The debate over how the EU should tax nicotine products has taken a significant turn. In its draft opinion on the revision of the Tobacco Taxation Directive (TED), the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has come out in favour of a risk‑based approach – effectively endorsing the principle of “less harm, less tax” for the first time at this level.

For anyone who cares about tobacco harm reduction, this matters a lot.

What the EESC is actually saying

In its draft, the EESC calls on the EU to move away from a one‑size‑fits‑all model and explicitly links tax levels to differences in harm between products. Under this logic, combustible cigarettes should face the highest tax burden, while lower‑risk alternatives such as vapes, heated tobacco and nicotine pouches should should be taxed substantially lower or not at all

At the same time, the EESC warns that excessively high and poorly designed taxes can easily backfire. When tax hikes make legal cigarettes unaffordable without offering realistic alternatives, consumers are pushed towards the illicit market instead of away from smoking. That means less control over products, less tax revenue for governments and no real gain for public health. Nobody wins.

A rare acknowledgement of harm reduction

By backing a risk‑based model, the EESC is doing something EU bodies have often been reluctant to do openly: acknowledging harm‑reduction logic.

The opinion accepts that not all nicotine products carry the same risk and that policy should reflect this. If the goal is to reduce smoking, then taxes must help smokers move away from combustion, not block every exit ramp. Keeping safer products significantly cheaper than cigarettes is one of the most powerful tools policymakers have to encourage switching.

This is the exact opposite of the outdated idea that “all nicotine is the same” and should be treated identically, regardless of how it is delivered.

A clear clash with the Council’s direction

The timing of this signal from the EESC is particularly important because it cuts directly across the latest moves in the Council.

While the EESC pushes for a proportionate, risk‑based approach, the Council is currently considering sharply raising minimum excise levels on e‑liquids by 50% compared to the latest compromise text, as reported by Clearing the Air. This move would narrow the price gap between cigarettes and vapes, making it more expensive for smokers to switch and undermining the very harm‑reduction logic the EESC is now endorsing. Consumer organisations across Europe are already warning of the consequences: in an open letter to the Swedish government, a coalition of groups has urged ministers to reject unreasonable nicotine taxes and to stand up for public health by defending Sweden’s successful harm‑reduction model.

This creates a stark contrast: on one side, an EU advisory body recognising that taxation should reflect different risk profiles; on the other, a Council approach that effectively treats very different products as if they posed the same risk just to maximize tax revenue.

The EESC opinion is not law. It does not automatically change the TED or bind Member States. But it sends a clear political message from within the EU’s own institutional family: if taxation is meant to serve public health, it has to become risk‑proportionate.

For the upcoming negotiations on the Tobacco Taxation Directive, that should mean:

• Keeping the highest taxes on combustible cigarettes.
• Preserving a meaningful price advantage for safer nicotine alternatives.
• Avoiding tax levels that drive smokers into the illicit market instead of out of smoking.

The Council now has a choice. It can continue down the path of treating all nicotine products as if they were equally harmful, or it can take the EESC’s advice seriously and align tax policy with real‑world risk.

If the EU is serious about saving lives, “less harm, less tax” is not a slogan. It’s the only coherent strategy.