While the debate around a unified term for non-combustible nicotine products continues across policy, science, and public health spheres, some of the most illuminating progress has come from within the community itself. In a recent exchange between Australian clinician Dr. Carolyn Beaumont and GINN Science & Standards Committee Chair Dr. Nveed Chaudhary, two leading voices took on the terminology challenge directly—carefully weighing the strengths and shortcomings of “SNP,” “NRP,” and “ANP” not just in theory, but in practical application. Their candid discussion offers a compelling window into how consensus can emerge when expertise, open-mindedness, and a shared goal come together.
Dr. Carolyn Beaumont opened the dialogue by highlighting the emotional appeal and conceptual clarity of “Safer Nicotine Products,” but cautioned that “safer” may invite regulatory pushback and be misinterpreted as a health claim. For her, the deciding factor was which term could gain regulatory and clinical traction. “We strategize and make smart, cautious decisions that will stand scrutiny,” she wrote, expressing a desire for language that regulators and healthcare providers can adopt without hesitation
Dr. Nveed Chaudhary agreed with Dr Beaumont’s concern—but brought a deeply nuanced perspective to the table.
“‘Alternative’ doesn’t make therapeutic claims,” he explained. “It creates space for innovation and avoids regulatory triggers that ‘replacement’ might cause. ANP gives us room to grow, to stay credible, and to build policy frameworks that reflect nuance instead of panic.”
He acknowledged that “Nicotine Replacement Products” (NRP) may resonate with clinicians familiar with NRT—but warned that this similarity could backfire. While the proximity to NRT might feel familiar to doctors, it risks muddying the waters. “NRP,” he pointed out, can be mistaken for or conflated with “NRT,” which has decades of regulatory proof points. Using “NRP” could confuse patients and physicians alike, leading them to assume comparable safety or efficacy without the same evidence base. “Product vs. Therapy may be colloquially interchangeable, but medically they are not,” he emphasized. “Offering clarity builds credibility—not confusion.”
What gave ANP the regulatory edge, Dr Chaudhary argued, is its neutrality. Unlike “replacement,” which can imply a therapeutic claim and potentially trigger pharmaceutical regulatory pathways, “alternative” avoids such traps. It doesn’t imply a value judgment or specific substitution. Instead, it frames non-combustible products as another option in the harm reduction toolkit—exactly the framing regulators prefer when systems are still in development.
Dr. Chaudhary also addressed the concern that “alternative” could be conflated with complementary or alternative medicine (CAM). He countered this by citing established precedent: “In tobacco control literature and regulatory submissions, ‘alternative’ is already widely used and understood as referring to alternative tobacco or nicotine products—not homeopathy.” The term appears in FDA guidance, WHO reports, and the academic literature. “Context matters enormously,” he noted.
He then flipped the concern about where NRT fits in: rather than “asking NRT to join the ‘alternative’ ranks,” he suggested that ANP could be positioned as complementary to NRT, not in conflict with it. The goal isn’t to replace approved medicines, but to expand the harm reduction toolkit with flexible options for different users and use cases.
“ANP allows for categorical growth without definitional crisis,” he explained. “As new products emerge—heated tobacco, synthetic nicotine, novel delivery systems—‘alternative’ accommodates them naturally. ‘Replacement’ becomes increasingly strained as products diversify beyond simple cigarette substitution.”
Importantly, Dr Chaudhary endorsed Dr Beaumont’s proposal to test both terms in clinical settings with Australian doctors. He predicted “alternative” would perform well because it doesn’t oversell, doesn’t corner regulators, and doesn’t set up false therapeutic expectations.
“The regulatory landscape is shifting rapidly,” he concluded. “We need terminology that gives regulators room to develop nuanced policies without backing them into definitional corners. ANP provides that space while maintaining the scientific credibility and marketing utility we need.”
In a fitting end to the discussion, Dr. Beaumont responded with both conviction and clarity:
“Nveed, you have missed your calling as a used car salesman! You have convinced me. We see the same pros and cons of NRP in engaging doctors—it triggers familiarity but risks overreach. Given the regulatory concerns of ‘replacement,’ it’s obvious that ANP is the safer choice.”
“I’ve also been reflecting on how ‘alternative’ paves the way for future growth. One day, SNPs might not just be tools for smoking cessation, but nootropics with therapeutic potential—even for non-smokers. Perhaps by 2030, with combustible tobacco fading out, we’ll see mainstream acceptance of nicotine for cognitive health, just as we’ve seen with medicinal cannabis or psilocybin.”
“Now we have consensus on ANP, the next step is to define its use: in regulatory discussions, in academia, and for mass media clarity. But let’s not let SNP fall to cancel culture in our consumer advocacy circles. Keep SNP alive in our community—and maybe one day the A will be replaced by the S for everyone to see.”
“NRP has served its short-lived life and can exit stage left with dignity. Most of all, this debate has been inspiring. It’s proof that our community is not driven by ego or ideology, but by listening and staying focused on the real goal: stopping deaths from combustible tobacco.” — Dr. Carolyn Beaumont
Conclusion: Uniting Around Language to Advance Harm Reduction
As debates over terminology continue, one thing is clear: the words we choose will either accelerate or hinder the global transition from smoking to safer alternatives. A unified term for all these products is not about semantics—it’s about creating shared understanding to support public education, policy, and clinical guidance worldwide.
Language shapes perception. Perception drives behavior. If we get the language right, we can reframe nicotine in the public conscience—not as a stand-in for smoking, but as a possible part of the solution to it.
The discussion between Dr. Carolyn Beaumont and Dr. Nveed Chaudhary perfectly illustrates this point. Their exchange not only sharpened the case for a unified term but also demonstrated how genuine consensus can emerge from open, respectful debate.
Her final vote? ANP – Alternative Nicotine Products. A term that is broad, accurate, and future-ready—anchored in regulatory caution but open to future innovation, including the idea that nicotine, in non-combustible form, may one day serve cognitive or therapeutic purposes beyond smoking cessation.
That doesn’t mean we abandon “SNP” or “NRP.” As Dr. Beaumont notes, these terms still have value—particularly in advocacy and clinical communities. But for regulators, researchers, and mass communication, ANP may now serve as the best path forward.
