The European Parliament’s differing approaches bring a crucial question back to the forefront: to what extent the regulation of tobacco, nicotine, alcohol, and food products should take into account their different risk profiles and be based on consistent scientific criteria.
Two recent reports by the European Parliament (EP) on the prevention of serious diseases appear to adopt different approaches toward common risk factors, such as smoking, alcohol, and diet.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Passenger rights in the EU are being strengthened
These differences already appear to be a concern for the EP’s political groups, with European media reports citing internal debate within the institution regarding the need for greater alignment between the two texts. The debate takes on particular significance in light of the upcoming vote in the European Parliament’s plenary session in November, on the report concerning the implementation of the European Plan to Combat Cancer (BECA).
The first report concerns the European strategy on cardiovascular diseases (CVD), known as Safe Hearts, which the Plenary adopted on September 16 by a large majority of 545 votes. The second concerns the implementation of the Action Plan Against Cancer and was adopted on September 28 by the Committee on Public Health (SANT), with 27 votes in favor, 8 against, and 5 abstentions.
Although the two reports serve the same basic goal—more effective prevention and protection of public health— their differing wording has sparked a broader debate on the coherence of European policies.
Differences in Tobacco, Alcohol, and Nutrition
The most significant difference between the two approaches lies in tobacco and nicotine products. The report on cardiovascular diseases explicitly acknowledges that different products may have different characteristics and risk profiles, depending, among other factors, on nicotine content and delivery method. At the same time, the text emphasizes that these products are not risk-free and advocates for measures to reduce the use of tobacco and nicotine
In contrast, the BECA approach moves toward stricter, across-the-board measures for tobacco and nicotine products, without explicitly linking tax treatment to differences in risk profiles.
The differences, however, are not limited to nicotine. With regard to alcohol, the report on cardiovascular health focuses primarily on harmful consumption, particularly when it exceeds scientifically substantiated health recommendations.
In the area of nutrition, the differences lie mainly in the scope of the proposed interventions, with BECA placing greater emphasis on mandatory nutrition labeling and on assessing the health impacts of ultra-processed foods.
The fact that the two reports serve the same public health goal does not negate the need for consistency in the criteria upon which the individual regulatory choices are based. When different risk profiles are identified, the reasonable question arises as to whether these should also be reflected in the formulation of proportionate, scientifically grounded policies. This is the point raised by the rapporteur of the BECA report, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, who, according to Eunews, argues that the two texts are complementary rather than contradictory, as the assessment of cardiovascular risks differs from that of carcinogenic factors. He has acknowledged that risk differentiation is a legitimate concept in smoking cessation policies, provided that it does not lead to the creation of a new generation of nicotine-dependent individuals.
However, the question remains as to whether the specific regulatory choices are based on clear scientific evidence and are part of a coherent European public health policy.
Scientific Evidence and Proportionality at the Center
The European Parliament itself has already recognized the need for greater coherence. In February 2026, in a resolution marking World Cancer Day, it called for strong alignment and complementarity between the European Plan Against Cancer and European actions on other noncommunicable diseases, including cardiovascular diseases.
This point is particularly important because smoking, harmful alcohol consumption, and an unhealthy diet are common risk factors for serious diseases. Therefore, European policies addressing these issues require coordination, even when the specific measures differ.
Consistency does not require identical regulations. It does, however, require clear criteria, scientific evidence, and adequate justification for the different options.
Why This Matters for Cyprus
This discussion is of direct relevance to Cyprus, which continues to record rates of tobacco and related product use higher than the European average. According to Eurostat data for 2025, 22.6% of people aged 16 and older in Cyprus used tobacco or related products daily (including e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco products), compared to an EU average of 16.5%.
At the same time, regulation of newer nicotine products is moving forward at the national level. In March 2026, the House of Representatives unanimously approved legislation on nicotine pouches, followed by the process of drafting the relevant regulations.
With the EU considering changes to legislation and taxation of tobacco and nicotine products, the relevant European decisions are also of practical significance for Cyprus. The effectiveness of prevention measures, the tax treatment of newer products, and the potential impact on the illicit market are all factors that need to be assessed in the context of future European regulations.
Crucial Vote on European Tobacco and Nicotine Policy
The upcoming vote in the European Parliament’s plenary session on the BECA report, in November, comes at a time when the EU is preparing significant changes to the regulatory and tax framework for tobacco and nicotine products.
Although the two reports are not legally binding at this stage, they reflect policy positions of particular significance in light of the upcoming revisions to the European regulatory and tax framework.
The interest, therefore, is not limited to the outcome of the vote, but extends to how today’s positions will influence future legislative choices. And above all, on whether Europe will succeed in shaping a coherent prevention policy, with clear priorities and effective implementation.
With information from Rapporteur and EUnews
