Month: August 2023

#COP10 documents guide: FCTC/COP/10/9

loremipsumdolor

The one where the WHO tries to redefine smoke and hides inconvenient evidence

To continue the Copwatch guide to documents being provided to ‘educate’ national delegations at the COP10 conference in November, here is a look at FCTC/COP/10/9, published in July. 

This document deals with heated tobacco products but, as we shall see, it is not very impressive. It claims to “examine the challenges that novel and emerging tobacco products are posing for the comprehensive application of the WHO FCTC … as requested in paragraph 3 of decision FCTC/COP8/(22).”

But a quick look at the COP8 decision they refer to shows this does nothing of the sort. In 2018, the WHO asked the FCTC Secretariat:

“to prepare a comprehensive report, with scientists and experts, independent from the tobacco industry, and competent national authorities, to be submitted to the Ninth session of the COP on research and evidence on novel and emerging tobacco products, in particular heated tobacco products, regarding their health impacts including on non-users, their addictive potential, perception and use, attractiveness, potential role in initiating and quitting smoking, marketing including promotional strategies and impacts, claims of reduced harm, variability of products, regulatory experience and monitoring of Parties, impact on tobacco control efforts and research gaps”

Phew, quite a workload! 

The COP8 decision further requested, after that large body of work had been completed, that a report be drawn up to “subsequently propose potential policy options to achieve the objectives and measures” of the FCTC treaty. 

It has been 5 years since COP8 and that decision, but in that time the FCTC Secretariat and their laboratories (known as TobLabNet) appear to have done next to nothing to expand the evidence base. FCTC/COP/10/9 regularly boasts about how very little they know on the subject. 

“Independent … data on the health and environmental impact of these novel tobacco products is incipient” (that’s a posh word for just beginning). 

“The knowledge of these novel and emerging tobacco products has been rapidly increasing, but information on their long-term health effects is limited”

“[T]here are limited data available on uptake of HTPs by adolescents, as well as former smokers and non-smokers.” 

It begs the question what, if anything, has the WHO been doing in the last five years since COP8? Countries who have ratified the FCTC treaty do not pay large amounts of taxpayer money for the WHO’s institutions to just sit on their hands for half a decade. Perhaps delegations at COP10 should be asking some searching questions of the Secretariat on the matter. 

Having airily skipped over the yawning chasm of missing research that they were supposed to have gathered on heated tobacco in just four pages, the FCTC/COP/10/9 document then spends the rest of the 18 pages discussing what bans and restrictions should be put in place. Predictably, they demand that heated tobacco should be treated exactly the same as combustible cigarettes, despite HTPs having been found by the UK Committee on Toxicity and the Food and Drug Administration in the United States to be far less harmful than smoking. 

Copwatch also noted the authors of FCTC/COP/10/9 putting on their philosopher’s hat and promoting strange theories of what constitutes smoke. “Can the aerosols of novel and emerging tobacco products qualify as “tobacco smoke?”, they theorize, before answering their own question with a far-fetched explanation. “Yes … strictly speaking, visible aerosols deriving in whole or in part from thermally driven chemical reactions qualify as “smoke”, even when combustion is not involved in the process.”

They are very certain about this, further explaining that “these aerosols are clearly within the scientific definition of “smoke”, and any smoke emitted by HTPs is unambiguously “tobacco smoke.”

The definition of unambiguous is “not open to more than one interpretation” according to Oxford Languages, which will be a surprise to German and Swedish courts who have both found otherwise. 

In September 2021, a decision in a German court struck down the German government’s classification of heated tobacco as “tobacco products for smoking”. A hearing on the merits of a Philip Morris product resulted in the court ordering the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety to annul their prior decision and to classify them as “smokeless tobacco products” instead.

A similar case in Sweden in September 2022 came to the same conclusion. The Swedish Public Health Authority (PHA) had decided to classify heated tobacco as “tobacco products for smoking” but was ordered to change this by the court, which held that the PHA’s decision was not in line with any scientific definition of combustion. The court concluded that heated tobacco is not consumed through combustion and “is therefore rightly a smokeless tobacco product.”

Neither the German or Swedish governments appealed the decisions and the definitions are now final and binding in both countries.

Copwatch believes that the WHO is well aware of these court decisions, but just chooses to ignore them. At the foot of the FCTC/COP/10/9 document is an annex which details “several approaches to classify or regulate” heated tobacco in a number of different countries. Note that it says “several” and not all. This is because Germany and Sweden are not amongst them. 

