Germany is preparing to take one of the most aggressive steps against vape flavours seen anywhere in Europe, proposing a sweeping ban not only on menthol but also on a wide range of so-called “cooling” additives commonly used in e-liquids. Framed as a protective measure for young people, the move has raised alarm among harm reduction experts who warn it could undermine smoking cessation and push former smokers back to combustible cigarettes. Those concerns are amplified by Germany’s starting point: smoking rates remain stubbornly high, while vaping uptake among adults is comparatively low, a pattern that stands in stark contrast to countries such as Sweden, where widespread use of safer nicotine alternatives has coincided with historic declines in smoking.
Under a draft regulation from the Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Homeland, substances such as menthol, sucralose and various synthetic cooling agents would be prohibited in vaping products. Officials argue these additives smooth the inhalation experience, reduce throat irritation and coughing, and may encourage deeper inhalation or higher nicotine intake. The proposal relies heavily on assessments from the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, which notes that cooling agents activate cold receptors in the mouth and airways, making vapour feel less harsh.
Yet even within the draft itself, the evidence base appears thin. Regulators concede there is no clear data showing menthol vaping leads to greater nicotine absorption or higher health risks. Nonetheless, German authorities are invoking the precautionary principle, arguing that the subjective “cooling effect” alone justifies prohibition.
If adopted, the rules would apply to both devices and refill liquids, forcing manufacturers to reformulate products or withdraw them entirely from the German market. Additional provisions would tighten labeling requirements and expand regulators’ power to demand product samples during approval processes. The measures would take effect just six months after adoption, leaving little time for consumers or businesses to adapt. Yet what concerns harm reduction advocates most is not simply the ban itself, but what history suggests will follow, particularly in a country where smoking remains common.
But what does science show us?
The German proposal lands at odds with a growing body of research indicating that flavoured vapes, including menthols, generally play a meaningful role in helping adult smokers fully transition away from cigarettes.
The German proposal lands at odds with a growing body of research indicating that flavoured vapes, including menthols, generally play a meaningful role in helping adult smokers fully transition away from cigarettes. This evidence is especially relevant in Germany, given the local stall in smoking cessation progress.
A large U.S. cohort study following more than 22,000 adult smokers who purchased JUUL vapes tracked participants over two years, using up to ten follow-up surveys. Because participant drop-out can bias results, researchers rigorously tested their findings under multiple assumptions, including conservative models that treated missing participants as continuing smokers and advanced statistical imputation techniques.
Across every method, menthol use was consistently associated with higher rates of complete switching, defined as no cigarette smoking in the previous 30 days. Adults who chose menthol JUUL products were roughly 11 to 15 percent more likely to quit smoking entirely than those who used tobacco-flavoured versions. Switching rates were five to six percentage points higher among menthol users, regardless of how missing data were handled.
Notably, the benefit was strongest among adults who previously smoked non-menthol cigarettes, suggesting menthol may offer added appeal or satisfaction during the transition away from smoking. The researchers also found little evidence that survey attrition biased results, strengthening confidence in the findings. In short, menthol vaping products were associated with greater success in replacing cigarettes, not increased harm.
History offers a warning
Germany’s move also risks repeating policy failures already documented elsewhere. Canada offers a particularly stark warning, one that is especially relevant for countries where smoking remains prevalent and alternatives are still gaining ground.
A recent economic analysis examining retail sales data from multiple Canadian provinces between 2018 and 2023 found that jurisdictions implementing strict vape flavour bans saw cigarette sales rise by nearly 10 percent on average. The study covered provinces with varying approaches, from outright bans on all non-tobacco flavours to partial restrictions confining flavoured products to adult-only specialty stores.
Across the board, flavoured vape sales collapsed almost entirely once restrictions took effect. While some consumers shifted to tobacco-flavoured or unflavoured vapes, a substantial share returned to combustible cigarettes. This substitution effect was especially striking given that convenience stores and gas stations previously accounted for most vape sales.
Canada’s experience is particularly instructive because it already enforces some of the world’s toughest tobacco controls, including plain packaging, menthol cigarette bans and nicotine limits in vaping products. Even in that environment, removing flavours coincided with increased smoking, underscoring how fragile progress can be when harm reduction tools are constrained.
These findings align with earlier U.S. research using different datasets and methodologies. Multiple studies have shown that when flavoured vaping products are restricted, reductions in vaping are often offset by increases in cigarette smoking. The pattern is consistent: demand for nicotine does not disappear, it shifts toward more dangerous products.
The public health paradox
Public health authorities in Germany, as across the globe, all acknowledge that vaping, while not risk-free, is substantially less harmful than smoking. Combustion remains the primary driver of smoking-related disease and death. Policies that make vaping less appealing or less accessible therefore carry real risks if they nudge people back toward cigarettes, particularly in countries like Germany where smoking rates remain high and harm reduction uptake is lagging.
Germany’s draft regulation gives little consideration to this substitution dynamic. For adults who quit smoking using menthol or cooling vapes, the proposal offers no meaningful alternatives and no transition period beyond six months. Instead, it assumes that removing sensory appeal will reduce nicotine use overall, despite growing evidence to the contrary and despite clear international examples, such as Sweden, where embracing safer alternatives has delivered record-low smoking rates.
Critics argue that this reflects a broader regulatory trend in Europe and North America, where policymakers focus narrowly on youth uptake while discounting adult behavior and real-world outcomes. International examples suggest youth use can be addressed through strict age enforcement, marketing controls and retail oversight, without eliminating flavours that adults rely on to stay smoke-free.
A choice bearing serious consequences
Germany’s initiative is likely to influence wider European debates about whether sensory effects, beyond flavour itself, should be regulated out of nicotine products entirely. If adopted, it could embolden other countries to pursue similar bans, further narrowing the harm reduction toolbox available to smokers, particularly in high-smoking countries where alternatives have yet to reach critical mass.
The evidence from Canada, the United States and large cohort studies suggests such an approach is counterproductive. Flavour bans may feel precautionary, but in practice they can weaken harm reduction, stall smoking cessation and even increase cigarette consumption. As researchers and policy analysts increasingly warn, blunt regulatory tools often produce unintended consequences. In the case of vape flavours, those consequences may include stalling or reversing hard-won public health gains.
For countries serious about reducing smoking-related disease, the lesson is clear: policies should be judged by data and outcomes, not intentions. Removing products that help smokers quit, in the absence of strong evidence of harm, is doing more damage than good.
