In the previous article, we explored the role of the World Health Organization and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in shaping global tobacco and nicotine policy. But these bodies don’t operate in isolation. Most people think public health policy is made in government offices, it’s not. We see coordinated efforts from around the world where this ecosystem was able to remove safer nicotine products from countries, like India, Vietnam, Thailand and Australia to name a few. The people of this ecosystem have framed these as wins, but are they? People are still smoking illicit trade has taken over, and safer option are not available.
You might think, well this is Canada, that ecosystem won’t work here They don’t have influence. What if I told you that they are an integral part of that ecosystem and it is flourishing right here at home.
The WHO FCTC is the center of this ecosystem. Since 2003 they have been defining the global approach to tobacco and more recently nicotine. They have focused on reducing use, restricting access, preventing uptake, and standardizing policy. They don’t make Canadian law, but they play a powerful role in shaping what is considered “good policy” around the world.
Surrounding that framework is a network of funders, like Bloomberg Philanthropies. These organizations don’t pass legislation either, but they influence the direction of public health by funding research, policy development, advocacy, and implementation efforts globally. When funding aligns with a specific approach, that approach doesn’t just exist it scales, often quickly and across borders.
Then come the implementers, like Vital Strategies or Canadian registered charity Health Bridge. These organizations work directly with governments around the world to design policy, build systems, run campaigns, and measure outcomes. They act as the bridge between global recommendations and national action, translating high-level frameworks into real-world policy.
Finally, there are advocacy networks like Global Alliance for Tobacco Control, Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, Ash Canada. These groups mobilize organizations, amplify messaging, and push for stronger adoption of the same policies, helping to create momentum and maintain pressure at both national and international levels.
Individually, each of these groups play a role. Together, they create something more powerful: a system where the direction is set before the debate even begins.
One organization that helps illustrate how this ecosystem operates on the ground is Health Bridge, a Canada-based registered charity that has been actively involved in tobacco control efforts in Vietnam for years. Through projects working directly with multiple Vietnamese government ministries, including Health, Finance, and Education Health Bridge has focused on strengthening the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and advancing policies aligned with it. This includes generating evidence, supporting legislation, and building advocacy networks specifically aimed at controlling “new tobacco products” like e-cigarettes.
These efforts didn’t happen in isolation. They were part of a broader push, supported by international funding (Tobacco Free Kids - funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies) to strengthen regulatory approaches and raise awareness among policymakers and the public.
Against that backdrop, Vietnam moved to one of the strongest possible policy positions: a comprehensive ban on e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products, approved by its National Assembly and set to take effect in 2026. The move was publicly supported and praised by the World Health Organization, which framed the ban as a major step to protect youth and public health.
So how did this affect nicotine pouches?
When Zonnic entered the Canadian market, it wasn’t just another product launch, it was a test. A nicotine pouch,smoke-free and combustion-free, positioned as a lower-risk alternative for adult smokers. On paper, it fits within the concept of harm reduction. Something that the WHO FCTC agreed to in Article But we now know that they don’t like harm reduction.
The reaction in Canada came quickly and from multiple directions. Minister of Health at the time Mark Holland framed the issue primarily around youth protection, describing industry (Tobacco Companies) behaviour as “dark” and exploitative, and moved to restrict access through a 2024 ministerial order limiting nicotine pouches to behind-the-counter sales in pharmacies.
Helping the ministers campaign of disinformation tobacco control advocates echoed similar concerns. Rob Cunningham ( Policy Advisor for the Canadian Cancer society and regular contributor to GATC) warned about youth uptake and called for closing regulatory “loopholes,” while Cynthia Callard (Physicians for a smoke free Canada and long time FCTC supporter ) emphasized uncertainty around long-term effects and pushed for a precautionary approach.
Additional voices reinforced the same message. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Lung Association, and ASH all publicly supported stronger regulation, citing concerns around youth exposure, flavours, and normalization. These positions were reflected in joint statements and media coverage calling for tighter controls and restricted access.
Across political leaders, health organizations, and advocacy groups, the messaging was remarkably consistent: protect youth, prevent addiction, close loopholes, and act quickly. While each organization operates independently, the alignment in framing and urgency is difficult to ignore. The Ecosystem was working.
These organizations not operating in isolation. They exist within a shared framework shaped by the World Health Organization, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, global advocacy networks, and internationally funded public health priorities. That framework emphasizes reducing nicotine use overall, applying precaution, and limiting access to emerging products.
Within that context, the response to Zonnic didn’t need to be built from the ground up. It followed a familiar pattern, one that has been developed, reinforced, and shared across jurisdictions over time.
Yes this looks like a coordinated campaign, suggest that one organization is directing the others. It also reveals that something more subtle and arguably more influential: alignment. A system where the language is shared, the priorities are aligned, and the policy direction is broadly agreed upon before any single country makes its decision.
The war on nicotine was launched and it exposes a deeper question: what happens when a product doesn’t fit the existing framework? Harm reduction approaches the issue from a different angle. It doesn’t ask, “How do we eliminate nicotine?” but rather, “How do we reduce harm?” Those are fundamentally different questions and they don’t always lead to the same policy outcomes.
Canada has made its decision. Zonnic and all future nicotine pouches are restricted to behind the pharmacy counter. Canada said no to harm reduction, and the scary part is that this decision wasn’t shaped by public consultation, it wasn’t decided upon by a science, it was decided in back rooms outside of Canada and the pressure to a Minister of Health to govern with his own moral compass, not evaluate the science the needs of the people.
Influence today in tobacco is about control. It’s using a shared language, shared priorities, and shared assumptions. Go outside of the speaking points and you are punished. It’s a system where, by the time the conversation begins, the outcome already feels inevitable. And that is a system that needs to be dismantled.
Keep following along on our series, part three we will dig deeper into the Canadian organizations that are trying to remove nicotine products from Canada.