TobaccoReporter logo

Category: GTNF 2025

  • Product Stewardship in a Regulatory Regime

    Product Stewardship in a Regulatory Regime

    At the GTNF session “What Does Product Stewardship Look Like in a Global Regulatory Regime?” industry scientists and innovators emphasized the need for consistent standards, open dialogue with regulators, and a science-first approach to product safety and harm reduction.

    Moderator Joe Thompson, Group Science and Regulatory Affairs Director at Imperial Brands, set the tone by framing stewardship as a consumer-first obligation. “It’s about quality, efficacy, and safety,” he said. “We have products that aren’t perfectly safe, but are demonstrably safer than their alternatives.” Thompson noted that navigating global regulatory systems is like crossing “rivers and mountains,” underscoring the complexity of compliance.

    Helena Digard, Head of Analytical Operations and Science Quality at BAT, called for standardization and transparency in testing. “We need testing that tells us the real story—not just results designed to reach a certain outcome,” she said. Digard stressed the importance of knowing both the minimum and maximum levels of stewardship and finding a balance that advances harm reduction through robust data.

    Chris Gemmell, Chief Product and Innovation Officer at Greentank Technologies, highlighted the role of technology in improving product safety. “Without technology, we wouldn’t be in the position we are today,” he said. With an estimated 150 million adult vapers globally, Gemmell urged closer collaboration between science and product development teams to ensure that data is well-understood and acted on early in the design process. “Start earlier so you don’t have to move faster,” he advised.

    Dr. Frank Henkler-Stephani of BVTE discussed widening gaps between regulators and manufacturers. “Everyone wanted to get products on the market quickly,” he said, but warned that improved technologies have not always been welcomed by tobacco control bodies within institutions like the WHO and the EU. He called for stronger cooperation to support continued product improvement.

    Dr. Yu Kang, Head of the Research Institute at Hangsen International Group, emphasized engineering innovation and consumer protection. “We’re trying to invent new products that protect consumers,” he said, pointing to research on second-hand vapor and closed-system devices. Kang advocated for transparency with regulators and the public, describing stewardship as a “lifecycle” responsibility that requires ongoing collaboration.

    Sarah Marking, Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer of Sanova, focused on regulatory uncertainty and unintended consequences of well-meaning policies. She cited child-resistant packaging as an example: “It sounds like a fantastic idea, but it can create barriers for adult users—like a 60-year-old mother who can’t open her product.” Marking called for circular stewardship that includes environmental responsibility and real-world monitoring of how consumers use products. “In trying to protect one risk, we’ve created a larger risk,” she said, urging regulators to act efficiently so that safer, well-stewarded products reach the market faster.

    Across the session, panelists agreed that true product stewardship requires transparency, scientific rigor, and continuous improvement throughout a product’s lifecycle—from design to disposal. As Marking concluded, “If we find a problem, we will find a way to solve it. This industry is driven by science—and that’s how stewardship should be defined.”

  • Clive Bates: WHO Using Tobacco’s History to Poison Good Science

    Clive Bates: WHO Using Tobacco’s History to Poison Good Science

    In a forceful keynote at the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in Brussels, Clive Bates, Director of Counterfactual, called for a fundamental reset in global tobacco control policy, arguing that current frameworks such as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) have failed to adapt to innovation and evidence.

    “Prevalence is falling, but the global population is rising,” Bates said. “That means the total number of smokers is still going up — and so are the 7.5 million deaths each year caused by smoking.” He emphasized that quitting smoking at any age provides significant health benefits, but argued that international tobacco control remains stuck in the past. “The mission hasn’t changed — stop people from smoking — but the methods are outdated. We have new tools, and ignoring them is indefensible.”

    Bates described alternative nicotine products such as vaping, heated tobacco, and smokeless options as “the disruption the FCTC never anticipated.” He pointed to Sweden’s success as proof of concept: “Sweden has higher nicotine use than Germany but lower cancer rates. That’s what harm reduction looks like.” Yet, he criticized the European Union for maintaining its ban on snus — the very product that helped Sweden virtually eliminate smoking. “What if, instead of banning snus, we promoted it?” he asked. “Why are we still doing things that contradict our stated public health goals?”

    Turning his critique toward the WHO, Bates condemned the organization’s stance that there is “no evidence” reduced-risk products are safer than cigarettes. “That’s shocking,” he said. “Harm reduction is being dismissed as a tobacco industry ploy, using the industry’s reputation to poison good science.”

