home page ← Buzz@Bruss! Edition #9 ← EU Tobacco Policy: The litmus test for Better Regulation
The European Commission has closed its public consultation on the future of the EU’s Better Regulation framework, promising smarter consultations →, clearer laws and stronger competitiveness.
For companies operating in highly-regulated sectors like tobacco, these commitments are not abstract governance concepts – they are the conditions for investment, innovation and long-term planning in Europe.
And with the next revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) on the horizon, ensuring that Better Regulation principles are applied consistently has never been more important. This revision will set the tone for how evidence, consultation and competitiveness are balanced in one of the EU’s most politically-sensitive policy areas.
Evidence first – or policy first?
In its response to the consultation, Tobacco Europe highlighted a number of recurring shortcomings, including incomplete or delayed impact assessments, limited transparency in competitiveness analysis, and a consultation processes that risks becoming procedural exercise rather than genuine evidence gathering.
Better Regulation should mean evidence first, proposal second. Without timely and robust impact assessments, legislative initiatives create uncertainty, complicate compliance planning and weaken investor confidence – the opposite of what a competitiveness agenda should seek to achieve.
As the Commission prepares for the next TPD revision, these principles become even more essential.
Consultation cannot mean exclusion
The Commission has pledged to make consultations “smarter.” At its core, that must mean engaging with stakeholders who will be directly affected by legislation, or who can contribute relevant evidence and technical expertise. Inclusive, transparent consultation is not a concession to any one interest – it is a prerequisite for evidence-based policymaking and laws that work in practice.
In the tobacco space, however, wrongful interpretations of Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC have too often resulted in the complete exclusion of legitimate economic operators from technical discussions that directly affect them. Safeguards against undue influence are essential – but blanket exclusion undermines regulatory quality.
The exact wording of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is:
5.3. Protection of public health policies with respect to tobacco control from commercial and other vested interests
of the tobacco industry.
In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these
policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.
Properly understood, Article 5.3 does not bar consultation with tobacco companies under Better Regulation principles but rather calls for safeguards to ensure that public health policy is not driven by vested interests.
Transparency is non negotiable
A recent decision by the European Ombudsman concerning the evaluation of the EU tobacco control framework (see Buzz@Bruss! #4 →) underscored the importance of clear and well communicated conflict of interest assessments. Even where legal thresholds are met, procedural opacity damages trust.
Process integrity matters as much as policy substance, especially in politically sensitive areas such as the TPD.
Competitiveness beyond simplification
The Commission increasingly frames competitiveness through simplification. Reducing administrative burden matters — but competitiveness cannot be reduced to uniform rules or ever more prescriptive standards applied across the board.
There is a risk that harmonization becomes an end in itself, leading to “equalizing upwards” in ways that constrain innovation, narrow market dynamics and discourage investment. In highly regulated sectors, like tobacco and nicotine, this can undermine the Single Market rather than strengthen it.
A Better Regulation agenda that genuinely supports competitiveness must therefore consider how rules affect innovation, investment and market openness. Regulation that closes markets or limits technological pathways does not enhance Europe’s competitiveness – on the contrary.
A real test, not a rhetorical one
The Better Regulation consultation offers the Commission an opportunity to demonstrate that its commitments translate into practice – even in politically sensitive files. The upcoming TPD revision will be a decisive moment.
If Better Regulation is applied selectively, it risks becoming an empty label. If it is applied consistently – through robust evidence, inclusive consultation and transparent processes – it can strengthen both the quality and legitimacy of EU policymaking.
