While the CND Blog usually covers meetings of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, we are exceptionally reporting on this public session of the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence due to its direct relevance to the forthcoming CND vote on the scheduling of the coca leaf, expected in March 2026.
The forty-eighth Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD)
48th ECDD Provisional Agenda & Timeline
WHO Secretariat (Director of Medicines and Health Products Policy and Standards, WHO Headquarters, Geneva): Welcome to the 48th Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. Most of our distinguished experts are here, and two will join us online. We also acknowledge the presence of our counterparts from UNODC and our registered participants—195 people are joining online. Interpretation is available in English and Spanish.
Since the committee first met in 1949, it has reviewed about 450 substances. The 48th meeting will conduct a critical review of four substances: one synthetic cannabinoid, two novel synthetic opioids, and coca leaf. Today’s meeting is a precursor to the main closed session, which allows independent deliberation. We have participants from 57 countries, 27 written statements, and over 20 supplementary documents. Today, 15 oral presentations are scheduled, all relating to the critical review of coca leaf. This diverse representation ensures a wide perspective in addressing the issues.
WHO Secretariat (Secretariat of the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence): Welcome to all participants, both in person and online. [Lengthy introduction to WHO’s role and mandate within the international drug control conventions]. WHO’s evaluations, made through the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, are determinative on medical and scientific matters. The committee evaluates the impact of psychoactive substances on public health, considering dependence potential, harms, and therapeutic benefits. The assessment process begins with initiation—via a Member State, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), WHO itself, or the expert committee—followed by data collection and scientific review. WHO compiles a critical review document using published and unpublished data, early warning system information, and responses from a Member State questionnaire sent to all 194 WHO Member States. The questionnaire collects information on approved uses, nonmedical use, intoxications, routes of administration, seizures, and control measures. WHO also engages with the public through consultations like today’s meeting, where stakeholders can provide evidence and perspectives. All received data are compiled and shared with the Expert Committee. In their deliberations, the committee applies criteria from the international conventions. Under the 1961 Convention, the two key criteria are abuse liability and convertibility into scheduled substances. Under the 1971 Convention, criteria include dependence potential, CNS effects, abuse evidence, and potential public health or social harm. The committee conducts two types of reviews—pre-reviews and critical reviews. A critical review may result in a recommendation for scheduling under the 1961 or 1971 Conventions, continued monitoring, or no scheduling. Each convention has four schedules, with varying levels of control depending on the risk-benefit assessment. The Expert Committee consists of independent experts selected for their recognized competence in fields such as toxicology, pharmacology, and psychiatry. Members do not represent governments and are free from conflicts of interest. Observers include UNODC and INCB. After today’s open session, the Committee will meet in closed session to review substances and formulate recommendations regarding international control. These recommendations will be endorsed by the WHO Director-General, communicated to the UN Secretary-General, shared with Member States, and presented to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs for consideration.
WHO Secretariat: To ECDD recommendations that international control measures are applied as recommended by WHO, all of the documents produced by WHO are published in a technical report series for reference material and are also published electronically on our ECDD repository.
The first substance to be reviewed is coca leaf: Coca leaf refers to the unprocessed leaf of the coca bush, excluding those from which cocaine and related alkaloids have been removed following an official notification or stage. The last time WHO conducted a pre-review of coca leaf was in 1993. At that time, the committee was of the opinion that coca was properly scheduled under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) since cocaine was readily extractable from the leaf. It is listed under Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention as a substance whose liability to abuse constitutes an especially serious risk with limited therapeutic usefulness. Statements in relation to coca leaf will be taken into consideration by the expert committee.
The second critical review to be conducted is on MDMB-4en-PINACA, a synthetic receptor agonist sprayed onto herbal products, similar to other synthetic cannabinoids. It is under review because WHO was informed that it is manufactured clandestinely, poses a risk to public health, and has no recognized therapeutic use. It has never previously been reviewed by the ECDD and is not currently under international control.
