Under pressure, conflicted WHO allies reveal their twisted version of harm reduction

The saying, “oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive,” could have been written to describe the convoluted back-pedaling now routinely seen in various tobacco control industry circles after years of dishonest research, outrageously biased scientific reviews, deliberately false claims of potential harm, and blatant lying about reduced risk nicotine products.

Opposing Perspectives on Harm Reduction

One of the most egregious of these has been the casual accusation that the concept of harm reduction in the field of tobacco products is a commercial invention of the tobacco industry instead of a well-recognised strategy accepted in all other areas of public health.

Despite article 1(d) of the immutable 2003 wording of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) treaty clearly stating that harm reduction is one of the main pillars of tobacco control, committed anti-nicotine extremists have continually sought to sweep the option under the carpet once commercially viable low risk nicotine-containing alternatives to combustible tobacco emerged as a real threat to the continued existence of cigarettes.

Until now, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been strategically quiet as to its own definition of what harm reduction is supposed to be, preferring instead just to shout “Big Tobacco” a lot and hope that it deters the public, and regulators in their member nations, from investigating further. However, with an estimated 112 million users of alternative nicotine products in nations throughout the world, and growing, this tactic is proving insufficient.

Evolving Views at WHO’s FCTC Treaty

At the recent tenth Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the WHO’s FCTC treaty, dissent was openly apparent. Several countries such as Antigua, Armenia, China, Guatemala, New Zealand the Philippines, and Russia referenced harm reduction in their progress statements during the opening plenary of the conference. During the event, there were also objections to the quality of the biased reports that the Convention Secretariat presented to Parties to the treaty for consideration. St Kitts and Nevis went as far as introducing a draft decision for Parties to demand the WHO pay proper attention to article 1(d) in future discussions.

The frustration of the FCTC Secretariat that their carefully constructed deceit was being challenged by their bosses must have been palpable.

During the COP10 conferences, the WHO FCTC’s fan club, the Global Alliance for Tobacco Control (GATC), wrote bulletins intended to influence, shame, and even bully sovereign governments into following the WHO herd. It is disgraceful behaviour considering the country delegations make decisions at the meetings and should be entitled to do so without pressure and intimidation, but that is a story for a different day.

The GATC bulletin for day 5 of COP10, once it was clear that many delegates were of the opinion that the concept of harm reduction should be addressed, contained an article finally expressing the FCTC’s version of what harm reduction is. It was written by their deeply conflicted allies at Vital Strategies and Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, both of which are heavily funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the most virulently anti-nicotine entity in the world.

Distorted Justification and the Road Ahead

The laughable justification for claiming a true concept is just a tobacco industry construct states, “Tobacco harm reduction at an individual level, often the focus of the industry’s messaging, is not the same as harm reduction at a population level – the purpose of the WHO FCTC.” This claim is made by the WHO’s Bloomberg-funded minions.

Relying on the scientifically disproven assumptions that “electronic products [do not] assist smokers in quitting” and promoting the regularly debunked theory that nicotine use is a gateway into combustible tobacco use, their assertion rests solely on the argument that “nicotine addiction is rapidly increasing, particularly among youth.”

That’s it, literally.

By ramping up the minimal harms of nicotine use and implying they are similar to those of combustible tobacco, they claim that there is a population level increase in harm rather than a significant and revolutionary reduction.

This can only make sense if it is assumed that none of the increased exclusive nicotine use has replaced the use of combustible tobacco which the WHO’s own statistics insist leads to the death of 8 million people a year, up to two of every three people who smoke. But they do, indeed, make that assumption. It is risible logic. Only the most ideologically driven and purposely blinkered opponents of harm reduction can possibly contemplate that none of the hundreds of millions of consumers of vaping products, snus, nicotine pouches, or heated tobacco were not formally smokers which therefore resulted in a population-wide phenomenon of harm reduction. It is fair to assume that they do not even believe it themselves.

But when there is a global lie to defend, when you have blithely dismissed mounting evidence that blows your status quo, when Parties to the treaty are seeing through the cleverly constructed deceit and demanding you do better, needs must.

Dishonesty always catches out the dishonest. While it is amusing to see the wriggling being employed to back up a patently absurd assertion that the widely understood concept of harm reduction weirdly does not apply to the comfy echo chamber of WHO tobacco control, it has little chance of success. The ivory tower is crumbling. It would be far simpler (and less stressful) for the WHO and FCTC administrators to admit their reactionary and evidence-avoiding approach must change and join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

Martin Cullip is an International Fellow at The Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center and is based in South London, UK.