Recent efforts by the European Union to implement stricter regulations on smoking and tobacco alternatives have sparked controversy, with some member states raising an alarm over infringement of personal freedoms.
In a joint statement seen by Brussels Signal on November 20, Italy and Romania expressed serious concern about a European Council recommendation advocating smoke-free and e-cigarette aerosol-free environments, highlighting what they said were significant flaws in both the process and the substance of the proposed measures.
They said there was a lack of scientific justification and impact assessments for EU recommendations.
The EU has been signalling an increasingly uncompromising stance on tobacco and its alternatives, including vaping, Swedish tobacco product Snus and nicotine patches, mainly via the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) of 2014.
Representatives in the Council of the European Union have been pushing for a far-reaching ban on smoking and vaping in private places such as on people’s balconies and in their cars.
In their joint statement, Italy and Romania said the call for blanket bans on the use of aerosol-emitting products — such as e-cigarettes — in outdoor spaces, including workplaces and service establishments, lacked a “robust scientific basis”.
They warned that such generalisations failed to consider the distinct characteristics of different environments.
The proposed restrictions on undefined outdoor areas with “intense pedestrian traffic” have drawn criticism for what is seen as their vague terminology and questionable legal foundation.
These ambiguities, the two countries argue, have created unnecessary uncertainty, both in terms of interpretation and enforcement, leading to potential overreach by authorities.
Italy and Romania also expressed frustration with the way the European Council had handled the discussions on the recommendations. According to the statement, the Council rushed the process, failing to provide member states with sufficient time for debate or consideration of the proposals.
They lamented that many significant amendments and comments raised by EU members were dismissed or inadequately addressed in the final text.
Both countries said there had been a disregard for national input and questioned whether the EU was prioritising consensus or merely pushing through controversial policies.
“Given the nature and scope of this Act, it should have been discussed and finalised in a manner that sought consensus among the parties, duly considering the clearly expressed national concerns and priorities of Member States. Politically, consensus-based positions remain the most appropriate path forward,” their statement read.
The joint document also pointed to what both saw as the absence of a comprehensive impact assessment as a critical oversight.
Without evidence to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of the proposed measures, the council risked implementing policies that could stifle innovation, disrupt markets, and infringe on individual choice without achieving significant public health benefits, the statement claimed.
The push to regulate alternatives like vaping and nicotine patches alongside traditional tobacco products has provoked particular backlash from harm-reduction advocates.
These groups have argued that lumping together cigarettes and less harmful alternatives failed to recognise the potential of these products to help smokers quit.
By taking a “one-size-fits-all” approach, critics said the EU risked alienating individuals who relied on these alternatives to reduce harm.
Tobacco is set to become a hot-button issue in the next legislature after the European Commission signaled it wants to pick up the fight against smoking and everything remotely related to it. https://t.co/iayPf2QXMv
— Brussels Signal (@brusselssignal) November 12, 2024
