A global disinformation offensive ahead of COP11

With just weeks to go before the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in Geneva, the tobacco and nicotine industry is rolling out an international communications campaign to undermine the Convention's credibility and impose its "harm reduction" narrative. Behind messages presented as scientific or balanced, this strategy aims to influence policymakers and public opinion as countries prepare to debate the regulation of new nicotine products.

A coordinated campaign to discredit the WHO treaty and COP11

Since the beginning of October, several forums and press releases published internationally have sought to challenge the legitimacy of the WHO Framework Convention and the decision-making process of the Conference of the Parties (COP11). This media offensive, relayed by distribution channels such as GlobeNewswire[1], BusinessWire[2], The Brussels Times[3] and NationNews[4], repeats the same arguments: the FCTC is "closed to dialogue," "ideological," and "hostile to science." This type of attack is not new. Since the treaty was even negotiated, the tobacco industry and its allies have regularly attempted to weaken the credibility of the Convention and its decision-making bodies, accusing the WHO of excluding economic actors from the debate. At each session of the Conference of the Parties, similar pressure is exerted on States to reintroduce the tobacco industry into the decision-making process, whether in the form of public-private partnerships, expertise presented as independent, or pleas for a so-called "balanced dialogue." What is at stake goes beyond the simple issue of tobacco or nicotine products: it concerns the very principle of protecting public policies from any industry interference, enshrined in Article 5.3 of the FCTC.

Among the most visible actors is the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA), which accuses the FCTC of "ignoring its own founding principles" by omitting the concept of harm reduction from the COP11 agenda. The organization cites Article 1(d) of the treaty, which mentions this approach as a component of tobacco control, and advocates for the creation of a dedicated working group. In reality, this advocacy is part of a strategy aimed at having heated tobacco products, vaping products, and nicotine pouches recognized as public health tools.

This discourse is amplified by other relays. Nicotine World, for example, published an article in the French press relayed by BusinessWire[5] to denounce the ban on nicotine pouches planned in France from 2026. Presented as a personal testimony, this intervention takes up the narrative codes of the nicotine lobby: opposition between "pragmatism" and "prohibition", highlighting Sweden as a model of success, and assimilation of nicotine consumption to an individual health choice.

Meanwhile, British American Tobacco (BAT) released a statement claiming that "70% of policymakers conflate nicotine with the primary cause of tobacco-related illness." Presented as a scientific investigation, the company seeks to dissociate nicotine from tobacco toxicity in order to reposition its products as "less harmful." The release coincides with the opening of the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in Brussels, a flagship industry event designed to promote this narrative under the guise of scientific debate.

This industry-friendly framing also extends to mainstream media. In The Brussels Times, an op-ed sponsored by the Tholos Foundation, a think tank close to libertarian circles, accuses the European Union of waging a "prohibitionist crusade" against nicotine products. NationNews, in the Caribbean, relays a call for Barbados to "stand up for harm reduction" at COP11 and oppose "the excessive influence of private donors" on the WHO. Despite varying geographic contexts, these messages echo one another and spread a similar narrative: presenting the tobacco industry as a pragmatic actor in the face of an institution deemed ideological or even bought by private interests. This type of discourse is part of a broader communications strategy observed in recent years, which consists of undermining the credibility of international organizations by accusing them of being guided by private funding rather than science. This process, already used in other contexts such as the management of the COVID-19 pandemic, aims to sow doubt about the legitimacy of public health institutions and to polarize the debate in favor of economic interests.

Industrial and satellite players mobilized to influence opinion

Behind these positions lies a network of satellite organizations, foundations, and spokespeople presenting themselves as independent, but whose messages converge with the interests of the big tobacco companies. These organizations—CAPHRA, Tholos Foundation, Nicotine World, and others—are participating in a campaign to legitimize the concept of "tobacco harm reduction," coined by the industry to rehabilitate nicotine consumption in new forms.

The Tholos Foundation exemplifies this strategy of intellectual entryism: by publishing op-eds claiming to be scientific and free of choice, it helps to give credibility to the industrial position among political decision-makers. Its publications, relayed by mainstream European media, seek to give an appearance of academic neutrality to a commercial plea.

