A Growing Divide in European Nicotine Policy
The European Union is approaching a critical moment in nicotine regulation.
As policymakers prepare for major revisions to the Tobacco Excise Directive (TED), the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), and wider tobacco control legislation, a fundamental disagreement has emerged within European institutions. At the heart of the debate is a simple but consequential question: should all nicotine products be regulated and taxed as if they pose the same risks as cigarettes, or should policy recognise differences in risk across product categories?
Recent developments suggest that this question remains far from settled.
The European Parliament recently rejected a report that would have supported higher excise taxation on smoke-free nicotine products, including e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches. While the vote does not determine future legislation, it highlights growing disagreement among policymakers about whether smoke-free alternatives should be treated in the same way as combustible cigarettes.
At the same time, the European Commission has continued to signal support for a more precautionary approach, arguing that all nicotine products warrant strong regulatory controls regardless of whether they involve combustion.
The result is an increasingly important policy debate that could shape the future of nicotine regulation across Europe.
The Scientists’ Intervention
In response to these developments, more than 25 internationally recognised scientists and public health experts submitted a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen challenging what they describe as a scientifically flawed approach to nicotine regulation.
The signatories argue that policies which treat smoke-free products as equivalent to cigarettes fail to reflect the current evidence base. Drawing on more than 130 scientific studies, they contend that the central distinction in nicotine regulation should be between combustible and non-combustible products.
Their argument is straightforward.
While nicotine products are not risk-free, combustion remains the primary driver of smoking-related disease. Cigarette smoke contains thousands of toxicants generated through the burning of tobacco, many of which are directly linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory illness. Products that deliver nicotine without combustion may still present risks, but they generally expose users to substantially fewer harmful constituents than smoking.
The scientists therefore argue that public policy should focus on relative risk rather than treating all nicotine products as though they pose identical dangers.
Importantly, the letter does not claim that nicotine pouches, vaping products, heated tobacco products, or other alternatives are harmless. Rather, it argues that the absence of combustion is a scientifically relevant distinction that should not be ignored when designing regulation and taxation frameworks.
The Evidence Behind Risk Differentiation
The position advanced by the scientists is not based on a single study or institution.
Over the past decade, numerous independent evidence reviews conducted by public health agencies, academic institutions, and regulatory bodies have examined the risks associated with smoke-free nicotine products.
Research consistently shows that combustion is responsible for the overwhelming majority of smoking-related harm. This is why many public health experts distinguish between nicotine itself and the toxicants produced through burning tobacco.
Independent reviews in the United Kingdom, United States, France, Germany, and other countries have recognised that non-combustible products differ substantially from cigarettes in terms of toxicant exposure.
The scientific debate today is therefore not whether smoke-free products are risk-free. It is whether the available evidence justifies treating them as equivalent to combustible cigarettes.
For many researchers, the answer is no.
The Commission’s Response
The European Commission has taken a different view.
Responding to the scientists’ concerns, Commission representatives have emphasised that there are no safe levels of tobacco or nicotine consumption. Officials have highlighted nicotine’s addictive properties and pointed to concerns regarding youth uptake, product appeal, and potential long-term health effects.
The Commission has also cited findings from its Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER), which has raised concerns about cardiovascular effects, respiratory impacts, and potential risks associated with nicotine exposure.
These concerns form part of a broader policy agenda linked to Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan and the Commission’s wider public health objectives.
From the Commission’s perspective, uncertainty regarding long-term outcomes justifies a precautionary approach.
The SCHEER Controversy
However, the Commission’s reliance on SCHEER remains controversial among many scientists involved in tobacco harm reduction research.
Critics argue that SCHEER’s assessments have often failed to adequately distinguish between relative risk and absolute risk. While acknowledging that smoke-free products are not harmless, they contend that the committee’s conclusions place insufficient emphasis on the significant differences in exposure between combustible and non-combustible products.
This distinction matters because public health decisions frequently involve comparisons between available alternatives rather than comparisons between use and complete abstinence.
For example, the relevant question for many adult smokers is not whether nicotine pouches or e-cigarettes are entirely risk-free. It is whether switching away from combustible cigarettes reduces exposure to the toxicants that cause smoking-related disease.
Many harm reduction researchers argue that policy frameworks should reflect this reality.
The concern is that by focusing primarily on the risks associated with nicotine use in isolation, policymakers may overlook the much larger differences associated with combustion.
Taxation and Public Health
The debate is particularly important in the context of taxation.
Historically, excise taxes have been used both to generate revenue and to discourage consumption of harmful products.
If policymakers conclude that all nicotine products pose equivalent risks, then applying similar tax rates across product categories may appear logical.
However, if products differ significantly in risk, some researchers argue that taxation frameworks should reflect those differences.
Several countries have already adopted differentiated approaches, applying lower excise burdens to products considered less harmful than cigarettes. Supporters of this model argue that tax policy can encourage movement away from smoking while maintaining regulatory oversight and youth protections.
The upcoming TED revision may determine which philosophy ultimately prevails at the European level.
A Defining Moment for European Nicotine Policy
The disagreement between the European Parliament, the scientific coalition, and the European Commission reflects a broader tension that has become increasingly visible across Europe.
One approach prioritises precaution and seeks to reduce nicotine use across all product categories. The other recognises that products exist on a continuum of risk and argues that regulation should reflect those differences.
Both approaches share public health objectives. However, they differ significantly in how they interpret the available evidence and how they believe policy should respond.
As Europe prepares to revise its nicotine and tobacco control framework, this debate is likely to intensify.
Looking Ahead
The future of European nicotine policy may ultimately depend on how policymakers answer a fundamental question.
Should regulation focus primarily on the presence of nicotine, or should it account for the substantial differences in risk between products that involve combustion and those that do not?
The coalition of scientists argues that ignoring this distinction risks undermining evidence-based policymaking and may inadvertently protect the cigarette market by reducing incentives for smokers to switch to lower-risk alternatives.
The Commission, meanwhile, continues to emphasise precaution, youth protection, and the need to address nicotine addiction across all product categories.
The outcome of this debate will shape not only future taxation policy but also the broader direction of tobacco harm reduction across Europe.
As legislative revisions move forward, the question facing European institutions is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid: should public policy treat all nicotine products as equivalent, or should it recognise the growing body of evidence showing that not all nicotine products pose the same risks?
