Two tobacco control consultations that demand your attention

I’m sure there are many of you like me who are deeply cynical about public consultations. They often feel like political tick box exercises allowing the issuing authority from local councils to international organisations to say they have ‘consulted with the people’, when in truth they knew exactly what they were going to do from the get-go.

However, there are many governments across the world where the idea of ‘free and fair elections’ is anathema, let alone consulting the public on anything. So in more democratic societies, and like the moral imperative to vote, there is an obligation to submit your view on matters of importance to you even if the best outcome is no more than the powers-that-be receive submissions they don’t like.

And so in that spirit, there are two public consultations with implications that threaten to impede the progress of tobacco harm reduction if the imperative is to encourage current adult smokers to switch away from smoking aided by using safer nicotine products.

In order of consultation deadline:

The first consultation has come from the EU Commission with a deadline of 14th August and titled: Tobacco products and tobacco advertising – revision of EU rules.

There are sixteen questions in the form of statements to answer with gradations between ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ and ‘don’t know’.

The European Tobacco Harm Reduction Association (ETHRA) has posted a detailed critique of the questionnaire which is essentially poorly constructed and biased towards an exaggerated concern about youth vaping over the health and wellbeing of the one hundred million EU citizens who smoke.

To highlight some key concerns:

  1. There is inadequate breadth or subtlety of available answers. There are multiple questions for which the only credible answer is “it depends”;
  2. Inappropriate aggregation of very different products. Multiple questions group together all tobacco and nicotine products as if they have the same risks and consequences, and that all products should be regulated in the same way as the most dangerous products;
  3. No recognition of likely ‘unintended consequences’ of tighter regulation (which could mostly be predicted anyway);
  4. Missing counterfactual to youth vaping: many young people would otherwise have smoked;
  5. A key question missing from the survey concerns respondents’ risk perceptions. If they believe for example that vaping is as or more dangerous than smoking, then this will influence their responses.

The full briefing can be found at: https://ethra.co/news/187-impossible-by-design-the-eu-survey-on-future-tobacco-and-nicotine-policy

A group of European advocate organisations filed a complaint to the EU Ombudsman making the following key points about major deficiencies in the consultation document:

  1. The use of a single “young people” category spanning ages 10 to 24, combining children with adults who are lawful consumers in every Member State;
  2. The treatment of products of materially different established harm as a single regulatory category in questions concerning restrictive measures; and the use of an agree/disagree response format;
  3. In a majority of substantive questions, contested propositions are presented as fact.

The letter can be found at (with an option for an English translation): https://acvoda.nl/2026/07/27/acvoda-dient-klacht-in-bij-de-europese-ombudsman-over-eu-enquete-tabak-en-nicotineklacht-over-eu-initiatief-17612-ingediend-bij-de-ombudsman/

Overall, the EU is pushing member countries into a situation where restrictions have already caused some inevitable outcomes. The Netherlands provides a useful case study because it has adopted some of Europe's stricter policies, including a ban on non-tobacco e-liquid flavours (effective January 2024) and strong restrictions on advertising. There is good evidence of increased cross border purchasing from Germany and Belgium coupled with some evidence in the growth of illicit and informal markets.

The EU Consultation can be found at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/17612-Tobacco-products-and-tobacco-advertising-revision-of-EU-rules/public-consultation_en

The second consultation is UK specific: Proposals for regulating tobacco, vaping and nicotine product packaging, device appearance and retail displays, to implement the Tobacco and Vapes Act (closes 02 October 2026).

Given that the UK has in general terms been more supportive of THR than the EU, the stated rationale here is more balanced although still weighted towards the youth angle:

“We want to reduce the appeal of these products, particularly to children and young people, while supporting adult smokers to quit.”

