The European Union’s Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) is entering another period of review. These revisions are not frequent. When they occur, they shape the regulatory environment for many years to come, influencing product standards, market access, and public health policy across all Member States.
For those who have worked on EU policy files, the significance of such revisions is well understood. Directives often remain in place for a decade or longer. The decisions made during a revision therefore have long-lasting consequences for how regulation evolves and how public health goals are pursued.
One issue has consistently surfaced during discussions on tobacco and nicotine policy: the relationship between product risk and regulatory treatment.
As Johan Nissinen, former Member of the European Parliament and contributor to policy discussions with GINN, recently reflected, the rarity of these revisions makes their consequences particularly significant.
“I remember how rare these big revisions felt when I worked on EU files. You spend months, sometimes years, with one directive on your desk and then you live with the consequences for a decade.”
According to Nissinen, one recurring theme during his work on tobacco policy was the challenge of aligning regulation with the relative risks of different nicotine products.
“In the questions I sent to the Commission on tobacco policy, one issue kept coming back: not all nicotine products carry the same risk. Yet our rules still tend to treat them as if they do.”
Recognising Differences in Product Risk
Scientific and regulatory debates increasingly acknowledge that not all nicotine products present the same level of health risk. Combustible tobacco products, particularly cigarettes, remain the dominant cause of smoking-related disease. The combustion process generates thousands of chemicals, many of which are toxic or carcinogenic.
By contrast, a range of non-combustible nicotine products has emerged over the past decade. While these products are not risk-free, a growing body of scientific literature suggests that their risk profiles differ substantially from those associated with smoking.
This distinction is increasingly recognised in research, public health discussions, and regulatory analysis. Yet in many policy frameworks, including elements of current EU legislation, nicotine products are often regulated in ways that do not fully reflect these differences in risk.
Regulatory Signals and Behavioural Outcomes
Public health regulation does more than set product standards. It also sends signals to consumers. When different products are treated identically within a regulatory framework, the implicit message is that their risks are comparable.
This matters because smoking behaviour is shaped not only by individual motivation but also by the regulatory environment in which choices are made. If lower-risk alternatives are regulated in a way that appears indistinguishable from combustible products, the perceived incentive to switch may be reduced.
Nissinen has argued that this dynamic can have practical consequences for individuals attempting to move away from smoking.
“When lower-risk alternatives are regulated like cigarettes, people have less reason to switch.”
From a public health perspective, the objective is not simply to regulate products but to reduce the burden of smoking-related disease. Achieving this outcome requires regulatory frameworks that take into account how people actually change behaviour over time.
Balancing Youth Protection and Harm Reduction
Protecting young people from nicotine use remains a central priority in European tobacco control policy. Age restrictions, marketing limitations, and product standards all play an important role in preventing youth initiation.
At the same time, European public health systems continue to face the consequences of long-term smoking among adults. Millions of Europeans still smoke, and many struggle to quit despite repeated attempts.
Nissinen emphasises that policy discussions should consider both priorities simultaneously.
“Protecting young people matters. But adults who already smoke also need realistic ways out.”
For these individuals, policy frameworks that recognise relative risk differences may help create clearer pathways away from combustible tobacco. The challenge for regulators is to maintain strong protections for young people while also supporting strategies that reduce harm among current smokers.
A Moment for Evidence-Based Regulation
The revision of the Tobacco Products Directive offers a rare opportunity to reassess how nicotine products are classified and regulated within the EU policy framework.
Effective regulation should be guided by three principles: scientific evidence, proportionality, and public health outcomes. Policies that reflect the relative risks of different products may help ensure that regulatory signals align more closely with the goal of reducing smoking-related disease.
As Nissinen noted in discussions around the directive’s revision, regulatory frameworks should ultimately reflect the realities of behavioural change.
“If the goal is fewer people getting sick, the rules have to reflect how people actually change.”
The decisions made during this revision will shape the European nicotine policy landscape for years to come. Ensuring that the directive reflects current scientific understanding and behavioural realities will be critical to achieving meaningful public health progress.
If the objective is fewer people suffering from smoking-related illness, regulatory frameworks must evolve alongside the evidence.