For their part, actors like Nicotine World use personal narratives to humanize the industry's discourse and weaken the scope of national regulations. Their communication plays on emotion and individual experience to challenge the legitimacy of bans, while instilling the idea of a scientific consensus favorable to nicotine products. In other countries, this approach is taken up by regional media outlets that denounce the governance of the FCTC and call for "increased transparency" vis-à-vis its funders. This rhetoric diverts the debate from public health to one of economic and geopolitical interests. It is part of a recurring strategy aimed at weakening trust in international institutions and pitting public actors against consumers or users. In reality, this narrative seeks to delegitimize public decision-makers and call into question their ability to adopt ambitious health policies that protect populations, in accordance with their international commitments.

All of these relays and third parties, whether associations, media outlets, or institutions, are participating in the same influence operation. By multiplying interventions in several regions of the world and adopting a tone of defense of science or consumers, these actors are constructing the illusion of a spontaneous global movement in favor of harm reduction. In reality, this is a coordinated campaign aimed at influencing the positions of delegations before the Geneva negotiations. This approach obscures the very foundations of the decisions taken and aims to counter the general obligation of the treaty, Article 5.3 of the FCTC, which requires States to protect their public health policies from any interference from the tobacco industry.

A global offensive to impose the discourse of “risk reduction”

Beyond public statements, this campaign is part of a long-term international strategy: to redefine the terms of the debate on tobacco and nicotine. By replacing the concept of "managing the risks associated with nicotine consumption" with that of "controlling the risks associated with nicotine consumption," the industry is seeking to reposition its products as public health solutions, even though they fuel addiction.

The industry's major corporations—Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, and Imperial Brands—are banking on so-called next-generation products to offset the decline in sales of traditional tobacco cigarettes. The harm reduction narrative aims to secure favorable regulations and delay the implementation of binding measures for all these new products. Under the guise of innovation and responsibility, the industry is now presenting itself as a potential partner of health authorities, blurring the line between regulation and influence.

The proliferation of articles in regions far removed from each other—Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Caribbean—responds to a logic of saturation of public debate: by creating a global echo effect, the industry gives the impression of a growing consensus around risk reduction. This astroturfing technique—which consists of simulating a spontaneous citizen movement—makes it possible to transform a commercial plea into a public health discourse. The most institutionally fragile states are often targeted to relay these positions, accentuating the fragmentation of the international debate.[6].

One of the explicit objectives of this campaign is to obtain official recognition in Geneva of harm reduction as a component of tobacco control, under Article 1(d) of the FCTC. Such a move would weaken the precautionary principle and legitimize the presence of nicotine products in public health policies. By challenging the scientific neutrality of the WHO and denouncing alleged "bias," the industry is seeking to delay the adoption of new measures on the advertising, taxation, and regulation of emerging devices.

Through this strategy, the tobacco industry is attempting to impose a new discursive framework: to transform nicotine from an addictive substance into a vector of "freedom of choice" and "responsible innovation."

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Tribune, FCTC's Failure to Uphold Harm Reduction Risks Global Public Health, Global News Wire, published October 5, 2025, accessed the same day

[2] Press release, 70% of Policy Experts Continue to Misidentify Nicotine As Primary Cause of Smoking-Related Disease, BAT, published October 6, 2025, consulted the same day

[3] Sponsored opinion piece, The EU's crackdown on safer nicotine alternatives risks driving smokers back to cigarettes, The Brussels Times, published October 3, 2025, accessed October 6, 2025

[4] Opinion piece, Barbados must speak up for the Caribbean – and for silenced consumers – at COP11, Nation News, published October 3, 2025, accessed October 6, 2025

[5] Tribune by Norbert Neuvy, co-founder of Nicotine world, When Sweden worries about France: should nicotine pouches really be banned?, BusinessWire, published October 3, 2025, accessed October 6, 2025

[6] Stéphane Horel (with Ties Keyzer, Tim Luimes, Eva Schram from "The Investigative Desk"Vaping: The real millions of fake consumer organizations, Le Monde, published November 3, 2021, consulted October 6, 2025