    He argued that the FCTC has institutionalized a “toxic” anti-industry bias that blocks collaboration and progress. “If the tobacco industry likes it, it must be bad — that’s the logic codified into policy. There’s no room for alignment with that attitude,” he said. Bates noted that several major companies have already shifted dramatically — “PMI now earns 41% of its revenue from smoke-free products” — yet the global framework continues to punish rather than encourage transformation.

    “The WHO gave an award to a man in India for banning reduced-harm products in a country with 100 million smokers,” Bates said. “That’s not leadership — that’s negligence.”

    He concluded with a clear call to action: “If you want better outcomes, get the smoking rate down as fast as possible. The demand for nicotine won’t disappear, but we can make it vastly safer — and we can do it without coercion. Let consumers make informed choices. That’s how we save lives.”

  • Taxes Increasing Gap Between Regulatory Intentions and Market Realities

    Taxes Increasing Gap Between Regulatory Intentions and Market Realities

    At the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in Brussels, a panel moderated by Tim Phillips, Managing Director of Tamarind Intelligence, explored how taxation and tariffs are shaping the future of nicotine products in a rapidly evolving market. Speakers included Christa Pelsers (BAT), Stefano Santi (Philip Morris International), and Maria Angelova (Socotab Frana SA).

    In “It’s All About Tax — The Complex World of Excise and Tariffs,” Phillips opened by stressing that “the next few years are going to be vitally important,” as novel products—from vapes to nicotine pouches—continue to disrupt markets. “We’re seeing massive problems around illicit trade and tax collection,” he said, noting that in some countries, “more than half of the market may already be illicit.” The result, he warned, is a growing gap between regulatory intentions and market realities.

    Pelsers highlighted the speed of innovation and the challenges it creates for regulators. “For years, there was no innovation in tobacco, and now we have an explosion of new products—governments are still trying to catch up,” she said. Pelsers argued that taxation must be based on science, not politics, and criticized the European Commission’s fragmented approach: “The Commission is proposing that every member state can adjust its own rates. That makes things even more complex. We need harmonization to ensure fairness and functionality in the single market.”

    She also warned of geopolitical shifts impacting trade. “With U.S. tariffs, China is redirecting exports elsewhere. The EU’s response has been slow. The next few years will reshape who we trust as trading partners,” she said. “And if tax rates are set too high, it will be detrimental to innovation.”

    Santi emphasized that excise tax policy should not only collect revenue but also guide consumers toward less harmful products. “Ten years ago, my job was complexity five; now it’s fifty,” he said. “We need to balance taxation in a way that shifts the market without driving consumers to the black market.” He endorsed differentiated tax levels for different product types, saying, “If you raise taxes too fast, consumers will find cheaper, often illicit alternatives.”

    Santi called for leveraging member state experience to modernize EU tax policy and harmonize definitions. “The directive is a good start, but it’s lagging behind. Treating all products the same is a recipe for failure. Europe needs to protect its economic and manufacturing footprint.”

    Angelova added a perspective from the leaf tobacco sector, calling taxation “one of the quiet architects of humanity.” She warned that poorly designed taxes could devastate rural livelihoods. “Tobacco is an agricultural product that supports families. Nowhere else in the world is raw tobacco subject to excise tax,” she said. “Making local tobacco less affordable than imported tobacco doesn’t help anyone.”

    Angelova stressed the importance of practical implementation: “It’s not just about what we tax—it’s about how. Details make the difference. Track and trace systems are vital to ensure transparency and prevent unfair competition.”

    She concluded by urging policymakers to proceed with caution: “We’re trying to solve too many problems at once. We need to start addressing them one by one. Europe still has many families who rely on tobacco farming. Consumers won’t forget how we handle this.”

    The panel collectively underscored that while excise and tariff reforms are inevitable, their success will depend on nuance, balance, and genuine collaboration with industry to avoid unintended economic and public health consequences.

  • Harm Reduction is a Race Where Everyone Can Win

    Harm Reduction is a Race Where Everyone Can Win

    Deborah Binks-Moore, Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at Imperial Brands, delivered an optimistic yet pragmatic keynote at GTNF, urging governments, regulators, and industry leaders to work together to accelerate global harm reduction. Binks-Moore described the moment as an “inflection point” in the global effort to reduce smoking, noting that next-generation products have moved from niche to mainstream in only a few years.

