Bill amending the Act on the ban on tobacco advertising etc., Act on tobacco products etc., Act on electronic cigarettes etc. and various other acts (Implementation of the national action plan against smoking by children and young people)
Communication from the Commission - TRIS/(2020) 01372
Directive (EU) 2015/1535
Translation of the message 001
No abre el plazo - Nezahajuje odklady - Fristerne indledes ikke - Kein Fristbeginn - Viivituste perioodi ei avata - Καμμία έναρξη προθεσμίας - Does not open the delays - N'ouvre pas de délais - Non fa decorrere la mora - Neietekmē atlikšanu - Atidėjimai nepradedami - Nem nyitja meg a késéseket - Ma’ jiftaħx il-perijodi ta’ dawmien - Geen termijnbegin - Nie otwiera opóźnień - Não inicia o prazo - Neotvorí oneskorenia - Ne uvaja zamud - Määräaika ei ala tästä - Inleder ingen frist - Не се предвижда период на прекъсване - Nu deschide perioadele de stagnare - Nu deschide perioadele de stagnare.
1. Structured Information Line
MSG 002 IND 2020 0228 DK EN 17-04-2020 DK NOTIF
2. Member State
3. Department Responsible
Langelinie alle 17
2100 København Ø
3. Originating Department
Sundheds- og Ældreministeriet
1057 København K
4. Notification Number
2020/0228/DK - S00S
Bill amending the Act on the ban on tobacco advertising etc., Act on tobacco products etc., Act on electronic cigarettes etc. and various other acts (Implementation of the national action plan against smoking by children and young people)
6. Products Concerned
S00S - HEALTH, MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
7. Notification Under Another Act
- Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC - Article 24(2) and (3)
8. Main Content
- Display ban:
tobacco products, tobacco substitutes and electronic cigarettes are not to be visible to consumers at points of sale, including on the Internet, until a customer specifically requests them. This does not however apply to:
physical shops that specialise in the sale of cigars, pipes and pipe tobacco respectively, and the sale of electronic cigarettes:
- Stricter ban on advertising and sponsorship:
all forms of direct and indirect advertising and sponsorship are banned and, as an additional element, tobacco substitutes and herbal products for smoking are also covered by the ban.
- Standardised packaging:
all tobacco products, herbal products for smoking and electronic cigarettes must have a uniform appearance. This does not however apply to cigars, pipe tobacco and pipes. The standardisation means, among other things, that the manufacturer and product name must appear in a standardised way, that logos must not stand out and that the colour etc. of the packaging must be standardised. Standardisation can limit the advertising effect of the packaging.
- Smoke-free school time:
to avoid school pupils being confronted with smoking etc. during school hours, it is proposed that school time should be smoke-free in all primary schools, boarding schools, continuation schools and upper secondary education facilities.
- Smoke-free properties:
upper secondary education facilities including children and young people under 18 years of age and not covered by the current requirements for smoke-free properties are proposed to be included.
- Ban on the sale of tobacco, tobacco substitutes, herbal products for smoking and electronic cigarettes and refill containers with and without nicotine in primary schools, boarding schools, continuation schools and upper secondary education facilities.
- Ban on flavourings in tobacco products and electronic cigarettes:
the sale of electronic cigarettes etc. with characteristic flavours other than the taste of tobacco and menthol is banned. The same is proposed for those tobacco products that are not already covered by the ban on characteristic flavours, although not for pipe tobacco and cigars or herbal products for smoking.
- Regulation of tobacco substitutes (nicotine products):
not previously regulated in Danish law, but proposed to be covered by the same regulation as tobacco products with respect to, for example, advertising regulations, age limits, etc. Requirements are also proposed on health warnings on the packaging in line with the current regulations for electronic cigarettes.
- Age control system and stricter penalty levels:
requirements are laid down for all retailers marketing over the Internet to ensure a system that effectively verifies the age of the purchaser, and the penalty of breaching the age limit is proposed to be made stricter.
- Registration scheme for retailers of electronic cigarettes and refill containers with and without nicotine, registration scheme for tobacco substitutes and refill containers without nicotine.
- Stricter penalties for breaches of the Act on smoke-free environments.
