Next Commission will make ‘political’ decisions on tobacco directive, EU official says
“Political decisions” about the future of novel tobacco and nicotine products in Europe will be made by the next European Commission, EU spokesperson Stefan de Keersmaecker told EURACTIV; punting tobacco firmly beyond June’s elections.
The EU executive is currently conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the EU legislative framework on tobacco control, the so-called Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), including via wide public consultations.
The existing Directive covers traditional cigarettes and novel products such as e-cigarettes and heated tobacco and has imposed severe restrictions.
‘Novel products’ advocates claim that the new products are significantly less harmful than traditional cigarettes and therefore should be treated differently.
On the other hand, the EU and the World Health Organization (WHO) insist that “less harmful” means “still harmful” and in addition, point out that no one is aware of the long-term health effects.
However, the Directive does not include new products that emerged after the EU legislation was adopted; products which do not contain tobacco, such as the nicotine pouches which are for oral use.
Due to the lack of an EU framework, Member States have regulated them differently: Finland and Denmark have legalised them in the market while Belgium and the Netherlands have banned them.
Keersmaecker said the possible revision of the Tobacco Products Directive and what it will cover will depend on the findings of the evaluation and the public consultations, and will be subject to a thorough impact assessment.
“The political decisions in this respect will be taken by the next Commission, in light of the above preparatory steps,” the EU official noted.
The snus case
Another tobacco product which has been seeking its place in the EU market is Sweden’s snus.
Snus is a moist oral tobacco product with roots dating back to the 18th century, which was banned in 1992, before Stockholm joined the EU.
A Commission spokesperson told EURACTIV last month that snus will be part of the directive’s evaluation.
For Patrik Strömer, Secretary-General of the Swedish Snus Manufacturers’ Association, it would be challenging for Brussels to take a step back now for two reasons.
“One is that it’s very difficult to admit that you’ve been wrong for a long time, and the second […] is that they don’t want another source of nicotine because nicotine is an addictive substance,” Strömer told Euractiv.
Strömer explained that contrary to 30 years ago, the snus case is currently a “live experiment.”
“We’re able to compare not only the use of snus in Sweden, but also the prevalence of smoking compared to other European countries. And it turns out, after three decades, Sweden is the European champion.”
At the EU level, according to Eurostat data, Sweden has the lowest smoking rates and is estimated to be the first country to become smoke-free – which in practice means less than 5% of the adult population smoking.
In a recent parliamentary question to EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Stella Kyriakides, socialist MEP Nicolás González Casares asked whether nicotine pouches will be banned, as is the case of snus.
“The growing popularity of nicotine pouches raises serious public health concerns and represents an increasing challenge for the internal market,” Kyriakides replied.
According to the European Commission, nicotine pouches are pouches for oral use containing nicotine, while nicotine patches are patches containing nicotine which are put on the skin.
Neither of those products contain tobacco.
Moreover, nicotine patches are used in nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and the WHO lists nicotine patches in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines products.
However, snus companies have also started producing the so-called “All White” snus (or nicotine pouches), meaning they don’t contain tobacco but only nicotine.
David Eberhard, a psychiatrist specialised in addictions, told EURACTIV that there are people addicted to snus as nicotine is “obviously a dependent drug.”
“But if you can change a drug that is really harmful to you, to something that is not harmful to you in the same way, then we achieve the harm reduction,” he said.
[By Sarantis Michalopoulos I Edited by Brian Maguire | Euractiv’s Advocacy Lab ]
Read more with Euractiv