Countries which have ratified the FCTC are allowed to regulate heated tobacco as they wish, smokeless or not, but there are not many cases testing whether the aerosol is smoking or not. In Germany and Sweden there were such cases and the courts decided it is not smoke. 

It would be incredibly inconvenient if the WHO had to admit in its annex that their “unambiguous” definition of smoke is not unambiguous, after all. So they just hide the information from delegates instead. 

To sum up FCTC/COP/10/9, the WHO repeatedly says it does not know much about heated tobacco, but at the same time it is apparent that no work is being done to find out. It recommends treating less harmful products the same as combustible tobacco based on a definition of smoke which is not borne out when tested in court, and it gives the delegations which will be attending COP10 all the information they need to make decisions, except information which the WHO finds inconvenient. 

And we pay for this?

More trouble in little Panama

loremipsum

In June, Copwatch mentioned, in passing, that a series of nationwide protests and blockades had taken place in COP10 host country, Panama, recently. Cost-of-living concerns, mistrust of government officials, poverty, inequality and corruption have led to much discontent.

The upcoming arrival of 1200 delegates for the WHO’s conference in November is not likely to lighten the mood. Panamanian news outlet, TVN Noticias, has broken a story on Instagram which must feel like a slap in the face for the country’s struggling citizens. 

“In the midst of a crisis due to the shortage of medicines, medical supplies and hospital structures in poor condition, the Ministry of Health (Minsa) published on the Panama Compra portal a tender for $4,881,732.20 for the organization of a conference against tobacco.”

You can guess what’s coming next. 

“According to the publication made on the portal, this is an exceptional online listing procedure for hiring a company for the organization of the Tenth Conference of the Parties of the World Health Organization for tobacco control.”

It is unclear what is included in the funding, but over $4,000 per delegate sounds steep, perhaps they all receive 24 carat gold-plated invitations. Accordingly, some are more than unhappy that their taxes are being spent so lavishly on a junket for highly-paid civil servants to jaw about tobacco and nicotine. 

“My God, with half of that money” complains Medical Director, Fernando Castaneda to La Prensa Panamá, “we can buy incubators for newborns, thousands of medicines, supplies, and equipment to replace all the damaged ones we have.”

One must presume that Dr Castaneda feels strongly that Panama has its priorities somewhat skewed and that medical equipment is more important than trying to ban nicotine pouches. He has obviously not considered the pride and boost to self-esteem the Panamanian public will derive from hosting a conference that almost no-one knows is taking place and which is held behind closed doors. 

#COP10 documents guide: FCTC/COP/10/7

loremipsum

The one where the WHO denies quitting smoking is quitting smoking, and other daydreaming

In the first Copwatch guide to documents being provided to ‘educate’ national delegations at the COP10 conference in November, let us look at FCTC/COP/10/7, published on 1st August.

This is the third report on articles 9 and 10 ((Regulation of contents and disclosure of tobacco products, including waterpipe, smokeless tobacco and heated tobacco products). You can read the document on the FCTC website to confirm our quotations below.

The first thing Copwatch noticed was how many (or, more accurately, how few) mentions there were of adults within the text of its 25 pages. For the good of our readers, we painstakingly counted them so you don’t have to. Fortunately, it did not take long as there were only two. Yes, two.

Once in terms of a target to reduce “adult smoking” by 2025 (page 2), which you would expect in a report preamble of this nature. The second was in a derogatory way by describing heated tobacco being used by “young adults” (page 10). By contrast, word searching “children” returns 23 results, “adolescents” 24, and “youth” 15.

There must be around 10 times as many adults on the planet as minors, but the WHO either does not notice them or considers them irrelevant. This could explain why the document is devoid of any references which suggest lower risk nicotine products are helping the 100 million+ adults who use them to quit smoking, which they undoubtedly are.

The WHO denies this, of course, because the authors of FCTC/COP/10/7 appear intent on redefining what quitting smoking is, as stated on page 8.

“Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, there is a critical need across the studies to uniformly define ‘cessation’, and whether a person who has switched from conventional cigarettes to ongoing use of ENDS [vapes] can be considered to have successfully “quit “.”

The document also denies that people who smoke are switching to vaping products at all, also on page 8.

“Overall, the certainty of the evidence across the studies and reviews is often rated as ”low” or “insufficient”.

