Foreign Influence, Sweeping Vape Bans and NRT Restrictions: Sounding the Alarm for Asia

Recent developments in Asia have increased concerns among tobacco harm reduction groups about ideology outweighing scientific evidence in nicotine policymaking. Allegations of foreign influence over health policy in the Philippines, proposals for regional vaping bans, and tighter restrictions on smoking-cessation products in India are among the issues cited by the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA), which highlights how governments are increasingly departing from evidence-based regulation.

CAPHRA’s concerns intensified following allegations that senior officials within the Philippine Department of Health diverted nearly P146 million originally allocated for domestic health initiatives to support a regional programme linked to the World Health Organisation’s Western Pacific Office. Although the allegations remain under public scrutiny, CAPHRA argues that the controversy raises broader questions about transparency, accountability, and the influence of foreign-funded organisations on national tobacco policy.

The group’s executive Coordinator, Nancy Loucas, stated that governments should ensure that public health regulations are informed by domestic evidence and local priorities, rather than by the objectives of international donors or external institutions. The organisation points out that similar concerns arose during the Philippine congressional hearings in 2020. At that time, officials admitted to receiving technical assistance from groups linked to The Union and the Bloomberg Initiative while working on regulations for vaping and heated tobacco products. These revelations led lawmakers to wonder if outside funding arrangements might sway the results of regulatory decisions. To this effect, CAPHRA is advocating for increased disclosure of grant agreements, technical partnerships, and donor relationships to enhance public confidence in health policymaking.

This debate extends beyond the Philippines. Reports indicating that Singapore and the Philippines are considering coordinated efforts to encourage ASEAN member states to adopt stricter vaping restrictions have prompted renewed criticism from harm reduction advocates. A blanket ban across the region would ignore crucial differences between member states and overlook the growing body of scientific evidence backing reduced-risk nicotine products.

Singapore, for instance, has one of the strictest vaping bans globally, while the Philippines has created a regulated legal market that many adult smokers turn to as an alternative to traditional cigarettes. Loucas believes that regional cooperation should focus on effective regulation rather than outright bans. “Countries should have the freedom to create policies that reflect their specific public health priorities and the realities faced by consumers,” she stated, while reiterating that broad bans typically do not eliminate demand and can actually lead to larger illegal markets.

This viewpoint, of course, aligns with real-world data from countries like Australia as well as international research, showing that areas relying solely on prohibition often find it difficult to manage unregulated nicotine markets and continue facing high rates of smoking.

These topics were at the forefront during discussions at the 2026 Global Forum on Nicotine in Warsaw, where public health experts explored why harm reduction is widely embraced in contexts like HIV prevention, hepatitis, and illicit drug use, but continues to spark debate when it comes to smoking. CAPHRA asserts that this inconsistency is not readily explained by scientific evidence.

Products such as vapes, nicotine pouches, heated tobacco products, and Swedish snus eliminate combustion, which is the primary source of smoking-related disease. Numerous independent reviews have recognised that these products present substantially lower risks than cigarettes. Despite this evidence, Loucas observes that organisations and individuals promoting tobacco harm reduction are increasingly depicted as opponents of public health, rather than as contributors to reducing smoking-related disease.

A similar debate is emerging in India, where proposals under consideration could restrict access to NRTs, shockingly including even nicotine gum and lozenges. CAPHRA argues that putting stricter controls on medically approved cessation products, while cigarettes are still easily accessible, sends mixed messages about public health.

Nicotine replacement therapies have been endorsed by clinical guidelines around the globe as effective ways to manage withdrawal symptoms and help people quit smoking. In India, nicotine gum was included in the National List of Essential Medicines in 2022, highlighting its importance in tackling tobacco dependence.

A commentary published in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry has cautioned that increasing regulatory hurdles could limit access for smokers looking for help, especially in lower-income areas where healthcare resources are already scarce. Smoking cessation experts have consistently warned against failing to differentiate between the dangers of combustible tobacco and those of much safer nicotine alternatives.

Effective tobacco control should focus instead on reducing smoking rather than trying to eliminate nicotine at any cost. Tobacco harm reduction experts support strong age-verification processes, product standards, enforcement against illegal trade, and significant penalties for companies that don’t comply with regulations. These steps should go hand-in-hand with ensuring legal access to lower-risk options for adult smokers.

Numerous scientific studies and reviews have concluded that nicotine vaping products are more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapies for smoking cessation. Public health agencies in countries such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand have also recognised vaping as substantially less harmful than smoking and as an important option for smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit nicotine entirely. These findings all support a straightforward conclusion. Regardless of whether the issue concerns donor influence, regional regulation, or access to cessation products, policies should ultimately be evaluated based on a single outcome: their effectiveness in reducing smoking-related disease.

Asia’s Tobacco Control Strategy is Protecting Cigarettes and Costing Millions of Lives