A leaked revision of the European Union’s Tobacco Excise Directive (TED), recently circulated under the Cypriot presidency, has reignited the concern that Europe is drifting toward ideology-driven policy at the expense of public health outcomes. While the revised draft slightly softens some of the excise rates proposed by the European Commission last year, the underlying philosophy remains unchanged: discourage smokers from switching away from cigarettes by narrowing price differences between combustible and non-combustible products.
At the heart of the controversy is the draft’s explicit objective to prevent what it calls “tax-driven substitution” between nicotine products. For harm reduction experts, that language is deeply troubling. Substitution away from cigarettes is not a problem to be solved, they highlight, but the very mechanism through which smoking-related death and disease are reduced.
World Vapers’ Alliance (WVA) director Michael Landl, says the revised numbers fail to alter the real-world impact of the policy. “Nicotine users are still treated primarily as cash machines,” Landl warned, arguing that shrinking the price gap between cigarettes and safer alternatives makes quitting harder, especially for people on lower incomes who are already disproportionately affected by smoking.
If the revised directive went live
Tobacco harm reduction advocacy groups argue that this structure still removes much of the financial incentive to switch away from smoking. Multiple studies, including reviews by Public Health England and the Cochrane Collaboration, have consistently found that non-combustible nicotine products expose users to far fewer toxicants than cigarettes and can help smokers quit. Tax policy that ignores these differences, naturally risks entrenching cigarette use rather than accelerating its decline.
Several EU member states with strong harm reduction track records, including Sweden, Greece, and the Czech Republic, have reportedly resisted both the Commission’s proposal and the revised draft. These countries have pursued national strategies that maintain significant price differentials favouring lower-risk products and have seen substantial declines in smoking prevalence as a result. Yet (shockingly) the EC has consistenty ignored these real-world data right on its door step.
The truth revealed by real-world data
Evidence From Beyond Brussels the debate unfolding in Europe echoes a broader global pattern: countries that regulate and incentivize safer alternatives, such as New Zealand and Japan, see smoking drop, while those that prohibit or heavily penalize them, such as Australia and India, often stagnate or regress.
A newly released comparative report, Tale of Two Nations: Argentina v Sweden, by Smokefree Sweden, illustrates this starkly. Sweden has reduced daily smoking to just above 5 percent after more than a decade of encouraging the use of snus, nicotine pouches, vaping products, and other smoke-free alternatives. This shift has coincided with lung cancer rates far below the EU average, reinforcing decades of research showing that the primary harms of smoking come from inhaling toxic smoke, not nicotine itself.
Argentina, by contrast, has experienced a recent uptick in smoking prevalence despite long-standing conventional tobacco controls. The report links this reversal to strict prohibitions on vaping and heated tobacco products, which have left smokers with little choice beyond cigarettes or illicit markets. Researchers estimate that these policies are contributing to tens of thousands of preventable deaths each year.
Nicotine pouches emerge as a particularly important tool in Sweden’s success. Survey data cited in the report indicate that many former smokers rank pouches above traditional cessation aids, citing convenience, discretion, and effectiveness. Their introduction appears to have accelerated smoking declines among both men and women, especially among female smokers given that they are much less likely to stain teeth than traditional snus.
Smoking cessation stunted by the very policies set to promote it
Despite this evidence, hostility toward harm reduction remains strong in parts of the European policymaking apparatus. The European Parliament’s draft opinion on the EU Cardiovascular Health Plan, led by socialist rapporteur Romana Jerković, has drawn sharp backlash for proposing de facto bans on vaping products, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco. The draft seeks to regulate all nicotine products as if they were cigarettes, erasing distinctions in risk and calling for high taxes, flavour bans, and severe nicotine limits.
Alberto Gómez Hernández, policy manager at the World Vapers’ Alliance, described the proposal as an “anti-science crusade” that ignores harm reduction’s proven success. He warned that extreme taxation and flavour bans have repeatedly driven consumers back to cigarettes while fuelling black markets, undermining public health gains.
That concern is reinforced by the EU Council’s own leaked admission that the revised TED aims to discourage substitution away from cigarettes. For critics, this is a remarkable acknowledgment that policy is being designed to preserve smoking rather than reduce it.
Dangerous ignorance at the very top
The controversy deepened further after European Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi recently claimed in a written response to MEP Kristoffer Storm, that using smoke-free nicotine products does not reduce health risk compared to smoking. Independent scientific reviews and government health agencies around the world directly contradict that statement.
Landl rightly accused the Commissioner of spreading dangerous misinformation that could keep people smoking. By denying well-established risk differentials, he highlighted, the Commission is preventing smokers from making informed choices and undermining public health efforts grounded in evidence.
Harm reduction groups and advocates are urging EU member states to reject the current TED draft and demand a system that aligns taxation with health risk. That means substantially lower, or even zero, excise duties on vaping products, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco compared to cigarettes.
The contrast between countries adopting different smoking cessation strategies, such as Sweden and Argentina, and the growing body of global evidence, underscores what is at stake. Tobacco control that prioritizes ideology or revenue over harm reduction does not end smoking. It delays progress, costs lives, and ignores tools that are already helping millions quit. If Europe’s goal is genuinely to reduce death and disease from smoking, then substitution should not be discouraged – it should be the central objective.
Leaked WHO Documents Uncover Europe’s New Senseless Nicotine War
