Tag: tobacco harm reduction

  • Thoughtful Progress

    Thoughtful Progress

    GTNF 2024
    Credit: TS Donahue

    At the recent GTNF in Athens, stakeholders debated how to responsibly advance innovation.

    By Taco Tuinstra

    For a decade and a half now, the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) has nurtured engagement worldwide, fostering lively and constructive discussions among its participants. The GTNF’s most recent gathering, Sept. 24–26 in Athens, was no exception. For three days, the Divani Apollon Hotel served as a modern-day Greek agora, the ancient public space where people exchanged ideas and engaged in philosophical discussions with both friends and adversaries. Paying tribute to the host nation’s famous philosophers, the GTNF delegates asked probing questions, contemplated opposing viewpoints and displayed the courage to doubt themselves.

    But even as Athens upheld the tradition of spirited discourse, one of the conference’s most powerful moments was strikingly quiet. On day three of the forum, Carolyn Beaumont, a general practitioner and tobacco harm reduction educator from Australia, concluded her presentation with silence. She then chimed a bell every time a person would have succumbed to tobacco-related disease during that time span. Mindful of the conference’s full agenda, Beaumont played the recording for only a brief period. Had she let it run for the duration of the one-hour panel discussion she took part in, the bell would have tolled 900 times. That’s the equivalent of one death every four seconds, or 8 million deaths—nearly the population of Switzerland—every year.

    The staggering numbers underlined the urgency for the industry to help reduce the harm inflicted by smoking, and how to best achieve that goal was a major focus of this year’s GTNF. The task, of course, is formidable. Smoking is a notoriously difficult habit to kick, witness the fact that 60 years after the U.S. Surgeon General’s landmark report on smoking and health, and following decades of anti-smoking campaigns around the globe, more than 1 billion people continue to light up.

    Credit: TS Donahue

    Much of that is due to the properties of nicotine. The chemical’s uncanny ability to simultaneously stimulate and relax keeps many users coming back despite the widely known health risks of smoking. Illustrating the tenacity of nicotine addiction, another GTNF speaker, the cardio-endocrine physician Rohan Savio Sequeira, shared an anecdote of a patient who woke up from bypass surgery and immediately asked for a cigarette. “That’s the challenge we’re up against,” Sequeira said.

    But while addictive, nicotine is not the compound that causes the most serious smoking-related diseases. Nicotine may elevate blood pressure and heart rate, but the more significant risks presented by cigarettes, including cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stem from combustion. Several GTNF speakers compared the rewards and risks presented by nicotine to those of caffeine. But unlike the most popular method for taking caffeine—drinking coffee—the most common nicotine consumption method—setting fire to dried tobacco leaves and inhaling the smoke—exposes its user to thousands of harmful chemicals.

    While the obvious solution would seem to be for smokers to consume only the nicotine, through patches, for example, the low success rate of nicotine-replacement therapies in cessation suggests there are additional factors that keep people reaching for cigarettes. As multiple speakers pointed out during the GTNF, smoking is about more than self-administering nicotine. Many aspects of the ritual are difficult to replicate. “Pouch and blow me a smoke ring,” Rae Maile, managing director of research at the U.K. investment bank Panmure Liberum, challenged his intellectual sparring partner, Erik Bloomquist, during a GTNF “fireside chat” about the financial side of the nicotine business.

    Brian King (Credit: TS Donahue)

    But innovation is changing the equation. Over the past decade or so, breakthroughs in battery and atomization technologies have allowed manufacturers to construct devices that not only deliver nicotine without the harmful products of combustion but also closely mimic aspects of smoking that many consumers find so appealing—the “throat hit,” the hand-to-mouth motion and, yes, even the ability to blow rings. BAT Group Head of Global Policy Flora Okereke likened the nicotine business’ rapid technological leap to the progress that had played out over a much longer timespan in the automobile business: from Ford’s Model-T to today’s self-driving cars. While not risk-free, these tools, which include e-cigarettes and devices that heat rather than burn tobacco, offer an opportunity to satisfy people’s cravings at a fraction of the risk presented by traditional cigarettes. In 2015, Public Health England memorably announced that vaping was 95 percent less risky than smoking.

