Nicotine Science and Policy

The status quo in tobacco policy has winners — and they are rarely the smokers who need better options. When cigarettes remain easy to buy while safer nicotine products are restricted, taxed or stigmatised, the market continues to favour combustion. Public health should ask who benefits when harm reduction is blocked and misinformation spreads. A system that preserves cigarette use while limiting alternatives is not neutral; it protects the most harmful product by default.

The Commission's response to the French nicotine pouch ban overlooking internal market principles is concerning. Mutual recognition allows products lawfully sold in one EU country to be sold in another. However, the Commission's approval of France's ban on oral nicotine products contradicts this. Nicotine pouches are considered less harmful than cigarettes, as evidenced by the FDA's reviews. The ban disregards scientific evidence and treats pouches as equally risky as cigarettes, which is not supported. Better regulation, proportionality, and evidence-based policies are needed. France's ban challenges EU principles, and the Commission should reassess its stance to protect consumer access to lower-risk alternatives.

International experts warn of an anti-science campaign misrepresenting safer nicotine products, leading smokers to believe vaping is as harmful as smoking. The false perceptions hinder smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives, increasing health risks. Surveys show a growing number of smokers hold misconceptions about vaping, with many believing it is as harmful as smoking. Few smokers are aware that vaping is less harmful. Dr. Delon Human stresses the importance of accurate information and access to safer alternatives, citing Sweden's success in reducing smoking rates through such measures. Mistaken beliefs about vaping's dangers fuel a deadly cycle of cigarette addiction.

War changes the meaning of cigarettes. What may look like a simple consumer product can become a coping mechanism, a source of routine and even a form of social currency under extreme stress. That reality does not make smoking safe, but it does show why public health must understand behaviour before trying to control it. Harm reduction starts by recognising why people use nicotine — especially when life is shaped by trauma, pressure and uncertainty.

Europe is moving towards a more restrictive era for safer nicotine products — and adult smokers could pay the price. A new wave of prohibition may be presented as protection, but it risks making legal, lower-risk alternatives harder to access while cigarettes remain widely available. The setback is not only regulatory; it is a failure to distinguish between nicotine use and smoking-related harm. Europe needs a course correction before fear-based policy locks smokers out of better options.