The European Commission has confirmed that the EU Tobacco Policy Expert Group (TPEG) will formally conclude its mandate, even as work on the next revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) continues. While the end of a technical advisory body may appear procedural, it raises important questions about how expertise, evidence, and stakeholder input will be structured during one of the most consequential phases of EU nicotine policy in a decade.
As nicotine regulation becomes increasingly complex, spanning combustible tobacco, smoke-free alternatives, novel nicotine products, taxation, and internal market law, the architecture of policymaking matters as much as the rules themselves.
What the Commission Has Confirmed
According to reporting by 2Firsts, the European Commission has confirmed that the Tobacco Policy Expert Group will not be renewed in its existing form. TPEG has historically served as a forum for technical exchange between the Commission and Member State experts on tobacco control implementation, data interpretation, and regulatory coordination.
Its conclusion comes at a critical moment:
- Preparatory work on TPD revision (often referred to as TPD3) is ongoing
- Parallel discussions are advancing on tobacco taxation, cardiovascular health strategies, and nicotine-related risk narratives
- Member States are diverging in their treatment of smoke-free nicotine products, including pouches and vaping devices
The Commission has indicated that new cooperation structures are being explored, but details remain limited.
Why This Timing Is Sensitive
The end of TPEG coincides with a period where policy choices will shape EU nicotine regulation for years to come. These choices will not only affect public health outcomes but also determine whether EU law reflects:
- Risk differentiation between combustible and non-combustible products
- Real-world use patterns among adult smokers
- Evidence on switching, substitution, and unintended consequences
Without a clearly defined expert forum, there is a risk that technical nuance gives way to simplified narratives, particularly in politically sensitive areas such as youth protection, flavours, and taxation.
From a governance perspective, the question is not whether expert input will continue, it must, but how structured, transparent, and balanced that input will be.
The Risk of Fragmentation
One of TPEG’s practical functions was to provide a shared technical reference point across Member States. Its absence raises several challenges:
- Inconsistent interpretation of evidence across national authorities
- Greater reliance on informal or ad hoc advisory channels
- Increased influence of advocacy-driven inputs over multidisciplinary technical analysis
This matters especially for smoke-free nicotine products, where regulatory approaches already vary widely across the EU, from regulated consumer products to de facto bans via pharmaceutical classification.
In fragmented environments, policy often defaults to the most restrictive common denominator, rather than proportionate, evidence-aligned frameworks.
What “New Cooperation Structures” Must Deliver
If the Commission is to replace TPEG with alternative mechanisms, those structures will need to meet several minimum conditions to support credible policymaking:
Multidisciplinary expertise
Nicotine regulation intersects toxicology, epidemiology, behavioural science, economics, enforcement, and consumer behaviour. Advisory structures must reflect that breadth.
Transparency and traceability
Clear rules around participation, evidence weighting, and conflict-of-interest management are essential to maintain trust.
Capacity for comparative risk assessment
Future frameworks must be capable of evaluating products relative to cigarettes, not against an implicit zero-risk benchmark that ignores real-world substitution dynamics.
Member State coherence
Mechanisms should help reduce regulatory drift and unintended divergence that undermines both public health objectives and internal market consistency.
A GINN Perspective
From GINN’s standpoint, the conclusion of the Tobacco Policy Expert Group should not mark a retreat from expertise, but a recommitment to evidence-based governance at a time when decisions will have long-lasting effects.
As the TPD revision process advances, how advice is gathered and weighed will directly influence outcomes: whether regulation accelerates the decline of smoking or inadvertently entrenches combustion by restricting safer alternatives.
The EU has an opportunity to modernise not just its tobacco rules, but the process by which nicotine policy is made. That opportunity should not be missed.
Clear structures, transparent evidence, and proportionate risk assessment are not procedural luxuries, they are prerequisites for effective public health regulation.
Source:
