Tag: COP9

The Stubborn Squad

Photo: Olrat
In trying to engineer consumer choices, COP9 delegates persist in their Luddite approach.
By George Gay
A lot of silly comparisons have been drawn between the October/November Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the Framework Convention on Climate Control and the November Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). One even had it that the two were of equal importance. No. The first concerned an existential crisis for humanity. The second seemingly dallied with dissonance theory as it examined how a single organization could, at one and the same time, try to stop people smoking while strengthening the supply chains that get cigarettes into their hands. In my view, the difference in importance between the two was such that, given COP26 ended with few firm significant commitments, and, consequently, the earth is set to become uninhabitable by humans, the battle of words waged over COP9 amounted to little more than the proverbial fight between two bald men over a comb.
But others clearly thought differently, so the pressure on the Parties to the FCTC was intense ahead of and during this year’s COP, or as intense as it could have been given the secretive nature of the event. Perhaps the intensity was ramped up because the tobacco harm reduction (THR) deniers at the FCTC, like the climate change deniers, were starting to feel the heat; were starting to show signs that they were coming to realize they had lost or were losing the argument; and because those who support a THR strategy were glimpsing light at the end of the tunnel. Perhaps, too, it was because the Covid-19 pandemic had made people more familiar and comfortable with internet meetings and performances, which enabled THR advocates and consumers to broadcast their side of the argument throughout COP9, while the quit-or-die protagonists and THR deniers at the FCTC, as has become usual, were hunkered down, almost incommunicado—shut off from the infectious ideas and opinions of others, including those whose lives they were attempting to manipulate and control.
It is not without irony that the failures of the WHO in respect of the devastating pandemic led to changes to the COP9 and MOP2 meetings.
Of course, there was some official communication around COP9 as when in August the Convention Secretariat issued a media release blaming the Covid-19 pandemic for the fact that planned face-to-face sessions at The Hague, Netherlands, had had to be ditched in favor of virtual meetings; on Nov. 8–13 in the case of COP9; and on Nov. 15–18 in the case of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP2) to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. It is not without irony that the failures of the World Health Organization—along with those of many governments, institutions, companies and individuals—in respect of the devastating pandemic led to changes to the COP9 and MOP2 meetings. Perhaps if the WHO had had its eye more on viruses than on tobacco … Oh, never mind. But it is worth noting here that in the same release, the Secretariat announced it had “released the first group of documents…” relating to COP9, because the use of the word “released,” rather than, say, “published,” is instructive as to who seems to be in the driving seat at the FCTC—and it isn’t the Parties.

Advertisement
Influencing Product Choices
Looked at one way, the fighting at and on the fringes of COP9 was over the promotion of different products and methods aimed at influencing the consumer product choices made by smokers who are being told, by those who claim to know best, that they, the smokers, should quit the product they are currently using, even though its consumption is perfectly legal. It makes me wonder how many of those calling for smokers to quit their habit drink alcohol, which is probably, in the West, the most socially destructive legal consumer product available—the only legal consumer product I can think of that dulls the brain when used as intended by manufacturers. Hypocrisy, like alcohol, is legal and is leaned upon heavily.
The fighting is justified by both sides on the grounds that it is over the most efficacious way of getting smokers to quit and thereby adding a few more years to their lives. Whether all smokers want to make this trade-off seems to be seen as of little importance and, in this respect, I would like to applaud Clive Bates for including the following gentle but important reminder in his pre-COP9 published piece “Prohibitionists at Work: How the WHO Damages Public Health Through Hostility to Tobacco Harm Reduction”: “Not everything in life is subordinated to maximizing life expectancy.” Drinkers, of course, will be aware of this.
What we are witnessing is a commercial fight between the purveyors of nicotine-replacement therapy products, which are promoted by the WHO and not discounted by THR supporters, and the purveyors of THR products, which are frowned upon by the WHO.
In reality, and in part, what we are witnessing is a commercial fight between the purveyors of nicotine-replacement therapy products, which are promoted by the WHO and not discounted by THR supporters, and the purveyors of THR products, which are frowned upon by the WHO. But, to my way of thinking, there is a vital difference between the approaches of the two sides. I am not going to go into details here because most of the relevant arguments are already familiar to readers of this magazine and because anybody who wants to refresh their knowledge may visit Bates’ excellent piece. But at its most basic, the difference amounts to the fact that those pushing the THR message are offering less risky and hugely less risky substitute products to those smokers who are considering or who have decided they want to quit smoking highly risky combustibles and have not been able to do so using other methods, while the FCTC is intent on discouraging the use of THR products and, instead, forcing all smokers to quit, largely through pricing them out of the market by encouraging governments to apply unconscionable levels of taxes. Unfortunately, some of those who support THR are not above calling for higher taxes on combustibles or describing tobacco tax hikes as “progress” or “success.”

