One might think that all possible false claims about less harmful nicotine alternatives have already been spread, and that at some point, it would stop. If that’s the case, Olivér Várhelyi has proven otherwise with yet another misleading statement about vaping and nicotine pouches.

In un'intervista con Euractiv, Olivér Várhelyi claimed that vaping, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco products are “100 percent” as harmful as cigarettes.

This statement clearly contradicts decades of scientific evidence and risks scaring millions of smokers away from switching to less harmful alternatives. Still, it is worth addressing and debunking what Várhelyi said.

Is vaping really as harmful as smoking?

Più di 100 organisations and government institutions agree that vaping is less harmful than smoking. Among them is Salute pubblica in Inghilterra, which stated that vaping is around 95 percent less harmful than smoking. The Royal College of Physicians also concluded that “the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5 percent of the harm from smoking tobacco,” adding that, in the interest of public health, e-cigarettes and other non-tobacco nicotine products should be promoted as alternatives to smoking.

These studies not only show that vaping is less harmful than smoking, but also that it helps people quit cigarettes. Cochrane’s latest review on e-cigarettes confirms this conclusion.

There is extensive research supporting these findings. Sadly, Várhelyi’s claim ignores this evidence and misleads the public about real-world risks.

It is, however, not surprising that policymakers like Várhelyi make such statements, especially when they openly say they follow WHO guidance. Anyone who followed the FCTC COP11 in 2025 will know that the WHO has been dismissive of the benefits that less harmful nicotine alternatives can offer.

This is despite the fact that FCTC Article 1(d) defines tobacco control as including “harm reduction strategies” aimed at reducing tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke.

Even at the WHO level, during COP11 this year, several countries, including Albania, Serbia, North Macedonia, New Zealand, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and others, spoke up in support of evidence-based policies and called for decisions grounded in solid science. 

As an institution that’s meant to be highly reputable, the WHO’s role in shaping global health policy carries significant weight. That is why it is deeply concerning to see the organisation promote a prohibition-focused and misleading narrative. In practice, this approach fuels misinformation and encourages policymakers around the world to repeat false claims about less harmful nicotine alternatives, despite the growing body of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Despite the EU’s official goal of achieving a smoke-free generation, defined as less than 5 percent smoking prevalence by 2040, the bloc is far off track. According to the latest Eurobarometro survey, at the current pace the EU would only reach this target around the year 2100. Experts E consumer groups have warned that the EU’s refusal to embrace less harmful alternatives is a key reason for this slow progress.

Commissioner Várhelyi owes it to consumers and the public to correct his statements, engage with independent scientists and consumer representatives, and commit to evidence-based communication on nicotine. The EU cannot credibly fight smoking while its own Health Commissioner spreads misinformation that keeps smokers using the most dangerous product of all: cigarettes.

It is time for the EU to finally support what works. And that is not prohibition, but harm reduction.