Tag: COP9

  • WHO Urged to Embrace Harm Reduction

    WHO Urged to Embrace Harm Reduction

    The ninth Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) will operate under conditions of secrecy comparable to those of the U.N. Security Council, according to a new report by the Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction (GSTHR) titled, Fighting the Last War: The WHO and International Tobacco Control.

    The public and media are banned from attending all but one largely ceremonial opening plenary, yet millions will be affected by the decisions taken at COP9, which is scheduled to take place virtually Nov. 8–13.

    The report contends that current implementation of the FCTC is a global public health failure. In force since 2005, when there were 1.1 billion smokers around the world, the FCTC set out the principles of global tobacco control—to reduce the death and disease caused by smoking. In 2021, however, there are still 1.1 billion smokers worldwide and 8 million smoking-related deaths each year. What’s more, the number of smokers is predicted to rise, and the number of smoking-related deaths is set to top 1 billion this century.

    Change is urgently needed, and harm reduction for tobacco offers the opportunity for that change, according to the GSTHR.

    Fighting the Last War notes that while tobacco control policy has remained frozen in time, innovative noncombustible nicotine technology and supporting evidence have moved forward. Vaping devices, snus, nicotine pouches and heated-tobacco products are significantly safer than cigarettes as they deliver nicotine without combustion, according to the report’s authors. This, they argue, enables people who cannot or do not want to stop using nicotine to quit deadly smoking and switch to less risky products.

    “Just as delegates at COP26 will be discussing the world’s urgent need to stop fossil fuel combustion, the technology is now in place to ensure the end of the age of combustion for tobacco as well,” the GSTHR wrote in a press note. “A number of Parties to the FCTC, such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand, have successfully introduced tobacco harm reduction policies alongside their tobacco control regimes and have seen marked decreases in smoking rates.”

    When given accurate information about comparative risk, many smokers switch, the organization notes. Worldwide, the GSTHR estimated in 2020 that 98 million people worldwide were using safer nicotine products.

    The authors also point out that the concept of harm reduction is embedded in the WHO response to drug use and HIV/AIDS. It is explicitly named as the third pillar of tobacco control alongside demand and supply reduction in the FCTC. Yet the WHO has remained implacably opposed to harm reduction for tobacco and is increasingly viewed as having overseen a “mission creep,” which now sees international tobacco control setting its sights on prohibition for nicotine in all its forms.

    “There are concerning signs in published agenda and briefing papers that the FCTC secretariat and leadership continue to urge Parties against increasing access to, or even to prohibit, safer nicotine products,” the GSTHR wrote.

    Fighting the Last War considers the motivations—ideological, financial and historical—that have led to many global tobacco control practitioners becoming so hostile to what others see as the greatest potential public health advance in decades.

    The report argues that Parties to the FCTC need to seize back control of the COP meetings from the FCTC secretariat, which it says has become overly influential with little oversight. FCTC Parties should press for more evidence-based discussions, calling upon the widest breadth of scientific, clinical and epidemiological expertise on safer nicotine products and tobacco harm reduction, according to the authors. “This should include evidence from Parties that have implemented harm reduction policies, those involved in manufacturing safer nicotine products and the lived experience of consumers,” they wrote. “The establishment of a working group on tobacco harm reduction would offer a pragmatic route to move the FCTC toward a tobacco control regime fit for purpose in the 21st century.”

    “As global leaders prepare to make important pledges on climate change under the glare of the media spotlight at COP26, we urge them to demand more from their delegations inside the closed and unscrutinized rooms of COP9,” says Gerry Stimson, director of Knowledge-Action-Change and emeritus professor at Imperial College London. “Every day, more than one billion smokers are being failed by the international tobacco control regime. The age of combustion—for tobacco as for fossil fuels—must end.

    “Tobacco harm reduction offers new routes out for adult smokers. GSTHR estimates suggest that 98 million of them have already switched. At COP9, government delegations must seize back control and prevent the slide into outright nicotine prohibition that would see many return to smoking and many millions more never succeed in quitting.”

    “The fight to reduce eight million smoking-related deaths a year is now being actively undermined by the WHO and the international tobacco control establishment,” said report author Harry Shapiro. “Together, they are fighting the last war against the tobacco industry—to direct attention away from the evidence that safer nicotine products can make a significant contribution to reducing that death toll.”