Advertisement
Sensible Voices
Seemingly, the main item to have emerged from the bureaucratic thicket of the COP9 concerned a decision to launch an investment fund that will offer another source of financial support. “This lays a foundation for financial stability for the future implementation of the WHO FCTC,” a post-conference press note stated. “The fund will complement existing revenue received from Parties through assessed contributions and extra budgetary support.”
I don’t know how this fund will be operated and possibly wouldn’t understand it if I were to be told, but something about the announcement strikes me as important. It seems to me to indicate the Secretariat is perhaps concerned about future contributions from the Parties, and, if this is true, I would say it shows the glimmer of an unusual connection with reality. Sensible voices are starting to be raised. The Philippines’ foreign affairs secretary, Teodoro Locsin Jr., reportedly told the conference that the latest scientific information must be considered in trying to solve the global smoking problem, adding that a balanced and evidence-based approach to safer nicotine products was needed. The Philippines was making progress in moving away from harmful products by introducing products with similar satisfaction but causing far less harm.
At the same time, if the new financial arrangements are predicted to make the FCTC’s star shine brighter in the future, I think the observers are looking through the wrong end of the telescope, unless, at the same time, the FCTC shifts its focus from quit-or-die to harm reduction. The Philippines’ delegation bravely set the scene for a new direction that, if it is not taken, will see the FCTC’s star implode under the weight of its own contradictions. For instance, the U.K. cannot in all conscience turn up in Panama in 2023, where COP10 is scheduled to be held, showing support for a quit-or-die policy while prescribing harm reduction devices at home. And other countries will surely follow this lead. The Secretariat and its allies are defying logic, and it is possible to do that only for so long. I would venture to say their time is running out.
A Healthy Body Securing the Supply Chain
Meanwhile, it surely has to be the case that the three-year-old MOP will collapse even though it, too, is to seek out a new funding stream. The idea that a so-called world health organization is involved in policing the illegal trade in tobacco products again defies logic and seems to hark back to the time when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seemed to become directly involved (it might still be so involved) in sending underage people into shops to catch retailers selling tobacco products to such people.
It might take a little time for the MOP nonsense to be exposed, of course, because there is unlikely to be any opposition from the tobacco industry. A press note published to coincide with the opening day of MOP2 said, in part, “During this meeting, Parties will discuss a number of issues, including ways of securing the supply chain of tobacco products….” You have to wonder whether this was meant as a joke. An international health organization is bent on securing the supply chain of tobacco products? Really?
Certainly, the MOP is a confused entity, partly because of the hopelessly optimistic goal built into the name of the protocol that it is supposed to oversee. Announcing MOP2, a press note referred in the first two paragraphs to its aims as being eliminating, which is in the name, but also stopping and combatting the illegal trade of tobacco products. I guess such vagueness helps guard against the time that an audit of progress is made.
As far as I could see, MOP2 ended with little more than a few vague promises whose meaninglessness was underscored by the overuse of the word important. “Importantly, MOP2 agreed to strengthen international cooperation to ensure greater assistance between Parties—an important step that is expected to accelerate the adoption of best practices and support the introduction of innovations,” a closing note said. “The Parties also adopted a strategy for mechanisms of assistance and mobilization of financial resources to deepen the implementation of the Protocol.” Hmm.
An international health organization is bent on securing the supply chain of tobacco products? Really?
Having said this, I have some sympathy for the WHO. Once most countries had signed up to the ludicrous idea that a global health organization should become involved through the FCTC in trying, among other things, to engineer consumer choices, it was headed into unfamiliar territory. However, it has only itself to blame for the Luddite approach it has taken in the face of the development of new generation tobacco and nicotine products that are far less risky than are combustible cigarettes and that for many smokers provide a satisfactory substitute for combustibles.
OK, some might argue—in a near-perfect world, but one in which the rights of cigarette smokers were, as usual, pushed to the side—that the WHO might be justified in taking the actions it has. After all, it claims the global prevalence of tobacco use among people 15 years of age and older decreased from 29 percent in 2005 to 22 percent in 2019 and will continue to decrease. Of course, it would be impossible to say why this decrease has occurred, but even if you accept that it is down to FCTC strategies, that doesn’t mean those strategies should be continued exclusively in the future if there are new strategies that can speed things along.
In addition, we are in the grip of a global pandemic, which has, in general, been poorly handled and led to the deaths of millions of people; we are likely to be ravaged by other pandemics because no meaningful preventative measures are being taken; we are facing an existential environmental crisis; and we are dying in ever-increasing numbers from a global pollution pandemic. At such a time, we need the WHO to focus on risks such as these because these are the risks over which people have little or no control. Smoking is a choice.
George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.

