83 leading public health experts express significant concerns about the European Commission’s review of the Tobacco Excise Directive (TED). They argue that taxing smoke-free alternatives in the same way as combustible cigarettes is a move that contradicts scientific evidence, undermines public health efforts, and protects the deadly cigarette trade.

Today (1 September), a coalition of 83 international top experts in public health, nicotine dependence, and tobacco control has sent an open letter to the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, warning against the proposed plan to impose new taxes on less harmful nicotine products like e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches.

The letter directly challenges recent EU public communications that suggest these products pose health risks comparable to smoking, calling this position “a significant departure from the foundational principle of evidence-based public health” and a form of disinformation.

To support their case, the experts highlight several real-world examples of successful public health outcomes driven by tobacco harm reduction, specifically Sweden, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

The signatories urge the Commission to embrace a science-based regulatory approach that differentiates between combustible and non-combustible products, thereby leveraging the immense potential of harm reduction to save lives and reduce the burden of smoking-related disease, which currently causes nearly 700,000 premature deaths in the EU each year.

The letter is co-signed by leading medical and harm reduction organisations, including the European Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (ETHRA), the International Association for Smoking Control and Harm Reduction (SCOHRE), and the Spanish Medical Platform for Tobacco Harm Reduction (PRDT).

Professor Konstantinos Farsalinos(MD, MPH), a renowned authority on tobacco harm reduction, who took this initiative, strongly criticised the Commission’s approach:

“It is an essential principle that every public health policy—especially when related to tobacco—must rest on the best available scientific evidence, in line with the European Commission’s commitment to data-driven legislation. It is concerning that recent public communications from officials, including the Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, depart radically from this principle. Claiming that the harm caused by smokeless harm reduction products is comparable to that of conventional cigarettes is in disagreement with scientific evidence and common sense. It reveals a profound misunderstanding within the Commission on the public health potential of these products and, unfortunately, propagates misperceptions that are commonly observed among Europeans, particularly smokers, on the benefits of adopting a tobacco harm reduction strategy”, he said

“The proposed introduction of prohibitively high taxes on less harmful nicotine products in reality represents a ‘tax-raid’ on these products, with strong negative public health implications. Even for tobacco cigarettes, while taxation remains an effective tool to reduce smoking prevalence, any sharp, uncontrolled tax increase can incentivise an uncontrolled black market, which would, in fact, make cigarettes cheaper for consumers. But the strongest negative public health impact is expected from the taxation of low-risk nicotine products. In fact, tobacco harm reduction can be an effective tool in increasing government revenues. But this will be achieved by promoting non-combustible nicotine products to smokers, thus reducing the smoking-related economic burden due to healthcare expenditure and lost productivity costs. Instead, implementing a heavy fiscal burden on potentially life-saving products will inevitably result in the creation of a black market, will reduce revenues and, most importantly, will cost lives”, he added.

TED and TEDOR

In July earlier this year, the European Commission issued on the same day, two separate announcements unveiling a renewed effort to reduce tobacco consumption by raising taxes, a measure aimed at increasing the cost of cigarettes and other tobacco products across the EU. In an unprecedented move, the European Commission is pinning a significant portion of its future financial planning on the backs of smokers and vapers. 

Two mechanisms underpin this fiscal strategy. First, a revised Tobacco Excise Directive (TED) proposes enormous hikes: a 139% increase in cigarette taxes, 258% on rolling tobacco, and—for the first time—steep levies on e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches. Second, a new fiscal instrument called the Tobacco Excise Duty Own Resource (TEDOR) would impose a 15% surcharge across the board, designed specifically to channel funds directly into EU coffers, ostensibly to support major programmes, including Europe’s rearmament under NATO coordination.

The TEDOR proposal, presented separately as part of the EU’s new €2 trillion Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028-2034, is meant as a new source of EU revenue independent of contributions from member states. It hinges on raising €11.2 billion annually through sweeping changes to the EU’s tobacco tax regime. The move, now openly acknowledged by Commission insiders, suggests a profound shift: from health-driven regulation to budgetary dependence on the very habits Brussels long claimed to discourage.

A policy caught between purse strings and public health

While the Commission initially claimed TEDOR would operate independently of national tax systems, it now admits that TEDOR’s projected yield is contingent on the TED reforms passing. But these reforms face strong opposition from several EU members, including Italy, Greece, Portugal and Romania, countries where smoking rates remain high and tobacco taxes politically sensitive. In addition, Sweden opposed the EU proposal to use revenue from higher tobacco taxes to help fund the bloc’s next long-term budget.

This sets up a fiscal cliff: if the directive fails, the EU could lose up to €78.4 billion in projected revenue, leaving key defence and green initiatives underfunded. If it succeeds, the EU risks becoming structurally dependent on consumption of harmful products, with perverse incentives to maintain a tax base rooted in addiction.

A budget built on addiction?

What’s most troubling is the underlying philosophical shift. EU institutions have long touted their commitment to harm reduction, health equity, and smoking cessation. Yet the current strategy reveals a stark contradiction: if people stop smoking, the budget collapses.

Moreover, the introduction of high excise duties on smoke-free nicotine alternatives undermines years of progress made in countries like Sweden and the UK, where such products have dramatically reduced smoking rates. Rather than incentivising cessation, the EU is now penalising it.

The road ahead

With unanimity required among the 27 EU member states, the TED reform package is far from guaranteed. Yet the Commission appears to be gambling, hoping that fear of lost revenue will force compliance. This risks turning public health into a political bargaining chip and undermining trust in EU policymaking.

If the EU genuinely seeks to reduce smoking, improve public health, and address budget gaps responsibly, it must decouple health taxation from essential funding lines such as defence. Transparent, ethical, and forward-thinking fiscal policy should not hinge on nicotine consumption.

The question now is simple but urgent: Is the EU building a healthier future, or just a richer one funded by the sick?

Photo by Christian Lue on Unsplash