As governments put together for the World Well being Group’s (WHO) eleventh Convention of the Events (COP11) to the Framework Conference on Tobacco Management (FCTC) this November, the controversy over how you can sort out tobacco hurt is intensifying. Clearing the Air has simply reported that Belgium’s Deputy Prime Minister and former Well being Minister, Franck Vandenbroucke, is ready to host a world seminar demonizing vaping and novel nicotine merchandise throughout the occasion. The occasion, known as a dialogue on public well being, is of course elevating alarm amongst hurt discount advocates because it seeks to bolster the FCTC’s staunch opposition to safer nicotine alternate options.
Vandenbroucke’s monitor file affords little reassurance. A seasoned critic of vaping, he has repeatedly portrayed e-cigarettes as a risk relatively than a possibility for hurt discount. But his personal nation’s expertise displays the hazard in this sort of reasoning. Regardless of Belgium’s stringent tobacco management measures—plain packaging, complete smoking bans, and strict promoting restrictions—round one in 5 adults nonetheless smoke. In line with the nationwide well being company, Sciensano, Belgium is unlikely to fulfill its smoking discount targets with out new, more practical approaches.
As a substitute of adopting methods that leverage safer nicotine merchandise, Belgium has gone in the other way. Nicotine pouches had been outlawed in 2023, adopted by a ban on disposable vapes in 2025—insurance policies that, to this point, have proven no measurable impression on cigarette consumption. As a substitute, these prohibitions have predictably fuelled illicit commerce. Surveys recommend that roughly 40% of shops nonetheless promote disposable vapes regardless of the ban, whereas nicotine pouches stay available via casual markets.
Prohibition’s detrimental impression on world well being
Throughout Europe and past, the WHO’s affect over nationwide tobacco management methods has inspired international locations to pursue prohibitionist measures that conflate hurt discount instruments with conventional tobacco merchandise.
Shopper teams comparable to FeBeVa have condemned these developments, urging the federal government to embrace evidence-based coverage. They argue that, relatively than defending public well being, Belgium’s punitive stance undermines people who smoke’ means to entry lower-risk choices and drives shoppers towards unregulated, doubtlessly unsafe merchandise.
This sample of coverage failure is just not distinctive to Belgium. Throughout Europe and past, the WHO’s affect over nationwide tobacco management methods has inspired international locations to pursue prohibitionist measures that conflate hurt discount instruments with conventional tobacco merchandise. The upcoming COP11 threatens to deepen this development, as WHO officers urge delegates from all nations in attendance to set tighter restrictions on vape, nicotine pouches, and different alternate options—whilst world smoking charges stagnate.
Will Sweden put up a combat?
In Sweden, the place hurt discount is integral to public well being coverage, lawmakers are more and more involved that WHO and EU proposals might erode the nation’s profitable mannequin. Sweden’s use of snus and different smoke-free merchandise has produced the bottom smoking prevalence and tobacco-related mortality in Europe. But members of Parliament, together with Tobias Andersson, warn that choices shaping nationwide nicotine coverage could quickly be made by unelected worldwide delegates relatively than home consultants.
Throughout a latest parliamentary session, new Well being Minister Elisabeth Lann confronted pointed questions on how Sweden’s delegation to COP11 will method these debates. Lann reaffirmed that snus is “considerably much less dangerous than smoking”, however stopped wanting confirming whether or not Sweden will actively defend its hurt discount stance on the worldwide stage. Critics argue that the nation’s Public Well being Company, which avoids utilizing the time period “hurt discount,” dangers aligning too carefully with WHO orthodoxy—a place that would jeopardize Sweden’s hard-won success.
The dearth of transparency surrounding the COP course of solely deepens concern. Media and shopper entry to discussions stay tightly restricted, permitting choices with world implications to happen largely behind closed doorways. As Andersson famous, this opacity threatens to supply “suggestions that battle with nationwide public well being fashions confirmed to save lots of lives.”
A missed alternative
Whereas political debate rages, a latest paper in Frontiers has known as for a elementary shift in tobacco management priorities—away from policing consumption and towards sxducing toxicity. Researchers from the Medical College of Vienna and Universidade do Vale do Itajaí (Brazil) lately argued that the FCTC’s personal framework already gives the instruments for such progress. Articles 9 and 10 of the treaty empower nations to manage dangerous emissions from tobacco and nicotine merchandise, but these provisions have languished for almost 20 years.
As a substitute, the WHO’s focus has remained on decreasing product attraction relatively than addressing the basis reason for hurt: poisonous smoke emissions. The researchers suggest a world, emissions-based regulatory system—much like these governing car exhaust or industrial air pollution—that will set measurable toxicant limits for merchandise. By focusing on substances like formaldehyde, acrolein, carbon monoxide, and benzo[a]pyrene, regulators might information each shoppers and policymakers towards genuinely lower-risk alternate options.
Such a science-based framework wouldn’t solely align with real-world information however might additionally speed up hurt discount globally—significantly for the 1.2 billion folks projected to nonetheless smoke by 2050. Crucially, it might mark a shift from an ideology of abstinence to one among measurable security enchancment.
Ignoring hurt discount retains the world smoking
As COP11 approaches, public well being advocates face a stark alternative. The FCTC can proceed down a path of prohibition and ethical posturing, reinforcing the false equivalence between smoking and safer alternate options—or it will possibly embrace an evidence-based future that prioritizes toxicity discount, product regulation, and knowledgeable shopper alternative.
If the WHO actually seeks to scale back the toll of smoking, it should cease punishing innovation and begin supporting hurt discount. The science is obvious. The query is whether or not policymakers will lastly pay attention.
Leaked WHO Paperwork Uncover Europe’s New Mindless Nicotine Struggle
