Tobacco harm reduction (THR) experts and advocates often face significant challenges, including exclusion from policy discussions, public criticism, and institutional resistance. Besides battling misinformation—they’re frequently targeted by character attacks designed to discredit them. Even when they have no ties to the tobacco and vaping industries, it is often times still assumed that they do. To this effect, individuals and organizations that receive no support from tobacco or vaping companies are often still unfairly branded as industry operatives. This tactic is often used to sidestep meaningful debate.
Consumer advocacy groups supporting THR have also been systematically excluded from major international policy forums. For instance, during the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, THR groups as well as individuals with lived experience using safer nicotine products have never been included in the discussions. This exclusion contrasts with other public health areas where lived experience is considered vital for informed policymaking.
Criticism of THR experts opting for an inclusive approach
Meanwhile, there’s an ongoing debate about funding in harm reduction circles. While some advocates and organizations do accept industry donations—often with full disclosure—many maintain that this doesn’t inherently compromise the validity of their evidence-based arguments. Still, anti-THR voices continue to weaponize even the faintest suggestion of industry connection to silence discussion.
Former UK cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt faced backlash after accepting an advisory role with British American Tobacco (BAT) to work on harm reduction strategies. Despite BAT’s investments in reduced-risk products, critics argue that the company’s primary revenue still comes from traditional cigarettes, casting doubt on its commitment to harm reduction. Public health advocates have questioned Mordaunt’s decision, suggesting it undermines efforts to distance public health policy from tobacco industry influence.
Similarly, both Derek Yach and Cliff Douglas, long-time anti-smoking crusaders, have faced criticism upon becoming CEOs of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, funded by Philip Morris International. Their respective appointments sparked debate within the public health community, with some viewing them as a conflict of interest, despite their stated goal of uniting stakeholders to combat smoking-related diseases. This situation underscores the complexities and internal disagreements surrounding THR approaches.
How experts are being discredited, not debated
Filter shared that this context makes a recent decision by New Zealand’s Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) especially significant. The case involved ASH (Action for Smokefree 2025), a nonprofit advocating for smoking cessation and THR. Despite receiving no money from tobacco, vape, nicotine, or pharmaceutical firms, ASH was portrayed in a negative light by a ThreeNews report aired on July 26, 2024.
The report, produced by Stuff and aired on a Warner Bros. Discovery-owned network, featured an interview with ASH’s director, Ben Youdan. He was not informed that the segment would frame his organization as being aligned with a pro-vaping lobby group in Australia—claims that the BSA later found to be misleading.
At the heart of the story was a claim that Youdan had been aided by a vape-funded lobbyist in traveling to Australia to promote New Zealand’s progressive vaping policies. In reality, Youdan’s travel was not funded by the vaping industry, and New Zealand’s approach has yielded significantly better health outcomes than Australia’s restrictive measures.
The report further included commentary from an anti-vaping group suggesting that the term “harm reduction” is a tool of tobacco interests, contributing to an overall slanted narrative. After ASH’s formal complaint was dismissed by the broadcaster, the matter was taken to the BSA.
The BSA found serious breaches in journalistic standards, citing failures in fairness, balance, and accuracy. It ruled that ASH had been misled about the intent of the interview, key facts were omitted, and no adequate chance was given for the organization to respond to the allegations.
A follow-up segment on July 30, 2024, compounded the issue by presenting outdated correspondence as “breaking news,” further distorting public perception. The BSA found this coverage also lacked critical context and failed to meet public expectations of responsible reporting.
As a result, Warner Bros. Discovery was ordered to issue a public statement acknowledging the decision and pay financial reparations to ASH and the Crown. Youdan described the ruling as an important corrective to dishonest media tactics, emphasizing that the real cost of such misrepresentation is borne by people who smoke and are denied reliable information.
Attacked and villified
A similar event happened in Australia, when THR advocate Dr. Colin Mendelsohn faced similar treatment. Despite having no industry ties and funding his advocacy independently, he was portrayed on national television as a tobacco industry affiliate. He eventually won a ruling from the Australian media regulator and received a formal apology.
Meanwhile, Mendelsohn has listed other efforts to discredit him, including attempts to cancel his speaking engagements and challenges to his academic work based on false allegations. These personal attacks, he said, reflect an unwillingness to engage with scientific evidence, opting instead to undermine the individuals presenting it.
These examples illustrate the multifaceted challenges THR experts encounter, ranging from exclusion and criticism to institutional resistance, all of which can impede the advancement of harm reduction strategies in tobacco control. Sadly, this anti-THR movement has been not only supported by the World Health Organization (WHO), but in most cases largely spearheaded by it.
The war on THR
In 2021, 100 tobacco control experts signed a letter urging the WHO to recognize the potential of safer nicotine alternatives in reducing smoking-related harms. The experts highlighted that the WHO’s reluctance to embrace THR strategies could hinder global efforts to decrease tobacco-related diseases.
THR experts worldwide highlight a growing concerning trend in the THR discourse: a shift from evidence-based dialogue to smear campaigns aimed at silencing dissent. These attacks not only damage reputations but also drain time, resources, and morale—ultimately slowing progress on public health initiatives. The takeaway is clear: the people most harmed by these tactics are the smokers who miss out on life-saving information and support.
