Unmasking The WHO’s War on Vaping: Why Reform Must Include Adult Choice
WHO needs a fresh approach—balancing youth safeguards with adult freedom through audits, transparency, and inclusive harm reduction policies.
On World No Tobacco Day, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Secretariat called for a sweeping prohibition of flavours, sweeteners, and other additives in tobacco and nicotine products. This year’s theme, “Unmasking the Appeal: Exposing Industry Tactics on Tobacco and Nicotine Products,” emphasized that these ingredients deliberately make vaping and smoking more palatable, especially to youth, masking nicotine’s harshness and increasing addiction risk.
Naturally, the FCTC’s request is supported by binding treaty arms: Article 9 empowers governments to regulate or ban additives that enhance taste or addictiveness; Article 10 mandates full disclosure of all ingredients to enable enforcement; Article 13 demands comprehensive bans on advertising, including via social media; and Article 16 restricts youth access, enforcing age limits and banning sales near schools. Article 5.3 further instructs Parties to shield health policies from tobacco industry influence.
Over 50 countries now ban flavoured tobacco. And the FCTC Secretariat urges governments to extend these bans to all nicotine products, including after-market flavour accessories; enact plain packaging; tighten advertising restrictions (including against influencers); reinforce ageverification for online sales; and designate tobaccofree public spaces.
The WHO’s alleged health push vs. the tragic reality
Meanwhile, science and smoking cessation experts keep arguing that any restrictions should limit access and/or appeal only to non-smoking youth, and not to adult smokers who would benefit by switching to the products. In fact, trust in WHO leadership has been consistently eroding for a number of reasons. The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) recently called for independent review of funding to WHO’s Western Pacific (WPRO) and Southeast Asia (SEARO) offices. Citing allegations of persistent bureaucracy, lack of progress, and financial misconduct, CAPHRA warns that billions in funding may be reinforcing inefficiency and corruption.
Despite the appointment of a Pacific-born Regional Director in WPRO, CAPHRA notes that non-communicable disease, including tobacco-related illness, remains unchecked, and healthcare costs devastate families in the region. While $30 million allocated in 2024 risks maintaining a broken structure, unless independent oversight and civilsociety engagement are instituted first, argues the group. Additional concerns include undue influence from Bloomberg Philanthropies in shaping tobacco regulations throughout Asia
These critiques and other significant concerns, suggest that the WHO regional governance may be out of sync with the science-led, patientcentered harm reduction strategies that drive real progress.
The philosophical tension is stark. On one side, the WHO pushes for flavour bans and youth protections. On the other, its regional arms are accused of resisting pragmatic, evidencebased approaches that would expand adult access to safer alternatives, such as vapes and nicotine pouches. This resistance can limit the options available to adult smokers seeking less harmful paths away from combustible tobacco.
By sticking to old, abstinenceonly frameworks, and potentially marginalizing harmreduction voices, the WHO has been slowing down the transition away from smoking. CAPHRA’s concerns underscore the need for WHO to allow flexible, proportional policies, ones that protect children while empowering adult smokers to switch.
Balancing youth protection and harm reduction
A flavours ban, if wellenforced, reduces youth initiation. But if it sweeps too broadly, blocking adult access to regulated nicotine flavours, it will push consumers toward illicit markets (just like it has done in countries lie Australia) or combustible tobacco, increasing harm. A more nuanced, science-based public policy would: ban flavours only where youth exposure risk is highest, while keeping adult-appealing options under regulated frameworks; require transparency about ingredients and strict quality controls; enforce accurate age verification for online and physical sales and support adult harm reduction alongside youth prevention
Such approaches echo strategies in countries like the UK and Sweden, where flavours are regulated, not eliminated, and adult smokers are guided toward safer alternatives. The Way Forward for WHO reform embeds flavour bans within a broader, balanced harm reduction strategy that protects both youth and adult consumers. This requires meaningful structural changes.
Time for transparency
Firstly, independent audits of WHO regional offices such as WPRO and SEARO should be routinely carried out, to ensure taxpayer funding supports public health goals rather than bureaucratic overhead. Transparency around donor influence and industry funding is essential to ensure policy decisions are grounded in scientific evidence, not ideology. Secondly, harm reduction advocates, including groups like CAPHRA and other consumer organizations, must be included in decision-making panels. And last but not least, policies should clearly distinguish between products that attract youth and those that support adults’ calibrated access to safer nicotine products.
This approach champions the dual goals of youth protection and adult choice while driving WHO toward accountability, inclusivity, and evidence-based policy. The WHO’s call to end addictive flavouring in tobacco products is valid—but it must not derail harm reduction strategies. A truly effective public health approach should enforce youth protection while enabling adult smokers to choose safer alternatives. Achieving both goals requires WHO to embrace structural reform, evidence-led policy, and inclusive governance. The future of tobacco control depends on embracing complexity—not binary prohibitions.