1 of 3
COP10 is looking more likely to be as anti-vape as it is anti-smoking. Photo credit: Mike Mozart, Creative Commons 2.0
2 of 3
Refusing to hear, speak, or see anything that does not follow FCTC’s anti-tobacco agenda is a likely requirement for COP10 delegates.
3 of 3
The tobacco industry, media representatives, tobacco harm reduction experts, or anyone deemed to be linked to the industry, will be forced again to try to get a peek into the closed meetings at COP10.
The 10th Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) will take place in Panama from November 20-25, followed by the third Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (MOP3).
This will be the first time since 2018 that the meetings will be held in person. The last meeting in 2021 was held virtually and more or less deferred all decisions to COP10. What did come out of COP9, though, was the decision to move forward with the development and launch of an investment fund to provide revenue which would be used to support FCTC activities. Overseeing the fund would be a committee comprised of “experts in financial and investment management” and “observers from civil society”, all selected by FCTC’s governing body and the World Bank.
Originally designed 20 years ago to be the first international treaty to address the perceived harms of combustible tobacco, FCTC has extended its scope to include in its crosshairs new tobacco products such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches as well, despite these products being less harmful alternatives to combustible tobacco. Ironic, considering that the scope of FCTC as determined in Article 1.d defines tobacco control as “a range of supply, demand, and harm reduction strategies that aim to improve the health of a population by eliminating or reducing their consumption of tobacco products and exposure to tobacco smoke”.
The articles that follow discuss measures thought to be necessary to reduce demand as well as supply of tobacco products, yet there are no articles that focus specifically on harm reduction. And, as seen up until now, FCTC’s preferred method of tobacco control is more total bans rather than harm reduction, complete annihilation of tobacco in all shapes, forms, and purposes.
The COP10 provisional agenda shows delegates will be covering topics including the “depiction of tobacco in entertainment media”, “forward-looking tobacco control measures”, and “novel and emerging tobacco products.” What comes out of discussion on that last topic should be somewhat interesting to see, considering documents prepared by WHO and the Convention Secretariat focusing on “research and evidence” and “challenges posed by and classification” of said products for COP9 are supposed to be presented in COP10. But, it could be surmised that the general direction of the discussion will most likely not be favorable to those reduced risk products.
A recent FCTC report on “regulation of contents and disclosure of tobacco products, including waterpipe, smokeless tobacco, and heated tobacco products” (emphasis ours) dismisses vaping as a method of quitting smoking because there is “low” or “insufficient” evidence to support it. A report on WHO FCTC Eastern Mediterranean regional meeting in March not only said “there is a need to regulate novel and emerging tobacco products by applying traditional tobacco control measures” but also that governments should “strengthen tobacco product legislation by regularly updating laws to include novel and emerging products.”
Even more, there seems to be little chance that new tobacco products will be getting fair representation at COP10, too, as the working group which was tasked with gathering scientific evidence on these products will not be doing so. This working group was suspended at COP8 in 2018 and remained suspended during COP9 because of the pandemic. In 2020 the COP9 Bureau surveyed member countries, 60% of which indicated they wanted the working group to resume its work. In 2021 member countries were surveyed again; 49 responded with the majority wanting the working group to be reactivated, and the minority wanting the group to be replaced by an “advisory group of experts and relevant partners” invited by FCTC Secretariat. Somehow, however, the Bureau interpreted these results as showing “little support at present for the reactivation [of the working group]” and that “an expert group be established to consider and make recommendations to COP at a future session on pertinent issues and evidence concerning the regulation of contents and disclosure of tobacco products” instead. We can all make an educated guess at the members of that group of experts and their point of view.
It can also be expected that similar to previous COP meetings, COP10 will again be shrouded in secrecy, allowing only a small group of delegates whose views share the same anti-tobacco dogma to attend. There may also be a handful of selected media and even NGOs allowed, but none who would be representing the industry nor tobacco product consumers. Even tobacco harm reduction experts have been known to have their applications for observer status at previous COP meetings rejected, and that most likely will happen again this time. The given excuse for this tends to be that these experts, NGO, and media representatives, allegedly have ties to the tobacco industry, and since FCTC’s Article 5.3 requires that “in setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law,” these groups cannot be allowed to participate.
But, that should not prevent consumers from having a seat at the table, as consumers are actually the ones WHO, FCTC, and all the public health and anti-tobacco advocates are supposedly protecting from the Big, Bad Tobacco Industry. CAPHRA (Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates) reemphasized the necessity to include consumers in COP10, writing to countries’ FCTC delegations this March asking that each include at least one consumer of reduced risk products. At that time, according to CAPHRA executive coordinator Nancy Lucas, no signatory nation had made the progressive and inclusive call to include consumer stakeholders in their delegations. “This exclusion of the consumer voice has been one of the main reasons for the misinformation, disinformation, and failures of current tobacco control policy around nicotine – including vaping, snus, and heated tobacco products,” Lucas added.
There still may be hope that country delegations to COP10 may be participating in COP10 discussions with a more rational, informed, and practical approach, if examples of some COP9 delegations are anything to go by. Two years ago the delegation from the Philippines created some waves when they dared to say that while tobacco is a source of bad health it “is also a source of good through taxation” which provided funding for important state programs such as poverty reduction, universal health care, and Covid-19 recovery programs. Even better, the Philippines delegation dared to call for WHO to consider the fact that discussions held at COP10 “demand the active participation of all parties and inclusive consultations with all stakeholders, and we mean all.”
Delegations from other countries, namely those from the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Zimbabwe, also commented on the importance of the tobacco industry or indicated that the industry was a stakeholder in the conversations. Par for the course, these delegations were accused of being “influenced” by the tobacco industry.
These delegations should be commended for their courage in breaking rank and voicing what seems obvious to almost anyone except WHO, FCTC, and their allies. Let us hope these brave people do not get silenced and a growing number of voices join them this November. While it would probably be unrealistic to hope that this would affect any seismic change in what comes out of COP10, every positive shift, no matter how small, should be applauded.