Stories

Numerous articles uncritically sensationalize WHO's stance on nicotine pouches, often funded by public health groups. The Trends Wire's alarming piece warns of child addiction worldwide. WHO data shows 40 million youth use tobacco, but nuances exist. The focus remains on traditional tobacco products like cigarettes, not pouches. The portrayal of nicotine pouches as a major concern is overblown, as they are a safer alternative. Addressing unregulated markets, most countries have existing consumer laws. The narrative against pouches overlooks their potential to reduce tobacco harms. Amidst the hype, understanding the true benefits of nicotine pouches is crucial.

Smokers deserve accurate information about relative risk, especially from trusted medical institutions. Claims that vaping is “just as harmful” as smoking ignore the major difference between combustion and non-combustible nicotine delivery. When safer alternatives are framed as equivalent to cigarettes, smokers may be discouraged from switching to products that could reduce their exposure to toxicants. Public health communication should be clear about risk without confusing “not harmless” with “no less harmful”.

The Netherlands’ decision to drop its disposable vape ban plan shows the limits of prohibition-style nicotine policy. Concerns over enforcement, illicit trade and consumer behaviour appear to have outweighed the appeal of a simple ban. If adult smokers are to move away from cigarettes, regulation must keep lower-risk alternatives within legal, accountable channels. Better policy should target youth access and illegal products without removing safer options from the regulated market.

Prohibition does not remove demand for vapes or nicotine products — it hands the market to criminals. When legal access is restricted, consumers often turn to unregulated channels where product safety, age controls and tax revenue disappear. The result is weaker oversight, stronger illicit trade and fewer realistic routes away from combustible cigarettes. Effective nicotine policy should regulate safer alternatives proportionately, not push them underground.

The Kubin report has become another test of whether Brussels is willing to listen to consumers, evidence and real-world outcomes. Critics argue that EU nicotine policy is too often shaped by institutional process, political pressure and precautionary instincts rather than a clear assessment of relative risk. For smokers, the right thing to do is not to restrict safer alternatives until cigarettes remain the easiest option. Better regulation should protect young people while preserving access to products that can move adults away from combustion.

Palau’s push to place nicotine under international drug-control rules raises serious questions about influence, governance and proportionality. Treating all nicotine products like illicit drugs risks ignoring the major difference between combustible cigarettes and lower-risk alternatives such as vapes and pouches. For smokers, prohibition does not remove demand — it removes legal, regulated options. Global nicotine policy should be built on evidence and relative risk, not on campaigns that turn harm reduction into a drug war.

The EU’s tobacco consultation is facing criticism for framing safer nicotine products through the same lens as cigarettes. By grouping vapes, nicotine pouches and combustible tobacco together, the questionnaire risks ignoring major differences in relative risk and real-world use. Consumer voices matter because regulation directly affects people trying to move away from smoking. A credible policy process should ask better questions before reaching restrictive answers.

The future of tobacco control depends on whether public health accepts the shift from smoking to safer nicotine products. Combustible cigarettes cause the greatest harm, while non-combustible alternatives can reduce exposure and offer more realistic routes away from smoking. The Michael Russell Oration at GFN26 reinforces a central harm reduction principle: people do not need to stop using nicotine to dramatically reduce risk. Regulation should accelerate the end of smoking, not protect the cigarette market from disruption.

US regulation of nicotine pouches and e-cigarettes remains one of the most contested areas of tobacco harm reduction policy. Complex approval pathways and uneven enforcement can make it harder for lower-risk products to reach adult smokers through legal, regulated channels. At the same time, consumer demand continues to shift towards smoke-free alternatives. A more effective framework would protect young people while ensuring that adult smokers have realistic access to products that reduce exposure to combustion.

Brazil’s vape ban has not stopped demand — it has pushed the market into paperwork tricks, border routes and online delivery networks. Products move under labels such as toys, electronics or accessories, leaving consumers with no reliable way to verify origin, contents or safety. Prohibition removes oversight while preserving access, creating a market where trust replaces regulation. Harm reduction policy should bring products into accountable systems, not leave users dependent on opacity.