Tobacco Europe has submitted a letter to the European Commission regarding the Evaluation Report on the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and Tobacco Advertising Directive (TAD), raising concerns about the report’s analytical robustness, evidentiary basis, and assessment methodology. Tobacco Europe calls for a more transparent, evidence-based and proportionate approach in the forthcoming Impact Assessment, including clearer causality analysis, stronger evaluation of EU added value, comprehensive assessment of economic and competitiveness impacts across the value chain, and greater consideration of enforcement realities and unintended consequences such as illicit trade.

Tobacco Europe has adopted a position paper on the review of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR). Tobacco Europe raises concerns that the European Commission’s proposal could fundamentally change the regulation’s purpose from a transparency framework into a system that effectively excludes certain sectors from sustainable investment categories . In particular, it criticises the proposed blanket exclusion of tobacco-related activities, arguing that it disregards transition efforts and treats a legal industry similarly to prohibited activities without sufficient justification.

The paper calls on the European Parliament and Council to ensure the revised SFDR remains proportionate and focused on disclosure, not exclusion, by prioritising performance-based assessment, maintaining incentives for transition, and safeguarding legal certainty across the EU.

Link: SFDR-position-paper_28.04.2026.pdf

The European Commission’s evaluation of the EU tobacco legislation falls short of the evidence-based standard it set for itself. After four years and significant resources, the report relies on assumptions, selective interpretation, and acknowledged data gaps rather than robust and evidence-based analysis.

It fails to establish clear causal links between policy measures and outcomes and largely ignores real-world evidence from Member States. Sweden, for example, has reduced daily smoking to just 5.3%, achieving the lowest smoking rates in the EU alongside markedly lower rates of smoking-related diseases, a success closely linked to the availability of smokeless alternatives. Similarly, countries such as Greece and Czechia have recorded steep declines in smoking prevalence in recent years. These national experiences demonstrate that outcomes vary significantly across the EU and that consumer behaviour and access to alternatives play a decisive role, factors the report does not meaningfully assess.

Instead of learning from what works in practice, the report leans toward further restrictions while overlooking key challenges on the ground. In the Netherlands, stricter measures have coincided with rising illicit trade and increased underage vaping, while Belgium is seeing similar trends, with a significant share of the vapour market estimated to be illegal. These examples highlight a critical gap between policy design and real-world impact. By failing to address enforcement, illicit trade, and the role of harm reduction, the Commission risks advancing measures that may be ineffective or even counterproductive.

A credible revision of EU tobacco rules must be grounded in real-world outcomes, assess relative risks, and strike a balance between public health objectives, economic sustainability, and effective enforcement.

2 April 2026

The European Commission's evaluation of EU tobacco and nicotine legislation fails to meet Better Regulation standards and risks producing a regulatory framework that harms public health, EU competitiveness and public security, according to the European tobacco sector’s umbrella body.

Tobacco Europe, which represents three of the largest tobacco and nicotine manufacturers in the EU, said the report published today contains significant gaps in its treatment of real-world evidence and independent science, assessment of socioeconomic impacts and engagement with stakeholders.

The evaluation follows a review which took more than three years and is expected to inform the upcoming revision of the Tobacco Products Directive. Its conclusions will have far-reaching consequences for the more than 100 million European adult nicotine consumers, 1.4 million people employed across the EU tobacco and nicotine value chain, and for the more than €107 billion in annual tax revenues generated across the bloc.

"This evaluation was an opportunity to take an honest, evidence-based look at what is working and what is falling short in EU tobacco regulation. Despite taking more than three years, this opportunity has been completely missed," said Nathalie Darge, Secretary General of Tobacco Europe.

"The report fails to recognise the real-world progress made in reducing smoking rates in Sweden, Czechia and Greece, and the large and growing body of independent science demonstrating that smokeless nicotine products are reducing harm and offer alternatives to adult consumers, while overlooking the contribution of SMEs and the wider supply chain to the EU economy.

