Last week, the European Parliament rejected a resolution presented by the European Commission (EC), proposing restricting vaping alongside smoking in outdoor spaces. At the time, tobacco harm reduction (THR) experts commended the move, highlighting that by rejecting the resolution, policymakers have affirmed the distinction between vaping and smoking, and acknowledge vaping’s role as a harm reduction tool rather than equating it to smoking.
Sadly, the positive mood did not last long, as only a few days later it was announced that EU health ministers have endorsed the new EC recommendations to tighten restrictions on tobacco and aerosol products, despite the European Parliament rejecting the same proposal last week. The newly endorsed guidelines build on existing EU regulations established in 2009, introducing more comprehensive restrictions, the aim (supposedly) being reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and vapour, and promoting smoking cessation.
The new restrictions will essentially extend smoking and vaping bans to outdoor and semi-outdoor spaces, such as terraces, rooftops, and areas linked to hospitality venues like restaurants and cafes. Additionally, the measures include bans at bus stops, airports, workplaces, and healthcare facilities. Recreational and educational spaces—such as playgrounds, zoos, and universities—are also covered to safeguard children and discourage smoking initiation.
The EU ignores data from the only country which has reached the smoke-free goal
In response, many experts in the field have of course highlighted the ridiculousness of equating and regulating vaping in the same way as smoking. This especially, following the news that Sweden is the only country which will imminently reach the globally sought-after smoke-free goal, whilst experiening the lowest smoke-related cancer rates, all thanks to endorsing the use of safer nicotine alternatives such as vapes. In fact Sweden has had to consistently fight pressures by the EC in order to adopt the strategy which made it successful.
Voluntary but influential recommendations
Meanwhile, while non-binding, the EC recommendations serve as a framework for member states to implement stricter tobacco controls. Belgian Health Minister Frank Vandenbroucke praised the initiative and stressed the need for accelerated legislative action on related regulations, including the Tobacco Products Directive and the delayed Tobacco Taxation Directive, now expected in 2025. Some have speculated that these delays have been influenced by the tobacco industry.
On the otherhand, in line with arguments by countless THR experts, the World Vapers’ Alliance (WVA) has strongly criticized this recent you-turn, saying that among other things it sparks concerns about democratic integrity and evidence-based policymaking. WVA Director Michael Landl referred to the approval as a “backroom deal,” accusing health ministers of sidelining scientific evidence and undermining the European Parliament’s authority.
Landl highlighted the decision’s potential to harm public health by equating vaping with smoking, a stance he called a “dangerous misconception.” He argued that this approach could discourage smokers from transitioning to vaping, a proven harm-reduction tool, thereby hindering efforts to reduce smoking-related health risks. The EC recommendations are a regression in THR strategies, as vaping, supported by research as significantly less harmful than smoking, has helped millions of smokers quit. By restricting vaping in public spaces, the new measures could erode consumer confidence in these alternatives and slow progress in reducing tobacco-related mortality.
How democratic is the EU really?
The controversial move raises questions about transparency and the role of democratic institutions in shaping public health policies within the EU, while reflecting broader tensions over the regulation of novel nicotine products in the EU. While proponents argue that stricter controls protect public health, critics like the WVA warn that these measures risk undermining harm reduction efforts and alienating individuals seeking safer alternatives to smoking. This controversy underscores the ongoing debate over how best to balance public health goals with evidence-based strategies and individual rights.
Member States are Urged to Base Decisions on Science as EU Seeks to Restrict Smoke-Free Policies
