Tobacco Asia

28 tobaccoasia Issue 6, 2025 November / December picked," as Cullip points out. "The expert group includes just about every prohibitionist in the world, but no one who believes harm reduction could be useful." Consequently, their report appears to be a sweeping catalogue of "endgame" strategies, some raising questions about evidence, feasibil- ity, legality, and unintended consequences. High- lights among the 16 proposed "forward-looking measures" include generational smoking bans, a phase-out of tobacco sales within jurisdictions, bans on all flavoring agents and additives, a ban on cigarette filters, and an end to government support for tobacco farming. Notably, the cited "evidence of impact" for many measures is based largely on modeling studies. "It's very clear where they're going and no longer a hint," Cameron comments. "What's deeply concerning in these documents is the push to ban cigarette filters—a move that, frankly, isn't grounded in health science. It's astonishing that an organization like WHO, dedicated to public health, would advocate for removing filters. If such a policy goes forward, it risks taking us back to an era where unfiltered cigarettes—the most harmful form—are effectively promoted. It's hard to believe." She hopes that countries will see how damag- ing such a measure would be for public health out- comes. "It's a very extreme step," she says. "Most of the measures proposed in the report have always been in FCTC, but not to this extreme." "Originally, the treaty made it clear: noth- ing in FCTC prevents governments from going further," Cullip notes. "Article 2.1 explicitly says the treaty doesn't limit parties from adopting ad- ditional measures—like generational bans or filter restrictions—if they choose to. But now, with the proposed decision at COP11, they're reinterpret- ing Article 2.1 to imply that parties are expected to adopt a whole set of measures that aren't actu- ally part of the treaty. It's a subtle shift—turning optional actions into perceived obligations. If this decision is noted, it gives them leverage to say, 'COP11 endorsed this, so you should comply,' and opens the door to naming and shaming countries that don't implement policies like generational bans or third-hand smoke prevention. It turns a freedom clause into an obligation." He adds that parties have been effectively sidelined from the process. "The Convention Secretariat has almost handed everything over to a bunch of NGOs, such as the Global Alliance for Tobacco Control. These NGOs are doing all the work. There's no work for the parties between COPs anymore because the Secretariat just installs expert groups. By contrast, there are no longer working groups where parties have a say." At COP10, he recalls, St. Kitts and Nevis proposed creating a working group on harm re- duction. "The Secretariat didn't discuss it at all— they simply ignored it. Instead, they held four oth- er discussions and ended up proposing an expert group. But parties have already made it clear: they don't want an expert group on harm reduction; they want a working group." Coordinated efforts required Both Cullip and Cameron are confident that sev- eral parties will find FCTC's stance unacceptable and share their own countries' experience with THR. At COP10, New Zealand, El Salvador, and WHO has now broadened the FCTC treaty to cover nicotine and products that aren't even combustible. Credit: Mmmaaarrrttt, CC4.0. Highlights among the 16 proposed "forward-looking measures" for COP11 include generational smoking bans, a phase-out of tobacco sales within jurisdictions, bans on all flavoring agents and additives, a ban on cigarette filters, and an end to government support for tobacco farming. Credit: Pixabay.

• Cover