The Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s GoodCOP 2.0 – The Conference of the People is taking place in Geneva, Switzerland from 17–22 November 2025, running parallel to the WHO’s COP11 negotiations. Unlike the closed-door proceedings of the official FCTC conference, GoodCOP 2.0 brings together consumer advocates, public-health experts, academics, journalists, and policymakers from around the world to promote transparency, evidence-based policymaking, and genuine public participation in global health governance.
This daily recap highlights the key discussions, insights, and moments from each day of GoodCOP 2.0—capturing what happened, why it matters, and how it shapes the broader conversation on tobacco harm reduction, consumer rights, and accountable policymaking.
You can catch all the sessions HERE
OPENING SESSION
Participants: David Williams (USA) and Martin Cullip (UK)
The first session of Good COP 2.0 aimed to revive the global tobacco-harm-reduction dialogue, which participants felt was stifled by the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). David Williams, President of Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) and Martin Cullip, non-resident fellow for TPA, highlighted the growth of the conference since Panama, emphasising its role as “the people’s conference” compared to the closed nature of the nearby COP11. Concerns were raised about the WHO’s reluctance to endorse harm reduction despite successful examples from countries like Sweden and New Zealand. Speakers asserted that combustion, rather than nicotine, is the primary concern, advocating for alternatives like vapes and heated tobacco.
The agenda for the week included reflections from former WHO officials criticising the FCTC’s deviation from public health goals and its increasingly insular nature. Cullip warned against new COP11 measures that could impose strict regulations on nicotine products and silence harm-reduction advocates. Additionally, international tensions, particularly in the EU over nicotine policies, reflect a growing resistance to prohibition. The conference’s key messages centred on consumer choice, evidence-based policymaking, and inclusion, aiming to encourage smokers to switch to safer alternatives.
A CONVERSATION WITH PROF. TIKKI PANGESTU
Participants: Martin Cullip (UK), Prof. Tikki Pangestu (Indonesia)
This presentation by Prof. Tikki Pang examined the World Health Organization’s (WHO) approach to tobacco harm reduction (THR) from his perspective as a longtime insider and current critic. Pang expressed concern about WHO’s “evidence-blind” policies on safer nicotine alternatives, particularly affecting low- and middle-income countries like Indonesia, where high smoking rates persist despite a growing vaping industry. He attributed WHO’s reluctance to embrace THR to historical scepticism from the tobacco industry’s past and the influence of private funders like Bloomberg Philanthropies.
While he recognises WHO’s essential role in global health, Pang criticised its ideological commitment to “nicotine-free societies,” arguing it lacks data support. He proposed forming a “dynamic coalition” of stakeholders to exert grass-roots pressure on governments for THR advancement, as seen in the UK’s proactive stance under former Prime Minister David Cameron. He highlighted the need for significant reforms in WHO’s governance and emphasised that change could arise from influential member states, particularly G7 countries. Ultimately, Pang conveyed optimism for substantial change through global consumer activism, political will, and cross-sector collaboration, despite existing institutional challenges.
PUBLICATION OF RESEARCH – THE FCTC IS NOT WORKING: A STUDY INTO HOW THE APPROACH FROM THE SECRETARIAT IS NOT WORKING AND REQUIRES REFORM
Participants: Roger Bate (UK/USA)
Roger Bate’s talk critiqued the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), highlighting its departure from principles of evidence, transparency, and cooperation essential for effective tobacco harm reduction (THR). He noted that the FCTC has transformed into a closed, ideologically rigid mechanism driven by donor interests, suppressing dissent and excluding key stakeholders. Bate emphasised the importance of assessing policy based on outcomes rather than ideology, arguing for the evaluation of reduced-risk products like vapes and heated tobacco, which show promise in improving quit rates. The FCTC’s refusal to adapt has led to stagnation and prohibitive policies that fail to increase public health.
Bate drew parallels between the governance issues in tobacco control and the decisions taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, stressing the importance of transparent decision-making processes. He warned that restrictive regulations create underground markets, undermining safety and public trust, and he called for a reevaluation of the impact of tobacco legislation, noting its unintended favouring of large tobacco corporations.
