Europe’s stance on vaping is at an important crossroads. As regulators argue about bans on flavours, disposable vapes, higher taxes and tougher nicotine controls in general, new evidence indicates that these do not work. Even worse, confirming what experts in the field have long claimed, they are having the opposite effect to the one intended: broadening illicit markets while restricting access to items that could help smokers do what’s best for their health.
Meanwhile, cigarettes — the deadliest nicotine products of all — are still universally available. For tobacco harm reduction (THR) advocates, this contradiction is becoming harder to miss.
Europe’s illicit vape market is exploding
A landmark 2026 study from the Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits offers the clearest view yet of Europe’s shadow vaping economy. Almost half of the vapes consumed in the EU come from irregular sources, according to the report. The numbers are striking. The black and grey markets are already worth at least €6.6 billion and are expected to increase to €10.8 billion by 2030 [9]. Just 52 per cent of the market is properly regulated (“white”), while 13 per cent exists in a legal grey zone and 35 per cent is illegal.
Shenzhen sits at the centre of this supply chain, manufacturing most of the world’s vaping hardware. According to previous estimates, 72% of Chinese production occurs in this single smallest region, with billions of disposable devices exported annually.
These products arrive in Europe via major logistics centres in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium, and often slip through customs systems that are unable to handle the volume. While an estimated 12 million parcels land on U.S. shores each day from China, enforcement capacity is massively under-resourced.
The Perfect Storm
However, this is not just an enforcement issue; it’s structural. Europe’s fragmented regulatory environment generates price gaps and legal contradictions that drive illicit trade. In some countries, very high excise duties are levied on these products; in others, little or nothing is done by way of a clear, specific tax. This patchwork system invites cross-border arbitrage, smuggling and re-importation.
Therefore, the stakes are both economic and public health-related. For instance, in Germany alone, tax losses associated with illegal vapeware amounted to €119 million in 2024. As unregulated products flood the market, governments across the EU are missing out on billions in tax revenue.
More importantly, these products often fail to meet safety standards. While many vapes and e-liquids are marketed to consumers, no regulatory oversight ensures ingredient quality, nicotine concentration or manufacturing consistency — leaving the consumer protection angle vulnerable.
Bans have failed in every instance
Youth vaping increased by 25% following the Netherlands’ flavour ban, and youth smoking also rose by 4%. Instead of curbing demand, the policy just shifted consumption into unregulated channels — where age verification and product standards are nonexistent.
Similarly, a recent article in the Washington Post highlighted that the US FDA’s flavour ban was ultimately nothing but a total fiasco. Such reports are consistent with longstanding findings in the field of tobacco control: prohibition does not eradicate use; it displaces it.
Research has confirmed that adults find flavours helpful
Flavours remain one of the most contentious aspects of vaping policy. Candy or fruit flavours attract young people, critics say. But mounting evidence indicates that flavours are also crucial to adults trying to quit smoking. About 68% of adult EU vapers use non-tobacco flavours. These preferences can’t be fobbed off — they are functional. Flavours can reduce the risk of relapse by breaking the sensory link to cigarettes.
Research found that current adults using flavoured vapes have substantially higher quit and abstinence success rates than those using a tobacco-flavoured product alone. When non-tobacco flavours are available, the odds for quitting may be more than double.
This aligns with other major clinical trials, including a New England Journal of Medicine study that showed vaping devices were more effective for quitting smoking than traditional nicotine replacement therapy when used with behavioural support.
Removing flavours, then, isn’t just a way to make the product less appealing — it could also render it less effective.
Vaping as a cessation aid
There is a wealth of broader evidence on vaping as a harm reduction tool. In countries such as the UK, public health authorities have consistently found that e-cigarettes expose users to far fewer toxicants compared to combustible cigarettes.
A scientific assessment by ANSES (Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety) in France (where disposables have been banned), analysed over 2,500 studies and confirmed that vapes reduce risk for smokers who switch. The 700-page paper highlighted that while there were some possible minor risks associated with vaping, to date, these have not actually been proven.
The study, from Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits, is a stark warning: If new constraints arise but no structural reforms are enacted, things could get worse.
Researchers suggest harmonising taxes, enhancing supply chain transparency through digital tracking systems, and increasing cooperation with manufacturing countries, such as China.
Importantly, they caution against blanket bans. About half the market already operates outside legal channels, and more restrictions will add to this.
Regulated access, not prohibition
Europe’s debate on vaping is no longer about regulation; it is about outcomes. The evidence is increasingly clear. Vaping can help smokers quit. Flavours are part of that process. And limiting access doesn’t remove demand — it redistributes it.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we cannot not emphasize that policies must reflect relative risk, support adult smokers and protect access to regulated alternatives. Failing to do so is just perpetuating an old mistake — protecting cigarettes at the expense of the very tools we have developed to replace them.
