LATEST ALERTS
The European Parliament has failed to reach an agreement over the European Commission’s proposal for a revision of the 2009 Council recommendation on smoke-free environments.
This outcome of the European Parliament’s discussions on 28th November means it will not provide an official opinion on the proposal nor will it position itself in favour of or against the proposal.
The proposal, adopted in September 2024 by the European Commission, seeks to extend the existing restrictions to novel inhalable products and to introduce new areas in which their consumption would be prohibited.
During the parliamentary debate on the Commission’s proposal, every political party represented in the European Parliament had a chance to have its say.
While political parties shared concern over the lack of a proper impact assessment accompanying the Commission’s proposal, which was based on the same impact assessment as the 2009 recommendation, the issue of whether or not novel inhalable products should be included in the scope of the proposal unveiled diverging views.
With the failure to reach a common consensus, political parties have sent a scathing message on their position over novel tobacco and nicotine products – suggesting that future parliamentary negotiations on the revision of the EU tobacco control framework will be agitated.
Rightist bloc vs leftist bloc
As shown in our regulatory report, right-wing parties tend to be keener to accept the harm-reduction argument than left-wing parties – or at least more reluctant to enact severe measures, although exceptions exist.
This argument has been clearly illustrated by the lack of consensus on the Commission’s proposal. The rightist bloc argues that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that novel products should be included within the scope of the smoke-free proposal, whereas the leftist bloc advocates for including them.
Indeed, the centre-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) blame right-wing parties for the lack of consensus. According to the S&D, “a coalition of the Conservative European People’s Party and far-right groups blocked critical recommendations to extend public bans against the harms of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products”, which forced the S&D to reject the watered-down proposal from the rightist group.
It is clear then that the S&D wanted to include novel products in the scope of the proposal, while the rightist bloc maintained a more cautious approach.
European Conservatives and Reformists (right)
The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) is the political party that has advocated the most for a more lenient treatment of novel tobacco and nicotine products in the proposal.
In its proposed amendments, the group “recalls the need for policies to stick to the principle of harm reduction and recalls that new and emerging products may allow smokers to progressively quit smoking”, regretting at the same time that the European Commission’s proposal does not clearly differentiate between the application of restrictions for traditional tobacco products and new and emerging products.
European People’s Party Group (centre-right)
The European People’s Party Group (EPP), as the group holding the most seats in the European Parliament, drafted an initial proposal reiterating that electronic cigarettes could allow some smokers to gradually give up smoking, and considered that both the European Commission’s proposal and national provisions should take this into account.
The EPP then drafted a joint resolution, alongside Renew (centre-right) and the Greens/European Free Alliance (centre-left), that did not contain any express reference to the harm-reduction argument but acknowledged that further assessment is needed on the risk of novel tobacco and nicotine products.
However, the EPP then proposed amendments to the joint resolution seeking to include its reiteration that e-cigarettes could allow some smokers to progressively quit smoking, but considering, at the same time, that e-cigarettes should not be attractive to young people and non-smokers.
Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (centre-left)
The S&D did not expressly propose any amendments to the parliamentary resolution, but its rejection of the EPP proposal, which sought to embrace the harm-reduction argument, hints that the S&D is keen to treat all tobacco and nicotine products equally.
Furthermore, the S&D seemed satisfied with the European Commission’s proposal, which envisages the same restrictions for novel inhalable products and other traditional tobacco products.
This, alongside the EPP’s expressed position, seems to align with our conclusion that right-wing parties are more likely to enact more moderate measures than left-wing parties when it comes to novel tobacco and nicotine products.
The Greens/European Free Alliance (centre-left) and Renew (centre-right)
Similarly to the S&D, neither the Greens nor Renew positioned themselves as clearly as other political parties. Neither of the two groups proposed any amendments to parliamentary resolutions, but their participation in the joint resolution that the EPP led may hint at the groups’ positions over novel products.
As outlined above, the joint resolution does not expressly embrace the harm-reduction argument of novel products, but the fact that it calls for further assessment of the risks of novel products suggests the groups remain skeptical when it comes to straightforwardly treating all products the same.
The Left (left)
The Left, rather than expressing its position on the harms of novel products over traditional ones, seems to be concerned with the tobacco industry in general.
In its proposed amendments to the joint resolution led by the EPP, the Left states that “tobacco control efforts are systematically opposed by the tobacco industry”, while seeking to remind that, in December 2023, the European Ombudsman found the Commission failed to ensure transparency across all its departments regarding meetings with tobacco lobbyists.
Additionally, the Left argues that the tobacco industry continues to claim there is no harm from e-cigarettes and other nicotine products, while “concealing the addictive nature of their products, directly targeting children and young adults with advertisements for their harmful products”.
Patriots for Europe (right)
Back in June 2024, we concluded that the upsurge of the far right might be seen as a positive development for the industry, due to its reluctance to transfer extensive competences to the EU.
This has now been apparent in the proposed amendments by Patriots for Europe who, instead of positioning themselves over the harm-reduction debate, reject any intervention from the European Commission on tobacco policies. Indeed, the group seeks to “stress that public health is and should remain primarily a competence of the Member States”.
– Sergi Riudalbàs Clemente ECigIntelligence staff
Image: AI-generated
