Italy and Romania on Wednesday expressed serious concern over a European Council recommendation to ban smoking and the use of e-cigarette aerosols, highlighting what they said were significant flaws in both the process and substance of the proposed measures, Brussels Signal reports.
The EU recommendations lack scientific justification and impact assessment, they said.
The EU has taken an increasingly uncompromising stance on tobacco and its alternatives, including vaping, Swedish tobacco product Snus and nicotine patches, largely through the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) of 2014.
European Union Council representatives are pushing for a far-reaching ban on smoking and vaping in private places, such as balconies or cars.
In a joint statement, Italy and Romania said the call for a total ban on the use of aerosol-releasing products such as e-cigarettes in open spaces, including workplaces and service establishments, lacked a “sound scientific basis.”
They warned that such generalisations do not take into account the distinctive characteristics of different environments.
The proposed restrictions on undefined open spaces with “heavy pedestrian traffic” drew criticism for vague terminology and a questionable legal basis.
These ambiguities, according to the two countries, create unnecessary uncertainty both in terms of interpretation and enforcement, leading to potential abuse of power by the authorities.
Italy and Romania also expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the European Council conducted its deliberations on the recommendations. According to the statement, the Council had rushed the process without giving Member States enough time to discuss and consider the proposals.
They regretted that many substantive amendments and comments made by EU members were rejected or inadequately addressed in the final text.
Both countries said national input had been ignored and questioned whether the EU was prioritising consensus or simply pushing through controversial policy decisions. Their statement said:
“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.”
The joint paper also points out that both sides believe that the lack of a comprehensive impact assessment is a critical omission.
Without data to assess the potential benefits and harms of proposed measures, councils risk pursuing policies that could stifle innovation, disrupt markets and encroach on individual choice without significant public health benefits, the statement argues.
The push to regulate alternatives such as vaping and nicotine patches alongside traditional tobacco products has provoked a particular backlash from harm reduction advocates.
These groups argued that lumping cigarettes and less harmful alternatives together fails 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 people who rely on these alternatives for harm reduction.