    “Just a few years ago, next-generation products were a small part of the market. Now they are becoming mainstream,” she said. “Our journey to reduce smoking must place the consumer at the heart of everything we do.”

    She celebrated the rapid progress made by the industry but cautioned that success brings new challenges.

    “Our very success is now creating fresh challenges, which will require fresh thinking,” she said. Drawing parallels with other sectors in transition—such as energy—she encouraged policymakers to heed lessons from those industries: transformation succeeds only when science, regulation, and innovation align.

    “Tobacco harm reduction has the potential to prevent the premature deaths of many millions of lives over the long term,” she said. “This means we need an equally long-term approach to policymaking. We need people from different political traditions to work together. We need regulators to collaborate with responsible industry players. And we need central governments to partner closely with local administrations.”

    She called on policymakers in Brussels, WHO delegates, and regulators worldwide to develop “enforceable, sustainable frameworks” built on facts, science, and shared principles.

    Binks-Moore urged all stakeholders—policymakers, scientists, and business leaders alike—to begin with the individual consumer. “We need to understand and respect them for who they are, not who we wish them to be,” she said. “If we follow these principles, harm reduction is a race where everyone can win.”

  • GTNF 2025 Panel: The Complex Picture of Harm Reduction

    GTNF 2025 Panel: The Complex Picture of Harm Reduction

    At the opening session of the 2025 Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in Brussels, panelists explored how consumer behavior, regulatory inertia, and scientific innovation intersect in the global harm reduction debate. “Consumers, Combustion, Nicotine – The Complex Picture of Harm Reduction,” brought together Nick Kadysh (CEO, PharmaAla Biotech), Atheer Al Bin Ali (Chief Legal Officer, Badael), Dr. Carolyn Beaumont (Clinician and Tobacco Harm Reduction Educator), Håkan Engqvist (Founder and Chief Science Officer, Emplicure), and Dr. David Utley (President and CEO, Pivot Health Technologies).

    Utley argued that harm reduction must return to its core mission: helping smokers quit. “Expecting a smoker to become smoke-free on their own is like expecting a cancer patient to cure themselves,” he said. Utley, a surgeon-turned-entrepreneur, urged policymakers to focus on the consumer experience, not ideology. “Consumers are smarter than doctors. Smokers have tried to quit twenty times — they’re not hopeless, they’re underserved.” He noted that the stigma around nicotine use is largely because the products come from tobacco companies: “If pharma had made them, this wouldn’t even be controversial.”

    Beaumont echoed the importance of reframing harm reduction in clinical terms. “Doctors are trusted by the community — it should be a no-brainer to have them on board,” she said. Beaumont called Australia’s prescription-only vape model a “monumental failure,” emphasizing that education from credible medical sources is key. “It’s not just a preference for a better product; it’s a preference for a better, healthier life.”

    Kadysh highlighted the public health challenge of dual use, calling it “the bane of our existence.” He stressed that sales data alone can’t explain consumer behavior. “We look at numbers and assume what products people like — but that doesn’t tell the full story.” From his vantage point in biotech, Kadysh said the pharmaceutical sector is only beginning to embrace harm reduction discussions. “It’s still a charged political stance, but the science is catching up.”

    Al Bin Ali brought an international perspective, pointing to Saudi Arabia’s growing interest in harm reduction. “This is a great opportunity if regulators would just have the proper conversations,” he said. “The controversy isn’t about philosophy; it’s about data — where it comes from, and whether it’s reliable.” He emphasized the global implications of evidence-driven policymaking, noting that “one country’s shift can influence many nations.”

    Engqvist underscored the role of science and investment in shaping the harm reduction landscape. “Sweden comes in from a base of science,” he said. “That scientific foundation creates a significant opportunity for innovation and investment.”

    Across the session, a shared message emerged: harm reduction should be guided by science, supported by clinicians, and driven by consumer realities — not paralyzed by politics or ideology. As Utley summed up, “The consumer will win — because the consumer always does.”

  • WHO Facing Crises of Relevance, Former Director Says

    WHO Facing Crises of Relevance, Former Director Says

    Dr. Tikki Pang, a professor and former Director of Research Policy and Cooperation at the World Health Organization (WHO), delivered a compelling keynote at the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in Brussels, urging the global public health community to “find a detour” around entrenched opposition to tobacco harm reduction (THR). Drawing a vivid analogy, Pang said the WHO’s position acts like a “landslide blocking the road” to progress, creating ripple effects that influence policy, weaken public trust, and stigmatize innovation. Attempts to change this stance, he said, have proven “frustrating and futile.”