- Easier access for municipalities to provide free smoking cessation medication.
9. Brief Statement of Grounds
The bill implements an agreement on a national action plan against smoking by children and young people agreed on 18 December 2019 between the Government (Social Democrats) and Venstre (Danish Liberal Party), Radikale Venstre (Danish Social Liberal Party), Socialistisk Folkeparti (Socialist People’s Party), Enhedslisten (Red-Green Alliance), Det Konservative Folkeparti (Conservative People’s Party) and Alternativet (the Alternative). The agreement includes a wide range of initiatives intended to stop and prevent smoking and nicotine dependency among children and young people, and the agreement implements a number of the initiatives that patient associations and professionals have urged for several years.
With the proposal, the Danish Ministry of Health emphasises that smoking is extremely damaging to health. It is the combination of all the initiatives that is to effectively contribute to reducing the proportion of young people who smoke in Denmark and in the long term contribute to reducing health inequality.
10. Reference Documents - Basic Texts
No basic text(s) available
11. Invocation of the Emergency Procedure
12. Grounds for the Emergency
14. Fiscal measures
15. Impact assessment
16. TBT and SPS aspects
No - the draft is neither a technical regulation nor a conformity assessment procedure.
No - the draft is neither a sanitary nor phytosanitary measure.
Contact point Directive (EU) 2015/1535
Fax: +32 229 98043
The TRIS website makes it easy for you or your organization to share your views on any given notification.
You may submit your position in any of the official languages of the EU. We encourage you to submit your opinion at least one month before the end of the standstill period to make sure that your views are duly considered taking into account the time needed for analysis and internal processing. In any event, your contributions will be accepted until 23:59:59 CET of the date of end of the standstill period. Your contribution will be made public in TRIS (translations into other languages will not be publicly available) unless you signal that you wish to keep them confidential.The views by the interested parties are important for the Commission and the Member States in the context of an assessment of notifications submitted under Directive (EU) 2015/1535. However, any Commission reaction is taken independently, in the light of the information in its possession and in line with its internal decision-making rules.
Please note you will not receive any further feedback concerning the content of your contribution.
At the end of the standstill period, you will find on the webpage https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/ , under the notification file, the information about the form of the reaction of the Commission and/or the Member States, if any, to the notification.
Nie będę się rozpisywał o tym, że e-palenie jest bezpieczniejsze od palenia konwencjonalengo (zrobili to inni przede mną, w tym niezależne instytucje, które na pewno opisały ten temat znacznie sprawniej niż ja). Chciałbym zwrócić uwagę na coś innego. W Polsce od paru dobrych lat popularność zyskują smakowe alkohole, piwa o różnych owocowych smakach (reklamowanych jako bezalkoholowe, co jest prawdą, ale większosć tych piw ma swoje alkoholowe odpowiedniki), a także wódka o obniżonej mocy, kolorowa, sprzedawana w małych butelkach, a nawet plastikowych kieliszkach, "gotowych do użycia". Każdy z tych produktów jest kierowany do innej grupy konsumentów, jednak dostrzegam tutaj pewną hipokryzję w próbie wprowadzenia zakazu sprzedaży liquidów smakowych przeznaczonych do e-papierosów. Mam 35 lat, paliłem papierosy przez ok. 17 i nie mogłem uwolnić się od tego nałogu...Dopóki nie spróbowałem e-palenia. Potencjalny zakaz może spowodować, że wrócę do palenia konwencjonalnego. Po prostu. To nałóg, który będzie mnie prześladował do końca życia. Rozumiem obawę o zdrowie naszych dzieciaków (chociaż analiza danych dostarczonych z różnych stron świata jasno wskazuje, że epidemia e-palenia wśród młodzieży do delikatne nadużycie), jednak chciałbym zadać pytanie co ze mną? Nie jestem dzieckiem od bardzo dawna, a e-papierosy to doskonała alternatywa dla papierosa, również ze względu na smak (mając do wyboru smak mojego np. ulubionego deseru i smak al'a papieros, który według moich kubków smakowych jest niedobry, wybieram to pierwsze). I tutaj wracam do wspomnianych alkoholi - czy w porządku jest sprzedawać smakowy alkohol, pod płaszczykiem napoju bezalkoholowego, który jest ewidentnie przeznaczony dla ludzi młodych, jednocześnie ograniczając sprzedać środka, który stanowi bezpieczniejsą alternatywę dla trucizny? Czy będą Państwo walczyć również ze smakowymi alkoholami? Dla alkoholu nie ma alternatywy. Albo coś ma procenty, albo nie. E-papierosy nie są rozwiązaniem idealnym, ale lepszym od papierosów konwencjonalnych, nawet jeśli jest te pierwsze są bezpieczniejsze tylko o 10%, a nie o 90% (jak sugerują niektóre badania naukowe, wiadomo, że trzeba do różnych danych podchodzić z dystansem).
