Global tobacco control shift: WHO authority shaken

Core insight: The ideological iron curtain of global tobacco control is cracking. The single policy model led by the World Health Organization (WHO) and based on “abstinence” is facing strong challenges from the “Tobacco Harm Reduction” (THR) strategy based on scientific evidence, marking a fundamental shift in the global tobacco control power structure and the disintegration of traditional authoritative narratives.

Driving factors:

• The re-establishment of national sovereignty: A diverse alliance of countries represented by New Zealand, Albania, Gambia, and others has begun to openly challenge the WHO’s tough line. They no longer blindly follow unified global directives but demand policy flexibility and the right to develop public health strategies that are in line with their own national conditions, fundamentally shaking the top-down governance model of the WHO.
• The empirical success of harm reduction strategies: New Zealand and other countries have achieved globally leading extremely low smoking rates (6.8%) through the implementation of harm reduction strategies. This irrefutable success case stands in stark contrast to countries such as Mexico that have implemented bans but have high smoking rates, rendering the WHO’s theory of “prohibition only” weak and ineffective. The empirical results have become the most powerful weapon to challenge its authority.
• The self-erosion of WHO credibility: During the COP11 conference, WHO labeled all dissenting opinions as “industry intervention,” excluded independent harm reduction researchers, formed echo chambers relying on specific charitable funds (such as Bloomberg) for funding, and “punitive” awards to successful countries, seriously weakening its credibility as a neutral and scientific authority.
• Cracks within the traditional alliance: There has been a public split within the European Union, with member states such as Italy, Greece, and Poland boycotting secret actions by the European Commission and Denmark attempting to impose stricter bans. This indicates that even within policy groups that are considered monolithic, there is no longer a consensus on “exclusionism.”

Key evidence:

• Successful counterexample: New Zealand attributed its 6.8% global daily smoking rate to harm reduction strategies but was awarded the ‘Dirty Ashtray Award’; Mexico, whose smoking rate is almost twice as high, won the “Orchid Award” for adopting a ban. This dramatically reveals that the evaluation criteria have shifted from public health performance to ideological perspectives.
• Emerging Alliance of Nations: The World Electronic Cigarette Alliance (WVA) reports that a diverse group of countries, including New Zealand, Albania, Gambia, Mozambique, North Macedonia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Serbia, have challenged the WHO’s tough proposal to recognize harm reduction as a legitimate and effective public health strategy.
• The significant impact of external funding: The article points out that Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropic network has invested over $1.6 billion to influence global tobacco policies. At COP11, nearly half of civil society representatives were associated with organizations funded by Bloomberg, while independent harm reduction researchers were excluded.
• Internal divisions within the European Union: The European Commission and Denmark attempted to push for a ban on harmful products in a closed-door meeting, which “sparked sharp resistance from Italy, Greece, and Poland and exposed the growing divisions between Brussels decision-makers and governments.”

Strategic insights:

The outcome of the COP11 conference heralds the arrival of a new era: global tobacco control is no longer an area that WHO and its sponsors can unilaterally define. The future tobacco control pattern will be more diversified and pragmatic, and countries will lead policy formulation based on their own data and effectiveness. This is not just a debate about electronic cigarettes or nicotine bags but also a profound reflection on the global public health governance model – that evidence-based science should take precedence over ideological preferences. Although the inertia of isolationism remains strong, the momentum of change has formed, and sustained scientific advocacy and pragmatic actions at the national level will ultimately determine the direction of the balance.