Good day all and thank you genuinely for taking the time to come and listen yesterday September 14th 2021 (7 Safar 1443 AH)
Please find below a slide deck with pertinent material most of which wasn’t covered by myself during the preconference but rather, extremely well covered by GHF, KAC, SSDP etc. scholars and awardees Yussuf Adebisi and Isaac Olushola Ogunkola. Please feel free to call on me for clarifications, corrections, critique or praise at atakan.befrits@gmail.com. For further reading and contact information I suggest INNCO.org, SSDP.org. Below the link find the artwork that represented users on International Drug User Day 2021. Next year I would like to see one made in collaboration also for eg family planning day, support for safe sex day, responsible drinking day, seatbelt day…….After all, it is the same fundamental concept – people do what people do so adults have to ensure highest possible safety when young people do dangerous and reckless things on the road from being small people to becoming adult big people.
INPUD winner global artwork poster for international Drug User Day 2020, made and entered contest by Isaac Olushola Ogunkola.
ITALY BECA AMENDMENTS
September 2021 update:
There are three amendments presented by MEP Antonio Patriciello of Forza Italia to the draft report of the so-called Beca (the Special Committee on beating cancer of the European Parliament) on the Plan against cancer presented last February by the European Commission. They all concern the electronic cigarette, in an effort to safeguard the smoking harm reduction tool and its potential, removing it from equating it with burnt tobacco. In recent months, Patriciello had met with a delegation from the Anpvu consumer association, which had tried to raise awareness on the issue of vaping to which the parliamentarian proved to be very receptive. Let’s see in detail the three amendments, which are added to those presented last August 31 by the Honorable Silvia Sardone.
Aldo Patriciello (Ppe)
In paragraph 8 c of the draft report, it is proposed to amend the phrase “a ban on flavorings in all tobacco products to reduce the attractiveness of these products to non-smokers and young people” with “a stricter application of the ban of aromas in all smoking tobacco products to reduce the attractiveness of these products for non-smokers and young people ”. In the justification for this amendment, Patriciello explains: “The Commission’s TPD2 application report states, on page 5: ‘Since May 2016, the TPD has banned the placing on the market of Ryo cigarettes and tobacco with characterizing flavors. The co-legislators agreed on a phase-out period of four years for products with characterizing flavors with a significant market share (eg menthol). So, from May 2020, there are no more exemptions. Although no compliance issues have been reported for the characterization of candies or fruit flavors, recent developments suggest less compliance with the menthol ban. ‘
It is essential that the provisions of the Tobacco Products Directive are properly applied. Therefore, the Beca report of the Parliament should call for a more rigorous application “.
The Italian MEP then proposes to insert a new article, 8 f, which reads “an evaluation using statistical data of the role that electronic cigarettes can play in supporting the reduction of smoking / smoking rates during the development of a regulatory framework and harmonized excise “. “The current directive on tobacco excise duties – comments Patriciello in the motivation – does not cover many of the new alternatives to smoking, leaving a regulatory vacuum at the EU level. This is especially true for products that do not contain tobacco and are used by some as a smoking cessation aid. As a result, Member States that have started to tax these products face enormous challenges in the collection and classification of taxes. All Member States that have introduced taxation on e-liquids have not been able to collect the amount of excise duty that they should have theoretically collected. Almost half of e-cigarette sales occur through e-commerce and it is difficult for enforcement authorities to verify whether excise duties are paid as the amount falls below the thresholds. This is a general issue confirmed by the WHO (World Customs Organization, ed.) And the OECD “.
Finally Patriciello proposes to insert a new paragraph among the “considered”: “Considering that the European Parliament believes that new products and technologies alternative to smoking products that can contribute to prevention policies, must be an active and integral part of any initiative to reduce cancer rates in Europe ”. “Recent studies and surveys – reads the motivation – found that vaping contributes to the ability of some smokers to quit: Public Health England published a review in February 2021 confirming that vaping products were the most frequently used help to quit to smoke. The data from the special Eurobarometer published in February 2021 show that vaping is an important tool in the attempt to quit smoking: 58% said that the use of electronic cigarettes has helped them to stop or reduce tobacco consumption “.
