France’s national health and safety agency, ANSES, has published a report concluding that vaping is substantially safer than smoking.
It’s something we already knew. Yet in a world where misinformation obscures this basic fact from millions of people who smoke—and from over 90 percent of the French population—official acknowledgement by another major nation matters.
The scientific assessment by ANSES (Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety) looked at more than 2,500 studies and was released in February. It found that nicotine vapes, though not entirely risk-free, consistently reduced risk compared to combustible cigarettes.
The 700-page assessment “identified possible risks to vapers—mainly cardiovascular, respiratory and carcinogenic effects—even in nicotine-free products.” It found that while there were some risks it deemed “possible” or “probable,” including increases in blood pressure and heart rate, such risks had not been proven to date.
The evidence does “not allow the prediction of cancer occurrence, nor the establishment of a causal link.”
“To date, no study conducted among electronic cigarette users has identified the development of tumors,” the report continued—and despite “the possible occurrence of biological changes compatible with the early stages of carcinogenesis,” these possible changes “do not allow the prediction of cancer occurrence, nor the establishment of a causal link.”
There was also “insufficient” evidence to demonstrate links between vaping and certain respiratory conditions. And because combustion is no longer involved when you switch from smoking, “Vaping leads to a strong reduction in exposure to [the harmful toxins] aldehydes in emissions: from 80 to nearly 100 per cent.”
The “weight of evidence,” the report found, is that vapes are just safer than cigarettes.
Other prestigious national scientific assessments reached similar conclusions years ago.
In the United States, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine concluded that “while e-cigarettes are not without health risks they are likely to be far less harmful than combustible cigarettes.” And back in 2015, a Public Health England review found vapes to be 95 percent less harmful than combustible tobacco—a figure United Kingdom health authorities stuck with in subsequent years.
ANSES “deliberately” avoided “expressing relative risk as a single percentage … Such figures can be taken out of context in public debate.”
ANSES “deliberately” avoided “expressing relative risk as a single percentage,” according to Sebastien Soulet, a researcher at Ingésciences, an independent French research laboratory specializing in vapes.
“That is scientifically understandable,” he told Filter. “Such figures can easily oversimplify a complex issue and can be taken out of context in public debate.”
That has unfortunately been true in the UK, where the 95 percent-safer message has sometimes been accused of having “backfired” by encouraging youth vaping.
Soulet described the ANSES report as the culmination of a broader French assessment process.
“Over the past few years, ANSES has not only reviewed patterns of use, but also analyzed product declarations and prioritized substances of concern in e-liquids and emissions,” he said. This, he continued, adds to the significance of the report, “as it does not stand alone: It fits into a structured body of work intended to inform public authorities.”
“What has attracted attention is the wording used by ANSES, especially terms such as ‘possible’ and ‘probable’, which refers to levels of evidence rather than political positioning,” Soulet commented. “For me, the main significance of the report is that it clarifies the agency’s current position: Vaping is not risk-free, but the nature and the strength of the evidence differ markedly from what is established for smoking.”
Soulet expects the report to carry some weight in France’s future policies around tobacco harm reduction (THR).
“It will probably affect policy, but public policy should be based on strict risk-benefit evaluation. This report was only assessing health risks.”
Claude Bamberger, a Parisian who quit smoking using vapes, is among those hoping for that. He is a volunteer for AIDUCE (Independent Association of Vape Users), which published its own reaction to the ANSES report.
“In our response we thank ANSES and give some pointers for more in-depth explanations of the content of the report, ” Bamberger told Filter.
He said the ANSES report was flawed and over-cautious, however, because it didn’t assess the public health benefits of having vapes on the market. This, he said, could limit how much sway the report has on policymakers.
“It will probably affect policy, but public policy should be based on strict risk-benefit evaluation,” Bamberger said. “This report was only assessing health risks but didn’t evaluate benefit.”
In recent years French advocates have battled against the introduction of anti-THR policies. Disposable vapes were banned in 2025, and a ban on nicotine pouches will take effect on April 1. French consumers have actively sought to inform health authorities and policymakers of the important role of these products in smoking cessation.
With a high, rising smoking rate approaching 35 percent and almost 74,000 smoking-related deaths per year, France surely needs to do whatever it can to save lives. But Bamberger is skeptical regarding how much the ANSES report will change entrenched public misperceptions about vaping.
“Sadly the organized media disinformation campaign, and the clickbait tendency, reduced the potential effects of the positive messages from this report,” he said—noting that the report itself acknowledged this problem.
Soulet meanwhile has mixed feelings about the relationship between ANSES’ findings and French policy. On the one hand, he said, officials now clearly make a distinction between vaping and smoking. But the existing and impending bans show that “the broader policy framework is still driven mainly by precaution, youth protection and nicotine control.”
“I would describe France as pragmatic, but not fully harm-reduction led,” he said.
