Closing the Off-Ramp: The TPD Review’s Threat to Harm Reduction

Closing the Off-Ramp: The TPD Review’s Threat to Harm Reduction

Carlo Stagnaro and Radovan Ďurana // 18 August 2026

This briefing examines the European Commission’s review of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and its implications for harm reduction. While the review seeks to address changes in the nicotine market and protect young people from tobacco and nicotine use, several of its proposed measures risk undermining the role of lower-risk alternatives in helping smokers move away from combustible tobacco.

The paper assesses proposals including flavour restrictions, expanded health warnings, plain packaging, and restrictions on product design and appeal. It argues that these measures could make e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches and heated tobacco products less attractive and effective for adult smokers without addressing the main channels through which young people access them. Applying equivalent regulatory treatment to products with materially different risk profiles could also reinforce public misconceptions about their relative risks.

The briefing argues that the revised TPD should instead follow a principle of proportionality, with regulatory burdens reflecting the relative harm of different products. Age verification and targeted marketing restrictions are identified as more appropriate tools for youth protection, while strengthened supply-chain traceability and anti-smuggling measures can address illicit trade without restricting access to lower-risk alternatives.

The main findings of the briefing include:

  • The European Commission’s evidence base for the TPD review is insufficient to reliably assess the effectiveness and impact of existing measures, making further regulatory expansion difficult to justify.
  • E-cigarettes and other novel nicotine products can play an important role in helping smokers move away from combustible tobacco, meaning restrictions that reduce their attractiveness or availability risk undermining harm reduction.
  • Flavour bans, equivalent pictorial health warnings and plain packaging could reduce the utility of novel nicotine products for adult smokers without adequately addressing the channels through which young people access them.
  • Product design and ‘appeal’ restrictions risk reducing the usability and satisfaction of products that can help smokers switch, while disposable e-cigarettes should not be restricted under tobacco policy without assessing their effect on switching rates.
  • Strengthened supply-chain traceability and anti-smuggling measures are among the proposals that merit support, as they address illicit trade without restricting access to legal, lower-risk alternatives.
  • The revised TPD should regulate nicotine products proportionately to their relative harm, maintaining a clear regulatory distinction between combustible tobacco and lower-risk alternatives.

Download or share this publication

View the PDF

EPICENTER publications and contributions from our member think tanks are designed to promote the discussion of economic issues and the role of markets in solving economic and social problems. As with all EPICENTER publications, the views expressed here are those of the author and not EPICENTER or its member think tanks (which have no corporate view).

Publication tags

Publication author

Share this content

EPICENTER publications and contributions from our member think tanks are designed to promote the discussion of economic issues and the role of markets in solving economic and social problems. As with all EPICENTER publications, the views expressed here are those of the author and not EPICENTER or its member think tanks (which have no corporate view).

Subscribe

* indicates required

EPICENTER publications and contributions from our member think tanks are designed to promote the discussion of economic issues and the role of markets in solving economic and social problems. As with all EPICENTER publications, the views expressed here are those of the author and not EPICENTER or its member think tanks (which have no corporate view).

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.