EU Intensifies Multi-Front Effort to Consolidate Control Over Tobacco and Nicotine Policy

European institutions are increasing their efforts to expand regulatory control over tobacco and nicotine products. Developments in Brussels and at the World Health Organization’s COP11 meeting show that the European Union is prepared to use every available route to shape policy across the continent. The combination of tax reform, product regulation and participation in global negotiations reflects an approach that reaches far beyond traditional EU frameworks.

Inside the Union, two major initiatives are driving current debate. The revision of the Tobacco Excise Directive and the introduction of the Tobacco Excise Duty on Raw Tobacco would raise minimum excise rates on cigarettes and extend new tax obligations to heated tobacco, vaping liquids and nicotine pouches. Raw tobacco, which until now has largely been governed by national rules, would fall under an EU level system through TEDOR. Governments in Italy, Greece, Spain and Poland have signalled concerns about the impact on agricultural regions and small businesses involved in processing and distribution. Several capitals have also questioned whether the reforms limit domestic flexibility in tax policy, an area that has historically remained under national authority.

This internal legislative agenda has unfolded alongside an assertive role for the EU in international negotiations. At COP11 in Geneva, which gathered 160 parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the EU delegation was active throughout discussions on emerging nicotine products. WHO officials and supporting NGOs promoted wide ranging restrictions on vapes, heated tobacco and nicotine pouches. These included proposals related to flavours, packaging requirements, environmental rules concerning filters and device components and expanded liability tools.

A leaked internal document later revealed that EU officials had encouraged the delegation to support language promoting prohibitions or strict limitations on all novel nicotine products. The text called for restrictions on manufacturing, importation, sale, distribution and use. Similar proposals had been removed from the EU’s official mandate during preparatory discussions in Brussels. Once the document circulated among delegations, several member states described the situation as a procedural breach and questioned whether the Commission and the Danish EU Council Presidency were attempting to secure outcomes in Geneva that lacked consensus among governments at home.

The incident exposed existing divisions within the EU. Some governments argued in favour of maintaining room for harm reduction strategies, citing national results achieved through regulated alternatives to smoking. Sweden’s near elimination of smoking through smokeless products was frequently referenced. Greece and Czechia pointed to reductions in smoking after adopting policies that incorporated lower risk products. Other member states supported more restrictive positions, noting youth uptake concerns and environmental risks associated with disposable devices and filter waste.

As the week progressed, many of the most ambitious elements of the COP11 proposals were scaled back. Several provisions were reframed as voluntary measures that governments may consider rather than as binding commitments under the convention. A proposed filter ban was withdrawn. The final decisions focused on environmental objectives, funding for tobacco control programs and liability mechanisms under Article 19, while broader regulatory proposals were postponed to COP12 in 2027.

Even with these changes, the EU’s approach prompted ongoing debate. Critics argued that the Commission’s willingness to support restrictive language internationally, despite objections from several member states, underscored a readiness to pursue regulatory change through external forums when progress in Brussels is more difficult. Observers also noted the influence of Brussels based public health organisations that support restrictive approaches to nicotine products, are active in both EU policymaking and WHO consultations and receive funding from EU programs.

The next phase of Europe’s tobacco and nicotine policy will be shaped by the interplay between domestic legislation and international commitments. As work continues on TED, TEDOR and planned updates to product regulations, governments will need to determine how much authority should rest with EU institutions and how much flexibility should remain at national level. The direction of EU policy will depend on whether member states reinforce the trend toward centralisation or opt to maintain a more diverse regulatory landscape across the region.