    Yet despite their considerable potential, such next-generation nicotine products have not been universally welcomed, with many regulators and health groups, including the influential World Health Organization, more attuned to the risk of attracting new nicotine users than the promise of transitioning adult smokers from deadly cigarettes to less risky consumption tools. Electronic nicotine-delivery systems have also come under fire for generating e-waste and creating fire hazards.

    Much of the Athens GTNF revolved around this conundrum: How can society reap the benefits of cigarette alternatives without attracting consumers who shouldn’t be using those products and without creating other unintended side effects, such as environmental pollution? As suggested by the 2024 conference theme, at least part of the answer lies in “Advancing Responsible Innovation.”

    Elaine Round (Credit: TS Donahue)

    Acknowledging the fact that tackling the challenges will require the involvement of stakeholders from all parts of society, the conference hosted a whopping 79 speakers, including 30 women, from various professional walks of life. In addition to industry officials, regulators and analysts, the lineup featured health activists, politicians and consumer advocates. There were returning headliners such as the director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products, Brian King, and numerous first-time contributors, such as Greek Health Minister Adonis Georgiadis, who in a video message encouraged delegates to educate governments so that they could provide their citizens with accurate information about the relative risks of nicotine products.

    Other participating politicians included Morgana Daniele, a member of Lithuania’s Parliament and chair of that nation’s Commission for Addiction Prevention, and Pietro Fiocchi, a member of the European Parliament and vice-chair of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. The retail sector was represented by Henry Armour, president and CEO of NACS in the U.S., and Panos Panayiotopoulos, general manager and director of the Greek retail association, among other speakers.

    Perhaps the GTNF’s biggest “coup” this year was the participation of Kathy Crosby, president and CEO of The Truth Initiative, a U.S. anti-tobacco group established after the 1998 landmark Master Settlement Agreement between leading tobacco companies and American states seeking to recover the cost of treating sick smokers. The Truth Initiative has been highly skeptical of e-cigarettes, especially because of their uptake by underage consumers. But Crosby courageously elected to engage rather than demonize the industry—a decision that will surely have raised eyebrows among the more uncompromising members of the public health establishment.

    Yet Crosby did not dilute her message. Even as she acknowledged the need for less harmful solutions for smokers who are not ready to leave nicotine behind, she was adamant such products should leave behind their youth appeal. With unauthorized sales accounting for the overwhelming majority of U.S. e-cigarette sales, she urged retailers to remove illegal products from their store shelves immediately. Doing so, she said, would create goodwill and pave the way for constructive dialogue with the public health community. Industry representatives at the GTNF eagerly accepted the olive branch. “The ball is now in our court,” said Jose Luis Murillo, chief regulatory advisor to Juul Labs’ CEO.

    Joe Murrilo (Credit: TS Donahue)

    Encouragingly, each link of the supply chain represented at GTNF appeared eager to address underage access. While preventing sales to minors is a legal requirement in many markets, NACS’ chief, Armour, stressed that his organization’s members are motivated not by fear of penalties but because they feel a responsibility toward the communities they serve.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s easy. Sketching the size of challenge, Armour noted that half of the U.S. population—some 165 people—comes to a convenience store every day, with 40 percent of their inventory comprising age-restricted products such as tobacco, alcohol and lottery tickets. Fortunately, technology, such as digital age verification platforms, are increasingly alleviating the burden.

    While the desire to prevent youth access is widely shared among stakeholders, opinions differ on the best way to achieve that objective. Around the world, lawmakers are increasingly resorting to prohibition, banning vape flavors or single-use products, for example—or outlawing new nicotine products altogether.

    That is not the approach favored by most GTNF speakers. Counterfactual Director Clive Bates reminded his audience that people have been using nicotine for at least 12,000 years. “Demand will persist because nicotine provides psychoactive rewards,” he predicted. Banning it, Bates noted, will simply shift demand from legitimate suppliers to law-evading ones, as happened in the U.S., where an onerous product authorization system combined with halfhearted enforcement has handed nearly the entire vaping business to the black market. Dave Dobbins, former chief operating officer of the American Legacy Foundation and now a consultant to Altria Group, cited the example of Bhutan, which in 2004 declared a nationwide ban on sales of tobacco products but was later forced to abandon its experiment under pressure from the illicit market (see “Bhutan’s Tryst with Health Imperialism,” Tobacco Reporter, June 2024).