Europas plan mot cancer – tobak och nikotin
Vi skriver till er som senast, inför BECA-mötet imorgon den 15 juli. Ledamöterna kommer att få en presentation av Rapportören, Dr Trillet-Lenoir, för diskussion kring förslaget till slutlig text**. European Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (ETHRA) är rösten för 27 miljoner europeiska användare av lågriskalternativ till rökning och väsentligen fler ändå, potentiella användare. Vi verkar för acceptans för skademinimering även inom tobaks och nikotinområdet.** Alltså för en kraftig minskning eller eliminering av tobaksskador**: Genom att hjälpa och uppmuntra rökare att byta från nikotinprodukter med hög risk till sådana med låg risk omedelbart om man inte har en omedelbar plan att helt sluta med tobak och eller nikotin, Dvs som en praktisk folkhälsostrategi med ett triagetänk i botten samt i vårt fall med respekt för hur Sverige lägger upp prioriteringen vid vård och sociala insatser, med det viktigaste först, och som givet observationer och proof-of-concept har alla förutsättningar att med stöd från myndighetshåll fungera snabbt och i stor skala i hela EU. ETHRA är en sammanslutning av frivilligverksamheter utan industrifinansiering eller intressekonflikter.
ETHRA har Transparency registry nummer 354946837243-73
NNA Sweden deklarerar likaledes inga intressekonflikter och har Transparency registry nummer 429802042501- 19
Vi skrev till BECA:s medlemmar även i februari och redogjorde för vår oro över Kommissionens dokument (3). Vi hoppas att parlamentet och ledamöterna kommer att fortsätta sitt arbete för att stärka, slipa och förbättra EU planen och envetet stödja sig på bästa vetenskapliga underlag med ett minimum av politiska filter.
Således vill vi förstärka 5 punkter som skall beröras utifrån ett konsumentexpertperspektiv som vi hoppas ni tar med er in i diskussionerna ta upp under torsdagens (4) presentation och diskussion:
En rimlig slutsats att ha som provisorisk och som minst lika sannolik slutsats (mycket mer sannolik för övrigt, mycket) som en (den) a priori slutsatsen att där finns förskräckliga skador eller oönskade sidoeffekter som vi bara inte sett ännu. Att förbjuda eller förstöra eller försvåra i för hög utsträckning i nuläget förstör ju även möjligheten att mäta relevanta aspekter och samla data för att se vad som de facto händer. Och med sådan kunskap som grund kunna bedöma hur man kan förstärka det positiva och samtidigt minimera det negativa. Rimlighetsbedömningar på alla plan, för Sverige ännu mer än EU i stort, är ju snus vanligaste assisterade sluta röka metoden sedan i alla fall tidigt 90 tal, och i bruk av minst 10% av den manliga befolkningen sedan 1822 utan allvarliga och relevanta skador uppmätta vid flertalet kontrollpunkter: inryckning, muck, utskrivning från värnplikt och sen rumpokollo från 58. Ungdomars vejpande av nikotinproukter visar sig en relativt i sammanhanget harmlös ungdomsgrej, inte mycket mer riskfyllt än snus, så precis så som rökningen alltid setts tidigare i jämförelse med droger, graviditeter och fylleri, men nästan helt befriad från de ganska fruktansvärda konsekvenserna av rökning som en undgomsgrej är vejp inte särskilt skadligt, och det vore helt klart till stor nytta för de ungdomar som riskerar att röka och via dem som influencers, att än färre andra unga börjar röka eller röker mer och fastnar. Unga vuxnas användande och ungdoms olagliga tillgång till vejpningsprodukter, som ett bruk som försvinner med tiden, är inte ett för högt pris att betala för en jätteskjuts framåt mot tobaksskadorna . Slutligen är den främsta drivkraften för ungdomsrökning föräldrarökning – om vi kan ta itu med vuxenrökning kan vi få se en flergenerations- överbryggande self reinforcing positive feedback-loop att det är coolt att inte röka av EU:s plan för att bekämpa cancer. EU:s plan för att bekämpa cancer bör inrikta all sin tobaks/nikotinrelaterade energi på att fånga folkhälsomöjligheten i ex-rökande vuxna även om det sker till priset av byte till alternativ med lägre risk, som snus o vaping och upphettade produkter.