December 1, 2021
‘Good COP, Bad COP’ Awards Announced
Tobacco harm reduction (THR) advocates have handed out “Good COP, Bad COP” awards following the ninth Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) from Nov. 8-12.
Banned from participating in the gathering the THR advocates organized a global livestream that ran simultaneously to the COP9.
Dubbed sCOPe, the round-the-clock YouTube simulcast attracted significant attention, adding to increasing international pressure on the WHO to embrace safer nicotine products, not demonize them.
Nancy Loucas of the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates says sCOPe gave a voice to leading consumer advocates who were shut out of COP9. The focus, however, must now move to preparing for COP10 in 2023 where harm reduction products will be a key discussion for delegates.
“Those of us passionate about safer nicotine products must reach out to the likes of public health officials and influencers. We need to humanize this debate and show how vaping has saved the lives of millions of ex-smokers,” said Loucas.
sCOPe’s Good COP awards:
The “Wow, Someone’s Actually Telling Us What’s Going On” Award went to COPWATCH for getting on the inside and giving the world real-time insights online.
The “Give the Man a Cigar” Award went to Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary, Teodoro Locsin Jr, for standing up to COP9 delegates by promoting the use of science in tobacco control.
The “I am the Evidence” Award went to passionate U.S. consumer advocate and sCOPe panellist, Liana Hudspeth.
sCOPe’s Bad COP awards:
The “You Shouldn’t Really Say That About Yourself” Award goes to FCTC Head Adriana Blanco Marquizo for her “How industry weaponizes science” Tweet, which the THR advocates described as “very bizarre.”
The “Our Proposal Won’t Do A Thing But Delegates Loved It” Award went to Iran, whose government holds a sizable stake in its domestic tobacco industry.
The “Where the Hell Is Wally” Award went to WHO sponsor, anti-vape crusader, and American billionaire Michael Bloomberg for trading in COP9 and instead flying to the COP26 Climate Conference in Glasgow.
November 21, 2021
Filipino Delegate Lauded for ‘COP Courage’

Teodoro Locsin Jr.
(Photo: Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs)
Tobacco harm reduction (THR) advocates and vapers have praised Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr. for his insistence at the ninth Conference of the Parties (COP9) that the latest scientific information must be considered to solve the global smoking problem.
“We salute his bravery at COP9 for promoting the Philippines’ balanced and evidence-based approach to safer nicotine products,” said Peter Dator, president of consumer group Vapers PH and Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) member. “Opponents and officials have since done their best to discredit Secretary Locsin and disrespect our country’s democracy and sovereignty, but they have failed badly.”
“In a world where smoking causes 8 million deaths every year, Secretary Locsin has done everyone a huge favor,” said Nancy Loucas, executive coordinator of CAPHRA. “Telling COP9 about the success of ‘far less harmful novel tobacco products’ and the Philippine government’s political support for them was music to the ears of the millions who’ve successful[ly] quit deadly cigarettes via vaping.”

We salute his bravery at COP9 for promoting the Philippines’ balanced and evidence-based approach to safer nicotine products.
Peter Dator, president, Vapers PH
Loucas organized a global livestream called sCOPe during COP9, featuring leading THR experts and consumer advocates. The livestream added to the increasing pressure on the WHO to embrace safer nicotine products.
“How can we trust the WHO and the FCTC when they are afraid of science? In this age of fake news and alternative facts, it is important for governments to take a stand for the facts and know how to sift through the propaganda. This is what Secretary Locsin did at COP9, and I join the Philippine Cabinet and Congress in commending his actions,” said Dator.
Earlier, Locsin had drawn fire from the Philippines Department of Health for stating that tobacco products were a “source of good through taxation” for the Philippines.
The health department said that it was misleading to praise the tobacco industry’s role in raising tax revenues. In 2011, the cost of tobacco-related diseases was estimated at PHP177 billion ($3.54 billion) annually, the agency noted. This was seven times higher than the PHP25.9 billion collected in taxes from tobacco products.
November 16, 2021
COP9 Agrees to Strengthen Funding

Photo: Maksym Yemelyanov
The Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control has closed with an agreement to embark on an innovative multi-million-dollar financial plan to strengthen global tobacco control measures
According to the WHO, a key milestone arising from COP9 is the decision to move forward with the development and launch of an investment fund that will offer a third source of support to help global tobacco control efforts. “This lays a foundation for financial stability for the future implementation of the FCTC,” the global health body wrote in a press note. The fund will complement existing revenue received from Parties through assessed contributions and extra budgetary support.
This new initiative will source financial contributions beyond the traditional health sector, establishing a capital investment fund, the earned revenue of which will be used to support the activities of the convention. Recognizing the unique skills required to manage and sustain the fund, the governing body of the FCTC will be seeking the guidance of the World Bank, and will create an oversight committee, comprised of experts in financial and investment management representing the six WHO Regions and including observers from civil society to help guide the Fund.
The event also saw the highest level of participation since the initiation of the COPs. In this week’s event, 161 Parties were present.
For the first time, the whole of COP9 was open to the media, who observed sessions where tobacco control measures were discussed between the Parties, according to the WHO.
“This demonstrates the enormous power of this COP9 where 161 sovereign states debated for four and a half days, and by consensus decided which topics they wanted to decide upon in this session, and which others they want to defer to COP 10,” said Adriana Blanco Marquizo, head of the convention secretariat.
COP9 also adopted the “Declaration on WHO FCTC and recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic”, proposed by Iran, and co-sponsored by a broad group of parties. It stresses the need to protect public health policy from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry, and that tobacco control measures, particularly increases in tobacco taxes, should be an integral part in pandemic recovery efforts.