    Instead of betting on unworkable bans, many GTNF attendees were hopeful that the same innovation that had brought the world less harmful nicotine products would help tackle challenges such as underage consumption. Elaine Round, group head of life sciences at BAT, took the opportunity introduce the GTNF audience to her company’s recently launched Omni platform, an evidence-based, accessible and dynamic resource that shows how science and innovation can combine to achieve a smokeless world. The potential of such innovations was clearly demonstrated in three “big pitch” presentations, a new GTNF event during which companies outlined their solutions to some of the business’ most vexing problems, and answered questions from an expert panel.

    Rhodri James, chief sales officer at Yoti, a digital identity company, described a technology that verifies buyers’ ages by scanning customers’ faces and measuring their skin tone. As people age, James explained, the pigment of their skin changes. Wrinkles, for example, have a different tone than smoother parts of the skin. By determining the differences, Yoti’s technology is able to determine a potential buyer’s age with an almost uncanny accuracy. In tests, the platform performed much better than human store clerks. In addition to speeding up checkouts—and thus reducing “friction” in store transactions—the platform helps defuse what James described as “challenges to the challenge.” Confronted with a customer incensed about being denied a sale, the salesclerk can simply blame the computer. Asked about privacy, James noted that facial age estimation is not facial recognition. The platform, he said, cannot tell who you are—only how old you are.

    Greenbutts presented a filter that it claims is biodegradable without compromising performance and taste (see “A Future Without Plastics,” Tobacco Reporter, March 2023). The product addresses a colossal challenge indeed. With 11 billion cigarettes discarded daily, filters are the single most littered item on the planet. As indoor smoking bans have forced consumers outdoors, the problem has only become worse; butts that were previously deposited in ashtrays are now ending up in the environment. Made with cellulose acetate, current filters degrade into nanoplastics, which not only pollute but also end up in the food chain.

    Founded in 2010, Greenbutts has developed a plastic-free, plant based product that is 100 percent dissolvable in water. Importantly, the filter delivers the same sensorial experience as cellulose acetate products at a comparable cost, according to the company. In blind tests performed at trade exhibitions, many smokers chose Greenbutt’s filter, said Chief Strategy Officer Luis Sanches, who added that production could be scaled up easily.

    Greentank shared a solution that offers vapers a more consistent user experience while lowering the risk of creating undesirable compounds during the heating process. In many currently available vapes, the flavor tends to wane as the pod empties. In tests, the Quantum Vape technology delivered 1,000 puffs with virtually unchanged flavor intensity. According to President and Chief Operating Officer Corey Koffler, Greentank was able to achieve this through “cleanroom chip manufacturing technology combined with physics at nanoscale.” Instead of relying on wicks and coils or ceramics, Quantum Vape comprises thousands of microscopic heating tubes on a chip. The system allows Greentank to precisely control both the location and the duration of the heating, thus eliminating hot spots and avoiding the risk of negative chemical reactions.

    The 2024 GTNF highlighted many more examples of such remarkable innovations, which perhaps isn’t surprising considering the amount of money invested. In a discussion among prominent suppliers of vaping hardware, e-liquids and nicotine pouches, company representatives revealed how much their employers spend on research and development. For example, Smoore International Holdings, a leading e-cigarette manufacturer headquartered in China, directs a whopping 10 percent of its revenue to R&D, according to Executive Director Eve Wang.

    While celebrating innovation, GTNF speakers lamented the hurdles preventing society from reaping the full benefits of new technologies. Misguided regulation featured prominently among the delegates’ gripes. According to Health Diplomats President Delon Human, 34 countries ban tobacco harm reduction products outright, leaving the market to combustible cigarettes. In the rest of the world, manufacturers must contend with everything from no regulations to very strict frameworks. Many words were devoted to the burdensome product authorization process in the U.S., which has left law-abiding American consumers with only a handful of outdated products and a thriving black market. The European Union’s continuing ban of snus, too, elicited repeated groans, as did the rapid spread of bans on nicotine pouches.

