What does MAHA mean to you in the context of tobacco regulation?

During the recent Food and Drug Law Institute’s Tobacco and Nicotine Products Regulation and Policy Conference, the Network for Principled Nicotine Policy participated on a panel titled “The Future of Tobacco Policy: Aligning CTP’s Present with MAHA’s Vision.”

The following is a summary of my response to the question: What does MAHA mean to you in the context of tobacco regulation?

Based on my conversations with conservative leaders, including those working on state level MAHA agendas, I see four aspects of MAHA that can help create positive change in tobacco regulation and public health.

First is MAHA’s strong emphasis on reducing chronic disease. If we are serious about cutting cancer, lung diseases, heart diseases, and preventable death, ending smoking must be front and center. No other single public health intervention comes close in terms of potential impact. While smoking hasn’t been a core MAHA issue yet, it aligns its core chronic disease mission and should be.  

Second, is MAHA’s boldness. You may not agree with the details, but the MAHA movement acknowledges when prior approaches have failed and is willing to try bold, new approaches. The pilot to accelerate the review of pouch applications reflects the kind of bold thinking that fits MAHA. We’ll need support for additional bold action to realize the public health potential of FDA tobacco regulation.

Third, MAHA is about winning. If we want to win against chronic disease, FDA and the Administration should acknowledge, clearly and publicly, how dramatically cigarettes drive harm, and how switching to lower-risk products can speed the end of smoking. It’s obvious that adults who smoke cigarettes are turning to lower-risk alternatives, and this shift is accelerating cessation in the U.S. Yet mainstream tobacco control is trying to shift the narrative to “nicotine,” instead of the the real victory, within reach over the next 10 to 15 years, to end cigarette smoking. The Administration could own that win and take credit for saving millions of lives and billions in healthcare costs.

Fourth, is the conservative movement’s disdain for nanny state approaches. One of tobacco control’s greatest successes has been motivating people to want to quit smoking, but public health approaches have proven insufficient in helping them do so. Mainstream tobacco control approaches are now punishing adults who want to quit smoking but still choose nicotine. MAHA’s perspectives would seem open to another approach: one that accelerates smoking cessation while still protecting youth. We can do both. 

By framing tobacco harm reduction as a chronic-disease win, an economic win and a political win, we can position this as an important aspect of MAHA’s vision.