At the same time, in 2024 illegal tobacco costs EU governments €14.9 billion in lost revenue, in addition to lost tax receipts from vapour and other smokeless products, and threatens the blocs security. As highlighted by the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board comments in the Report, the significant enforcement challenges being faced by customs, border, police and health authorities in Member States have been overlooked.

"There is a direct link between extreme regulation and taxation and the size of illegal markets," Darge said. "Where Member States have imposed extreme regulation and bans, as in Belgium and the Netherlands, the government has lost control to criminal gangs and irresponsible retailers, who don’t care about consumer safeguards or age checks, and profit at the expense of taxpayers."

Tobacco Europe also questioned the inclusiveness of the evaluation process. During the Commission's 2023 public consultation, 77% of 24,000 respondents agreed that smokeless products help adults move away from cigarettes. Tobacco Europe says this consensus, along with its own detailed submissions throughout the process, is not meaningfully reflected in the final report.

"We are committed to constructive engagement in the legislative process ahead," Darge said. "A proportionate regulatory framework that differentiates between products based on their risk profile can protect minors, support adult smokers who want to choose alternative products, safeguard jobs and tax revenue and keep the market in the hands of regulators rather than criminals. That is the approach the evidence supports, and it is what we will continue to advocate for."

ENDS

About Tobacco Europe
Tobacco Europe is the European association representing three of Europe’s largest producers of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, tobacco heated products and modern oral products. The Association’s aim is to put forward the industry’s common views on regulation and policy and promote scientific and evidence-based policies that respect the choice of consumers.

Contact details
Nathalie Darge, Secretary General
info@tobacco-europe.eu

Brussels 16 March 2026

Tobacco Europe submitted to the European Commission's Call for Evidence its views on the Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) Consultation, available here.

In parallel, Tobacco Europe contributed to the open public consultation, which is available on the European Commission website.

Brussels 20 February 2026

Since its entry into force in 2005, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has provided the global framework for tobacco control policies.

In recent years, Article 5.3 has sparked increasing debate in the European policy environment going beyond its original intent. Some interpretations suggest that it requires the systematic exclusion of the tobacco industry from any interaction with policymakers, regardless of the policy area.

Tobacco Europe believes that this trend warrants clarification.

Article 5.3 was designed “[...] to protect [public health] policies from commercial or vested interests of the tobacco industry [...]”. It is not intended to justify the blanket exclusion of lawful economic operators from regulatory discussions that directly affect them. Nor does it extend to unrelated policy areas such as environmental legislation, customs enforcement, taxation, financial regulation or other non-health matters This interpretation was further clarified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in February 2022, in its judgment in Case C-160/20 concerning emission measurement methods. The Court stated:

“It is clear from the very wording of that provision that it does not prohibit all participation of the tobacco industry in the establishment and implementation of rules on tobacco control but is intended solely to prevent the tobacco control policies of the parties to the convention from being influenced by that industry’s interests.”

This confirms that Article 5.3 aims to prevent undue influence in public health policies, not to prohibit engagement, information exchange or dialogue , and especially not to extend its scope to unrelated areas of policymaking.

Tobacco Europe believes that a correct interpretation of Article 5.3 provides an opportunity to strengthen transparency, accountability and integrity in decision-making. These objectives are fully aligned with EU and OECD principles of Better Regulation, which emphasise openness, stakeholder consultation and evidence-based policymaking.

Ensuring transparency does not require exclusion. On the contrary, structured and accountable dialogue with all affected stakeholders supports more robust, balanced and legally sound policymaking.

Tobacco Europe and its members operate legally within the European Union. They are subject to extensive regulation and are directly impacted by legislative and regulatory initiatives across multiple policy fields. As such, they are legitimate, transparent and accountable stakeholders in European policymaking and should be able to engage with the European institutions.

