What’s the news?
New nicotine products such as vapes, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco are a key revenue stream for the tobacco industry. The industry is investing millions in scientific research intended to demonstrate that these products are less harmful than cigarettes. This message is resonating in Brussels. But this “harm reduction” narrative has blind spots. It often fails to take into account that many people use the new nicotine products not instead of, but alongside cigarettes, and that even young people who have never smoked are taking them up.
Why does this matter?
Independent research increasingly shows the health risks associated with these products. But ever more people, many of them young, are using them.Stricter European regulations and higher taxes could make vapes, pouches and other smoking alternatives less attractive.
How was this investigated?
Journalists analysed European policy and lobbying documents from 2020 to 2026 to map out the harm reduction narrative in European policy. Reporters investigated whether Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who support harm reduction had ties to the tobacco industry.Annual reports, investor presentations, and other public corporate documents from major tobacco companies were analysed to examine the role that new nicotine products play in their strategy and revenue model.Journalists also interviewed experts about the harm reduction narrative.
Read more
Fold in
“Too careful, too quiet, too afraid.”
These are not normally charges leveled against Big Tobacco. But it was exactly this that Charlie Weimers, a Swedish Member of the European Parliament (MEP), accused the industry of being when he spoke at the World Nicotine Congress in Brussels this spring.
He told representatives of the industry that they should do much more to push vapes, pouches and other new nicotine products, which he argued were less harmful than smoking cigarettes.
This is a message that “the other side” – a group that, according to Weimers, includes the European Commission – refuses to hear. He said that an anti-nicotine lobby wants to ban all such products and is deaf to arguments about “harm reduction”.
At the conference where Weimers spoke, Follow the Money reporters were not welcome, though he later shared his speech online.
The tobacco industry itself is also keen to promote this harm reduction perspective. To this end, it is pumping millions of dollars into scientific research designed to demonstrate the beneficial health effects of alternatives to cigarettes, and is promoting this narrative in Brussels to influence health policy.
With success: in June, the European Parliament voted against the revision of an EU directive that would have made new nicotine products subject to the bloc’s minimum tobacco tax.
Our journalism is only possible thanks to the trust of our paying members. Not a member yet? Sign up now
Analysis of over 50 lobbying documents and policy papers from the last six years reveals how the same harm reduction arguments find their way into the political arena.
These arguments recur in parliamentary questions, amendments and European policy proposals, as shown by the database compiled by the investigative journalism institute Open Eyes for Follow the Money and the Dutch Journal of Medicine.
Politicians such as Weimers – who met with representatives of the tobacco industry multiple times in recent years – are campaigning for less stringent regulations on these new products.
Of the 33 MEPs who publicly expressed support for harm reduction, 24 had been in contact with representatives of the tobacco industry prior to making their statements, according to sources compiled for Follow the Money.
But is it really true that alternatives to cigarettes are less harmful, as the tobacco industry systematically claims? And how close are the ties between the tobacco industry, the scientific community and the political sphere?
Behind the tobacco lobby lie major financial interests. New nicotine products account for an ever-increasing share of the tobacco industry’s turnover.
British American Tobacco (BAT), known for brands such as Pall Mall and Lucky Strike, already derived 18.2% of its turnover from “smoke free” nicotine products in 2025. According to its annual report, that share is set to grow to more than 50% by 2035.
Competitor Philip Morris International (PMI) generated more than 40% of its revenue from new nicotine products last year. This enabled the company to record its strongest organic revenue growth in 14 years.
In a presentation to investors, PMI reported that the new smoke-free products generate approximately 2.5 times as much revenue per product as traditional cigarettes.
The industry argues that the new products are the less harmful alternative to cigarettes. It says they are for people who want to kick their tobacco addiction.
In reality, many people use these products interchangeably. For example, they smoke and vape. According to PMI, 41% of users combine new nicotine products with cigarettes. In the US, this figure rises to as much as 67%.
Between 2020 and 2024, PMI’s cigarette sales in the EU fell by around 2% a year, while sales of smoke-free nicotine products grew by more than a quarter annually.
Criticism of studies
Tobacco companies are meanwhile investing heavily in their own research designed to demonstrate that new nicotine products are less harmful than cigarettes. Since 2008, scientists affiliated with PMI have published 551 scientific articles on new tobacco products. For BAT, the figure stands at 276 articles.
PMI stated openly in an annual report that the company’s scientific activities are intended to demonstrate “that our smoke-free products positively impact public health”.
But independent researchers told Follow the Money that the methodology of these studies is frequently flawed.
Sophie Braznell, a research associate and coordinator at the University of Bath, examined PMI’s studies on heated tobacco products and concluded that they are often too short to draw meaningful conclusions about health effects.
She found that research questions, study duration and analysis are frequently designed in such a way as to bring favourable results to the fore. Furthermore, tobacco industry-backed researchers do not always publish all the results, which creates an incomplete picture.