To improve global health governance, Bate proposed several practical measures including open COP sessions, conflict-of-interest monitoring, independent evaluations of harm reduction strategies, and ensuring policies protect minors without limiting adult access. He concluded by urging the tobacco control movement to embrace opportunities for reform within the WHO system and to advocate for evidence-based policies while remaining open to change. The greatest threat to public health, he asserted, is a closed system resistant to learning from evidence and dissent.
DEBATE STYLE DISCUSSION – THE US AND THE WHO
Participants: Chair, Martin Cullip (UK), Clive Bates (UK), Roger Bate (USA)
The session analysed the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO), addressing the organisation’s governance failures, political biases, and credibility issues in areas like tobacco harm reduction and pandemic response. Clive Bates criticised the WHO for its ineffectiveness and called for a leader focused on core duties. Roger Bate discussed the WHO’s historical failures and criticised its financial model, which relies heavily on voluntary contributions that promote donor agendas over member states’ interests. Both speakers noted the lack of accountability within the WHO, warning that the U.S. exit diminishes American influence while enhancing China’s role. They concluded that despite the need for reform, the WHO remains critical for global pandemic coordination, though it requires significant changes—new leadership, transparency, and member-driven funding—to effectively address pressing health issues. The overarching sentiment was that the WHO is essential yet structurally flawed, risking continued failures in health governance without necessary reforms.
PANEL DISCUSSION – ARTICLE 2.1 – FREEDOM CLAUSE OR MANDATE?
Participants: Chair, Martin Cullip (UK), Clive Bates (UK), Kurt Yeo (South Africa), Juan Jose Cirion (Mexico)
This session at COP11 addressed the WHO FCTC Secretariat’s controversial reinterpretation of Article 2.1 from a freedom clause into a mandate for aggressive tobacco control measures. Proposed actions—including banning filters, commercial sales, and various nicotine products—were criticised as extreme and legally questionable. Clive Bates argued that the Secretariat’s approach turns permissive language into quasi-mandatory demands, undermining governance and public health. Juan José Cirión highlighted the authoritarian implications of such tactics, referencing Mexico’s unconstitutional vaping bans justified by the FCTC. Kurt Yeo shared South Africa’s experience during COVID-19, where tobacco bans led to illegal sales and organised crime. The discussion underscored two key points: the failure of prohibitionist policies that harm public health and the FCTC’s shift away from evidence-based approaches towards punitive measures. The panel emphasised risks of democratic overreach and the side lining of harm reduction, warning that any mandate derived from Article 2.1 could lead to unaccountable restrictions reminiscent of past drug policy failures.
PANEL DISCUSSION – THE EU TPD/TED REVIEW AND THE INFLUENCE OF THE WHO IN EUROPE
Participants: Chair, Alberto Hernandez (Spain), Adam Hoffer (USA), Benjamin Elks (UK), Carissa During (Sweden)
This session examined the increasing influence of WHO ideology on EU policy, notably in relation to the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and Tobacco Excise Directive (TED), undermining harm-reduction efforts. Speakers highlighted the problematic alignment between the EU and WHO, noting the exclusion of consumer voices and dissemination of inaccurate claims about vaping. Adam Hoffer pointed out that EU tax proposals, driven by a mix of moral zeal and revenue needs, fail to align with evidence for reducing risks, pushing for increased taxes on safer nicotine products. Carissa Düring presented Sweden as a successful harm reduction model that counteracts WHO and EU narratives, emphasising the need for legal access to safer products rather than prohibition. Benjamin Elks warned of potential negative outcomes in Europe resembling the UK’s recent restrictions, which have fuelled illegal trade. The discussion underscored the institutionalisation of anti-nicotine ideology in EU policymaking, resulting in a disregard for scientific evidence. Despite current biases, countries like Sweden and Greece are beginning to resist prohibitionist policies, suggesting a shift towards consumer-oriented discussions. Ultimately, nicotine is emerging as the next target for public health advocates, indicating a need for evidence-led approaches rather than ideologically driven policies.
