The EU has set ambitious health goals for 2040. How does BAT view this target and how realistic is it under the current direction of travel from the Commission?
Fred Monteiro:
The goal of a smoke-free Europe by 2040 is absolutely commendable and we fully support it. We also think it is achievable, but not by regulating smokeless alternatives out of reach. Instead, success relies on a focus on science, real-world outcomes and a genuine assessment of what encourages adult smokers, who would otherwise continue to smoke, switch to such reduced risk profile alternatives.
But the direction set by the European Commission looks unlikely to get us to that target. For instance, the current Tobacco Products Directive sets the baseline rules regarding tobacco and nicotine smokeless products. But even though it was adopted 12 years ago, to date we’ve only seen a two-percentage point drop in the overall smoking prevalence, from 26% to 24%.
For decades, Sweden has permitted and incentivised the use of oral smokeless products; it is now close to being smoke-free with a daily smoking prevalence of 5.3%.
Countries like Czechia, Greece and the UK, where alternatives are also available and supported, have similarly seen declines significantly sharper than the European average. It has been modelled that if Swedish tobacco smoking related mortality rates were applied to the rest of EU, more than 3.5 million deaths could be prevented over the next decade.
Europe has a strong history of leading the way by championing game-changing innovation. Renewable energy, high-speed rail, advanced biotech, and smart cities are only a few examples of European innovation offering solutions to global challenges. I think it’s time to apply this approach to tobacco use.
The Commission recently published its evaluation of the current Tobacco Products Directive. What do you think of its conclusions?
FM: To be frank, I think the Commission’s evaluation is a lost opportunity to assess what works and what doesn’t.
Without a comprehensive evidence‑based appraisal, the assessment risks reinforcing regulatory distortions, and preventing the EU from achieving its 2040 smoke-free target
Despite repeated statements from the Commission that the evaluation – which by the way took them nearly four years – would be ‘bullet proof’, it contains very little actual analysis.
Instead, it’s mostly based on outdated evidence and a lot of unsupported opinion. While the assessment rightly focuses on health impacts of cigarettes and tobacco revenue, it completely ignores tobacco harm reduction outcomes, real‑world consumer behaviour, enforcement challenges and the broader economic, social, and environmental implications across the EU.
After all, this is not only a health debate — it is also about Europe’s competitiveness, investment climate and ability to lead in next-generation consumer innovation. The Commission should be encouraging science, technology and innovation that support both health outcomes and economic resilience.
Without a comprehensive evidence‑based appraisal, the assessment risks reinforcing regulatory distortions, and preventing the EU from achieving its 2040 smoke-free target.
What is your view on the proposed Tobacco Excise Directive?
FM: Firstly, I think it is reasonable to review it now, given that the market has changed significantly since it was introduced in 2011. I also think that it makes sense for the revised directive to cover smokeless products, such as vapes, nicotine pouches and heated tobacco products – it will be good to get some structure on how these products are taxed in Europe, so long as Member States retain the right to set taxes according to their own circumstances.
But what matters most is that tax is proportionate to risk. Put simply: the higher the potential risk, the higher the tax; the lower the risk, the lower the tax. Cigarettes are the most harmful product category and should be taxed more than the others. Smokeless alternatives should sit on a sliding scale below that reflects their relative risk in relation to cigarettes and maintains an incentive for adult smokers to switch to reduced risk profile alternatives.
Beyond public health considerations, what role does the tobacco and nicotine value chain play in Europe’s economy, and how should this factor into policymaking?
FM: The sector’s value chain – from farming and manufacturing to logistics and retail – is a major contributor to Europe’s economy. Roughly 1.5 million jobs depend on our sector, which contributes nearly €200 billion to EU annual GDP. That’s roughly the size of the Greek economy.
Member States also collect €107 billion annually in taxes on the products, and the value chain pays out over €43 billion in wages. Given this scale, it’s important that regulation is designed to support public health goals as well as the significant economic contributions.
Some countries are turning to bans and steep taxes on tobacco products and smokeless products. From your perspective, do these measures achieve the intended outcomes?
FM: Banning smokeless products has been tried in Europe. And it does not work. Balance and equilibrium is needed: pair tough measures on cigarettes with smart regulation of smokeless alternatives. The same approach is required with taxation.
Roughly 1.5 million jobs depend on our sector, which contributes nearly €200 billion to EU annual GDP
There are clear examples that show how bans can result in European countries losing control of the market. In the Netherlands, efforts to reduce the demand for smokeless products by banning flavoured options instead pushed consumers toward the illicit market. Today, nearly 90% of vapour users are buying from non-legal channels. Perhaps even worse still, underage vaping has increased by 15% following their new banning rules.
Belgium is close behind, and similar lessons are being learned the hard way across the world. When specific products are banned, or when taxes are increased to quickly, parallel markets appear.
This creates a lose-lose-lose situation: governments lose regulatory control and tax revenue, consumers are pushed towards unregulated products outside health authorities oversight, and legitimate businesses lose income and jobs.
Good regulation distinguishes between products on the basis of evidence, risk and outcomes. One-size-fits-all regulation risks undermining progress.
You’ve recently launched Omni™ as a platform. What gap are you trying to fill?
FM: Omni™ is designed to bridge a critical information and knowledge gap. Over the past decade, a substantial body of scientific research and real-world evidence has developed around smokeless products, as well as the impact of tobacco harm reduction policies across different countries. However, this evidence is often difficult to find and not easily accessible.
The platform is designed as a resource for policymakers, scientists, public health authorities and regulators. It brings together decades of research, real-life experience and case studies, ranging from best practice examples like Sweden, to approaches to be avoided. It also invites dialogue between stakeholders, who are encouraged to engage with the evidence and focus on what works in practice.
I think this is particularly important and timely given the Commission’s renewed focus on tobacco and nicotine policy. Europe’s smoke-free ambition and its competitiveness agenda should reinforce one another — and innovation and understanding is the bridge between the two.
Click to find out about BAT’s progress on the journey to building a smokeless world
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.