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 Day 2 Opening Session highlighted the contrast between Good COP, an evidence-driven gathering, and the increasingly closed WHO FCTC conference, labelled as Bad COP. Speakers reflected on the previous day’s discussions, emphasising Dr. Tikki Pang’s critique of the WHO regarding harm reduction, showcased by Sweden’s significant reduction in youth smoking. The session criticised WHO’s proceedings as ideologically charged and disconnected from public health realities, pointing out conflicts of interest due to Bloomberg-funded NGOs. Australia was presented as a case where excessive restrictions led to an illicit market, yet the WHO still praises it. The panel underscored a growing tension as harm-reduction advocates gain traction, suggesting that transparency and consumer voices are essential for effective public health policies, contrasting sharply with the secrecy surrounding WHO discussions.
PANEL DISCUSSION – A DANGEROUS GAME – IS STUBBORN FCTC SECRETARIAT IDEOLOGY ERODING
TRUST IN PUBLIC HEALTH?
Participants: Chair, Maria Papaioannoy (Canada), Gabriel Oke (Nigeria), Liza Katsiashvili (Georgia), Heneage Mitchell (Thailand)
This panel discussion addressed the WHO FCTC Secretariat’s rigid ideology, which is reportedly driving a global decline in public health trust. Speakers from various regions noted that the FCTC’s approach to tobacco harm reduction (THR) is increasingly driven by moralism rather than scientific evidence, resulting in exclusion of consumers and frontline experts from policy discussions. The panel criticised the FCTC’s suppression of dissenting evidence and argued that its prohibitionist policies have led to increased smoking rates and illicit markets in countries following WHO guidance. A disconnect between public health institutions and the public was highlighted, with many trusting personal experiences and independent media over official messaging. The plight of low- and middle-income countries was also discussed, as they often adopt flawed policies based on WHO advice. The panel concluded that the FCTC’s refusal to engage transparently with evidence and consumer experiences is damaging public health and emphasised the need for accountability and inclusion to rebuild trust.
SPANISH PANEL – COP’S MOST THREATENING
INITIATIVES FOR HARM REDUCTION
Participants: Chair, Jeffrey Zamora (Costa Rica), Carmen Escrig (Spain), Dr. Diego Verrastro (Argentina), Julio Ruades (Spain)
This panel expressed significant concerns in Latin America and Spain regarding COP11 and WHO’s increasing pressure for stricter regulations on safer nicotine alternatives. Speakers argued these proposed measures could harm public health by promoting illicit trade and removing vital harm-reduction tools. Argentina highlighted the failure of marketing bans that drive consumers to black markets, while Spain noted how new taxes and flavour bans distort markets, making vaping more expensive than smoking and risking public health through illegal products. The discussion linked these policies to political motivations, positing that extreme anti-vaping measures serve personal and political gains rather than scientific evidence. Notably, Mexico’s escalating prohibition embodies the chaos of political bias against vaping. The participants condemned WHO’s approach of extending the FCTC’s scope illegally, cautioning it would worsen public health outcomes. The session concluded with a call for science-based regulation, advocating for consumer inclusion in policymaking to ensure effective public health strategies.
PANEL DISCUSSION – THE BATTLE OVER SCIENCE
Participants: Chair, Dr. Marina Murphy (Ireland), Dr. Mark Tyndall (Canada), Dr. Roberto Sussman (Mexico), Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos (Greece), Professor Sharifa Ezat, (Malaysia)
This session gathered leading scientists to discuss the shift of the nicotine, harm reduction, and tobacco control debate from scientific principles to ideology and politics. The panel argued that the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), initially aimed at reducing smoking-related deaths, now emphasises a nicotine-free goal while overlooking the risk differences between combustible cigarettes and safer alternatives like vapes and nicotine pouches. They criticised the WHO’s focus on abstinence-only ideology, arguing that eliminating smoke is essential for harm reduction.Research showed that non-combustible products emit significantly fewer toxicants than cigarettes, despite the WHO’s denial of this evidence. The panel compared the current nicotine policy to previous harm-reduction struggles in HIV and drug use, warning of the damaging effects on the billion smokers and millions who die annually.Concerns were raised regarding the “politicisation of science,” accusing the WHO of manipulating scientific definitions, promoting flawed studies, and distorting real-world outcomes. This misrepresentation affects media messaging and policy, creating public misconceptions about safer alternatives.A key theme was compassion versus cruelty: harm reduction supports those struggling with smoking, while prohibiting safer options causes harm. The discussion emphasised that a nicotine-free world is unrealistic and harmful, particularly when prohibition fuels illegal markets and health inequalities.The scientists called for a return to evidence-based public health policies that genuinely reduce disease and death, warning that ignoring science for political agendas endangers millions of lives and undermines progress in global public health.
PANEL DISCUSSION – PEOPLE V PATERNALISM –
HOW CAN CONSUMERS GROUPS COUNTER ANTI-THR NARRATIVES?
Participants: Chair, Benjamin Elks (UK), Speaker, Christopher Snowdon (UK), Respondent, Maria Papaioannoy (Canada)
This session addressed how consumer groups can counter the dominance of anti-harm reduction (anti-THR) messaging funded by NGOs and government entities. Key points included the massive financial imbalances faced by consumer advocates and the need for strategic individual actions to challenge misinformation. Snowdon highlighted the importance of grass roots efforts like community notes and public consultations, while also discussing sustainable funding solutions for consumer activism. Maria Papaioannoy reflected on practical challenges and the necessity of educating consumers to empower them as advocates. Together, they noted that the current political climate favors paternalistic policies but underscored the potential for a backlash as public awareness grows regarding the absurdities of such regulations, advocating for consumer confidence in reclaiming the narrative around vaping and harm reduction initiatives.
GOOD COP CONSUMERS SHOWCASE: MESSAGES TO
THE FCTC SECRETARIAT AND DELEGATIONS
Participants: Chair, Jeffrey Zamora (Costa Rica), Jeannie Cameron (UK), David Williams (USA), Juan Jose Cirion (Mexico)
This session focused on a series of video messages from consumers, medical professionals, and independent industry representatives, emphasising their exclusion from WHO FCTC COP meetings. Participants argued that decisions affecting nicotine users’ lives and health are being made without their input, undermining public health. They advocated for the inclusion of lived experiences in tobacco control, warning against a “cancel culture” that disregards their voices. Panellists noted that while the FCTC acknowledges consumer group contributions, its implementation has become hostile to independent viewpoints. Criticism was directed at COP meetings, which were described as scripted performances, with public participation stifled. Examples of the negative impacts of prohibitionist policies, such as those in Australia and Mexico, were cited, demonstrating the dangers of prioritising ideology over evidence. The session concluded with calls for inclusion, transparency, and dialogue in policy-making, stressing that consumers are key in developing effective tobacco control strategies.
