Each year an important event takes place which concerns nicotine but also vaping. The Global Forum On Nicotine (GFN) organized on June 11 and 12 its seventh edition of the annual World Forum on Nicotine. Organized by "Knowledge Action Change Limited (KAC)"And led by Professor Gerry Stimson, a social science specialist in public health in the United Kingdom, the GFN is a meeting not to be missed for scientists and specialists in nicotine and risk reduction.
AN EDITION CENTERED ON “SCIENCE, ETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS”
The Global Forum On Nicotine, usually held in Warsaw, Poland, saw its edition this year held virtually (online) due to Covid-19 (coronavirus). With the theme " Science, ethics and human rights »The Forum brought together over thirty experts / scientists from the public health sector, the tobacco industry, the tobacco control sector and consumers who discussed various subjects, including the relevance of science versus ideology, the importance of a patient-centered approach, the opportunities that vaping offers in low-income countries and the scientific alternatives to conventional tobacco that are banned / unauthorized.
Many scientific studies conducted for years now have revealed that alternatives to traditional tobacco are less harmful than conventional cigarettes. Despite these studies, a number of policy makers at national and international level, notably theWorld Health Organization (WHO), encourage very strict regulatory measures thus denying the possibilities of reducing health risks that non-combustible products offer.
Clive Bates is director of The Counterfactual, a consultancy and advocacy agency focused on a pragmatic approach to sustainability and public health in the UK. According to him, these regulations are "punitive measures, coercion, restrictions, stigma, denormalization. This is a failure in relation to what policymakers worthy of the appellation should do, that is, carry out and scrutinize adequate impact assessments. Policy-making is marked by resounding failure at all levels, both at the government level, in legislatures, and at the level of international organizations such as the World Health Organization».
«Anyone who refers to the history of innovation and the science and technology industry would realize it. Many people only seek the status quo.
Cigarette makers are making a lot of money with the status quo. And there is also huge funding to maintain this status quo. Sweden, Iceland and Norway have the lowest smoking rates in the world. And now in Japan, where a third of the cigarette market has disappeared in a short time because they have had access to alternatives. Consumers choose alternatives when choices are available"Said at the Forum David Sweanor, Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Center for Health Law of Canada.
Mark Tyndall, Professor and Specialist of Infectious Diseases in Canada, is also very firm on the subject of scientifically tested alternatives to traditional tobacco: " I have always considered smoking cigarettes to be a form of harm reduction for people who use drugs. However, it was just as painful to see that cigarettes were killing more people than HIV, more than hepatitis C, and even more than the catastrophic overdose epidemic that devastated North America. Death from cigarettes is slow and sneaky. There was not much to offer smokers until the onset of vaping in 2012. Most health professionals encouraged people to quit smoking. At best, we offered smokers bags of nicotine or gum and told them it might help them quit. Eight years later, who would have thought that throwing a lifeline to cigarette smokers would be so contentious. This would have been a significant event. At present, the main
he public health authorities around the world should have launched global campaigns to rid the world of cigarettes through vaping.»
In addition, many experts have stressed that consumers and patients are at the heart of health systems and that they should know the alternatives and feel free to choose the one that is right for them.
better. Clarisse Virgino, Philippines vapers advocate pushes for fair regulation of electronic cigarettes in his country: "Ultimately, it is the consumer who will suffer if prohibitionist policies are put in place, as this will deprive smokers of making a change, thereby infringing on their basic human rights. The ban will also affect those who have already opted for change by forcing them to resume smoking ordinary combustible cigarettes. It would be very counterproductive. Alternative products can help control, if not eradicate smoking. These are less harmful products that can help people quit a bad habit that affects not only smokers but those around them. It is unfair. As the saying goes, nothing about us should never be done without us.»
The tobacco industry was also invited to the Forum. Moira Gilchrist, Vice-President in charge of strategic and scientific communications at Philip Morris International, spoke on this occasion. According to her, " In an ideal world, we were going to have a frank, fact-based conversation to figure out how to replicate these results - alluding to the cases of countries like Japan - as quickly as possible in as many countries as possible. Surprisingly we are far from that in the real world. Many public health advocates and public health organizations seem unwilling to objectively assess the desirability of smokeless products. Why? Because these solutions come from the industry.»
Decision makers and political leaders argue that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry and public health. For Moira Gilchrist, this is "outright scientific censorship" For her, science and evidence are wiser:
«I can't pretend to speak for the whole industry, but at Philip Morris International, we are committed to replacing cigarettes with better alternatives as soon as possible. I really can't understand why this change is greeted with skepticism. Today, our research and development expenses are mainly devoted to a smoke-free portfolio. Our goal is to have a smoke-free future. The impact of these products is already visible. A study by researchers working for the American Cancer Society concluded that the rapid decline in cigarettes seen recently in Japan is likely due to the introduction of Iqos, the electronic nicotine device designed by Philip Morris International.».
creative. For example, India recently stopped selling electronic cigarettes and other electronic devices that pose health risks. Samrat Chowdhery is the Director of the Council for Harm Reduced Alternatives, India. He blamed what he called 'an obvious conflict of interest":
« China and India are at the forefront of keeping secret the procedures of companies that have lost public control of their actions and undermine global tobacco control efforts by making them less transparent and by refusing to respect the rights of those most affected by their policies ».
In Africa, many countries apply heavy taxes to prevent electronic nicotine delivery devices from disrupting the market. They also invoke health reasons to justify these very stringent regulations. According to Chimwemwe Ngoma, A social scientist from Malawi, education is the key to properly educating people about what's really at stake: " Government, farmers, civil society organizations and nicotine users need to understand that tobacco is not the real problem, but rather smoking. We have to prove that safer products that contain nicotine can be made from the same tobacco ».
Clarisse Virgino, from the Philippines, went even further to say that these measures are very harmful: " Many countries cannot afford to provide adequate health care to their people. I think it is high time to go for tobacco harm reduction. There is a large body of data, research and evidence supporting this thesis. Policies go against the very essence of tobacco harm reduction. It is not the consumers who must bear the consequences of arbitrary and factless policies. Policies must be protective of people and not destructive to prevent consumers from suffering collateral damage ».
Despite what appears to be a complex struggle, many experts like David Sweanor hope that the transformation will eventually happen: " We must also focus on the opportunity offered to us to fundamentally change the course of public health. " , did he declare.