you're reading...
BLOG, EP Answers

New rules on electronic cigarettes

3 other language versions available in pdf:

E-Zigaretten: Was will das Europäische Parlament?
Qu’a fait le PE concernant les cigarettes électroniques?
Wat heeft het EP gedaan op het gebied van elektronische sigaretten?

Logo AskEP

Logo AskEP

Parliament’s vote on the directive on tobacco and related products spurred consumers of electronic cigarettes to write to the European Parliament. Many citizens voiced their concern about the scientific evidence on which the rules applied to e-cigarettes were based. Some ex-smokers indicated as a possible consequence of these stronger regulations that e-cigarettes consumers would start using tobacco again.

The European Parliament has not taken this decision lightly. A lot of thought has gone into the proposed rules concerning e-cigarettes. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have listened both to consumers and to experts in the field. On 25 February 2013 the EP Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) held a public hearing on Tobacco Products and a public workshop on electronic cigarettes on 7 May 2013. Meeting documents and proceedings of both hearing and workshop are freely available on the EP website.

New rules on electronic cigarettes

© Gianluca Rasile / Fotolia

On 8 October 2013, the EP adopted its original position on the European Commission’s proposal for a new directive concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products. According to the EP resolution, e-cigarettes should have been regulated, but not been subject to the same rules as medicinal products unless they would have been presented as having curative or preventive properties. Those for which no such claims were made should have contained no more than 30mg/ml of nicotine and should have carried health warnings. Manufacturers and importers would also have had to supply the competent authorities with a list of all the ingredients that they contain. Finally, e-cigarettes would have been subject to the same advertising restrictions as tobacco products.

The negotiations with the Council of the EU were successfully concluded on 18 December 2013. Many of the EP’s original proposals concerning electronic cigarettes are still part of the compromise agreed with the Council. Changes include the lowering of the maximum nicotine concentration to 20 mg/ml and fixing the maximum size of single use cartridges at 2 ml. The final text of the agreement is available on the EP website.

The compromise reached between Parliament and Council was adopted in plenary on 26 February 2014 with 514 in favour, 86 against and 58 abstentions.

The agreement is aimed at helping smokers to quit while preventing any incentive for young people to start smoking.

Any questions on this issue or another EP-related concern? Please use our web form. You write, we answer.

About Ask EP

The Citizens' Enquiries Unit provides information on the activities, powers and organisation of the European Parliament. You ask, we answer.


24 thoughts on “New rules on electronic cigarettes

  1. Terrific post however I was wondering if you could
    write a litte more on this subject? I’d be very thankful
    if you could elaborate a little bit more. Thanks!

    Posted by NetBet bonus | May 2, 2014, 09:02
  2. These new laws will do nothing but hurt the industry and push many people back to tobacco cigarettes and hinder others from even trying electronic cigarettes. It’s sad.

    Posted by Chad | March 29, 2014, 06:39
  3. Reblogged this on Electronic Cigarettes.

    Posted by davisgarcia | March 13, 2014, 07:08
  4. In order to minimize waste produced and favor ecological approaches:

    The various parts that constitute an ecig device and wear-and-tear at varying speeds should be independently replaceable. The three main parts are: the battery, the liquid container and the heating element.

    Sellers should provide a reasonable supply of these spare parts and ensure they can be easily replaced rather than forcing the purchase of an entirely new set each time a single one of these elements wears down.

    Similarly, manufacturers of disposable electronic cigarettes must set up a program to collect and recycle the full body disposable ecigs.

    Posted by Thomas Baudel | March 12, 2014, 19:50
    • Just a precision: last sentence, I mean: manufacturers must set up a program to collect and recycle the *single-use* components or devices.

      Additionally, the return rate of this program should be monitored by the manufacturers and regulation authorities to ensure at least 80% of the single-use components are effectively recycled, with associated penalties in case of failure.

      Posted by Thomas Baudel | March 13, 2014, 09:57
  5. “Some ex-smokers indicated as a possible consequence of these stronger regulations that e-cigarettes consumers would start using tobacco again.”

    As you are aware of this possible danger,can SANCO be sued by any ecig user who reverts to tobacco when the TPD is implemented?

    Posted by Dodderer | March 12, 2014, 18:29
  6. Bonjour, Avec votre directive il apparait que demain je ne pourrai plus trouver facilement le matériel et les liquides qui m’ont fait abandonner le tabac sans aucuns efforts depuis 8 mois. Je n’aurais plus comme solution que de retourner à la cigarette ou aux substitus nicotiniques qui pour moi n’ont jamais été éfficaces à moyens termes … donc je suis condamné à retouner sur le tabac avec aussi à moyen terme une mort précoce ou dans le meilleur des cas une santé fortement altérée.
    Je ne vous remercie pas

    Posted by cassiede | March 12, 2014, 18:17
  7. Rather than making up new rules, at least for devices, the existing basis for cookware should simply be applied to ecigs hardware, because they are no more than that:

    Regulation should be inspired from the regulation of electric boilers, coffee makers and the like: they should be fairly robust, and resist a minimal amount of mishandling; they should made of materials that don’t emit significant levels of metals or toxins (ban alloys that degrade under heat and plastics too close to the near the heated core). Under accidental misuse, they should not create fire or various other hazards. Also, replacement components should be fairly well normalized, so that I can have guarantees that my battery will work with my atomizer when I replace either one.

