As all the time, the temper heading into COP11 was tense, and never solely due to the high-stakes negotiations forward. Within the weeks earlier than delegates descended on Geneva, long-time tobacco coverage analyst Clive Bates warned that international tobacco management was nonetheless leaning in direction of an ideological cul-de-sac. Talking on GFN Information, Bates described an surroundings more and more formed by dogma quite than knowledge, the place prohibitionist considering—nicotine-free cigarettes, retail bans, and blanket restrictions—was changing the conference’s unique evidence-driven function. He argued that the refusal to acknowledge threat differentials between cigarettes and safer nicotine merchandise had created a moralistic ambiance that undermines public belief and makes real progress more and more troublesome.
On the identical time, the WHO appears to be trying to broaden its authority simply as its underlying scientific justification weakens. Economist Ian Irvine famous that the group is now searching for an astonishing leap in its tobacco-control finances—from US$1 billion to US$9 billion—whereas persevering with to disregard in depth proof from Cochrane, Public Well being England, the Royal School of Physicians, and Well being Canada that vapes, pouches, and heated tobacco merchandise carry a fraction of the harms of smoking. For Irvine, the WHO’s resistance is much less about science and extra about sustaining narrative management.
This context framed a unprecedented week in Geneva. What the WHO anticipated to be a clean reinforcement of its anti-nicotine agenda as a substitute revealed the fragility of its strategy. From day one, the group pushed for aggressive new measures in opposition to vaping, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco—quietly, with out full transparency, and with out together with customers. However this time, some nations pushed again.
Standing as much as prohibition
The World Vapers Alliance (WVA) reported {that a} various group of countries together with New Zealand, Albania, Gambia, Mozambique, North Macedonia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Serbia—challenged the WHO’s hardline proposals. They , insisted on coverage flexibility, nationwide sovereignty, and recognition of hurt discount as a authentic and efficient public-health technique. Because the week progressed, the tried push for binding international restrictions started to unravel.
The ultimate outcomes mirrored this rising resistance, with most of the most excessive proposals considerably softened, others decreased to non-binding suggestions, and several other postponed solely to COP12 in 2027, after negotiators failed to achieve consensus. Ultimately, the Secretariat’s push for an abstinence-only mannequin stalled, unable to beat the mounting pushback from nations demanding flexibility and evidence-based coverage.
In probably the most telling moments, St. Kitts and Nevis formally proposed acknowledging tobacco hurt discount in FCTC steerage. Whereas this unprecedented transfer gathered important assist by some, not solely was it blocked by entrenched prohibitionist blocs, but additionally earned the nation a “Soiled Ashtray” award, and was in fact labeled as “business interference”.
New Zealand shamed regardless of acquiring outcomes, Mexico glorified regardless of not delivering
Mexico, with smoking charges round double New Zealand’s, acquired the “Orchid Award” for its prohibitionist stance.
Equally, New Zealand’s delegation defended hurt discount as a key driver of its exceptionally low each day smoking charge—at simply 6.8%, one of many lowest on the planet. And as soon as once more, the WHO-aligned NGO community awarded the nation with a Soiled Ashtray. Formally, the award criticised New Zealand for rolling again parts of its smokefree reforms. However hurt discount advocates famous the absurdity: Mexico, with smoking charges round double New Zealand’s, acquired the “Orchid Award” for its prohibitionist stance.
Teams like CAPHRA highlighted that the awards illustrated ideological bias quite than efficiency. New Zealand, they stated, was being punished for permitting entry to safer alternate options whilst those self same merchandise helped drive historic declines in smoking—significantly amongst Māori and Pacific populations, who face disproportionately excessive smoking-related well being burdens.
Weakened momentum and the complexity of the FCTC’s basis
One other surprising drama unfolded inside the European Union. Having agreed earlier than COP11 to not push for bans on reduced-risk merchandise, the European Fee and Denmark tried to do precisely that behind closed doorways. Their actions, uncovered by different EU member states, triggered sharp resistance from Italy, Greece, and Poland and laid naked a widening cut up between Brussels policymakers and nationwide governments. The episode foreshadowed troublesome battles forward because the EU prepares to revise its Tobacco Merchandise Directive and Tobacco Excise Directive.
By the tip of COP11, the WHO’s drive for stricter international controls had clearly misplaced momentum, however the softened outcomes did little to deal with the deeper structural points. Negotiations continued behind closed doorways, customers and unbiased consultants remained excluded from the method, and the affect of main donors continued to loom massive—shaping priorities and overshadowing scientific debate.
For a lot of observers, this affect is epitomised by Michael Bloomberg, whose philanthropic’ community has spent over US$1.6 billion shaping international tobacco coverage. Critics argue that Bloomberg’s funding creates an ecosystem of interlinked NGOs, tutorial centres, and advocacy teams that promote a uniform anti-nicotine stance whereas crowding out various or dissenting scientific views. At COP11, almost half the civil-society delegates current had been tied to Bloomberg-funded organisations—whereas unbiased harm-reduction researchers had been stored out.
International locations reminiscent of Mexico, India, and the Philippines have beforehand enacted bans or harsh restrictions following stress from Bloomberg-backed teams, even when such insurance policies gasoline illicit-market development or cut back shopper entry to safer merchandise.
Smear ways aimed toward THR consultants
The ideological pressure inside international tobacco management was additionally obvious in escalating private assaults on main harm-reduction scientists. Within the days earlier than COP11, The Examination, a Bloomberg-funded platform, revealed a prolonged hit piece on Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos over an previous consulting price, regardless of none of his analysis involving Juul merchandise. Quickly after, retired professor Stanton Glantz attacked Clive Bates, claiming that vaping “will increase hurt” and accusing him of serving to the tobacco business—with out proof.
These assaults triggered robust rebuttals from revered figures together with Dr Michael Siegel and Cliff Douglas, who argued that such behaviour indicators a retreat from scientific debate into propaganda. When critics prioritise smearing colleagues over evaluating knowledge, they stated, one thing has gone deeply incorrect.
A Turning Level?
The mixed impact of those occasions means that the core of worldwide tobacco management as we all know it’s lastly being shaken. COP11 made clear that many nations will now not settle for an abstinence-only mannequin. Bates’s prediction that governments would finally push again in opposition to anti-scientific orthodoxy seems to be taking form.
For harm-reduction advocates, the message is evident:
Proof is turning into more durable to disregard. Shoppers are organising. International locations are asserting their sovereignty. And the prohibitive, donor-driven mannequin of worldwide nicotine coverage is dropping its grip. The momentum could lastly be shifting—however sustained stress is required to make sure the subsequent COP displays scientific actuality quite than ideological allegiance.
Unmasking The WHO’s Conflict on Vaping: Why Reform Should Embrace Grownup Selection
