While COP officials labelled any entities which challenged FCTC guidelines as "industry interference," despite these entities having no ties to any industry, this year we saw an increasing number of nations standing against the status quo, exposing the fragility of prohibitionist tobacco control.
As always, the mood heading into COP11 was tense, and not only because of the high-stakes negotiations ahead. In the weeks before delegates descended on Geneva, long-time tobacco policy analyst Clive Bates warned that global tobacco control was still leaning towards an ideological cul-de-sac. Speaking on GFN News, Bates described an environment increasingly shaped by dogma rather than data, where prohibitionist thinking—nicotine-free cigarettes, retail bans, and blanket restrictions—was replacing the convention’s original evidence-driven purpose. He argued that the refusal to acknowledge risk differentials between cigarettes and safer nicotine products had created a moralistic atmosphere that undermines public trust and makes genuine progress increasingly difficult.
At the same time, the WHO seems to be attempting to expand its authority just as its underlying scientific justification weakens. Economist Ian Irvine noted that the organization is now seeking an astonishing jump in its tobacco-control budget—from US$1 billion to US$9 billion—while continuing to ignore extensive evidence from Cochrane, Public Health England, the Royal College of Physicians, and Health Canada that vapes, pouches, and heated tobacco products carry a fraction of the harms of smoking. For Irvine, the WHO’s resistance is less about science and more about maintaining narrative control.
This context framed an extraordinary week in Geneva. What the WHO expected to be a smooth reinforcement of its anti-nicotine agenda instead revealed the fragility of its approach. From day one, the organization pushed for aggressive new measures against vaping, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco—quietly, without full transparency, and without including consumers. But this time, some countries pushed back.
Standing up to prohibition
The World Vapers Alliance (WVA) reported that a diverse group of nations including New Zealand, Albania, Gambia, Mozambique, North Macedonia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Serbia—challenged the WHO’s hardline proposals. They , insisted on policy flexibility, national sovereignty, and recognition of harm reduction as a legitimate and effective public-health strategy. As the week progressed, the attempted push for binding global restrictions began to unravel.
The final outcomes reflected this growing resistance, with many of the most extreme proposals significantly softened, others reduced to non-binding recommendations, and several postponed entirely to COP12 in 2027, after negotiators failed to reach consensus. In the end, the Secretariat’s push for an abstinence-only model stalled, unable to overcome the mounting pushback from countries demanding flexibility and evidence-based policy.
In one of the most telling moments, St. Kitts and Nevis formally proposed acknowledging tobacco harm reduction in FCTC guidance. While this unprecedented move gathered significant support by some, not only was it blocked by entrenched prohibitionist blocs, but also earned the nation a “Dirty Ashtray” award, and was of course classified as “industry interference”.
New Zealand shamed despite obtaining results, Mexico glorified despite not delivering
Similarly, New Zealand’s delegation defended harm reduction as a key driver of its exceptionally low daily smoking rate—at just 6.8%, one of the lowest in the world. And once again, the WHO-aligned NGO network awarded the country with a Dirty Ashtray. Officially, the award criticised New Zealand for rolling back elements of its smokefree reforms. But harm reduction advocates noted the absurdity: Mexico, with smoking rates around double New Zealand’s, received the “Orchid Award” for its prohibitionist stance.
Groups like CAPHRA highlighted that the awards illustrated ideological bias rather than performance. New Zealand, they said, was being punished for allowing access to safer alternatives even as those same products helped drive historic declines in smoking—particularly among Māori and Pacific populations, who face disproportionately high smoking-related health burdens.
Weakened momentum and the complexity of the FCTC’s foundation
Another unexpected drama unfolded within the European Union. Having agreed before COP11 not to push for bans on reduced-risk products, the European Commission and Denmark attempted to do exactly that behind closed doors. Their actions, exposed by other EU member states, triggered sharp resistance from Italy, Greece, and Poland and laid bare a widening split between Brussels policymakers and national governments. The episode foreshadowed difficult battles ahead as the EU prepares to revise its Tobacco Products Directive and Tobacco Excise Directive.
By the end of COP11, the WHO’s drive for stricter global controls had clearly lost momentum, but the softened outcomes did little to address the deeper structural issues. Negotiations continued behind closed doors, consumers and independent experts remained excluded from the process, and the influence of major donors continued to loom large—shaping priorities and overshadowing scientific debate.
For many observers, this influence is epitomised by Michael Bloomberg, whose philanthropic’ network has spent over US$1.6 billion shaping global tobacco policy. Critics argue that Bloomberg’s funding creates an ecosystem of interlinked NGOs, academic centres, and advocacy groups that promote a uniform anti-nicotine stance while crowding out diverse or dissenting scientific perspectives. At COP11, nearly half the civil-society delegates present were tied to Bloomberg-funded organisations—while independent harm-reduction researchers were kept out.
Countries such as Mexico, India, and the Philippines have previously enacted bans or harsh restrictions following pressure from Bloomberg-backed groups, even when such policies fuel illicit-market growth or reduce consumer access to safer products.
Smear tactics aimed at THR experts
The ideological strain within global tobacco control was also apparent in escalating personal attacks on leading harm-reduction scientists. In the days before COP11, The Examination, a Bloomberg-funded platform, published a lengthy hit piece on Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos over an old consulting fee, despite none of his research involving Juul products. Soon after, retired professor Stanton Glantz attacked Clive Bates, claiming that vaping “increases harm” and accusing him of helping the tobacco industry—without evidence.
These attacks triggered strong rebuttals from respected figures including Dr Michael Siegel and Cliff Douglas, who argued that such behaviour signals a retreat from scientific debate into propaganda. When critics prioritise smearing colleagues over evaluating data, they said, something has gone deeply wrong.
A Turning Point?
The combined effect of these events suggests that the core of global tobacco control as we know it is finally being shaken. COP11 made clear that many countries will no longer accept an abstinence-only model. Bates’s prediction that governments would eventually push back against anti-scientific orthodoxy appears to be taking shape.
For harm-reduction advocates, the message is clear:
Evidence is becoming harder to ignore. Consumers are organising. Countries are asserting their sovereignty. And the prohibitive, donor-driven model of global nicotine policy is losing its grip. The momentum may finally be shifting—but sustained pressure is needed to ensure the next COP reflects scientific reality rather than ideological allegiance.