Experts, consumer advocates and regulators at the “Good COP 2.0” conference in Geneva cautioned that prohibitionist approaches targeting tobacco harm reduction (THR), often backed by billionaire funding, undermine public health goals, fuel illicit trade and disproportionately harm low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
The conference, organized by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) as a counterpoint to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11), spotlighted growing opposition to the WHO’s agenda across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Speakers alleged that the WHO’s ongoing opposition to THR is particularly damaging to countries with fragile health systems. They specifically denounced “philanthro-colonialism,” citing the outsized influence of wealthy institutions and funders in shaping global tobacco control policies that disadvantage LMICs.
“In this environment where so much has been co-opted by one guy, it is hard to achieve a balanced perspective,” said University of British Columbia professor Dr. Mark Tyndall, who also warned that billionaire influence and funding bears heavily on WHO tobacco policy and that the policies risk handing the entire market over to illegal operations.
The TPA’s event highlighted the Asia-Pacific region, unveiling research that showed gaps between WHO policy prescriptions and on-the-ground realities.
“We must reclaim the integrity of the evidence, and the evidence for harm reduction is far more rigorous than the ‘science’ supporting prohibition,” said Coalition of Asia Pacific Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) executive-coordinator Nancy Loucas.
Professor Tikki Pangestu, visiting professor at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at National University of Singapore, noted the challenge regulators face. “Technology is moving very quickly, and regulators are struggling to keep up with the pace of innovation,” he said.
Consumer advocate Clarisse Yvette Virgino warned that billionaire-backed influence continues to be “bad news for vaping manufacturers and consumers across the Philippines.”
Professor Sharifa Puteh, a Malaysian public health expert, stressed the need for alternatives to cigarettes. “If anyone can come up with new, innovative alternatives that help people quit smoking, go ahead. But so far, the best options we have are the ones that governments are trying to ban,” Professor Puteh said.
Public health commentator Gabriel Oke emphasized that African nations must be included in the global tobacco harm reduction debate. “We have a large percentage of people who smoke in Africa, and it is really important that we are part of the discussion and decision-making,” Oke said.
TPA international fellow Martin Cullip observed that countries wary of WHO policies are increasingly pushing back. “Countries have made clear at COP11 that they have legitimate concerns about prohibition,” Cullip said.
Panelists also noted that New Zealand, despite having one of the world’s lowest smoking rates, was awarded the “Dirty Ashtray” at COP11 for promoting harm reduction, describing it as a clear example of the “demonization of harm reduction.”
Harm reduction activist Bengt Wiberg presented data from Sweden showing that a 72 percent drop in smoking among 16- to 29-year-olds in the last 10 years coincided with a 72 percent rise in the use of snus and nicotine pouches.
Health psychologist from the UK, Sairah Salim Sartoni, said, “People have the right to vape, come off vaping and go to [nicotine] pouches. Whatever they want to do, they should have the access.”
Harm reduction specialist David Williams cited the importance of innovation. “Twenty-five years ago, we didn’t have smartphones, but we do now. Why not use the same sort of innovation in this space?” Williams said.
