GFN•TV: News and Interviews

Can the extensive body of epidemiological evidence on Swedish snus help us better understand the public health potential of nicotine pouches?

In this presentation, the speaker explores how decades of research on snus can inform the scientific assessment of nicotine pouches. The session examines similarities and differences between the two products, discusses the strengths and limitations of existing epidemiological evidence, and considers what current data can tell us about health risks, harm reduction, and population-level impacts.

This presentation is part of the Global Forum on Nicotine 2026 (GFN26), where international experts discuss the latest science, policy, and innovation in tobacco harm reduction.

More than a billion adults globally smoke combustible cigarettes. The harm caused can be reduced if individuals switch completely to smoke-free products. Availability of a wide range of options can accelerate their switching journey. However, access to products is being restricted by either outright bans or flavour restrictions. Whilst aimed at preventing underage use, this overlooks the needs of adults who smoke. This session will focus on a rigorous, evidence-based evaluation of whether product/flavour bans achieve the objective of reducing youth use of smoke-free products, without undermining adult smokers’ access to effective switching options.

Europe is escalating its war on safer nicotine by pursuing new restrictions on vaping, nicotine pouches, flavors, and affordability despite overwhelming evidence that these products can displace smoking.

Shot on location at GFN 2026 in Warsaw, Poland, Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos describes the policy shift as a “tremendous setback.” He examines why Europe is abandoning common sense, refusing to learn from failed prohibitionist policies, and pushing a market serving millions of former smokers toward illicit trade.

Featuring:
KONSTANTINOS FARSALINOS, M.D.
Cardiologist, Public Health Expert
University of Patras, Greece
University of West Attica, Greece
ecigarette-research.org

This panel explores the future of tobacco harm reduction in Latin America, with a strong focus on Mexico's approach to nicotine regulation, vaping, and public health policy. Experts discuss how prohibition has shaped tobacco control, the rise of smoke-free alternatives, and why evidence-based regulation may be more effective than outright bans.

The conversation examines the historical roots of prohibition in Mexico, the impact of restrictive policies on consumers, and the economic and public health implications of limiting access to reduced-risk nicotine products. Panelists also analyze trends in smoking, vaping adoption, and the challenges policymakers face in balancing regulation, harm reduction, and public health objectives.

Harm reduction approaches are now an established and fundamental part of the response to drug use. While tobacco harm reduction has an expanding evidence base it is often viewed in narrow terms, as if people who smoke exist in a discrete silo.

This has meant the potential of THR to help communities with high smoking prevalence, such as people who use drugs, remains underexplored – despite the evident harms they experience and their impact on health outcomes.

This session brings a drug harm reduction perspective to THR, drawing on frontline experience across a range of environments and sectors, seeking to highlight what works in terms of harm reduction for individuals and communities, plus opportunities for further development.

Can we rethink nicotine addiction? Is the word "addiction" helping—or hurting—the conversation? In this episode of THR Unfiltered, recorded during the Global Forum on Nicotine 2026 #GFN26 we speak with behavioral scientist Dr. Arielle Selya about the science behind nicotine dependence, addiction, and tobacco harm reduction. The discussion explores why researchers often prefer the term "dependence" over "addiction," how these concepts differ in scientific and clinical contexts, and why language matters when discussing people who use nicotine.

At the Global Forum on Nicotine (GFN26), leading experts examine one of the most controversial questions in public health: What are the real costs of vaping prohibition?

This panel explores the unintended consequences of restrictive nicotine policies, including black markets, reduced access to safer nicotine alternatives, impacts on smoking cessation, and the broader implications for public health. Drawing on scientific evidence and international experience, the speakers discuss whether prohibition achieves its intended goals—or creates new problems.

The session will explore the economic dimensions of prohibition through a political economy lens. Drawing on data and insights from multiple markets, it considers how regulatory actions may influence consumer behaviour, demand across product categories and public perceptions. It will also examine potential fiscal effects and the dynamics of illicit trade in response to prohibition. Bringing together policy, data, and market insight, this session explores how prohibition shapes real-world outcomes for consumers, governments, and public health.

Over seven out of every ten vapes sold worldwide now come from the illicit market. Worth an astounding $47 billion USD annually, the global black market for vaping products accounts for 76% of all vapes sold, dwarfing the legal trade and proving restrictions largely ineffective. Shot on location at GFN 2026 in Warsaw, Poland, Shane MacGuill of Euromonitor International explains how taxes, restrictions, product bans, and regulatory barriers are driving consumers into illicit markets around the world.

Featuring:
SHANE MACGUILL
Global Lead, Nicotine & Cannabis
Euromonitor International
euromonitor.com
@ShaneMacGuill

Safer nicotine products are increasingly popular for assisting those quitting smoking. Evidence continues to support the game-changing effect this can have on individual and community health. Some questions emerge from this. What should be the role of public health in this? Why do some public health professionals continue to ignore or dismiss the emerging evidence? Does ideology cloud judgements? Should personal choice and freedom be a priority? What legitimate role is there for regulation in this area?