    This is about all we need at the device level, because it is nothing more than a kind of *cookware*.

    For e-liquids,, I am not competent in this area, but what I can say is that if there is no nicotine at least, it should be the same kind of regulation that exists for *food*, not the regulation of tobacco products.

    Posted by Thomas Baudel | March 12, 2014, 17:45
  8. Thanks for your comments and questions! Please use our web form for your questions and you will receive an answer in due time:

    Posted by Ask EP | March 12, 2014, 17:35
  9. Reblogged this on Vapers Against The Ban.

    Posted by Vaping Bans | March 12, 2014, 17:25
  10. How many actual users of electronic cigarettes were permitted to attend the “workshop” on May 7th’13?
    Why is the nicotine content limited to a lower strength than nicotine patches and who thought 10mil bottles would be anything other than a health and environmental disaster?
    Disastrous, derisory protectionist legislation.

    Posted by Margaret Hermon | March 12, 2014, 17:09
  11. Pourquoi avez vous cédé aux lobbies du tabac et des laboratoires pharmaceutiques plutôt qu’écouter les scientifiques : ?

    Posted by gdb | March 12, 2014, 17:04
  12. Thanks for your comments and questions! Please use our web form for your questions and you will receive an answer in due time:

    Posted by Ask EP | March 12, 2014, 16:56
  13. Pourquoi avoir mis des restrictions bien plus importantes sur les composants de la cigarette électronique alors que le tabac reste libre d’accès, par exemple, avec les études prouvant l’inocuité des composants (ecig) alors que le tabac n’a pas à prouver son inocuité ?

    Quel est l’avenir des arômes dans les eliquides en sachant que c’est une composante essentielle dans la réussite du passage du tabac à la cigarette électronique ?

    Pourquoi avoir limité les flacons de e-liquides à 10 ml sachant que les études récentes prouvent que le risque lié à la nicotine a été surévalué depuis des années ?

    Pourquoi favoriser les cigarettes électroniques scellées (comme celles vendues par les fabricants de tabac) et non les autres générations qui sont bien plus efficaces pour se libérer du tabagisme ?

    pourquoi ne pas avoir tenu compte de l’appel des associations francophones sur les restrictions qui ont été votées et qui risquent de tuer le marché et au final, faire retourner au tabac tous les vapoteurs ?

    Pourquoi le vote s’est il déroulé dans un tel chaos qu’il était impossible de savoir ce qui était voté, l’article 18 devenant l’article 20 au dernier moment ? même les députés qui suivent ce dossier de près depuis le début n’y ont pas compris grand chose !

    Ne trouvez vous pas qu’il y a comme un énorme paradoxe à proposer à chaque état de mettre la cigarette électronique soit en produit du tabac, soit en médicament ? Pourriez-vous expliquer la logique de cette décision totalement aberrante ?

    Je vais m’arrêter là pour l’instant, en attendant avec impatience vos réponses.

    Posted by Avalonne Vero | March 12, 2014, 16:45
  14. Est-ce une volonté délibérée de l’UE d’avoir interdit les ecigs de 3ème génération, les seules qui sont efficaces pour de gros fumeurs, avoir fortement restreint les 2ème génération, pour ne privilégier que les ecigs de 1ère génération qui sont fabriquées par Big T (et qui sont compètement inefficaces pour arrêter le tabac)?

    Posted by Brigitte | March 12, 2014, 16:20
  15. Can you confirm that the 2ml restriction only applies to single use cartridges, and not to refillable atomisers? The actual wording of the directive is worryingly vague on this subject.

    Posted by Fergus Mason (@FergusMason1) | March 12, 2014, 15:31


  1. Pingback: Ask EP – You asked, we answered | European Parliamentary Research Service - December 22, 2014

  2. Pingback: Topics and links − February 2014 | European Parliamentary Research Service - March 11, 2014

Leave a Reply

Download the EPRS App

EPRS App on Google Play
EPRS App on App Store
What Europe Does For You
EU Legislation in Progress
Topical Digests
EPRS Podcasts

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,549 other subscribers

Disclaimer and Copyright statement

The content of all documents (and articles) contained in this blog is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressed therein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.

For a comprehensive description of our cookie and data protection policies, please visit Terms and Conditions page.

Copyright © European Union, 2014-2019. All rights reserved.

%d bloggers like this: