The scientific evidence surrounding smoke-free nicotine products is only one part of the challenge facing the nicotine sector. Even where manufacturers believe the evidence supports differentiated approaches to regulation, that evidence does not automatically translate into public understanding, regulatory acceptance or proportionate policy.
That disconnect was at the centre of the GINN panel “We’re Right but We’re Losing – How the Nicotine Sector Wastes Its Own Advantage” at InterTabac Dortmund 2026. Moderated by Joel Rubenstein, the discussion brought together Tomasz Płaska of Chemnovatic, Jack Li of HG Innovation and Shivam Bihani of Satyam’s Sun Products (MYNT) to examine what the sector can do differently, from evidence generation and regulatory engagement to responsible marketing and industry collaboration.
Evidence Does Not Speak for Itself
One of the clearest themes to emerge from the discussion was that generating evidence is not enough. Evidence also needs to reach the people making regulatory decisions in a credible and useful form.
Bihani argued that manufacturers have historically placed considerable emphasis on developing and marketing products while giving less attention to generating credible data and engaging regulators before new rules are developed.
As he put it:
“We believed the science will speak for itself, but evidently it doesn’t.”
The panel discussed the need for evidence covering areas including toxicology, product performance and consumer behaviour, alongside earlier and more sustained engagement with regulators.
For smaller manufacturers, however, this presents a significant challenge. Large multinational companies can maintain internal scientific and regulatory teams and fund substantial research programmes. Smaller businesses may not have comparable resources.
That imbalance makes collaboration increasingly important.
Regulation and the Wider Population Impact
The panel also questioned whether nicotine regulation sometimes focuses too narrowly on individual concerns without sufficiently examining the overall consequences of policy.
Płaska argued that youth protection is an important regulatory objective, but should form part of a broader assessment of population-level outcomes. Regulation should also consider how adult consumers respond, whether demand remains within regulated channels and what happens when significant differences emerge between legal and illicit markets.
This does not mean weakening youth protections. Rather, the discussion highlighted the importance of examining regulatory measures against the outcomes they actually produce.
Płaska argued that the success of a policy should therefore not simply be measured by whether another restriction has been introduced, but by its effects on public health.
That distinction is important. A regulation can be well intentioned while still producing consequences that need to be measured, reviewed and, where necessary, addressed.
Regulatory Uncertainty Can Affect Innovation
Another concern raised by the panel was the effect of regulatory uncertainty on investment and product development.
Across Europe and other regions, nicotine products can encounter very different rules from one jurisdiction to another. Manufacturers therefore face the possibility that substantial investments in research, product development and market preparation may be affected by regulatory changes.
Bihani suggested that this uncertainty can make companies more cautious about investing in research and development. Jack Li similarly noted that businesses may devote substantial resources to products only to find that changing regulatory or enforcement requirements alter their commercial viability.
The panel did not argue against regulation. In fact, speakers repeatedly expressed support for regulation and enforcement. Their argument was instead that regulation should be clear, evidence-based and proportionate, allowing responsible businesses to understand the standards they are expected to meet.
Predictability matters not only for companies. A stable regulatory environment can also make it easier to establish product standards, compliance systems and long-term investment in scientific evidence.
Responsible Industry Conduct Starts Before Regulation
If governments are concerned about how nicotine products are developed and marketed, the panel asked what the sector itself can do to address those concerns.
The answer extended across the entire supply chain.
Li argued that compliance should sit at the centre of company decision-making, including packaging, flavour descriptors, marketing practices and where products are sold. Self-regulation alone cannot address every irresponsible operator, he noted, but responsible businesses can establish standards that demonstrate how the category should operate.
Bihani similarly argued that responsibility extends from raw-material suppliers and manufacturers through to brand owners, distributors, wholesalers and retailers.
For Płaska, the sector also needs to acknowledge the credibility challenges created by the history of the wider tobacco industry. Rather than expecting regulators automatically to trust industry-generated claims, responsible companies need to build credibility through transparent evidence, appropriate standards and constructive participation in regulatory processes.
This may also mean identifying practices or products that fall short of appropriate standards rather than allowing the conduct of a small number of operators to affect perceptions of an entire category.
Can Competitors Collaborate on Science?
One of the more practical questions raised during the session was how smaller companies can contribute meaningfully to the evidence base when high-quality research can be expensive.
The panel identified industry associations as one potential mechanism.
Companies will naturally continue competing on products, brands and market share. But scientific questions affecting an entire category may offer greater scope for cooperation.
Bihani suggested that smaller manufacturers could contribute data through industry organisations, allowing evidence to be brought together and developed into a stronger collective resource. Areas such as product composition, consumer behaviour and movement between nicotine products could potentially benefit from wider participation.
Płaska also raised the possibility of developing shared production standards that could help responsible operators demonstrate quality and strengthen the credibility of the category.
The objective would not be to eliminate commercial competition. It would be to recognise that some regulatory and scientific challenges are shared across the sector and may be difficult for smaller businesses to address individually.
Smaller Companies Need a Voice
Scientific research is not the only way businesses can participate in policy development.
Li stressed the importance of smaller companies contributing to public consultations and other regulatory processes rather than allowing engagement to be dominated by the largest businesses.
For companies unable to fund major studies, participating in consultations, joining associations and sharing relevant market or product information can still contribute to the regulatory discussion.
Płaska similarly highlighted engagement with national regulators. As European tobacco and nicotine policy continues to develop, companies can identify the authorities and officials involved in national-level discussions and provide evidence, practical market knowledge and regulatory proposals.
This kind of engagement requires a shift away from treating regulatory affairs as something that happens after a policy proposal appears. The panel’s message was that businesses should engage earlier and more consistently.
The Long-Term Risk of Short-Term Marketing
The discussion concluded by returning to a fundamental tension: short-term commercial growth versus the long-term credibility of the category.
For businesses operating in competitive markets, sales, visibility and market share inevitably matter. But the panel argued that excessive emphasis on immediate commercial gains can create broader risks if responsible marketing, product standards, scientific investment and regulatory engagement receive insufficient attention.
Rubenstein highlighted the reputational vulnerability of emerging nicotine categories, arguing that a single highly publicised adverse incident or example of irresponsible youth-oriented marketing could trigger regulatory consequences extending well beyond the company involved.
His broader point was that legal compliance should not necessarily be the only standard companies use when deciding how to operate. Businesses also need to consider whether their practices contribute to the long-term sustainability and credibility of the category.
Building the Industry Right
The InterTabac discussion demonstrated that the challenge facing the nicotine sector is not simply whether evidence exists.
It is whether the evidence is credible, whether it reaches policymakers, whether companies behave in ways consistent with the arguments they make to regulators, and whether the sector can cooperate on shared challenges without eliminating legitimate commercial competition.
For smaller companies in particular, this may require a different allocation of resources: not abandoning branding and commercial development, but investing more consistently in product science, standards, regulatory engagement and collaboration.
The panel did not suggest that any single intervention would resolve the challenges facing the category. Instead, it pointed toward a combination of credible science, responsible commercial conduct, proportionate regulation, stronger engagement and greater collaboration.
If the sector wants policymakers to distinguish between different nicotine products and their risk profiles, it also needs to demonstrate that it can take the responsibilities accompanying that distinction seriously.
As the discussion in Dortmund made clear, being confident in the evidence is not enough. The sector also has to build the credibility needed for that evidence to be heard.
