Tobacco Europe welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this TRIS Notification issued by the Dutch government.We herewith attach our contribution in full-length in annex.
Representing three of the largest tobacco and new nicotine products manufacturers in Europe – British American Tobacco, Imperial Brands and Japan Tobacco International – we support balanced, effective and proportionate regulation, grounded in evidence, both at the EU level and across Member States. We are committed to reducing the health impact of smoking by investing in innovative alternatives, like vaping, which expose users to significantly fewer toxicants. Tobacco Europe and its members champion the principle of informed adult choice, ensuring the fundamental right to receive accurate information and the freedom to choose potentially less harmful options. To this end, we favour regulatory frameworks that enable – not hinder – access to new nicotine products such as vapes, realising their public health potential and fostering innovation.
Tobacco Europe´s views on the Dutch proposal
The Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) currently in place does not envisage standardised packaging for electronic cigarettes and refill containers (hereafter ‘vaping products’), and since a review of the TPD is ongoing, the timing of the Dutch proposal is not aligned with the ongoing review. Further to this, we consider the proposed extension of plain packaging to vaping products in the Netherlands to be imbalanced, counter-productive to achieving the Netherlands’ stated goals and disproportionate, and not to be grounded in evidence.
First of all, there is no evidence that plain packaging has generated public health benefits in countries where it has been implemented for combustible tobacco products, as illustrated in Australia, France and the UK[1]. In the Netherlands, the 2021 introduction of plain packaging for combustible products has not contributed towards a decline in smoking incidence[2].
Secondly, the proposed legislation could help increasing illicit trade and exacerbating the growing market of unregulated/illegal vaping products in the Netherlands.[3] Figures for the Netherlands show that the share of counterfeit cigarettes increased from 1.5% since the introduction of plain packing in 2021 to 10.5% in 2024[4].
Thirdly, certain measures of the Dutch proposal are incompatible with EU law, particularly several requirements under the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation (EC No 1272/2008). On the one hand, the Dutch proposal limits the use of barcodes or QR codes to a total of one on the outer packaging or packaging unit, respectively, which conflicts with the CLP provision allowing manufacturers and importers to use digital labels, including QR codes, to repeat the mandatory information on the physical label and/or communicate supplemental information that provides further details to the information on the physical label, with the Commission being empowered to adopt delegated acts to require that certain mandatory label elements are communicated on the digital label only. On the other hand, the CLP Regulation allows manufacturers or importers to display the mandatory labelling elements on the outer packaging of products whose packaging is too small or of a shape that makes it impossible to comply with the CLP labelling requirements. Nevertheless, it is still mandatory to show certain labelling elements, such as any hazard pictogram or signal word, on any inner packaging, such as blisters containing the electronic cigarette or refill containers. The Dutch proposal, however, forbids printed tissue or foil paper (synthetic foil) on the inner packaging and thus makes it impossible for manufacturers or importers of e-cigarettes and refill containers to comply with this CLP requirement. Furthermore, the proposal includes such restrictions as to leave no room on the pack to mention the actual content of the pack, leaving retailers and consumers woefully ill-informed on what it is they are selling or buying. For example, there is no room left on the pack to indicate if the product includes a vape device, refill container or other accessory.
Fourthly, the Dutch proposal exacerbates the fragmentation of labelling and packaging requirements across the EU, which is one of the barriers singled out as contrary to the objectives of the EU Single Market Strategy. According to this strategy, diverging national labelling rules increase the complexity of information provided to consumers and force producers to make products tailored for specific Member States, instead of servicing the whole Single Market. This does not only undermine market integration, but also imposes disproportionate compliance burdens, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. Such national deviations:
1) go beyond the harmonised packaging and labelling requirements for vaping products under TPD;
2) stop companies from treating the Single Market as their unified home market; and
3) go against the European Commission’s declared aim of developing “a single rulebook” to allow businesses to scale up and compete globally.
Finally, the Dutch proposal overlooks the substantial harm-reduction potential of vaping products[5]. According to Public Health England, vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking cigarettes[6], a finding endorsed by other British public health organisations, including the British Lung Foundation, Cancer Research UK and the Royal Society of Public Health[7]. In addition, numerous independent experts and organisations maintain that vaping products do not cause increased smoking but rather act as a gateway out of cigarette use, contributing to public health objectives[8].
Instead of the proposed extension of plain packaging to vaping products, Tobacco Europe and its members would like the Dutch government to consider balanced, effective, proportionate and evidence-based measures, such as text health warnings and the prohibition of product appearance and advertisement targeting minors potentially appealing to underage users of vaping products.
References included in the contribution:
[8] Please see for instance: Jackson et al (2024), ´Associations of Prevalence of E-cigarette Use With Quit Attempts, Quit Success, Use of Smoking Cessation Medication and the Overall Quit Rate Among Smokers in England: A Time-Series Analysis of Population Trends 2007-2022´; Fagerström, K. (2022), ´Can alternative nicotine products put the final nail in the smoking coffin?´; and https://www.ruv.is/frettir/innlent/ae-fleiri-reykingamenn-snua-ser-ad-veipi
