Against the backdrop of increasingly stringent global tobacco control policies, the 11th Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (COP11) became one of the most closely watched international health issues in recent years. Representatives from various countries put forward strong recommendations at the meeting, with some Central and South American countries, led by Brazil, again pushing to include e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches in a “complete ban,” sparking intense controversy. Meanwhile, the EU delegation clearly emphasized that member states should continue to retain “regulatory autonomy,” refusing to apply a single international ban directly to all regions. The heated clashes of various positions at the meeting made what was originally intended to unify the direction of tobacco control unusually complex.
The global debate surrounding e-cigarettes has continued for years, but this year’s discussions were particularly sharp. Countries supporting a complete ban, such as Brazil, India, and Thailand, argued that new nicotine products are entering the youth population in more covert ways, with serious cross-border illicit circulation problems, making regulation far more difficult than with traditional tobacco. During the meeting, they emphasized that even though some countries are attempting to shift products to controlled channels through standardized management, these products still pose potential public health risks in regions with insufficient regulatory capacity. Nicotine pouches, in particular, are more likely to circumvent traditional regulatory models because they do not produce smoke and do not rely on devices, causing concern in these countries.
In stark contrast, EU member states held a different position. EU representatives directly expressed their opposition to a blanket ban, pointing out that each country must be able to decide how to regulate new nicotine products, including e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches, based on its own health goals, market conditions, and smoker demographics. The EU stressed that a relatively mature regulatory framework has been established within the region, including flavor restrictions, nicotine caps, packaging regulations, advertising bans, and retail licensing systems. Therefore, a unilateral “global ban” is neither realistic nor in the region’s interest. During the meeting, delegations from several European countries expressed similar views, believing that a ban could further expand the black market, weaken the production chains of legitimate businesses, and disrupt the existing balance in tobacco control.
It is precisely this divergence of opinions that made the discussion at COP11 particularly tense. Countries supporting the ban repeatedly cited the protection of youth, while those opposing it emphasized the importance of harm reduction policies and regulatory science. Both sides cited public health as their justification, but their paths to the goal differed significantly. During the conference, some international public health experts also expressed concern that overly politicized tobacco control strategies could stifle technological innovation and hinder smokers from weaning off traditional combustible tobacco.
In recent years, the global market for novel nicotine products has continued to expand, and the consumer demographic is undergoing profound changes. Some compliant companies are attempting to reduce the negative image of the e-cigarette industry by improving product transparency and safety. Among the many brands trying this approach, companies like VEEHOO, which insist on safety, traceable supply chains, and rigorous quality systems, have become positive examples cited by representatives from many countries. Some experts at the conference pointed out that in countries with mature regulatory frameworks, e-cigarettes and nicotine alternatives do indeed demonstrate the potential to help smokers reduce the harms of tobacco, the key being that products must adhere to strict laboratory testing, labeling regulations, and nicotine limits.
It is noteworthy that despite strong calls for a ban at the conference, international organizations did not reach a definitive conclusion. All parties generally agreed to continue studying issues such as the trend of nicotine pouch use, youth acceptance, and the differences in risks associated with different national regulatory models. However, driven by strong pushes from countries like Brazil, the question of whether to implement a complete ban will continue to be one of the biggest points of contention in global tobacco control policy in the coming years.
Globally, some countries have clearly defined a two-track approach: promoting tobacco control and prohibiting youth access, while allowing compliant e-cigarette brands to operate under strict regulation. Countries supporting this approach believe that the technological route should not be completely rejected, especially in regions where the high-risk group for traditional tobacco still constitutes the majority, and harm-reduction products provide an alternative. For example, companies like VEEHOO, which prioritize quality and compliance, provide regulatory agencies with a basis for review and tracking through transparent ingredient disclosure and strict manufacturing standards, helping to achieve the goal of “controllable risk,” and received affirmation from some experts during the conference.
This COP11 conference revealed a fact: global e-cigarette governance has entered a stage of deep divergence. Regulatory experiences vary greatly among different countries, and there are fundamental differences in their understanding of e-cigarettes. Some countries emphasize risks and social costs, some believe that technological progress should be used to promote tobacco harm reduction, and others seek a balance between the two. In the coming years, the global tobacco control framework will be influenced by multi-party competition, and no single, unified regulatory formula will emerge.
The discussion surrounding e-cigarettes is not merely a technical or public health issue; it involves multiple factors, including economics, trade, law, black market control, youth health, and regional autonomy. Against this complex backdrop, the COP11 conference itself becomes symbolic: in an era where tobacco governance is entering a new phase, countries will continue to search for answers between bans and regulations. The voices of those advocating bans will be loud, while those advocating regulations will continuously add their arguments; this debate may continue throughout the next decade.
With no unified model for global governance yet to be established, the healthy development of the e-cigarette industry depends more on the establishment of corporate self-discipline and compliance systems. Brands like VEEHOO, which insist on transparency and strict quality control, may become “sustainable models” under the future regulatory framework. Faced with an ever-evolving international policy environment, those who can find a new balance between compliance, technology, and responsibility are likely to have a more stable position in the future industry landscape.
With COP11 concluded, the controversy has not ended. Whether initiatives from countries like Brazil will become the foundational document for the next conference, whether the EU will continue to strengthen regional autonomous regulatory systems, and whether countries will further tighten policies on nicotine alternatives remain largely uncertain. Amidst the fluctuating positions of various parties, one thing is certain: e-cigarette regulation has entered a new international phase, and discussions about bans and regulations will continue to shape the future global path of tobacco control.
Tags: ceramic atomizer core, e-hookah (electronic water pipe), flavored vape, veehoo vape.