ETHRA och vi på NNA Sweden och det större globala samarbetet även utanför EU hoppas att föredragandens presentation går bra och stimulerar till bra och rimlig evidensbaserad debatt och diskussion om alternativ för att stärka EU:s plan för att bekämpa cancer. Både allmänt och ur svenskt perspektiv ser du möjliga alternativa och eller komplementära strategier och åtgärder som faktiskt genom ömsesidig förstärkning med MPOWER till exempel kommer ännu bättre tillgodose behovet hos människor att byta upp sig. Även när det gälelr att sluta röka och att bekämpa cancer. Att använda drastiska minskningar snabbt av tobaksskador för att påvisa behov och vinst av att radikalt ändra cigarettmarknaden skulle vara ett effektivt sätt att göra det på.
Om vi kan vara till ytterligare hjälp eller om du vill följa upp någon av de punkter som tas upp i detta brev, vänligen kontakta Atakan Erik Befrits i Stockholm för NNA Sweden eller Damian Sweeney för ETHRA och NNA Ireland.
Med all respekt och önskan om att ni haft en skön sommar och som septembervecka att vi alla får en skön höst !
Atakan Erik Befrits
PS. WHOs evidensbaserade och effektiva sätt att sluta röka är evidensbaserade och effektiva, i 3.5%-4.5% av fallen med ett icke namngivet alternativ. Inte ännu efter 50 år bekräftat evidensbaserat från Svenskt håll har vi en metod som har ca 70% framgång och dessutom vid en mätpunkt som är 5-10 gånger så långt bort som för WHO metoderna, 60 månader. 20 gånger bättre på 10 gånger längre sikt, visst är det besynnerligt att det är omöjligt att forska på det i Sverige, alldeles uansett vad som står i FCTC och ”svenska internationella åtaganden”1
Ref – Special Committee on Beating Cancer, Draft report on strengthening Europe in the fight against cancer – towards a comprehensive and coordinated strategy, Rapporteur: Véronique Trillet-Lenoir, 21 June 2021 [access]
Ref – Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) is a range of public health and other evidence-based policies, designed to lessen the negative social and/or physical consequences associated with smoking. It endorses the use of novel nicotine products and supports research into their safety and efficacy. Tobacco harm reduction is a consumer-led approach which enables smokers and ex-smokers to make informed choices regarding safer nicotine products.
Ref – ETHRA, Letter to BECA committee members, Perverse unintended consequences of proposed tobacco/nicotine policy measures in Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan 3 February 2021. [access]
By Morton Manjawira
Beware! There is an air of imperialism ballooned by WHO and various Bloomberg funded NGOs seeking to control public health policy in Low & Middle Income Countries (LMICs). This air reeks of pure idealism, zero need for collaborative decision making and neo-colonialism disguised as philanthropy and goodwill. In recent times, it blew across India, causing a blanket ban on Safer Nicotine Products (SNPs) and risking 1.3 million lives in annual deaths due to tobacco related illnesses.
Furthermore, if Kenyan advocate, Joseph Magero’s sentiments of prohibitive tax regimes on Safer Nicotine Products (SNPs) in his country are anything to go by, then the imperialistic air is already in Africa. Malawi is yet to be on the receiving end of this air but then, there is a saying in my country that goes ‘moto umapita komwe kwatsala tchire‘, which loosely translates to, ‘fire goes where there is bush remaining’. Nonetheless, when that time comes for Malawi,
those in charge of policy should remember that harm reduction works.
In fact, as a country that was ravaged by HIV/AIDs in the late 90s and early 2000s, we have first hand knowledge of harm reduction working. Malawi’s HIV/AIDS prevalence rate rose from 2.6% in 1986 to 30% in 1998. Today, it sits at 10.6% and most of that positive impact is credited to harm reduction. From condoms to use of Antiretroviral drugs that suppress the virus to undetectable levels that cannot be transmitted easily. Meanwhile , a more recent introduction in HIV/AIDS drugs called PrEP also works in the realm of harm reduction.
In addition to that, when that time comes for Malawi, those in charge of policy should also afford tobacco harm reduction the benefit of options HIV/AIDS was afforded. HIV/AIDS advocates were allowed a word in school curriculums and all media platforms. They freely advocated for abstinence, fidelity and use of condoms among other things. It would likewise be interesting to see tobacco harm reduction advocates given the opportunity to freely vouch for abstinence, cessation and harm reduction products intrinsically using all platforms they would deem relevant.
Finally, when that time comes for Malawi, those in charge of policy should make sure the main driver of policy are the needs of tobacco consumers themselves and not any external forces. This, in line with their universal rights to life, health and non-discrimination as it is also envisaged in chapter 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi.
With 100% credit to Dave Cross and Planet of the Vapes
Original date of publishing Nov 30 2020
The New Nicotine Alliance (NNA) has criticised the British Medical Journal’s (BMJ) “Tobacco Control” for publishing a study that smears consumer advocates and Cancer Research UK (CRUK) for promoting it. Last week’s research paper analysed tweets and insulted harm reduction advocates, accusing them of being part of Philip Morris International or one of its “allies”.
Planet of the Vapes covered the Bloomberg/CRUK-funded study last week [link].
Responding to the publication, the NNA said: “It is disappointing to see the BMJ publishing a research paper which smears consumer advocates for tobacco harm reduction by attempting to link consumer activity on social media with the tobacco industry. One can only conclude that the goal was to devalue the opinions of former smokers who have found safer nicotine products to have been beneficial to their lives.”
Responding on behalf of its supporters, the NNA added: “The attempt to paint consumers as part of some mythical tobacco industry plot is offensive to individuals and organisations promoting tobacco harm reduction. We and our supporters, along with many other vapers, are systematically excluded from the FCTC conferences and yet have a strong stake in the outcomes of the meeting. Social media is one of the few opportunities we have to get our views across. Consumers of safer nicotine products have been acutely aware of an increasing warfare against the products which have helped them to stop smoking.”
Britain’s leading consumer charity continued: “In reality the article shows how successful THR consumer advocates are in dominating the Twittersphere around COP, and rightly so, because it is they are who are most affected by the outcome of COP meetings. Instead of attempting to denigrate these opinions, an altruistic approach would be to welcome the fact that consumers are engaging with the process and studying how consumer experience can help enhance public health outcomes. Sadly, this has not been considered by the authors of this report.”
The NNA has also expressed its deep disappointment directly to CRUK over its tweet celebrating the paper. The CRUK Policy Unit tweeted: “During what would have been the 9th Conference of Parties, we’re excited to share new research with [Bath University’s Tobacco Control Research Group] showing the tobacco industry’s use of social media to amplify its interests during COP8.”
It began by reminding CRUK of its independence: “The NNA is a registered educational charity in the UK, which has the objective of promoting public health by means of tobacco harm reduction. The NNA was established to reflect the interests of those who have switched, or might switch in the future, from smoking tobacco to using safer alternatives. Many of our Trustees, Associates and Supporters are ex-smokers who have quit with the help of safer nicotine products, including e-cigarettes. We have collaborated on initiatives with public health organisations such as Public Health England and the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, as well as giving evidence to UK government committees and All-Party Parliamentary Groups. We take no funding from any industry actors and have no conflicts of interest.”
The letter expresses “deep disappointment” over the fact “that CRUK are ‘excited’ about a report which trawled personal citizen Twitter accounts and concluded that they were part of some mythical tobacco industry plot”. The NNA called CRUK’s position “deeply offensive” and “McCarthyist in nature and application”.
In 2018, there were “clear threats” being expressed by the World Health Organization Framework Convention for Tobacco Control in advance of the eighth Conference Of Parties (COP). The NNA contends that vaping consumers “value highly” the products “for helping them to quit smoking.”
Due to the same threats being espoused in the lead up to the ninth COP, the NNA says it is quite reasonable that vapers would be concerned and keen to object to them again.
“It should be accepted that consumers of these products would be extremely worried at the thought of the products being prohibited by clearly conflicted and opaque institutions like the FCTC. Instead, however, this report that CRUK has celebrated – and shamefully part-funded – seeks to further marginalise the consumer voice which is already ignored far too often.”
The letter continues, reminding CRUK that, “the report was primarily funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies; an organisation set up to distribute funds from an American multi-billionaire with little understanding of the THR debate and also little care for the consequences of his actions. We would also note that the lead author of the report you refer to has a proven history of manufacturing falsities against harm reduction options.”
The NNA expresses confusion over this conflict between CRUK’s stated aims and its actions. While the cancer organisation has supported vaping in the past and argues for harm reduction approaches, the consumer charity says CRUK’s response to the report exhibits “behaviour which is the exact opposite” of its aims.
The NNA goes on to add that it has been contacted by supporters who have donated to CRUK in the past but are questioning future contributions if funds are being directed to ventures besmirching nicotine users: “Consumers would not recognise smear articles like this as befitting CRUK’s criteria for funding research.”
CRUK has not responded to the New Nicotine Alliance or acknowledged the receipt of the letter.
IMAGE OF MICHAEL BLOOMBERG EDITED FROM AFGE, CC BY 2.0 <HTTPS://CREATIVECOMMONS.ORG/LICENSES/BY/2.0>, VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS [LINK]. NOT EDITED IN ANY WAY THAT SUGGESTS THE LICENSOR ENDORSES ME/OUR USE
FCTC and Tobacco Harm Reduction panels
No fee
License allows a few more participants to join
Wednesday and Thursday September 30 and October 1, 12.00-13.30 CET
https://www.15yearsconference.net
Recently a special compilation of papers was published in the Drugs and Alcohol Today journal (https://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/1745-9265/vol/20/iss/3 ) that reviewed tobacco control and FCTC’s 15 years from the lens of diversity, development and Tobacco Harm Reduction. This special issue was unique in putting a spotlight on: left-behind populations, gender bias in tobacco control, the global south and LMICs, the innovation gap and policy-practice gap in cessation support, and nicotine illiteracy. All no doubt key challenges in accelerating the global implementation of the FCTC and reducing harms from tobacco globally!
The editors of the special issue, with more than 15 years of editing the Journal have now brought the authors together at a newly created platform: the 15 Years Conference. There will be two online panels
In depth video interviews of the authors are already on the site and linked to the articles: https://www.15yearsconference.net/articles
It is a free event, supported by the Foundation for a Smokefree World, and open to all.
More info and register at: https://www.15yearsconference.net
Carried on from Facebook 8 minute excerpt from Bengt Wiberg’s interview with Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos on Nicotine and Covid-19, also in relation to snus and how he feels about the snus ban in the EU.
One further absolutely base and terrible argument to keep the snus ban was presented by the Norwegian State Advocate during the trial in ECJ in Luxembourg. It was that nicotine is more addictive than heroin!
The Norwegian guy knew it was a lie.
The Swedish lead advocate lady for the commission who argued paternal leave also knows that she was arguing flat out lies.
The Danish Advocate General with the ECJ (!) who wrote the hack-job opinion with recommendations to the court must also have known his recommendations were lies. Especially given the one earlier AG opinion on the subject by AG Geelhoed 2004 where he notes that while the ban is legal, the law itself is probably not as it is inhumane, stupid, counterproductive and unfit for purpose so should be changed immediately.
