Tag: tobacco product directive

Smoore Launches TPD Compliance Lab

Photo: Smoore
Smoore has established a vaping products risk assessment laboratory for European Union Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) compliance. The lab is part of the Smoore fundamental research center.
Operational since the first half of 2021, the laboratory has already completed 52 product tests for leading vape brands. As China’s first corporate TPD-compliant risk assessment laboratory, it can generate test reports within five working days. Its laboratory equipment is benchmarked against those in world-class analytical testing laboratories, such as Labstat and Enthalpy, according to Smoore.
As the industry’s harm reduction and quality benchmark, the company complies with its in-house Smoore 3.0 safety standards. Based on the risk assessment guidance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration, Smoore 3.0 covers all of the premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) vapor safety tests and FDA-listed harmful and potentially harmful constituents. In addition to vapor safety, Smoore 3.0 also involves extractable and leachable substances of medical-grade atomization materials.
Smoore’s fundamental research center has developed a comprehensive analytical testing and risk assessment system, covering PMTA nonclinical testing and health risk assessment. Accredited by the China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment (CNAS) in 2019, the system is now capable of up to 149 CNAS tests involving the chemical analysis of e-liquids and aerosols, electrical safety, material safety and battery safety.
Smoore entered the EU market in 2018 with its FEELM atomization brand.
March 11, 2022
Trade Body Urges Changes to EU Directive

Photo: ITSA
The International Tax Stamp Association (ITSA) is calling for improvements to the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), which is currently undergoing a mandatory review.
Among other things, the association believes the TPD should be more prescriptive on tobacco product security features, thereby avoiding countries adopting too many different features, which creates confusion.
The tobacco industry’s responsibilities should be limited to ordering, applying and reporting the use of tax stamps, with all other responsibilities reassigned to independent providers selected by government authorities.
ITSA also recommends that the importance of tax stamps be recognized in the legal language of the EU TPD. Therefore, any new version of the directive should encourage the adoption of legal instruments to introduce tax stamps by those member states that currently don’t use them, as well as introduce, as a transitional measure, a security label designed and procured by the issuing authority.
Juan Yanez
Another recommendation is for the language used to describe tax stamps to explicitly require them to have traceability functionality. This is an essential tool for the security of the system and complements the unique identifier directly printed or marked on the product pack. It also improves tracking of the issuance of the tax stamp, secures tighter controls and limits the impact of any fraudulent activity.
“Now, more than ever, the time is right for us all to come together as a united force over illicit trade and lost tax revenues,” said ITSA Chairman Juan Carlos Yanez Arenas.
“With the tobacco traceability requirements of the WHO FCTC Protocol entering into force in 2023, countries that are party to the Protocol have two years left to implement these systems, and we can help them with this by offering practical guidance based on proven best practice. We have identified the best features of the EU TPD, as well as those that can be improved on, which can be taken and used to deliver world class programs that everyone involved in the tobacco sector stands to benefit from.”
November 12, 2021
Critics: TPD Proposals Would Ban Most Vapes

Photo: areporter
The Independent European Vape Alliance (IEVA) has expressed concern about “the content and the tone” of the European Commission’s recent report on the application of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), which suggests that further restrictions on vapers might be proposed.
According to the IEVA, the effect of the commission’s proposals would be to ban most vaping products on the market today.
“While the commission is careful not to say it out loud, its proposals would effectively ban most vaping products available today,” the organization wrote in a press release. “It suggests revising all the unjustifiable limits the last TPD set downward, removing most flavors and banning many of the devices commonly used today. Vapers in the EU would lose most of the products they use to stay away from cigarettes today. A flavor ban alone would, according to the commission’s own figures, remove two-thirds of today’s vaping market.”
The IEVA says the report fails to acknowledge the concept of harm reduction. “The report fails to acknowledge any of the evidence on the relative risks of vaping and smoking,” the IEVA wrote. “This is despite member state governments running campaigns trying to encourage smokers to switch to vaping. Sante Publique France, for example, has launched an anti-smoking campaign called ‘Je choisis la vapotage’ (‘I choose vaping’), which makes clear that ‘you can use vaping products without taking short-term health risks.’ The commission must take account of best practice in the EU, not ignore it.”
Some of the report’s proposals on vaping, says the IEVA, could also lead to more young people smoking.
“Shortly after this report was published, Yale University released the first real world study on the effect of flavor bans on youth smoking prevalence,” the IEVA stated. “In the city of San Francisco, flavored vaping products were banned in 2018. Since then, smoking has doubled among high school students in the area relative to trends in districts without the ban, even when adjusting for individual demographics and other tobacco policies. This study was funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products. There was no industry involvement in the study.”
The IEVA says the report insufficiently focuses on the real enemy of public health—smoking. “While the commission does question whether the nicotine threshold for vaping products should be lower, it has brushed aside calls from members of the European Parliament to adapt the method for measuring tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels in cigarette smoke,” the IEVA wrote. “This combination of policies would ensure that cigarettes deliver far more nicotine—an addictive substance—than vaping products. While there have been no reported deaths in Europe caused by vaping TPD-regulated products, smoking kills half of its regular users.”
June 7, 2021
Proper Context

Photo: Dan Johnston from Pixabay
Will the EU consider the relative risk of e-cigarettes when it revises its Tobacco Products Directive?
By Stefanie Rossel
Two days at the beginning of next month are likely to have a significant impact on the future of tobacco harm reduction (THR) in the European Union (EU). In its plenary meeting on March 3–4, 2021, the EU Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) will adopt its final opinion on e-cigarettes. Whether it substantially differs from the committee’s preliminary opinion, published in September 2020, remains to be seen.
Under article 28 of the EU Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU (TPD), the European Commission (EC) has been tasked with reporting to the European Parliament, the European Council and other committees on the application of the directive by May 20, 2021. The article stipulates that the commission shall review the directive in light of scientific and technical developments in order to consider legislative amendments and that it shall pay special attention to e-cigarettes. In this, it is to be assisted by experts such as those from SCHEER so that it has all the necessary, most recent and up-to-date information at its disposal.
In article 20 of its 2014 version, the TPD standardizes safety and quality requirements for nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, such as provisions on the ingredients that can be used in e-liquids and maximum nicotine content. The SCHEER report, meant to be a scientific review of the health effects of e-cigarettes, was one of several studies the EC mandated on the application of the TPD on the use and opinions of consumers of tobacco and related products and on product perception. It is important as it may be part of the basis for a further revision of the TPD, which is under consideration. And it could have contributed to making the EU a forerunner in sensible regulation of tobacco and nicotine products, proportionate to their risk.
However, vapor advocates were dissapointed when the SCHEER committee released its preliminary opinion on Sept. 23, 2020. The Independent European Vape Alliance (IEVA) called the report “fundamentally flawed.” Christopher Snowden, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs, described the document as a “step backward.” Clive Bates, director of Counterfactual Consulting, called the report “misjudged, poorly executed and unhelpful.”
Areas of concern included the committee’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence that e-cigarettes are a useful tool for smokers seeking alternatives, despite quoting two randomized control trials stating the opposite. The committee was also accused of ignoring scientific literature published after April 2019, most of which supports the argument that vaping facilitates THR. In its risk assessment, critics said, the SCHEER committee had not chosen a comparative risk-based approach but a simpler hazard-based approach, stating the potential risks of using e-cigarettes without even attempting to compare these with the risks from cigarette smoking, which are exponentially higher.
According to the report’s findings, there is strong evidence that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking. The data on which this conclusion is founded, however, is almost exclusively from the U.S., which has an entirely different regulatory regime. The committee also failed to acknowledge that in the EU, smoking among young people has declined significantly.

Advertisement
Ignoring relative risks
Abrie du Plessis
“My view, from a regulatory perspective, is that the preliminary SCHEER opinion does not really address the most pertinent question on harm reduction, which has become even more pressing since the 2014 TPD,” says Abrie du Plessis, an associate at the South African Trade Law Center in Cape Town, who spent more than a decade following the developments of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and the the 2014 TPD. “This question is about positioning e-cigarette effects and impacts relative to those of combustible cigarettes. There is, in my view, an urgent need to do this in a comprehensive and evidence-based manner. The preliminary opinion unfortunately fails to do this.”
A possible explanation is that the SCHEER committee simply considered such a comparison to be outside of its remit. In the minutes of its most recent working group meeting on Dec. 2, 2020, it states, “The mandating Commission service clarified that there was no specific mentioning of harm reduction in the terms of reference.”
“This is very significant,” du Plessis explains. “What it means is that there is a strong possibility that any further submissions on this topic could be disregarded and that the final opinion, to be adopted on [March 3 to March 4, 2021], will still not address the wider issue of harm reduction. The final opinion will then probably not make any real contribution in respect of the wider policy debate on tobacco harm reduction, and this narrow focus may therefore limit its value for EU policymakers. If the opinion indeed stays the same, then the Commission will have to look elsewhere for answers to the policy questions on harm reduction that it may want to address in the next TPD.”
The public health community, du Plessis adds, is divided on which tobacco harm reduction policies to support. The WHO holds an ideological bias against e-cigarettes, favoring cessation of all nicotine consumption. As party to the WHO’s FCTC, the EU is likely to take its cues from the global health body.
“This bias could have played a role at the SCHEER level, but I think that there is another possibility, which is that the committee simply opted for quite a narrow interpretation of its mandate, and in the end did not really address the wider issue of tobacco harm reduction or its rapidly evolving evidence base,” says du Plessis. “The SCHEER report is, however, only one of the inputs into the upcoming Commission report to the European Parliament, and the debate could soon shift to the actual mooted proposals, to a wider range of inputs to be considered and to inclusive participation in the further legislative process.”