    Speakers also despaired at increasing restrictions on vape flavors. Konstantinos Farsalinos, senior  researcher at the School of Public Health at the Universities of Patras and West Attica, said that in the name of protecting youth, regulators aimed to make tobacco harm reduction products unpleasant and difficult to access. “But harm reduction will not work if you substitute cigarettes with a product that the smoker does not enjoy,” he warned.

    Misinformation was also mentioned as a challenge by many GTNF delegates. The World Economic Forum lists it as the biggest threat to humanity after climate change, noted Tikki Pang, former director of research policy and cooperation at the WHO. In the nicotine business, misinformation is widespread not only among consumers, many of whom now mistakenly believe that vapes are more harmful than cigarettes, but also among people who should know better: doctors. What medical schools teach their students about nicotine is abysmal, noted Jasjit Ahluwalia, a professor of behavioral and social sciences and professor of medicine at the Brown University School of Public Health and Alpert School of Medicine. In a recent survey, 80 percent of U.S. physicians erroneously indicated that nicotine causes cancer. Speakers agreed that education would be key to help correct misperceptions, although they acknowledged that any such effort by nicotine-related companies would likely backfire due to the industry’s enduring reputational challenge.

    The Athens GTNF also devoted much attention to a key but often overlooked stakeholder in the debate: the consumer. Nancy Loucas, executive coordinator of the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates, emphasized the need to humanize the consumers, who she said are too often treated as mere data points. “We are more than statistics,” said Loucas, after sharing her personal story of transitioning away from smoking with the help of e-cigarettes.

    Acknowledging the people that make up the market, tobacco companies appear to be increasingly receptive to that message, as became clear during a keynote by Imperial Brands’ Paola Pocci, whose very title—chief consumer officer—underscores the central role of nicotine users in the manufacturers’ operations. While consumers are similar in their desire for better health, Imperial Brands’ research also revealed that one size does not fit all; they need a variety of product categories to choose from, depending on local regulations and personal preferences, which may vary even depending on the time of day.

    To facilitate the transition to lower-risk products, devices must also be easy to use. As multiple panelists observed, innovation is useless if consumers don’t want the product. Bells and whistles that excite product designers also complicate operations, which in turn could deter users. The success of disposables is a case in point. Single-use vapes have become popular largely due to their ease of use; there are no buttons to push, batteries to charge or apps to pair. All the user has to do is puff—just like with a conventional cigarette.

    Despite the tremendous technological developments of recent years, GTNF panelists agreed that much work remains. Because no player has yet managed to develop a perfect cigarette substitute, the industry must continue to listen to consumers and address their pain points, said Pocci. The fact that cigarettes are still the most popular nicotine product suggests that the industry has not done enough to reduce the harms of smoking, echoed Marina Murphy, senior director of scientific affairs at the Haypp Group—although she also noted that it had done much better than the pharmaceutical sector, which failed to appreciate that people smoke not only to satisfy their nicotine cravings but also for the sensory aspects.

    Even as regulatory frameworks tighten and misinformation persists, the 2024 GTNF once again underlined the industry’s strong commitment to tobacco harm reduction and continued innovation. While the combination of regulatory and societal challenges will keep nicotine companies on their toes, it will also ensure another trove of compelling discussion topics when the GTNF reconvenes at a yet-to-be-announced location in 2025.

  • Wasted Time

    Wasted Time

    Credit: Proxima Studio

    Time has not been used effectively to lower smoking rates using proven THR policies.

    By George Gay

    No truer statement about tobacco harm reduction (THR) could ever have been made than this: “Too much time has been wasted.”

    This blunt assessment was attributed to Jacek Olczak, CEO of Philip Morris International, in a September press note heading that had him challenge “governments across the globe to embrace smoke-free alternatives to end cigarettes faster.”

