Framework Convention Alliance issues ENDS report to WHO FCTC parties, says FCTC ENDS policy can/should NOT be approved till products better understood

[Bill Godshall]

A breakthrough report from Framework Convention Alliance on ENDS regulatory schemes (although it still promotes nicotine abstinence). Perhaps most importantly, it recommends that the FCTC COP can/should NOT approve an ENDS regulatory policy until they better understand the rapidly evolving products.
http://www.fctc.org/images/stories/policy_brief.pdf

Clive Bates has written about this new report at
Review of the FCA COP-6 position on e-cigarettes « The counterfactual

 

[Kent C]

Another nice piece by Clive.


"4. The benefits of such an approach would be maximised if uptake were limited to existing smokers who are unable to quit"

I like his comment on this point but I think it misses the reality of the situation. Kids are going to experiment. This point #4 is a pipe dream of the ANTZ. It is equivalent to the 'Just say no' type of solution. And... opposite of the thinking of regulatory types on sex, condoms, etc. where they rightly, imo, give in to the 'reality of the situation'. Even though that 'approach' has not worked very well either - with the number of single moms skyrocketing, esp. in those populations who have been targeted since the progressive age with hints of eugenics.

And those results are the effect of other 'unintended consequences' of social steering, along the same line as 'helping out the cigarette companies' (points #6 and 7), that were and are (or could be) more results of plain ole economic steering - well intended perhaps (although I doubt that at this point after all the failed social programs and the destruction of families and individuals that have occurred) and in tobacco where you have this 'unholy alliance' of ANTZ with tobacco companies - which could only happen through the 'gov't prism' (ie. 180° opposite of the 'stated' intention).

On point #7 - another falsehood:

"an irreconcilable conflict of interest between those profiting from the sale of tobacco and public health."

Again, typical of the regulatory mindset, and the 'public health' community specifically, they exclude themselves from the 'profiting' part (and holding themselves up as the only ones who really 'care'), and hide any suggestion of them operating in their own self-interest via grants, a high status desk job (murderers as DrMA and Senior Boy says where the actual 'conflict of interest' becomes muddled at best, or no conflict at all, at its worst.

 

[DrMA]

Agreed. This is quite a surprising policy statement from FCA. I was rather expecting FCA to mirror the FUD, lies, and misinformation gushed by WHO in July. Coming from FCA, this is the most encouraging development I've seen all year on the ecig front.

Is it as perfectly positive as we'd like? Not even close. But it is a very noteworthy position that is not maliciously attacking ecigs and recognizes the divide that exists in the scientific community.

Their policy recommendation to wait is the most moderate I've heard yet from any influential org.