The Case for a Separate Nicotine Policy: Differentiating Nicotine and Tobacco Regulation

As the landscape of nicotine and tobacco products evolves, traditional tobacco control policies are increasingly challenged by the emergence of new products, such as e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches, and heat-not-burn devices. These products, while still delivering nicotine, often present different health risks compared to conventional tobacco products. This has led to calls for separate policies addressing nicotine and tobacco, recognizing their distinct characteristics and potential impacts on public health.

Nicotine, while addictive, is not the primary cause of tobacco-related diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and respiratory conditions. These health issues are largely linked to the combustion process in smoking, which releases harmful toxins. Therefore, products that deliver nicotine without combustion, such as e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches, are generally considered to pose a lower risk than traditional cigarettes.

This distinction suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation may not be appropriate. Separate policies for nicotine and tobacco could allow for more nuanced regulation, taking into account the specific risks and benefits of different products.

Why Separate Nicotine Policy is Necessary

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) recommends stringent tobacco control measures, such as high taxes and advertising bans. However, these measures may not be entirely practical for African smokers, particularly given the rise of emerging nicotine products like e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches. Many African countries lack comprehensive cessation support and resources, making it challenging for smokers to quit. Additionally, overly restrictive regulations on reduced-risk nicotine products could limit access to potentially less harmful alternatives, which are crucial for harm reduction in regions with limited healthcare infrastructure.

Differentiating between nicotine and tobacco products can enable risk-proportionate regulation. For instance, less harmful nicotine products might be regulated to minimize youth access and prevent non-smokers from initiating use, while still allowing adult smokers access as a harm reduction tool. In contrast, more stringent regulations might be applied to combustible tobacco products due to their higher risk profile.

A separate nicotine policy could support public health goals by promoting safer alternatives for current smokers. By providing a clear regulatory pathway for reduced-risk nicotine products, governments can encourage smokers to switch from combustible tobacco to less harmful options. This approach is aligned with harm reduction principles, which aim to reduce the negative health impacts of harmful behaviors without necessarily requiring total abstinence.

The nicotine market is rapidly innovating, with new products emerging that offer varying levels of harm reduction potential. A dedicated nicotine policy can facilitate the responsible introduction and oversight of these products, ensuring they meet safety standards while allowing for consumer choice. It can also provide a framework for research and public education on the relative risks of different nicotine products.

Clear distinctions in policy can help improve public understanding of the risks associated with different products. Misinformation about nicotine and its health impacts can lead to misconceptions that all nicotine products are equally harmful. By separating policies, governments can more effectively communicate accurate information, helping consumers make informed decisions.

The evolving nature of nicotine and tobacco products necessitates a rethinking of traditional tobacco control frameworks. By implementing a separate nicotine policy, governments can better address these products’ distinct risks and benefits, promoting public health through harm reduction and informed consumer choice. This approach reflects the scientific understanding of nicotine and tobacco risks and aligns with the principles of modern public health policy.

By Joseph Magero

The writer is the Chair of Campaign for Safer Alternatives