The Eurobarometer survey is a recurring public opinion survey carried out every autumn and spring by the European Commission (EC). Its aim is to gauge attitudes and behaviors of citizens across the European Union (EU) on various topics, including tobacco and nicotine use, providing updated data on smoking prevalence and trends.
Published in June 2024, the latest survey revealed only a very slight decline in smoking rates, from 25% in 2020 to 24% in 2024. This means that at the current rate, the EU is certainly not on track to meet its target of reducing smoking prevalence to less than 5% by 2090.
In general, the survey’s findings are critical for informing EU policies on public health and tobacco control, highlighting discrepancies between public behaviors and regulatory focus. Sadly however, not only is this latest survey not informing policy as intended, but it appears that the EC has kept the survey as quiet as possible, likely because the findings contradict its own tobacco control stategy, a strategy which is clearly failing miserably.
In fact, there was was no mention of the findings during a very important debate on tobacco and nicotine policy by Europe’s health ministers, an event in which making these findings available would have made all the difference. The debate was held only three days before the survey findings were released, hence when they were already available. Regrettably, this suggests a strategic delay in the report’s release.
The Commission’s policy focus, emphasizes the need for stringent regulations on safer nicotine alternatives, such as vaping and oral tobacco products. However the Eurobarometer survey findings indicated that the only countries which have made significant progress in reducing local smoking rates, are the ones which have openly endorsed the use of these products as smoking cessation tools.
Countries not following the EU’s rigid model are the only successful ones
The Czech Republic and Sweden showed notable successes due to more liberal policies towards these products. Czechia saw a 7% drop in smoking rates between 2020 and 2024, while Sweden maintained the lowest smoking rate due to the widespread use of oral tobacco, a success which could be witnessed in other EU countries, had the Union not banned oral tobacco everywhere else 30 years ago.
This discrepancy underscores the need for a nuanced approach to tobacco control, balancing harm reduction and public health priorities. Sadly however, there is no indication that the EU may be open to consider such an approach. On the contrary it seems set on pushing through with its failing stategy by using irrelevant findings to support it.
For example, the EC mentioned the fact that the survey found that over 90% of non-smokers are not interested in safer nicotine products, hence negating the need for strict regulations to protect them from such products. Despite this, the Commission asked non-smokers whether in their opinion safer nicotine products should be regulated as strictly as cigarettes, with 59% agreeing. However, one would argue, given the finding that the vast majority of them are not interested or affected by these products, why would their opinion matter? Shouldn’t the opinion of smokers, who can actually benefit from using the products to quit smoking, be the one which counts?
“Among those who never used e-cigarettes three in four (75%) don’t think e-cigarettes or HTP can help smokers quit traditional tobacco products,” reads another of the survey findings. The obvious question that arises from this statement is: How on earth would they know? And again, how is their opinion relevant?
Politics vs science
Ultimately, it appears like the Commission’s timing for the release of the findings ensuring minimal media coverage of the survey by overshadowing its findings with the health ministers’ debate, was nothing short of strategic. Major media outlets covered the call for more restrictions on the Friday debate but did not report on the survey released the following Monday.
Tragically, the handling of the Eurobarometer survey release highlights a political agenda rather than a data-driven approach to nicotine policy. Once again the EC appears to be prioritizing its policy preferences over scientific findings, aiming to influence public opinion and legislative outcomes. This episode underscores the ongoing political nature of the debate on safer nicotine products in the EU, suggesting that future policy decisions will likely continue to be driven by political considerations rather than empirical evidence.
Is The European Commission Playing Dirty to Push its Nicotine Pouches’ Ban Agenda?
