A new European Heart Journal report has reignited the debate over nicotine, heart health, and harm reduction. In this GFN News interview, Will Godfrey of Filter examines the claims that all forms of nicotine pose equal cardiovascular risk and the strong backlash from independent experts.
The discussion explores criticisms of the report’s scientific approach, evidence from population studies, and concerns that its conclusions could influence upcoming EU tobacco, taxation, and health policies. With Europe already facing the world’s highest smoking rates, the video asks whether this narrative could undermine harm reduction efforts and discourage smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives.
Transcription:
00:04 - 00:35
[Joanna Junak]
Hello and welcome. I'm Joanna Junak and this is GFN News on GFN.tv. Today we will be speaking with Will Godfrey of Filter about recent claims published in the European Health Journal. Hello Will, what's been happening?
00:36 - 01:48
[Will Godfrey]
Hi Joanna. The European Heart Journal has published a self-described expert consensus report calling nicotine in any form a potent cardiovascular toxin. An accompanying press release from the European Society of Cardiology was titled Vapes, pouches, heated tobacco, shisha, cigarettes. Nicotine in all forms is toxic to the heart and blood vessels. Our findings show that nicotine itself, even without the multitude of toxic combustion products, tar or free radicals present in cigarette smoke, drives cardiovascular damage, said one of the authors, Professor Thomas Munsell of University Medical Center in Mainz. The narrative of safer nicotine must end, he declared. Presumably, wrote Kiran Sidhu for Filter, it would be replaced by a narrative that all forms of nicotine use, from cigarettes to harm reduction alternatives right through to NRT, are equally risky. The authors explicitly call for Europe-wide flavor bans on all nicotine products, taxation proportional to nicotine content, and other restrictions.
01:51 - 01:54
[Joanna Junak]
And how have other experts responded to this report?
01:56 - 03:12
[Will Godfrey]
Pretty scathingly, this article is not a scientific study, said Dr. Jasmine Kuja, a University of Bath psychologist. She noted strong claims that are backed by no stroke limited evidence or have contradictory evidence that is not discussed. And she pointed out that it was authored by four experts in cardiology, but no experts in nicotine. When Kiran asked nicotine researchers, they were unequivocal. Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, who is also a cardiologist, said the report attributes health threats based largely on acute physiological markers while ignoring extensive epidemiological evidence. Dr. Ricardo Pelosa said he was shocked by this omission. Large-scale studies show similar reductions in heart risk between people who switch from smoking to safer nicotine products and those who quit nicotine entirely. The population of Sweden where snooze and pouches have largely replaced cigarettes is one example. The author's slogan of one message, one risk represents a failure in health communication, Farsalinos said. It might discourage people from making changes that could save their lives.
03:13 - 03:18
[Joanna Junak]
And what's the wider context of the report's policy recommendations?
03:20 - 04:36
[Will Godfrey]
It comes soon after the WHO found Europe to have the highest smoking rate of any continent at just over 24%. But Munsell and his colleagues see the threat differently. The next heart attack, the next stroke, the next cardiovascular death may not come from a cigarette, but from a flavoured pod, a nicotine pouch, he said in the press release. If Europe fails to act now, we will face the largest nicotine addiction wave since the 1950s. Damian Sweeney of the European Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates Group thinks the timing of the report's agenda is no coincidence. It seems to be seeking to influence the upcoming revision of the EU Tobacco Products Directive, The European Parliament is working on a cardiovascular diseases strategy too, and a revised taxation directive is also currently under discussion. It's little more than a lobbying document masquerading as an evidence-based scientific report, Sweeney said. THR is already under attack in many ways around Europe and it's deeply disheartening to see members of the scientific community wading in with such a misleading and damaging contribution.
04:38 - 04:52
[Joanna Junak]
Thank you, Will. That's all for today. Tune in next time here on GFN TV or on our podcast. You can also find transcriptions of each episode on the GFN TV website. Thanks for watching or listening. See you next time.