|Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) / Conference Of Parties (COP)
|regulatory tobacco control
|World Bank (governments), Bloomberg Initiative
|law of the instrument, treaty slack
The FCTC was devised as international treaty between governments to coordinate the reduction in tobacco trade and smoking prevalence. It went off the rails. Bloombergs MPOWER program has contributed to sensible measures in LMICs, but now undermines the cognition of novel approaches by focusing on diminishing returns. Ignoring the scientific consensus and evading public discourse is now modus operandi of the COP (the actual body implementing the FCTC).
And you just can't not point out the hypocrisy of tobacco exporting nations having voting rights in an assembly to combat tobacco consumption.
The main instigator remains Bloomberg however. With the linguistic fallacy/diversion of denouncing THR as product of the tobacco-industry, or the US war on drugs mindset even.
Quick reminder: HI focuses on e-cigarettes. Can't reasonably judge the TC policies worldwide. ("Leave it to the experts, Francessca"). Most of the FCTC seems driven by one-size-fits-all approaches though. APAC, Middle East and Africa might very much benefit from the framework. Albeit they're all not doing much in practice.
But in my mind the COP/FCTC members jettisoned their credibility with promulgating the EVALI lie as rationale for e-cig prohibition, rather than just practical/use limitations in LMICs. It would also absolutely be valid to rationalize e-cig bans with furthering e.g. tobacco cultivation. But resorting to junk science and redeclaration as tobacco products is just in line with allegation-based deflection. Thus can't even be bothered to classify any linked articles on origin or rightwingy-ness.
In esssence, the FCTC is now a ceremonial circlejerk of TC entralled by its own lackluster progress. The charade of interference prevention seems solely based on averting transparency (and thus baked-in interference). It's not quite clear if that's because the FCTC wasn't isolated enough from the WHO.
Abdication of treaty points
- FCTC prohibitionist evolution, COP6-COP9…
- WHO FCTC needs to consider harm reduction
- Accelerating an end to smoking: a call to action on the eve of the FCTC’s COP9 - (Derek Yach, FCTC co-author; now FSWF → incepted from 1B tobacco grant)
- The fourth pillar of the Framework Convention on Tobacco ... (PDF)
- The WHO’s opposition to tobacco harm reduction: a threat to public health? (PDF)
Evading public discourse
- WHO FCTC Throws out Public at Moscow Meeting: "What do They Have to Hide?", asks JTI
- Reporters Banned From Global Anti-Tobacco Conference
- The COP even threw out Interpol
- The FCTCA rationalizes it as BigT interference however
See https://copwatch.info for some analysis.
- CTFK and Union got observer status. (SurprisedPikachuFace)
- The Philippines did stand up and denounced the science-free confounding of actual tobacco vs. nicotine products.
- Covid framing was rejected because of lackluster scientific foundation.
- FCTCA was widely ridiculed for their mock awards.
- Mostly been pissed with the Philippines. (Late retribution for BP being found out.)
- Notably obsessive likes from @Unfairtobacco (DE), @nonsmoking (FI), @partnershipfree (BE), @CLAS_Saludable, @dnf_asso, @actbr, @BathTR, @AshOrg
- INNCO released a dossier on Bloombergs undermining of public health.
Some Bloomberg fronts (FCAforTC, stoptobacco, TakeAPart) were quite excessive
in shrieking about purported tobacco interference. To the point that it became
clear that it was just selective framing. It didn't come across as genuine
prevention, or even pointing out historic interference, or denouncing critics
of the (necessarily) intransparent process.
It's ample clear now that the focus on "tobacco" labels was to delude about financial ties of pharma and tobacco control interests.
- cop9tobaccocountries.jpeg [download] added by mario on 2021-11-13 22:41:44. [details]