Information lack bars smoking alternatives
False beliefs will continue to mislead both medical professionals and the general public into viewing nicotine as a significant health threat.
Daily TribuneFalse beliefs will continue to mislead both medical professionals and the general public into viewing nicotine as a significant health threat.
False beliefs about nicotine are a significant barrier to smokers adopting reduced-risk alternatives.
Two hundred experts from 51 countries, participating in a panel discussion at the 8th Summit on Tobacco Harm Reduction: Novel Products, Research and Policy in Athens, expressed a collective message: tobacco policies worldwide must be rooted in science — not ideology — and should embrace harm reduction as a crucial public health measure for those unable or unwilling to stop smoking.
SCOHRE organized the summit, the International Association on Smoking Control and Harm Reduction, on 30 September and 1 October 2025.
As a public health strategy, tobacco harm reduction seeks to lessen the damage caused by conventional smoking through safer alternatives such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches. While complete cessation is the ideal outcome, experts emphasize that these reduced-risk alternatives provide a realistic, evidence-based path forward.
According to Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, a physician and researcher based in Greece, scientists must take the lead in clarifying nicotine’s true impact to counter widespread misconceptions. Without such efforts, these false beliefs will continue to mislead both medical professionals and the general public into viewing nicotine as a major health threat.
Scientific studies indicate that nicotine, despite its addictive nature, is not the chief culprit behind the health risks linked to smoking.
According to Dr. Giovanni Li Volti, a professor of Biochemistry at the University of Catania, studies show nicotine is “perfectly safe” for heart health and unrelated to conditions like recurrent stroke. He pointed out that the existence of nicotine replacement therapy would be contradictory if nicotine itself were harmful.
Li Volti pointed out that, despite strong evidence, widespread misunderstanding about nicotine persists. “It reflects our failure as scientists to properly educate the public,” he said, emphasizing the need to separate nicotine’s impact from the harmful effects of smoke. He also cited high-quality epidemiological studies showing no increased risk of heart disease or cancer from nicotine itself.
Dr. Rohan Andrade Sequeira, underscored the consequences of poor communication around nicotine. The Mumbai-based consultant cardio-endocrine physician cited heavy reliance on local oral.