EU stance loosens: Global tobacco control welcomes turning point

Core insight: The EU’s softening of its stance on new nicotine products on the eve of COP11 is not a simple policy adjustment, but a strategic shift from ideology-driven absolutism to evidence-driven pragmatism. This shift breaks the tough consensus of a one-size-fits-all ban in the global tobacco control field and opens a key strategic window for risk differentiation regulation.

Driving factors:

• The dual drive of public opinion pressure and real data: The large-scale public opinion consultation (over 13,000 comments) directly reflects the strong will of consumers and some member countries, especially the successful cases of Sweden and other countries achieving extremely low smoking rates through smoke-free products, providing policymakers with undeniable evidence of reality.
• Differentiation of interests and experiences among member states: Different national conditions within the EU make it difficult to sustain a unified and tough policy. For example, Sweden has significantly reduced smoking rates through snuff and nicotine pouches, while Denmark has witnessed taste bans giving rise to illegal black markets. This diversity forces the EU to reserve flexibility in policies and delegate some regulatory powers to the national level.
• The shift in global regulatory trends: Internationally, countries such as the US FDA reauthorizing Juul and Japan, New Zealand, and others successfully reducing smoking rates through the promotion of new nicotine products have collectively formed an international trend in support of Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR). This provides external reference and political space for the EU to adjust its tough stance.

Key evidence:

• Language changes in policy text: The revised draft has removed the wording describing non-combustible products as “extremely harmful” and explicitly mentions the need to consider “proportionality, scientific evidence, emission data, and real-world impact analysis.”
• Relaxation of regulatory measures: Taste restrictions, packaging controls, and filter bans, which were initially considered default actions in the draft, have been recalibrated in the new text. For example, taste restrictions are no longer mandatory requirements but are delegated to the state to decide on their own.
• The huge impact of public consultation: During the public consultation period from July to October 2025, the EU officially received over 13,000 comments, with Sweden’s participation being particularly high, strongly opposing the proposal to tax low-risk products equally with traditional cigarettes.

Reflection on the hardline approach: Although the text still does not formally recognize the core position of tobacco harm reduction and regards it as an “industry narrative,” allowing member countries to have different outcomes itself marks a significant deviation from the previous absolute ban route.

Strategic Implications: The EU’s recent position adjustment is a watershed event, signaling a shift in global tobacco control strategy from an ethical “anti-nicotine war” to a science-based “risk management.” This provides valuable ‘strategic oxygen’ for tobacco harm reduction advocates, shifting the focus of the struggle from ‘whether it should exist’ to ‘how to scientifically regulate.’ In the future, the evolution of the global tobacco control landscape will depend on whether this pragmatic, evidence-based differentiated regulatory path can overcome rigid ideologies in COP11 and future international negotiations. This half-open door heralds the arrival of a more complex yet constructive new stage of global tobacco control.