November 14, 2021
‘Pro-Tobacco’ Remarks Draw Ire in Philippines

Teodoro Locsin Jr.
(Photo: Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs)
The Philippines Department of Health has distanced itself from the statements made by the Philippine delegation at the ninth Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), reports CNN Philippines.
During the opening of the conference on Nov. 8, Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr. said tobacco is a source of bad health but acknowledged that it “is also a source of good through taxation.”
“Tobacco tax laws fund our poverty reduction, universal health care and Covid-19 recovery programs They underscore the importance of tobacco use and funding of the state’s most important activities,” said Locsin.
The foreign affairs secretary also noted that the tobacco industry is making progress in moving away from harmful products by introducing “products with similar satisfaction but with far less harm.”
The health department said the statements made by the Philippine delegation negate the FCTC principles and undermine the progress the Philippines has made to curb tobacco use.
It also said that it was misleading to praise the tobacco industry’s role in raising tax revenues. In 2011, the cost of tobacco-related diseases was estimated at PHP177 billion ($3.54 billion) annually, the agency noted. This was seven times higher than the PHP25.9 billion collected in taxes from tobacco products.
Tobacco Harm Reduction advocates have praised the Philippines for rebuffing outside forces seeking to derail its tobacco-control policies.
November 11, 2021
New Report Questions WHO’s Vaping Stance
A new report, published today, raises major questions about the anti-vaping arguments and approach of the World Health Organization and billionaire philanthropist Michael Bloomberg.
The WHO and Bloomberg have both made clear their opposition to safer nicotine alternatives despite growing evidence of lower harm and efficacy for smoking cessation.
The WHO’s tobacco control program is funded in part by Bloomberg Philanthropies. In July of this year, the two parties restated their joint position at the launch of the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2021: Addressing New and Emerging Products. In this report, the WHO emphasized that electronic nicotine-delivery systems are “a threat to tobacco control,” are harmful and should be banned or highly regulated. Bloomberg, in his capacity as the WHO Global Ambassador for Noncommunicable Diseases and Injuries and founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies, stated that tobacco companies are marketing new products such as e-cigarettes to “hook another generation on nicotine.”
The International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organizations (INNCO) has now compiled a new dossier, titled Bloomberg, WHO and the Vaping Misinfodemic, containing statements and evidence from healthcare experts, leading academics, politicians, respected journalists and research organizations that question the stance of the WHO and Bloomberg on safer nicotine alternatives to smoking and the relationship between the two parties.
This dossier comes just a week after the U.K. Department of Health and Social Care announced that e-cigarettes could be prescribed on the National Health Service, a world first. That move by the U.K. government provoked significant public debate around the polar opposite views toward safer nicotine alternatives, such as vaping, held by the British government and the WHO.
The dossier also comes as the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control convene to discuss tobacco and nicotine policy.
The outcomes from COP9 discussions will determine how international tobacco control policies are implemented at a country level across the globe to address the fact that 1.1 billion people still smoke worldwide and 8 million die every year from tobacco-related diseases.
The dossier highlights nine reasons why serious questions need to be raised about the WHO’s and Bloomberg’s outright opposition to safer nicotine alternatives to deadly smoking. High on the list is their failure to distinguish between smoking addiction and nicotine dependence.

