European institutions are intensifying their efforts to extend regulatory control over tobacco and nicotine products. Developments in Brussels and at the World Health Organization’s COP11 meeting demonstrate the European Union’s readiness to utilize every available method to influence policy across the continent. The combination of tax reform, product regulation, and participation in global negotiations reflects an approach that extends beyond traditional EU frameworks.
Within the Union, two significant initiatives are driving the current debate. The revision of the Tobacco Excise Directive and the introduction of the Tobacco Excise Duty on Raw Tobacco aim to raise minimum excise rates on cigarettes and impose new tax obligations on heated tobacco, vaping liquids, and nicotine pouches. Raw tobacco, previously governed mainly by national rules, would fall under an EU-level system through TEDOR. Governments in Italy, Greece, Spain, and Poland have expressed concerns about the impact on agricultural regions and small businesses involved in processing and distribution. Several capitals have questioned whether the reforms restrict domestic flexibility in tax policy, an area historically under national control.
This internal legislative agenda has coincided with an assertive EU role in international negotiations. At COP11 in Geneva, which gathered 160 parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the EU delegation was active in discussions on emerging nicotine products. WHO officials and supporting NGOs advocated for extensive restrictions on vapes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches, including proposals related to flavors, packaging requirements, environmental rules on filters and device components, and expanded liability tools.
A leaked internal document later disclosed that EU officials had encouraged the delegation to support language promoting prohibitions or strict limitations on all novel nicotine products. The text called for restrictions on manufacturing, importation, sale, distribution, and use. Similar proposals had been excluded from the EU’s official mandate during preparatory discussions in Brussels. Once the document circulated among delegations, several member states described it as a procedural breach and questioned whether the Commission and the Danish EU Council Presidency were seeking outcomes in Geneva that lacked consensus among governments at home.
The incident exposed existing divisions within the EU. Some governments advocated for maintaining space for harm reduction strategies, citing national success with regulated alternatives to smoking. Sweden’s near elimination of smoking through smokeless products was frequently referenced. Greece and Czechia highlighted reductions in smoking after adopting policies incorporating lower-risk products. Other member states supported more restrictive positions, noting concerns about youth uptake and environmental risks associated with disposable devices and filter waste.
As the week progressed, many ambitious elements of the COP11 proposals were scaled back. Several provisions were reframed as voluntary measures rather than binding commitments under the convention. A proposed filter ban was withdrawn. The final decisions focused on environmental objectives, funding for tobacco control programs, and liability mechanisms under Article 19, while broader regulatory proposals were postponed to COP12 in 2027.
Even with these changes, the EU’s approach continued to prompt debate. Critics argued that the Commission’s willingness to support restrictive language internationally, despite objections from several member states, reflected a readiness to pursue regulatory change through external forums when progress in Brussels is more challenging. Observers also noted the influence of Brussels-based public health organizations active in both EU policymaking and WHO consultations, which receive funding from EU programs.
The next phase of Europe’s tobacco and nicotine policy will be shaped by the interplay between domestic legislation and international commitments. As work continues on TED, TEDOR, and planned updates to product regulations, governments will need to decide how much authority should reside with EU institutions and how much flexibility should remain at the national level. The direction of EU policy will depend on whether member states reinforce the trend toward centralization or opt to maintain a more diverse regulatory landscape across the region.
Leave a Reply