Critics Accuse COP11 of Secretive Proceedings, Eroding Trust in Global Tobacco Policy

 

By Samuel Mbewe

As the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) convenes in Geneva, critics have raised alarm over what they describe as increasingly secretive proceedings that undermine transparency and public trust in global tobacco policy.

Most COP11 sessions remain closed to independent scientists, journalists, Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) advocates, and individuals suspected of having links with the tobacco industry. The agenda is dominated by government delegations and select public health organisations, leaving minimal room for alternative voices.

Advocates argue that individuals who use smoke-free products such as vapes, as well as experts who promote harm reduction, are effectively blocked from meaningful participation, preventing them from presenting scientific evidence or lived experiences.

Although some independent groups have submitted statements or organised parallel events, access to the main COP11 proceedings remains tightly controlled. Critics say the structure appears designed to silence dissenting perspectives in favour of a more prohibition-driven approach to nicotine and tobacco regulation.

Parallel Events Challenge Official Narrative

The Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) is hosting Good COP 2.0, an alternative forum that includes consumers of smoke-free products, independent researchers, journalists, and THR advocates.

During a panel discussion titled “A Dangerous Game – Is Stubborn FCTC Secretariat Ideology Eroding Trust in Public Health?”, chaired by Canadian smoke-free advocate Maria Papaioannoy, participants criticised the closed-door nature of COP11.

“Our voices are not allowed. Instead of finding accountability and owning up to their mistakes, we are seeing another doubling down,” Papaioannoy said. “We are seeing selective evidence reviews and no engagement with anyone who has lived experience with safe products.”

Despite over 100 million people worldwide using e-cigarettes, according to WHO estimates, this group remains largely absent from COP negotiations.

Accusations of Ideology Over Science

Heneage Mitchell, Managing Director of FACT Asia and a vaper, accused the FCTC of prioritising ideology over scientific evidence.

“The WHO FCTC does not reflect evidence-based public health. It is influenced by misinformation and rejects scientific evidence, excluding key stakeholders, including vapers, smokers and THR organisations,” he said.

Liza Katsiashvili, Community Manager at the World Vapers Alliance, said the limited participation undermines the diversity of scientific perspectives.

“The COP meetings are not scientifically driven. WHO is doing everything it can to discredit evidence showing that smoke-free products work,” she said. “These innovations help people, yet those who benefit from them are not allowed at COP11.”

She added that the WHO treats all nicotine products as equally harmful despite significant risk differences.

“That is ideology, not science. And the more ideological institutions become, the more they silence consumers and erode public trust.”

Science vs. Ideology Debate Intensifies

Critics argue that attempting to restrict all nicotine products—including less harmful alternatives—while keeping cigarettes legal is counterproductive and unethical. They warn that millions of smokers struggling to quit may be denied safer options.

Excluding consumers from COP11, they say, risks widening the gap between public health institutions and the people they aim to serve.

Nigerian global health researcher Gabriel Oke said WHO’s stance has prompted people to seek information from alternative platforms.

“People now turn to podcasts and social media for second opinions. WHO may soon lose its dominance because people have other information sources,” he said.

Public Trust at Stake

As COP11 continues, the ongoing exclusion of consumers and THR advocates has raised critical questions about whether global tobacco control policy is keeping pace with scientific development, consumer needs, and basic principles of transparency.

Unless the process becomes more open and inclusive, critics warn that public trust in the FCTC may continue to erode, further complicating efforts to reduce the global burden of smoking-related disease.