Brussels, 5 February 2026

Tobacco Europe provided the European Commission with its views on the customs reform: TE submission COM EU Customs Reform de minimis 26.02.05

Brussels, 17 September 2024

Download the statement here: 24.09.17 Tobacco Europe's statement to the Publication of the Smoke- and Aerosol-Free Environments’ recommendation

On September 17, the outgoing Commission put forward a proposal for the revision of the non-legislative Council Recommendation on Smoke-Free Environments, just days after publishing the ‘Draghi’ Report to revamp European competitiveness.

Tobacco Europe considers that the inclusion of emerging products within the scope of the Recommendation lacks scientific basis and views the extension to open and semi-open areas (such as hospitality terraces) as disproportionate.

Tobacco Europe wrote to the Commission expressing concerns about the process. No evaluation was performed in line with the Better Regulation guidelines. No new impact assessment was conducted relying instead on the 2008 one, which did not cover emerging products and focused only on indoor spaces.

Additionally, the Commission had committed to publishing a ‘synopsis report’ summarizing stakeholders input at the conclusion of the consultation. Instead, it released the report simultaneously with the proposal denying us and +200 stakeholders the opportunity to assess how the input was considered ahead of the proposal.

Tobacco Europe wished the outgoing Commission had acted in transparency and in accordance with the principles of Better Regulations.

Brussels, August 6 2024

In this letter, DG SANTE replies to Tobacco Europe's letter of May 8, and reiterates its position on the fact that there is no conflict of interest involving Open Evidence.

Find the full letter here: Reply_to_Ares(2024)3420053_Tobacco Europe_V2_clean

THE APPROPRIATE CUSTOMS CLASSIFICATION IN THE WCO’S HARMONIZED SYSTEM TARIFF NOMENCLATURE OF TOBACCO HEATING PRODUCT CONSUMABLES AND THE CHEMICAL PREPARATIONS USED IN ENDS SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NEW HEADINGS AND SUB-HEADINGS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF THP CONSUMABLES AND CHEMICAL PREPARATIONS USED IN ENDS

• Tobacco Heating Products (THPs) heat tobacco, but do not combust it, to produce a nicotine-containing aerosol.

• Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) heat a chemical preparation (often, but not always, in liquid form, known as an ‘e-liquid’), to create an aerosol which is fundamentally different in its physical composition to both tobacco smoke and to the aerosol created by THPs. Although some chemicals in e-liquids, including nicotine and some soluble flavourings, may be derived from tobacco, e-liquids do not contain tobacco.

• The WCO’s Review Sub-Committee (RSC) is currently considering several proposals for creating new headings or subheadings for both THPs and e-liquids under the Harmonized System Tariff Nomenclature (the HS) in the year 2022. These proposals are flawed because they are inconsistent with the fundamental principle by which products are classified for customs purposes based on their essential physical characteristics.

• The Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers (CECCM) and its members1 propose that THPs should be classified in the HS under a new subheading 2403.92 as follows:

2403.92 Tobacco products for heated delivery without combustion

• CECCM proposes that the chemical preparations used with ENDS, including e-liquids, should be classified in the HS under a new 4-digit level heading 38.27:
38.27 Chemical preparations, whether or not containing nicotine or flavouring substances and whether or not contained in bottles or special cartridges or capsules, for use with electronic devices heating these preparations without combustion in order to produce an aerosol:

3827.10 – containing nicotine

3827.20 – not containing nicotine

• It would not be appropriate for the chemical preparations used with ENDS to be treated in the same way as THPs in regulation, excise or customs classification. THPs are tobacco products, whereas the chemical preparations used in ENDS contain no tobacco – they are fundamentally different in their essential physical composition.

• These proposed new headings / subheadings adhere to the fundamental principles by which products are classified for customs purposes based on their essential physical characteristics. They maintain simplicity within the existing system. And they will allow the WCO and its contracting parties to achieve all the stated objectives of the HS: to facilitate international trade; to facilitate the collection, comparison and analysis of trade statistics; and to promote the standardisation of trade documentation and the transmission of data.
1 CECCM represents the common views of major European–based cigarette manufacturers such as British American Tobacco (BAT), Imperial Brands (IMB), and Japan Tobacco International (JTI).

