As COP11 nears, the WHO’s outdated anti-nicotine ideology is not only stifling innovation, but risking reversing decades of progress.
As governments prepare for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) this November, the debate over how to tackle tobacco harm is intensifying. Clearing the Air has just reported that Belgium’s Deputy Prime Minister and former Health Minister, Franck Vandenbroucke, is set to host a global seminar demonizing vaping and novel nicotine products during the event. The event, referred to as a discussion on public health, is naturally raising alarm among harm reduction advocates as it seeks to reinforce the FCTC’s staunch opposition to safer nicotine alternatives.
Vandenbroucke’s track record offers little reassurance. A seasoned critic of vaping, he has repeatedly portrayed e-cigarettes as a threat rather than an opportunity for harm reduction. Yet his own country’s experience reflects the danger in this type of reasoning. Despite Belgium’s stringent tobacco control measures—plain packaging, comprehensive smoking bans, and strict advertising restrictions—around one in five adults still smoke. According to the national health agency, Sciensano, Belgium is unlikely to meet its smoking reduction targets without new, more effective approaches.
Instead of adopting strategies that leverage safer nicotine products, Belgium has gone in the opposite direction. Nicotine pouches were outlawed in 2023, followed by a ban on disposable vapes in 2025—policies that, so far, have shown no measurable impact on cigarette consumption. Instead, these prohibitions have predictably fuelled illicit trade. Surveys suggest that roughly 40% of retailers still sell disposable vapes despite the ban, while nicotine pouches remain readily available through informal markets.
Prohibition’s detrimental impact on global health
Consumer groups such as FeBeVa have condemned these developments, urging the government to embrace evidence-based policy. They argue that, rather than protecting public health, Belgium’s punitive stance undermines smokers’ ability to access lower-risk options and drives consumers toward unregulated, potentially unsafe products.
This pattern of policy failure is not unique to Belgium. Across Europe and beyond, the WHO’s influence over national tobacco control strategies has encouraged countries to pursue prohibitionist measures that conflate harm reduction tools with traditional tobacco products. The upcoming COP11 threatens to deepen this trend, as WHO officials urge delegates from all nations in attendance to set tighter restrictions on vape, nicotine pouches, and other alternatives—even as global smoking rates stagnate.
Will Sweden put up a fight?
In Sweden, where harm reduction is integral to public health policy, lawmakers are increasingly concerned that WHO and EU proposals could erode the country’s successful model. Sweden’s use of snus and other smoke-free products has produced the lowest smoking prevalence and tobacco-related mortality in Europe. Yet members of Parliament, including Tobias Andersson, warn that decisions shaping national nicotine policy may soon be made by unelected international delegates rather than domestic experts.
During a recent parliamentary session, new Health Minister Elisabeth Lann faced pointed questions about how Sweden’s delegation to COP11 will approach these debates. Lann reaffirmed that snus is “significantly less harmful than smoking”, but stopped short of confirming whether Sweden will actively defend its harm reduction stance at the international level. Critics argue that the country’s Public Health Agency, which avoids using the term “harm reduction,” risks aligning too closely with WHO orthodoxy—a position that could jeopardize Sweden’s hard-won success.
The lack of transparency surrounding the COP process only deepens concern. Media and consumer access to discussions remain tightly restricted, allowing decisions with global implications to occur largely behind closed doors. As Andersson noted, this opacity threatens to produce “recommendations that conflict with national public health models proven to save lives.”
A missed opportunity
While political debate rages, a recent paper in Frontiers has called for a fundamental shift in tobacco control priorities—away from policing consumption and toward sxducing toxicity. Researchers from the Medical University of Vienna and Universidade do Vale do Itajaí (Brazil) recently argued that the FCTC’s own framework already provides the tools for such progress. Articles 9 and 10 of the treaty empower nations to regulate harmful emissions from tobacco and nicotine products, yet these provisions have languished for nearly two decades.
Instead, the WHO’s focus has remained on reducing product appeal rather than addressing the root cause of harm: toxic smoke emissions. The researchers propose a global, emissions-based regulatory system—similar to those governing vehicle exhaust or industrial pollution—that would set measurable toxicant limits for products. By targeting substances like formaldehyde, acrolein, carbon monoxide, and benzo[a]pyrene, regulators could guide both consumers and policymakers toward genuinely lower-risk alternatives.
Such a science-based framework would not only align with real-world data but could also accelerate harm reduction globally—particularly for the 1.2 billion people projected to still smoke by 2050. Crucially, it would mark a shift from an ideology of abstinence to one of measurable safety improvement.
Ignoring harm reduction keeps the world smoking
As COP11 approaches, public health advocates face a stark choice. The FCTC can continue down a path of prohibition and moral posturing, reinforcing the false equivalence between smoking and safer alternatives—or it can embrace an evidence-based future that prioritizes toxicity reduction, product regulation, and informed consumer choice.
If the WHO truly seeks to reduce the toll of smoking, it must stop punishing innovation and start supporting harm reduction. The science is clear. The question is whether policymakers will finally listen.