“The social media analytics for World Vape Day are impressive. It enjoyed huge growth in the number of postings, followers, and positive comments. Without doubt, #WVD21 gained much more traction than 2020’s event,” says Nancy Loucas, Executive Coordinator of CAPHRA.

In fact, some estimates report a 125% increase in Twitter traffic about World Vape Day from 29 May to 2 June compared to the same period last year.

This year’s World Vape Day, on 30 May, highlighted smoke-free products as ‘the better choice’ to combustible cigarettes which are linked to more than eight million premature deaths each year.

CAPHRA and consumer advocacy groups in the Asia Pacific region called on the World Health Organisation and governments to provide smokers with better access to innovative, safer nicotine products.

Ms Loucas says #WVD21 achieved significant cut-through for a number of reasons.

“The WHO and many in the media seemed to have rebooted their campaign against vaping lately which only energizes the 68 million people globally who have switched from smoking to vaping, saving millions of lives every year. Their success and personal stories are the most powerful evidence we have, highlighting vaping as the world’s most effective smoking cessation tool,” she says.

CAPHRA says #WVD21 was further energised in Asia Pacific by the fact that much is happening in the region – both for and against Tobacco Harm Reduction public policy.

The Philippines House of Representatives passed landmark risk-proportionate legislation to regulate vaping just days before #WVD21 which the Senate is expected to pass in the coming months.

Peter Paul Dator, President of the Philippines consumer group Vapers PH and CAPHRA member, says excitement is building ahead of the Senate’s approval given the country’s stubbornly high smoking rates.

“If you judge it on information, views, and support exchanged across our social media platforms, World Vape Day this year was undoubtedly the biggest we’ve seen in the Philippines. It was boosted by the fact it’s a really positive time as we await the Senate’s formal support for vaping,” says Mr Dator.

Interest in #WVD21 was also up in New Zealand. Helped by its Parliament unanimously passing an act to regulate vaping late last year, with the country’s smokefree goal now also a greater priority for the Government.

Meanwhile across the Tasman, many of Australia’s 500,000 vapers were engaged with World Vape Day out of growing desperation.

As from 1 October, their Therapeutic Goods Administration is implementing a prescription-only model for nicotine vaping. Advocates pushing for vaping to be legalised in Australia describe the added requirement for ex-smokers sourcing vaping products from overseas as a slap in the face.

“There are many factors that came together to make #WVD21 the biggest yet. Governments and the media can no longer discount the growing global support for adults’ right to choose a healthier smoke-free lifestyle,” says Nancy Loucas.

Consumer groups in the Asia-Pacific region have launched a petition at change.org/v4v-petition that urges the World Health Organisation (WHO) to respect consumer rights and to stop demonizing Tobacco Harm Reduction options ahead of the next biennial meeting of the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) in November.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]

CAPHRA warns that WHO’s study group is not acting in public health’s best interests by recommending bans on all aspects of vaping that are the cornerstone of its effectiveness.

“Vaping has been critical in helping smoking adults move away from a product that has a 50% chance of killing them to the safer alternative that has less than a 10% chance of causing harm,” the group wrote.

In their expert opinion, the group of scientists, researchers, and harm reduction policy advocates say TobReg does not provide credible guidance based on science and evidence. This is despite health leaders requiring evidence-based recommendations to guide their development of pragmatic, risk-proportionate public health regulation.

Asia Pacific’s government health leaders written to were Thailand’s Anutin Charnvirakul; The Philippines’ Dr Francisco T. Duque III; New Zealand’s Andrew Little; Australia’s Greg Hunt; Hong Kong’s Sophia Chan; Indonesia’s Dr Budi Gunadi Sadikin; Malaysia’s Dr Adham Bin Baba; Taiwan’s Shih-Chung Chen; and India’s Dr Harsh Vardhan.

“We respectfully ask that when it comes to decision making around Tobacco Harm Reduction you continue to rely on the international and independent evidence first and foremost as the science,” wrote CAPHRA’s Expert Advisory Group.

Sending a link, the group strongly suggests that the region’s health leaders and their colleagues review the most recent report from the Royal College of Physicians UK.

“This report from RCP UK discusses how to embed risk-proportionate regulations into tax policy and public health promotion. It embraces tobacco harm reduction in a pragmatic way which seeks to provide guidance for real world implementation,” they write.

Executive Coordinator of CAPHRA, Nancy Loucas, also wrote to the region’s health leaders on behalf of CAPHRA’s member organisations based throughout Asia Pacific. The letter made clear that adults have the right to make informed choices based on facts, scientific evidence, and sound harm reduction principles.

“The WHO – at the behest of its various billionaire and corporate financial sponsors who are promoting their own moralistic or commercial agendas – is not acting in the best interests of the people, even though that is what they are mandated to do in their own FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) charter,” wrote Ms Loucas.