They are shifting the harm focus from smoking to tobacco to nicotine—where it obviously doesn’t belong.
Charles A. Gardner, executive director, INNCO
“Effectively, through this failure, they are shifting the harm focus from smoking to tobacco to nicotine—where it obviously doesn’t belong—nicotine does not cause cancer, heart or lung disease. Smoking does,” says Charles A. Gardner, executive director at INNCO.
This is backed up in the dossier by expert views on the profound difference between cigarette smoke and the drug, nicotine, including those expressed by Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, senior research fellow in health behaviors at the University of Oxford; John Britton, emeritus professor of epidemiology at the University of Nottingham and special advisor to the Royal College of Physicians on Tobacco; Adam Afriye MP; and a joint statement by 15 past presidents of the world’s top professional society in the field of tobacco control, the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.
The report also scrutinizes the WHO’s role in COP events, with evidence suggesting that it is very controlling in terms of the agenda and attendance. Unlike COP26, these tobacco control COP meetings are described as “all but excluding the media,” “well-known for the routine ejection of the public from proceedings” and “notoriously secretive.”
The dossier also reports on claims that the only tobacco control nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) allowed to attend are those who subscribe to the WHO’s tobacco harm reduction denialist stance. The U.K. Parliament’s All-Party Parliamentary Group for Vaping recently issued a warning about the participation at COP9 of The Union, a major global NGO funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies.
“The Union [International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease] recently issued a major report titled Where Bans are Best: Why Low- and Middle-Income Countries Must Prohibit E-cigarette and HTP Sales to Truly Tackle Tobacco. The Union is one of Bloomberg Philanthropies’ two top tobacco control grantees—the other is the U.S.-based Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,” says Gardner.
“We are a good case in point. INNCO, which represents and supports the rights of 98 million adults worldwide who use safer nicotine to avoid toxic forms of tobacco, has once again been denied observer status at COP9 (as it was denied at COP8 and at COP7).”
The Bloomberg, WHO and the Vaping Misinfodemic report calls for:
Governments around the world to collectively challenge the WHO’s and Bloomberg’s current prohibitionist position on safer nicotine alternatives and to demand to know why, in the face of 8 million tobacco-related deaths every year, the tobacco control field is the only field of public health that rejects harm reduction
The formation of a global independent Tobacco Harm Reduction Working Group comprised of independent scientists, global health experts, specialist academics and people who use safer nicotine (ex-smokers)
Withdrawal of funding from and/or boycott of future Conference Of Parties (COP) tobacco control meetings until the WHO considers the overwhelming evidence that safer nicotine alternatives such as vapes, snus, nicotine pouches and heat-not-burn help smokers quit and save lives
Complete transparency in all tobacco control funding, grants and collaborations involving the WHO and Bloomberg
A full independent and international review into current and past tobacco control dialogue between Bloomberg Philanthropies, Bloomberg-funded NGOs and national governments in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) following allegations in the Philippines that the country’s Food and Drug Administration received funds from Bloomberg groups to support the implementation of the national tobacco control program
A complete review of the WHO’s public web-based Q&A on e-cigarettes, which has been described as “astonishingly bad.”
The dossier also spotlights the EVALI (e-cigarette, or vaping, product-associated lung injuries) crisis of 2019. The U.S.-only outbreak of lung injuries caused by bootleg THC (cannabinoid) vape oils “cut” with one or more adulterants was wrongly reported to be caused by legal nicotine vaping.
According to the report, the EVALI outbreak triggered Bloomberg Philanthropies to invest $160 million over a three-year period to prohibit all e-cigarette flavors other than tobacco flavor. EVALI is also still incorrectly referenced by the WHO in its Q&A on vaping products in response to the question as to whether e-cigarettes cause lung injuries.
However, by early 2020, U.S. authorities identified vitamin E acetate, a cutting agent used in some bootleg THC vaping oils—mainly in U.S. states where cannabis remains illegal—as the primary cause of the outbreak.
As reported in the dossier and which escaped the attention of the world’s media, last month, 75 global experts with no tobacco industry ties, including seven individuals who have served as president of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, wrote to the CDC’s director asking her to change the name “EVALI” because it fails to alert THC vapers to their potential risks and it misleads smokers and nicotine vapers to believe e-cigarettes were the cause.
“I’ve spent 30 years in global health, including three years as a senior advisor on research to the WHO. For most of my career, I worked on HIV, TB, malaria, dengue, rabies, nutrition and child health issues. So, I’ve never seen anything as crazy as what’s happening now in tobacco control. What troubles me is how few people outside of my ‘little’ echo chamber, the community of millions of ex-smokers who use safer nicotine, knows what’s going on,” says Gardner.
“There are 1.1 billion smokers now in the world, a situation that has barely changed in the last 20 years. The anti-harm reduction conservatism of the WHO and Bloomberg is not working.
“That’s why we are calling for a global response in the form of a tobacco harm reduction working group and international governments collectively questioning and challenging the WHO[‘s] and Bloomberg’s prohibitionist and evidence-denialist approach to safer nicotine. Because we are ex-smokers who use safer nicotine. We see what’s happening, and we have great empathy for smokers and ex-smokers who vape.
“The goal is simple. Save lives. Only the starting assumptions and strategies to get there differ. These can be debated. But this debate is unethical if it does not include people who have, themselves, made the transition from smoking to not smoking, using tobacco harm reduction products (nicotine patches, nicotine gum and lozenges, nicotine vapes, nicotine pouches, snus and HTPs).”
“Our future policy recommendations will focus on the need to change research priorities, just as HIV/AIDS activists sought to do in the 1990s. Global tobacco control research priorities today are skewed toward finding harms of alternative nicotine products while ignoring—or not even exploring—benefits, in particular the potential therapeutic benefits of nicotine. The health benefits of medical marijuana are now recognized because of research. The potential therapeutic benefits of psilocybin are now being explored (e.g., for PTST and even for smoking cessation). However, research to explore those potential benefits was locked in amber for 30 years because of prohibitionist drug laws.”
November 9, 2021
WHO Tobacco Control Conference Kicks Off