Advertisement
Under pressure
In line with its formal stakeholder dialogue procedures, the SCHEER is obliged to seek feedback from the scientific community and other stakeholders before publishing its final opinion. During the commenting period following the release of the preliminary opinion, which ended on Oct. 26, 2020, the SHEER received 691 contributions. Any proposed changes to the opinion had to be tabled by Jan. 12, 2021.
However, the SCHEER may not feel obliged to take all comments into consideration; the EU has received much criticism about the level of tobacco influence in the shaping of the 2014 TPD. Besides, provisions in the TPD require it to respect international treaties such as the FCTC and its article 5.3, which discourages tobacco industry involvement in policymaking.
“My view is that the committee will certainly consider the comments it receives, but it will act in line with its stakeholder dialogue procedures,” explains du Plessis. “The point to keep in mind is that the committee will carefully vet all comments received for relevance to the preliminary opinion and to its interpretation of its mandate.
“On top of this, all submissions will have to comply with its further detailed rules of procedure. This means that there is a clear risk that a significant number of submissions may be disregarded. There is also significant time pressure as the final opinion is now almost two months overdue and must feed into the article 28 report planned for [May 20, 2021].
“I agree that article 5.3 of the FCTC can create pressure on the committee to exclude studies or evidence originating from [the] industry. I, however, think that openly disqualifying peer-reviewed scientific studies simply on this basis would be detrimental to the standing of the committee.”
The EU Commission finds itself in the less-than-ideal situation that its TPD review will commence before the next FCTC Conference of the Parties (COP9), which had to be postponed to November 2021 due to the coronavirus pandemic. “The 2014 Tobacco Products Directive confirms that developments, such as internationally agreed rules and standards on tobacco and related products, are relevant to the EU legislative process,” says du Plessis. “Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the EU was in a position that it could benefit from possible discussions at COP9, which was originally scheduled for November 2020, before it had to publish its own article 28 report—with proposed amendments to the TPD—by [May 20, 2021]. The postponement of COP9 by one year means that the EU Commission will no longer enjoy this benefit. With its own scientific opinion not addressing key questions on harm reduction in sufficient detail, a valid question would be whether it is at this stage in a position to propose any further evidence-based measures on tobacco harm reduction.”
Stefanie Rossel is Tobacco Reporter’s editorial contributor. An experienced trade journalist, she combines sharp reporting skills with in-depth knowledge of the tobacco and vapor industries. Prior to joining Tobacco Reporter, Stefanie was editor-in-chief at Tobacco Journal International, where she worked for a decade. Fluent in English, German and French, Stefanie covers tobacco news around the world. She is based in Germany.

February 1, 2021
Nicotine Users Surveyed Ahead of TPD Revision

Photo: mohamed Hassan from Pixabay
In the run up to the revision of the European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), scheduled for 2021, the European Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (ETHRA) have launched a major survey to examine nicotine use in Europe.
Among other questions, the poll asks adult consumers about their views on possible regulatory changes. How would users react to increased taxes, flavor bans or to the legalization of snus? Is there a need for greater access to product information? Would lifting the container restriction on e-liquids have any impact? What is missing for people who want to quit smoking?
Available in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish, the questionnaire will be open until Dec. 31, 2020.
In addition to evaluating the TPD, the European Commission is preparing proposals to amend its Tobacco Excise Directive to harmonize definitions and tax treatment of new products, including vapor, in 2021.
The European Parliament will debate the proposed TPD changes in May 2021.
The ETHRA offers tobacco harm reduction advocates in Europe a platform for exchanging information and sharing experiences.
October 14, 2020
Minting Substitutes

