“ It is essential that regulatory bodies have the trust of the public .”
A merican readers will be familiar with
Michael Bloomberg ’ s anti-vaping crusade .
The billionaire has used his considerable influence and financial clout to lobby for flavour bans and he also funds a number of anti-vaping NGOs , including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids ( CTFK ).
But Bloomberg ’ s reach stretches well beyond America ’ s shores .
In 2020 , Bloomberg-funded International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease ( The Union ) called for vaping to be banned in all low and middle-income countries ( LMICs ).
Now , after a political storm in the Philippines that saw The Union accused of meddling in international affairs , vapers are fighting back .
Nancy Loucas , executive co-ordinator of the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates ( CAPHRA ), said : “ The recommendation by the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease for a blanket ban on electronic nicotine delivery systems is ill-conceived , prejudicial to LMIC consumers and detrimental to public health .”
CAPHRA and the International Network of
Nicotine Consumer Organisations ( INNCO ) argue that banning vaping will hinder , not help , efforts to eliminate tobacco use in the region .
INNCO gave ten reasons why vaping products should not be banned outright and argued that bans were an ‘ overly simplistic solution to a complex issue .’
Its president Samrat Chowdhery dismissed The Union ’ s claims that LMICs do not have the capacity to regulate themselves as “ patronising ” and added : “ As the world is moving toward equality and parity , here comes a well-funded organisation that says , while it ’ s OK in the west , people in the developing nations should not have access to these products .”
INNCO believes that smokers should have the right to choose how they quit and that vaping could contribute to the aims of global tobacco control , as the World Health Organization acknowledges the role harm reduction can play in reducing tobacco use .
It said : “ By removing reduced harm alternatives from the market — while leaving the significantly more dangerous cigarettes available — countries would remove this right from the individual .”
Earlier this year , The Union was accused of trying to influence the Philippines ’ tobacco
control policy when it released funds to the country ’ s Food and Drugs Administration ( FDA ).
University of Ottawa Centre for Health Law and Policy advisory committee chair Professor David Sweanor said that the funding could take away the FDA ’ s impartiality when implementing guidelines on vaping and heated tobacco products .
Sweanor said : “ It is essential that regulatory bodies have the trust of the public . Accepting foreign funding from sources with a vested interest in compromising the FDA ’ s independence can rapidly destroy that trust .
“ In this case , the money ultimately comes from a US entity with an abstinenceonly agenda on low-risk alternatives to cigarettes .”
In March , the FDA admitted receiving donations from the anti-vaping NGO in order to hire employees to draft new regulations banning vape products in the country .
FDA director General Rolando Enrique Domingo admitted that the department had applied for funding from The Union but maintained that it remained objective and would listen to all stakeholders when drawing up vaping regulations .
VM33 l 101