The use of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products is clearly prohibited by the taxpayer-funded World Health Organization ( WHO ) recently released new smoking cessation guidelines. Despite the proof that they aid in quitting smoking, the WHO’s position seems to be one of bureaucracy rather than one of real concern for public health. This mistake highlights a disturbing disconnect between the growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of these harm-reduction equipment and the WHO’s recommendations.
In 2021, Varenicline ( a smoking cessation drug ) was withdrawn from the business due to extremely high amounts of a nitrosamine impurity called N-nitroso-varenicline, a possible cancer. Despite this, the WHO’s new direction recommends it as a second line item for withdrawal professionals. Given Varenicline’s significant health dangers ( as well as its global availability ) and the proven efficacy of alternatives like vapes, nicotine pouches, and powder, this decision is perplexing.
In one of its own reports from 2016 the WHO acknowledged the benefits of safer vaping products, stating that “if the vast majority of cigarette smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit may switch to using an alternative supply of nicotine with lower health risks without delay,” this would be a major modern public health accomplishment.
Yet, the WHO seems determined to ignore the potential benefits of reducing smoking. E-cigarettes are exempt from their most recent guidelines, which goes against this earlier admission and disregards the growing body of evidence that supports their superiority over conventional pharmaceuticals.
The highly regarded Cochrane Library’s 15 evidence reviews on various cessation methods are heavily cited in the WHO’s new guidelines, but they also omit the Cochrane review on the use of e-cigarettes as a quitting aid. Because the Cochrane review found that vaping helps smokers quit twice as well as nicotine replacement therapy, this omission is significant. The WHO undermines its own credibility by discrediting this significant evidence and raising doubts about its commitment to lowering smoking rates.
Additionally, the WHO’s recommendations make combustible cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products appear to be at the same risk. This conflation is misleading because it ignores how much less harmful non-combustible cigarettes are than traditional cigarettes.
E-cigarettes and other harm-reduction tools appear to be the cause of the WHO’s reluctance to support them. Despite the abundant evidence that nicotine-containing products can help smokers quit and significantly lower health risks, many in the WHO and the general public health community are uneasy about the idea of supporting them. With its approval of nicotine gum and patches, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has even acknowledged the value of cessation products.
Additionally, the WHO frequently emphasizes the risks of nicotine while downplaying the benefits of harm reduction. For instance, the WHO frequently gives equal weight to the significant advantages that e-cigarettes can provide adult smokers looking to quit, such as their appeal to young people. This biased narrative ultimately tramples vaping and other harm-reduction products, which ultimately prevents their adoption and limits their potential to improve public health.
Furthermore, the WHO’s reliance on traditional cessation methods, such as nicotine replacement therapy and pharmaceuticals, shows a Luddite hesitancy to embrace newer and less conventional strategies, however successful.
One wonders if the WHO is even remotely interested in lowering smoking rates. The WHO places a strong emphasis on stubborn ideology over what benefits public health, instead of adopting a balanced and pragmatist position on harm reduction. The authority is unwilling to rely on the most recent scientific research to come up with recommendations based on emerging evidence in light of the substantial body of evidence that supports the use of e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches, snus, and other reduced-risk products as effective smoking cessation tools.
It is obvious from the WHO’s current strategy for preventing smoking that it is not actually committed to lowering global smoking rates. Instead, it establishes that the WHO values bureaucratic comfort over effective behavior. The organization must embrace harm reduction as a key component of its tobacco control strategy in order to overcome its ideological biases. By accelerating smoking cessation globally and ignoring novel nicotine alternatives, the WHO could actually contribute to a significant contemporary public health achievement due to the bureaucratic intransigence that surrounds it.
Martin Cullip, a resident of South London, UK, is an international fellow at The Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center.
