The European Commission is asking citizens for their views on future nicotine policy. The problem is that the questions mainly focus on what else should be banned or restricted. So I stopped focusing on the tick boxes and wrote what I really wanted to say. You can do the same.
Over the past ten years, I have interviewed many researchers, doctors, public authorities, politicians, shop owners and, above all, people who have given up smoking with the help of e-cigarettes or other smoke-free nicotine products. And with over 600 published articles on the subject, one thing has become increasingly clear: the reality is considerably more complex than the picture often painted in the political debate.
Reality cannot be summed up in a tick box
I was therefore curious when the European Commission launched its consultation on the next version of the Tobacco Products Directive, TPD3, a framework due to be negotiated before the end of the year. If the rules are to be rewritten, there should reasonably be an interest in gathering as many perspectives as possible.
Well, I certainly did.
Having gone through the questions the Commission wanted answered, it was hardly a sense of free thinking and realistic common sense that came to mind.
Not ‘if’ – but ‘how much’
The survey focuses almost entirely on how various products can, or even MUST, be restricted. In other words, not ‘whether’, but rather ‘how much’ I can envisage agreeing to. It concerns flavour bans, enforced reductions in nicotine strength, and restrictions on the appearance of packaging.
On the other hand, there are almost no questions about how regulation can make products safer, how a regulated market can be strengthened, or how we can continue to have access to alternatives to cigarettes in the future without having to turn to an unregulated black market.
And so on.
This is a remarkable starting point for a regulatory framework that is said to be based on science and impact assessments. It is almost as if the European Commission does not really care what anyone else thinks on this issue. It wants to pursue a policy of banning all nicotine, except for that which comes in the form of medicines or – believe it or not – in the form of deadly cigarettes. It is as if all the most extreme talking points of the anti-nicotine movement have been transformed into serious legislative proposals.
I don’t want to do that
I want sensible, regulated, smoke-free nicotine products to drive cigarettes out of the market. I also want substandard stop-smoking medicines to meet the same fate. Not just for the sake of today’s smokers, but also for the sake of my children.
I want them to be able to use nicotine as safely as possible – if, for whatever reason, they CHOOSE to enjoy a relatively mild substance. I want them to develop a healthy attitude towards risks, to have access to independent information about the products available and their relative risks of harm, and to learn what these products contain and how they themselves can influence the consequences of any unwanted addiction.
I do NOT want their nicotine market to be dominated by tobacco companies or pharmaceutical firms. I want an open marketplace where everyone from vejp shops and passionate small business owners to global giants is allowed to compete freely – and where the legislation allows for diversity.
Major industrial interests
The European Commission has made its position on nicotine clear on several occasions. If they could, they would have no hesitation in banning every single product not sold by pharmaceutical companies. The consultation on the revision of the TPD has rightly been criticised for precisely this, but that criticism is often overshadowed by a very strange debate about the ”tobacco industry” attempting to influence legislation. The result is a debate that, in practice, benefits cigarette sales and leaves those of us who want to reduce the risks associated with our nicotine use high and dry.
So, rather than spending time on the survey questions themselves, I decided to make use of the option to comment on the content of the survey via a feature that pops up before you submit your answers. A small box where you can actually have your say – for real.
This is what I wrote (slightly formalised for the occasion ;-):
This is what I wrote to the European Commission
“E-liquids and nicotine pouches should be regulated from a consumer perspective to ensure high levels of product safety, quality and traceability on the market. Smokeless nicotine products should, like cigarettes, be subject to clear age limits that prevent sales to minors, whilst adult consumers should have access to the products through a regulated and controlled market.
If different products pose different risks, the legislation should reflect this. Treating all nicotine products as if they were equally harmful risks undermining a number of public health policy objectives. Products with a higher potential for harm should be subject to stricter restrictions than those with a lower risk. According to current scientific evidence, the use of smokeless nicotine products poses significantly lower health risks than cigarette smoking. This should form an important basis for future legislation in the field of nicotine, not least in view of the objective of reducing the harm caused by tobacco smoking in Europe.
The questions in this survey fail entirely to distinguish between the different product categories. This is not a good starting point. Hopefully, this can be rectified when the responses are analysed.
The current TPD regulations have contributed to a more harmonised market for e-cigarettes through requirements for product registration and clear rules on ingredients and manufacturing. At the same time, the regulations have proved to be relatively inflexible when it comes to dealing with the diversity of products and usage patterns that characterise the e-cigarette market.
In several European countries, a significant proportion of sales currently takes place via unregulated or informal markets. This can be seen as an indication that there is an imbalance between consumer demand and the legal supply. Further restrictions on product variety or on the ability of reputable retailers to offer products in demand therefore risk strengthening the unregulated market. Such a development could hamper efforts to ensure product safety, traceability and compliance with age limits.
Developments in certain Member States provide grounds for carefully evaluating the effects of different types of restrictions. Denmark, for example, illustrates why regulations need to be evaluated both before and after they are implemented. A ban on flavoured tobacco products was introduced to reduce use amongst young people. However, the official statistics do not show the trend that legislators had hoped for. On the contrary, the opposite has been observed – consumption among minors has actually increased. When the outcome does not match expectations, policy must be open to review.
The next version of the TPD should therefore be based on a comprehensive analysis of both demand and supply in the market. The focus should be on creating the conditions for safe and regulated sales, both online and in physical shops, whilst developing and strengthening effective age verification systems. Such an approach is better placed to protect minors, ensure product safety and, at the same time, offer adult consumers access to legal and controlled products.
In conclusion. One of the questions in the survey concerns information on health risks. This is perhaps the most important question of all. As a journalist, I can compare government reports, read the research and speak directly to researchers. Most members of the public do not have that opportunity. They are reliant on information from government bodies and public institutions. If that information does not describe the relative risks between different nicotine products, it becomes practically impossible to make well-informed decisions. And, in my view, the majority of the EU’s official information channels do not currently allow for this.
That said: Information is not advertising. Information is a prerequisite for informed choices. It should form the basis for future regulations governing nicotine and products in that category.
Thank you for giving me the floor
Stefan Mathisson
Consumer journalist
Editor and publisher
”Vejpkollen.se"
One comment is unlikely to change the EU – but a thousand might make a difference
Will my comment change EU legislation? Probably not.
But if a thousand people write similar, well-thought-out comments, something else happens. It then becomes considerably more difficult to claim that there is only one perspective on this issue.
The consultation is not just about answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a number of pre-formulated questions. It is also about the opportunity to explain what the questions are actually missing.
If you use e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches or other smoke-free alternatives instead of cigarettes, you have experiences that are actually missing from the political debate. The European Commission says it wants to listen to citizens.
In that case, I think we should take them at their word.
Last chance on 14 August
P.S. Fancy bouncing some ideas off me about how to write? Get in touch (who needs a holiday?). Otherwise, I can recommend an AI assistant – there are loads to choose from – which can guide you in the direction you want (as long as you ask the right questions) 😉
The deadline for completing the questionnaire and submitting any supporting documents is 14 August. Give it your all!
You can find the portal here.
Tobacco products and tobacco advertising – revision of EU rules
And here you can read more about Vejpkollen’s coverage of the developments surrounding TPD3:
I’ve given up cigarettes because of WEIP after 45 years – so why ban something that has helped so many people do the same?
Yes, that’s a very good question. And you’re certainly not the only one who feels this way.