By Shem Baldeosingh, Director, Global Institute for Novel Nicotine (GINN)
In a global conversation about alternatives to smoking, terminology might seem secondary—but it’s not. Language shapes perception, policy, and access. For too long, inconsistent terms and acronyms have muddled understanding and hampered harm reduction progress. That’s why we’re opening the door to a wider community discussion on the need for a shared global term—and why, as Director at GINN, I’m sharing where our thinking stands today.
Why Language Matters More Than Ever
The need for clarity is pressing. Around the world, millions of adult smokers are switching to non-combustible alternatives: nicotine pouches, nicotine strips, vapes, heated tobacco, gums, and lozenges. Yet the lack of a single umbrella term means these products are often misrepresented, stigmatized, or regulated inconsistently.
- 🔥 Smoking ≠ Nicotine: Cigarette smoke causes disease—not nicotine. A unified term can help make that distinction clear.
- 🧭 Regulatory Disconnect: Some agencies classify e-cigarettes as tobacco; others do not. Confusion reigns.
- 🚫 Stigma Hurts Harm Reduction: Words like “vape” or “safer” can invite backlash or misinterpretation.
- 🌍 Global Coordination Needs Shared Terms: Without a consistent vocabulary, it’s difficult to align strategies across borders.
What a Good Term Must Do
Any widely accepted term should:
- Clearly distinguish from smoking
- Avoid medical or clinical limitations
- Encompass all non-combustible formats
- It is easy to say and translate
- Stay neutral on health claims
- Be viable across legal, public health, and cultural settings
So Where Are We Now?
We’ve listened to scientists, regulators, advocates, and industry leaders. We ran a community poll. We reviewed terminology used by international health agencies. And here’s where we stand:
Strong Support for SNP
Many advocates favor Safer Nicotine Products (SNP) for its clarity and boldness. It reinforces the relative risk of these alternatives compared to cigarettes. However, terms like “safer” can be problematic in jurisdictions where health claims are tightly regulated.
Two Emerging Frontrunners: NRP and ANP
✔ NRP – Nicotine Replacement Products:
Endorsed by many for being inclusive, neutral, and consumer-friendly. NRP encompasses all non-combustible forms without implying cessation or therapy. It works across medical and retail contexts and avoids overpromising on harm reduction.
✔ ANP – Alternative Nicotine Products:
As my colleague Dr. Nveed Chaudhary recently reminded me, “NRP” may not be suitable everywhere. In countries like the U.S., terms implying “replacement” can create friction under FDA frameworks that require MRTP authorization to make harm-reduction claims. “Alternative Nicotine Products” offers a more pragmatic, regulation-safe option that reflects current realities.
“Until there is global scientific and regulatory consensus on reduced harm, we must adopt terms that acknowledge the non-combustible shift without overstating claims.”
— Dr. Nveed Chaudhary, Chair, GINN Science & Standards Committee
Feedback from the Field: Industry and Advocate Perspectives
Achieving consensus on terminology requires buy-in from those who use, develop, advocate for, and regulate these products. We’ve gathered insights from global voices across harm reduction advocacy, industry, clinical practice, and science. Below is a summary of feedback — now fully inclusive — offering their views on which terms resonate best, and why this debate matters.
Dr Carolyn Beaumont (Australia, clinician) supports a unified global term that avoids triggering health claims. She is cautious about terms like SNP, which could face regulatory pushback, and instead endorses more neutral language. She is credited with inspiring this discussion and guiding the search toward terms like Nicotine Replacement Products (NRP) that balance inclusivity and acceptability.
Nancy Loucas (New Zealand, CAPHRA) values terms that work in advocacy and resonate with consumers and policymakers. While CAPHRA has used SNP effectively, she acknowledges that in some contexts, neutrality may serve better. She welcomes a term like NRP for cross-border coherence and reduced stigma, especially in Asia-Pacific settings where regulators may be wary of implied health claims.