    I take it that what Olczak was referring to is the time that has not been used by societies to good effect to bring down tobacco smoking rates using proven THR policies. But he might well have had in mind, too, the cumulative time cut from the lives of individuals said to have died “prematurely” from smoking-related diseases—diseases that could have been avoided by employing THR strategies.

    The press note includes much that is interesting, but my eye was particularly drawn to a passage where it was said that, according to a new international survey conducted by independent research firm Povaddo for PMI, 82 percent of respondents agreed they would be somewhat or very angry, frustrated or upset to learn that a breakthrough that could help address a societal issue was not made available to the public due to government inaction.

    Even very angry doesn’t cut it for me, partly because we are not talking only about government inaction but about government action in undermining such breakthroughs. Later in the press note, Sweden was said to have one of the lowest smoking rates in the developed world, at just 5.8 percent, largely due to the availability of snus, which Swedish men began switching to decades ago. “… The Swedish Snus Commission (SSC) estimates that more than 350,000 smoking-attributable deaths among men could have been avoided each year if the other EU countries had matched Sweden’s tobacco-related mortality rate,” the note said.

    If the SSC is correct, and given that the EU has banned snus outside Sweden since 1992, we must reluctantly accept that about 10,500,000 men have, because of the action of the EU authorities in banning snus and then their subsequent, continuing inaction in not unbanning it, died prematurely in about a 30-year period.

    OK, so 10,500,000 might be something of a stretch because the EU was smaller in 1992 than it is now, and I don’t know whether the 350,000 annual figure is an average or is based on a single year. But it is clear that we are talking about a big number and that no such number would have been allowed to have occurred in a 30-year war. A truce would have been called long ago and compromises made. But not in respect of the war on snus, and yet nobody will be called to account over what has occurred in the EU because of the ban on snus.

    And the question arises as to whether such a calamity, such an outrage, would have been allowed to go almost unnoticed, unremarked in any other field. I think not, but I struggle to understand why this is the case, and the only reasons I have managed to come up with so far are that 1) smokers tend to be financially less well-off than the average person and to have little or no public voice or power, and 2) smokers have been deliberately denormalized by anti-tobacco activists. They have been placed beyond societal norms, so the problems they face are not regarded as being societal issues. People will not be very angry, or even upset, if governments don’t take the problems of smokers seriously.

    These are not wholly convincing arguments, are they? And I must be concerned when I cannot even convince myself. I mean, individuals, companies, organizations and governments do worry about smokers, don’t they? At the first opportunity, everybody with the closest or flimsiest connection to tobacco or nicotine will lament that, according to the World Health Organization, 8 million smokers die prematurely each year because of their habit. Ask yourself how many times you have seen that statement written or heard it articulated.

    PMI says it used WHO data, estimates and methodologies, along with third-party data, to calculate the potential public health impact of the world’s smokers switching from cigarettes to less harmful, smoke-free products.

    “The hypothetical model shows that if smoke-free products are assumed to be 80 percent less risky than cigarettes and if people who currently smoke were to switch to them completely, then over their lifetime, there’s a potential for a tenfold reduction in smoking-attributable deaths compared with [those that would have occurred under] historical tobacco control measures alone,” the press note said.

    This is impressive and worthy of note, but the problem here is that in using and, dare I say it, extolling the data and, especially, the methodologies of the WHO, PMI rather shoots itself in the foot.

    “For over a decade, PMI has championed a smoke-free future,” Olczak is quoted as saying. “Having invested more than $10.5 billion to scientifically research, develop and commercialize smoke-free products—which today account for more than a third of our total net revenues—we are living this future. Yet, inexplicably, there are countries stuck in the past where smokers can easily access cigarettes—the most harmful form of nicotine consumption—but not the better option of smoke-free alternatives.”

    This situation is not universally inexplicable. Imagine for a minute that you are the health minister in a country whose economy does not allow major investments to be made in nation-specific health research. When the WHO comes knocking and tells you that your country has a smoking problem that is draining its finances and that THR is not the way to address it, what are you going to do?