    “If those who dominate the global tobacco control discourse were truly committed to public health imperatives, harm reduction principles and policies would be front and center,” said Ethan Nadelmann, founder of the Drug Policy Alliance. “This valuable report exposes the ways in which international institutions have turned their backs on scientific evidence and the human and political rights of hundreds of millions of people whose lives might be saved by safer nicotine products.”

    “Fighting the Last War provides an insight into the dark arts of the WHO that many would find breathtaking and incomprehensible,” said Jeannie Cameron from JCIC Consulting. “It shows a concerning difference between the world’s preparations for COP26 on climate change and COP9 on tobacco. Governments need to stand up at COP9 to support tobacco harm reduction against the outdated views of the WHO.”

    The fight to reduce eight million smoking-related deaths a year is now being actively undermined by the WHO and the international tobacco control establishment. Together, they are fighting the last war against the tobacco industry—to direct attention away from the evidence that safer nicotine products can make a significant contribution to reducing that death toll.”

    Harry Shapiro, author, ‘Fighting the Last War’

    “The challenge for lower and middle-income countries while fighting the last war and promoting real tobacco control is about two major issues,” said Nataliia Toropova from Healthy Initiatives. “Firstly, the current provisions of the WHO FCTC have not been properly implemented due to stretched government resources. Thus, smoking cessation programs are nonexistent, and adult smokers feel hopelessly stuck while making their numerous unsuccessful attempts to quit with no medical help or guidance provided. Secondly, the lack of a comprehensive harm reduction strategy is aggravated by a massive misinformation campaign about harm reduction products and a declared war on nicotine. Unless these two issues get tackled, unless the powerful voice of doctors becomes loud and gets heard, unless education and awareness building campaigns take place, no changes will occur, and this last war will be lost.”

  • A Better Treaty

    A Better Treaty

    Photo: Malcolm Griffiths

    GTNF panelists offer suggestions for transforming the FCTC.

    TR Staff Report

    The recent Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) included a well-timed panel discussion on the Ninth Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Scheduled to take place Nov. 8–13, 2021, COP9 originally planned to convene in the Netherlands but moved online due to the persisting coronavirus pandemic.

    While the delegates are unlikely to make major decisions during the virtual gathering, the shift in format could have negative implications for the nicotine business. Rather than adopting or rejecting important reports, the delegates will merely “note” them this year.

    Unfortunately, experience suggests that many COP participants will treat noted reports—including those based on poor science—as adopted and start transposing their recommendations into national legislation. The result could be more counterproductive prohibitions and restrictions on potentially reduced-risk nicotine products, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), by the time COP10 rolls around.

    Moderated by Flora Okereke, BAT’s head of global regulatory insights and foresights, the GTNF discussion panel brought together top experts on the FCTC, including Derek Yach, a leading architect of the treaty and current president of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World; Ming Deng, head of NGPs Industry Study at Yunnan University; Michiel Reerink, international corporate affairs director and managing director of Alliance One International; and Chris Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs.

     

    Advertisement

    Okereke reminded her audience of how much had changed since the creation of the FCTC 20 years ago. In 2000, she recalled, there was no iPhone. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration had no authority to regulate tobacco, and the EU Tobacco Products Directive was not even on the horizon.

    While the WHO claims there are 100 million fewer smokers today than there were in 2000, the FCTC and its related procedures have attracted considerable criticism from industry and tobacco harm reduction advocates, who complain about a lack of transparency and mission creep, among other shortcomings. Over the years, its detractors contend, the FCTC’s purpose of mortality reduction has evolved into a war on nicotine.

    Snowdon contrasted the FCTC COP with the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference (COP26) scheduled for Oct. 31–Nov. 12 in Glasgow. The Scottish event, he predicted, will get lots of coverage. Politicians will be scrambling to get in the limelight and lining up to take credit or pass blame. Business, including fossil fuel and renewable energy companies, will be present—not only to learn what regulations governments have in store but also to show how they can be part of the solution. This, said Snowdon, is hugely different from the FCTC COP, which explicitly bans the industry it oversees from taking part in its deliberations.

    Advertisement

    While activists often justify industry exclusion by pointing to the FCTC’s infamous Article 5.3, Snowdon noted that the original objective of that section was merely to prevent the tobacco industry from interfering in health policies; it was never meant as a blanket ban on interaction. Yach recalled how the WHO in the early days of the FCTC even invited leading scientists from the tobacco industry to share their views on the direction of harm reduction. “That was the first and the last time they were ever allowed in the building,” he lamented.

