At the American Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (ATNF), the panel titled “From ‘You Can’t Be Here’ to ‘We Need to Talk’” focused on the evolving relationship between public health advocates and the tobacco and nicotine industry, highlighting a gradual shift from outright exclusion toward cautious engagement. Moderated by Joe Gitchell, the CEO of PinneyAssociates, the discussion centered on the importance of dialogue across opposing viewpoints, with panelists reflecting on how entrenched positions, mistrust, and policy rigidity have slowed progress in reducing smoking-related harm.
A recurring theme was how perspectives have changed over time. Dave Dobbins, the Principal Consultant of Dobbins Consulting, described moving from skepticism about e-cigarettes—once believed to be a gateway to smoking—to recognizing their potential role in harm reduction, while also criticizing high taxes and prohibition-style policies for slowing progress. Dr. Jonathan Foulds, a professor of Public Health at Penn State University, acknowledged misjudging both the appeal of alternative nicotine products and the industry’s ability to transition away from cigarettes, arguing that regulatory barriers and misinformation have hindered adoption of less harmful options. He emphasized the need to focus on current smokers—particularly older populations who face near-term health risks—while avoiding strategies that could drive youth uptake. Dr. Mark Tyndall, an author and vaping advocate, reinforced harm reduction principles drawn from his experience in HIV prevention, arguing that safer alternatives should be embraced more pragmatically, even as resistance persists within parts of the public health community.
Panelists also examined the structural and philosophical divides shaping policy. Phil Wilbur, a retired public health expert, representing a traditional tobacco control perspective, stressed that reducing disease and death remains the central goal, while acknowledging past missteps, including an overemphasis on youth prevention strategies that did not fully succeed. The discussion highlighted ongoing tensions around prohibition versus harm reduction, with broad agreement that outright bans are ineffective and risk fueling illicit markets. At the same time, speakers pointed to deep-rooted mistrust of the tobacco industry as a barrier to collaboration, with suggestions ranging from clearer risk communication to restructuring incentives so companies benefit from transitioning away from combustible products. Across the panel, there was consensus that meaningful progress will require more open, evidence-based dialogue—moving beyond binary “good versus evil” narratives toward practical solutions that reflect real-world behavior and market dynamics.