There are two novel synthetic opioids being critically reviewed: isotonitazene and N-desethylisotonitazene. These are synthetic opioids detected in illicit substances and counterfeit medicines. WHO received information that they are manufactured clandestinely, pose public health risks, and have no recognized therapeutic use. They have never been previously reviewed and are not currently under international control.
To give an overview of the data collection and consultation process for this meeting: last year, WHO initiated data collection for coca leaf at the 47th Expert Committee on Drug Dependence meeting. WHO issued an open call for authors to contribute to critical review reports, which were published online for consultation, inviting comments from member states. At that time, WHO also accepted submissions of data and comments on the scope of the coca leaf review. In 2025, in preparation for this 48th meeting, WHO conducted a member state questionnaire between July and August, with 91 countries responding. The report on that questionnaire is available online. Critical review reports compiled by selected authors were published in September 2025 for public consultation. One month before today’s meeting, each critical review underwent two peer reviews by members of the Expert Advisory Panel. The expert committee will consider the critical review reports, the member state questionnaire report, public comments, additional submitted data, and the results of peer reviews. After today’s open session, the committee will convene in closed sessions until the 22nd. At the end of these sessions, the committee’s recommendations will be submitted to the WHO Director-General for endorsement. The Director-General will then communicate the recommendations to the UN Secretary-General. In December 2025, the outcomes will be presented at the CND reconvened meeting. The correspondence between the WHO Director-General and the UN Secretary-General will be published on the WHO website. In February 2026, WHO will publish the Technical Report Series consolidating the meeting report and all scientific reviews. In March 2026, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs is expected to vote on the recommendations for changes in the scope of international control.
Chair: We have two sessions this morning; we are still in the update session. Now we will hear from the WHO Science Division.
WHO (Science Division – Rebecca Thomas, Secretary of the WHO Guidelines Review Committee): The WHO guideline development process is similar in some ways to that of the Expert Committee — both rely on scientific evidence and expert guidance — but guidelines are distinct in purpose and scope. WHO guidelines follow specific methods for development and are usually driven by questions of uncertainty about a clinical or public health intervention, often when there is new, limited, or conflicting evidence. We publish about 25 guidelines per year and have around 80–100 under development at any time, covering all areas of WHO’s technical work, from communicable diseases to nutrition and emergencies. Guidelines differ from other WHO normative publications (such as pharmacopeia or handbooks) because they include formal recommendations comparing courses of action based on systematic evidence reviews. One of our greatest challenges is making credible, trustworthy recommendations when evidence is weak. To address this, we use transparent and structured methods, following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The guideline development process is staged: identifying the question, gathering and assessing evidence, formulating recommendations, and guiding implementation and adaptation. The Guidelines Review Committee was established in 2007 when it was found that WHO guidelines were not consistently applying evidence-based methods. We are now updating the third edition of our handbook that sets out standards for guideline development. We adhere to the core principles of evidence-based medicine, combining scientific evidence, expert judgment, and patient values. We use the GRADE method (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to assess the certainty of evidence and determine the strength and applicability of recommendations. GRADE provides a transparent framework for rating confidence in evidence and clarifying how broadly recommendations can be applied. When making recommendations, we consider not only effectiveness but also factors like cost-effectiveness, equity, acceptability, and feasibility. This ensures our guidelines are grounded in both science and real-world application. In summary, WHO guideline development is driven by end-user needs, designed to minimize bias, and built on explicit frameworks and the best available evidence. We aim for guidelines that are both scientifically credible and practically implementable..