Consumer groups in the Asia-Pacific region have launched a petition at change.org/v4v-petition that urges the World Health Organisation (WHO) to respect consumer rights and to stop demonizing Tobacco Harm Reduction options ahead of the next biennial meeting of the WHO FCTC in November.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]

The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) issued the statement in support of a report released by the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO) that tobacco harm reduction (THR) alternatives like e-cigarettes and HTPs would help, and not hinder, the aims of global tobacco control.

“The recommendation by the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union) for blanket ban on electronic nicotine delivery systems and HTPs in LMICs is ill-conceived, prejudicial to LMIC consumers and detrimental to public health,” said Nancy Loucas, Executive Coordinator of CAPHRA.

The Union, a Bloomberg partner for ‘The Initiative to reduce tobacco use’, published its fourth position statement on e-cigarettes last year which called for a blanket ban on all electronic nicotine delivery systems and HTPs in LMICs.

INNCO, a global member association that advocates for tobacco harm reduction and proportionate regulation of low-risk alternative nicotine products, criticized The Union report, saying the move to ban harm reduction products should be evaluated carefully.

It cited 10 reasons why blanket bans of e-cigarettes and HTPs in LMICs would do more harm than good. “Such bans will mean that more people will keep using cigarettes, or obtain alternative products through illicit markets with no safeguards,” it said.

Such bans are an overly simplistic solution to a complex issue and will not work, according to INNCO.  It said the smoking problem is a complex issue that is the leading cause of preventable death worldwide, causing more than 8 million deaths per year.

It said the MPOWER strategies crafted by the World Health Organization proved unworkable in many LMICs due to lack of access to smoking cessation services and other resources. “In this context, it is clear that pragmatic approaches are needed, including the availability of a wide selection of products proven to reduce harm,” INNCO said.

Samrat Chowdhery, president of INNCO, said The Union’s assertion that LMICs do not have the regulatory capacity to manage and oversee a market of ENDS and HTPs was simply wrong and condescending.

“LMICs are composed of complex and highly-diverse societies, and a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach such as a blanket ban would be ill-advised.  I believe that a blanket ban on alternative products will not improve the situation.  In fact, I believe it will actually worsen it,” said Chowdhery, who is from India, an LMIC with diverse cultures.

Samsul Arrifin, president of Malaysian Organisation of Vape Entities (MOVE), agreed, saying that “any move to deprive smokers and consumers of better alternatives to cigarettes such as vapes would only contribute the problem that is seeks to address.’

INNCO said prioritizing the banning of reduced harm alternatives over cigarettes is also illogical.  It said that by denying smokers access to a much safer alternative while leaving cigarettes on the market, policymakers would leave only two options on the table – quit or die.

It also said that reduction and substitution are valid goals for smokers in LMICs as replacing combustible tobacco with alternative nicotine products can significantly reduce risk of harm by at least 95 percent.

INNCO said smokers should be given the right to choose their own path to better health. “By removing reduced harm alternatives from the market—while leaving the significantly more dangerous cigarettes available—countries would remove this right from the individual,” it said.

It said reduced harm alternatives can significantly contribute to the aims of global tobacco control, with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) itself recognizing ‘harm reduction’ as a key strategy in tobacco control.

The INNCO report said lack of research in LMICs should not be a valid reason to ban reduced harm alternatives. It said that while more research needs to be conducted in LMICs on tobacco control and specifically harm reduction measures, governments should not deny people living in poor and developing countries access to potentially life-saving products in the meantime.

It also said that the prohibitionist approach in LMICs is outdated, unrealistic and condescending.  INNCO said such discriminatory policies serve to further increase health inequalities between high-income countries and LMICs.

Jagannath Sarangapani, director of Association of Vapers India (AVI), agreed with the INNCO’s observation that bans in LMICs would only lead to illicit markets.  “In India and Thailand, the bans on e-cigarettes created an underground industry of these products, with no product regulation and taxation.”

INNCO also said banning reduced harm alternatives would only lead people back to smoking and greater harm. It said blanket bans in LMICs are a form of ‘philanthropic colonialism’.

Peter Paul Dator of Vapers Philippines said this is the same issue hounding the Philippines, after the local Food and Drug Administration confirmed in a congressional investigation it received thousands of dollars from anti-tobacco group The Union to craft guidelines on vaping. “The Philippine Congress passed laws to regulate, instead of ban these products.  Unfortunately, the FDA passed guidelines that restrict the availability of e-cigarettes and HTPs,” Dator said.

INNCO said global organizations such as the WHO, Bloomberg Philanthropies and The Union wield great influence in LMICs through sponsorship of healthcare programs and public initiatives.

“We believe that awareness of and access to reduced-harm products is a fundamental human right, and that denial of this right will prevent significant health benefits in LMICs,” INNCO said.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]