COP9 has become perhaps the most controversial and influential event in the e-cigarette world, forcing consumers and even smokers of the technology. In COP's Impact on E-cigarettes, Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs in Britain provides an in-depth and multimodal analysis of the meetings, the decisions made there and the disputed facts that once again put the WHO in a very low light.
Christopher Snowdon is the author of the white paper "The Impact of COP9 on e-cigarettes" and director of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs
In his recent publication on e-cigarettes, he talks about the socio-political and economic recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the global anti-smoking race, and other ideological interventions in the protocols and public health strategies they defend today.
Who is a global health organization and an administrative body with a high degree of influence over the internal policies of its member states. For this reason, every action it takes has an impact not only on governments, but directly on citizens, just as users of electronic Nicotine Management Systems (SEAN) and other low-risk technologies are scientifically proven to be the best tools for quitting smoking.
The condemned e-cigarette
"Governments that recognise the life-saving potential of e-cigarettes should make a strong case at COP9. If WHO continues to spread misinformation about e-cigarettes, governments should withdraw funds from the FCTC secretariat, "Snowden wrote in his book. It also stressed that the secretariat of the framework convention on tobacco control, and the resulting persistent organic pollutants (pops), whether in reality form or on the forecast, do not constitute a proper strategy to solve the problem of smoking, because who's purpose is to denigrate, despite strong scientific evidence to support the electronic cigarette is a safer nicotine consumption choice, but it is still forbidden and condemned electronic cigarettes.
Although the Convention considers harm and risk reduction, it has never actively promoted e-cigarettes as an alternative to traditional pharmacological methods. "Unfortunately, WHO has never implemented harm reduction policies related to smoking, and in recent years it has increasingly focused on eradicating e-cigarettes and other low-risk nicotine products," Snowden said. Furthermore, this is evident after the celebration of COP, which is characterized by their extreme secrecy and secrecy to the point of expelling previously authorized journalists "(Drew Johnson, 2016)
The WHO's opposition to ENDS came when ENDS became popular in 2010. However, in a statement at COP4 in Uruguay, the organisation said the technology lacked evidence and testing. Concerned about legislative gaps in many countries to control the sale, manufacture, import and export of SEAN's products, WHO intervened and asked signatories to ban the use and commercialization of e-cigarettes in public places.
Despite incontrovertible evidence of the safety of ENDS, and despite the World Health Organization's recognition in 2016 that they are an alternative to traditional cigarettes, the organization remains steadfast in viewing e-cigarettes as a public health risk. This has been made clear through campaigns on social networks, such as one posted in January 2020 in which he erroneously stated that "vaping burns skin," "Second-hand vapors harm passers-by," and even that SEAN could be "more dangerous than regular cigarettes." .
Adverse effects on consumers
As an international treaty with a very high ratification rate, FCTC has certain transnational legislative power, which gives it certain "legitimacy" and gives it a very influential position on the signatory countries, especially low and middle income countries. In addition to high smoking rates, these countries are under the greatest pressure to comply with the convention's guidelines and ban access to low-risk alternatives. This is due to the economic and political pressures on these countries, which are generally dependent on WHO assistance.
Bureaucracy and the disbursements of political favours are no stranger to the actions of the Organization, as it shields politicians, researchers, groups and states aligned with its ideology, rather than those to whom it provides financial support or positions in the Organization.
One example is Hong Kong's award-winning law against SEAN's commercialization in 2019. The following year, the winners were institutions and groups from Mexico and Bolivia; The first won at the state level for banning the commercialization of e-cigarettes. This type of "political gambling" maintains harm reduction bias and condemns users and smokers for continuing the deadly habit of smoking.
While avoiding direct comparisons with traditional cigarettes, these dubious strategies are compounded by the complicity of the evaluation team, which distorts information to show that it does not exist or greatly increases the risk.
"Who's reputation has been tarnished over the past 18 months by its handling of COVID-19, but many still respect it, linking it to the successful campaigns to eradicate smallpox in the 20th century, and if the WHO says e-cigarettes are a dangerous product that threatens to undo decades of progress in the fight against smoking, Then many people will believe it.
"The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the political nature of WHO and shows it is capable of making major scientific and policy errors, such as insisting that SARS-COV-2 cannot be transmitted through the air. The travel ban is not 'unworkable', but it still benefits from the 'halo effect' because of its glorious past and the important principles it claims to uphold.
"Many countries do not have the resources to conduct evidence reviews like those in the UK and THE US, and instead rely on bodies such as the WHO and FCTC, unaware that they have been caught by a small group of teetotalers WHO only seek abstinence," Concludes Christopher at the end of chapter 2 of his white paper.