{"id":6611,"date":"2025-11-18T08:51:54","date_gmt":"2025-11-18T13:51:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/worldvapersalliance.com\/?p=6611"},"modified":"2025-11-18T08:51:54","modified_gmt":"2025-11-18T13:51:54","slug":"cop11-day-2-voices-breaking-through-the-noise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worldvapersalliance.com\/en_gb\/cop11-day-2-voices-breaking-through-the-noise\/","title":{"rendered":"COP11 Day 2: Voices Breaking Through the Noise"},"content":{"rendered":"

Day two of COP11 offered something unexpected. While most delegations continued the well-rehearsed ritual of announcing bans and restrictions, a handful of countries broke ranks again. They demanded evidence, transparency, and a seat at the table for harm reduction. Their statements were clear, measured, and rooted in science. For a brief moment, the echo chamber showed cracks.<\/span><\/p>\n

North Macedonia took a strong stand. The delegation called for harm reduction with full transparency, demanding a clear definition of the concept and the establishment of working groups to support open, evidence-based discussions. They insisted that policymaking must be based solely on facts, research, and best practices. Their message was direct: harm reduction must be part of the global tobacco control dialogue, not sidelined by ideology.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mozambique called for evidence-based regulation. If they hold to that principle, they should reject the so-called forward-looking measures and embrace harm reduction instead. The logic is simple. If the goal is to reduce harm, then policies should be judged by outcomes, not intentions. We can only hope they follow through.<\/span><\/p>\n

Saint Kitts and Nevis pushed back harder than most. The delegation acknowledged that harm reduction is part of an inclusive approach and urged the FCTC to learn from the HIV experience, where harm reduction was a cornerstone of success. Ignoring these lessons would be a disservice to public health, they said. “We can’t turn our backs on a potential solution.” The presidency tried to silence them, but they did not waver. They demanded that decisions be grounded in research with clear guidance on harm reduction strategies. It was a rare display of courage.<\/span><\/p>\n

Gambia joined the chorus of pragmatism. The delegation urged the FCTC to be open to innovation and ensure that regulations reflect the realities on the ground. “Commitment to the convention does not preclude openness to scientific evidence,” they said. “Being pragmatic and evidence-informed is not contradictory to strong tobacco control.” Global debates must reflect realities, not wishful thinking.<\/span><\/p>\n

Already during yesterday’s afternoon session, Albania stressed that new measures must be \u201cgrounded in credible scientific evidence demonstrating effectiveness in harm reduction and public health improvement.\u201d Albania called for evidence-based policymaking, a stance warmly applauded by consumers.<\/span><\/p>\n

These statements echo some <\/span>voices from day one<\/span><\/a>. New Zealand reinforced its commitment to harm reduction, presenting evidence of how practical support and risk-based regulation of nicotine products accelerate the decline of smoking rates. They reminded the room that harm reduction works. Serbia pushed back against prohibition, calling for caution on drastic measures and demanding that any new policies be based on science and harm reduction. They spoke truth to an institution that has lost its way.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet most delegations at COP11 ignore consumers, science, and real-world evidence. They compete to announce the harshest measures against vaping, pouches, and heated tobacco, as if more restrictions automatically equal better health. Few ask whether these policies actually reduce smoking. The scientific data suggests they do not.<\/span><\/p>\n

The voices of North Macedonia, Gambia, Mozambique, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Albania, New Zealand, and Serbia matter. They offer something the echo chamber desperately needs: a reminder that policy should follow evidence, not ideology. Consumer voices exist. Real-world data exists. Countries are already solving this problem.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here you can find an overview of the delegation statements:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n