We as WVA just submitted the following statement to the EU’s consultation on the tobacco and regulatory framework together with our “Vaping Products Directive”. 

If you want to contribute as well, please click here.

ETHRA created a guide on how to navigate through the consultation process here.

—

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

As a consumer organization representing tens of thousands of vapers worldwide, we appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback to the current EU’s tobacco and nicotine regulatory framework — the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). Unfortunately, from our point of view, most of the questions are biased, misleading, impossible to answer, or open to interpretation. It seems the EU Commission wants to justify its hostile attitude towards harm reduction with this line of questioning. 

This is another missed opportunity for the Commission to finally open an honest and science-based dialogue with ALL stakeholders. Harm reduction must be a key element of revising the Tobacco Products Directive if the EU aims to reach its smoke-free goal by 2040. 

Only one country in the EU is on track to reach the goal: Sweden. In fact, Sweden will already achieve the smoke-free goal this year, and ironically it is the one country with some legal flexibility toward the TPD. It is time to fully embrace harm reduction in the EU.

The World Vapers Alliance provided with the “Vaping Products Directive” (see second attachment) a possible way forward to achieve the EU’s smoke-free goals. 

Below we want to show some examples of questions we regard as biased or open to interpretation. 

• What is your perception of Tobacco Control policies in the EU?

Of course, we saw improvement in public health within the EU. Still, regarding reducing smoking and smoking-related illnesses, this improvement is due to innovation and adoption of less harmful alternatives to cigarettes — not due to EU regulations. Currently, the EU regulations are a stumbling block and not the solution for reducing smoking rates. 

• Sweden has the lowest smoking rate in the EU and is the only country on track to achieve the EU’s smoke free-goal. 
• In the last decade, the smoking rate in Sweden declined by 55%.
• The average smoking rate in the rest of the EU is more than 3.5 times higher
• Smoking-related deaths are 22% lower in Sweden than the EU average

Therefore, the EU must follow the path of Sweden with all upcoming regulations. Fully embrace harm reduction and introduce risk-based regulation. Vaping, nicotine pouches, snus and similar products are not the same as smoking and must not be treated the same! 

• Considering the following TPD provisions, were they adequate to ensure a high level of protection of human health in the EU?
  Setting maximum nicotine concentration for nicotine containing-liquids. Regulating maximum volumes of refill containers and single-use cartridges/tanks
  (Options to answer range from very adequate to very inadequate.) 

The maximum nicotine concentration for vaping hinders especially heavy smokers — who need high nicotine concentrations — from switching to vaping. As such, it is not adequate for the protection of human health. But we fear that the Commission will interpret all answers which say inadequate as “we need lower nicotine levels”. This is not an unbiased form of questioning. 

The same applies to maximum volumes of containers. The limits are detrimental to public health and the environment. But if we say inadequate, the Commission can interpret the answer as we need lower volumes. 

This line of questioning reappears throughout the questionnaire. So the Commission can consider every question we answered as “Don’t know” as misleading, biased, or too open for interpretation.

• Were the following TPD provisions capable of addressing recent market developments?

Here it is not even clear what is meant by “addressing”. Considering the hostility of the Commission towards harm reduction, it must be interpreted as getting rid of these products, which is not improving public health. 

• To what extent do you believe the use of the following products will continue increasing in the next 10 years?

This depends on future EU regulations. We hope to see similar developments in Sweden, and the UK, where smoking rates are plummeting and smokers en masse are switching to less harmful alternatives. We abstain from the question because we fear the EU Commission will interpret a prediction of an increase in the use of harm-reduction products as a need for tighter regulation. 

• Which of the following products do you think young people are most attracted to? (Multiple options) 

We hope it won’t be cigarettes, but this question seems intended to generate the impression that the problem would be less harmful alternatives. 

• As far as TPD Article 7(12) is concerned, do you believe that allowing an exemption of novel tobacco products from the ban on characterizing flavours made these products more appealing to young people?

Flavours are key for its success as a smoking cessation aid for adults. So why neglect entirely millions of adult smokers when it comes to flavours? Again, the Commission seems only interested in making harm-reduction products appear dangerous to public health, while the opposite is true. 

• Are the relevant provisions of the TPD flexible enough to address the following concerns?

Again, no definition of “address”. 

• Were the following provisions of the TAD and of TPD Article 20(5) effective to ensure a high level of human health protection in the EU?

(Options to answers range from “not at all” to “yes, they are were effective”) 

Same problem again. Most of the provisions were ineffective, but we fear if we choose this option to answer, it will be interpreted as not strict enough. We need differentiation according to the risk profiles of different products, not just more regulation.. 

• Which sales channel do you consider to be problematic for age verification regulations?

Very simplistic question where you can only choose products. If one of the sale points is problematic for one product, wouldn’t it be problematic for others too? This question doesn’t make much sense. 

• Do you consider the sale of the following product categories should have been banned at the following locations?

Same problem. No option for nuanced answers or an option if you are against sales bans. 

• Do you think visibility at points of sale for the following products should have been restricted, if not already? 

No option to choose less restrictions for less harmful products. So all harm reduction proponents are not able to answer this question. 

Overall a staggering 117 questions out of 201 are along those lines and won’t lead to an unbiased result of the consultation. 

This differs from how we expect the Commission to engage with the public. The entire consultation leaves us with the impression that the Commission wants approval for its hostility towards harm-reduction products. We hope they will reconsider this approach since countries like the United Kingdom and Sweden prove that an open and consumer-friendly policy toward alternative nicotine products can achieve lower smoking rates. Smoke-free goals can be reached if governments learn from the best and most effective nations. Countries with relatively high adoption of alternative nicotine products, such as vaping, heated tobacco, nicotine pouches, and snus, generally are able to lower smoking rates faster than others. It is time to learn from the best.