, In Brussels, a lack of transparency is undermining trust in policymaking and resulting in flawed policy. The handling of the survey on tobacco and nicotine exposes a pattern of selective transparency. The survey was , yet its unpublished data was used to support a member state’s bid to ban disposables – a type of e-cigarette.
Last March 2024, the European Commission’s directorate-general for health (DG SANTE) approved a disposable ban in Belgium. In its , SANTE cited an unknown ‘Special Eurobarometer 539’, which appeared to substantiate certain claims in support of the ban and which, strikingly, . Seeking clarity, I requested SANTE the document.
A response was promised for April 18 but in the weeks and months that followed, it seemed , including dragging out response times to the maximum, asking for clarification, and ultimately failing to send an initial reply within the mandated time. I reached out to other Commission services seeking answers. The EU Publications Office confirmed that the Eurobarometer and clarified that the norm is “to publish the data as soon as possible after they become available.
In some cases, there may however be a delay.” The Eurobarometer officials gave a more : “there is no specific or normal practice when it comes to when the European Commission makes use of its Eurobarometer data.” The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, which every Commission official must follow, states that they “shall be consistent in its administrative behaviour and shall follow its normal practice.
Any exceptions to this principle must be duly justified”. On June 24, after 91 days of persistent follow-up, the Eurobarometer survey was published and SANTE sent me a link – albeit , or reason for not getting back to me earlier. The timing seemed choreographed.
Just three days earlier, a discussion against flavoured e-cigarettes was held among health ministers in the Council. The Eurobarometer shows that less than half of the EU population (47%) supports a flavour ban. Publishing this ahead of the debate would have .
In a reply to a stakeholder who raised similar concerns, SANTE wrote that, while they strive to refer to publicly available information, sometimes they cannot do so because . Why this reason was never provided to me remains unknown. However, I find it questionable considering recent revelations.
Belgium, in its bid to ban disposables, provided SANTE with evidence to show that the product poses a public health risk too worrisome to Belgium. The , dating from November 2022 and published by ECigIntelligence, shows that the . The authorities admitted to not having comprehensive figures as “specific use of disposable e-cigarettes is not yet included in recurring surveys on the use of tobacco or e-cigarette products” – .
SANTE found the overall dossier insufficient and requested more information. Belgium’s was submitted in September 2023, (May 2023 – June 2023). Again, no quantitative data on disposable use was provided other than the 259-person survey, and a to the Eurobarometer surveys.
But this time SANTE considered and approved the ban. What changed? SANTE not only used unpublished data in its decision but, seemingly, . One wonders if this was an impartial verification of evidence, as required by EU law, or rather a maneuver to support the implementation of preferred policy.
Historically, prohibition has repeatedly failed, often leading to the growth of illicit markets and deteriorating public health outcomes. But it gets worse. Some claims in the decision .
For instance, SANTE stated that 75% of Belgium’s e-cigarette users prefer disposable e-cigarettes. The survey shows it is actually 61%. Selective transparency undermines credibility and signals a troubling shift towards prioritising ideology over evidence.
Commission officials must act as neutral guardians of the treaties, not active co-enforcers alongside Member States, to avoid more flawed policymaking. Share this article:.
