The public consultation on the revision of the European rules governing tobacco products and their advertising (the Tobacco Products Directive and the Tobacco Advertising Directive) concluded on August 14, 2026, raising important questions about how the new European policy will effectively take into account scientific evidence, differences between products, and actual market conditions.
The consultation attracted a particularly high number of responses from citizens and stakeholders across Europe, a fact that underscores the importance of how the Commission will assess the views submitted. Interest in the review of the European framework had already been evident earlier in the year, when more than 82,000 responses were recorded in the European Commission’s Call for Evidence (Call for Evidence) issued by the European Commission regarding these same legislative initiatives. According to estimates released after the process concluded, a significant portion of the participants expressed reservations about blanket bans and stricter restrictions.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The issue has been covered in recent days by a number of European media outlets, including the Brussels Signal, EU News, and the EU Reporter. The reports highlight various aspects of the debate, ranging from transparency issues and the design of the consultation to the scientific basis for future measures, differentiation between product categories, and the potential impact on illicit trade.
Risk-based differentiation takes center stage
At the center of the discussion is one of the most contentious issues in the European debate: namely, whether the new framework will treat different categories of tobacco and nicotine products in a similar manner or take into account the differences in their risk profiles.
The Brussels Signal documents the emerging debate surrounding the issue of harm reduction, featuring, among others, the views of Norwegian researcher Karl E. Lund. Lund argues that European policy should examine how to reduce the risk for adult smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit, noting that imposing similar restrictions on tobacco and nicotine products with different risk profiles raises legitimate questions of proportionality.
The EU Reporter reports similar concerns. Scientists and organizations that support the harm reduction approach are calling on the Commission to examine the full body of available scientific evidence and to recognize that the risk is not the same across all categories of tobacco and nicotine products. In this context, one of the key issues the European Commission must address is whether future regulations should more clearly distinguish between combustible and non-combustible products, taking into account the different levels of risk associated with each category.
The question that arises, therefore, is whether a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach can be considered proportionate when scientists and organizations that participated in the consultation point out that different categories of tobaccoand nicotine products have different risk profiles.
In this context, proponents of the harm reduction approach warn that treating different product categories equally with regard to restrictions may have the opposite effect of what is intended. As they argue, adult smokers who do not quit may have less incentive to switch to potentially lower-risk alternatives if these are regulated in the same way as conventional cigarettes.
Criticism of the Process as Well
Beyond the substance of the measures, questions are also being raised about the way the consultation itself was conducted. EU News reports criticism regarding the complexity of the questionnaire and whether it adequately captured diverse scientific, economic, and social perspectives.
Professor Riccardo Polosa of the University of Catania raises concerns regarding the quality and transparency of the process, while representatives of the agricultural sector argue that insufficient attention was given to the specific circumstances and challenges faced by European tobacco producers.
These criticisms raise a broader question of whether a public consultation can effectively capture differing viewpoints when its very design is called into question regarding its complexity and ability to capture critical parameters.
The issue of illicit trade
Another issue that keeps cropping up in the press concerns the potential impact of the new measures on the black market. Representatives of the European retail sector warn that measures that do not take actual market conditions into account may have unintended consequences.
Market representatives also point out that the effects of a particularly restrictive regulation are not limited to public health. They also affect the operations of legitimate businesses, employment, public revenue, and the competitiveness of the European economy. At the same time, they warn that the growth of the black market could shift a larger portion of consumption to unregulated channels, with consequences for both businesses and government revenue.
This discussion is of particular interest at the national level as well. In Cyprus, the illicit trade in tobacco products is also linked to smuggling from the occupied territories, creating additional challenges for legitimate businesses, law enforcement, and public revenue.
Miguel Ángel Martínez, president of the European Confederation of Tobacco Retailers, argues that disproportionate restrictions may weaken the legal retail sector to the benefit of illicit distribution channels.
This argument takes on particular significance as the illicit trade is emerging as one of the key issues in the debate over the new framework. The key issue, therefore, is not simply the strictness of the new measures, but their effectiveness in practice. This is especially true when, according to retail industry representatives, disproportionate restrictions may actually strengthen rather than curb the black market.
Next Steps
The need to update the European framework is hardly disputed. The market has changed significantly since the current legislation was adopted, new products have emerged, and protecting young people from smoking and nicotine use remains a key public health goal. The crucial question now is what form this revision will take.
With the consultation now complete, the Commission is called upon to demonstrate in practice how it will make use of the evidence and views that were submitted. The challenge is to develop a framework based on scientific evidence and actual market data, recognizes the differences between products, and takes into account the potential impact of the measures on consumers, businesses, and illicit trade. The actual impact of the public consultation will be judged by how these factors are reflected in the legislative proposal.
*With information from: EU Reporter, Eunews, and BrusselsSignal
