A medical expert said the Philippines’ Vape Law provides a crucial legal and ethical foundation for tobacco harm reduction (THR), empowering healthcare professionals to guide adult smokers who cannot quit combustible cigarettes toward less harmful alternatives.
Mral and maxillofacial surgeon Dr. Andy Fernandez cited this policy development at the 8th Summit on Tobacco Harm Reduction 2025 hosted by the International Association on Smoking Control and Harm Reduction (SCOHRE).
THR involves using significantly less harmful alternatives to traditional cigarettes, such as vapes, heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches. Research indicates these options pose fewer health risks because they eliminate combustion and smoke, the main sources of toxic chemicals in cigarette use.
Since the law’s enactment in 2022, medical professionals, particularly oral and maxillofacial surgeons in the Philippines, have become more confident in advocating harm reduction as a viable strategy to reduce cigarette use, according to Dr. Fernandez.
“Since the Vape Law was passed in 2022, we’ve felt more empowered to carry out our advocacy across communities,” he said.
“The tobacco harm reduction strategy is now more effective for us because we have a legal framework to support it,” said Fernandez.
While quitting smoking remains the gold standard, Fernandez noted surgeons are no longer limited to passively observing patients struggle. The Vape Law allows them to confidently recommend less harmful alternatives.
“During my presidency at the Philippine College of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons in 2011, we actively promoted early detection of oral cancer and trained dental practitioners to recognize its early signs,” Fernandez said.
“Now, with the Vape Law in place, we feel empowered to recommend novel tobacco products to patients as part of harm reduction,” he said.
The effectiveness of the Vape Law, Fernandez said, lies in its dual function: offering a robust regulatory framework for nicotine and non-nicotine vapor products while implementing strong safety measures.
Lawmakers ensured the law established a comprehensive regulatory framework for the importation, manufacture, sale, packaging, distribution, and use of vaporized nicotine non-nicotine and novel tobacco products, along with clear penalties for violations.
The regulatory framework is structured to prevent access by minors and adolescents. It prohibits sales near educational institutions and restricts purchases to individuals aged 18 and above. The law also prohibits flavor variants such as mango strawberry and tutti frutti, which studies have shown to be particularly appealing to minors.
The law also delivers economic value, with excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol generating surplus funds for the National Health Insurance Program (PhilHealth), which serves all Filipinos.
Consumer advocacy groups stressed the need to safeguard the law.
“We must protect the Vape Law against renewed efforts that threaten to weaken harm reduction in the Philippines,” said Anton Israel, president of the Nicotine Consumers Union of the Philippines (NCUP).
Dr. Lorenzo Mata, president of consumer advocacy group Quit for Good, criticized efforts to demonize nicotine, emphasizing that the true health threat is cigarette smoke. “Outdated prohibitions on safer alternatives endanger millions of nicotine-dependent Filipinos by keeping them tied to combustible tobacco,” he said.
Harm reduction efforts in the Philippines reflect a growing international movement championed by organizations such as SCOHRE.
Professor Ignatios Ikonomidis, president of SCOHRE, cautioned that the European Union’s proposed approach centered on prohibition, tighter restrictions, and increased taxation of alternative nicotine products could jeopardize public health outcomes and consumer autonomy.
“When policies lump all nicotine products together as equally dangerous, they risk setting back years of public health gains,” he warned.
SCOHRE’s consensus statement on tobacco harm reduction, adopted in October, reinforces THR as a foundational public health principle complementary to both prevention and cessation. It also advocates for balanced regulation and transparent communication of relative product risks.