DEFINITION OF TOBACCO HEATING PRODUCTS AND ENDS

• Tobacco Heating Products (THPs) are products in which the tobacco is heated rather than combusted to produce a nicotine-containing aerosol.
o THPs contain tobacco – they are different to electronic cigarettes which do not contain tobacco.
o Several types of THP are currently sold across a range of countries. The most widely available THPs are electrically heated tobacco products. Also available in some countries are: THPs that heat a tobacco rod using a lit carbon tip; and hybrid products that heat an e-liquid to create an aerosol that, when passed over a tobacco pod, heats the tobacco to provide additional flavours and nicotine.
o The category is rapidly evolving, and it seems likely that other types THPs will be developed in the future. However, the common feature amongst all THPs will remain that they heat tobacco and do not combust it.

• Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are comprised of two elements:
o First, a chemical preparation, often in liquid form known as an ‘e-liquid’. Although some chemicals in the chemical preparations used in ENDS, including nicotine and soluble flavourings, may be derived from tobacco, they do not contain tobacco.
o Second, an electronic device which heats the chemical preparation to create an aerosol which is fundamentally different in its physical composition to tobacco smoke. THE CURRENT CLASSIFICATION OF TOBACCO HEATING PRODUCTS AND THE CHEMICAL PREPARATIONS USED IN ENDS

• THP consumables, as a tobacco product, are classified in Chapter 24 of the HS (“Tobacco and Manufactured Tobacco Substitutes”). In October 2017, the WCO Harmonized System Committee (HSC) considered the appropriate classification of Electrically Heated Tobacco Product (EHTP) consumables in the 2017 HS. A large majority of contracting parties voted for classification of these products in subheading 2403.99.

• In September 2011, the HSC agreed that cartridges for ENDS “whether or not containing nicotine, could not be regarded as tobacco substitutes.” Consequently, it decided to classify them under heading 38.24 of the HS (in the chapter covering “Miscellaneous Chemical Products”). TOBACCO HEATING PRODUCTS MUST BE

CLASSIFIED IN CHAPTER 24 OF THE HS AND THE CHEMICAL PREPARATIONS USED IN ENDS MUST BE CLASSIFIED IN CHAPTER 38

• For customs classification, two criteria must be considered.
o First, the essential physical characteristics of the product.
o Second, in some cases, their intended use.

• The consumables used with tobacco heating products should continue to be classified under a subheading in 2403.9 of the HS nomenclature (under which there is currently 2403.912 or 2403.993).
o THPs contain tobacco, so it follows that they must be classified in Chapter 24 of the HS, covering “Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes”.

2 “Homogenised” or “reconstituted tobacco”.

3 Other manufactured tobacco that is not intended for smoking.

o The WCO Secretariat has indicated that two factors are relevant to defining the essential characteristics of the consumables used with electrically heated tobacco products (EHTPs). First, the tobacco used in these products is entirely reconstituted tobacco (combustible tobacco products contain much smaller amounts of reconstituted tobacco). Second, the product’s intended use is not to be smoked. The WCO Secretariat stated that if Contracting Parties accept these as the defining essential physical characteristics of EHTP consumables, they should not be classified under the same subheadings as combustible tobacco (i.e. under either heading 24.024, or under subheadings 2403.115 or 2403.196, all of which are for types of smoking tobacco).
o Moreover, EHTPs cannot be classified under heading 24.01, which covers unmanufactured tobacco.
o It follows that EHTPs must be classified in the part of heading 24.03 that covers finished tobacco products that are not intended for smoking.

