With COP11 now imminent in Geneva, a very unexpected development inside Brussels has shifted tone and energy across the European harm reduction world. After a year of escalation, maximalist language, rumours of coordinated attempts to shut down entire product classes, the newest compromise draft text circulated to EU delegates ahead of the FCTC negotiations has come in considerably softer than anyone assumed likely as recently as two weeks ago.
Unfortunately, it still does not recognise tobacco harm reduction (THR) as a formal legitimate pillar of tobacco control under FCTC, but the subtle tone shift still matters significantly before the battles that will begin inside the Palais des Nations.
The first leaked EU internal draft from early October was widely interpreted by harm reduction advocates as a template to apply cigarette-equivalent regulatory architecture across vapes, pouches and heated tobacco, with flavour restrictions, severe packaging controls, and filter prohibitions all framed as default action. Many took it as proof that Europe was about to repeat the Australia abstinence playbook.
The new text signals space for sensible regulation
This new softened tone has naturally been received well by THR advocates, as it implicitly recognises that many adult smokers are using these products to leave cigarettes. Of course it does not mean the EU is now “harm reduction aligned”, but it does indicate that the bloc is not preparing to arrive in Geneva seeking to erase non-combustible categories entirely.
Europeans have spoken
Meanwhile, this change has coincided with a very loud pan-European public consultation response on nicotine taxation proposals, which is likely to have had someting to do with it. During the consultation period (from July to October 2025) more than 13,000 comments were formally filed — with Swedish participation particularly high. Consumer groups and tobacco harm reduction experts and advocates have argued that equalising tax between cigarettes and nicotine pouches would financially penalise the most successful low-risk switching tool in Europe.
Denmark’s participation is similarly grounded in practical real-world dynamics. Flavour bans, they argue, have already created underground channels and pushed parts of supply informal. In fact, data have algorithmically shown a consistent pattern: policies that obscure relative risk protect cigarettes, not public health.
Moving towards a science-led approach
Meanwhile, this EU shift is all happening while several other major harm reduction narratives are circulating globally, such as Juul Labs receiving FDA marketing authorisation again, and countries such as Japan and New Zealand, proving that endorsing the use of novel nicotine products reduces smoking smoking rates. These examples clearly illustrate that innovation and responsible engineering continue to move forward, and that regulatory frameworks must be capable of distinguishing between product categories on actual risk, not ideology.
This matters at COP11, because this COP will have less noise about tobacco “future intention” and more direct confrontation over whether non-combustible categories should exist as legitimate tobacco control tools. Clive Bates’ COP survival guide circulated through the community this month, emphasised the same core structural point: the entire FCTC process cannot indefinitely evade the need to modernise for a world where smoke-free nicotine exists and is being used voluntarily by adults to displace cigarettes without public spending.
The draft resets COP expectations
The current EU draft still contains friction: harm reduction arguments are still characterised as “industry narrative”, and it still signals openness to increased taxation of non-combustible formats. Moreover, it still does not propose structural recognition of proportionality as a principle.
On the otherhand, the previously considered absolute-prohibition direction is now at least no longer the only path on the table. For the first time in two years of negotiation cycles, the EU text implicitly recognises that member states do not necessarily agree with its agenda, and allows national outcomes to differ. For a negotiation process that frequently collapses nuance into global templating, that alone changes the frame going into Geneva.
For a field where most progress in the last decade has come from consumer switching, commercial innovation and competitive displacement of smoking (not enforcement), this return to evidence-led framing gives advocates some hope about COP11 not being an entirely pre-written script. No one thinks the fight is over. But for the first time this quarter, and after months of bleak expectation, harm reduction advocates believe in the slightest chance that this COP could contain real negotiation space again.
Two Major Powers With Contrasting Plans for COP11: Does THR Stand a Chance?
