As Parliament considers the proposed Tobacco Control Amendment Bill, Kenya faces an important choice. Should nicotine products be regulated based on scientific evidence, or should all products continue to be treated as equally harmful regardless of their level of risk?

The recent decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) offers an important lesson. After a rigorous scientific review, the FDA authorized reduced-risk marketing claims for certain nicotine pouches, concluding that adult smokers who switch completely from cigarettes can significantly reduce their risk of developing smoking-related diseases.

The key distinction is simple. It is the burning of tobacco, not nicotine itself, that causes the overwhelming majority of smoking-related illnesses. Smoke-free alternatives eliminate combustion and expose users to far fewer toxic chemicals than cigarettes.

Unfortunately, the proposed Tobacco Control Amendment Bill does not adequately recognize this difference. Measures such as flavour bans and restrictions on communicating scientifically verified information about reduced-risk products could discourage adult smokers from switching away from combustible cigarettes.

Kenya loses an estimated 12,000 people every year to smoking-related diseases. Every tobacco policy should therefore be judged by one simple question. Will it reduce cigarette smoking?

A modern regulatory framework should protect young people through strict age verification, product standards, and responsible marketing. It should also recognize that products with substantially lower health risks should not be regulated in the same way as combustible cigarettes.

Consumers deserve accurate information. If independent scientific evidence shows that one product is significantly less harmful than another, regulators should allow truthful, evidence-based communication instead of suppressing it.

Kenya has the opportunity to become a leader in evidence-based tobacco regulation across Africa. Rather than adopting policies that ignore the growing scientific consensus, Parliament should ensure that the Tobacco Control Amendment Bill reflects the principle of proportionate regulation based on risk.

The goal of tobacco control is not simply to regulate nicotine. It is to reduce disease and save lives.

Science, not fear, should guide the way.