WHO (Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Unit ): The coca plant is used in Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, South America, Mexico, Indonesia, and the West Indies for chewing and brewing coca tea. Coca leaf tea is used to alleviate stomach pain, nausea, indigestion, and symptoms of altitude sickness. It is also known in Java, Ceylon, and India for use in traditional medicine for relieving thirst and hunger, as an analgesic for dental pain, diuretic, and mood enhancer. Coca leaves and some of their constituents, including cocaine, are listed in Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Effective national regulatory provisions are needed to curb illegal isolation and use of psychoactive components like cocaine. While coca and other herbs are used as regulated traditional medicines in some member states, and by Indigenous peoples in others, robust scientific data are needed to assess safety. Systematic reviews and controlled clinical trials should be undertaken before making any medical recommendations for coca.
Chair: Thank you. That concludes the updates from the WHO Secretariat. We now move to the next part of the open session — presentations and assessments from participants.
Bolivia (Vice Secretary General, Vice President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia): Bolivia expresses its gratitude for the holding of the critical review of coca leaf, a long-awaited and essential step toward correcting a historical error in international control policies. Bolivia welcomes the draft report presented for this 48th meeting, which constitutes significant progress in the scientific and objective understanding of the coca leaf. The document recognizes, based on multidisciplinary evidence, that coca leaf has low toxicity, low dependence potential, and no clinically significant harms to public health in its traditional use. It also identifies pharmacological properties that are beneficial, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, hepatoprotective, vasodilatory, and metabolic effects. Bolivia reaffirms the fundamental difference between the natural state of coca leaves and purified cocaine. The report clearly sets out the concepts of extraction, transformation, and conversion, showing that the isolation of cocaine is a process of acetyl extraction, not chemical conversion. Bolivia calls on the committee to reaffirm these distinctions so that the future recommendations of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs do not repeat the historical confusion between extraction and conversion that led to the coca leaf’s inclusion in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention. Bolivia emphasizes that the current classification of coca leaf is inconsistent with scientific evidence, as WHO recognizes its lower danger and potential benefits while the Single Convention subjects it to restrictive controls. This incongruence must be corrected according to the principle of scientific proportionality. The coca leaf is a central element of cultural identity, traditional medicine, and community economy among the Andean and Amazonian peoples. Its traditional use in infusions, medicines, and foods is recognized and protected by Bolivia’s Constitution. The 1961 classification was based on a biased, unscientific, and racially prejudiced report. The current review offers an opportunity to correct that injustice. Bolivia recommends: (1) reclassifying coca leaf outside of Schedule I; (2) establishing clear differentiation between coca leaf and purified cocaine; (3) recognizing explicitly the low danger and dependency of traditional use; (4) revising international controls; and (5) incorporating a human rights–based and nature-based approach that respects cultural diversity. Bolivia concludes that this draft report is not only an act of scientific justice but also a recognition of a plant that for millennia has symbolized balance, health, and spirituality. Bolivia reaffirms its commitment to dialogue based on evidence and science, in support of fairer and decolonized drug control policies.
Colombia (Ambassador, Permanent Mission to the United Nations): Colombia welcomes the opportunity to participate in this discussion and appreciates the work carried out in the critical review of coca leaf. This represents important progress in acknowledging the leaf’s low toxicity, low risk of dependence, and potential therapeutic and medicinal benefits—findings consistent with existing scientific and ethnographic evidence. Colombia contributed analyses of coca-based products available in the country, including data on their nutritional value as sources of calcium, iron, and fiber, as well as their cultural significance. Colombia emphasizes the need for the report to better differentiate between the mere presence of stimulant elements and actual dependence. The stimulant compounds in coca leaf differ fundamentally from those in cocaine for recreational use and must be described as such to avoid misinterpretation. The report should also clarify that traditional coca preparations do not extract cocaine and that such extraction is chemically and economically unfeasible. The coca leaf holds deep cultural, spiritual, medicinal, and social significance for the peoples of Latin America. Evaluations of its use must incorporate these dimensions and respect indigenous and intercultural health systems. Colombia values the committee’s evidence-based approach and stresses the importance of ensuring that WHO’s review of psychoactive substances continues to rely on scientific, objective, and culturally sensitive assessments that recognize the traditional knowledge and practices of coca-growing peoples.
