Warning: the FCTC Secretariat is pushing for a new, abusive interpretation of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control

Delegates to the COP-11 must not be fooled

I would like to draw your attention to a major problem in the preparatory documents drafted by the FCTC Secretariat for COP-11 delegates : the improper reframing of the FCTC’s objective to include nicotine use instead of targeting tobacco consumption alone, and to reframe harm reduction as a tobacco industry ploy to be combated using article 5.3 of the FCTC. This is a serious abuse on the part of the FCTC Secretariat, of which delegates should be aware.

The objective of WHO’s Framework Convention for Tobacco Control is stated in its article 3:

The objective of this Convention and its protocols is to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke…

We emphasize here the central importance of health protection and the absence of any mention of protecting people from nicotine consumption outside of tobacco.

The FCTC sets out the obligations of the Parties to the Convention in Article 5.2.b, in particular:

2. Towards this end, each Party shall, in accordance with its capabilities […]

(b) adopt and implement effective legislative, executive, administrative and/or other measures and cooperate, as appropriate, with other Parties in developing appropriate policies for preventing and reducing tobacco consumption, nicotine addiction and exposure to tobacco smoke.

What did the authors mean by ‘nicotine addiction in Article 5.2.b. in 2003, when the FCTC was adopted, at a time when many of the novel nicotine products did not yet exist? To answer this question, let us examine the only two other instances of the term ‘nicotine addiction’ in the FCTC, both in Article 22.1, letters e and f:

(e) identification of methods for tobacco control, including comprehensive treatment of nicotine addiction; and

(f) promotion, as appropriate, of research to increase the affordability of comprehensive treatment of nicotine addiction.

We note here that both instances refer to ‘comprehensive treatment of nicotine addiction’. We understand that, in the minds of the authors of the FCTC, nicotine addiction was primarily a disorder affecting tobacco users and requiring treatment, rather than a behavior to be considered separately from tobacco use, since the only non-tobacco nicotine products commercially at the time were nicotine medications (patch, gum etc.), which are not addictive (a very small percentage of former smokers remain compulsive users of nicotine gum, but this is not the population that the authors of the FCTC had in mind when they mentioned nicotine addiction). We can therefore infer that the reference to nicotine addiction in Article 5.2.b refers only to a condition affecting tobacco users who require treatment for that condition. The FCTC makes absolutely no mention of reducing nicotine consumption separately from tobacco consumption.

Furthermore, a distinction should be made between addiction and dependence. Addiction comprises two elements: compulsive use and harmful effects. By using the term ‘addiction’, the authors of the FCTC were referring to the harmful consumption of nicotine, which comes almost exclusively from smoked products. This point reinforces the interpretation that the authors of the FCTC were not referring to addiction as ‘the consumption of any product containing nicotine’, contrary to what the FCTC Secretariat claims today.

Nevertheless, the FCTC Secretariat now pushes the envelope : they want us to interpret article 5.2.b as meaning that they have a blank check to pursue their crusade against new nicotine products and tobacco harm reduction.

The Secretariat’s document says:

2. Those proposals requested the addition of agenda items on WHO FCTC Article 5.2(b), on “harm reduction” as an Article 5.3 industry interference issue

The Secretariat’s document adds:

6. To date, the COP has not specifically considered implementation of Article 5.2(b)

and that

“it has not specifically addressed the Article 5.2(b) obligation of Parties to take such measures in relation to nicotine addiction”.

This is absurd. For more than 20 years, the Parties have done a great deal (but certainly not enough) to ‘adopt and implement effective measures [...] to prevent and reduce tobacco consumption’. The Parties have also implemented measures for the treatment of nicotine addiction, as required by Article 22. In reality, what the Secretariat wants today is to broaden the objectives of the FCTC to include nicotine products other than tobacco.

The document further says:

8. While the COP has not specifically considered implementation of Party obligations under Article 5.2(b) in relation to nicotine addiction, WHO has provided to COP since its Fourth session technical evidence-based information on novel and emerging nicotine products.

And here is a clever sleight of hand: the Secretariat equates nicotine use with nicotine addiction, ignoring the fact that not all users of nicotine are addicted, that most addicted users were already addicted to cigarettes before they started using the novel products (and therefore these products did not create de novo addiction in most users), and that the most addictive product is cigarettes, because of all products, cigarettes allow nicotine to pass most quickly into the bloodstream and brain.

Then, the Secretariat presents a strategy for the…

Implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC to protect measures under Article 5.2(b)

And there you have it: not only have they improperly expanded the scope of the FCTC to include tobacco-free nicotine products (under their questionable interpretation of Article 5.2.b), but now they want to bring out the heavy artillery. Claiming that harm reduction is a ploy by the tobacco industry, they want to combat the novel products with measures based on FCTC Article 5.3, which states that:

Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.

This is pure conspiracy theory and a very malicious way of lumping together all advocates of harm reduction and the tobacco industry, portraying them as either being paid by the industry or unwittingly working in its interests, thus becoming the industry’s objective allies.

By presenting harm reduction as a conspiracy by the tobacco industry, the Secretariat ignores the fact that the roots of tobacco harm reduction lie in the FCTC itself. Indeed, the FCTC uses the following definition for tobacco control in its Article 1:

(d) “tobacco control” means a range of supply, demand and harm reduction strategies that aim to improve the health of a population by eliminating or reducing their consumption of tobacco products and exposure to tobacco smoke

The Secratariat’s document says:

19. More recently, the tobacco industry and its allies have been using unproven health claims of “harm reduction” (or “reduced risk”) to further the marketing and commercialization of novel and emerging nicotine and tobacco products, and to avoid or reduce regulation of these products.

Unproven health claims? This statement ignores the fact that manufacturers of novel products do not make such health claims. If they did, their products would be legally considered medicines and would have to be approved by the government agencies that regulate medicines.

More importantly, the “unproven health claim” statement also suggests that non-combustible products are as dangerous as cigarettes, which is a dangerous statement in itself. This is blatant misinformation on the part of the FCTC Secretariat. Of course, non-combustible products are less harmful than cigarettes; no serious person would dispute that. It is unworthy of the WHO and utterly despicable on the part of the Secretariat to spread such unscientific propaganda. It is also dangerous, because not all FCTC Member States have the means to independently evaluate scientific data; they rely on the WHO, and misleading them will result in the deaths of smokers who will be denied safer alternatives because of the misinformation campaign conducted by the Secretariat.

The document concludes by saying that:

23. In light of the above, Parties may wish to consider sharing their experience regarding how they have protected their implementation of measures under Article 5.2(b) from unproven health claims made to further the marketing and commercialization of novel and emerging nicotine and tobacco products.

Delegates to COP-11 must be made aware of the Secretariat’s misguided strategy, must not follow its lead, they must demand that the helm be entrusted to a captain who will steer the ship to its destination, and that the FCTC apparatus be managed not by anti-THR activists, but by serious and honest people who place science rather than ideology at the centre of their actions.

---