Is the tobacco industry's human rights makeover growing bolder?

Could international human rights obligations motivate countries to implement tobacco cessation support?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) seeks to realize the right to health through national tobacco control policies. However, few states have met their obligations under Article 14 of the FCTC to develop evidence-based policies to support tobacco cessation. This article examines how human rights obligations could provide a legal and moral basis for states to implement greater support for individuals to overcome their addiction to tobacco.

ANALYSIS

The United Nations (UN) has a well-established legal framework for promoting human rights, looking to the right to health to realize health autonomy. Where addiction undermines autonomy, it is widely acknowledged that addiction presents a significant barrier to cessation for individuals who use tobacco, undermining the right to health. The UN human rights system could, therefore, provide a complementary basis for monitoring state obligations under Article 14 of the FCTC, identifying challenges to FCTC implementation and motivating states to support tobacco cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

The United Nations' human rights system offers a mechanism that could be used to monitor Framework Convention on Tobacco Control implementation in national policy, facilitating accountability for the progressive realization of cessation support.

Does a human rights-based approach to harm reduction support commercialized harm reduction? Brief research

In recent years, the tobacco industry has been pushing a narrative that their newer lines of products-including electronic nicotine delivery devices-are offered in part to meet a social responsibility of providing potentially reduced-harm choices to their consumers. While some of the newer tobacco products might potentially be less harmful than combustible tobacco products, there is also significant deviation from the very concept of harm reduction when it is used for such a conspicuously commercialized purpose. The framing of commercialized tobacco harm reduction as a mere consumer preference by the industry is not clearly consistent with the core principles of harm reduction, let alone the human right to health and the highest attainable level of health. A human rights-based approach (HRBA) to harm reduction is a set of principles that frame an effort to respect and promote human rights, including the right to health. Whether the HRBA supports commercialized harm reduction requires study. We review industry materials from 2017 to 2022 to identify themes in the harm reduction narrative of the tobacco industry and analyse those themes using an HRBA to the tobacco harm reduction framework. Using this analysis, the industry's continued marketing of combustible products alongside their "potentially less harmful" products, and preference that their non-combustible products be regulated less strictly than cigarettes and cigars, adulterates the public health principles of harm reduction and undermines the right to health. We conclude that the tobacco industry's commercialized tobacco harm reduction is incompatible with a human rights-based approach to tobacco harm reduction.