WARSAW: The 12th edition of the Global Forum on Nicotine (GFN 2025) aims to get the right message to decision makers all around the world on the need to have alternative nicotine delivery products for those who could not give up nicotine use to curb smoking-related diseases and deaths.
Experts agree that tobacco harm reduction can be a valuable public health strategy for reducing the negative impact of damaging behaviours in individuals who are unable or unwilling to quit smoking. Smoke-free products could reduce exposure to harmful chemicals.
Meanwhile, the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which was reported to be heavily funded by Michael Bloomberg, continues to promote a one-size-fits-all, abstinence-only model. The result has been restrictive bans on safer products while combustible cigarettes remain widely available.
window.googletag = window.googletag || {cmd: []};googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.defineSlot('/22826383987/dailyexpress_inline', [1, 1], 'gpt-passback').addService(googletag.pubads());googletag.enableServices();googletag.display('gpt-passback');});This year’s GFN theme is “Challenging Perceptions – Effective Communication for Tobacco Harm Reduction”, gathered together global experts and stakeholders to forge strategic communication to reshape narratives and support evidence-based approaches to nicotine use and public health.
The event was held from June 19 to 21, 2025, at the Presidential Hotel (formerly the Marriott) in the CBD heart of Warsaw, Poland to show how global tobacco and nicotine regulation discussions lack consumer representation, disadvantaging smokers and vapers.
It was said that the World Conference on Tobacco Control overlooks harm reduction strategies, favouring prohibitionist policies influenced by figures like Michael Bloomberg and the World Health Organization (WHO).
The upcoming COP11 and EU regulations could shape future nicotine policies, potentially blocking safer alternatives. Despite successful harm reduction examples in certain countries, for example, the EU is leaning towards restrictive measures like flavour bans and tax hikes. This should be challenged.
Advocates emphasize the need for evidence-based, consumer-centric policies to combat smoking-related illnesses. Policymakers face a crucial decision: prioritize public health or maintain outdated ideologies at the expense of consumer well-being.
UKM Prof. Dr Sharifa Ezat Wan Puteh, chair of the Malaysia Society for Harm Reduction and a panel speaker at GFN 2025 said: “We can raise awareness in the community.
We can train frontline staff in tobacco harm reduction. But if we don’t have the safer nicotine products available, we are not achieving the change we need to achieve.
“In Malaysia, as well as in many other low and middle-income countries, tobacco control is very traditional. It’s basically a prohibitionist approach which tries to ban everything under the sun, not only tobacco, but now also alternative nicotine products.
“Coming from an NGO, the Malaysian Society for Harm Reduction, we try to educate and advocate, but most of this falls on deaf ears. We are seen as arms of big tobacco, even though the research we produce is not funded by tobacco companies.
“I think there’s a lot of failure stories, but there are a lot of success stories as well on the use of alternative nicotine products all over the world that low and middle-income countries can actually emulate, success stories like Japan, the UK or New Zealand,” said Prof. Dr Sharifa.
The progress of tobacco harm reduction is being slowed by a paradox: as the scientific basis steadily consolidates, public perceptions are worsening by government’s vilifying propaganda on alternative nicotine delivery products which are overlooked in smoking cessation protocols.
At the GFN 2025 session on “What I Hear vs. What I Know: Battling Misinformation from the Newsroom to the Facebook”, panel speaker Maria Papaioannoy-Duic of Canada, said: “What I’ve learned is when science doesn’t back tobacco control’s story, they don’t revise the policy, they rewrite the story, not with facts, but with fear, drama and deliberate misinformation.
“In the fight for access to safer nicotine products, the truth isn’t just ignored, it’s attacked, silenced and mocked. A health official makes a statement, a journalist runs with it, a politician amplifies it, and suddenly it’s viral. Meanwhile, we, consumers, advocates, we’re in our chat groups, we are sharing sources, correcting headlines and trying to hold the line with science, evidence and facts.”
According to Maria Papaioannoy-Duic, who is the founder and spokesperson of Rights 4 Vapers, the misinformation is institutional, not only in Canada, but around the world.
Health agencies, regulators, even doctors, often repeat outdated or debunked information, sometimes out of fear, sometimes out of habit, and most times because they just don’t have the time to learn.
“And the thing is, tobacco control knows this, and they capitalise on it. No one wants to really defend nicotine, because it’s not sexy. But this isn’t about being liked, it’s about eradicating smoking, and that means telling the truth even when it’s uncomfortable.”
Maria Papaioannoy-Duic revealed that in 2022, the Canadian Tobacco and Nicotine Survey broke down the numbers on relative risk and beliefs among Canadians and found that 81 per cent of Canadians either misunderstood or had no idea that vaping is safer than smoking.
“And when we look at people who smoke, 79 per cent didn’t know that vaping is safer, and among those who smoke but have never tried a vaping product, a staggering 90 per cent believed vaping is as bad or worse.
“These are the very people who stand to benefit the most from switching to safer alternatives, yet misinformation has left them stuck, misled, confused and still smoking.
They truly believe, because of where they go to get their information, that smoking that cigarette will keep them alive longer and healthier than switching to a vape.
“My 2009 self would never believe what is happening in 2025. Millions of us who quit smoking with safer alternatives are now being told we’re wrong. Instead of tobacco companies being the villains, it’s us, people who use safer nicotine products and speak up and out about it, we are cast as the threats.
“Globally, governments are pushing their citizens to break the laws just to access a vape or pouch because the alternative to them is going back to smoking. When it comes to policy, science should take the lead, but in this space, emotion seems to win.
Panic spreads faster than peer-reviewed studies. Tobacco Control is a well-oiled and frankly spoiled machine. It has no hesitation to reframe the narrative, to make anyone that goes against them the enemy, including folks who speak up for safer nicotine products.
“To them, we’re the enemy, because we’re telling the world nicotine isn’t the problem, combustion is. So, what do we do? We continue to push back with facts, with strategy and with heart, and most importantly, with action, from rallies to letters, from bus tours to social media, from simple pop ups to emails, we find a way to tell our story.
“When you show up calmly with credible information and lived experience, that’s when cracks start to form. When voices come together, when harm reduction meets medicine, meets policy, meets lived experience, that’s when we get traction.
So, whether you’re an advocate, a policy maker, a health professional, someone trying to make a difference in your own circle, facts matter. Continue to share them, because lives depend on them.
We are the public health heroes. We’re the ones that have to push the narrative and we’re the ones that have to keep moving forward,” Maria Papaioannoy-Duic stressed.
