What’s wrong with the WHO?
They’re safer than combustible cigarettes but you won’t learn than from the WHO.
Lately, I’ve been writing less and enjoying life more. I’m surprised to see this is my first blog post of 2024, although that’s partly because two stories that I filed with the Chronicle of Philanthropy are still awaiting publication. I’m planning to take the summer off, and then resume my gradual drift towards what a friend has decided to call “rewirement.”
Meantime, I feel compelled to return to the topic of smoking, vaping and tobacco policy. The issues are so important — smoking remains the No. 1 preventable cause of death and disease in the US — and so poorly covered by the press, when they are covered at all, which is not often. This is an arena where my reporting can make a contribution. At least that’s my hope.
Today’s story is about the World Health Organization, which has a great deal of influence on low and middle income countries that look to the WHO for guidance when setting tobacco policy. The WHO strongly opposes tobacco harm reduction — the idea that people who cannot or will not quit smoking combustible cigarettes should be permitted and even encouraged to switch entirely to safer nicotine products such as e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches like ZYN or devices such as Philip Morris International’s IQOS that heat but do not burn tobacco.
This is, in my view, misguided: Evidence continues to accumulate that these products are, on balance, good for public health because they enable smokers to give up combustible cigarettes and still get a nicotine fix; they’s a safer substitute for a product that kills half of its users who don’t quit. But the WHO has a perfect right to come to its own conclusions about what tobacco policies to recommend. The issue isn’t clear-cut.
The thing is, the WHO also has an obligation to communicate honestly to governments, medical professionals and the public about the relative risks of tobacco policy. Instead, the organization puts forth half-truths that exaggerate the dangers and ignore the benefits of alternative nicotine products. It ignores the work of some of the world’s leading public health authorites. That’s what my story is about.
Here’s how it begins:
The World Health Organization has 8,000 employees, a budget of close to $4bn dollars, considerable influence and ambitious goals. Expanding access to medical care. Managing global health emergencies. Addressing the root causes of disease.
Even combatting misinformation online.
To the latter, one is tempted to respond, “Physician, heal thyself.”
That’s because, when it comes to one of the most important public health questions of our time — how best to reduce the death and disease caused by smoking tobacco — the WHO is not merely failing to curb misinformation. It is misleading governments, health care workers and the public.
The story goes on to cite specific, egregious examples of misinformation being spread by the WHO. It also looks at the role of Bloomberg Philanthropies in financing the WHO, the topic of a follow-up story coming soon. Bloomberg strongly opposes vaping, citing the risks to young people and ignoring the benefits to people who smoke.
Dozens of countries including China, India, Brazil and Mexico now ban the sale of e-cigarettes, according to the WHO, which applauds them for doing so. Yet these countries continue to permit the sale of lethal, combustible cigarettes. That makes no sense.
By contrast, other countries—the UK, New Zealand, Norway and Japan—have permitted or encouraged smokers to switch to safer nicotine products. Many millions have done so, but the WHO wants to prevent smokers in poor and middle income countries from making that choice. It’s crazy.
You can read the rest of my story here.