    The GTNF panelists also expressed concern that the FCTC has gone beyond its remit, looking to restrict not just tobacco but also products that contain no tobacco and are helping millions of people to stop smoking. As Snowdon pointed out, the treaty defines tobacco control as being “a range of supply-demand and harm reduction strategies that aim to improve the health of a population by eliminating or reducing the consumption of tobacco products and exposure to tobacco smoke.” Products such as e-cigarettes clearly do all of these things, he said—yet the WHO remains firmly opposed to such products.

    Yach noted that while the FCTC text has stood the test of time relatively well, it has not properly considered innovation and intellectual property. Contrary to their counterparts in the fight against HIV/AIDS at the turn of the century, the drafters of the FCTC did not expect many technological developments to take place in their field; tobacco was generally viewed as a staid legacy sector. “How wrong we all were,” said Yach, referring to the tremendous technological advancements that have disrupted the tobacco industry in recent years.

    Not all players have been equally forward thinking, however, and Yach said it was no longer appropriate to speak of “the tobacco industry.” Instead of an industry with a homogeneous view, he noted, there is now one group of players, led by publicly traded companies, making serious changes to their business, and another group, led by state monopolies, resisting change. Unfortunately, the latter group accounts for a far greater share of cigarettes sales than the first. “Many COP delegates are unaware that if you add up the sales of PMI, BAT and JTI, Imperial and Altria, they come to less than the sales of China Tobacco,” he said. However, being owned by their respective governments, the state tobacco firms are indirectly represented at COP, even as their more progressive counterparts are excluded. Deng said it was the secretariat’s job to develop a better mechanism to deal with this issue.

    Yach said the industry should come together and show authorities it was willing to push the change process collectively by having a joint plan to end youth smoking, for example. Reerink reminded his audience that the industry had attempted exactly that 20 years ago, but the development got lost in other news. “I cannot blame Derek for missing it,” he said, “because it was announced on Sept. 11, 2001.” With the FCTC finances one of the few items certain to be decided at this virtual COP9, Reerink shared his insights into the budget, which he said is probably one of the treaty’s least read documents. The FCTC has a biannual budget of about $20 million. Half of that—$9 million—is reserved for “activities.” Reerink detailed how the U.K., Australia and Norway provided millions of dollars for the FCTC 2020 Project. This project, he said, is about the FCTC secretariat telling a handful of LMICs that they have to fully implement the FCTC, with bans on reduced-risk products and plain packaging. “None of these are obligations from the FCTC, but that’s the message to the LMICs,” said Reerink.

    Advertisement

    The GTNF discussion wrapped up with an audience question-and-answer session, and one delegate asked about the opportunity for the U.K., with its comparatively pragmatic approach toward new nicotine products, to influence the debate at the FCTC now that it is outside of the European Union. Yach said both the U.K. and U.S. governments have an obligation to be more vocal in the FCTC process. Even though the U.S. is not a full signatory to the FCTC, its representatives can still participate in the debate as registered observers. The U.K., he noted, is currently the world’s gold standard in reducing smoking rates. The FDA for its part, should share the scientific logic that went into its deliberations for approving marketing applications for Swedish snus and IQOS. That insight is important; due to the FDA’s unrivaled investment in regulatory science, its decisions tend to become global norms.

    Asked about the path forward for reform, Yach recalled the dark days of apartheid in South Africa, when a research paper examined what would happen to the economy if the system continued on its current track versus how the economy would fare in an open democracy. That research helped galvanize the population and encouraged reforms. He encouraged the industry to present simple studies detailing how many lives could be saved if regulators integrated tobacco harm reduction, better cessation and treatment into its programs. “It’s not that difficult to give some reasonably good predictions,” he said. Such studies could be used to spur delegates into action. “You can ask them: Are you not willing to save x number of lives? What is the cost of inaction in lives lost because you are sitting around twiddling your thumbs?”

    Flora Okereke

    Flora Okereke, who moderated the GTNF panel on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, is head of global regulatory insights and foresights at BAT. In this role, she is responsible for analyzing and forecasting regulatory developments across BAT’s 180-plus global markets.

    She previously held a number of senior country, regional and global roles at BAT, including legal, corporate and regulatory affairs director for West Africa; head of regulatory affairs for Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe; and global head of regulatory strategy and engagement.