Peru (Carlos Figueroa Henostroza, Executive President, National Commission for Development and Drug-Free Life): Peru welcomes the WHO Expert Committee’s work and acknowledges the evaluation presented. However, it notes that the review does not fully reflect the documentation submitted by Peru, which contains crucial evidence related to coca leaf. Peru recognizes the ancestral and traditional use of coca leaf but emphasizes that the majority of current cultivation is for illicit purposes, fueling the production of cocaine and harming families worldwide. While Peru does not seek to stigmatize the coca plant, it insists that controls remain in place until its harmlessness is scientifically proven. The report includes claims without sufficient scientific support, such as coca leaf use in school nutrition programs. There is insufficient data on dosage, varieties, and alkaloid content. The evidence shows that coca leaf mitigates symptoms of altitude sickness like dizziness and nausea but does not cure the condition. The report also omits the colonial history in which coca was used to exploit indigenous labor. In Peru, ancestral use persists among a minority of families who must be respected, but large-scale cultivation now extends into nontraditional jungle areas, harming indigenous communities. Removing coca leaf from Schedule I without proof of safety could increase production and trafficking. Peru calls for a rigorous technical review of all submitted evidence before any changes are made.
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR, Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section): The OHCHR welcomes the opportunity to participate in this critical review, marking an unprecedented moment for the rights of Indigenous peoples. The process must be grounded in human rights. The coca leaf has been stigmatized and criminalized due to its association with cocaine, resulting in violations of cultural identity, traditional medicine, and self-determination as recognized in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). Prohibition has fueled militarization, forced eradication, environmental damage, and the loss of livelihoods. This review is an opportunity to address structural discrimination and historical injustice. A human rights–based approach requires acknowledging this history and ensuring that recommendations contribute to repair and redress. The debate has been dominated by two limited perspectives: a scientific approach focused solely on alkaloid content and a prohibitive approach that criminalizes traditional practices. The review must move beyond both, integrating cultural and human rights perspectives. Free, prior, and informed consent must guide the entire process, with meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples—especially women and elders, who are the main knowledge keepers and cultivators. Indigenous knowledge of the nutritional, medicinal, and ceremonial uses of coca leaf must be incorporated to safeguard heritage and promote sustainable alternatives. The review should align with Article 24 of the UN Declaration, recognizing Indigenous peoples’ rights to traditional medicine and health practices. UN human rights mechanisms, including the Expert Mechanism and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, have affirmed these rights and criticized drug control policies that contradict them. OHCHR urges WHO to anchor the review in human rights law and ensure that Indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination, participation, and consent are fully respected.
Opción da VIDA (Rehabilitation Center for Drugs, Alcoholism, Addictions …), Peru: I am a former executive president of VIDA and have over 40 years of experience in policies related to coca. I will speak about the relationship between the modification of the legal status of the coca plant as a consequence of the request for the critical review by Colombia and the international regime for drug control. This regime is made up of provisions from international treaties, as well as the criminal legislation of Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina. It is based on prohibitions, states of exception, and various forms of administrative control, including sanctions. These measures establish monopoly practices aimed at extinguishing biodiversity, ignoring the plant’s domestication and use for more than 8,000 years. Has this been successful? No. As shown by the UNODC and IMB, each year the area and volume of coca cultivated on the eastern side of the Andes has not substantially changed, aside from temporary peaks or reductions in individual countries. Each year between 300,000 and 350,000 hectares of coca are grown by Andean farmers impoverished by the lack of land and viable alternative economic opportunities. This forces them deeper into the Amazon region. The programs for alternative development are unsustainable; the cultivation of flagship crops such as cocoa, coffee, and palm oil depends on international market prices, leading to soil exhaustion, migration, and deforestation of the primary Amazon forest. When the police confiscate large quantities, they are quickly replaced with new supply. Advances in technology have further increased productivity in cultivation and extraction. If we have learned anything in the last 60 years, it is that our efforts must be directed at illegal derivatives of coca, not the plant itself. By criminalizing the plant and its legal uses, and including it on the list of controlled substances in the conventions, we are perpetuating a vicious cycle — displacing coca production into new forested areas, maintaining cycles of high illegal profit, rural poverty, and punishing eight million Indigenous people across the Andean and Amazon regions. As stated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ancestral knowledge is recognized by UNESCO, the ILO, and the Convention on Biological Diversity through the Nagoya Protocol and others. The first step is for representatives of all countries to understand that legally changing coca’s status does not weaken their obligations to prevent its diversion into illicit economies. On the contrary, it would allow for more efficient control within reduced geographical and social spaces. On behalf of thousands of Indigenous citizens who do not feel represented by the government of my country, Peru, I request that the committee recommend removing the coca plant from the list of controlled substances. Thank you.