Image: Tobacco Reporter archive
The Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC) today opens its ninth session (COP9). One significant point to be discussed by the Parties is a potential new funding strategy, seen as a means of strengthening and expanding the support that can be offered to Parties of the global health treaty.
Parties at COP9 are expected to consider how to address a common problem described by many countries—the lack of sufficient financial resources to strengthen tobacco control measures. This will mean a plan to establish a capital investment fund is high on the COP9 agenda. The Parties will decide on the adoption of a mechanism for new income streams to help fight the tobacco epidemic.
The proposal offers the opportunity to raise a targeted $50 million for the FCTC. A similar fund will be proposed for adoption at the second session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products to take place later this month—but in the case of the Protocol, the fund proposed will be for $25 million to strengthen implementation of that treaty.
In a press release, the WHO said it would continue pushing forward with comprehensive implementation of the FCTC as the real solution to the tobacco epidemic, despite what it described as tobacco industry efforts to “stir up confusion and falsely parade itself as a solution to harmful tobacco consumption.”
The COP9 discussions Nov. 8-13 bring together Parties, representing countries, United Nations agencies, other intergovernmental organizations and civil society. The participants will be exchanging their experiences in implementing tobacco control measures and reducing the prevalence of tobacco use. They will also be looking at strategies that improve tobacco control efforts, amid what the WHO describes as “attempts by the tobacco industry to interfere in ending the tobacco epidemic that is killing over 8 million people annually.”
During the conference, delegates will also be evaluating the most recent Global Progress Report, which was launched last week. A total of 148 Parties reported on the comprehensive tobacco control measures contained in the treaty. For example, in relation to progress on Article 11, two-thirds of Parties confirmed that the required health warnings are being displayed on tobacco product packaging and, 17 countries confirmed that they have adopted the requirements for plain packaging of tobacco products.
Parties have reported that they have struggled to introduce comprehensive advertising, promotion and sponsorship bans. Many complained of persisting interference in policymaking by the tobacco industry.
In her keynote speech at the opening of COP9, Adriana Blanco Marquizo, head of the Convention Secretariat referred to the ongoing COP 26, on Climate Change. There are important parallels between the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the WHO FCTC, she noted.
“Both treaties aim to protect present and future generations,” said Blanco Marquizo. “It’s clear that tobacco damages the environment throughout its life cycle, from crop to post-consumer waste, contributing to deforestation, desertification, greenhouse emissions and plastic contamination. But probably the most important point shared at both COPs, is that the tobacco epidemic and climate change are both manmade and preventable.”
Critics, by contrast, focused on the differences between the two COPs, with the Climate Change gathering welcoming public scrutiny and industry input, and COP9 convening behind close doors and banning dialogue with the industry.
Immediately after COP9, the second Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products will be convened, Nov. 15-18. The Protocol is a separate treaty expanding Article 15 of FCTC.
November 8, 2021
More Calls for THR Ahead of COP9

Photo: andriano_cz
Activists continue to urge participants in the ninth Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to seriously consider tobacco harm reduction in their deliberations.
COP9 will take place Nov. 8-13 online. During the convention, delegates will debate measures to reduce smoking-related death and disease. To the frustration of many tobacco harm reduction proponents, the WHO has been suspicious of vaping and other reduced-risk products, viewing them as an industry tool to keep consumers hooked on nicotine.
“Tobacco harm reduction is a chance for smokers to switch from an extremely harmful to a significantly less harmful alternative,” the Independent European Vape Alliance (IEVA) wrote in a statement ahead of the gathering.

We would like the WHO, together with other representatives from politics and science, to develop a targeted strategy for reducing the damage caused by smoking.
Dustin Dahlmann, president, IEVA
“Unfortunately, the WHO has lost sight of this in recent years. But it is not too late to repent. It must focus on the future of millions of smokers worldwide—a future that is much brighter should they switch to vaping—rather than its own counterproductive ‘quit-or-die’ dogma.”
“As a European association that is independent of the tobacco industry, we would like the WHO, together with other representatives from politics and science, to develop a targeted strategy for reducing the damage caused by smoking. Of course we as an industry are ready for this critical dialogue,” said Dustin Dahlmann, president of IEVA.
“The World Health Organization’s failure to declare a global emergency in 2020 [in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic] will be repeated in 2021 when the WHO will likely abandon international tobacco harm reduction efforts and condemn millions of smokers to an early death,” said Nancy Loucas, a leading consumer advocate based in New Zealand.