Skip Murray (United States, consumer advocate, former vape shop owner) agrees on the need for consistency in terminology. She welcomes the efforts to have multiple stakeholders participate in a global conversation on what term would work best. Her preferred term has been Safer Nicotine Products (SNP) to help communicate that there is a continuum of risk. Understanding that “safer” and “reduced-risk” could be interpreted as health claims in specific regulatory environments, she also uses the term Alternative Nicotine Products (ANP).
Harry Shapiro (UK, author of the Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction report) has long supported the term Safer Nicotine Products (SNP) for its clarity and emphasis on relative harm.
Nikheel Solanki (Founder, Wildpouch) advocates for precision in classification. He proposes a taxonomy that separates Safer Nicotine Products – SNP, (such as gums, vapes and pouches) from inhaled, industrial tobacco formats like cigarettes and heated tobacco devices, which he groups together under the category HRCT (Homogenised / Reconstituted Chemically-Treated Tobacco).
This distinction emphasises the need to avoid conflating fundamentally different product types in discussions of harm and regulation.
Nihar Dolakia (manufacturer, India, GINN member) brings a commercial lens to the discussion. He highlights that terms like “modern oral” resonate in marketing but lack global clarity. For regulatory and advocacy purposes, he supports NRP for its neutrality, especially in countries like India, where non-smoked products are often misunderstood. He stresses that the term must work for both regulators and consumers.
Phil Saunders (Broughton) emphasizes scientific rigor and accuracy. He warns against vague or politically charged terms and urges consistency in academic literature. For him, Reduced Harm Products (RHP) could bridge gaps between clinical, policy, and consumer communities. He supports its potential for RHP to unify how researchers and public health professionals describe safer nicotine alternatives.
Joe Sakr (Associate Director, GINN MENA) advocates for a term that can be culturally translated. In the Middle East and North Africa, acronyms like SNP may not translate well or may raise cultural concerns. Joe endorses NRP ( منتجات النيكوتين البديلة) as a neutral option that regulators and media in conservative societies can accept. He emphasizes the need for language that avoids moral framing.
Joel Rubenstein (GINN contributor and regulatory specialist) favors a term that functions clearly in both legal and media settings. He stresses that terminology should be defensible in public communications while remaining broad enough to capture all non-combustible alternatives. He supports the use of NRP as a legally safe and strategically neutral umbrella.
Dr Nveed Chaudhary (Chair, GINN Science and Standards Committee) says current terminology fails to reflect global regulatory diversity.
While the UK endorses harm reduction from e-cigarettes, the US restricts such claims without MRTP approval. “Alternative Nicotine Products” offers a neutral, globally acceptable term that encompasses non-combustible formats like e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches. It acknowledges lower risk without overstating claims. A unified industry voice using this term can align with evolving science and regulatory frameworks, while avoiding premature consensus on “reduced harm”.
This diverse set of voices shows strong interest in aligning behind a term that is:
- Broad and inclusive
- Free of implicit health claims
- Adaptable to regulatory and cultural contexts
Where GINN Stands Today
We are not declaring a final winner—yet. There is strong support for SNP, robust endorsement for NRP, and growing traction for ANP in regulatory-sensitive contexts.
As for me: I’m increasingly persuaded by ANP as a globally palatable, regulation-safe umbrella. Yet I also acknowledge the utility of NRP, and the popularity of SNP in public-facing advocacy. For now, we’re putting ANP and NRP on the shortlist.
Let’s continue the conversation.
📩 Vote now in our poll and tell us which term you believe best serves global harm reduction:
👉 Vote here: 🗳️ Help Us Choose the Right Term for Safer Nicotine Alternatives
This isn’t about branding—it’s about strategy, science, and public health. Let’s align our language so that the public, regulators, and researchers can have clear, consistent conversations about alternatives to smoking.
The Global Institute for Novel Nicotine is proud to help lead this collaborative journey.
Let’s get it right—together.