It will not surprise you that this bang up-to-date WHO report does not cite the latest evidence from Cochrane, the global gold standard of evidence reviews, from November, which found “high certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes are more effective than traditional nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) in helping people quit smoking.”

FCTC/COP/10/7 also contains a section on nicotine pouches (page 16), which do not produce smoke and are not made from tobacco. The FCTC objective states clearly in Article 3 that its purpose is to reduce consequences and prevalence of “tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke” so this focus on pouches is mission creep unwarranted by the terms of the WHO’s own treaty.

The WHO worries that pouches “have attractive properties, such as appealing flavours, and can be used discretely (sic) without the stigma of smoking”. It reports that its TobReg study group has “made a number of recommendations to policy makers and all other interested parties” which can be found “in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 (Overall Recommendations) of TobReg’s Ninth report.”

Do not Google for that, though, as it has been published for all “interested parties” except the public who pay for the WHO through our taxes. A secret document, about a product which is not covered by the FCTC treaty, being shared with people who, if they were doing their job correctly, should be telling the WHO that nicotine pouches are none of their business at COP10. (UPDATE: Since publishing our article the TobReg Ninth report was published, on 23.08.23, download from here.)

This is not the only secret report referenced in FCTC/COP/10/7. There is another described as “supplementary information to this report” which discusses flavours in nicotine pouches and how they are advertised. It is available on the WHO FCTC website. By available, they mean available to them, not the likes of us.

It apparently notes that pouches come in “a wide variety of sweet and fruity flavours”, “amplify the visibility of pouch promotion”, “sponsor a wide variety of events” and offer “free or heavily discounted samples.” Otherwise known as companies producing safer nicotine products consumers might like and making them aware they exist.

The WHO is also not happy about pouch manufacturers claiming that their products offer “freedom to use anywhere”, are “innovative/modern/high tech, stealthy/discrete (sic) to use”, and benefit users for “no smell/teeth stains, and as a means of smoking cessation.” All of which is true, but perhaps the WHO has forgotten the meaning of truth at the same time as it forgot the definition of smoke and quitting smoking.

The report next turns its guns on single use vapes (page 17), for which it has engineered a new acronym, D-ENDS. It says that they “were introduced around 2018–2019 and began circulating on global markets” which will come as a revelation for those who were using disposable products from 2007 before refillable tanks were invented up to 2013 when the first heavily commercial disposable was marketed while open systems made by independent producers were still in their infancy

Still, FCTC/COP/10/7 helpfully reports that “a background paper on the characteristics, marketing, challenges of D-ENDS, as well as the regulatory considerations” has been produced “to provide authoritative guidance to its Member States.” That has not been published either.

Lastly, the document takes aim at flavours (page 18). “Flavours are often cited as the primary reason for youth to try a tobacco or nicotine product”, it boldly claims. Sadly, this is not true, either. Action on Smoking and Health in the UK released a report on August 3rd to correct myths about vaping. It was unequivocal that the evidence does not support flavours as a “primary reason” for children to take up vaping.

            The main reason children vape is because they like the flavours: NO

The main reason children give for vaping is ‘to give it a try’, cited by a quarter (26%) of those who have smoked tobacco and more than a half (54%) of those who have never smoked. The next most common reason is because ‘other people use them, so I join in’, in other words peer pressure, cited by 21% of ever smokers and 18% of never smokers. Liking the flavours comes third on the list, cited by 16%of ever smokers and 12% of never smokers as their reason for trying vaping.

It is not true in the USA either. The latest national survey data shows flavours are way down the list, just below the ability to do tricks.

Copwatch has failed to find any evidence that flavours are “the primary reason” for youth to try a nicotine product anywhere in the world.

The organization the WHO cites for its wildly inaccurate claim is STOP, a heavily Bloomberg-funded production. The three articles it refers to are all about flavours in combustible tobacco and present no evidence whatsoever that flavours are a “primary reason” for youth to try non-combustible nicotine products.

The FCTC/COP/10/7 report concludes by asking delegates to “note this report and to provide further guidance.” May we suggest that Parties to the treaty note the report and invite the WHO to come back with something which could be categorised in libraries as non-fiction?

