Parliamentary Office issues conclusions on “alternatives to smoked tobacco”

The Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices (OPECST) has published its report on new tobacco and nicotine products, following numerous hearings with both health professionals and manufacturers. OPECST makes a number of recommendations, some of which are considered questionable by anti-smoking NGOs.

The OPECST had been contacted by the Senate's Social Affairs Committee, with the aim of assessing scientific knowledge on the dangers of "alternatives to smoked tobacco", including heated tobacco, electronic cigarettes, chewing tobacco and snuff, as well as nicotine pouches.[1].

A transparency issue in interactions with the tobacco industry

As the National Committee Against Tobacco (CNCT), the first stakeholder interviewed by the mission, emphasizes, the hearings of representatives of the tobacco and nicotine industry were conducted in complete transparency, in accordance with the implementation guidelines of Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). The FCTC requires France, like all its Parties, to ensure that interactions between public decision-makers and the tobacco industry are limited to the strict minimum, and in complete transparency. As a result, the registration and publication of hearings, requested by the CNCT, constitutes a precedent in the compliance of public authorities with the public health treaty[2]The CNCT points out that in addition to this, it is necessary for those interviewed to declare their possible conflict of interest, which was not done for this scientific note.

OPESCT points out a lack of independent studies on these new tobacco and nicotine products

The scientific note groups together under the same terminology "alternatives to smoked tobacco," yet they are extremely different in nature, such as heated tobacco and electronic cigarettes, the former being a tobacco product, the latter a new nicotine product. Such confusion is also maintained by the tobacco industry, which seeks to amalgamate these different products, and thus obtain more advantageous regulations for heated tobacco than the current one. The scientific note, however, points out that the risks associated with the consumption of electronic cigarettes are not fully established, while the role of this device in weaning remains to be clarified. Similarly, the OPECST highlights the lack of independent scientific data to assess the toxicity of smoking tobacco.

OPECST highlights the need for stronger regulation

The Parliamentary Office concludes its document with a series of recommendations, some of which are already supported by several public health organizations. For example, the OPECST suggests the possibility of extending plain packaging to vaping products, or increasing penalties for retailers selling tobacco and nicotine products to minors. The Parliamentary Office also emphasizes the importance of conducting a campaign to alert consumers to the specific risks of consuming e-cigarettes and manufactured tobacco together, known as "vaping-smoking." Finally, the mission highlights the need to expand scientific knowledge on new tobacco and nicotine products. Indeed, for heated tobacco, the available data comes mainly from manufacturers, raising questions about their reliability.

Recommendations criticized by health professionals

Conversely, some of the measures suggested by the Parliamentary Office appear to be irrelevant or counterproductive to health stakeholders. In particular, the idea of applying a nociscore to tobacco and nicotine products, similar to the nutriscore for food products, is particularly criticized as being contrary to the European Tobacco Products Directive, which prohibits the presentation of tobacco products as being less toxic than others. The idea of the nociscore was also presented by a study by the Institute for Economic and Fiscal Research (IREF), funded by Philip Morris France, and decrypted by Generation without tobaccoFinally, the National Committee against Smoking deplores the absence of the integration of a fiscal component in the recommendations, as well as the absence of mention of the FCTC, which is nevertheless fundamental in terms of regulation and protection of public policies with regard to the influence of the tobacco industry.

FT

[1] Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices (OPECST), New tobacco or nicotine products: lifting the smokescreen, published on 04/10/2023, (accessed the same day)

[2] National Committee Against Smoking (CNCT), The CNCT reacts to the conclusions of the Parliamentary Office on “alternatives to smoked tobacco”, published on 04/10/2023, (consulted the same day)