Roger Carvajal, Director / Doctor, University of San Andrés, Bolivia: I wish to present some points of view on the perception of the coca leaf. Coca is a plant deeply tied to traditional knowledge. It is used to treat respiratory infections and other ailments, including depression and fatigue, and this is well recognized by both traditional and academic medicine. Nevertheless, some aspects require further study to complement this understanding under the review of the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. In vitro studies have shown that the coca leaf is largely harmless and even protects the viability of cultured cells.
Marie Nougier, International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC): IDPC is a global network of over 190 civil society and community organisations that come together to promote drug policies grounded in social justice and human rights. IDPC welcomes the fact that the Critical Review Report highlights the various health benefits of the coca leaf – while concluding that the plant does not pose harmful risks to health. Nonetheless, in this intervention, we wish to highlight four areas of concern in relation to the Report’s findings, with the hope that these might be addressed in the final version of the Report. Firstly, the Report overlooks the ancestral and cultural significance of the coca leaf. The coca leaf has been cultivated and used for traditional, nutritional, religious and medicinal purposes for millennia by Indigenous Peoples from the Andean-Amazonian region. The inclusion of the plant in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention was a historical error, grounded in racist and colonial arguments. This has led many traditional coca growers, users, Indigenous representatives and civil society organisations to call for the removal of the plant from the 1961 Convention. Secondly, the Report does not give due attention to other traditional and industrial uses of the plant. Coca use has now spread among the general population and geographically into the northern Andes, the Western Amazon Basin, Chile and Argentina, for a wide range of cultural and traditional purposes, including in religious ceremonies, for its medicinal properties, as a nutritional supplement, as an aid to collective exchange and discussions, and as a stimulant for work. This should be reflected in the Critical Review Report. Thirdly, little attention is given to the health and human rights impacts of punitive policies in coca cultivation areas. Today, thousands of families depend on coca cultivation for survival. Forced eradication campaigns, especially in fragile ecosystems and Indigenous lands, have caused devastating harms for affected communities’ rights to safe water, to food security, to health, and to a healthy environment. Forced eradication, weak land tenure rights, and failed alternative development programmes have led to the displacement of coca growing communities to more remote areas, exacerbating poverty and marginalisation. In 2025, 20 UN Human Rights mechanisms commended this critical review as an important step towards aligning international drug policy with the rights and traditions of Indigenous Peoples and to prevent the release of toxic chemicals into the environment. Fourth, while cocaine can be extracted from the coca leaf relatively easily from large quantities near cultivation sites, the same would not apply to retail legal markets for products like coca tea. It is neither practical nor profitable to seek to extract cocaine from coca tea products. In addition, the Report seems to provide its own conclusion regarding its ‘ease of convertibility’ into cocaine. Ease of extraction does not equate to ease of conversion – especially for products derived from the coca leaf. Furthermore, it is important to recall that were the coca leaf removed from the 1961 Convention, the cultivation of coca for the illegal production of cocaine, or any diversion to the illegal market, would remain illegal. States parties would therefore continue to be bound by their obligations under article 26 of the 1961 Single Convention, and article 3.1 of the 1988 Convention. Based on these considerations, we call on the ECDD to recommend the full de-scheduling of the coca leaf in its natural form from the international drug control system. Thank you very much for your attention and I wish you a fruitful session.
