For anybody who has watched relations undergo and die from smoking-related illness, tobacco management shouldn’t be an summary coverage debate, it’s deeply private. Lung most cancers, heart problems, and power respiratory sickness should not brought on by nicotine itself, however by the poisonous merchandise of combustion. That distinction issues, as a result of misunderstanding it prices lives.
But world tobacco management coverage, led by the World Well being Group (WHO), continues to blur this important line. As a substitute of accelerating the transition away from smoking, it more and more promotes prohibitionist insurance policies that prohibit or stigmatise safer nicotine options. The result’s slower declines in smoking, increasing illicit markets, and missed alternatives to forestall illness.
This rising disconnect has prompted the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Hurt Discount Advocates (CAPHRA) to name on governments throughout the area to urgently reassess their dedication to the WHO Framework Conference on Tobacco Management (FCTC). That decision has taken on new urgency following the USA’ withdrawal from the WHO on 22 January 2026, citing mismanagement, and New Zealand International Minister Winston Peters’ demand for scrutiny of funding directed towards what he described as “unelected globalist bureaucrats.”
Hurt discount really helpful in concept however ignored in observe
On the coronary heart of CAPHRA’s concern is a elementary contradiction. The FCTC itself explicitly consists of hurt discount in Article 1(d). But in observe, WHO coverage steerage persistently opposes or undermines the very instruments which have confirmed simplest at decreasing smoking—vaping, heated tobacco merchandise, and nicotine pouches.
“The treaty recognises hurt discount, however present observe has not persistently supported the instruments that may speed up the decline of smoking,” mentioned Nancy Loucas, CAPHRA’s Govt Coordinator. “Governments needs to be asking whether or not the system is aligned with its personal mandate and with real-world proof.”
That proof shouldn’t be speculative. Flamable tobacco stays the main reason for preventable demise worldwide. Non-combustible nicotine merchandise get rid of combustion solely, dramatically decreasing publicity to carcinogens and toxicants. Public well being authorities in international locations such because the UK and New Zealand have repeatedly acknowledged that vaping is considerably much less dangerous than smoking and an efficient cessation help. But WHO steerage more and more treats switching away from cigarettes as a “danger of substitution”—a phrase that reveals how ideology has overtaken proof.
Contained in the FCTC’s COP11
Issues in regards to the route of worldwide tobacco management have been sharpened following remarks by Jindřich Vobořil, a veteran public well being and drug coverage specialist with a long time of expertise in evidence-based regulation. Reflecting on his participation on the WHO’s COP11 assembly in Geneva, Vobořil described the method as deeply troubling and more and more indifferent from scientific and public well being goals.
Vobořil mentioned COP11 discussions included excessive proposals, reminiscent of criminalising authorized nicotine firms—mockingly backed by international locations like China that revenue from state tobacco monopolies whereas exporting vapes, exposing a credibility hole. Hurt discount advocates and shoppers have been excluded, whereas well-funded NGOs dominated debate, sidelining evidence-based views. And naturally, as a substitute of analyzing real-world successes in Sweden, Japan, the UK and New Zealand, delegates targeted on disputed theoretical dangers, undermining each public well being and institutional legitimacy.
When prohibition replaces regulation
Throughout the Asia-Pacific area, the results of this strategy are very seen. Nations which prohibit or ban safer nicotine merchandise, reminiscent of Australia, typically see smoking charges decline extra slowly whereas illicit markets flourish. This sample mirrors world expertise. Excessive taxes and blanket bans don’t get rid of demand; they displace it. Illicit tobacco and unregulated vaping merchandise thrive exactly the place authorized, regulated options are unavailable. This not solely undermines public well being objectives however strengthens legal provide chains and removes shopper protections altogether.
Distinction this with international locations which have embraced risk-proportionate regulation. New Zealand’s grownup smoking fee has fallen to six.8%, one of many lowest on the earth. This decline didn’t occur by prohibition alone, however by agency regulation paired with widespread entry to safer options.
Public well being specialists reminiscent of former Motion on Smoking and Well being UK director Clive Bates have repeatedly criticised the FCTC course of for failing to include proof from jurisdictions reaching fast smoking declines by hurt discount, reminiscent of Sweden.
The UK gives related classes. Authorities-backed “Swap to Cease” initiatives encourage grownup people who smoke to modify to vaping, supported by behavioural counselling. Native authority knowledge present stop charges exceeding 50% in some areas. These outcomes should not theoretical, they translate immediately into fewer hospital admissions, fewer most cancers diagnoses, and fewer funerals.
The WHO’s harmful most cancers messaging
In the meantime, nowhere is the WHO’s resistance to hurt discount extra damaging than in its most cancers messaging. The fifth version of the European Code In opposition to Most cancers, launched in late 2025, eliminated essential nuance current in earlier editions. Whereas the 2014 version clearly defined that nicotine shouldn’t be the reason for most cancers and acknowledged vaping’s decrease danger in comparison with smoking, the most recent model collapses smoking and vaping right into a single warning class.
This transformation shouldn’t be beauty. It basically alters public understanding. When persons are instructed merely “Don’t smoke. Don’t use any type of tobacco or vaping merchandise,” with out rationalization, many incorrectly conclude that vaping is as harmful as smoking. This misperception is already widespread amongst clinicians and the general public, and it discourages people who smoke from switching to safer options.
The identical doc goes additional, explicitly calling for heavy taxation and restrictions on all nicotine merchandise, together with e-cigarettes and pouches, regardless of acknowledging that long-term most cancers hyperlinks haven’t been established. The function of those merchandise in smoking cessation is conspicuously absent.
No, hurt discount shouldn’t be an trade spin
Equating tobacco hurt discount with “Large Tobacco” is as illogical as equating opioid hurt discount with pharmaceutical firms that manufacture Methadone.
The WHO typically frames hurt discount as a advertising and marketing tactic utilized by nicotine firms. This argument collapses below scrutiny. Hurt discount is a long-established public well being framework, extensively accepted in areas reminiscent of HIV prevention and opioid use. It recognises a easy actuality: individuals don’t all stop dangerous behaviours without delay, however danger can nonetheless be diminished.
Fashionable vaping merchandise weren’t invented by tobacco firms. They have been developed by Hon Lik, a pharmacist making an attempt to stop smoking after his father developed lung most cancers. Tobacco firms entered the market years later, responding to shopper demand already created by grassroots efforts. Equating tobacco hurt discount with “Large Tobacco” is as illogical as equating opioid hurt discount with pharmaceutical firms that manufacture Methadone.
Governments needs to be demanding transparency
Tobacco hurt discount specialists argue that governments funding the WHO system ought to demand accountability. And equally necessary: continued assist for the FCTC needs to be conditional on transparency, significant engagement with impartial scientists and shoppers, and efficiency indicators primarily based on outcomes, reminiscent of smoking prevalence, switching charges, and illness developments, not the variety of bans imposed.
To stay related, the WHO and its FCTC should evolve. A structured, risk-proportionate framework for all nicotine merchandise would enable international locations to share proof, study from regulatory successes, and consider coverage actually. The selection confronted is not a theoritcal one: governments can proceed funding and following a system that resists proof and perpetuates smoking, or they’ll demand a contemporary strategy grounded in science, compassion, and measurable public well being success.
The objective ought to by no means be ideological purity. It needs to be fewer cancers, fewer untimely deaths, and fewer households left behind questioning why lifesaving options have been saved out of attain
Progress Shamed, WHO Uncovered: How Hurt Discount Challenged COP’s Backwards Agenda in Geneva
