The World Vapers’ Alliance (WVA), an international consumer advocacy group, has encouraged the World Health Organization (WHO) not to undermine global efforts to curb smoking-related deaths by refusing to recognize tobacco harm reduction (THR) strategies.

In a statement, the group said the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11), taking place in Geneva from 17-22 November, risks becoming an “echo chamber for outdated, anti-science policies.”

They urged the WHO to include tobacco harm reduction (THR) that could help millions of smokers switch to less harmful alternatives.

Consumer voices and scientific evidence supporting alternatives like vaping, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches should be included in the policy discussions, they said.

THR is a public health strategy that aims to lower the adverse health effects associated with tobacco use.

THR offers less harmful interventions to reduce the risks involved. Consumers informed the WHO that its strict stance on THR is working against the noble mission of saving lives.

“Harm reduction is not a marketing gimmick; it is a public health necessity backed by science and real-world data. Consumers matter, and harm reduction through vaping and nicotine pouches should be recognized by the WHO COP,” said WVA director Michael Landl.

Despite decades of effort, the number of smokers exposed to toxic chemicals in tobacco smoke remains stubbornly above one billion — a long period of stagnation that highlights what the group calls the WHO’s policy failure to significantly curb smoking-related mortality and morbidity.

Consumer groups said the WHO should abandon its prohibitionist approach and acknowledge tobacco harm reduction (THR) as a more effective strategy for reducing smoking-related deaths.

They added that the mission of the WHO FCTC to reduce tobacco-related morbidity and mortality is being undermined by an ideological campaign against non-combustible tobacco and nicotine products. They stressed that WHO recommendations and policies should be based on sound scientific evidence, and that the current approach is counterproductive.