Photo: JTI
Cigarette manufacturers are offering alternatives to smokers left in the cold by the EU menthol ban.
By Stefanie Rossel
As the Covid-19 shutdown left many retailers unable to sell off their noncompliant products ahead of the EU menthol ban, tobacco industry representatives pleaded for an extension of the deadline to no avail: On May 20, article 7 of the Tobacco Product Directive (TPD2) entered into force. Since then, sales of cigarettes with “characterizing” flavors other than tobacco have been prohibited throughout the EU. The ban, which predominantly affects the menthol cigarette category, has ended sales of cigarettes with menthol capsules, click on, click and roll, crushball or dual menthol cigarettes. Vending hand-rolling tobacco with mentholated filters or papers is also illegal if they are supplied together. Exempted from the ban are menthol-flavored e-liquids for vapor products, separately available mentholated smoking accessories, menthol-flavored oral nicotine pouches and cigarillos. Outside of Germany, mentholated consumables for heated tobacco products (HTP) also continue to be legal.
The ban has eliminated an entire class of cigarettes throughout the continent. Although menthol is a far smaller business in the EU than it is in the U.S., where it accounts for roughly one-third of all cigarette sales, its prohibition touches around 8 million adult smokers, according to the most recent Eurobarometer report (from 2017) on attitudes of Europeans toward tobacco and electronic cigarettes. The report finds that menthol cigarette consumption varies significantly throughout the common market, with the products being most popular in Finland (24 percent), Denmark (20 percent) and the U.K. (18 percent) and representing a small proportion of the markets in Slovenia, Cyprus and Greece with 2 percent each. Euromonitor International estimates that the category generates $11 billion in sales in Western Europe.

Advertisement
A matter of taste
The question is how the millions of menthol smokers will respond when they can’t get their favorite fix anymore. Are they going to quit smoking altogether, as the European Commission hopes? Will they embrace regular cigarettes, resort to mentholated tobacco products that remain legal or switch to reduced-risk products (RRPs)?
“It is still too early to predict what current menthol smokers will do once their preferred products disappear from shelves,” says Femi Namfua, corporate media relations director at Japan Tobacco International (JTI). “The EU gave menthol smokers a six-year transition period to switch to other products. We now have to wait and see how smokers will react. We hope the menthol ban in the EU won’t lead smokers to the illegal trade as this will completely defeat the purpose of the ban—something we warned regulators about during the proposal phase of the new regulation.”
Eric Sensi-Minautier, head of British American Tobacco’s (BAT) EU office, shares this view. “It’s the million-dollar question,” he says. “I believe they will resort to looking for other possibilities available. That’s why it is essential that we are able to offer a greater choice of enjoyable and less risky products.”
Earlier this year, JTI surveyed more than 350 retailers in the U.K., a £11 billion ($13.67 billion) cigarette market of which JTI and Imperial Brands jointly hold an 80 percent share. Data that became available after the 2017 Eurobarometer report suggests that around a quarter of the U.K. market, or $3.42 billion, consists of mentholated cigarettes. Of the surveyed retailers, 25 percent believed that former menthol smokers would remain brand loyal within the ready-made cigarette (RMC) category, 19 percent thought they would switch to roll-your-own tobacco and 45 percent were confident that their customers would switch to vaping or other RRPs. Eleven percent expected previous menthol users to leave the category altogether.

