EU tobacco control policy shift: pragmatism triumphs over dogma

Core insight: The EU’s policy adjustments on new nicotine products before COP11 mark a shift from a single “ideologically driven” hardline ban to a more pragmatic “regulatory realism” that acknowledges national differences and values scientific evidence. This is not a comprehensive acceptance of “harm reduction”, but rather opens a key strategic window for differentiated regulation.

Driving factors:

• Public opinion and consumer pressure: Large-scale pan-European public consultation has become a key catalyst. More than 13,000 formal comments, particularly from countries such as Sweden, have clearly expressed consumers’ demand for low-risk alternatives and opposition to excessive taxation, forcing decision-makers to reassess the public opinion base of their policies.
• Real data and policy differences among member states: There are significant differences in tobacco control practices among countries within the European Union. The successful case of Sweden reducing smoking rates to below 5% through snuff and nicotine bags, as well as the failed lesson of Denmark’s black market due to taste bans, provide strong evidence that the “one size fits all” ban model is not only ineffective, but also counterproductive.
• The external impact of successful global cases: Changes in the international environment also provide important references. Juul has regained FDA marketing authorization in the United States, and countries such as Japan and New Zealand have successfully reduced smoking rates by promoting new nicotine products. These cases collectively demonstrate the feasibility of innovation and risk differentiation regulation, weakening the theoretical basis for the EU’s extreme ban stance.

Key evidence:

• Significant softening of policy wording: In the new draft text, the language describing non-combustible products as “extremely harmful” has been removed and replaced with a clear mention of “proportionality, scientific evidence, emission data, and real-world impact analysis”.
• Enhancement of regulatory flexibility: The previously proposed comprehensive ban on filters has now been adjusted to “Marking of regulatory options in accordance with Articles 9 and 10”. Taste restrictions have also shifted from mandatory regulations to ‘delegated to national discretion’.
• Quantitative manifestation of public pressure: During the public consultation on the nicotine tax proposal, the official received “over 13,000 comments”, with Sweden’s participation being particularly high.
• Reflection on the failure of existing policies: Denmark’s experience has been cited as a negative example, as its taste ban has created underground channels and pushed some supply into informal markets.

Strategic Inspiration: The EU’s softening of stance this time has strategic significance far beyond the tobacco control field. It reveals that in an increasingly complex and data-driven world, even a large regulatory consortium’s policy agenda cannot be separated from public opinion, empirical data from member states, and global best practices in the long run. For global public health advocates, this means that the focus of the game at COP11 has shifted from “preventing a comprehensive ban” to “shaping reasonable regulation”, and a valuable “negotiation space” has emerged. This marks that a tough ideology is giving way to evidence-based and refined governance, providing a new paradigm for future discussions on global health issues.