The scandal that Dr Farsalinos is referring to here is a very long standing one with history all the way back to at least 1989. It is also widely and wildly more dangerous than most appreciate and perhaps even more dangerous than Dr Farsalinos himself appreciates, because it enables total self-denial and disregard for law and human rights and even to a collectively self reinforcing pressured mass-psychosis against a selected issue or group. Group think and peer pressure acting as levers on the whole situation precisely as described in the Danish fairy tale ”The Emperor’s new clothes” but minus any hopes of a happy ending. The subject of nicotine has become so controversial that even high level jurists are forced to flat out lie, and then of course to defend the lies that they know are lies, lest they be branded as having spines of jelly and no integrity whatsoever, perhaps corrupt even. This in my mind is in itself the very essence of corruption as legal minds working for Government are the one class of professionals who must, must, must treat the law as almost holy and sacrosanct, here the difference is that the corruptor and the corruptee are one and the same so even more difficult to prove or shine a light on, in the very group also considered almost by necessity incorrupbtible.
This is a very unfortunate but logical consequence of forcing an expert to lie also in any other chosen field, they have to (with the experts’ status, gravitas, and credibility) defend their own forced or chosen lie and thereby bizarrely and perversely only adding credibility to the lie.
There should be little to none doubt that even remotely truthful information and updates on health effects from snus use by Swedish Public Health would have within a few short years made it abundantly clear that harm reduction from snus use compared to smoking is well above 98% and thereby proving the case for THR as a strategy to be universally applied as fast as possible.
– This in turn would have made the current snus ban a non issue. This in turn would have allowed for sensible marketing on tobacco harm reduction to the EU population of which 100 million smoke.
– This in turn would have made the current flavor debacle impossible also, the current debacle where both Netherlands and Denmark, the most sensible pragmatic countries in the entire EU, have lost the Public Health plot completely and read Human Rights upside down; they are believe it or not in the process of banning all relevant flavors in e-cig (nicotine vaping products). This is likely to then be harmonised EU wide by clueless and captured politicians in Brussels – all vying for reelection and in fairness probably not caring too much about the health of stinky and icky smokers anyway.
Made even easier I suppose by Finland and another country in the Baltics having banned flavors in ecig liquid, meaning not only the required 3 countries for harmonisation, but the infinitely more compelling and attractive total of 4 countries (or riders of the Apocalypse if you will – alcohol is high on the agenda to come next – then sugar and sugary tasting sweet additives in things we eat – then not doing enough exercise every week – then salt and fat – then it is established that this is a great way of doing things so then come like predictable clockwork turning the sky dark: religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political orientation, liking the color orange…..)
BTW 1: The heroin analogy is just awful and awfully stupid. It is a long standing misunderstanding of the facts usually reserved for new persons entering the debate on the anti-nicotine prohibitionist side after having been spoonfed a version by prohibitionist NGOs. A version of that is lethal and unfit for purpose.
BTW 2: The UK ban from 1989 of SKOAL that also gave snus ban down the line was also the first example of EU harmonisation where the wrong policy is imposed on the entire Union. EU harmonisation works by 3 EU countries individually take singularly stupid steps that then get harmonised so all other nations have to do it also, this is done collectively in Parliament in Brussels.
BTW 3: Sweden’s derogation was used to simultaneously ensure permanence of the ban on even marketing or placing on the market of snus in the EU ever, seems to be a deliberate agreement text version of a “covert op” by the EU lawyers. This was accomplished when drafting and presenting the acquis in 1992 and the amended one after it became clear that the referendum to join the EU would get a solid NO! vote unless there was a derogation from the snus/oral tobacco ban for Sweden. In the final processes the ban on snus ever being allowed was discretely put into the marketing section of the first TPD, so while the actual derogation looked fine to the Swedish lawyers (because they didnt check the other parts) it killed tobacco harm reduction an extra few decades for all europeans and the entire rest of the world most likely. This has never been protested or even discussed by Swedish Government visavi the union counterparts in Brussels. Details in this last bit may be off, but the gist and essence of what happened is right. Elo
Befrits 