The EC faces calls to reflect evidence on harm reduction, illicit trade, retail impacts and differing product risks as it prepares a revision of the Tobacco Products Directive and Tobacco Advertising Directive
The European Commission’s Open Public Consultation on the future of EU tobacco and nicotine regulation has closed, bringing to an end a process that could help shape the most significant overhaul of European tobacco rules in more than a decade.
The consultation, launched on 22 May 2026, closed on Friday 14 August. It followed a separate Call for Evidence launched on 18 May and forms part of preparations for a revision of both the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and the Tobacco Advertising Directive (TAD).
The Commission has said the feedback gathered through the process will inform a revision of the legislative framework planned before the end of 2026.
Evidence, risk and proportionality
One of the central questions facing the Commission is whether future rules should distinguish more clearly between combustible cigarettes and non-combustible products according to their respective risk profiles.
Supporters of tobacco harm reduction argue that regulation should recognise differences between products and the potential role of alternatives for adult smokers who would otherwise continue smoking cigarettes.
Public-health organisations and other stakeholders, meanwhile, have raised concerns over nicotine addiction, youth uptake and the rapid development of products and marketing techniques that were not envisaged when the existing legislation was adopted.
Dr Fernando Bueno, of the Tobacco Harm Reduction Platform, told EU Reporter that the EC has a golden opportunity to tackle smoking and an obligation to follow the evidence. The recent call for evidence showed strong opposition to treating all tobacco and nicotine products as equivalent.
“More than 100 international experts, supported by 130 scientific publications, have urged the Commission to recognise a continuum of risk. Yet this evidence does not appear to have been fully considered”, he said.
“Equating all nicotine and tobacco products ignores a fundamental fact: combustion causes most of the harm from smoking. Science must be at the heart of tobacco regulation”, he added.
Dr Antonios Nestor, Director of the European Policy Innovation Council (EPIC), said the Commission now faced a test of whether the evidence submitted during the consultation would be reflected in its eventual proposals.
“When evidence is selectively used, the relationship between taxation and illicit trade is overlooked, and products with fundamentally different risk profiles are treated as though they were identical, public health policy risks giving way to ideology”, he explained.
According to Dr Nestor, that has costs and consequences. Poorly calibrated policies can sustain smoking, expand illicit markets, strengthen criminal networks, reduce public revenues, discourage innovation and restrict consumer choice without delivering the intended public health benefits.
“The responses to the call for evidence and the open public consultation show that many European citizens and stakeholders expect these trade-offs to be taken seriously. The question now is whether the Commission will listen and reflect the evidence in its proposals. Ultimately, that is a political choice”, he concluded.
Retailers question consultation design
Concerns have also been raised by organisations representing the retail and distribution sector over whether the consultation adequately reflected the practical consequences of future regulation.
Miguel Ángel Martínez, President of the European Confederation of Tobacco Retailers (CEDT), declared:
“With the closure of the Open Public Consultation, following CEDT’s active participation, we are concerned that the way the questionnaire was designed reflects a limited effort to capture the evidence, expertise and practical realities of the EU retail and distribution sector. As the revision of the Tobacco Products Directive could move forward, we ask that decisions are based on a balanced assessment of market realities and their consequences. Disproportionate measures risk undermining compliant retailers to the advantage of illicit channels.”
His intervention highlights another dimension of the debate: whether tougher regulation could have unintended consequences for legitimate retailers while creating greater incentives for consumers to turn to unregulated or illicit supply channels.
The issue of illicit trade is likely to feature prominently as the Commission considers future restrictions, product rules and taxation alongside its broader public-health objectives.
PMI urges Commission to consider consultation responses
Philip Morris International (PMI) has also called on the EC to take account of responses submitted during the consultation process.
In a statement supplied to EU Reporter, PMI characterised participation as unprecedented and said that, in its assessment, the vast majority of citizens taking part had expressed concerns about possible bans and restrictive regulation.
PMI said:
“We welcome the views of the unprecedented number of European citizens who took part in the European Commission’s Open Public Consultation and Call for Evidence on the revision of the EU rules on tobacco products and advertising.
The vast majority of these citizens expressed concerns about possible bans and restrictive regulations, as they would:
- Put jobs, economic growth and EU competitiveness at risk.
- Fuel illicit trade, empowering criminal networks, undermining legitimate businesses and depriving governments of valuable tax revenues.
- Incentivise consumers to continue using cigarettes rather than switching to alternatives that are significantly better for their health, if they do not quit.
The European Commission would disregard scientific evidence and undermine the credibility of the consultation itself if it decided not to take these views into account.
Different products carry different risks and should be regulated accordingly. Responsible regulation must be guided by science and real-world evidence, not ideology.”
PMI’s claims concerning the scale and balance of responses represent the company’s own assessment of the consultation and should be considered as such until the Commission publishes its own analysis of the submissions received.
Illicit trade and market consequences
The question of illicit trade sits at the intersection of several of the arguments now confronting policymakers.
Industry representatives, retailers and some policy specialists argue that disproportionate restrictions or sharp differences in taxation can push consumers towards illicit products, weakening legitimate businesses and depriving governments of tax revenue.
Public-health policymakers, by contrast, have long regarded taxation and restrictions on availability and promotion as important tools for reducing tobacco consumption.
The challenge for the Commission will therefore be to determine whether measures designed to reduce tobacco and nicotine use can achieve their intended public-health objectives without creating substantial unintended effects elsewhere in the market.
That question is particularly relevant where different categories of products may present different levels of risk, appeal to different groups of consumers and face differing levels of illicit competition.
What happens next?
The current TPD was adopted in 2014 and became applicable across EU member states in May 2016. It governs the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products, while the TAD sets restrictions on cross-border tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
Nevertheless, the market has changed substantially since the present framework was drawn up.
Electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco products, nicotine pouches and other new nicotine products have become increasingly prominent, raising questions about whether legislation written largely around conventional tobacco products remains suited to today’s market.
The EC’s evaluation of the existing legislative framework has concluded that EU tobacco-control measures have contributed to declining smoking rates and tobacco-related deaths, while also identifying challenges associated with the development and uptake of newer tobacco and nicotine products, particularly among young people.
The forthcoming revision is also linked to Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan and the EU objective of creating a “Tobacco-Free Generation”, under which tobacco use would fall below 5% of the population by 2040.
The closure of the consultation does not determine the content of the Commission’s eventual legislative proposal.
Instead, the responses to the Call for Evidence and Open Public Consultation will form part of a wider evidence base that is expected to include scientific research, economic analysis, public-health considerations and assessments of the operation of the existing rules.
The Commission will then have to decide how extensively the current TPD and TAD should be changed.
For advocates of tighter regulation, the priority is likely to remain reducing tobacco and nicotine consumption, limiting youth access and ensuring that newer products do not escape rules designed to protect public health.
For supporters of harm reduction and differentiated regulation, the key issue will be whether Brussels recognises differences between combustible cigarettes and non-combustible alternatives and regulates them proportionately.
Retailers will meanwhile be watching closely for measures that affect legitimate sales channels and the competitiveness of small businesses, particularly where tighter restrictions could influence illicit trade.
With the consultation closed and a legislative revision proposal planned before the end of 2026, the argument now moves decisively into the policymaking phase.
The central question is no longer simply what European citizens, businesses, health organisations and other stakeholders told Brussels.
It is how much of that evidence the EC ultimately chooses to reflect in its proposals.
Photo by Robert Ruggiero on Unsplash