Africa-Press – Malawi. As the World Health Organisation (WHO) convened its COP11 meeting last week, critics gathered just a short distance away to present a starkly different vision for global tobacco control. The Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s (TPA) Good Cop 2.0 conference—now a fixture parallel to WHO negotiations—brought together researchers, policymakers, and consumer advocates who argue that the WHO has adopted an increasingly rigid, counterproductive approach to nicotine and harm reduction.
For many participants, Good COP 2.0 served as both a counterpoint to the official proceedings and a rallying cry for countries pushing back against what they describe as the WHO’s ‘one-size-fits-all’ tobacco control doctrine. Speakers urged governments to embrace data-driven strategies and to consider the role of emerging products—such as vapes and heated tobacco—in reducing smoking-related diseases.
At the centre of the debate is the WHO’s stance on harm reduction, a strategy that encourages smokers to switch from cigarettes to far less harmful alternatives. While public health agencies in places like the United Kingdom, Sweden, and New Zealand have endorsed this approach, the WHO continues to advocate for strict prohibitions or heavy restrictions on such products.
According to experts at Good COP 2.0, this divergence reflects a deeper philosophical divide.
“The WHO’s framework views all nicotine products through the same moral lens,” TPA president David Williams noted. “But smoking is what kills. Ignoring the distinctions between products prevents millions of smokers from transitioning to safer options.”
Critics say the refusal to acknowledge these distinctions has strained relations between the WHO and several member states, some of which are openly questioning the organisation’s scientific rationale and policy direction.
A recurring theme at the conference was the WHO’s categorical framing of nicotine as an “addiction,” which participants argued simplifies a more nuanced reality. Addiction—typically associated with harmful, compulsive behaviours—may not accurately describe nicotine use when decoupled from combustion and smoking, they said.
Several experts warned that this language reinforces stigma, deterring smokers who might otherwise switch to significantly lower-risk alternatives.
“The science is clear: nicotine dependence is real, but the harm comes from smoke, not the molecule itself,” TPA international Mark McCullum emphasised.
Another contentious issue was the WHO’s approach to industry engagement. While the organisation collaborates with sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and electric vehicles, it maintains a blanket exclusion of the tobacco industry—even when the products in question are designed to reduce harm.
Conference speakers argued that this selective engagement undermines innovation and obstructs the development of life-saving alternatives. Some suggested that the WHO’s rigid posture prevents productive dialogue, leaving regulators to craft policy without input from the very companies producing harm reduction technologies.
The tone at Good COP 2.0 was not merely confrontational but aspirational. Attendees stressed that growing resistance to the WHO’s stance signals momentum toward a more pluralistic model of tobacco control—one that incorporates harm reduction rather than dismissing it.
Countries increasingly categorised as ‘tier two’—those expressing concerns about WHO policy but not yet openly challenging it—are a key focus for the TPA and its partners. Their goal is to help elevate these nations to ‘tier one,’ where they actively advocate evidence-based alternatives and work collectively to reshape the global narrative.
“We’re witnessing a turning point,” said Brent Stafford. “More governments are realising that prohibitionist strategies alone are failing. Science must guide policy, not ideology.”
Although COP11 has concluded, the debate is far from settled. Good COP 2.0 showcased a growing international coalition determined to push for reforms grounded in scientific evidence, consumer behaviour, and public health outcomes rather than political orthodoxy.
Whether the WHO chooses to adapt its approach—or doubles down on its current course—will shape the future of global tobacco control for years to come. But if the energy in Geneva last week is any indication, the call for a more inclusive, data-driven framework is only gaining strength.
For More News And Analysis About Malawi Follow Africa-Press