    You might notice that PMI is advocating THR, but you also notice that it is relying on WHO data and methodologies. That is, the methodologies are the same, the only difference is the interpretation of the data, so who are you going to believe, the international health organization or the international tobacco/nicotine company? It’s a no-contest.

    I don’t want to seem to be an anti-expert or a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that we need to rely less on numbers, which are impersonal and which can be, intentionally or not, highly misleading, and more on values when it comes to addressing the problems caused by smoking. There is certainly something wrong with the ways that health data are manipulated by some, and the situation is getting worse by the day. Let me provide a current example from the U.K.

    The ruling Conservative Party, nervous of a general election due next year, is reverting to type and aligning with a former prime minister’s reported policy of cutting the “green crap,” supposedly to help it appeal to its older voter base. And as part of this strategy, some are opposing certain policies aimed at cutting outdoor pollution by pointing out that the word ‘pollution’ has appeared only once as a cause of death on a death certificate.

    I cannot say whether this is correct, but it wouldn’t surprise me because it could be argued that, for instance, people don’t die of heart attacks caused only by the inhalation and ingestion of pollutants, which is perhaps one factor—one major factor—among others that might include lifestyle choices.

    But in conceding this, I must ask myself why people are so ready to attribute deaths to smoking. By the same reasoning, I take it, people don’t die of heart attacks caused only by the inhalation of tobacco smoke, which will be one factor—one major factor—among others that might include lifestyle choices and pollution.

    Of course, we know the answer to this. It’s because of the way the system is set up to focus on smoking but not on pollution. There are certain diseases that are defined as smoking-related, and if a smoker dies of one of these, her death is recorded as having been caused by smoking.

    The fact that these diseases could also be defined as pollution-related diseases seems to be glossed over. To get an idea of the contribution of pollution to disease and deaths, it is necessary to listen to the information provided by people such as the U.N. secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, who is not afraid to speak out.

    Interestingly, Sept. 7 was International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies, and if you look at the U.N. website, you will see that air pollution is described as a twofold problem:

    1. “Health impact: Tiny, invisible particles of pollution penetrate deep into our lungs, bloodstream and bodies. These pollutants are responsible for about one-third of deaths from stroke, chronic respiratory disease and lung cancer as well as one quarter of deaths from heart attack. Ground-level ozone, produced from the interaction of many different pollutants in sunlight, is also a cause of asthma and chronic respiratory illnesses.”
    2. “Climate impact: Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) are among those pollutants most linked with both health effects and near-term warming of the planet. They persist in the atmosphere for as little as a few days or up to a few decades, so reducing them can have … almost immediate health and climate benefits for those living in places where levels fall.”

    It is good to see this emphasized because air pollution, which is generally invisible and is visited upon everyone, even those, such as children, who don’t cause it directly, is a more insidious risk factor than tobacco smoke, which is visible and largely affects only those who consume it. In fact, my newspaper this morning, Sept. 21, has a heading: “Almost all Europeans breathing toxic air.”

    Clearly, the figures of one instance of pollution being recorded on a death certificate and 8 million smoking-related deaths annually are both misleading, but they are allowed to guide us because they point us in the direction that we have already determined we want to go. They provide the comfort of confirmation bias. But what we should be doing is determining that direction based on values, not suspect figures, even though such a quest might lead us into difficult places.

    And one of those places is, of course, environmental pollution, which, in my opinion, is still not taken seriously enough by the vaping industry, especially when it comes to disposables. I fail to understand how we might be able to justify the proliferation of disposables on the grounds of values.

    How can we justify disposables when, clearly, the conversion of all smokers to the consumption of disposable vapes would not be something we could defend—would not, if you like, be something we would wish to become a universal law unless we are seeking to accelerate the end of humanity. And neither can they be justified on the grounds of the good of most people.

    In fact, up to a point, I think the same might be said for nondisposable vapes, and so perhaps the time has come for THR advocates to start winding back on vaping devices and concentrating more on products such as snus and nicotine pouches, which are much easier to justify on the grounds of nicotine-user health, the environment and society at large.

    A lot of people, including, probably, most of the readers of this magazine, will not agree with this, and they may well be right in not doing so. But I think it is important to have these discussions. THR fails, in my view, if it does not comprise a progressive signpost.

