EU tobacco control shift: Pragmatism reshapes global agenda

Core insight: The EU’s policy stance on new nicotine products has undergone a critical shift in the lead up to COP11, moving from a tough ban on “equivalent cigarettes” to more subtle and evidence-based differentiated regulation. This marks an important strategic turning point. This pragmatic shift reflects the joint influence of successful cases of harm reduction at the national level, strong public opinion, and international regulatory trends, indicating that the global tobacco control agenda may shift from a single “anti-nicotine” route to a diversified future that accommodates “tobacco harm reduction”.

Driving factors:

• Strong pressure of public opinion: The EU’s public consultation on the nicotine tax proposal received over 13,000 formal opinions, demonstrating strong consumer power. The public generally opposes treating low-risk nicotine products equally with traditional cigarettes in terms of taxation, forming an effective political balance.
• Empirical effect of successful cases at the national level: Sweden relies on products such as oral cigarettes and nicotine pouches to achieve a smoking rate of nearly 5%, while Denmark’s flavor ban has given rise to a black market. These real ‘real-world dynamics’ provide strong evidence that a one-size-fits-all ban is not only ineffective but also protects the existing market for cigarettes.
• Convergence of global regulatory environments: Juul products have regained marketing authorization from the US FDA, and cases of successful reduction in smoking rates through the promotion of new nicotine products in countries such as Japan and New Zealand are forming an international trend that regulatory frameworks must differentiate products based on actual risks rather than ideology.

Policy Heterogeneity within the EU: The new draft text acknowledges and allows member states to have “national discretion” in specific policies, which implies that due to differences in experience and priorities among member states, a unified tough stance cannot be maintained, forcing the EU to adopt more flexible compromise solutions.

Key evidence:

• Fundamental shift in policy language: The revised EU draft text has removed the wording describing non-combustible products as “extremely harmful” and instead explicitly requires policy-making to refer to “proportionality, scientific evidence, emission data, and real-world impact analysis”.
• Relaxation of Regulatory Regulation from Compulsory to Authorized: Regarding restrictions on flavor products, the draft has shifted from mandatory requirements in the initial draft to “no longer mandatory, but delegated to national discretion,” which is a significant geopolitical concession, especially of great significance to countries such as Sweden.
• Overwhelming public feedback: During the public consultation period, over 13,000 comments were officially submitted, which directly proves the strong support of the public for differentiated regulatory policies.
• Direct evidence of the failure of the ban policy: Data shows that Denmark’s flavor ban has “given rise to underground channels,” and algorithm analysis reveals a consistent pattern: “Fuzzy relative risk policies protect cigarettes, not public health.”

Strategic Inspiration: The EU’s subtle but crucial policy adjustment this time is not only a strategic concession before the meeting but also a realistic recognition of the objective effectiveness of “tobacco harm reduction”. This opens a strategic window for the upcoming COP11, shifting the focus of global debate from ‘whether new nicotine products should exist’ to ‘how to regulate them in a risk-appropriate manner’. This pragmatic shift suggests that the future of global tobacco control may no longer be a monolithic piece of injunctions but rather a diverse policy puzzle based on scientific evidence and guided by public health outcomes from various countries.