Tobacco Asia

28 tobaccoasia Issue 5, 2023 September / October "little support at present for the reactivation [of the working group]" and that "an expert group be established to consider and make recommen- dations to COP at a future session on pertinent issues and evidence concerning the regulation of contents and disclosure of tobacco products" in- stead. We can all make an educated guess at the members of that group of experts and their point of view. It can also be expected that similar to previous COP meetings, COP10 will again be shrouded in secrecy, allowing only a small group of delegates whose views share the same anti-tobacco dogma to attend. There may also be a handful of selected media and even NGOs allowed, but none who would be representing the industry nor tobacco product consumers. Even tobacco harm reduc- tion experts have been known to have their ap- plications for observer status at previous COP meetings rejected, and that most likely will happen again this time. The given excuse for this tends to be that these experts, NGO, and media represen- tatives, allegedly have ties to the tobacco industry, and since FCTC's Article 5.3 requires that "in set- ting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accor- dance with national law," these groups cannot be allowed to participate. But, that should not prevent consumers from having a seat at the table, as consumers are ac- tually the ones WHO, FCTC, and all the public health and anti-tobacco advocates are supposedly protecting from the Big, Bad Tobacco Industry. CAPHRA (Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates) reemphasized the necessity to include consumers in COP10, writ- ing to countries' FCTC delegations this March asking that each include at least one consumer of reduced risk products. At that time, according to CAPHRA executive coordinator Nancy Lucas, no signatory nation had made the progressive and inclusive call to include consumer stakehold- ers in their delegations. "This exclusion of the consumer voice has been one of the main rea- sons for the misinformation, disinformation, and failures of current tobacco control policy around nicotine – including vaping, snus, and heated to- bacco products," Lucas added. There still may be hope that country delega- tions to COP10 may be participating in COP10 discussions with a more rational, informed, and practical approach, if examples of some COP9 delegations are anything to go by. Two years ago the delegation from the Philippines created some waves when they dared to say that while tobacco is a source of bad health it "is also a source of good through taxation" which provided funding for important state programs such as poverty reduc- tion, universal health care, and Covid-19 recovery programs. Even better, the Philippines delegation dared to call for WHO to consider the fact that discussions held at COP10 "demand the active participation of all parties and inclusive consulta- tions with all stakeholders, and we mean all." Delegations from other countries, namely those from the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Zimbabwe, also commented on the importance of the tobacco industry or indi- cated that the industry was a stakeholder in the conversations. Par for the course, these delega- tions were accused of being "influenced" by the tobacco industry. These delegations should be commended for their courage in breaking rank and voicing what seems obvious to almost anyone except WHO, FCTC, and their allies. Let us hope these brave people do not get silenced and a growing number of voices join them this November. While it would probably be unrealistic to hope that this would affect any seismic change in what comes out of COP10, every positive shift, no matter how small, should be applauded. The tobacco industry, media representatives, tobacco harm reduction experts, or anyone deemed to be linked to the industry, will be forced again to try to get a peek into the closed meetings at COP10. Even tobacco harm reduction experts have been known to have their applications for observer status at previous COP meetings rejected.

• Cover