TPD: Results of the Public Consultation on the Directive’s Revision

Summary of responses to a questionnaire that satisfied no one

On 12 October 2026, the European Commission published its factual summary report of the public consultation on the revision of EU rules on tobacco products and tobacco advertising. As the document itself makes clear, it is merely a summary of the contributions received: “It cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the Commission or its services.” The Commission also stresses that responses “cannot be considered as a representative sample of the views of the EU population.” In total, 41,693 submissions were analysed, including 35,677 from EU citizens.

Among the 787 respondents from business associations, civil society organisations and the “Other” category, 169 (21.5%) reported having received financial support from the tobacco industry over the previous five years.

One-third of responses were coordinated

To identify campaign responses, defined as reflecting “a coordinated effort to encourage a particular type of response”, the Commission applied the rule set out in its Better Regulation Toolbox: ten or more contributions that are “the same or very similar” are treated as a campaign. In practice, the Commission searched for submissions containing exactly the same answers to all closed questions, grouping together variants that matched on at least 95% of the questions answered.

In total, 32 campaigns were identified, accounting for 14,418 submissions. The largest came almost entirely from Poland (6,048 responses, or 14.5% of the total), the second almost entirely from Spain (4,877 responses, 11.7%), and the third predominantly from North Macedonia (1,036 submissions, 2.5%).

Of these 32 campaigns, 27 were classified as opposing stricter regulation, while four were classified as leaning against it. The remaining campaign (19 submissions) expressed no clearly identifiable position.

A controversial questionnaire

Before examining the results, it is worth recalling that the consultation questionnaire was criticised by both tobacco harm reduction advocates and anti-tobacco NGOs.

The European Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (ETHRA), a consumer advocacy association, had described the survey as “impossible to answer“ for anyone who understands the differences in risk between products, in a detailed analysis of its 23 questions. The organisation identified eight major shortcomings, including overly simplistic response options, the grouping of products with very different risk profiles, the failure to consider unintended consequences of regulatory measures (a return to smoking, growth of illicit markets), questions seeking opinions on factual matters, and the absence of any deregulation options, such as lifting the ban on snus.

According to ETHRA, the first question, which asked whether measures aimed at protecting people from tobacco and nicotine are “beneficial for society”, called for only one sensible answer: “it depends on what the measure is and whether it works as intended”.

With the wording chosen by the European Commission, respondents wishing to express a nuanced view therefore had little choice but to select “neither agree nor disagree”, or worse, to disagree with the entire set of measures, when they simply wanted to oppose those targeting vaping, for example. Yet this is precisely the question whose results the Commission places at the beginning of its analysis: 55.1% disagreement, 13.2% agreement and 29.2% neutral responses.

Six consumer associations, including France’s AIDUCE, had also challenged the questionnaire’s design with DG SANTE before referring the matter to the European Ombudsman on 27 July, as we previously reported.

In her reply, signed on 15 July, Director-General Sandra Gallina maintained that the questionnaire “strictly follows the principle of neutrality”. She explained that the consultation was not intended, at this stage, to differentiate between the risk levels of different products, while acknowledging that these products carry health risks “albeit to varying degrees”. According to Gallina, respondents could express more nuanced views by attaching a document to their submission. This response raised an obvious question: how is a citizen supposed to express an opinion on a particular product if it is not distinguished from the others?

The report reveals the limitations of this argument: only 954 of the 41,693 submissions (2.3%) included an attachment. Thirteen ZIP archives could not even be processed. And it is the responses to the closed questions that are quantified throughout the report, while the attachments receive only a few lines of analysis. In other words, the report is based primarily on closed-question responses that did not allow respondents to distinguish between products.

It is also worth noting that criticism of the questionnaire came from anti-tobacco NGOs. In a statement published on 14 August, France’s National Committee Against Smoking (CNCT) argued that the questions overlooked several major issues: the independence of the traceability system from manufacturers, the environmental impact of cigarette filters and electronic waste, the protection of public policies against industry interference, and cross-border distance sales. The organisation also regretted that questions concerning nicotine pouches and disposable e-cigarettes offered only regulatory options, such as nicotine concentration limits or design requirements, without proposing an “outright ban” on these products.

In short, neither tobacco harm reduction advocates nor anti-tobacco organisations were satisfied with the proposed questionnaire.

Two opposing camps

The responses to the closed questions revealed a clear divide between these two groups. On one side, citizens opposed almost all measures aimed at tightening regulations.

On the other, NGOs, public authorities and research institutions were largely in favour. Companies and business associations, meanwhile, expressed more mixed views.

What the supporting documents reveal

These differences in opinion were also reflected in the 954 supporting documents attached to the submissions.

As the Commission notes, citizens’ attachments most often supported “proportionate, risk-based rules that would preserve adult access to products they considered less harmful, combined with the protection of minors through age verification and enforcement against illicit sales.” A similar pattern emerged from short personal statements and letters “attached mainly by individual consumers.”

Academic and research institutions, for their part, submitted contributions referring to scientific evidence identifying combustion “as the primary source of harm” and supporting “risk-proportionate regulation combined with youth-protection measures“. Some also called for further evaluation of flavourings and their long-term effects. However, in their responses to the closed questions, these institutions tended to align more closely with NGOs: 78.0% agreed or partly agreed that EU tobacco-control measures were beneficial to society. This difference with citizens may partly reflect the wording of the question: unable to distinguish between products, many vaping advocates may have rejected the measures as a whole.

Documents submitted by NGOs and public authorities, meanwhile, supported a broad revision aligned with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, also covering products containing synthetic nicotine and disposable products. They called for “more stringent rules on flavours, packaging and advertising“, along with safeguards against industry interference.

The Commission is expected to present its proposal to revise both directives by the end of 2026. It will be accompanied by an impact assessment, which usually includes an annex summarising all consultation activities and explaining how the contributions were taken into account.

On 16 September, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for measures to combat smoking and vaping.

Please leave this field empty

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get news and current headlines about vaping every Friday.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.