Cargando…

The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products

BACKGROUND: In October 2018, the Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC or Convention) adopted its first decision on novel and emerging tobacco products, including heated tobacco products (HTPs). The decision remains ambiguous, e.g. by making a distinction bet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gruszczynski, Lukasz, Melillo, Margherita
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7488438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32912239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00596-x
_version_ 1783581690382254080
author Gruszczynski, Lukasz
Melillo, Margherita
author_facet Gruszczynski, Lukasz
Melillo, Margherita
author_sort Gruszczynski, Lukasz
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In October 2018, the Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC or Convention) adopted its first decision on novel and emerging tobacco products, including heated tobacco products (HTPs). The decision remains ambiguous, e.g. by making a distinction between tobacco sticks and HTP devices. Against this background, the article seeks to answer two interrelated questions: whether and to what extent HTPs are covered by the FCTC, and whether regime provided by the Convention is suitable for their regulation. RESULTS: HTPs need to be classified under the FCTC as tobacco products. The distinction made by the Conference of the Parties between sticks and devices leads however to unsatisfactory results as it creates loopholes in tobacco control standards existing at the international level. A better approach, as argued in this article, is to conceptualize the notion of ‘tobacco products’ in functional terms as a combination of both a device and stick. While subjecting HTPs to all FCTC disciplines is, in light of our current scientific knowledge, a rational approach, such classification can be modified in the future once a sufficient amount of new evidence on their risk profile is collected. Any decision on the optimal regulatory model for HTPs will need to take into account not only health risks and potential benefits for individual users, but also the specific systemic concerns (e.g. HTPs as a gateway product). The state of scientific research is however not the only factor that will determine the fate of HTPs under the Convention. What is equally important is a conceptualization of the FCTC’s objectives. If a complete eradication of the tobacco epidemic is the ultimate goal, reduced levels of risk may not be enough to justify the different (i.e. more lenient) regulatory regime for HTPs. CONCLUSIONS: The Conference of the Parties should clarify the definition of tobacco products in light of recent changes in the market. When designing the regulatory regime for HTPs under the FCTC in the future, one has to consider not only scientific evidence but also pay attention to the objective of the Convention (or more generally to the values that underlie the current tobacco control paradigm).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7488438
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74884382020-09-16 The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products Gruszczynski, Lukasz Melillo, Margherita Global Health Research BACKGROUND: In October 2018, the Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC or Convention) adopted its first decision on novel and emerging tobacco products, including heated tobacco products (HTPs). The decision remains ambiguous, e.g. by making a distinction between tobacco sticks and HTP devices. Against this background, the article seeks to answer two interrelated questions: whether and to what extent HTPs are covered by the FCTC, and whether regime provided by the Convention is suitable for their regulation. RESULTS: HTPs need to be classified under the FCTC as tobacco products. The distinction made by the Conference of the Parties between sticks and devices leads however to unsatisfactory results as it creates loopholes in tobacco control standards existing at the international level. A better approach, as argued in this article, is to conceptualize the notion of ‘tobacco products’ in functional terms as a combination of both a device and stick. While subjecting HTPs to all FCTC disciplines is, in light of our current scientific knowledge, a rational approach, such classification can be modified in the future once a sufficient amount of new evidence on their risk profile is collected. Any decision on the optimal regulatory model for HTPs will need to take into account not only health risks and potential benefits for individual users, but also the specific systemic concerns (e.g. HTPs as a gateway product). The state of scientific research is however not the only factor that will determine the fate of HTPs under the Convention. What is equally important is a conceptualization of the FCTC’s objectives. If a complete eradication of the tobacco epidemic is the ultimate goal, reduced levels of risk may not be enough to justify the different (i.e. more lenient) regulatory regime for HTPs. CONCLUSIONS: The Conference of the Parties should clarify the definition of tobacco products in light of recent changes in the market. When designing the regulatory regime for HTPs under the FCTC in the future, one has to consider not only scientific evidence but also pay attention to the objective of the Convention (or more generally to the values that underlie the current tobacco control paradigm). BioMed Central 2020-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7488438/ /pubmed/32912239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00596-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Gruszczynski, Lukasz
Melillo, Margherita
The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products
title The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products
title_full The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products
title_fullStr The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products
title_full_unstemmed The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products
title_short The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products
title_sort fctc dilemma on heated tobacco products
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7488438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32912239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00596-x
work_keys_str_mv AT gruszczynskilukasz thefctcdilemmaonheatedtobaccoproducts
AT melillomargherita thefctcdilemmaonheatedtobaccoproducts
AT gruszczynskilukasz fctcdilemmaonheatedtobaccoproducts
AT melillomargherita fctcdilemmaonheatedtobaccoproducts