The COP10 War

loremipsum

At COPWATCH we present facts to counter the misinformation coming from the ‘other side’ – those who deny the benefits of tobacco harm reduction.  However, never be in any doubt that passion lies underneath – we consumers are fighting not only for our lives, but for the lives of people who smoke. Enjoy and reflect upon this reaction to the WHO report.

The release of the 9th edition of the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic last week clearly shows that the avalanche of misinformation & disinformation is indeed being sponsored and paid for to maintain relevance of outdated concepts and to vilify Tobacco Harm Reduction in the court of public opinion, which is subjective at best.

Science is the quest for knowledge, not a means to justify dogma.  Science, if done correctly, can and should be replicated to confirm objective findings and the information should be widely distributed.

Sadly, this is not the case when it comes to reducing harm from combustible and unsafe tobacco globally.

Instead, we have media manipulation – the presentation of cherry picked information to incite moral outrage.

Instead we have arguments about “funding” of research and its alleged bias on conclusions.

Instead, we have “front groups” and “astroturf” to give a human face to the disinformation to make it relatable.

Instead, we have people who are deemed “professionals” and “experts” acting like histrionic teenagers creating drama and insult to those who question their methods and motivations to deflect from the truth.

So, what is the truth?  How do we know that “experts” mandated to protect “public health” are in fact fulfilling their responsibilities to us, the public?

That truth, in this space, is that innovation outside the parameters of what is “comfortable” and “known” must be “wrong” and a conspiracy from big business to keep shareholders happy.

George Carlin was a comedian in the 1970s who stirred the pot about “the system” and how it “works” (or doesn’t) for the average person.  “War is rich old men protecting their property by sending middle class and lower class men off to die.”  The war on tobacco will never see its conclusion whilst we have rich old men protecting their financial interests at the cost of the dirty “smoking” masses.

In the minds of these people, they believe they are righteous and the optics are good.  As long as they can control the narrative and keep the reality of the harm they cause with their moralistic imperatives under wraps its a winning combination for “everyone”

The WHO releases new report on the ‘tobacco epidemic’ and how to maintain it

loremipsum1 Comment

The World Health Organization released the 9th edition of its Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic on the last day of July. The 8th edition, published in 2021, did not mention tobacco until page 9, instead beginning with “Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) are addictive and not without harm” in large bold font and declaring that the devices should be strictly regulated. 

To open with an intention to obstruct products which could alleviate the “tobacco epidemic” was an odd approach for the 8th report, but the new update carries on in much the same vein. 

It clearly shows that the avalanche of misinformation and disinformation towards nicotine alternatives to smoking will be perpetuated in the lead up to #COP10. The latest report also confirms that the campaign against harm reduction is indeed being sponsored and paid for to maintain relevance of outdated concepts and to vilify tobacco harm reduction in the court of public opinion.

The acknowledgements page is very revealing. Profuse thanks are offered to Bath University, The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and Vital Strategies, all of which enjoy lavish funding provided by Michael Bloomberg. Very fitting considering the WHO declares that “Production of this WHO document has been supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies” which, in tobacco control circles, is not considered a conflict of interest. 

Tobacco control world – much like Barbie world – operates in the realm of fantasy and imagination rather than real life. 

It is also telling to note which organizations are not cited in the report. No mention, for example, of Public Health England or the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities in the United Kingdom which are positive about vaping. Nor is there mention of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in the United States which has produced encouraging evidence of the potential for harm reduction. 

We are sure they have been very active, but perhaps the WHO lost their work down the back of the sofa.

The United States is the biggest funder of the WHO and the UK in the top five, yet their most prominent academic institutions are ignored in this new report. Thumbing its nose at governments providing a weighty proportion of the WHO budget could be considered as somewhat rude. 

There is also no mention of the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco, or the article by 15 of its former presidents which examined the beneficial potential of vaping for public health. The Cochrane library is cited six times on various aspects of tobacco control activity, but the institution’s research finding there is “high certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes are more effective than traditional nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) in helping people quit smoking” is not one of them. 

Cynical people (unlike those at Copwatch, of course) might assume that there is some cherry-picking going on for inclusion of evidence for the report, while Bloomberg’s anti-nicotine minions are given pay-to-play access to write it. 

This latest document will be one spoon fed to delegations at COP10, which suggests the WHO is not intending to provide delegates with an unbiased and accurate picture of tobacco harm reduction. 

It is one of many to have been published in recent weeks for Parties to COP10. Watch this space for further analysis of published COP10 documents at Copwatch very soon.