Experts challenge WHO’s approach to tobacco harm reduction as they call for more flexible reform approach

During the second day of Good Conference of the Parties 2.0 currently underway, experts have challenged the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) approach to tobacco harm reduction and called for more flexible reform approach.

The Good COP 2.0 sets the tone for a week of spirited and detailed discussion about evidence-based tobacco harm reduction and reform within the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which began with noble ambitions on Tuesday — “to coordinate a global response to the tobacco epidemic through evidence-based and transparent cooperation.”

Highlights of the second day expanded on themes of transparency, scientific integrity, and global harm reduction challenges in which the expert panels and regional voices highlighted tensions between evidence-based public health and calls for continued prohibition.

Discussions underscored what is at stake for consumers and policymakers as COP11 national delegations such as New Zealand and Serbia called for a more flexible harm reduction approach,” highlights a media brief from the conference.

In the opening remarks, Marina Murphy — who has more than 20 years of experience across scientific research, communications, and engagement in the tobacco harm reduction and nicotine field — observed that “when practitioners are studying medicine, they are well educated on the dangers of smoking but not well educated on the benefits of quitting and switching to safer products.”

Thus she said that the “Good COP provides a platform to discuss and evaluate the evidence on the benefits of harm reduction”, while David Williams was of the view that “it is critical that the Good COP serves as a forum where people can talk and have disagreements.”

“COP11 is not being open and transparent to the public in their pursuit of the failed rigid idea of prohibition. If you can make people healthier using these harm reduction products, you can not only transform lives but give taxpayers a break on high healthcare costs,” observed Williams.

Martin Cullip, who is a former company director and International Fellow of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance Consumer Centre, gave an example of Serbia’s sentiments during at the Good COP 2.0 first day session, whose experts suggested that science should be included in the discussions.

“Instead, COP11 is leaving out the evidence and stacking the deck with pro-prohibition voices,” said Cullip. “The echo chamber’s delusionary thinking is beyond belief.”

The panel discussion centres on the theme; ‘A Dangerous Game: Is Stubborn FCTC Secretariat Ideology Eroding Trust in Public Health?’, which was undertaken by Maria Papaioannoy, Gabriel Oke, Liza Katsiashvili and Heneage Mitchell.

Katsiashvili said: “I think the more ideological these health institutions are, the more they are eroding trust with the public. Consumers should not be treated as stupid people who cannot make their own decisions.”

On her part, Papaioannoy observed that when she sees “a public health organisation stand up and say, ‘We made a mistake,’ that shows they care about people and the truth more than their egos. Instead, they are doubling down on misinformation.”

Heneage Mitchell noted that there is at least half a million people vaping every day in Thailand but national restrictions “are resulting in untaxed and unregulated products that are falling into the hands of children.”

The panel discussion under the theme; ‘The Battle Over Science’ — handled by Dr. Marina Murphy, Dr. Mark Tyndall, Dr. Roberto Sussman, Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos and Professor Sharifa Ezat — observed that “it is very disappointing that authorities who should know better are ignoring science”.

“Nothing is zero risk, but tobacco harm reduction (THR) product aerosols are far safer than tobacco smoke,” said Sussman, while Farsalinos highlighted that “there are a billion smokers in the world and 8 million premature deaths annually related to tobacco.”

“Any appropriate science-based intervention will save lives. But rash policies based on hysteria will cost lives,” said Farsalinos, with Prof. Ezat joining in to indicate that “in Japan, many of the smokers have already converted to reduced risk alternatives such as heat-not-burn products — unfortunately, authorities in other countries are relying on flawed and incomplete studies to adopt the opposite approach.”

The takeaways from the second session of the Good COP 2.0 highlighted public trust in global health institutions as a recurring theme with speakers emphasising a widening divide between scientific evidence and WHO FCTC Secretariat ideology.

Regional voices emphasised real-world consequences of restrictive nicotine policies, with Jeannie Cameron emphasising that “consumers need a voice in the COP forum — they’ve been left out”, while David Williams concluded: “Instead of listening to the real people that need [vaping] products, the WHO deflects. It’s long past time for them to bring taxpayers and consumers into the conversation.”