The 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) began today (November 17) in Geneva, bringing together global health leaders and over 1,400 delegates from 183 countries for the week-long event. The conference “aims to strengthen international cooperation to combat tobacco use, rising nicotine addiction, and environmental harm caused by cigarette products.” Discussions are expected to revolve around familiar topics such as youth smoking, flavorings, and cigarette butt pollution. Delegates are also expected to address “aggressive marketing” of tobacco and nicotine products, youth vaping, and strategies to combat the illicit tobacco trade.
Running parallel, and just steps away from COP11, is Good Cop 2.0, an event hosted by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, designed to be a rapid-response and fact-checking forum to counter discussions from the WHO. “The event aims to unite taxpayer-, free-market-, and harm-reduction organizations to challenge misinformation and present alternative, evidence-based perspectives. It is intended to be an open forum for consumers, independent scientists, and journalists who are often excluded from WHO’s closed-door sessions.”
Speaking on one of the Good Cop panels today, Clive Bates, a public health consultant and director of Counterfactual Consulting, summed up WHO critics’ frustration that stems from having decisions that will influence global tobacco control and public health policies for years to come being made in secrecy, behind closed doors, with virtually no input from consumers or industry.
“There’s no harm and having discussions about the frontier ideas of tobacco control,” said Bates. “[But COP11 is] a really graphic illustration of the weakness of expert groups. The experts that have been chosen to come up with these figures are [basically] fringe fanatics in the tobacco control world. In any normal conversation with users or consumers, a lot of these ideas would seem mad.
“That’s the danger of getting away from the working groups. The working groups of parties have to think about the politics of actually delivering this to the actual public, whereas the expert groups are fanatics pushing forward an agenda to the extremes of what they think they can get away with.”