    Most recently, she served as senior director of government affairs and international policy at Reynolds American Incorporated Services, a subsidiary of RJR Tobacco based in Washington, D.C. In this role, she led engagements with U.S. government agencies, foreign embassies and global institutions on international trade, anti-illicit trade, tax and regulatory issues on behalf of Reynolds American Inc. and BAT. Prior to joining BAT, Flora was a commercial litigation solicitor in the City of London.

  • THR Activists to Broadcast During COP9

    THR Activists to Broadcast During COP9

    Image: sCOPe
    Nancy Loucas

    A group of tobacco harm reduction experts will hold a round-the-clock broadcasting event Nov. 8-12, coinciding with the Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the World health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

    Dubbed “sCOPe,” or “streaming Consumers On Point everywhere,” the five-day livestream will be simulcast via YouTube and Facebook. Presenters and panelists will challenge and scrutinize COP9, questioning, for example, who is influencing and funding its efforts to demonize vaping.

    “Before the Covid-19 pandemic, consumers were planning to front up to COP in person and show media our increasing anger for being shut out, once again, from the proceedings,” said sCOPe organizer Nancy Loucas, executive coordinator of the Coalition of Asia Pacific Harm Reduction Advocates. “The FCTC’s decision to delay COP9 and host it exclusively online, with no discussions to be publicly released, meant consumers had to take alternative action. Hence, the development of sCOPe,”

    “sCOPe is our response to being excluded from the table, as the main stakeholders, of the discussion and decision-making process that directly impacts our health and our right to make informed decisions,” she said.

  • WHO Urged to Adjust its Vapor Stance

    WHO Urged to Adjust its Vapor Stance

    Photo: ekim

    One hundred tobacco harm reduction (THR) experts have published a joint letter challenging the World Health Organization’s (WHO) approach to tobacco science and policy. The group is urging members of the Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-9) of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) to encourage the WHO to support and promote the inclusion of tobacco harm reduction into its regulatory advisements.

    “Smoke-free nicotine products offer a promising route to reducing the harms arising from smoking. There is compelling evidence that smoke-free products are much less harmful than cigarettes and that they can displace smoking for individuals and at the population level,” the letter states. “Regrettably, WHO has been dismissive of the potential to transform the tobacco market from high-risk to low-risk products. WHO is rejecting a public health strategy that could avoid millions of smoking-related deaths.”

    The letter was published on Oct. 18 and will be sent to COP-9 delegates. In a joint statement, Ruth Bonita, former director of WHO Department of NCD Surveillance, and Robert Beaglehole, former director of the WHO Department of Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, stated that they were “extremely disappointed by WHO’s illogical and perverse approach” to reduced-harm nicotine delivery products, such as vaping.

    “A key challenge in global tobacco control is to assist cigarette smokers to transition from burnt tobacco products to much less harmful options that provide the nicotine without the toxic smoke,” the statement reads. “WHO’s continuing disregard of the wealth of evidence on the value of these products is condemning millions of smokers to preventable disease and premature death.”

    The letter goes on to make seven points about the current vaping regulatory environment, such as the value of vaping in THR and the unintended consequences of poor regulatory policies. The authors then go on to make six suggestions for the WHO to consider:

    • Make tobacco harm reduction a component of the global strategy to meet the Sustainable Development Goals for health, notably SDG 3.4 on non-communicable diseases.
    • Insist that any WHO policy analysis makes a proper assessment of benefits to smokers or would-be smokers, including adolescents, as well as risks to users and non-users of these products.
    • Require any policy proposals, particularly prohibitions, to reflect the risks of unintended consequences, including potential increases in smoking and other adverse responses.
    • Properly apply Article 5.3 of the FCTC to address genuine tobacco industry malpractice, but not to create a counterproductive barrier to reduced-risk products that have public health benefits or to prevent critical assessment of industry data strictly on its scientific merits.
    • Make the FCTC negotiations more open to stakeholders with harm-reduction perspectives, including consumers, public health experts, and some businesses with significant specialized knowledge not held within the traditional tobacco control community.
    • Initiate an independent review of WHO and the FCTC approach to tobacco policy in the context of the SDGs. Such a review could address the interpretation and use of science, the quality of policy advice, stakeholder engagement, and accountability and governance. The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPPR), initiated to evaluate the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, offers such a model.

