Across Europe, policymakers continue to express concern that fragmented nicotine regulation is leaving young people exposed to risk. Recent commentary has pointed to uneven national rules governing nicotine pouches, vapes, and other novel products as evidence that current policy approaches are failing to protect youth. While these concerns are legitimate, fragmentation itself is not the core problem. The deeper issue is that Europe lacks a coherent, risk-proportionate framework that clearly differentiates between combustible tobacco and smoke-free nicotine products while enforcing strong, consistent youth safeguards.
Without such a framework, regulatory gaps persist, enforcement remains uneven, and public communication becomes confused, undermining both youth protection and smoking-reduction objectives.
Fragmentation obscures relative risk
Nicotine regulation across the EU is characterised by sharp national divergence. Some Member States ban nicotine pouches outright, others permit them under consumer-product law, and still others apply tobacco-style restrictions regardless of product design or toxicological profile. Similar inconsistencies exist for vaping, heated tobacco, and other smoke-free products.
This patchwork creates two policy failures. First, it blurs the distinction between products that involve combustion and those that do not, despite decades of evidence showing that combustion is the primary driver of tobacco-related disease. Second, it undermines clear enforcement by creating incentives for cross-border purchasing, informal markets, and regulatory arbitrage, conditions that can increase youth exposure rather than reduce it.
Fragmentation, in this sense, does not protect young people. It weakens regulatory clarity.
Youth protection depends on enforcement, not equivalence
Youth use of nicotine products is a legitimate public-health concern. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to nicotine dependence, and preventing initiation must remain a central regulatory objective. However, equating all nicotine products as equally harmful does not strengthen youth protection. It often produces the opposite effect.
Evidence from tobacco control shows that youth uptake is most strongly influenced by access, enforcement, and social norms, not by whether products are legally differentiated by risk. Where age-verification is weak, penalties are minimal, or informal sales flourish, youth access persists regardless of how strict the law appears on paper.
Effective youth protection requires consistent age-of-sale enforcement, restrictions on youth-appealing marketing, and meaningful penalties for non-compliance across all nicotine products. It does not require eliminating factual distinctions between cigarettes and smoke-free alternatives intended for adults who smoke.
Why collapsing risk categories is counterproductive
A recurring policy response to regulatory fragmentation is to argue for stricter, harmonised bans or uniform controls across all nicotine products. While harmonisation has value, uniformity without proportionality risks creating new public-health harms.
Treating cigarettes, nicotine pouches, and vapes as interchangeable products ignores differences in exposure, toxicology, and disease burden. It also risks discouraging smokers from switching away from the most harmful products by removing price signals, access pathways, and credible information about lower-risk alternatives.
From a harm-reduction perspective, this approach may inadvertently sustain smoking prevalence, particularly among disadvantaged populations, while offering little additional protection to youth.
The case for a coherent EU framework
What Europe needs is not simply more regulation, but better-designed regulation. A coherent framework would align youth protection with evidence on relative risk and would operate consistently across Member States.
Such a framework would clearly differentiate combustible tobacco from smoke-free nicotine products in law, taxation, and communication. It would impose the strongest controls on cigarettes while applying proportionate, product-specific rules to non-combustible alternatives. It would also prioritise enforcement—ensuring that age restrictions are real, not symbolic.
Crucially, coherence would reduce the regulatory grey zones that currently enable informal markets and cross-border leakage, both of which undermine youth protection.
Communication matters
Public messaging plays a central role in shaping behaviour. When official narratives suggest that all nicotine products are equally dangerous, credibility suffers as people compare those messages with lived experience and emerging evidence. This erosion of trust can make young people more sceptical of health guidance and adults less likely to engage with cessation or switching strategies.
Clear, evidence-based communication, acknowledging that nicotine is addictive and not risk-free, while explaining why combustion drives the greatest harm, is essential for informed decision-making.
Conclusion
Europe’s fragmented nicotine laws do pose risks to youth, but not because harm reduction exists. The risk lies in incoherent regulation that obscures relative harm, weakens enforcement, and confuses consumers. Protecting young people and reducing smoking are not competing goals. They are mutually reinforcing when policy is designed with clarity, proportionality, and evidence at its core.
For regulators, the path forward is not to collapse all nicotine products into a single category, but to build a consistent framework that differentiates risk, enforces access controls, and supports the long-term decline of smoking across Europe.
Source:
