According to the scientists, the Commissioner’s incorrectly equates that the use of smoke-free products has comparable risks to smoking cigarettes. There is no scientific basis for this claim, and a strong scientific basis to assess smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products as posing only a small fraction of the risk of cigarettes. They argue that such claims could influence public health policy, taxation and the EU’s broader regulatory approach.
The signatories, experts in medicine, toxicology, epidemiology and addiction science, urge the President of the Commission to take immediate steps to correct what they describe as Commissioner Várhelyi’s “dangerous, false and misleading” statements. They stress that policymaking on issues affecting millions of European citizens must be based on scientifically substantiated evidence. “European institutions can either support this position or take their responsibilities in policymaking seriously. They cannot do both,” the scientists write in their letter, which was also shared with the College of Commissioners, representatives of the European Council and Members of the European Parliament.
The scientists are affiliated with recognised medical centres, universities and policy institutions in countries including Poland, Switzerland, Austria, France, Latvia, the Netherlands, Hungary, Ireland, Norway, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Italy. They warn that the statements could influence European public health policy, tobacco taxation and the functioning of the single market. They call on President von der Leyen to ensure that European policies are grounded in evidence-based risk differentiation and to prevent regulatory approaches that could undermine proportionality in the forthcoming revision of tobacco taxation rules.
The intervention comes at a time when discussions are under way in Brussels on revising the Tobacco Taxation Directive (TTD), and considering possible changes to the Tobacco Products Directive, (TPD). According to the scientists, presenting the risks of combustible and non-combustible products as equivalent could lead to policies that fail to reflect the real differences between them. The letter also notes that treating all nicotine products as carrying the same level of risk could undermine the principle of proportionality that should guide both regulation and taxation.
The scientists also warn that excessive or misguided regulation of the market could strengthen illicit trade. They point to the risk that the rapidly expanding market for new nicotine products could be taken over by illegal products originating from third countries, including Russia and China. In their view, this development could affect both the functioning of the single market and public health if policies fail to differentiate adequately between product risk levels.
The arguments set out in the letter are reinforced by a recent institutional intervention at European level. In a related opinion, the European Economic and Social Committee, (EESC), supported the revision of the Tobacco Taxation Directive, noting that the European framework must adapt to market developments, the emergence of new nicotine products and their differentiation from cigarettes. The Committee also stresses that European policies should be based on clear differentiation of risk between products. It warns that misguided regulatory or taxation approaches could encourage illicit trade and create distortions within the single market.
For the scientists who signed the letter, the issue goes beyond the debate on tobacco taxation. It concerns the credibility of European policymaking in public health and the consequences that related decisions may have for millions of European citizens. At a time when Brussels is considering how to regulate the new generation of nicotine products in the European market, the scientists argue that policy must be based on clear scientific evidence and a properly substantiated assessment of risk.