Imperial Brands is enticing former menthol smokers to embrace its vapor products.
Photos: Imperial Brands
Ban sparks innovation
To meet all possible consumer preferences, cigarette manufacturers in recent months have become creative in their efforts to provide former menthol smokers with the widest possible range of products, including RRPs.
“Menthol cigarettes account for a significant portion of the European market, so the removal of these products from shops last month means a number of smokers will be seeking to make alternative product choices,” says Simon Evans, group media and online communications manager at Imperial Brands. “It’s important that we provide a range of options at such a time of significant consumer ‘churn.’ Our Myblu vaping product is available in menthol and other flavored varieties, giving extra impetus for smokers to transition away from cigarettes.”
“But we also understand that many menthol smokers will decide to continue to smoke and so we also focus on providing an evolving portfolio of products in line with their expectations,” says Evans. “Rizla Flavour Cards are flavor-infused sheets of card that can fit inside a pack of cigarettes. When left in the pack for at least an hour, the contents will take on the flavor of the card. Menthol and mint varieties are available. Rizla menthol filter tips are also available for consumers of rolling tobacco.”
Aroma cards have been around from other suppliers for some time, for example from Frizc. For the flavoring of loose tobacco, companies like MacBaren offer ampoules with liquid menthol aroma.
BAT, which is preparing for a future that is likely to be in noncombustible nicotine products (see “Beyond Tobacco,” Tobacco Reporter, May 2020), has been extending its vapor product portfolio to cater to former menthol smokers’ needs. In early May, the company introduced a range of new menthol e-liquid flavors and limited-edition starter kits for its Vype brand in the U.K. “Our strategy is to accompany smokers to move to less risky products,” Sensi-Minautier points out. “The entry into force of the EU menthol ban is a good moment for this.”
According to the company, the new range of e-liquids now closely mirrors the experience of smoking a menthol cigarette, with new blends, an innovative tube filter and new formats across the range. BAT has also innovated its Pall Mall, Vogue and Rothmans brands to offer former menthol smokers attractive, nonmenthol cigarettes.

Advertisement
Providing more choice
In March, JTI launched several alternative products with new tobacco blends in the U.K. Its New Dual range, which is available in the Sterling, Benson & Hedges and Sovereign brands, provides smokers with new, distinctive tobacco blends, replacing the company’s former menthol capsule cigarettes. The same blend will also be used for the “green” product variants of the Sterling, Benson & Hedges and Berkeley “New Superkings” ranges. As long as their products do not contain menthol, retailers are still allowed to sell cigarettes with names that were previously used to describe a menthol product, such as “green.”
For all those who can’t do without their hint of mint, JTI in early February introduced a cigarette-sized menthol cigar, the Sterling Dual Capsule cigarillo, in the U.K. The product is marketed under the same name as one of JTI’s cigarette brands but is exempt from the ban because it is wrapped in tobacco leaf rather than paper. As its name implies, its filter contains a mentholated capsule, which smokers can click to release a peppermint flavor. Being a cigarillo, it sells at half the price of regular cigarettes.
The company also broadened its RRP portfolio, introducing a variety of new menthol flavors for its Logic e-cigarette brand and its Ploom tobacco vapor products, and outside of RRP, its Nordic Spirit nicotine pouches.
Philip Morris International (PMI) in March added a menthol kit to its IQOS heat-not-burn product comprising an IQOS 2.4 device and two packs of mentholated heat sticks. According to the company, 51 percent of menthol smokers would switch to IQOS when their preferred menthol smoke was no longer available, betterretailing.com reported.
Despite the long transition period—the ban on menthol was announced in 2016, with the introduction of the TPD2—awareness of the new rules remained remarkably low among retailers and consumers alike as the deadline approached. In another JTI survey, carried out one week before the ban took effect, more than half (52 percent) of participating U.K. retailers said they expected adult smokers to remain brand loyal within the RMC category; 31 percent believed their customers would switch to vaping or other reduced-risk products; 11 percent think they will switch to roll-your-own (RYO); and just 6 percent expect adult smokers to quit the category altogether. The results show a significant shift in thinking compared to JTI’s previous survey, with more retailers now believing that their customers will remain brand loyal within the RMC category and fewer assuming smokers will switch to vaping, RYO or quit.
Days before the ban entered into force, another poll, conducted for smokers advocacy group Forest, found that the lack of awareness of the ban also extended to consumers: Almost 40 percent of the more than 2,000 U.K. smokers surveyed were oblivious to the new rules. Only 16 percent believed that the ban would lead to a reduction in smoking prevalence whereas 46 percent of smokers thought that it would lead to an increase in illicit trade.
To educate stakeholders, leading tobacco companies created dedicated websites, which also included information about alternatives to menthol cigarettes and companies’ buyback schemes for unsold menthol cigarettes.