    “‘Tobacco control’ has become the complete elimination of tobacco in society,” Pang said. “It’s become pretty much ideological at this point. It has become evidence-selective, perhaps evidence-blind.

    “We need to overcome this perception that the industry is the cause of the problem and not part of the solution.’

    Pang described the journey toward a THR-friendly world as “a long road with many obstacles,” and warned that the EU’s recent alignment with anti-THR policies could have “global repercussions.” Instead, he called for a “circuit breaker” — independent, multi-stakeholder platforms that operate outside the WHO’s Conference of the Parties (COP) framework. These coalitions should unite industry, consumers, investors, media, and advocates to advance harm reduction directly, he said.

    Pang emphasized the crucial role of media and advocacy in countering misinformation, noting that journalists can either “spread misconceptions or become powerful allies.” He also suggested situating THR within the broader context of non-communicable disease (NCD) prevention.

    Reflecting on his 13 years at the WHO, Pang acknowledged its achievements in supporting underserved populations but said the organization now faces “a crisis of relevance and confidence.” He concluded that while the WHO’s mission explicitly includes improving global health — including for smokers seeking better alternatives — progress will depend on using science-driven innovation and rational policy to achieve that goal.

    “Science has given us the tools to reduce harm from tobacco,” Pang said. “Reason dictates that we should use them.”

  • Examining the U.S. Regulatory Landscape

    Examining the U.S. Regulatory Landscape

    At the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in Brussels, industry leaders examined the shifting regulatory climate in the United States, where overlapping state and federal actions continue to shape — and complicate — the tobacco and nicotine marketplace. The session was moderated by Paige Magness, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Altria Client Services, with insights from Beth Oliva, a partner at Fox Rothschild, Laura Leigh Oyler, the Vice President of Regulatory at Haypp Group, Valerie Briggs Solomon, the Vice President of Scientific and Public Health Affairs at Reynolds American, and Dr. Jessica Zdinak, the founder and Chief Research Officer at Applied Research and Analysis Company (ARAC).

    Magness opened the panel, noting that “a change was inevitable” with the new U.S. administration, citing an encouraging shift toward addressing illicit markets. She commended the Tobacco Control Act’s intention but said, “It’s FDA’s implementation where things fall apart.”

    Oyler highlighted the fragmented nature of the U.S. system: “Sometimes it’s hard to remember the U.S. isn’t one big monolith — it’s 50 states that can directly conflict with the federal government.” She stressed that effective youth prevention starts with adult behavior, adding, “The biggest predictor of youth use is whether their parents use. Help the kids by helping their parents make better decisions.”

    Oliva described a growing disconnect between FDA oversight and state-level actions, noting California’s comprehensive flavor ban. “The FDA is the barrier to entry, the states are barriers to the shelf,” she said. “Today they are combining in ways never meant to happen.” Oliva argued that the FDA’s shifting authorization process and policy reversals have destabilized the marketplace, pushing consumers toward illicit products. “Unless we see a lot more authorizations for nicotine products, we’re going to see what happened with e-cigarettes all over again,” she warned. She urged the FDA to “partner with those tracking the data” and to “stop manipulating the industry and consumers in the process.”

    Zdinak focused on the disconnect between regulation, consumer understanding, and behavioral science. “Congress is making laws without understanding the people they govern,” she said, pointing to misinformation about relative risk. She argued that variety and flavor choice drive switching and, therefore, public health gains. “If CTP can’t communicate quickly, the market will move ahead without them,” she cautioned, predicting “another wild west” scenario similar to what happened with the e-cigarette category.

    Solomon criticized the FDA’s tendency to exaggerate youth-use trends while ignoring adult harm reduction. “FDA is calling things an epidemic that aren’t,” she said. “Scaring children away might be good, but scaring adults away from better options is counterproductive.” She underscored the importance of credible communication through trusted messengers: “[The nicotine industry is] not always trusted, so we have to equip those who are. Science will lead the way — if we let it.”

    Overall, the panel agreed that while the U.S. has one of the world’s most comprehensive regulatory systems, its complexity and inconsistency risk stifling innovation and harming public health goals. The consensus was that greater collaboration, transparency, and scientific grounding are urgently needed to make the regulatory system work for both consumers and harm reduction.