    In a separate statement, David Sweanor, adjunct professor of law, chair of the Advisory Board of the Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics University of Ottawa, Canada, said that effective public health efforts need to be based on science, reason and humanism. Instead, he noted, the WHO is aligning itself against all three when dealing with nicotine.

    “The result is that one of the greatest opportunities to improve global health, separating nicotine use from smoke inhalation, is being squandered. Global trust in health authorities, and the WHO in particular, has never been so important,” the statement reads. “Yet the WHO is abandoning science, rationality and humanism on nicotine and instead apparently pursuing the moralistic abstinence-only agenda of external funders. This is a public health tragedy that extends well beyond the unnecessary sickening of the billion-plus people who smoke cigarettes.”

  • Post-Brexit U.K. Urged to Tout Vaping

    Post-Brexit U.K. Urged to Tout Vaping

    Photo: sea and sun

    David Jones, a former Welsh secretary and Brexit minister, has urged Britain to use its Brexit freedoms to tout the health benefits of e-cigarettes during the next summit on tobacco organized by the World Health Organization, reports The Express.

    The parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control are set to meet virtually in November to discuss tobacco control policies.

    Delegates will debate the success and failure of recent and ongoing tobacco control initiatives. They will discuss how best the world can be convinced to give up traditional cigarettes, and they will debate matters such as law enforcement’s involvement in the illicit tobacco trade.

    Both the WHO and the EU have taken a dim view of e-cigarettes, pushing for ever-tighter restrictions. The WHO has claimed on its website that there is growing evidence of risk from e-cigarettes.

    Britain has taken a pragmatic approach to the category, allowing vapor products to remain on the market within a comparatively light regulatory framework.

    “Unlike previous COPs [Conference of the Parties], the U.K. does not have to join the EU’s position,” said Jones. “We are not bound by Brussels; we are independent and free to back the science, back Public Health England and back our own health experts over the WHO.

    “We must not fall into bad habits and simply join the EU position because it would be the easy thing to do. Brexit meant control over our own policies. This is our chance to show the electorate what that means in reality. We must use our freedom to save lives.”

    There are concerns, however, that the WHO will not recognize the U.K. as an independent voice at its summit. Instead, it may defer to the EU as the voice for the European region.

  • Think Tank Debates COP9 Impact on Vapers

    Think Tank Debates COP9 Impact on Vapers

    The U.K. Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) will host a discussion today on the impact of the World Health Organization’s ninth Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which is scheduled to take place on Nov. 21 in the Netherlands.

    The COP is the supreme decision-making body of the FCTC, where all parties to the FCTC meet biennially to review the implementation of the convention and adopt the new guidance. For the first time since leaving the European Union, in November 2021, the U.K. will send a delegation to the COP.

    According to the IEA, COP9 poses a significant threat to the U.K.’s approach to harm reduction policy. “The WHO is increasingly, and against the clear evidence, positioning itself as an enemy of vaping,” the think tank states on its website. “The U.K. is a world leader in tobacco harm reduction, and a significant reason for this is our comparatively liberal approach to vaping products and e-cigarettes.”

    Participants in the IEA forum will discuss who represents the U.K. at COP, how decisions are reached, the impact of these decisions on the U.K.’s harm reduction progress and the country’s 2030 smoke-free target, among other topics.

    Speakers includes IEA Director General Mark Littlewood (chair), Matt Ridley (vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Vaping), Christopher Snowdon (IEA head of lifestyle economics) and Louis Houlbrooke (NZ Taxpayers Union).

    The discussion can be followed live on the screen or here.

  • Netherlands Pressed to Restrict ENDS

    Netherlands Pressed to Restrict ENDS

    Photo: vichie81

    Anti-smoking groups and pharmaceutical company Pfizer are urging the next Dutch government to extend smoking bans and restrict tobacco alternatives such as e-cigarettes, reports Dutch News.

    The outgoing government has increased cigarette prices and limited sales outlets as steps toward a smoke-free generation by 2040, and the number of smokers has gone down from 25 percent to 20 percent in the last five years.

    However, even though there are fewer smokers, the total amount of tobacco being consumed has remained stable. “The remaining smokers are smoking more,” campaigner Wanda de Kanter told Financieele Dagblad.

