“Smoking kills, vaping kills.” That’s what EU Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said in a recent parliamentary hearing. Let’s be clear: this is not just wrong—it’s dangerous. By equating vaping with smoking, Hoekstra is spreading misinformation that could cost lives. European vapers and smokers deserve evidence-based policies, not fear-mongering. Let’s break Hoekstra’s talk on vaping down.

On Thursday, February 6th, the European Union’s Commissioner for Climate, Net Zero, and Clean Growth, Dutchman Wopke Hoekstra, participated in a meeting of the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Fiscal Matters. In the meeting, MEP Pierre Pimpie asked him about the “future directive on excise taxes for tobacco manufacturers”, referring to the expected revision of the Tobacco Taxation Directive (TTD). Through this revision, the European Commission wants to set minimum excise tax rates on alternative nicotine products, such as vapes and nicotine pouches, effectively harmonizing their taxation with traditional cigarettes. The full interaction can be seen in this video (11:38:18 – 11:42:45).

MEP Pimpie also asked the EU Tax Chief when the Commission is planning to implement this reform, to which the MEP did not reply. So far, the revision of both the TTD and the tobacco products directive (TPD) is not on the Commission’s 2025 work agenda.

Public Health as a Tax Strategy

Hoekstra’s response was not one of scientific reasoning or harm reduction logic—instead, he launched into moralistic rhetoric about protecting public health while pushing for heavier taxation on vaping. He argued that policymakers should not focus on short-term economic gains but instead on the well-being of European citizens.

This is a convenient excuse for a tax hike that would make harm-reduction products less accessible to smokers looking for a way out of tobacco. If public health is really the goal, then taxing vaping like smoking is completely counterproductive. Investigación has shown that increasing taxes on vaping leads to more people smoking. The logic is simple: when vaping becomes too expensive, smokers either don’t switch or go back to cigarettes. Hoekstra’s approach would reverse progress in tobacco harm reduction, trapping more people in a cycle of deadly smoking-related diseases.

Flavours: The key to helping smokers quit

 Hoekstra then moved on to one of the most common anti-vaping tropes—the supposed danger of flavours. According to him, young people are “seduced” by strawberry and banana flavours and fall into a “false sense of security” about vaping’s risks. This argument is completely disconnected from reality.

Flavours are not designed to target young people—they are essential for helping adult smokers quit. Data from the latest Eurobarometer survey shows that fruit flavours are the most popular among vapers (48%), followed by tobacco (38%), menthol (31%), and sweet candy flavours (20%). This indicates that most adult vapers prefer non-tobacco flavours, highlighting the importance of keeping a variety of flavours available to support smoking cessation efforts.

Moreover, a study published in the Harm Reduction Journal found that vapers who use non-tobacco flavours have a 230% higher chance of quitting smoking than those who only use tobacco flavours. This is not speculation—it’s evidence. Smokers do not want to be reminded of the taste of tobacco when they are trying to quit. By banning or taxing flavours out of the market, the EU would be actively making it harder for smokers to transition to safer alternatives.

A sector under attack

Beyond misleading claims about flavours and vaping risks, Hoekstra also attacked the entire vaping industry, painting it as a ruthless, manipulative force lobbying for addiction.

The reality is that banning or heavily taxing vaping and other safer nicotine products will only benefit the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. By making these harm reduction tools less accessible, smokers are more likely to continue using traditional cigarettes or turn to pharmaceutical cessation products. This approach undermines public health and supports industries that profit from smoking-related illnesses.

The EU needs to follow science, not fear

Hoekstra’s rhetoric is not about protecting people’s health—it’s about expanding taxation on safer alternatives to smoking. If the EU truly wants to reduce smoking rates, it must follow harm reduction principles, not impose policies that will drive people back to cigarettes.

Instead of demonizing vaping, the EU should be embracing it as a tool for public health. The evidence is overwhelming—vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking, and flavours help smokers stay off cigarettes. The EU should be making vaping more accessible, not restricting it through misinformation and punitive taxation.

European vapers must fight back

The threat to vaping in Europe is real, and every vaper must make their voice heard. If the EU pushes forward with higher taxes and flavour bans, it will force vapers back to cigarettes or into unregulated black markets.

Vapers must demand evidence-based policies. We must contact policymakers, share real facts, and push back against misleading narratives. The fight is not just about vaping—it’s about the right to choose a safer alternative to smoking.

Hoekstra is wrong about vaping, but if we don’t act, his misinformation will become law. The time to fight back is NOW.

Originally published aquí