WHO Coca Leaf Decision Keeps the Plant in Schedule I

In the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, a mamo of Colombia’s Arhuaco people keeps a pouch of leaves that his community calls el ayu. In Geneva, a committee of experts spent part of this year deciding what the rest of the world is permitted to call it. The WHO coca leaf decision came down on December 2, and it left the leaf exactly where colonial-era treaty drafters put it.

The World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended that coca leaf remain in Schedule I of the United Nations drug conventions, the most restrictive tier of international control, as reported by Marijuana Moment in an article first published by the harm reduction magazine Filter.

What makes the outcome remarkable is the paperwork sitting underneath it. The WHO’s own commissioned review, released in September, had already described daily coca chewing across the Andes as a long-standing cultural practice carrying no significant harm — and described coca control programs as carrying quite a lot.

The reasoning the committee gave

The committee’s stated grounds were not about the leaf’s effects on the people who use it. They were about what chemists can do to it. Cocaine, the committee wrote, is easy to extract from coca leaf, with high yield and high profitability.

It pointed to a reported 34 percent year-on-year rise in cocaine production in 2023, with some countries at historic highs, and concluded that loosening controls on the leaf in that climate would pose a serious public health risk. It also acknowledged the leaf’s cultural and therapeutic importance to Indigenous peoples, and noted that some national legal frameworks already carve out exemptions for traditional use.

Reform advocates, campaigners and Indigenous organizations quoted by Marijuana Moment rejected the logic outright. A coalition of Indigenous producers and consumers had written to the WHO in October asking it to draw a clear line between traditional coca use and the problems associated with cocaine. “It was more of a political decision than a scientific one,” Jaison Perez Villafaña, the Arhuaco mamo, told Filter.

What the September review actually found

This is the part American readers rarely hear, because the leaf almost never reaches us except as a synonym for the drug. According to the review’s findings as reported, traditional coca chewing has produced no documented deaths, shows no significant dependence or abuse potential, and may have therapeutic uses including anti-inflammatory effects and modest improvements in blood glucose after meals. The leaf itself contains less than 1 percent cocaine alkaloid.

The review also collected evidence on the other side of the ledger — the health record of prohibition rather than of the plant:

• Research cited in the review linked aerial spraying of glyphosate-based herbicides over coca fields to increased miscarriages and to more medical visits for skin and respiratory illness in targeted communities.
• Another study found that forced eradication pushed farmers to intensify production on remaining plots with heavier agro-chemical use, raising their own exposure.
• Prohibition continues to shape daily life in growing regions, from lost crops to communities caught between eradication forces and trafficking networks.

Those pressures are the same ones driving the crop-swap experiments we covered in Peru’s bamboo substitution program.

Other plants the treaties leave alone

Critics have long argued the plant-level ban is selective. Several plants used to make controlled substances are not themselves scheduled internationally.

Why this matters

We want to be precise about what changed and what did not. The ECDD issues recommendations; it is not the political body that writes treaty schedules, and the reported material does not state a timeline for any further step. Nothing in this outcome alters US law, DEA scheduling, or the narrow decocainized-extract carve-out that keeps a certain soft drink legal.

What did change is the paper trail. For the first time, a WHO-commissioned review has set out on the record that traditional coca use is not killing anyone and that coca control campaigns have measurable health costs — and the committee declined to act on it anyway, citing cocaine output. That gap between the evidence and the recommendation is now documented in the system’s own files, and it will be quoted for years.

For the Arhuaco, for Quechua and Aymara households, for the millions who chew leaf or brew it as tea, practice continues as it has for millennia. Villafaña said as much: recognition would be a relief, but its absence will not stop anyone. The leaf has outlasted a great deal of paperwork already.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the World Health Organization decide about coca leaf?

On December 2, the WHO's Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended that coca leaf remain in Schedule I of the United Nations drug conventions, the most restrictive category of international control. The committee cited how easily and profitably cocaine can be extracted from the leaf, along with rising cocaine production. It declined to move the leaf to a less restrictive schedule.

Why did the WHO committee keep coca leaf in Schedule I?

The Expert Committee on Drug Dependence pointed to the simplicity, high yield and profitability of extracting cocaine from coca leaf, and to a reported 34 percent year-on-year increase in cocaine production in 2023, with some countries at historically high levels. In that context it judged that reducing international controls on coca leaf could pose a serious public health risk.

What did the WHO's own coca leaf review actually find?

The WHO-commissioned review released in September found that millions of people across the Andes consume coca leaf daily as part of a long-standing cultural practice without significant negative effects. It reported no documented fatalities from traditional coca chewing, no significant dependence or abuse potential, and possible therapeutic uses including anti-inflammatory effects and modest improvements in post-meal glucose. It also documented public health harms associated with coca control strategies.

Is coca leaf the same thing as cocaine?

No. Coca leaf is a plant that contains less than 1 percent cocaine alkaloid, and it is traditionally chewed or brewed as tea across the Andes. Cocaine powder and crack are refined products made through chemical processing. Reform advocates have repeatedly asked the UN system to draw that distinction explicitly.

Does the WHO coca leaf decision change US law?

No. The recommendation concerns the scheduling of coca leaf under United Nations drug conventions, not domestic American statutes, DEA scheduling or FDA status. Nothing in the reported material indicates any change to US law.

What happens next after the WHO committee's recommendation?

The Expert Committee on Drug Dependence issues recommendations rather than setting treaty schedules itself, and commentators have noted that its recommendations can be taken up or rejected by UN political bodies. No timeline or next step for the coca leaf recommendation has been stated in the available reporting.

Are other plants used to make drugs also banned under UN treaties?

Several are not. Ephedra, which is used to manufacture methamphetamine, along with psilocybin-containing mushrooms and mescaline-producing cacti, all remain unscheduled at the plant level under international treaties. Critics argue this makes the plant-level ban on coca leaf inconsistent.