  • EU TPD Panel: Coherence or Patchwork

    EU TPD Panel: Coherence or Patchwork

    At the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in Brussels, industry and policy experts debated whether the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) will promote coherence or wlll result in a regulatory patchwork across member states. The session featured Michiel Reerink of Alliance One International, Nathalie Darge of Tobacco Europe, and environmental risk analyst David Zaruk (“The Risk Monger”).

    Reerink noted that the EU’s regulatory approach has often leaned toward prohibition, arguing that “the EU’s solution was to ban the product.” He said the first TPD brought together older directives but created optional provisions that evolved into regulatory barriers. He emphasized that consistent, science-based regulation would benefit all stakeholders.

    Darge highlighted structural challenges within the European Commission’s previous consulants, citing a lack of neutrality and potential conflicts of interest. She outlined the expected timeline for the next revision, TPD3, with an initial report and proposal anticipated before 2029, followed by member state consultations and a final version possibly by 2030. Darge stressed that policymakers want a stronger voice in shaping the outcome.

    Zaruk warned that the EU’s growing use of the “precautionary principle” as a risk-management tool risks stifling innovation and redefining the very scope of tobacco regulation — “the EU is defining nicotine as tobacco now,” he said. He also criticized the inconsistency of political leadership, arguing that motivated commissioners can drive major policy shifts, while others avoid engagement.

    Panelists agreed that while political volatility, tax pressures, and public sentiment make tobacco an easy target for revenue generation, meaningful progress depends on coherent, evidence-based regulation that balances health goals with economic and consumer realities.

    The GTNF is the world’s leading annual conference discussing the future of the tobacco and nicotine industries. It is the global exchange for views and ideas between public health experts, government representatives, the industry, and investors.

  • BAT’s Wheaton Calls for Policymakers to Embrace Harm Reduction at GTNF Opening

    BAT’s Wheaton Calls for Policymakers to Embrace Harm Reduction at GTNF Opening

    Brussels, October 6, 2025 — Kingsley Wheaton, Chief Corporate Officer of BAT, opened the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) with a call for policymakers to embrace harm reduction and real-world evidence as the basis for future regulation.

    “Right now, we stand at a crossroads,” Wheaton said. “One where the choices we make — as individuals, as companies, and as an industry — will shape the future of public health, policy, and perception.”

    Speaking under the GTNF’s theme, “Real World Evidence: The Race to Reduce Harm,” Wheaton argued that Sweden’s near smoke-free status demonstrates the effectiveness of tobacco harm reduction. He credited awareness campaigns, consumer access to smokeless products, and progressive regulation for driving smoking rates to among Europe’s lowest.

    “Sweden is on the verge of achieving something extraordinary: a smoking rate of just 5.3%—less than a quarter of the EU average,” he said. “This isn’t just a number. It’s a public health milestone. And it’s a powerful validation of a strategy that many dismissed: harm reduction.

    “Despite decades of global anti-smoking campaigns, 1 billion people still smoke. At BAT, we believe quitting is the best choice any smoker can make. But for those who won’t quit, offering scientifically substantiated, reduced-risk alternatives is essential. Sweden proves this approach works.”

    In his remarks, Wheaton touted the success of BAT’s Omni program, the company’s global platform and manifesto for tobacco harm reduction launched in 2024. He said Omni is both a movement and a communications framework through which BAT promotes its vision of a “Smokeless World,” aiming to make smokeless products mainstream and push for regulatory environments that support harm reduction.

    “With Omni, we’re launching a platform for science, dialogue, and collaboration to accelerate progress toward a smokeless world,” Wheaton said. “This transformation took belief—belief that we could be part of the solution. And today, I’m proud to say: we were right to believe in it.

    Wheaton also criticized prohibitionist policies, pointing to Australia’s illicit market as evidence of unintended consequences when safer alternatives are restricted. He urged EU policymakers to adopt proportionate, risk-based regulation that recognizes harm reduction as part of tobacco control.

    “How can policymakers not see what’s right in front of their eyes?” Wheaton said. “When safer alternatives are blocked, the void is filled by danger, not progress. It’s time to rethink, recalibrate, and reclaim the narrative. So perhaps it’s time to ask: What if the most effective way to end smoking isn’t to fight nicotine, but to reimagine it? What if the companies that once sold cigarettes can now lead the charge to make them obsolete?

