The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products
The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12992-020-00596-x
复制
发表时间：
2020-09-11
影响因子：
10.8
通讯作者：
Melillo, Margherita
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gruszczynski, Lukasz;Melillo, Margherita
2018年10月，《烟草控制框架公约》缔约方会议通过了关于新型和新兴烟草制品（包括加热烟草制品）的第一项决定。该决定仍然模棱两可，例如，对烟草棒和HTP设备进行区分。在此背景下，本文试图回答两个相互关联的问题：《烟草控制框架公约》是否以及在多大程度上涵盖高温高温化学品，以及《公约》提供的制度是否适合对其进行监管。结果烟草制品需要在《烟草控制框架公约》下归类为烟草制品。然而，缔约方会议对烟棍和烟装置的区分导致了令人不满意的结果，因为它在国际一级现有的烟草控制标准中造成了漏洞。正如本文所述，一个更好的方法是将“烟草产品”的概念概念化，从功能角度将其视为装置和棒的结合。虽然根据我们目前的科学知识，将高温烟草产品纳入《烟草控制框架公约》的所有学科是一种合理的方法，但一旦收集到有关其风险概况的足够数量的新证据，就可以在未来修改这种分类。关于高温高温管道的最佳管理模式的任何决定都不仅需要考虑个人用户的健康风险和潜在利益，还需要考虑具体的系统问题（例如，高温高温管道作为网关产品）。然而，根据《公约》，科学研究状况并不是决定高温污水处理厂命运的唯一因素。同样重要的是对《烟草控制框架公约》的目标进行概念化。如果最终目标是彻底根除烟草流行，那么降低风险水平可能不足以证明对烟草产品采取不同（即更宽松）的监管制度是合理的。缔约方会议应根据最近市场的变化，澄清烟草制品的定义。在今后根据《烟草控制框架公约》设计烟草制品监管制度时，不仅要考虑科学证据，而且要注意《公约》的目标（或更普遍地说，要注意当前烟草控制范式的基础价值观）。
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).