    I said at the start of this piece that, in my opinion, Olczak had made what is possibly the truest statement about THR in saying that too much time had been wasted. But he said something even more important that I quoted above and part of which I shall repeat here: “… We are living this future ….”

    He’s right: We need to look to the future, not the past, which can be a guide only for those reactionaries not wanting to face the future.

  • 100 THR Experts Pen Letter Against WHO Vapor Stance

    100 THR Experts Pen Letter Against WHO Vapor Stance

    One hundred tobacco harm reduction (THR) experts have published a joint letter challenging the World Health Organization’s (WHO) approach to tobacco science and policy. The group is urging members of the Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-9) of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), a global intergovernmental treaty in which the WHO plays a major role, to encourage the WHO to support and promote the inclusion of tobacco harm reduction into its regulatory advisements.

    Credit: Igor Golovnev.

    “Smoke-free nicotine products offer a promising route to reducing the harms arising from smoking. There is compelling evidence that smoke-free products are much less harmful than cigarettes and that they can displace smoking for individuals and at the population level,” the letter states. “Regrettably, [the] WHO has been dismissive of the potential to transform the tobacco market from high-risk to low-risk products. [The] WHO is rejecting a public health strategy that could avoid millions of smoking-related deaths.”

    The letter was published on Oct. 18 and will be sent to COP-9 delegates. In a joint statement, Ruth Bonita, former director of WHO Department of NCD Surveillance, and Robert Beaglehole, former director of the WHO Department of Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, stated that they were “extremely disappointed by WHO’s illogical and perverse approach” to reduced-harm nicotine delivery products, such as vaping.

    “A key challenge in global tobacco control is to assist cigarette smokers to transition from burnt tobacco products to much less harmful options that provide the nicotine without the toxic smoke,” the statement reads. “[The] WHO’s continuing disregard of the wealth of evidence on the value of these products is condemning millions of smokers to preventable disease and premature death.”

    The letter goes on to make seven points about the current vaping regulatory environment, such as the value of vaping in THR and the unintended consequences of poor regulatory policies. The authors then go on to make six suggestions for the WHO to consider:

    • Make tobacco harm reduction a component of the global strategy to meet the Sustainable
      Development Goals for health, notably SDG 3.4 on non-communicable diseases.
    • Insist that any WHO policy analysis makes a proper assessment of benefits to smokers or would-be
      smokers, including adolescents, as well as risks to users and non-users of these products.
    • Require any policy proposals, particularly prohibitions, to reflect the risks of unintended
      consequences, including potential increases in smoking and other adverse responses.
    • Properly apply Article 5.3 of the FCTC to address genuine tobacco industry malpractice, but not to
      create a counterproductive barrier to reduced-risk products that have public health benefits or to
      prevent critical assessment of industry data strictly on its scientific merits.
    • Make the FCTC negotiations more open to stakeholders with harm-reduction perspectives, including
      consumers, public health experts, and some businesses with significant specialised knowledge not
      held within the traditional tobacco control community.
    • Initiate an independent review of WHO and the FCTC approach to tobacco policy in the context of
      the SDGs. Such a review could address the interpretation and use of science, the quality of policy
      advice, stakeholder engagement, and accountability and governance. The Independent Panel for
      Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPPR), initiated to evaluate the response to the COVID-19
      pandemic, offers such a model.

    Another signatory, David Sweanor, adjunct professor of law, chair of the Advisory Board of the Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics University of Ottawa, Canada, in a separate statement, said that effective public health efforts need to be based on science, reason and humanism. Instead, the WHO is aligning itself against all three when dealing with nicotine.

    “The result is that one of the greatest opportunities to improve global health, separating nicotine use from smoke inhalation, is being squandered. Global trust in health authorities, and the WHO in particular, has never been so important,” the statement reads. “Yet the WHO is abandoning science, rationality and humanism on nicotine and instead apparently pursuing the moralistic abstinence-only agenda of external funders. This is a public health tragedy that extends well beyond the unnecessary sickening of the billion-plus people who smoke cigarettes.”