UN side forum calls for lifting US ban on nicotine exports

On the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, the New Approaches Conference brought together stakeholders directly linked to the nicotine industry to promote the repeal of the Doggett Amendment, the US law that has banned public support for the export of tobacco and nicotine products since 1998. Behind a discourse presented as oriented towards harm reduction, this initiative primarily reflects a strategy aimed at weakening protective regulations and legitimizing the expansion of new nicotine markets.[1].

This approach directly contradicts the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires States Parties to protect themselves against industry interference and calls for increased vigilance against attempts to exploit international forums.

Speakers marked by conflicts of interest

The New Approaches Conference presents itself as an independent, scientific forum dedicated to tobacco-related harm reduction. However, a review of the profiles of speakers and organizers reveals numerous direct links to the nicotine industry, raising significant questions about conflicts of interest.

Among the figures highlighted, Derek Yach, a former senior official of the World Health Organization (WHO), founded the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (now Global Action to End Smoking), funded exclusively by Philip Morris International, which has led the public health community to distance itself from it due to its lack of independence. Other participants hold strategic positions within companies specializing in nicotine pouches, vaping devices, or oral products, such as Martin Steinbauer, co-founder of SMOOD. These profiles illustrate the industry's desire to appear as an actor with technical expertise and a public health narrative aimed at legitimizing its products, particularly among public decision-makers.

The presence of former collaborators of international organizations, now engaged in structures favorable to the industry, contributes to blurring the line between public and commercial interests. Nataliia Toropova, former program manager at the WHO, and Jeannie Cameron, who worked for British American Tobacco before founding a health policy consulting firm, embody this shift from the public sphere to activities aligned with industry interests. Similarly, certain researchers such as Raymond Niaura and Charles Gardner, regularly associated with pro-nicotine initiatives, benefit from a visibility that reinforces the weight of the industry's arguments under the guise of scientific independence.

This configuration reveals a long-term strategy aimed at establishing itself within international forums by using the language of harm reduction and the presence of public health figures to lend credibility to commercial products. It highlights a major risk to the integrity of health policies, as it trivializes the influence of the nicotine industry at the very heart of debates on regulation and health protection.

A structured lobbying approach to weaken protective frameworks

At the center of the New Approaches Conference, organizers and speakers reaffirmed their desire to obtain the repeal of the Doggett AmendmentAdopted in 1998, this provision prohibits American institutions from financing the promotion or export of tobacco and nicotine products. Presented as an "archaic" measure slowing the global diffusion of alternatives to combustible tobacco, it is today targeted by the industry as a strategic obstacle to the international expansion of its markets. The removal of this barrier would in practice allow the reintroduction of American public support for the trade of products that remain addictive and harmful. Such a decision would also run counter to the commitments made by the country in terms of public health and in particular the fight against tobacco over the past decades.

Beyond calling for the repeal of US legislation restricting nicotine exports, the conference also proposed using international law as a tool to challenge bans on certain products. Specifically, the idea would be to argue that these bans violate human rights or global trade rules because they prevent access to products presented as "less harmful." In reality, this approach amounts to using broad legal principles to pressure states and weaken their public health protection laws, thereby promoting the spread of still-controversial nicotine products. The use of international institutions to counter Australia's adoption of plain packaging was part of the same approach: blocking the spread of protective measures.

Finally, particular emphasis was placed on communication and building a narrative favorable to nicotine products. Organizers called for greater investment in media and social networks to reposition nicotine as a public health solution, while marginalizing scientific warnings about its addictive effects and the uncertainties surrounding new products. This strategy aims to steer the international debate in favor of a gradual normalization of nicotine consumption, to the detriment of efforts to prevent and reduce tobacco demand, which are at the heart of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

A contradiction with international public health commitments

The proposals made at the New Approaches Conference directly contradict the international public health obligations assumed by countries that have become Parties to the WHO treaty, the FCTC. Ratified by 183 Parties, this treaty is now the main global instrument aimed at sustainably reducing tobacco consumption and its effects; it includes provisions to protect health policies from industry interference. Article 5.3 requires States to prevent any influence from the tobacco industry, regardless of its products, in the development and implementation of their strategies. By providing an institutional platform to actors whose commercial interests are directly linked to the promotion and sale of products marketed by tobacco manufacturers with a view to reconquering the market, the conference immediately places itself at odds with this fundamental commitment.

The call to lift the Doggett Amendment represents a precedent that could weaken existing mechanisms for protecting public policies against commercial pressures. Authorizing public support for the export of nicotine products would amount to legitimizing the global expansion of a market that continues to cause serious health and environmental consequences. Furthermore, the proposal to mobilize international trade law to challenge national bans increases the risk of seeing commercial logic take precedence over the health sovereignty of States. This strategy aims to shift the debate from the field of public health to that of economic disputes, to the detriment of prevention priorities.

In this context, the rhetoric of "harm reduction" appears more as a communication and pressure tool than as an evidence-based health policy. It aims to present the industry as a legitimate player in the international debate, while allowing them to expand their activities to the detriment of the general interest. These dynamics underscore the need for increased vigilance on the part of governments and multilateral organizations to ensure that international negotiations and forums remain guided by the protection of public health and are not exploited for the benefit of the tobacco industry, which has become the nicotine industry.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE