Setback for Public Health: Argentina Authorizes the Commercialization of Electronic Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products

The authorization of electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products for commercial sale, established by Ministry of Health Resolution No. 549/2026 and ANMAT Provision No. 2543/2026, represents a setback in Argentina’s national tobacco control policy. Civil society organizations warn about the impacts on public health and demand full enforcement of National Tobacco Control Law No. 26,687, along with effective oversight.

On May 4, 2026, the Official Gazette published Ministry of Health Resolution No. 549/2026 and ANMAT Provision No. 2543/2026, which repeal the bans on the importation, commercialization, distribution, advertising, promotion, and sponsorship of electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products that had been in force since 2011 and 2023, respectively. In addition, these regulations establish a framework for the regulated commercialization of these products and nicotine pouches. As a result, products with proven harmful effects on human health and high addictive potential—especially for children and adolescents—will now enter the market.

Context: Where We Come From and Where We Are Heading

Tobacco control policy in Argentina has a long history of coordinated efforts among the public sector, international organizations, health professionals, and civil society. National Tobacco Control Law No. 26,687, enacted in 2011, marked a milestone in public health protection: it established smoke-free environments, banned tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, required health warnings on packaging, and restricted sales to minors. That same year, ANMAT prohibited the commercialization of electronic cigarettes, and in 2023 the Ministry of Health extended the ban to heated tobacco products (HTPs).

These measures were not arbitrary. They were based on the precautionary principle—a cornerstone of international health law—in light of evidence showing that none of these products are harmless, that nicotine causes severe addiction, and that the tobacco industry has historically demonstrated its ability to design strategies aimed at attracting young consumers.

Resolution No. 549/2026 itself acknowledges in its recitals that the use of vapes and electronic cigarettes reaches 35.5% of secondary school students, according to a 2025 SEDRONAR study. Rather than using this alarming figure to strengthen protective policies, the government uses it to justify opening the market under the argument that prohibitions were ineffective. That generalized claim is, at the very least, partially false and deeply concerning regarding the direction of public policy.

While enforcement of the electronic cigarette ban was indeed deficient, this was largely due to the State’s evident inability to ensure effective oversight. Moreover, unlike electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco products had barely entered the Argentine market and now will be allowed to do so. What failed was not the law itself, but State enforcement. If authorities could not enforce the previous bans, how will they regulate a much broader market now?

What Changes Under the New Regulations

Resolution No. 549/2026 repeals the ban on heated tobacco products and creates the Tobacco and Nicotine Products Registry (RPTN), under which electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco devices, and nicotine pouches may now be imported and commercialized in Argentina, subject to registration requirements. ANMAT Provision No. 2543/2026, in turn, repeals the electronic cigarette ban that had been in force since 2011.

The new regulations expressly state that advertising, promotion, and sponsorship of these products remain prohibited under Law 26,687, and they establish specific technical restrictions for the regulated products. However, moving from a prohibition model based on the precautionary principle to a regulated commercialization model—at a time of rising adolescent consumption and uncertain enforcement capacity—constitutes a high-risk public health gamble and a clear setback in the protection of children and adolescents.

Nicotine pouches deserve special attention. Although they had not been explicitly banned like electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products, they were considered covered by the general framework of Law 26,687. Nevertheless, by late 2025 these products had entered the Argentine market massively, being sold without complying with the packaging and warning requirements established by national law and using prohibited marketing strategies. The new resolution explicitly regulates them and clarifies that they are tobacco products—or equivalent products—fully covered by existing legislation. In doing so, the government implicitly recognizes that these products had been commercialized unlawfully while the State failed to intervene.

Weak and Contradictory Justifications

The recitals of Resolution No. 549/2026 build their justification around four interconnected arguments: that the precautionary principle cannot be absolute or permanent; that countries considered international references have incorporated these products into their epidemiological surveillance systems; and that increasing consumption rates reported by SEDRONAR, together with the existence of an informal market, require regulation. None of these arguments supports the conclusion reached by the resolution.

