Experts in tobacco have urged the European Union (EU) to promote a proportionate regulation based on the risk profile of nicotine products, being more restrictive for combustion products like cigarettes and encouraging consumers to switch to less harmful products.
This was highlighted during the webinar ‘The evolving regulatory landscape in the EU: opportunities and challenges’ organized by the International Organization for Tobacco Control and Harm Reduction.
During the event, Clive Bates, director of Counterfactual, pointed out that the damage caused by cigarettes "is enormous" and that smoking prematurely kills about 8 million people worldwide each year, with 700,000 of them in the EU alone.
He mentioned that there is currently a complex framework to address the issue of smoking, and the EU has powerful tools that, however, tend to focus on prohibition and stigmatization.
Bates emphasized that people "smoke for nicotine but die from tar." He highlighted that there are now a variety of products that do not contain tar but do contain nicotine, and are much safer because they do not involve combustion: heated tobacco, electronic cigarettes (vaporizers), oral nicotine products (nicotine pouches).
NEW PRODUCTS: "LESS HARMFUL THAN CIGARETTES"
"By not burning, the user reduces exposure to toxic chemicals found in cigarette smoke when burned, and we have sufficient evidence to show that these new products are less harmful than cigarettes," he asserted.
He stressed the need to consider the unintended responses consumers may have in terms of their behavior changes, such as returning to cigarettes, which are the most toxic, promoting illicit trade, or seeking unsupervised alternatives.
Therefore, Bates highlighted the possibility that regulations may become so severe that consumers may not be able to obtain what they want legally. "We must maintain the legal market concept in tobacco control," he stated.
"The only type of regulation that works for public health is regulation proportionate to the risk of each product. They should be much more restrictive for combustion products like cigarettes and, at the same time, measures that protect consumers and encourage them to switch to less harmful products. And, of course, protect minors from their use."
"VAPORIZERS SHOULD ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO SMOKERS"
On the other hand, Andrzej Fal, head of the Department of Allergy, Pulmonary Diseases, and Internal Diseases at the National Institute of Medicine of the Ministry of the Interior in Warsaw, expressed the opinion that "vaporizers should only be available to smokers and to help them quit smoking."
He also noted that, regarding the new European directive, states must conduct studies on the harm of each product, understanding that such analysis takes time. He emphasized that countries should base their policies on the international experience of other countries, like Sweden.
He also stated that Member States should apply special taxes and other fiscal tools to set cigarette prices high enough to make them less affordable, suggesting that introducing a minimum price relative to each country’s average salary could be useful.
Andrzej Fal stated that initially, price differences should be based on study results and established according to the principle of "less harm, less tax."
"It is about making less harmful alternatives more easily accessible, because otherwise, people will not quit smoking. There are not so many smokers who will quit overnight," he said, adding that taxes should be used as a health tool.
"HEATED TOBACCO CAN OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE"
Meanwhile, Damian Sweeney, founding member of the consumer advocacy association New Nicotine Alliance Ireland (NNA Ireland), stated that one of the EU’s flagship regulations is its cancer plan, aiming to achieve a smoke-free EU by 2040.
"And in my opinion, that is the wrong goal," he observed. "It should be a smoke-free goal because we know that one of the main causes of cancer is the smoke generated by burning tobacco. For example, heated tobacco can offer a way out or an alternative."
He pointed out that if the goal is to fight cancer, the focus should be on combustion products, not on products that can actually help smokers quit cigarettes and reduce risk, like smoke-free products (heated tobacco, electronic cigarettes, nicotine pouches, etc.).
For Sweeney, "restricting or banning products that are helping people will not contribute to that goal," so he emphasized regulation based on the risk profile of nicotine products.
He explained that another important point is the accessibility and price of the product since nicotine alternatives "should be available where combustion cigarettes are."
"We know the unintended consequences when these products are banned: illicit trade in products, leading to a lack of health control over them, and people returning to the most harmful product: cigarettes. That is why it is important for regulators to understand the needs of smokers," he concluded.