Leaked Papers Show WHO’s Plans To Intensify War Against E-Cigs

Last week a meeting of tobacco regulators under auspices of the FDA-funded WHO Global Tobacco Regulators’ Forum (GTRF) was held in the Netherlands, as part of the preparation for FCTC COP-9, which will also be held in the Netherlands in 2020. Following, are two leaked papers which the WHO is expected to present at the conference, that indicate the WHO’s plans to have vaping products regulated in the same way as regular cigarettes, despite their harm reduction potential.

1. EMRO Paper on Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
2. EMRO Paper on Heated Tobacco Products

In a post on his blog page, public health expert Clive Bates, summarized what he refers to as “wretched documents”,  as follows:

*“These products should be banned where possible (something WHO does not advise for cigarettes)
*The manufacturers and supply chain should be treated like the tobacco industry and subject to official pariah status under Article 5.3 of the FCTC
*If they are not banned, ‘strong regulation’ should be applied to these products – at least as stringent as cigarettes.”

A former senior civil servant, Bates shared his thoughts on the documents, offering ways with which in his opinion ‘regulators’ attending the conference should respond to these papers.

“1. Policy rationale. What problem are these policy positions are supposed to address? While WHO says tobacco kills about 8 million per year – these are overwhelmingly deaths caused by smoking – and it is this gruesome toll that justifies the FCTC and control on tobacco.  There is no evidence of commercially produced vaping or heated tobacco products killing anyone on any material scale. So what is the policy rationale for intervention? It seems to be that some of these products are produced by the tobacco industry.  WHO has never had clarity on its goals: see Who or what is the World Health Organisation at war with (2016)

2.Justification of proposals. To what extent does the paper justify any measures it proposes.  The answer is: “the papers provide no justification at all for any of the measures proposed“.  The measures follow from an undeclared and unjustified policy purpose to create the most hostile regulatory environment possible.  If I was still a civil servant and I received these, I would return them with a polite note saying that I think the memorandum justifying the proposals had been lost in the post.

3. The threat of unintended consequences. The killer problem, literally and figuratively, for these measures is the issue of harmful unintended consequences.  Such consequences are obvious and foreseeable once you accept even the possibility that these products are much lower risk than smoking and that they can substitute for smoking in the way people consume nicotine.  There is plenty of evidence to support these contentions and no credible evidence to deny them.

4. Transparency and consultation. What did they do to seek input and refine the information is the light of stakeholder knowledge are groups, such as consumers, who could be adversely affected? The answer appears to be “nothing at all”.  No-one should be making policy with life-or-death consequences without extensive consultation.

5. Monitoring, evaluation and governance. What if the advice in these papers is wrong and causes harm? What is the process to monitor effects, check for unintended consequences, change the advice and to be accountable for harms caused?”