CAPHRA warns against grant-for-policy scheme of vested interest groups 

MANILA, Philippines — The governments of low and middle-income countries should not fall for the ploy of some groups of dangling money in exchange for securing policies favorable to their vested interests.

This warning was issued on Wednesday by the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA),  a group of tobacco harm reduction advocates.

“Government should keep away from such foreign special interest, grant-for-policy schemes which might compromise the rights of local consumers to choose better products for their health,” Nancy Loucas, CAPHRA executive director, said in a statement.

She was referring to policies that “restrict and even ban” alternative nicotine products that had been found to be better alternatives for smokers than cigarettes.

Some public health experts, she said, had raised concerns over the activities of groups like Bloomberg Philanthropies — particularly offering grants or technical assistance to regulatory agencies to influence their policies on tobacco products.

According to CAPHRA, low and middle-income countries are particularly vulnerable to this “grant-for-policy scheme” as they would need funds to implement public health programs.

Loucas cited the case of the Philippines where two members of the House of Representatives filed a resolution calling for a legislative inquiry into reports that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received money from Bloomberg, allegedly in exchange for certain policies against noncombustible nicotine products, such as electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products.

She was referring to Ilocos Sur First District Rep. Deogracias Victor Savellano and Nueva Ecija First District Rep. Estrellita Suansing who filed the resolution last December.

“It is all the more appalling that these foreign lobby groups use their financial power to push their ideological agenda around the world while completely ignoring the local needs and choice of people that are simply looking for better options than cigarettes,” Loucas said.

She noted that public health experts — such as Dr. Roberto A. Sussman of the Institute of Nuclear Sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico — had been calling the attention of consumers and concerned groups to the “overwhelming influence” exerted by Bloomberg Philanthropies on nicotine policies in low and middle-income countries.

CAPHRA agreed with Sussman’s observation that Bloomberg focuses its efforts in such countries where all that would be needed to influence public policies was  “to lobby and convince the head of government, or simply a sufficiently influential group of high ranking health officials.”

According to CAPHRA, Bloomberg has spent millions to ban e-cigarettes in many countries. As a result, smokers who would want to quit were denied the alternative of taking a tobacco harm reduction approach.

This is a mistake, Loucas said, noting that “thick volumes of solid scientific studies” show the efficacy of such an approach.

Loucas added that the smoking rate allow remained in those countries.

She also agreed with the statement of Dr. Alex Wodak, board director of the Australian Tobacco Harm Reduction Association, that the tobacco harm reduction approach was “the best alternative” to smoking combustible cigarettes.

Loucas quoted Wodak as saying: “It is easier for THR [tobacco harm reduction] opponents to influence policy in LMICs [low and middle-income countries] where health care systems are less robust and there are higher smoking rates among younger populations.”

CAPHRA said consumers in LMICs would eventually pay for the cost of grant-for-policy schemes if authorities would allow the illegal practice to continue.

“We encourage consumers to remind their governments to resist pressures from vested interest groups that are trying to influence local policy using money or grants especially in developing nations which would deprive consumers of their rights for better health,” Loucas said.

[atm]