Vaping is significantly safer than smoking. There is no reliable evidence of a gateway effect. There is considerable evidence that vaping helps smokers quit. There is considerable evidence that vaping is a more effective aid to quitting than nicotine replacement. Vaping appears to be a more acceptable smoking quit aid, for many people, than nicotine replacement. There is no evidence of significant or substantial harm from vaping. So, what should we conclude from the available evidence? The only reasonable conclusion is that if we, public health, really want to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with smoking we should promote vaping.
If smokers who wish to quit smoking find flavours useful, as the evidence shows, then to remove access to non-tobacco flavours can only reduce the acceptability and effectiveness of vaping. This will benefit no-one except the tobacco companies.
More than six months ago, i nearly lost my mother to sepsis of the lungs, caused by heavy smoking. She has COPD, and we nearly lost her. From that day onward, she switched to vaping, and now she, my father, and myself, all vape. My mother's health has improved significantly. We haven't touched a cigarette since. Let me tell you, vaping 'Does' help people quit cigarettes, but more importantly, flavours are 'very' important in helping adults get away from the lure of tobacco. A lot of other countries have banned flavours under the guise of public health, but it's got nothing to do with that. How could it? Removing the safer option and forcing people back to smoking is nothing short of a crime against humanity. It's immoral, illogical, and considering 8 million people die from smoking a year in the world, taking away the safer option could prove catastrophic. I appeal to you now, as fellow human beings. If you have people who you love dearly, who you'd do anything to help live longer, healthier lives, so you can spend more precious time with, if you've lost anyone to cancer, or any of the other awful diseases caused by smoking, 'Please', do not put this bill through, and potentially condemn more people to a painful and lingering death. Every human life is sacred, and how we treat one another will be remembered by those who follow. Be well, and stay safe,
The statement that vaping is dangerous or even very dangerous is a lie. Who has died ? , no-one , who has been hospitalised ? , very few , who has benefitted from vaping ? , millions worldwide , read the online testaments by thousands of vapers confirming the health benefits of giving up smoking. The only ones who benefit by the banning of vaping are those who make the most profit from smoking. Look at those who are advocating bans and look for the connection with the smoking and pharmaceutical industries , follow the money , they are the only ones who have any reason to disemminate lies , halftruths and innuendo about a consumer product which is not even harming anyone. They want people to keep on smoking , they want people to be sick and dying in agony , it is good for profits. Are there no honest politicians left in the world ?
Vaping flavours has helped me quit smoking cigarettes. I've been off the cigarettes since 2016 thanks to flavoured e-liquids.
I have read several studies done by researchers at Public Health England and they state that vaping 95% safer than smoking cigarettes.
If banning flavoured e-liquid becomes a reality, Im most likely going back to cigarettes.
I understand that taking measures to protect the youth is important. But banning flavours is not going to work.
Banning flavours will open up for a massive black market on flavoured e-liquid.
I believe the right step to protecting youth is to regulate the vaping products (e-cigarettes and e-liquid) by age control.
I the end, if a teenager wants to try something out, they will do so, whether its legal or not, healthy or not.
If you really want to protect the youth from harm, then regulate traditional cigarettes harder. I would like so say ban them, but we must not forget every human's right to choose what they want to put in their bodies. So the best choice is to regulate in a good way.
/ Thomas Dallmann, former smoker, present vaper and e-liquid producer.