Chantelle Newton, Drug Free America Foundation (USA): We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the critical review of coca leaf. While acknowledging its cultural role in certain Indigenous communities, we must emphasize that coca leaf is the raw material for cocaine, a substance driving immense global harm—from production and trafficking to rising treatment demand and theft. The global cocaine market is shattering records, fueling substance use disorders, violence, and instability worldwide. According to the recent 2025 report, global output has reached over 3,700 metric tons of cocaine—an increase of 34% from the previous year. Cocaine use has risen globally, spreading beyond traditional markets into Africa and Asia. Despite record seizures, supply continues to meet rising demand, underscoring the profitability of illicit markets. Cocaine is primarily trafficked from Andean countries to North America, Europe, and increasingly, Western and Central Africa—reinforcing that coca cultivation is a global driver of instability and harm. Coca leaf is the basis for both powder and crack cocaine, the latter with severe health and social consequences that disproportionately affect marginalized populations. Communities worldwide have been destabilized by crack markets, fueling violence and intergenerational trauma. For me, this is deeply personal—my family has been severely impacted by crack cocaine. My mother would disappear for months at a time, my uncle was murdered, and a childhood friend died of a cocaine-related heart attack, leaving behind children. These experiences mirror what countless families endure globally. There is little rigorous evidence supporting claimed therapeutic benefits of coca leaf, and the risks of diversion remain high. Coca cultivation is tightly linked to cocaine supply, and its normalization risks fueling the illicit trade. Given record levels of cocaine use and associated harms, we urge the committee to maintain strict controls and uphold international obligations protecting public health, particularly under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Isabel Pereira, Research Coordinator, Center for Law, Justice and Society Studies, Dejusticia (Colombia): On behalf of organizations in Colombia working toward drug policies based on human rights, evidence, and public health, we consider the inclusion of coca leaf in the list of controlled substances a historic mistake made without understanding its risk profile or traditional uses. This review should correct that. The INCB has long given a negative view of coca leaf, in contrast with evidence showing its traditional, medicinal, and industrial uses. It is used as fertilizer, natural dye, and even for local innovation projects under strict control. These uses extend beyond Indigenous territories into urban and rural communities. Recognizing these practices would promote coherence in the global drug control system and respect Indigenous rights.
European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD): The forthcoming evaluation of the coca leaf by the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence offers a moment of historic importance. It invites the international community to reflect on the coherence and fairness of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961). Yet it must be acknowledged that, under the current structure of the Convention, an effective descheduling of the coca leaf from Schedule I is legally impossible without a formal treaty amendment. The coca leaf (Erythroxylon Lam.) holds profound cultural, medicinal, and nutritional significance for Indigenous and Andean communities. Nevertheless, since 1961 it has been treated as equivalent to cocaine. This is because coca, alongside opium and cannabis, constitutes one of the three botanical pillars upon which the Convention’s control system was built. Under Articles 2(6), 26, and 27, the coca leaf is subject to all control measures applicable to Schedule I substances, irrespective of its formal inclusion in the Schedule. Therefore, even if the ECDD were to recommend, and the Commission were to approve, its removal, the same
control obligations would remain in place. Such descheduling would result only in a change of terminology, not of substance. It could even generate regressive effects: 1. The coca leaf would remain fully controlled; 2. It would lose access to Article 2(9), which permits exemptions for industrial or non-medical uses; 3. The system would face a new inconsistency, applying narcotic drug controls to a substance no longer defined as one. This would neither correct a historical error nor advance the decriminalisation of traditional and medicinal practices. Instead, it would perpetuate the rigidity of a system that has constrained Andean States and Indigenous peoples for over six decades. If this process is to honour the principles of the United Nations — respect for cultural diversity, human rights, and scientific evidence — it must move beyond scheduling debates to address the structural limitations of the Convention itself. We therefore urge Member States, the WHO, and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs to: Recognise the legal and structural barriers inherent in the Convention; Acknowledge the distinct cultural and pharmacological nature of the coca leaf; and Initiate an inclusive dialogue toward a coherent and equitable reform of the international drug control system. Only through such reflection can we move from symbolic revision to substantive reform, and honour the spirit of the United Nations Charter by upholding the dignity and rights of the peoples for whom the coca leaf remains a living heritage. In memoriam Joep Oomen, Jorge Hurtado and so many friends of the coca leaf
