The scientifically contested method of measuring cigarette emissions cannot be legally abolished; reform is necessary and required.

In 2018, the Dutch association Prevention of Smoking Among Young People (RPJ) asked the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) to verify that filter cigarettes sold in the Netherlands complied with European emission limits for tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide[1]. Because the authority refused to use a method other than that stipulated by the ISO standards, the association initiated legal proceedings. In November 2022, the Rotterdam court ruled in favor of the association and ordered the NVWA to implement a different method. However, the NVWA and the relevant ministry appealed this decision to the Commercial Court (CBb), which referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for clarification on the interpretation of applicable EU law. In its judgment of April 21, 2026, the CJEU reiterated that those wishing to verify compliance with emission limits must have free and effective access to the ISO standards referenced in the European Tobacco Products Directive. It clarified, however, that in this case, all parties had access to the official versions of these standards: the association could therefore not invoke alternative measurement methods to demand the withdrawal of the cigarettes from the market. The CJEU did not decide at its level the national dispute relating to the choice of another collection method; it was up to the CBb to rule taking into account its interpretation.

In its final decision of October 13, 2026, the Belgian Council for Biotechnology (CBb) overturned the Rotterdam court's ruling and dismissed the association's case. It confirmed that emissions must be measured according to the ISO methods stipulated by the European directive. This decision concludes the Dutch legal proceedings, but does not resolve the scientific and health debate raised by the association regarding the ability of these methods to accurately reflect smokers' actual exposure.

A measurement method contested by all healthcare stakeholders and dubbed "Filtergate"«

European regulations set emission limits of 10 mg of tar, 1 mg of nicotine, and 10 mg of carbon monoxide per cigarette. However, the health association RPJ, which is the plaintiff in the case, disputes the reliability of the measurement method used to verify compliance with these limits, arguing that it allows manufacturers to influence the results.

The association specifically criticizes the microscopic perforations in the filters. During testing, these openings allow air to enter, diluting the smoke and reducing the measured emission levels. According to RPJ, when cigarettes are smoked, fingers and lips can obstruct these perforations, resulting in actual exposure exceeding the test results. The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) supported these concerns during the legal proceedings. This practice has also been dubbed "Filtergate."« This was also highlighted several years ago by other organizations such as the National Committee Against Smoking (CNCT) and more generally, the inadequacy of the current ISO standard, influenced in its content by tobacco manufacturers, is denounced in the context of the WHO's work on tobacco products.

A legal obstacle prevents the substantive examination

The dispute also concerned the fact that the applicable ISO standards had not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, thus limiting their accessibility to the public. RPJ argued that citizens must be able to know the regulatory requirements and demand that emission thresholds be monitored using an appropriate method.

The Court of Justice of the European Union, seized again, nevertheless ruled that the association had consulted the relevant ISO standards at the premises of the standards body. According to the analysis adopted in this procedure, this consultation precluded it from using the argument of their inaccessibility to demand an alternative measurement method. The CBb accepted this interpretation. The president of RPJ, Wanda de Kanter, described the outcome as disappointing, arguing that the procedure could not be continued on a mere procedural point and that the substantive issue of a comprehensive and critical review of the existing method had not been addressed.

The European Commission is called upon to intervene

The legal proceedings initiated by RPJ are now complete, but the question of the unreliability of current measurement methods remains entirely unresolved. The association believes this case has highlighted a contradiction within the European regulatory framework: the regulations set emission limits while simultaneously imposing a method whose ability to accurately reflect smokers' actual exposure it disputes.

The European Commission is now the focus of attention. During the Court of Justice's examination of the case, it had already been asked to take up the matter. A possible development could be linked to the ongoing review of the Data Protection Directive (DPD), for which a proposal is expected by the end of 2026.

This issue highlights the fact that provisions involving tobacco manufacturers are inherently problematic, as their interests are not aligned with public health, and the rules they establish are defined solely according to their interests. It remains crucial to define scientific and health measures without involving tobacco manufacturers, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Article 5.3 specifically addresses the protection of public health policies from any interference by the tobacco industry.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AD

[1]Sjoemelsigaret blijft voorlopig bestaan, TabakNee, published on October 14, 2026, accessed on October 19, 2026

National Committee Against Smoking |