The WHO got it totally wrong on Covid-19, and it’s no surprise they’ve also got it very wrong with safer nicotine products such as vaping.
Nancy Loucas, consumer advocate
“The WHO got it totally wrong on Covid-19, and it’s no surprise they’ve also got it very wrong with safer nicotine products such as vaping,” she added. “As an ex-smoker, vaping has improved my health and arguably saved my life, yet the WHO and its sponsor American Michael Bloomberg have pressured countries like mine to ban it.”
On Oct. 18, 100 international health experts sent a public letter urging the COP9 parties to take a more positive stance on tobacco harm reduction. That same month, the Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction (GSTHR) released a report urging the WHO to update its policies, which the GSTHR described as “frozen in time” as they dated from before the arrival on the market of many less-harmful nicotine delivery devices.
A group of tobacco harm reduction experts will hold a round-the-clock broadcasting event Nov. 8-12, to challenge and scrutinize COP9, which will take placed behind closed doors.
November 5, 2021
A Tale of Two COPs

Image: Tobacco Reporter archive
This year, the first two weeks of November will witness two COPs (Conference of Parties), large policy gatherings aimed at moving the needle on ratified global U.N.-related conventions. Both have to do with health—individual, population and the planet’s health. Yet, one COP is attracting the leaders of the developed world as well as developing worlds in Glasgow, United Kingdom, along with another 20,000-odd stakeholders. The other COP will be held virtually and quietly from its secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat is tasked with supporting the global response to the threat from climate change. With 197 members, the UNFCCC has a near universal coverage. The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) Glasgow was kicked off on Oct. 31 with great fanfare, high expectations and drama befitting a Hollywood premiere—e.g., Greta Thunberg arrived on a “climate train,” a test in patience and endurance for Greta, her 150 fellow passengers, the media and the climate activists’ mob at Glasgow Central.
Throughout the course of these two weeks of negotiations, haggling and posturing, the best possible outcome from COP26 could be that all countries commit to keeping global warming limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius. That calls for some serious re-engineering of human behavior and entire societies. Millions of conventional jobs and livelihoods will be lost, millions more potentially created in the new green economy. Some would argue (and justify): Desperate times call for desperate action. Green economy advocates and solution providers, including transforming oil companies and automobile manufacturers, are in full attendance at the summit and are missing no photo-op to burnish their green credentials.

The UN climate change conference will consider the input of the manufacturers it seeks to regulate, many of which are eager to show how they can be part of the solution. (Photo: adrian_ilie825)
The other COP, of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), created by the U.N.’s World Health Organization and run by the FCTC secretariat, follows a completely different tack. It is notionally intended for addressing the harms to society and the world due to risky forms of smoked (cigarettes, bidis, cigars) and smokeless (khaini, gutkha, zarda, etc.) tobacco products that over a billion people consume today. The FCTC is ratified by most of the countries in the world (the USA and Indonesia being notable exceptions), and the ninth Conference of Parties from Nov. 8–13 will see yet another biannual get together making decisions that affect 1.3 billion tobacco users, their families and millions from the tobacco supply chain globally. However, it is held behind closed doors, driven by health activists that simply see the tobacco industry as the problem and tobacco users as AstroTurf for the tobacco industry. Neither are allowed anywhere near the meeting nor are the lay media.
The FCTC, in its simplest form, is a demand and supply reduction treaty, underpinned by tobacco harm reduction principles. Broadly, what this could mean in policy as well as practice is that those not currently using risky forms of tobacco products, especially children and young adults, should be disincentivized from initiation, and those currently using risky forms of tobacco should get the necessary help to quit. This may take the form of providing nicotine-replacement therapy, prescription medications and behavioral support. It could also mean that those involved in the supply chain, such as farmers and bidi worker women, should be given support to switch to alternative livelihoods.
Sixteen years on from the ratification of the FCTC, great progress has been made in adopting parts of the treaty that relate to demand reduction by prevention of initiation into national regulations. Advertising campaigns, tax hikes, health warnings and packaging and sale restrictions have led to significant reductions in initiation, especially among youth. On the other hand, support to current users of risky forms of tobacco remains wanting, lacking innovation and largely under-funded.
The nicotine in these products makes consumers dependent. The cancers, however, are caused by the toxic chemical mix in the smokeless products and from the smoke itself—but not the nicotine. Pharmaceutically licensed nicotine-replacement therapy products, in the form of gums and patches, are on the WHO’s model essential medicines list for tobacco dependence treatment. It is scientifically proven: Quitting risky forms of tobacco (cessation) is not easy; relapse is very common. The high retail price of the cessation products, poor availability and inadequate training of doctors in prescribing these cessation treatments means that current tobacco users miss out on any meaningful access and support.
It is easy to point to the tobacco industry’s morally and ethically unacceptable behavior for most of the 20th century that led to the smoking epidemic globally, and even today, to the manufacturers of gutkha and pan masala in India who are fueling an oral cancer epidemic. Based on this historical context, the COP organizers exclude this industry from their deliberations. Sadly, that exclusion extends to consumers, effectively the current and future patients suffering from tobacco dependence.
This raises a sticky question: Are the global public health community, led by the WHO’s FCTC signatories who meet every two years formally at the COP, simply giving up on the 1.3 billion current users of cigarettes, bidis, khaini and gutkha-like products, letting them die preventable premature deaths, for the want of adequate cessation products and support? Would public health not benefit from a wider range of innovative nicotine-replacement products, manufactured to high standards, regulated appropriately and specifically available as cessation aids for current adult users of risky tobacco products?

