Report: global treaty blocked by big tobacco

Yet another report accuses Big Tobacco of obstructive behaviour in face of tobacco restrictions laid down by the WHO FCTC (World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control). This is because it is preparing legal action (in Uruguay in this case), and seeking influence in others.

The FCTC is the first international treaty designed by the World Health Organisation. Among other things it seeks to compel its member organisations to general workplace smoking bans that should extend to 'other public spaces, as appropriate' (Article 8), the provision of smoking cessation facilities (Article 14) and the exclusion of tobacco interests from any policy discussions involving public health (Article 5.3). All this is a lot to demand of member states, because they all have social and economic ramifications, not to speak of their obligations to legislate in the national interest, rather than on the whim of unelected global authorities: however such considerations are less important to the WHO than keeping big tobacco under control.

All this is quite bizarre. Tobacco control is arguably a low priority for many people who are more exposed to communicable diseases than we are in much of the West, or whose income depends on tobacco, or on other people using it. These things are more critical in areas of the world without social security.

The World Health Organisation behaves as if tobacco were really a major health threat to most people. But the tobacco industry is still a legitimate industry and if its legal trading rights are threatened it will think like a company and go to court. And in truth, although the World Health Organisation is a global power it is not economically neutral but promotes interests that compete with tobacco: pharmaceutical interests. Article 14 envisages pharmaceutical alternatives to nicotine being made available and affordable with the assistance of the FCTC. What else do you do with a competitor who is trying to eliminate you from the field, but go to court?

Before I'm accused of being a tobacco apologist, I'll say this. Tobacco is now the world bogeyman, and I do believe in sane tobacco control. I don't mind a few health warnings here and there, and properly enforced age verification. But I do mind being taken for an idiot. The biggest global rival to big tobacco is big Pharma. These people have done a lot of good (like many people, I owe them my life at least two or three times over), but they are essentially huge mega corporations competing with each other. Every so often they do things that really damage their reputations, such as allowing Guatemalan prisoners to be infected with STDs (or even, to take it to absolute extremes, inventing Zyklon B) . But officially we are supposed to trust them.

That's why they are dangerous, and actually far more dangerous than tobacco, because we expect good from their products. This link alleges that what happened 64 years ago in Guatemala is 'just one crime in a long history of medical–government collusion to use humans as guinea pigs'. The public is getting a little more sceptical and increasingly reluctant to take flu jabs. They can see the repeated warnings that turn out to be an anti-climax. This piece on bird flu alleges that key advisers to the WHO on vaccines are also involved in contracts with major pharmaceutical companies. With so much dirt in its own back yard, why is the World Health Organisation making such a fuss about smoking?

How do they expect us to believe the battle between WHO and tobacco represents a clear case of 'health versus wealth' when the personal fortunes of hangers-on to the WHO are at stake, exceeding by thousands the incomes of people whose livelihoods are disrupted by smoking restrictions?