EU tobacco control shift: subtle but crucial strategic loosening

Core insight: The EU’s softening of its stance on smoke-free nicotine products on the eve of COP11 is not a simple wording adjustment, but a crucial strategic shift. It marks the EU’s shift from an ideologically-driven “one-size-fits-all” ban model to a pragmatic regulatory path that focuses more on scientific evidence, practical impact, and member state differentiation, fundamentally changing the strategic landscape of global tobacco control negotiations.

Driving factors:

• Strong pressure from the public and consumers: Large-scale pan-European public consultation activities have become a key catalyst for policy adjustments. More than 13,000 formal opinions on the nicotine tax proposal clearly express the strong public opposition to treating low-risk alternatives equally with traditional cigarettes, forcing decision-makers to reassess their tough stance.
• Successful experiences and practical challenges of member states: National-level successful cases represented by Sweden provide strong practical evidence. Sweden has demonstrated the effectiveness of the Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) strategy by reducing smoking rates to below 5% through the use of products such as snuff and nicotine bags. At the same time, the lesson of Denmark and other countries giving rise to black markets due to taste bans has also exposed the negative consequences of overly restrictive policies.
• The evolution of global regulation and scientific consensus: Changes in the external environment provide support for moderate factions within the European Union. The re-authorization of Juul products by the US FDA, as well as successful cases of reducing smoking rates through the promotion of new nicotine products in countries such as Japan and New Zealand, have formed a global scientific and regulatory momentum, making rigid injunctions increasingly outdated.

Key evidence:

• Substantive modification of policy text: The revised draft has removed the language describing non-combustible products as “extremely harmful” and instead explicitly requires reference to “proportionality, scientific evidence, emission data, and real-world impact analysis.”
• Decentralization of regulatory authority: The previously mandatory taste restrictions have been adjusted to “member state discretion,” leaving key room for countries such as Sweden to retain their successful harm reduction models.
• Overwhelming feedback from public consultation: During the public consultation period from July to October 2025, the official received over 13,000 comments, with Sweden’s participation being particularly high. Consumer groups generally believe that imposing equal tax rates on nicotine bags and cigarettes is a punishment for effective smoking cessation tools.
• Evidence of international successful cases: The report clearly states that the experiences of countries such as Japan and New Zealand “clearly demonstrate that innovative and responsible engineering technologies are constantly advancing,” proving that recognizing new nicotine products can effectively reduce smoking rates.

Strategic insights:

The subtle loosening of the EU’s stance this time has strategic significance far beyond the text itself. It injects strategic oxygen into the upcoming COP11 negotiations, breaking the previously expected situation dominated by hardliners with no room for negotiation. Although the draft still maintains a reserved attitude towards tobacco harm reduction, the shift from a “global template ban” to “allowing for national differentiation” is itself a major strategic victory for tobacco harm reduction advocates. This suggests that COP11 may transform from a predetermined script stage to a negotiation arena with a real game space, preserving a glimmer of hope for the birth of more scientific and pragmatic global tobacco control policies.