(this message is free from nicotine :P)
A flavour ban is illogical and ignores evidence that such measures do not work. When Juul withdrew flavours in the States it resulted in a boom of black market pods from China, and their sales continued to grow https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305667?journalCode=ajph&
Following the ban on flavours in California, rates of teen vaping increased because it is not the driving factor in them trying vaping - it is a driving factor in helping adults to switch away from smoking.
The advent of vaping has helped hundreds of thousands of smokers reduce their exposure to tobacco-related harm across Europe. This would never have happened without flavours. Flavours weren't invented by an industry, vaping grew from the ground up driven by consumers creating the things they wanted that worked best for them - ignoring this misses the point entirely.
Flavours are essential, vaping is efficacious, and the Danish proposal is nonsensical - ignoring all of the evidence from the UK. It has to be stopped.
As a former tobacco smoker, who was able to quit a 25 year habit through vaping products, I am dismayed to learn that Denmark wants to severely restrict the choices to less harmful alternatives while leaving deadly tobacco products on the shelves.
J'ai arrêté de fumer en juin 2013 grâce au vapotage, et retrouvé souffle et odorat . Bientôt 7 ans sans tabagisme . J'avais besoin de ma dose de nicotine (sans combustion) . Le rôle des arômes a été important pour moi . Maintenant je change entre fruités et arômes noisette / vanille et autres . Cette notion est importante pour chaque ex-fumeur, avec une politique de réduction des risques . C'est une notion importante pour tous les pays et (ex-fumeurs) en Europe . Cordialement . Le 29/04/2020 .
The idea that banning flavoured e-liquid would have any benefits on health is based on nothing but prejudice and conjecture. The large reductions in smoking prevalence brought about by using safer nicotine substitutes to combustible have been brought about by the huge increase in choice of ways to consume nicotine. One the one hand you have a product which burns tobacco and kills millions, on the other hand you have an alternative that offers a better taste and doesn't kill millions of people.
Denmark wants to severely restrict the choice to the healthier alternative while leaving the dangerous product untouched? This is madness.
There is no sense whatsoever in prohibiting products which distance adults from smoking by offering more enjoyable flavours. Why on Earth does Denmark think that restricting flavours to tobacco and menthol only can possibly help people to switch away from smoking? It is like treating an alcoholic by giving them beer.
If Denmark wants to inflict a policy of self-destruction on its own, that is fine, but this kind of nonsense must not be allowed to bleed into the rest of the EU.
The best thing you could do for the health of millions of EU vapers and smokers who may wish to quit, is to reject this proposal so that it does not create a precedent across member states.
As a private citizen and long term nicotine consumer over approximately 50 years I find that a proposed flavour ban for e-cigarettes to be ludicrous, totally lacking in any logic whatsoever. I smoked combustible cigarettes for over 40 years and had tried unsuccessfully to stop smoking for maybe the last 10 years of that period. One of the key aspects that helped me to successfully transition over 7 years ago was the very wide availability of interesting flavours that totally distanced me from the taste of tobacco. To propose to remove all flavours from the market would result in unintended consequences :- a rise in black market offerings, increased diy where users add their own flavour( an inappropriate oil based one as eg), a reversion by some existing adults users back to combustibles. Much evidence exists that as a proportion, the flavoured option represents approximately 98% of the ecigarette market. This ludicrous proposal is an ill thought through attempt at trying to obtain a nicotine free society by underhand methods. Honest researchers and advisers well know that flavours are a crucial reason for the success of e-cigarettes in reducing the combustible smoking rate. If the proposal is underpinned by the necessity of removing 'child-appealing' flavours, this yet again is a convenient fallacy. Examine what has happened in the US with the Juul product, as flavours have been curtailed, children have simply swapped to the limited number that remained(there main reason was initially curiosity followed by the desire to use nicotine, flavours played a very minor part in their choice). Similarly, data demonstrates that everyday youth use is relatively small and never smokers in that grouping well under 0.5%. So, from whatever standpoint it is perfectly clear to this contributor, there is not an existing problem with flavour use and that a flavour ban will deliver major unintended consequences, based on zero logic whatsoever
I am a former cigaret smoker who has taken the step to vape instead as it is much less harmful than smoking tobacco.
It is with great concern that I note that e-cigarets are now being targeted for extra tax and that they are in the process of banning most flavours in e-liquid.
