Europe stands at a crucial crossroads: will taxation win and ruthlessly undermine harm reduction? Or will common sense and science ultimately prevail and save lives through safer alternatives?
Eighty-three leading public health specialists have sounded the alarm over the European Commission’s proposed revision of the Tobacco Excise Directive (TED), warning that the current approach risks stalling—if not reversing—progress in reducing smoking-related harm across Europe.
At the heart of the controversy is the Commission’s decision to group lower-risk alternatives such as vaping devices, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco together with combustible cigarettes under the same taxation framework. THR experts argue this “one-size-fits-all” approach undermines harm reduction by making safer products less affordable, effectively nudging consumers back toward traditional smoking—the single largest cause of preventable deaths on the continent.
The open letter from health experts highlights what they describe as a worrying trend: EU officials dismissing or downplaying scientific evidence on reduced-risk products. Statements from senior policymakers suggesting that vaping carries equal or greater risks than smoking have drawn fierce criticism, with experts warning that such claims are misleading the public and risk misinforming future regulation.
Negating and levying what works
Countries like the UK, Sweden, and New Zealand offer counter examples, showing that pragmatic policies embracing harm reduction can achieve historic declines in smoking. Sweden, in particular, is on the cusp of becoming Europe’s first smoke-free country, thanks largely to alternatives such as snus and nicotine pouches. Advocates insist that taxation should reflect relative risks, not penalize smokers for choosing less harmful pathways.
In fact, the debate has intensified following the European Commission’s confirmation that tax revenues from Sweden’s oral tobacco product, snus, will be included in future EU funding. Under the proposed 2028–2034 budget, 15% of national tobacco tax income across all member states would be redirected to Brussels via the TEDOR mechanism.
Although Sweden has in the past negotiated a permanent exemption allowing domestic sales of snus when it joined the EU in 1995, the Commission has now clarified that this exemption does not extend to taxation. This announcement has sparked backlash in Stockholm, where Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson has denounced the move as undermining national sovereignty. Public frustration is mounting, with many Swedes viewing the measure as a direct attack on a harm reduction product that has been central to the country’s success in driving down smoking rates.
However, resistance is not confined to Sweden. Other countries including Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Romania have also voiced disapproval of the TEDOR plan, signalling broader political challenges for the Commission’s budget ambitions.
How taxation undermines harm reduction
Using taxation as a public health tool is of course a well established, albeit perhaps outdated, strategy. In Rwanda, officials point to success in reducing smoking prevalence from 12.9% in 2012 to 7.1%, following the introduction of higher tobacco taxes in 2013. Authorities there argue that raising taxes triggers a chain reaction: lower consumption leads to reduced demand, which in turn curbs production.
But critics caution that the European context is different. While taxation may deter consumption in some regions, high excise duties in Europe have already fostered thriving illicit trade. Real-world data show that punitive taxes often drive consumers toward the black market, where unregulated products pose even greater health risks and deprive governments of revenue. Australia, where the recently implemented vape framework has led to a fully fledged, thriving, criminal network, is a tragic yet prime example of this.
The illicit trade problem is precisely what the WHO’s Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, adopted in 2012, sought to address. Yet the EU’s current approach risks exacerbating the very issue the Protocol was designed to solve. By treating reduced-risk products as if they were conventional cigarettes, the Commission is likely to fuel underground markets while discouraging adult smokers from switching to safer alternatives.
Public health experts insist that Europe cannot afford to conflate tobacco control with prohibition. Differentiated tax structures that make reduced-risk products more affordable have already proven effective in cutting smoking rates elsewhere. Applying the same tax burden to cigarettes and to harm reduction products undermines this progress, risks confusing the public, and may ultimately cost lives.
Smarter taxes, safer futures: Europe needs to change lanes immediately
With more than 700,000 Europeans dying from smoking-related illness each year, the stakes could not be higher. As the letter to the Commission makes clear, evidence-based harm reduction should guide taxation and regulation—not political posturing or revenue priorities.
The coming debate over the Tobacco Excise Directive will be more than a budgetary squabble—it will be a defining moment for Europe’s public health strategy. Policymakers face a choice: double down on punitive taxation that risks fuelling illicit markets and discouraging harm reduction, or adopt smarter, evidence-based approaches that acknowledge the continuum of risk across nicotine products.
For advocates of tobacco harm reduction, the answer is clear. If Europe is serious about saving lives, it must align taxation with science, not politics, and ensure that adult smokers retain affordable access to safer alternatives.