When Rizla Flavour Cards are left in a tobacco product pack for at least an hour, the contents will take on the flavor of the card.
Unwanted side effects
The justification for banning menthol cigarettes is that the minty taste masks the harshness of the inhaled tobacco smoke, which might make it easier for nonsmokers, including young people, to take up smoking.
The tobacco industry has long disputed that line of reasoning. “Peer pressure and parental influence are the main reasons for starting to smoke, according to studies, not menthol cigarettes,” says Namfua. “Study results do not support the claim that menthol smokers start smoking at a younger age. There is no sufficient evidence to support the claim that a prohibition of menthol tobacco products will affect smoking rates as campaigners suggest. Such a ban is therefore an unjustified restriction on adult consumer choice and sets a dangerous precedent for other products beyond the tobacco category.”
“Young people don’t start smoking because of menthol,” echoes Sensi-Minautier. “We do not believe the available science supports the idea that a menthol ban will reduce youth smoking or address the health impact of smoking more generally. Personally, I don’t believe that it will have more of an impact on smoking rates than plain packaging, which has had no effect.”
Canada, which prohibited menthol cigarettes in October 2017, provides a cautionary tale. Several of the country’s provinces already had menthol bans in place at the time of the nationwide rule. A study published this February by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the provincial menthol bans simply increased nonmenthol cigarette smoking among youths, leaving overall youth smoking rates unchanged.
While the menthol ban may not achieve the desired reduction in EU youth smoking, it may very well bring about unintended consequences. “We now have to wait and see how smokers will react, but based on previous bans, what we often see is a coinciding increase in illegal trade and a decrease in tax revenues,” Namfua points out. “Government revenues are jeopardized in case of a ban in any market with mentholated tobacco products, especially in places where a large part of existing smokers choose them, like Poland, for example, as they may look to illegal channels to buy their preferred flavors in [the] future. U.S. law enforcement agencies are publicly opposing a menthol ban due to worries of an increase in organized crime, which remains an important concern.”
If smokers of mentholated cigarettes switch to illegal channels, the impact on government revenues would be substantial. “Studies show that up to 25 percent of menthol smokers would buy cigarettes from the illegal market instead, meaning governments would lose millions,” says Namfua.
In Europe, he says, criminal gangs started taking advantage of the menthol ban even before it was implemented. U.K. law enforcement agencies began finding packs of counterfeit menthol cigarettes as early as October 2019—seven months before the ban.
“Any prohibition of a product may be a driver of illicit trade, but the situation might be more complex,” cautions Sensi-Minautier. “We need to be careful because we don’t know yet if current consumers of menthol cigarettes will consider menthol to be so important to them that they find an illicit source. It would also be interesting to see whether the criminal gangs will seize this opportunity to diversify.”

JTI has broadened its RRP portfolio, introducing a variety of new menthol flavors for its Logic e-cigarette brand and its Ploom tobacco vapor products, and outside of RRP, its Nordic Spirit nicotine pouches.
Stefanie Rossel is Tobacco Reporter’s editorial contributor. An experienced trade journalist, she combines sharp reporting skills with in-depth knowledge of the tobacco and vapor industries. Prior to joining Tobacco Reporter, Stefanie was editor-in-chief at Tobacco Journal International, where she worked for a decade. Fluent in English, German and French, Stefanie covers tobacco news around the world. She is based in Germany.

June 1, 2020
EU Parliament passes TPD
The European Parliament endorsed the new EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) on Feb. 26, solidifying an agreement reached with the council last December. The council will now have to approve the TPD for it to take force.
The endorsement of the new TPD strengthens the current European regulation on tobacco in several ways. Among other measures, it increases the size of pictorial and text health warnings to cover 65 percent of tobacco packages and bans flavored cigarettes and features on packaging that play down the health risks of smoking.
The new TPD also aims to make tobacco packages less attractive to women and children. In addition, the directive will also ensure the product safety and quality of nicotine-containing products, including e-cigarettes. It attempts to ensure that they remain accessible to smokers while ensuring that they are unappealing and inaccessible to minors.
EU member states will retain the possibility to adopt more stringent measures to regulate tobacco products, such as standardized packaging.
February 26, 2014
Central European coalition criticizes TPD
A joint declaration adopted May 17^th by Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian and Bulgarian agriculture ministers criticizes the European Commission’s draft Tobacco Products Directive, especially the proposed ban on slim and menthol cigarettes, reports Europolitics.
The ministers said that, if approved, the directive would hurt thousands of families that depend on tobacco cultivation for their living. They called on the Commission to “establish support instruments for producers which would compensate for losses incurred due to the implementation of the directive,” and “to guarantee an alternative for those who would like to withdraw from tobacco production.”
The ministers also opposed the proposal for cigarette health warnings to cover 75 percent of the surface area of packaging, saying this requirement would have negative consequences for the rights of brand owners and increase the possibility of fraud.
May 22, 2013