EU’s new tobacco survey – silences citizens’ criticism as effectively as Putin

The European Commission has launched a new public consultation: Public consultation questionnaire – Revision of the EU rules on tobacco products and tobacco advertising.

On the surface, it is about gathering views. In practice, however, the questionnaire raises serious concerns as to whether the EU is genuinely interested in what citizens think – or whether the answers are already predetermined.

A recurring pattern

Unfortunately, this is not the first time. As early as 2023, Pouch Patrol pointed out that the EU’s consultation on the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) was designed in a way that steered responses in a particular direction. Despite extensive criticism, there has been neither a response nor any meaningful change. The new survey follows the same pattern:

“We once again see misleading wording, extremely limited response options, and questions that assume problems instead of investigating actual data. It clearly appears that the EU is not interested in genuine insight or people’s real views but is merely attempting to create a façade of legitimacy for positions that have already been predetermined. This is entirely unacceptable,” says Markus Lindblad, Communications Director at Pouch Patrol.

When the EU asks the public to speculate

A particular issue is that several questions are not based on facts – but on speculation.

For example:

· Even middle‑aged and older respondents are asked to assess which products “appeal to young people”

· Respondents are expected to estimate risks and effects of different nicotine and tobacco products without being given access to data

· Hypothetical consequences of various regulatory measures are presented, which respondents are then asked to evaluate

This raises a fundamental question:

Why ask the public these questions at all – instead of relying on research, epidemiological data and expert analysis? Does the European Commission really intend to design policy based on assumptions rather than evidence?

All products treated as the same

Another recurring flaw is that the questionnaire not only conflates tobacco, nicotine and nicotine‑free products, but also requires respondents to give the same answer across all categories. One example reads:

How important is it to you that EU tobacco control legislation supports the following objectives with regard to tobacco, nicotine and non‑nicotine products?

Respondents are then asked to rate, among other things, the importance of “supporting the cessation of use”.

“If you take a harm‑reduction perspective and believe that vapes and nicotine pouches are better and less harmful alternatives to deadly cigarettes, the structure of the survey makes it impossible to express that view. You are just as restricted in expressing your opinion as people in Putin’s Russia. Alternative products are treated as exactly the same as cigarettes. This is not only illogical – it directly conflicts with established evidence on relative risks,” says Lindblad.

The EU seeks to expand supranational powers

Several questions in the survey also concern increased centralisation and granting more powers to the European Commission at the expense of Member States – yet the implications are not explained at all. Respondents are, for example, asked to consider:

“To what extent do you agree with the following statement: EU rules need to include a regulatory mechanism that allows the European Commission to react quickly to market, scientific and technical developments.”

“It may sound reasonable for the EU to be more responsive, but in practice this would call into question Member States’ autonomy in this area. It effectively sidesteps the role of the European Parliament. That is of course deeply troubling.”

A consultation – or a tool for policy advocacy?

When questions are leading, response options limited, and key facts omitted, the result is no longer a neutral consultation. It becomes a tool for shaping opinion.

“You do wonder who designed these questions. Next time perhaps they should ask AI instead? It is hard to imagine the questions could be any worse. If the EU wants to make evidence‑based decisions, it must start by asking neutral questions. Otherwise the entire process risks undermining both trust and European public health.”

Make your voice heard

Europe has set an ambitious goal of achieving a smoke‑free society. But if policy is shaped by misleading surveys, flawed assumptions and a lack of proportionality, the result may be to slow down the transition from cigarettes to less harmful alternatives.

Would you like to have your say? You can find the European Commission’s questionnaire here (register on “Respond to the questionnaire”). The public consultation is open until 14 August 2026.

Do you also think the questions are biased and the response options too limited? Consider sharing your views on social media and tagging the European Commission.