For decades, tobacco control policies have been built around a straightforward premise: products containing tobacco should be regulated as tobacco products. This approach made sense when cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco dominated the market. Today, however, the nicotine landscape has changed significantly. A growing range of smoke-free products, including nicotine pouches, electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and medicinal nicotine products, has challenged traditional regulatory categories and prompted policymakers to reconsider whether historical classifications remain fit for purpose.
The question facing regulators is no longer simply whether a product contains tobacco. Increasingly, it is whether regulatory frameworks should reflect the relative risks presented by different products.
For GINN, this debate represents one of the most important policy questions shaping the future of nicotine regulation. Effective public health policy should continue protecting young people and discouraging nicotine initiation while ensuring that regulation reflects scientific evidence rather than relying solely on historical product categories.
A Regulatory System Built for a Different Era
Many tobacco laws were developed when combustible cigarettes were overwhelmingly responsible for nicotine consumption. Regulatory frameworks naturally focused on products made from tobacco leaf because these products posed the greatest public health burden.
However, today’s market is considerably more diverse.
Some products contain tobacco. Others contain pharmaceutical-grade nicotine with no tobacco leaf. Some involve combustion, while others do not. Some expose users to thousands of chemicals produced through burning tobacco, whereas others substantially reduce exposure to many harmful and potentially harmful constituents associated with cigarette smoke.
Despite these differences, many regulatory systems continue to group these products together under a single legislative framework.
While this may simplify administration, it can also obscure important differences in product characteristics, patterns of use, and potential health risks.
Nicotine Is Not the Same as Smoking
One of the most persistent misconceptions in public debate is the tendency to equate nicotine with smoking.
Nicotine is an addictive substance and is not without health considerations. It can increase heart rate and blood pressure, should not be used by children or adolescents, pregnant women unless medically advised, or people who have never used nicotine products. These risks should continue to inform responsible regulation and public health messaging.
However, decades of scientific research have consistently shown that the overwhelming burden of smoking-related disease is caused primarily by exposure to toxic chemicals produced by the combustion of tobacco, rather than nicotine itself. Cigarette smoke contains thousands of chemicals, including numerous toxicants and carcinogens generated during the burning process. This distinction has informed many tobacco harm reduction discussions and remains an important consideration when evaluating the relative risks of different nicotine products.
Recognising this distinction does not minimise nicotine’s addictive potential. Instead, it supports more accurate communication about where the greatest health risks arise and how different products should be assessed.
Why Classification Matters
How products are classified has practical consequences far beyond legal definitions.
Regulatory classification often determines product standards, manufacturing requirements, taxation, labelling obligations, marketing restrictions, flavour policies, retail availability, licensing systems, and pathways to market authorisation.
If products with substantially different risk profiles are regulated identically, opportunities for proportionate regulation may be lost.
Conversely, creating separate regulatory pathways allows governments to tailor requirements according to the characteristics of individual product categories while maintaining appropriate public health protections.
This does not imply lighter regulation. Rather, it suggests more targeted regulation that reflects the evidence available for each product type.
A Risk-Proportionate Framework
Risk-proportionate regulation recognises that not all nicotine products present the same level or type of risk.
Under such an approach, regulatory measures are calibrated according to scientific evidence rather than broad product labels alone.
For example, regulators may require rigorous manufacturing standards, ingredient disclosure, contaminant limits, nicotine-content controls, child-resistant packaging, accurate labelling, adverse event reporting, and post-market surveillance across smoke-free nicotine products. At the same time, combustible tobacco products, responsible for the greatest burden of disease, may continue to face the most stringent restrictions reflecting their well-established health impacts.
This approach enables governments to strengthen consumer protection while recognising meaningful differences between product categories.
Supporting Better Consumer Information
Product classification also influences how consumers understand risk.
When products with substantially different toxicological profiles are presented under a single regulatory narrative, consumers may incorrectly assume that all nicotine products pose identical health risks.
Clear, evidence-based communication should neither exaggerate nor minimise risk. Instead, it should accurately explain that while no nicotine product is entirely risk-free, products differ in their characteristics and potential health impacts.
Providing balanced information allows adults who currently smoke to make better-informed decisions while reinforcing that nicotine products are intended for adults and should remain inaccessible to young people.
Protecting Young People Remains Essential
Risk-proportionate regulation should never be interpreted as reduced protection for children and adolescents.
GINN has consistently supported strong measures to prevent youth access to nicotine products, including robust age verification, responsible marketing practices, restrictions on youth-oriented branding, child-resistant packaging, retail compliance, and effective enforcement against illegal sales.
Youth protection and evidence-based regulation are complementary objectives. Strong safeguards can coexist with regulatory frameworks that distinguish between different product categories based on available scientific evidence.
Looking Ahead
The rapid evolution of nicotine products presents an opportunity for governments to modernise regulatory frameworks that were largely designed for a different era.
Rather than asking whether products contain tobacco, policymakers may increasingly benefit from asking a broader question: What level of risk does this product present, and what regulatory measures are proportionate to that risk?
Answering that question requires continued investment in independent scientific research, ongoing product surveillance, and regulatory systems capable of adapting as evidence evolves.
For GINN, effective nicotine regulation should be grounded in science, supported by robust product standards, and focused on improving public health outcomes. Historical classifications have played an important role in tobacco control, but as innovation continues, regulatory frameworks should evolve to reflect current evidence rather than remain anchored solely in the categories of the past.
A risk-based approach does not weaken public health protections. Instead, it offers a pathway toward more precise, transparent, and evidence-informed regulation, one that recognises both the need to protect young people and the importance of aligning policy with the best available scientific evidence.
