A coalition of 83 distinguished global authorities in public health, nicotine dependence, and tobacco control has issued a forceful open letter to the President of the European Commission and Commissioners. Their unified message: imposing steep new taxes on reduced-risk nicotine alternatives, such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches, would be a grave misstep.
They express deep concern over the forthcoming revision of the EU’s Tobacco Excise Directive, which would significantly increase taxation on these products, even pushing some to rates of 50–55% of the retail price. Such a policy would not only blur the critical difference between combustion and non-combustion products but also contradict the best available science.
Why Proportionality Matters
The SCHORE (Scientific Committee on Health, Oral Nicotine, and Reduced Exposure) statement emphasizes that proportional taxation is central to effective public health policy. Cigarettes remain the most dangerous form of nicotine use, responsible for nearly 700,000 deaths annually in the EU. Smoke-free products, by eliminating combustion, drastically reduce exposure to carcinogens and toxicants. Treating them the same under tax law erases this critical distinction.
As SCHORE points out, higher taxes on safer products remove the financial incentive for smokers to switch. The price gap between cigarettes and reduced-risk products is one of the strongest drivers of quitting or transitioning. Collapsing that gap undermines harm reduction, discourages switching, and risks stalling the EU’s “tobacco-free generation” goal.
Risks of a One-Size-Fits-All Tax
The experts warn that blanket taxation of lower-risk alternatives is not only unsupported by evidence but actively counterproductive. It risks discouraging smokers from switching, pushes users toward illicit markets, and may even slow progress toward Europe’s public health goals.
SCHORE highlights three critical dangers:
- Conflating risk: By taxing all nicotine equally, policymakers send the false message that e-cigarettes, pouches, and heated tobacco are as harmful as combustible cigarettes.
- Encouraging illicit trade: Higher excise duties drive consumers toward unregulated black markets, where age verification, quality control, and safety oversight are absent.
- Undermining innovation: Excessive taxes on emerging products penalize companies developing reduced-risk technologies while protecting the combustible cigarette market.
Learning From Global Examples
Evidence from Sweden, the UK, and New Zealand demonstrates that harm reduction works. Sweden’s record-low smoking rates, achieved largely through the use of regulated smokeless products like snus and nicotine pouches, stand as proof that proportional policy saves lives.
The SCHORE statement stresses that the EU’s proposed tax framework, by contrast, risks locking the continent into a failed model, prioritizing revenue collection over scientific evidence and health outcomes.
GINN’s Perspective
At GINN, we strongly support the coalition’s call for proportional, science-driven taxation. Nicotine itself is addictive, but combustion is deadly. Policies that blur this distinction undermine trust, prolong smoking prevalence, and deny adult smokers access to safer alternatives.
The EU’s upcoming decision on the Tobacco Excise Directive is a pivotal moment. Brussels can either pursue evidence-based harm reduction, encouraging smokers to move away from combustion, or it can enforce prohibitive taxation that fuels illicit trade and slows progress toward its own health goals.
For GINN, the way forward is clear: regulation and taxation must reflect risk. Anything less is not only bad policy, but it is a missed opportunity to save millions of lives.
