At the end of the second decade of the 21^st century the condition of science, technology, public awareness and public health discourse regarding nicotine and the harmfulness of smoking is entirely different from the one at the end of the 20^th century. The predictions from the earlier period suggested that it would be possible to completely eradicate the ‘smoking epidemic’ by 2030 despite the fact that in the nineties only legislative (smoking ban) and propaganda measures were available and alternative tobacco products available on the market were limited to nicotine gums and patches. In 2018 there are no longer any doubts that the world will not be tobacco-free in 2030. Some Scandinavian countries hope to be tobacco-free either as a result of legislation (a total smoking ban in Finland planned for 2030) or the promotion of safe nicotine products such as snus (Norway, Sweden) (1, 2). Meanwhile, the invention and promotion of the e-cigarette by the Chinese chemist Hon Lik in 2001-2003 was the beginning of a technological revolution which dramatically increased the availability of alternative, safer nicotine products and resulted in the rapid development of a great number of solutions not by legislators or the industry, but by consumers looking for safer ways of using nicotine (3). Perhaps it was this ‘grassroots’ nature of the fast progressing changes that caused international organisations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as governments and the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries to fail to keep pace with these changes, thus hampering the health promotion potential of reduced-risk nicotine products.

Under pressure from researchers and users of modern reduced-risk nicotine products (RRNP) the organisations which deal with public health and regulatory practice in this area start to admit publicly that the greatest harm associated with tobacco products is not caused by nicotine as a chemical substance, but by harmful chemical compounds generated during tobacco combustion. The modern approach based on scientific research results indicates the presence of a ‘continuum of risk’: although every product containing nicotine currently available on the market can be harmful to some extent, a precise determination of the magnitude of this risk is necessary. For example, reports of 2015 and an update of 2018 by Public Health England (PHE) indicate a 95% lower harmfulness of e-cigarettes compared to conventional cigarettes (4, 5). The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has also accepted that e-cigarettes are less harmful and expressed it in the report ‘Public Health Consequences of E-cigarettes’ of 2018 (6). Such an approach presented by key institutions in the UK and USA contributes to the gradual change in the dynamics of debate on the negative consequences of nicotine dependency. It points to the need to clearly separate the effects of tobacco smoking (particularly toxic compounds formed in the process of tobacco combustion) from the effects of nicotine as a chemical substance, which can be delivered in various ways safer than tobacco burning.

Currently, one of the important tasks for the academic and medical communities regarding nicotine research is precise quantification of the harmfulness of different products. Only once precise quantitative indicators of the harmfulness of particular types of products become available, a better, reliable and evidence-based dialogue between scientists, consumers, decision-makers and legislators will be possible.

The progress in research on the harmfulness of e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn products seems to be detached from the social perception of the harmfulness of these products. For this reason, scientific progress has been accompanied for some time with actions by consumer organisations and science promoters aiming at the eradication of erroneous, stereotypical opinions that RRNP products such as e-cigarettes, for example, are more harmful than traditional cigarettes. Research conducted in Norway demonstrated that compared to conventional cigarettes (100% of relative harmfulness) snus is perceived as harmful in 78-88% and e-cigarettes are perceived as such in 57-75% (7, 8).

The development of the idea of tobacco harm reduction faces an additional barrier in less developed countries, which is the lack of scientific experts and authorities who could oppose the dictate of international organisations or tobacco industry lobbyists. In recent years local pseudoexperts have repeatedly presented erroneous opinions that the level of harmfulness of smoking and e-cigarette use is identical, contrary to the results of research on the matter. Therefore, it is of particular importance to reach the groups and areas at the highest risk with objective information and research results and to make them realise that nicotine as a pure chemical compound delivered in a safe form not associated with carcinogenic smoke and tarry substances should not be considered as inseparable from cigarettes and stigmatised as a highly harmful tobacco product.

Powered by grassroots initiatives of small, very active companies, the rapid expansion of reduced-risk nicotine products (e.g. e-cigarettes, heat-not-burn products, snus) requires quick reaction from market regulatory institutions to establish clear procedures for the marketing of user-safe products, for which there is a huge demand. In the USA alone over 20 million smokers express active interest in new reduced-risk products.

RRNP users are trying to exert a growing pressure on manufacturers pointing out that there is no one universal solution, one product that could satisfy various needs of the multimillion group of consumers. Consumer organisations and umbrella organisations which connect individual national associations into a large network with a much higher potential for action (e.g. International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations – INNCO) aim at receiving the right to speak at international forums, including WHO meetings where the most important decisions are taken affecting RRNP legal regulation (9).