rates to 5% or less. At the current rate of decline, the EU may not achieve this status until 2100, 60 years behind schedule.
The report underscores the importance of innovative alternative products in reducing smoking rates. In fact, countries with progressive regulatory frameworks that encourage alternatives, such as Sweden, Czechia, and Greece, have seen significant drops in smoking rates. In contrast, countries like Estonia, which resist embracing innovation, have experienced slower declines.
The data in favour of using safer nicotine alternatives is undeniable
Recent data from the Eurobarometer strongly supports the idea that incorporating safer nicotine alternatives, such as vapes and tobacco-heating products, into smoking cessation strategies leads to reduced smoking rates. The data highlight how these products serve as effective harm reduction tools, helping smokers transition away from combustible tobacco.
These findings align with trends in other regions, including the U.K., U.S., Japan, New Zealand, and Switzerland, where smoking rates have dropped due to the adoption of vaping and heated tobacco products (HTPs). In comparison, in countries like Australia, harsh restrictions on the products are stalling any progress in smoking cessation rates.
WAI emphasizes that these products act as “off-ramps” for smokers trying to quit, rather than “on-ramps” for nonsmokers. The report also highlights the potential economic and health equity benefits of smarter regulations on alternative products, suggesting that by improving access to diverse cessation tools, the EU could accelerate progress toward its smoke-free goal.
In contrast, the European Commission (EC) has recently proposed extending smoke-free policies to include vaping products and the use of heated tobacco products (HTPs). These recommendations have been criticized by smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction (THR) expertsa, and labelled as ideologically driven and lacking scientific support. These experts have highlighted that besides there being little evidence to indicate that second-hand vapour poses a health risk, including safer alternatives like vapes and HTPs in these bans, sends the wrong message and undermines any efforts by smokers to switch to these less harmful options.
However, despite consultations warning of such negative consequences, the EC has pushed forward with its extreme policies, ignoring their potential harm to public health efforts. The commission seems oblivious to the fact that the conflation of combustible tobacco with harm-reduction products, risks pushing smokers back to traditional cigarettes, undermining its own goal of becoming smoke-free by 2040, as well as potentially harming Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan.
The EU, like the WHO, is ignoring the science on THR
Scientific research shows that emissions from e-cigarettes and HTPs are significantly less harmful than tobacco smoke, and as previously mentioned, there is no significant evidence indicating that these emissions pose any danger to bystanders, particularly in outdoor settings. Yet, the EC is recommending restrictive policies that would dissuade smokers from using these products, despite their proven effectiveness in reducing smoking-related diseases.
The EC is sadly regurgitating the misinformation by the World Health Organization (WHO), insisting on the addictive potential of nicotine rather than the clear health benefits of switching to safer products. Moreover, it is ignoring the fact that these products are far more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) like patches and gums (which contain nicotine anyway).
Member states should decide what is best for their countries autonomously
In light of all this, it is highly recommended that health policy is left to individual EU member states, which can better tailor approaches to their national needs, as in the case of Sweden which has successfully resisted pressures from the EC to ban snus. The top-down approach from the EU ignores this flexibility.
Furthermore, the recommendations disregard consumer choice and personal freedom. For adults, especially those switching from smoking, using safer nicotine alternatives is an informed decision that can have an immeasurable positive impact on their health.
Ultimately, if EU member states are serious about reducing tobacco-related deaths, they should prioritize scientifically backed harm-reduction strategies, reject these flawed proposals, and respect individual freedoms. The EC’s recommendations are unlikely to achieve public health benefits and based on real-world data from countries endorsing similar stategies (Australia would be a prime example), they are likely to cause more harm than good. Member states should focus on evidence-based approaches to tobacco harm reduction and reject restrictive policies that stifle progress toward a smoke-free future.