In addition to its own research, the harm reduction narrative promoted by the tobacco industry also relies on studies that are indirectly funded via intermediary organisations.
Industry is attempting to influence both the scientific debate and the regulations surrounding nicotine products
Tobacco Tactics, a University of Bath information platform, calculated that, between 2017 and 2023, PMI paid $407 million to the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (now Global Action to End Smoking).
This organisation’s tax returns show that it provides financial support to science and research centres worldwide.
The industry also engages in cherry-picking from independent third-party research.
Much of the research that supports the harm reduction narrative focuses on whether the new products are less harmful than cigarettes. But “less harmful” is not the same as harmless. Take the vape, for example. A growing body of research suggests that, for certain conditions, the risks of e-cigarettes are barely distinguishable from those of cigarettes.
Reviews show that the use of e-cigarettes is associated with cardiovascular conditions, respiratory problems and lung diseases.
And contrary to the industry’s narrative, many users do not become non-smokers. According to research by the European Joint Action on Tobacco Control, around 60% of European e-cigarette users also smoke cigarettes.
The Swedish model
Precisely because new nicotine products have become so important to the sector’s growth, the industry is attempting to influence both the scientific debate and the regulations surrounding these products.
In his speech at the World Nicotine Congress, Weimers referred to the revision of the EU Tobacco Tax Directive, which sets the minimum excise duties on tobacco and nicotine products.
The European Commission wants new nicotine products to be covered by European tax rules as well.
The directive is also intended to reduce the significant price differences between member states, so that consumers find it harder to buy cheaper nicotine products across national borders.
In the European Parliament in June, MEPs voted against the excise duty increases proposed by the European Commission.
At the same time, the EU member states were negotiating their own positions within the Council. Sweden announced in June that it would vote against the proposal, citing the high taxes on nicotine pouches.
As tax rules can only be adopted unanimously, a single member state is enough to block its introduction. On 9 October, the European finance ministers are likely to reconsider the proposal.
Sweden is often cited in Brussels as proof that harm reduction works.
Only around 5% of the Swedish population now smokes. According to the Swedish health authorities, this happened after the implementation of tobacco control policies such as higher excise duties and smoking bans.
However, the Swedish government and MEPs – such as Weimers – attribute this success to snus, a popular form of oral nicotine delivery, and nicotine pouches.
These are the same arguments used by the tobacco industry in its lobbying of the European Commission. In a response to the new Tobacco Tax Directive, tobacco giant British American Tobacco (BAT) wrote that taxes should reflect the “lower risk profile”: of new nicotine products and encourage smokers to switch.
The EU’s transparency register and other sources show that Weimers has met with representatives of the tobacco industry eight times since 2019.
In an email exchange with Follow the Money before the World Nicotine Conference in Brussels, Weimers said that his position was based on “outcomes and evidence, not on the interests of any particular industry”.
He added that meetings with industry representatives were a normal part of the legislative process. He did not respond to a further request for comment ahead of the publication of this article.
Influencing the debate
The influence of the tobacco lobby can also be seen on the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), which issues opinions on new European policy, including the revision of the Tobacco Tax Directive.
Although the committee has only an advisory role, the sector is attempting to influence the debate here too.
Matteo Borsani, charged with drafting an opinion for the committee, cited the “Swedish model” and argued for the implementation of the “less harm, less tax” principle.
The harm reduction lobby is not confined to tax legislation
Borsani is also director of the EU delegation of Confindustria, Italy’s leading employers’ organisation. In this role, he is charged with representing the interests of Philip Morris among other businesses. Borsani did not respond to a request for comment.
Ultimately, the EESC adopted an opinion advocating low minimum taxes on new nicotine products – in line with the industry’s position.
Although the committee has only a modest advisory role, the discussion highlights just how much is at stake for the industry: even here, the sector is attempting to influence the debate.
The harm reduction lobby is not confined to tax legislation.
From the end of this year, Brussels will be considering the revision of the Tobacco Products Directive, in which regulations and bans on flavours, nicotine pouches and other new nicotine products are under discussion.
The same harm reduction arguments are already being put forward there too.
When contacted for comment on the claims made in this article, a spokesperson for PMI told Follow the Money that the company welcomed “scientific scrutiny and debate on tobacco harm reduction”.
They added: “Smoke-free products are not risk-free and contain nicotine, which is addictive. They are intended as a less harmful alternative for adult smokers who would otherwise continue smoking.”
BAT did not respond to a request for comment.
This research was carried out by the Open Eyes Collective in collaboration with Luc Hagenaars, Mirte Kuipers and Varvara Schoute of Amsterdam University Medical Centre, with financial support from the Journalism Science Alliance. The funder had no influence on the research design, analysis or publication of the results.