    “The WHO continues to ignore and sideline harm reduction, clinging to outdated dogma while real-world evidence piles up. This is not just intransigence, it’s negligence. It’s time for policymakers to stop pretending this evidence doesn’t exist. Seventy percent of policy experts still believe nicotine is the primary cause of smoking-related diseases, like cancer. That’s not just inaccurate, it’s dangerous. If we’re serious about closing the Tobacco Harm Reduction deficit, we must engage directly with regulators, health authorities, and policy experts to ensure that safer alternatives are not just available, but understood, accepted, and encouraged.”

    The GTNF is the world’s leading annual conference discussing the future of the tobacco and nicotine industries. It is the global exchange for views and ideas between public health experts, government representatives, the industry, and investors.

  • What Role Does the FCTC Play in Today’s Regulatory Environment?

    What Role Does the FCTC Play in Today’s Regulatory Environment?

    At the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in Brussels, an expert panel explored the growing disconnect between the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and real-world tobacco harm reduction (THR) progress. The session featured Dr. Derek Yach, global health advocate and former WHO executive; Peter Beckett, Co-Founder of Clearing the Air; Dr. Tikki Pang, a professor and former WHO Director of Research Policy and Cooperation; and Dr. Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs.

    Yach opened the discussion by criticizing the gap between FCTC policymaking and on-the-ground data. He noted that smoking rates are falling faster in countries embracing harm reduction — such as the U.S., U.K., Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand — than under traditional tobacco control strategies. “If it can happen in Pakistan, it can happen in all of Southeast Asia,” he said. “And if it happens in Southeast Asia, we could be seeing oral cancer in the rearview mirror.” Yach emphasized the need for collaborative public–private partnerships to ensure product safety and credibility, while urging policymakers to move beyond what he called the “distraction” of youth-related arguments that ignore the millions of adult smokers seeking alternatives.

    “It’s not that youth use isn’t important, but putting all the attention on kids doesn’t help for 50 years,” he said. “What about their parents? We could be adding years to their lives right now. [Anti-THR people] just use the youth as a way to divide the argument. We need to shift to the data and take the kid issue off the table.”

    Beckett took a blunt tone, arguing that the FCTC framework is obsolete, exclusive, and lacking transparency. He said the WHO’s current approach alienates the public and damages its credibility, calling the situation “chaotic,” which makes it easier for harm-reduction advocates to push back on. Beckett urged reform-minded countries — especially WHO funders — to “recognize the world as it is” and resist “bullying by overpaid foundations with an agenda,” and accused prohibitionist groups of crossing the line.

    “Ten years ago, they were disingenuous; now they’re straight-up lying,” he said. “I keep hearing the same damn thing. ‘We need to engage with science, we need to be nice to the other side.’ I’m calling bullshit on that. It doesn’t work. There is no amount of science that will do the job. If there was, they’d let me in the bloody room when they have these conversations. We have to recognize this and say enough, and call for a tearing down of the framework in its entirety, because it’s not salvageable.”

    Pang reiterated that many developing countries adopt WHO guidance without generating or analyzing their own data. “They take the easy way out,” he said, “because they lack the capacity to build evidence locally.” Pang pointed to emerging “pockets of positive thinking” among countries that are now re-evaluating WHO recommendations and embracing THR. He called for greater industry unity — across state-owned, multinational, and startup sectors — and stronger alignment with consumer voices. “Consumers are also voters,” he reminded the audience, “and together they can influence policy.”

    Snowdon warned of troubling developments within the WHO, citing “endgame” proposals that reject harm reduction as an industry “con.” He described this as a “quasi-religious mission to destroy all tobacco,” resistant to evidence and reason. Snowdon noted that while grassroots THR advocacy exists, it ironically remains underfunded and overshadowed by well-resourced opposition.

    “We are greatly out-financed. The industry can contribute, but then we get ostracized,” he said. “We have a genuine grassroots movement, but these people have lives to live. They can’t be doing it all the time. Meanwhile, the other side has unlimited resources. The media could be helpful, but they don’t want to risk it.”

    Across the panel, a consensus emerged: the WHO’s FCTC framework risks irrelevance unless it adapts to include harm reduction. Participants agreed that the future of global health policy must be driven by data, innovation, and collaboration rather than ideology.

    The GTNF is the world’s leading annual conference discussing the future of the tobacco and nicotine industries. It is the global exchange for views and ideas between public health experts, government representatives, the industry, and investors.