• It is true that the precautionary principle is not absolute and that measures adopted under it must be periodically reviewed. However, the resolution fails to explain either the orientation or the grounds for this review. The precautionary principle establishes that when there is a well-founded suspicion of serious harm to health, the absence of absolute scientific certainty cannot be used to postpone protective measures. Resolution No. 549/2026 reverses this logic: it argues that because prohibition failed to eliminate the informal market, regulated commercialization should be authorized. Yet the evidence accumulated since 2011 does not show these products to be safe. On the contrary, it shows that they are harmful and addictive, that they encourage youth initiation, and that dual use with conventional cigarettes increases exposure to toxic substances and health risks. A review grounded in that evidence should strengthen protections, not dismantle them.
• The resolution also argues that some leading countries incorporated questions about the use of these products into their epidemiological surveys, supposedly allowing them to better measure the problem. But this argument confuses two very different things: monitoring a phenomenon does not mean authorizing it. Epidemiological surveillance is compatible with any regulatory framework, including prohibition. The fact that a country measures consumption does not mean it has legalized the product or recommends doing so.
• The SEDRONAR finding—35.5% electronic cigarette use among secondary school students—is invoked to justify market liberalization. This interpretation turns public health logic upside down. High adolescent consumption of an addictive and harmful product is, under the right to health and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, an argument for strengthening restrictions, not normalizing use.
• The informal market argument deserves special attention. The claim that prohibition fuels illegal, unregulated sales channels is one of the tobacco industry’s most common strategies for pushing regulatory rollback worldwide. This narrative appears repeatedly whenever tobacco control standards are challenged, appealing to the supposed dangers of informal products and the State’s alleged inability to sustain prohibition. The existence of an informal market is real. What is false is the assumption that legalization is the only solution. Argentina’s problem is not flawed legislation, but weak enforcement capacity—and that issue cannot be solved by opening the market, but by investing in oversight and enforcement.

Lack of Transparency, Participation, and Well-Founded Distrust

ANMAT Provision No. 2543/2026 partially bases its decision on Complementary Act No. 1 and on a Technical Report from the National Tobacco Control Program, both identified only by internal file numbers. Although cited as supporting documents, neither was incorporated into the administrative file nor published in the Official Gazette. Their conclusions are referenced selectively and superficially in the recitals, while the full technical evidence, arguments, and data allegedly supporting this regulatory shift remain inaccessible to the public. Administrative acts that affect rights must be self-sufficient: their grounds must be fully stated within the act itself so that any person may understand, assess, and potentially challenge the reasons behind the decision.

Beyond the lack of transparency regarding the evidence used, it is also important to highlight the absence of participation and consultation processes involving specialized organizations and health professionals, unlike the process that led to the regulations now being repealed.

The resolution also invokes the need for monitoring, oversight, and specific studies as part of its justification. But this promise clashes with a documented reality: since the enactment of Law 26,687, the State has neither imposed sanctions for violations of tobacco control regulations nor generated systematic epidemiological evidence to assess its own policies. The latest National Risk Factor Survey dates back to 2018. Argentina’s Global Youth Tobacco Survey also contains data only up to that year. The only recent data available comes from SEDRONAR 2025, which measures substance use among secondary school students but is not a specific tobacco surveillance instrument. If the State failed for fifteen years to generate updated evidence or effectively enforce existing prohibitions, there is no reason to believe it will now succeed under a more complex regulatory framework involving more products, more actors, and more technical variables to control—especially without additional resources allocated to that task. The central question left unanswered by the resolution is this: if the State could not enforce the prohibitions already in place, what concrete capacity does it now have to implement a far more complex regulatory regime?

Improving Policy Cannot Mean Moving Backwards

At Fundeps, we recognize that tobacco control regulations can and should be improved, and we actively work toward strengthening them. But in a context where the tobacco epidemic is increasingly affecting children and adolescents, strengthening public policy means closing enforcement gaps, updating epidemiological evidence, and ensuring effective compliance with existing restrictions. It does not mean opening markets for addictive products under the promise of regulation that the State has not demonstrated the capacity to enforce. The new regulations expose children and adolescents to the proliferation of these products in stores, kiosks, public spaces, and digital environments.

We emphasize that Law No. 26,687—and therefore the protections regarding smoke-free environments and bans on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship—remains fully in force and applies entirely to these new products. We demand full compliance with the law, effective enforcement supported by specific resources, and the complete publication of the technical documents underlying these recent measures.

At Fundeps, we will continue monitoring the implementation of the new regulatory framework, documenting violations, filing complaints before the relevant authorities, and coordinating with civil society, academic, and public health organizations to uphold evidence-based tobacco control policies free from conflicts of interest and grounded in the right to health.

Author: María Laura Fons

Contact: Maga Merlo – magamerlov@fundeps.org