Different nicotine products have different characteristics and risks.
That principle has been backed by a broad majority in the European Parliament, according to Swedish MEP Jessica Polfjärd (M), who has been involved in negotiating the Parliament’s new strategy on cardiovascular health.
At the same time, the same report paves the way for flavour bans, nicotine caps and other restrictions on smoke-free nicotine products.
The European Parliament has voted in favour of a new resolution on cardiovascular health. The resolution was adopted by 545 votes to 47, with 75 MEPs abstaining.
In the report, Parliament calls for new measures to reduce both smoking and the use of smokeless nicotine products. Among other things, it highlights flavour restrictions or bans, limits on nicotine levels and excise duties as possible measures.
At the same time, it is noted that the nicotine content and the method of nicotine delivery vary between products, and that different nicotine products may have different risk profiles.
Polfjärd: ”Different characteristics and different risks”
Jessica Polfjärd (M) is the only Swedish member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Public Health and has taken part in the negotiations on the report. She told Skaraborgs Nyheter that the Swedish perspective on nicotine was a key issue during the work.
”I fought to include a perspective that recognises that different products have different characteristics and different risks,” she tells the newspaper.
According to Polfjärd, the end result means that a broad majority in parliament has now endorsed that principle.
”This creates a good foundation for Parliament’s work on the new tobacco regulations, which are expected to be presented later this year,” she says.
This includes, amongst other things, the forthcoming revision of the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), in which the regulations governing e-cigarettes and other nicotine products are expected to be a key issue.
Brussels Signal: The risks vary
According to the newspaper *Brusseles Signal*, parts of the text were amended during the negotiations so that wording which treated different nicotine products more or less as equivalent was removed.
”The adopted report now acknowledges that different nicotine products may have different risk profiles,” writes Brussels Signal.
Brusseles Signal notes that references to applying ”appropriate and differentiated excise duty” suggest that the Parliament is allowing for differences between product categories when the EU designs future taxes and regulations.
”The proposals to treat all nicotine products in the same way were scrapped,” writes Brussels Signal.
EU Reporter observes the same trends
The EU Reporter offers a similar interpretation of the vote and notes that the Parliament supports the idea that different nicotine products may have different risk profiles. This contrasts with the European Commission’s stance on the issue, with Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi having repeatedly described all nicotine use as being just as harmful as smoking.
”By endorsing the report, Parliament also acknowledges that different nicotine products may pose different risks and should be regulated accordingly,” the newspaper writes.
At the same time, EU Reporter links the decision to the wider negotiations due to take place on the EU’s tobacco and nicotine policy. According to the newspaper, views on different risk profiles could prove significant both in terms of taxation and when the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) is due to be revised in the coming years.
The newspaper also highlights the forthcoming negotiations in Parliament’s Public Health Committee as the next step:
”The political battle over nicotine is far from over,” notes EU Reporter.
Vaping Post: ”All non-medical nicotine in the firing line”
However, the French website Vaping Post takes a more critical view of the European Parliament’s stance. According to Vaping Post, the main aim of the Parliament’s decision is to extend regulation to, in principle, all non-medicinal nicotine products, and it highlights in particular flavour restrictions, nicotine limits and taxation.
”All nicotine products not manufactured by pharmaceutical companies are now in the parliament’s sights,” writes the Vaping Post.
The newspaper is also critical of the report’s statements on e-cigarettes and smoking cessation, where Parliament argues that there is a lack of evidence. Vaping Post, however, contrasts the Parliament’s cautious stance with the recurring findings from Cochrane reviews, which show that e-cigarettes containing nicotine help more smokers to quit than traditional nicotine replacement therapies.
”The science is clear on this, but the parliamentary report ignores it,” writes the Vaping Post, referring to Cochrane’s latest update to its living review in 2026.
Ban on tasting forms part of the compromise
Polfjärd also notes that the report paves the way for a ban on flavours. She describes these elements of the report as part of the compromise that was necessary to get the report finalised.
”The report’s wording on the ban on flavours was part of the overall compromise,” she told Skaraborgs Nyheter.
At the same time, she emphasises that the report does not call for such bans to be introduced. According to Polfjärd, the report states that the measure may be used where it is deemed appropriate and does not take a stance on whether, for example, flavours in nicotine pouches should be banned.
The next major debate is on the horizon as the EU moves forward with new regulations on tobacco and nicotine. Polfjärd also hopes that the view on different risks will have an impact on Parliament’s ongoing work on the EU Cancer Plan.
