What We Learned at WNC 2026

The World Nicotine Congress (WNC) brought together global leaders from science, industry, regulation, and public health to tackle one central question: how do we turn evidence into meaningful progress in tobacco harm reduction?

Across three days, a clear message emerged that the opportunity is real, but progress depends on alignment.

Regulation Must Catch Up with the Science

A defining theme was the need for proportionate and progressive regulation.

Discussions centred on the importance of disciplined innovation. Developing reduced-risk products is not simply about moving quickly, but about balancing scientific evidence, regulatory expectations, and commercial realities. For these products to deliver public health benefit, they must be demonstrably lower risk than cigarettes and accessible to adult smokers in a way that enables full switching.

The science underpinning this is extensive, spanning toxicology, product stewardship, and post-market surveillance. At the same time, advancements in areas such as age verification show that innovation and youth protection can progress together.

The challenge now lies with policy. With growing real-world and peer-reviewed evidence from markets such as Sweden and Japan, the debate has shifted. It is no longer about whether harm reduction can work, but whether regulatory frameworks are evolving fast enough to reflect it.

Alignment Drives Progress

This theme continued in discussions around start-ups and emerging technologies, where the influence of regulation on innovation became clear.

While there is no shortage of ideas, much of the current progress is incremental. Investment is increasingly shaped by regulatory credibility as much as by technical potential. As a result, innovation, capital, and policy are tightly interconnected.

Lengthy and fragmented approval processes across jurisdictions also delay the introduction of compliant products, inadvertently enabling the growth of illicit markets, which can potentially respond more quickly to consumer demand.

When these elements are aligned around evidence, progress accelerates. When they are not, it slows.

Performance vs Perception: The Missing Link

One of the most important discussions focused on a persistent challenge in the category: the gap between what products can demonstrably deliver and how they are perceived in the real world.

Despite significant advances in toxicology, clinical data, and product design, performance is no longer the primary constraint. The science is increasingly robust. The challenge lies in what happens once that evidence leaves the lab.

Even well-designed, scientifically substantiated products can struggle to gain acceptance if communication is unclear or inconsistent. Simplified or absolute claims often undermine credibility, while headline-driven narratives continue to shape public perception more than evidence.

At the same time, the presence of illicit and non-compliant products is actively distorting the category. These products generate the most visible negative headlines and erode trust across the entire market, regardless of the underlying science.

The result is a disconnect between strong product performance and weak consumer confidence.

Bridging this gap will require more than better science. Borrowing practices from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, incorporating a more systematic and user-friendly approach to adverse event reporting and data collection was regarded as a valuable way forward. Overall, there needs to be clearer communication, stronger enforcement, and greater transparency on which products meet regulatory standards.

Real-World Evidence: Valuable, but Not Simple

Real-world evidence (RWE) was another major focus, shifting the conversation from its importance to its application.

Speakers explored how RWE can offer valuable insight into how products are used in practice, how behaviours change over time, and how policies can have unintended consequences. Examples from Japan, the US, and Europe illustrated both the strength of these datasets and the care needed in interpreting them.

A key point was that data alone is not enough. Evidence must be designed with purpose, answering the right questions for the right audience, particularly regulators. At the same time, RWE must sit alongside established scientific evidence, not replace it.

Improving how studies are designed, communicated, and applied will ultimately determine how effective RWE is in shaping future policy.

There was also a growing recognition that post-market data plays a critical role in understanding how products perform outside controlled environments. Borrowing approaches from pharmaceuticals and medical devices, the industry is increasingly using post-market surveillance to capture real-world safety and usage data.

However, challenges remain. Reporting systems are inconsistent globally, consumer awareness is low, and underreporting is common. Improving these systems and standardising how data is collected and shared will be essential to building trust and strengthening the evidence base over time.

The Gap Between Evidence and Reality

The closing session brought a more direct and challenging perspective.

Despite a strong and growing evidence base, the sector faces increasing regulatory restrictions, a dominant public narrative that often conflicts with the science, and a misalignment in how resources are allocated. Too much focus remains on competition within the category, and not enough on improving market access and regulatory frameworks.

There was a clear call for a shift in approach. The industry must better engage with policy, strengthen the way evidence is translated for decision-makers, and ensure that the most credible voices, including healthcare professionals and public health experts, are at the forefront of communication.

At the same time, collaboration needs to extend beyond individual organisations. A more unified, category-level effort will be essential to move the conversation forward.

Alongside this, there is a broader communication challenge. Much of the current dialogue is still shaped by fragmented messaging, limited consumer understanding, and a lack of clear, category-level communication about relative risk. In many cases, the narrative is being driven externally rather than by those generating the evidence.

From Insight to Action

The overarching takeaway from WNC 2026 is straightforward.

The science is there. The innovation is there. The intent is there.

What happens next depends on whether stakeholders can align around evidence and act on it. If they do, the potential public health gains are significant. If they do not, progress will continue to fall short of what is already possible.

Stay ahead of the latest developments in nicotine science and regulation. Get in touch with our team to discuss how we can support your next stage of product development.