COP11 has concluded, but the debate around nicotine regulation is far from settled. While delegates left Geneva without adopting aggressive new restrictions, the WHO’s long-standing hostility toward tobacco harm reduction remains firmly in place. The organization continues to frame non-combustible products, such as nicotine pouches, e-cigarettes, and heated tobacco, through the same lens as conventional cigarettes, ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence that combustion is the primary source of harm.
This position may guide the WHO’s internal agenda, but it must not be written into European legislation. Europe’s public health landscape, regulatory environment, and consumer behaviors differ vastly from global averages. Copy-and-paste policymaking would be a mistake, one that could undermine years of progress in reducing smoking across several EU Member States.
A Growing Divide Among Countries
One of the clearest outcomes of COP11 is that the international community is no longer aligned. A visible split has emerged between countries that support punitive, prohibition-oriented controls and those advocating for evidence-based harm reduction.
On one side, countries such as France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark continue to support the WHO’s restrictive, precautionary approach. Their position is shaped largely by concerns around youth access and a desire for uniform control measures across nicotine categories.
On the other side, a growing coalition is resisting this hard line. Sweden, Italy, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Greece are among others highlighted the substantial public health gains that come from providing adults with regulated, lower-risk alternatives. Sweden’s near–smoke-free status stands as the strongest real-world proof: when adult smokers have access to safer options, smoking declines dramatically.
This divergence signals an important shift. The harm-reduction debate is no longer about products alone, it is about which countries are willing to anchor public health policy in measurable outcomes rather than ideology.
COP11 Outcome: No Major Changes, But the Pressure Continues
Although COP11 did not produce sweeping new mandates, the WHO’s narrative remains unchanged. The organization continues to categorize all nicotine use as inherently harmful, minimizing the role of product risk and refusing to engage with decades of independent research.
This rigid stance stands in stark contrast to:
- the lived experience of millions of Europeans who have successfully quit smoking through smoke-free alternatives
- the scientific consensus on the risk continuum
- the public health achievements seen in countries embracing regulated harm reduction
The danger is clear: if the European Commission adopts WHO language directly, it risks imposing policies that treat all nicotine products identically, regardless of risk. Such an approach would be outdated, counterproductive, and disconnected from Europe’s evidence-driven regulatory tradition.
Why Europe Needs a Different Approach
Europe cannot afford to overlook the basics: Burning tobacco causes the harm.
Nicotine, while addictive, is not the primary driver of tobacco-related disease.
Non-combustible alternatives, nicotine pouches, vapes, and heated tobacco—remove combustion entirely. Countries that recognize this distinction have seen smoking rates fall faster and further than those relying solely on punitive controls.
For Europe, the path forward requires:
- proportionate regulation based on verified levels of risk
- clear consumer communication, not fear-based messaging
- strong youth protections paired with adult access
- manufacturing and quality standards that ensure product safety
- policies that encourage adults to fully transition away from smoking
This is how Europe can remain a global leader in both regulation and public health.
GINN’s View
GINN will continue to advocate for science-based policy, transparent standards, and responsible commercialization across the nicotine category. The message from COP11 is unmistakable: harm reduction has strong international supporters and the evidence behind it continues to grow.
Europe now has a choice. It can import WHO’s prohibition-leaning language into its laws, or it can follow the data, acknowledge real-world success stories, and adopt a modern, proportionate approach that genuinely reduces smoking-related disease.
For the millions of adults seeking safer alternatives, the stakes could not be higher.