Hopefully a policy balance can be achieved, but here are some pointers as to the risks of over-regulation and of trying to pull in two different directions at once:

The main risk of tightening regulations too far is that measures designed to reduce youth appeal could also make nicotine alternatives less visible, less usable, or less obviously different from cigarettes for adult smokers trying to switch. The UK consultation itself frames the policy goal as balancing reduced youth appeal with support for smokers to quit, so over-restriction could work against that if it blurs product differences or adds avoidable friction for adult users.

Key risks:

  1. Reduced switching appeal for adults. If vaping and nicotine products are made too plain, too hidden, or too similar to tobacco products, adult smokers may see them as less attractive alternatives to cigarettes, which could weaken a route away from smoking;
  2. Confusing product differentiation. The consultation says part of the aim is to make vapes look less like toys or sweets while keeping them distinct from tobacco. Overly tight appearance rules could flatten those distinctions and make the less harmful alternative harder to recognise;
  3. Undermining visibility in shops. Retail display restrictions can reduce youth exposure, but if displays are tightened beyond what is needed, adult smokers may have less opportunity to notice products, compare options, or identify legal quit-supporting products at point of sale;
  4. Push toward illicit or unregulated products. When regulated products become harder to identify or buy, some consumers may drift toward informal or illicit channels, where age checks, safety controls, and product standards are weaker;
  5. Weakening incentives to quit smoking. The consultation explicitly says vaping can help adult smokers quit and that measures should help create a smoke-free UK. If regulation over-corrects, it may reduce the practical usefulness of vapes as a cessation aid for adults;
  6. Harder access for adult smokers who are least engaged. People who are not already motivated to switch may be especially sensitive to visibility and convenience, so heavy restrictions on packaging and display can make harm reduction less effective for the groups most in need of it.

Packaging and device appearance

The government proposes plain packaging for a wider range of tobacco-related products and tighter rules on device appearance, including limits on colours, branding, screens, and imitation designs. The risk is that if these rules are applied without enough nuance, products that are meant to look like lower-risk alternatives may become too stripped back to act as a clear step away from smoking for adults. That is especially relevant for vaping, because the consultation acknowledges vaping is less harmful than smoking and can help smokers quit. In practice, the challenge is to remove child-appeal cues without making the products look so generic that adult smokers lose a reason to choose them.

Retail display

The consultation proposes restricting the shop display of vaping, nicotine, herbal smoking, and related tobacco products to reduce appeal, especially to children. The risk is that tighter display rules may also reduce spontaneous adult uptake of switching products, because point-of-sale visibility is one of the main ways smokers become aware of available alternatives. If display rules are too severe, they can also make it harder for staff to guide customers toward lawful products and safer options, which may weaken quit support in retail settings. The policy problem is not display control itself, but over-shooting the level needed to protect children.

Policy balance

The consultation’s own logic suggests the safest approach is targeted restriction, not blanket suppression. That means keeping child-appeal features out of packaging and device design, while preserving enough product clarity for adult smokers to find and choose regulated alternatives. It also means pairing tighter rules with enforcement, licensing, and clear communication so that legal products remain visible in the right way, even as they become less enticing to young people. In short, the risk of over-tightening is that a policy meant to prevent youth uptake could also blunt smoking cessation among adults.

On the need for licensing, vape shops and other outlets selling vapes currently have a bad reputation in the UK, often cited as blighting the streets of our most deprived areas alongside betting shops and fast-food outlets. The government is proposing to introduce a licensing scheme which would help tackle rogue sellers and underage sales. The problem (as ever) will be the chronic lack of trading standards officers to enforce any scheme. A best guess would be less than 2000 officers to monitor tens of thousands of premises with a huge remit covering not just vapes but illegal cigarettes, fireworks, electrical and toy safety, age restricted sales (like alcohol, knives, solvents and lottery tickets), food standards and hygiene, the list goes on.

However as far as the UK consultation is concerned, there does seem a greater willingness to get into the weeds of this issue and hear some detailed responses (with evidence) over the ideologues in Brussels.

But either way - get tapping folks!