• The chemical preparations used in ENDS, including e-liquids, should continue to be classified under Chapter 38 of the HS nomenclature.
o The chemical preparations used in ENDS, including e-liquids, exhibit profound differences in their material composition and physical characteristics to the tobacco products that are classified under Chapter 24 of the HS2017.
o Since e-liquids (and other chemical preparations used in ENDS) are chemical solutions which, even when partly derived from a tobacco plant, contain no tobacco, they must continue to be classified in HS Chapter 38 (“Miscellaneous chemical products”).
o And because ENDS cartridges / liquids do not display similar physical characteristics to tobacco products, the chemical preparations used in ENDS should not be classified in the same chapter of the HS as tobacco products.
o Please see Appendix 1 for a legal opinion that provides further background.

PROPOSAL FOR NEW SUBHEADINGS FOR TOBACCO HEATING PRODUCT CONSUMABLES IN CHAPTER 24 OF THE HS IN THE YEAR 2022

• Our proposal for the customs classification of THP consumables in the HS is to create a new subheading 2403.92.

• This approach has several practical benefits:
o It is wholly consistent with the general principles by which products are classified in the HS according to their essential physical characteristics.
o It is consistent with the recent guidance from the WCO Secretariat regarding the essential characteristics of EHTP consumables.
o It is commensurate with the likely scale of global trade in THP consumables relative to other tobacco products. Notably, since cigarettes containing tobacco are classified under a subheading (2402.20) and do not have their own 4-digit heading, it would seem inappropriate for THPs to be classified under anything other than a 6-digit subheading.

• Our proposal for this new sub-heading is as follows:
2403.92 Tobacco products for heated delivery without combustion

• The wording of this proposed new sub-heading is similar to the recent proposal by the Australian customs authority. However, our proposed location in the HS – especially when taken together with our proposed new heading for the chemical preparations used with ENDS – is more logical given the general principles by which products are classified in the HS according to their essential physical characteristics.

4 Cigars, cheroots, cigarillos and cigarettes, of tobacco or of tobacco substitutes.

5 Water pipe tobacco.

6 Other smoking tobacco.

• Please see Appendix 2 for a legal opinion that provides further background.

PROPOSAL FOR A NEW HEADINGS FOR CHEMICAL PREPARATIONS USED WITH ENDS IN CHAPTER 38 OF THE HS IN THE YEAR 2022

• Our proposal for the customs classification in the HS of chemical preparations used with ENDS (including e-liquids) is to create, at the 4-digit level, a new heading 38.27.

• This approach has several practical benefits:
o It is wholly consistent with the general principles by which products are classified in the HS according to their essential physical characteristics. Unlike the recent proposals by Australia, it therefore avoids creating inconsistencies between the classification of ENDS chemical preparations and how other products are classified in the HS.
o It would make ENDS chemical preparations stand out within Chapter 38 more forcefully than by creating new subheadings under heading 3824.
o It would leave more room for future subheadings as and when new products are developed.

• Our proposal for the new heading / sub-headings is as follows:
38.27 Chemical preparations, whether or not containing nicotine or flavouring substances and whether or not contained in bottles or special cartridges or capsules, for use with electronic devices heating these preparations without combustion in order to produce an aerosol:
3827.10 – containing nicotine
3827.20 – not containing nicotine

• Please see Appendix 2 for a legal opinion that provides further background. OUR PROPOSALS FOR A NEW SUBHEADING FOR TOBACCO HEATING PRODUCTS AND A NEW HEADING FOR THE CHEMICAL PREPARATIONS USED WITH ENDS WILL ALLOW ALL THE STATED REQUIREMENTS OF THE HS TO BE MET IN FULL

• The three main objectives of the HS are to:
o facilitate international trade;
o facilitate the collection, comparison and analysis of trade statistics; and
o promote the standardisation of trade documentation and the transmission of data.

• The new headings and subheadings we propose for THPs and ENDS chemical preparations would allow each of these objectives to be met in full. Critically, moving the classification of e-liquids from Chapter 38 to another chapter of the HS would not fundamentally improve the ability of customs authorities to achieve any of these objectives. It would, however, be inconsistent with the fundamental principle by which products are classified for customs purposes based on their essential physical characteristics.