Promoted by World Vapers’ Alliance
Every year, the European Commission opens dozens of public consultations asking citizens what they think of proposed laws. In theory, this is EU democracy at its most direct: a chance for ordinary people, not just lobbyists and diplomats, to shape legislation before it is written into law.
In practice, whose submissions actually count often depends less on what citizens say than on who helped them say it.
A new poll commissioned by the Consumer Choice Center and conducted by Sentio Group among 602 Dutch adults suggests the public sees this clearly, and does not like what it sees.
When asked whether the European Commission should be allowed to disqualify a citizen’s consultation response simply because it used a template or guide from an outside organisation, 55% of those with an opinion said no. When the question was put more starkly — do citizens have a fundamental right to be heard, even using a campaign template, or should officials be free to ignore submissions that look coordinated — a striking 82% sided with the citizen’s right to be heard.
This is not an abstract question for the millions of Europeans who vape, use nicotine pouches, or have switched from cigarettes to a heated tobacco product. In nicotine policy, the template question is not hypothetical: it is exactly how consultations on vaping rules tend to play out.
When the European Commission or national health ministries consult on flavour bans, nicotine limits or excise duties, two kinds of organised campaigns typically show up. Public health NGOs, often well-funded and coordinated at EU level, mobilise supporters with ready-made response templates. Consumer and harm reduction groups, including the World Vapers’ Alliance, do exactly the same thing: we provide vapers with information and tools so they can make their views known in a process that is otherwise dense with legal jargon and procedural deadlines.
Yet only one side of that equation is usually treated as suspect. Submissions that look like they came from health campaigners are reported as evidence of public concern. Submissions that look like they came from vapers using a guide are dismissed as “industry-coordinated” noise, to be set aside before the real tallying begins.
We have seen exactly how far this can go. Recently, an investigation by Clearing the Air revealed that a Bloomberg-funded NGO had attempted to brand roughly 18,000 consultation submissions as “fake” or “tobacco-controlled.” When the data was actually examined, those submissions turned out to be exactly what they appeared to be: real vapers, nicotine pouch users and ordinary citizens exercising their right to be heard, not industry bots. The smear did not succeed, but it was tried, and it points to a strategy of discrediting consultation participants rather than engaging with what they actually said.
The Dutch polling suggests the public does not buy this double standard. 59% of respondents with an opinion said policymakers should give equal weight to citizen submissions, regardless of whether the citizen was mobilised by a nonprofit, a charity, or a business.
There is a reason this matters beyond fairness. Vaping is one of the most quietly transformative public health developments of the past decade. Sweden, the only EU country to have brought its smoking rate below 5%, did so largely by giving smokers access to affordable, less harmful alternatives.
Millions of Europeans who have switched away from cigarettes have a direct stake in how the EU regulates the products that helped them quit. When they speak up in a consultation, whether individually or with the help of a guide explaining a 40-page legislative proposal, they are not gaming the system. They are doing exactly what a consultation is supposed to invite: telling policymakers how a law will affect their lives.
The same Dutch poll found that 85% of respondents with an opinion agreed that citizens have a basic right to use templates, plain-language guides or outside support when navigating notoriously complex EU regulatory texts. That is not a controversial position. It is, frankly, an obvious one. Most people are not lawyers. Expecting every citizen to draft an entirely original legal submission from scratch, on pain of having their view discarded, is not a safeguard against manipulation. It is a filter that quietly favours whoever already has the resources, time and expertise to participate without help, which in practice tends to mean well-funded NGOs and institutions, not individual vapers.
As the EU moves into a new round of negotiations on tobacco and nicotine taxation, and as the Tobacco Products Directive heads toward revision, these consultations will matter more, not less. Consumers across Europe deserve the same standing in that process as any other organised group of citizens. The Dutch public, it turns out, agrees.
By Alberto Gómez Hernández, Policy Manager, World Vapers’ Alliance
