In a surprising and welcome turn of events, the European Parliament has rejected a resolution that would have recommended extending outdoor smoking and vaping bans. This decision marks a significant victory for consumer rights, evidence-based policymaking, and harm reduction strategies. 

The proposed resolution would have called for an extension of smoking and vaping bans to key outdoor areas, including outdoor restaurants and cafes. However, MEPs listened to scientific evidence and consumer voices, choosing to reject this overly restrictive approach.

 Why does this matter? 

The rejection of this resolution is preventing further misinformation about vaping. Currently, a majority of smokers incorrectly believe that vaping is at least as harmful as smoking. Equating vaping with smoking in public policy would have reinforced this misconception, potentially deterring millions of smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives.

This decision aligns with the scientific consensus. Vaping is 95% inqas ta 'ħsara than smoking as well as the most effective smoking cessation method. The exposure to toxicants that promote cancer, lung disease and cardiovascular disease in the use of vaping products is substantially lower than that of smoking, with the risk of cancer from vaping being only 0.4% of that from smoking.

These differences in the health risks of vaping and smoking for users are even greater for bystanders. When a person vapes, the device produces a vapour that is inhaled directly into the lungs, but no vapour is produced between puffs. Some of the vapour is exhaled by the user after each puff and released into the environment, but it exposes bystanders only to nicotine (95% of nicotine remains in the vapers body) –  a virtually harmless substance – and not to combustion toxicants. On the contrary, cigarettes constantly release smoke into the environment when lit and expose bystanders to harm. Moreover, the exposure to nicotine from second-hand vaping has been found to be negligible. The current body of evidence suggests that the risks of outdoor exposure to e-cigarette aerosols are likely to be significantly lower than those associated with traditional cigarette smoke.

While this resolution would have only been a recommendation for member states, its rejection sends a powerful message ahead of the upcoming Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) review. Had it passed, the European Commission would have used it to justify including outdoor smoking and vaping bans in the TPD, which would have made such restrictions mandatory for member states.

The World Vapers’ Alliance (WVA) recently delivered over 100,000 signatures to the European Parliament, calling for a shift in the EU’s approach to vaping and harm reduction. This rejection of the outdoor ban aligns with the concerns raised by these citizens and harm reduction advocates. 

This decision by the European Parliament demonstrates that when presented with facts and consumer voices, policymakers can make decisions that respect individual freedoms and scientific evidence. It opens the door for more balanced discussions about effective ways to reduce smoking rates while respecting adult consumers’ right to choose less harmful alternatives.

As the EU continues to develop its tobacco control policies, it must prioritise evidence-based approaches that support harm reduction and recognise the potential of vaping as a tool to help smokers quit. This rejection of the outdoor vaping ban is a step in the right direction, showing that science and consumer choice can prevail over misguided regulations.