    De Kanter is skeptical about Philip Morris International’s attempts to market its IQOS tobacco-heating device as a less risky alternative to smoking. The multinational is trying to persuade the Dutch government to relax rules around such products. Health institute RIVM has stated that heated-tobacco still contains cancer-causing substances and can damage lung cells.

    I am concerned about these reports, especially in light of the global World Health Organization’s COP9 summit, which takes place in the Netherlands in November 2021.

    John Dunne, Director-General, UKVIA

    The U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) warned that cracking down on smoking alternatives would be counterproductive.

    “To further reduce smoking rates in the Netherlands, legislators should be embracing alternative tobacco products, such as vaping—not introducing stricter regulations, which will only serve to facilitate tobacco consumption,” the group wrote in a press note. “Adopting an evidence-based approach, like that which has been successful in the United Kingdom, will help cement the concept of tobacco harm reduction.”

    “I am concerned about these reports, especially in light of the global World Health Organization’s COP9 summit, which takes place in the Netherlands in November 2021,” said UKVIA Director-General John Dunne.

    “Smoking-related illness still kills many thousands of people each year in both the U.K. and the Netherlands. It is imperative on both governments to do all that they can to reduce this number of smoking-related deaths. They should trust the science and the overwhelming evidence and embrace vaping products and e-cigarettes. They are the most popular and effective nicotine-replacement products on the market.”

  • Vaping Group Supports Call to Defund WHO

    Vaping Group Supports Call to Defund WHO

    John Dunne (Photo: UKVIA)

    The U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) has joined the chorus of voices condemning the World Health Organization (WHO) for its urging of countries to take an aggressive anti-vaping stance ahead of a crucial health summit later this year.

    According to leaked documents reported in the Daily Express, the WHO plans to use November’s COP9 summit in the Netherlands as a platform to tell leading international health figures that e-cigarettes are as dangerous as smoking tobacco.

    The UKVIA joins the criticism of the WHO by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Chair Mark Pawsey, MP, who has called into question why the U.K. government is continuing to fund the body to the tune of £340 million ($471.8 million) over the next four years.

    The UKVIA notes that this action flies in the face of the scientific reality of vaping in the U.K., which has seen millions of people quit smoking in recent years. Research by British scientists has consistently shown vaping to be the most popular and successful aide to quitting smoking.

    The Cochrane Review into e-cigarettes highlights that existing studies show that vaping is nearly 50 percent more effective in helping smokers quit cigarettes than other methods of smoking cessation, according to the UKVIA. The review found that as many as 11 percent of smokers using a nicotine e‐cigarette to stop smoking might successfully stop compared to only 6 percent of smokers using nicotine‐replacement therapy or nicotine‐free e‐cigarettes or 4 percent of people having no support or behavioral support only.

    The vaping industry here in the U.K., together with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Vaping, is right to call out these baseless attacks on the sector.

    John Dunne, director general, UKVIA

    There are already 3.2 million adults in Great Britain who have made the switch from smoking. The vaping industry needs to be supported as a British success and able to assist the remaining 6.9 million adult smokers in the U.K., according to the UKVIA.

    “The stance of the World Health Organization is extremely concerning,” said John Dunne, UKVIA director general, in a statement. “The vaping industry here in the U.K., together with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Vaping, is right to call out these baseless attacks on the sector. Vaping is a great British success story, enabling millions of people to switch from smoking.

    “The APPG is also right to call for the U.K. government to reconsider the level of its funding to the World Health Organization in light of these reports. Thankfully, now that the U.K. has left the EU, it is no longer bound by the ridiculous, and quite frankly dangerous, WHO messaging urging the bloc to treat vaping in the same way as smoking.”

  • COP9 and MOP2 Postponed to November 2021

    COP9 and MOP2 Postponed to November 2021

    The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) said it would postpone its major conferences for a year.

    “In light of the COVID-19 global pandemic and its impact on the conduct of international global conferences and travel, the Bureaus elected by COP8 and MOP1, after consulting the host country, have decided that convening the Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO FCTC (COP9) and the Second Session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (MOP2), scheduled for November 2020, is no longer possible,” the organization states on its website.

    As a result, the Bureaus, in consultation with the host country and the Secretariat, decided during their Third Joint Meeting on 21 April 2020 to postpone the sessions of COP9 and MOP2 to the following dates:

    COP9: 8–13 November 2021; .

    MOP2: 15–17 November 2021.

    The meetings will convene on those dates in The Hague, Netherlands.