Demi (Community Leader, San Francisco, Cauca, Colombia): I would like to express my contribution from the Indigenous worldview and the ancestral use of the coca leaf. Coca is a millennial plant essential to the peoples of Cauca, linking spirituality, health, and balance within families and communities. Known as ish (?) in the Nasa Yuwe language, coca ensures harmony and good living (wet wet fxich?). It is used by ancestral leaders in rituals for family integration and spiritual cleansing. From our worldview, coca leaf is vital for the survival of Indigenous peoples and must receive special treatment in drug policy discussions. It is medicinal and sacred, central to our culture and existence.
Zara Snapp, Instituto RIA (Mexico): For over 60 years, the coca leaf has been unfairly classified without distinguishing between the ancestral plant and its derivatives. Today, we can correct that injustice. Coca leaf is rich in vitamins B1, B2, C, and E, calcium, phosphorus, iron, and magnesium. It contains proteins, antioxidants, and anti-inflammatory properties. Studies show no harmful effects from traditional use. Regulated coca cultivation could support rural development, allowing the plant to be processed into flour, energy bars, infusions, and cosmetics. Declassification would recognize its economic and cultural potential, shifting it from stigma to sustainability. As with coffee, to ban coca entirely is to erase cultures and economies. WHO has the opportunity to correct a historical injustice and align policy with evidence and respect for Indigenous peoples.
Dora Trojano, Alianza Colombia “Coca for Peace” (Colombia): I speak on behalf of people and organizations conducting applied research on the potentials of coca leaf as an agricultural product with nutraceutical and pharmacological value. This review is a historic opportunity to move beyond moralistic classifications that have stigmatized the plant and its growers. Our recent laboratory analyses in northern Cauca, in Indigenous territories of San Francisco and Toribio, reveal that coca leaf contributes to food diversification, household income, and ecological sustainability. Samples analyzed for alkaloids—including cocaine and its precursors—showed controlled and consistent levels under traditional cultivation. Further interdisciplinary research could help develop legal, sustainable uses of coca in nutrition and medicine. Recognizing coca’s nutritional content—protein, iron, calcium, potassium, magnesium—is essential in a world concerned with food security. We urge democratization of knowledge about coca leaf, in line with CESCR General Comment No. 25.
Dawson White (Independent Researcher, United States of America): My name is Dawson White, an independent researcher studying plant biodiversity and evolution. I recently co-authored a study in Science defining scientific consensus on coca. The current conflation of coca and cocaine distorts science, disrespects culture, and sustains unjust policies. Several countries mistakenly report cocaine toxicity as coca leaf use. There are four cultivated coca varieties, domesticated independently thousands of years ago, proving its deep cultural and agricultural roots—dating back 9,000 years. Over 11 million people use coca daily as a mild stimulant and herbal remedy, comparable to tea or coffee. The WHO review confirms almost no evidence of harm. Concerns about diversion to cocaine production are overstated: 90% of coca currently goes into the illicit market precisely because legal avenues are blocked. Legal, regulated coca markets could reduce illicit productivity. New coca strains do not contain more cocaine than traditional ones; higher cocaine yields come from agricultural techniques, not genetics. The current scheduling is ineffective, as shown by rising cocaine production in Colombia. Rescheduling would support research, public health, and Indigenous rights under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration by traditional producers and consumers urges the WHO to remove coca shrub from the list of controlled substances, recognize its medicinal and cultural roles, differentiate it from cocaine, and enable regulated access. Current scientific evidence and stakeholder consensus clearly support reconstructing coca policy in line with science and human rights.