Whereas I fully understand that it is desirable not to encourage new smokers, it should also be noted that former cigaret smokers are using e-cigarets in the process of weaning them off smoking or have changed to smoke this much less harmful product.
I do not believe that becayse you can get fx bublegum or pineapple flavoured e-liquid, that that in it self encourages or leads to new smokers.
It concerns me that this will lead to a black marked openingup with unregulated and possible harmful flavour substitutes.
I am against the flavour ban.
This proposed legislation is a complete nonsense and a demonstration of an outstanding negligence and lack of knowledge and insight. It is truly irresponsible.
Such a regulation is highly armful for both smokers, vapers, and the whole vaping industry and we encourage you to think twice before considering these amendments. These will have huge consequences :
- Approximatly 85 to 90% of Danish vapers will be deprived from there rights to choose the way they want to pursue their struggle against tobacco. They will be forced to turn to tobacco and menthol flavours, even though they might not like these flavors at all. Eventually, it will considerably decrease the electronic cigarette efficiency at a large scale for a consequent amount of the vaper population, leading them to return to tobacco. We wish to remind you that more than 1 out of 2 will probably die because of this. We also wish to remind you that today, nobody ever died from vaping. What seems like an attempt to protect people from tobacco is in fact creating the exact opposite effect...
- Such regulation will make the black market to thrive at a European scale. Up to now, black markets have mostly been avoided on the European soil but bannishing flavored e-liquids or imposing high taxes will encourage vapers to turn to it and put their health at stake. The recent outbreak of lung disease that occured in the US proved one thing : illicit products can be highly lethal (in that case, the culprit was the vitamin E acetate) and black markets should be avoided at all cost as they bring the general public health in jeaopardy. Any decision that would encourage them would be a tremendous mistake, a disaster for Denmark and subsequently the rest of Europe. Thousand lives could be at risk if not more, especially the younger ones.
- Because of these amendments, appx. 90% of the Danish vape shops will be forced to shut down. The economical impact cannot be neglected. In the meantime, the black market will remain above any regulation, untaxed, out of control. Again, this scenario could also happen at European scale. We are not convinced of the wisdom of this decision, especially during these hard times with the COVID-19 crisis.
- Numerous studies have shown that electronic cigarettes are indeed the most effective way to quit smoking. They also considerably reduce the risks as they offer an healthier alternative to smoking. Moreover, their nocivity have never been proven (by any serious study properly led), unlike many other consumer goods sold on the European markets, freely without any restrictions. The question is : why stubbornly struggling against something that can saves lives and have proven to be at least 95% less toxic than actual cigarettes ?
The validity, the appropriateness and the fairness of the proposed amendments is highly disputable. It seems that it has been done without any scientific consideration or actual data and studies, without consulting any serious and independant tobacco specialists / experts / doctors. As regards the importance of the impacts this decision would have, we appeal to the responsibility of the legislator.
Thank you for your consideration.
I implore the Danish authorities not to proceed with a flavour ban that would limit the availablity of flavours more pleasant than tobacco and menthol. Making vaping more appealing to adult smokers is key to reducing the harms from smoking traditional combustible tobacco.In the Stop Smoking Service I used to run (the first ever to become vape-friendly) it became very clear that adult smokers who switched to vaping found the flavours a real incentive to stick with vaping and not return to smoking. In the UK we have no evidence of young people being tempted to vape if they hadn't already smoked, but adults have made vaping the most successful way of stopping smoking. Please do not deny Danish people a way of switching to vaping and staying switched. They are doing it because they don't want to die of a smoking-related disease. Thank you
These proposals display appalling ignorance about vaping, conflating it with tobacco use. I am 73 and found it easy to switch to vaping after smoking for 50 years and soon moved on from tobacco flavours to fruit flavours; now I could not go back to smoking. My health has improved in so many ways, from shortness of breath to hearing. If there had been advertising, I could have switched years earlier. I do not see school age people vaping in public, only adults. It appears to me that people who vape are ex smokers and there is nothing attractive about it for non smokers. I am beyond dismayed that such a wonderful invention as e-cigarettes that is helping so many people should be dismissed like this and pray for some rationality and common sense.