Europe’s approach to nicotine risk appears to be sending mixed signals.
On 16 September, the European Parliament adopted its cardiovascular health strategy, in which differences in nicotine products and their risk profiles were recognised. Less than two weeks later, Parliament’s Committee on Public Health (SANT) adopted its report on the implementation of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, calling for stronger regulation of tobacco and nicotine products and higher minimum excise duties, without making risk-differentiated taxation an equally explicit principle.
For GINN, the contrast raises an important policy question: if differences between nicotine products are recognised in one area of prevention policy, how should those differences be reflected elsewhere?
Precision is important. These were not equivalent votes. The cardiovascular strategy was adopted by the full European Parliament on 16 September by 545 votes to 47, with 75 abstentions. The cancer report was adopted by SANT on 28 September by 27 votes to 8, with five abstentions, and is expected to proceed to a plenary vote.
Two Approaches to Prevention
The cardiovascular strategy leaves room for recognising that nicotine products differ in how nicotine is delivered and in their associated risk profiles. Recognition of those differences does not mean that any nicotine product should be considered harmless. It means that regulation can take account of differences between products rather than treating nicotine as the only relevant determinant of risk.
The cancer-plan debate places greater emphasis on restricting nicotine-product availability and appeal. The SANT report calls for EU tobacco legislation to be extended to products including e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches, alongside measures addressing flavours, packaging, ingredient information and online sales to minors. It also calls for higher minimum excise duties on tobacco and nicotine products.
Many of the objectives behind these proposals, particularly protecting minors and improving consumer information, warrant serious consideration. The question is whether taxation and other regulatory measures should also explicitly account for differences between products.
The SANT vote should not be interpreted as imposing identical tax rates across all nicotine categories. A committee report does not itself determine excise rates, and calling for higher minimum duties does not necessarily mean every product will ultimately be taxed at the same level.
The issue is therefore one of policy direction and clarity. If relative risk is relevant to one European prevention strategy, policymakers should consider whether it should also inform the design of taxation and regulation elsewhere.
The Alcohol Contrast
The cancer report provides an interesting comparison in its treatment of other risk factors.
Alcohol consumption is causally associated with several cancers, while acetaldehyde associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages has been classified by IARC as carcinogenic to humans. Yet the cancer-plan discussion focuses on measures including visible health information on alcoholic beverages, reducing exposure to marketing and zero alcohol consumption for minors rather than proposing prohibition. On nutrition, the report supports evidence-based front-of-pack information and further examination of ultra-processed foods.
Green MEP Tilly Metz articulated the approach clearly following the SANT vote: she did not support banning alcohol and instead emphasised providing consumers with information grounded in scientific evidence.
GINN believes the same principle of accurate information is relevant to nicotine. Adults who smoke should have clear information about the differences between combustible cigarettes and non-combustible nicotine products, including what is known, what remains uncertain and where the evidence does not support definitive conclusions.
Differentiation Is Not Deregulation
Recognising differences between products does not mean removing regulation.
Tobacco-free nicotine pouches do not involve burning tobacco or inhaling smoke. That distinction is relevant when considering exposure, but it does not establish that pouches are harmless, suitable for young people or proven smoking-cessation treatments.
Indeed, the current evidence on nicotine pouches as cessation tools remains limited. A 2025 Cochrane review found only a small number of studies and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine confidently whether oral nicotine pouches help people quit smoking. The authors called for substantially more research. Cochrane
A credible regulatory framework should therefore be capable of pursuing youth protection and risk differentiation simultaneously.
Age restrictions, responsible marketing requirements, product and manufacturing standards, ingredient controls and effective enforcement can protect minors and non-users. At the same time, regulators can assess different nicotine products according to the available evidence about their characteristics, exposure pathways and risks.
Why Taxation Matters
Excise policy does more than generate revenue. It can influence prices and, consequently, consumer behaviour.
That makes the principles underlying nicotine taxation particularly important. A tax framework that recognises meaningful differences between products is conceptually different from one based primarily on the presence of nicotine.
This does not predetermine what individual tax rates should be. Those decisions require evidence, impact assessment and consideration of wider public-health objectives.
But if European policymakers accept that nicotine products can have different risk profiles, there is a legitimate policy question about whether those differences should also be considered when taxation frameworks are designed.
An Opportunity for Greater Clarity
The SANT report is not the end of the parliamentary process. Its progression to plenary provides an opportunity for further debate over how Europe should regulate emerging nicotine products.
Strong safeguards for young people, credible product standards, independent evidence and effective enforcement should remain central to that discussion.
So should clarity about relative risk.
Europe does not need to choose between protecting young people and recognising differences between nicotine products. A coherent framework can do both.
For GINN, the principle is straightforward: products should be assessed on the evidence rather than presumed to be identical simply because they contain nicotine.
