Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi used the FILTERED Conference to address the EU cardiovascular plan and signalled that the EU Commission plans to increase taxation and regulation on less harmful nicotine products, such as vaping and nicotine pouches.
In his opening line, he points out that the organisers, the FILTERED Project, are funded by the EU. That alone should raise eyebrows, because FILTERED is not just an event organiser or research group. It is a lobbying initiative that actively campaigns for stricter rules on vaping and other nicotine alternatives. In other words, the EU is using public money to fund a group that then lobbies EU institutions to push through more bans and regulations – policies the institution clearly wants itself. This type of circular funding raises serious concerns about conflict of interest and transparency in shaping public health policies.
The FILTERED Project also argues for excluding “health-harming industries” from policy discussions and calls for their denormalisation. They even use imagery on their website comparing industry representatives with snakes, rats and other vermin. This mirrors a current WHO campaign in tone and message.
What makes it worse is that when these organisations talk about “industry,” they really mean anyone who disagrees with them, including consumers. Another FILTERED partner, the Smoke-Free Partnership, also funded by the EU, even openly calls for excluding consumers from policy debates. They have gone as far as calling specifically for the World Vapers’ Alliance and the European citizens who support us to be excluded from discussions on future nicotine regulation. This push for exclusion not only contradicts EU rules but also directly contradicts the Commission’s Better Regulation initiative, which aims to ensure that citizens, businesses, and stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process.
This stance undermines the principles of democratic participation and inclusive policy-making. Democratic policymaking relies on a wide range of stakeholders. When an EU-funded group advocates for exclusion, it constitutes a conflict of interest and poses a threat to balanced decision-making.
The EU Commission has repeatedly stated its intention to tighten tobacco and vaping controls through measures such as the Tobacco Taxation Directive. Várhelyi has signalled further actions on unhealthy foods and alcohol as well. The question for consumers is simple: why should decisions about adult health be driven by people who think they can decide what adults should do with their own health? Why should taxpayer-funded voices count more than ours?
Even if the aim is to improve public health, restricting less harmful alternatives does not align with the evidence or the lived reality of many vapers. It limits less harmful options without addressing the root causes of health harms. A constructive approach focuses on harm reduction, access to less harmful options, accurate information, and proportionate regulation that recognises adult choice.