In stark contrast to the climate change COP26, at this tobacco-related COP9, manufacturers of cleaner nicotine products (the “solution providers” to the problem) and consumers (the victims of the problem) will be glaringly absent. (Photo: lezinav)
This COP season, it may be time to draw parallels between two very similar gatherings with diametrically opposite profiles and approaches. Climate change and tobacco-related harms—both are urgent issues facing humankind. Both are being addressed by global treaties and conventions. For both problems, a wide range of solutions are coming from old and new industries.
In the case of climate change, the Teslas of the world lead the rally. Conventional fossil fuel giants such as BP (of the Gulf of Mexico spill fame) and Shell are not far behind either, showcasing their renewables’ commitment in every ESG communication. The Volkswagen emissions scandal (from less than five years ago) is distant memory, and the automobile industry is at the table, providing cleaner cars by “electrifying” their offerings.
In tobacco cessation, underpinned by tobacco harm reduction principles, innovation came from a wide range of inventors and manufacturers globally: e-cigarettes from China, heated-tobacco products from Switzerland and the U.K., nicotine pouches from Sweden and cessation apps from the USA. Pharmaceutical manufacturers of conventional nicotine-replacement products and prescription medications are either withdrawing from the markets or not innovating any more. They have not made any visible effort to make their products available at affordable prices in the developing world—and there was never a huge hue and cry about that from public health.
None of the new innovative products are a silver bullet but promise to provide cleaner, safer nicotine to the billion-plus current consumers of risky forms of tobacco. In countries such as the U.K. and USA, where regulators are informed by scientific evidence and risk assessment, these products are regulated and allowed. Slowly but surely, this will transform the nicotine use profile in these countries, no doubt saving millions of lives and billions of dollars in future health costs from tobacco-related diseases. In Japan, previously known for its high smoking incidence among men, nearly 30 percent of the cigarette market has been replaced by heated-tobacco devices. These devices are increasingly acknowledged for their reduced toxicant exposure vis-a-vis cigarettes. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized the sale of a specific brand of heated device, an e-cigarette and a Swedish snus-style smokeless tobacco product for their reduced toxicant exposure and potential to reduce tobacco-related harms. In the U.K., e-cigarettes are one of the many options of quitting tools supported by national health bodies.
In stark contrast to the climate change COP26, at this tobacco-related COP9, manufacturers of cleaner nicotine products (the “solution providers” to the problem) and consumers (the victims of the problem) will be glaringly absent. In countries where regulators do not need the WHO’s blessings to make their own policies (the U.S., U.K. and increasingly the EU), innovation and better regulation will lead to a reversal of harms from risky 20th century tobacco products. In the developing world, including South Asia, the harms from tobacco will remain unabated in the absence of strong regulatory leadership and industry transformation.
Whether or not we can manage to curb the global temperature rises to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, today’s direction of tobacco control as symbolized by COP9 will hinder access to safer nicotine alternatives to over 1.3 billion current users, 80 percent of whom live in developing countries, accounting for millions of preventable deaths in the next three decades.
Sudhanshu Patwardhan is a British-Indian, U.K.-licensed medical doctor who is passionate about helping people quit risky forms of tobacco. For the past two decades, he has lived and worked in three continents, doing senior roles in research, strategy and policy in the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries.

In his early years in tobacco harm reduction, his team of clinical researchers and lab scientists set the foundations for the assessment of reduced-risk products, now accepted by regulators and the industry as the definitive approach for duty of care and regulatory compliance. At Nicoventures, a wholly owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco, he was instrumental in enabling the first e-cigarette company acquisition by a global tobacco business. In his policy role there, Patwardhan shaped the creation of a global key opinion leader network in consumer advocacy and public health champions. .

With the British Standards Institution, Patwardhan led the creation of the world’s first vaping products’ standards for safety and quality in 2015 and the BSI Online Age Checking specifications in collaboration with the Westminster-based Digital Policy Alliance in 2018. .

In 2018, he co-founded the Centre for Health Research and Education that now has a team of over 40 medical and public health experts globally working in cancer prevention. Patwardhan splits time between the U.K. and South Asia on tobacco harm reduction projects that address the needs of the most disadvantaged tobacco users. He is also a board director of Art Asia, a charity with a mission to communicate the rich and exciting experience of South Asian Arts to the widest possible audiences.

November 3, 2021
Harm Reduction Rally Ahead of COP9
Delegates from some of the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organizations’ (INNCO) 37 member organizations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and Asia will gather in London on Nov. 8 to applaud the U.K. government’s evidence-based support for tobacco harm reduction and to highlight the importance of the ninth Conference of Parties of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which begins that day.
“We are ex-smokers who use safer nicotine to save our own lives,” said Charles Gardner, INNCO’s executive director, in a statement. “Many of us around the world face stigma for using nicotine, a drug that is no more harmful to health than caffeine. A global ‘misinfodemic’ is now spreading worldwide, and the only cure is to embrace evidence and evidence-based policies such as those in the United Kingdom.”
November 3, 2021