(Speaker): A cultural heritage of a number of communities in the Andean and Amazonian regions. This also means traditional use, which is regulated under international law and subject to several protections. The coca leaf is placed under international control under the 1961 Convention as a narcotic drug that may produce dependence. Hence the mandate of this Expert Committee on Drug Dependence—to assess dependence and related medical risks. It is critically important to recall that the drug control conventions are frameworks directed primarily at the pharmaceutical and medical sectors; they are not cultural or agricultural treaties. When we read these conventions, it is clear that they focus on medical and pharmaceutical matters, not on the broader social or cultural uses of substances like the coca leaf, which may fall under other legal instruments. It is important to recall this international legal context. The mandate of this committee, while essential, is limited in scope. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs inherited a series of earlier treaties from the early 20th century that first regulated opium, and later included coca leaf and cannabis. Article 2, paragraph 6, is central to the Convention, establishing opium, coca leaf, and cannabis as the three foundational substances under control. This article, inherited from earlier treaties, fixes Schedule I measures for these substances regardless of specific scheduling discussions. I am respectful of the committee’s independence and will refrain from advising on recommendations. However, the scientific outcome of the assessment of coca leaf—which is warranted, needed, and long overdue—should be carefully distinguished from its legal interpretation. Otherwise, there is a risk that the results could have no normative effect, or even one counterproductive to the intended outcome. There is also a risk of politicization of WHO’s science-based recommendations. Therefore, I advise separating the scientific findings from the legal consequences. Thank you very much.
Frédéric Bayer (Permanent Mission of France to the UN, France): Thank you very much. I will be brief. First, I would like to thank the WHO Secretariat for organizing this important information session, which highlights the complexity of coca cultivation and consumption. France reiterates its strong interest in participating in the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence and appreciates the key role of WHO, in conjunction with UNODC, in addressing the global drug problem through evidence-based approaches. In our view, there is a need for more robust data on the health and social impacts of coca leaf use and cocaine use, including security and community effects. In the absence of sufficient data on both potential benefits and harmful health consequences—direct or indirect—the French authorities do not support declassification of the coca leaf at this stage. Thank you very much.
Chair (WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence): Thank you very much. That concludes the statements in this opening session. We have received sixteen statements from various sectors and countries, reflecting a diversity of perspectives that will support a far-reaching reflection by the committee. The richness of these contributions will help the experts approach their discussion comprehensively. I almost thought my colleague Justice had been speaking to the interveners, given how often “justice” was invoked—but clearly, they were referring to something else. This afternoon, Justice will indeed have his intervention. I would like to thank the experts who have listened attentively throughout this opening session, which defined the committee’s mandate and the basis for decision-making. Please reflect on the interventions in light of your mandate and the evidence before you. This process has been transparent from the beginning—from the open information session last year, through member state questionnaires, the review report, the critical review report, the comments received, and today’s interventions. It is a transparent and robust process. The last intervention reminded us of the importance of grounding our conclusions in strong evidence and remaining within the scope of our mandate under the conventions. I would also like to thank Anna, who coordinated this session and managed the online participation of more than 195 registrants, as well as our technical officers, Susie for document preparation, and Maroa for ensuring the smooth organization of this meeting. Finally, thank you to our interpreters, without whom this would have been the Tower of Babel. This concludes the open session. We will break for lunch and reconvene at 2 p.m. for the closed meeting of the expert committee and observers. A reserved table is available in the dining hall to the right of the exit for those who wish to continue the discussion informally. Thank you all very much.