GoodCOP 2.0 – Day 5 Recap

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 final-day session of GoodCOP 2.0 underscored the commitment to advancing tobacco harm reduction (THR). David Williams expressed gratitude to the organising team and framed the day around the theme of ongoing work, highlighted by the music selections. Key discussions revolved around Jeannie Cameron’s classification of COP11 country statements into three tiers based on their stance towards THR, with Tier 1 countries like New Zealand advocating strongly for it, while Tier 3 countries like Australia maintained prohibitionist views. Martin Cullip reported on the confusion and political tension at COP11, where critical agenda items remained unresolved. The role of WHO narratives and the exclusion of tobacco companies from dialogues, despite their safer products, were also critiqued. A notable contrast was made between the diversity and openness at GoodCOP and the restricted nature of WHO proceedings. The session concluded with reflections on the uncertainty of COP12’s location and the ongoing need for evidence-based tobacco policy, reinforced by Williams quoting Robert Frost.

ENCOURAGING CRIMINALITY: THE DANGERS OF FUNDAMENTALISM IN TOBACCO CONTROL

Presenter: Chair, Nancy Loucas, Jacob Grier, Dr. Rohan Andrede de Sequeira, Mark Oates, Dr. Marina Murphy

This panel discussed the negative impacts of prohibitionist tobacco-control policies driven by ideology instead of evidence, creating crime, corruption, and harming public health globally. Jacob Grier highlighted the U.S. trend of shifting from regulation to prohibition, leading to illicit markets and enforcement issues, particularly in states like California and Massachusetts. Dr. Rohan Sequeira cited India’s extreme prohibition, which criminalises vape possession and exacerbates corruption despite high tobacco-related mortality rates, suggesting that legalising safer nicotine products could save millions of lives. Dr. Marina Murphy pointed out how bans stifle scientific research and promote misinformation, damaging public understanding. Mark Oates described the UK’s ineffective regulatory approach, where poor enforcement perpetuates illicit markets. The discussion emphasised that misinformation, rather than science, drives tobacco-control policies, leading to harmful public health outcomes and undermining democratic values. The panel concluded that such policies have not improved public health but have instead criminalised consumers and sustained the smoking epidemic.

“NOTHING ABOUT US, WITHOUT US” CONSUMERS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT VOICE

Presenter: Chair, Mark Oates, Ignacio Leiva, Asa Saligupta, Filip Tokic, Clarisse Virgino

This session gathered consumer advocates from Chile, Thailand, the Philippines, and Europe to discuss the exclusion of vapers and nicotine consumers from policymaking, a dynamic often influenced by Bloomberg-funded anti-vaping agendas. It was highlighted that this exclusion is intentional, driven by fear of scrutiny and misinformation. Examples from Chile showed how embedded officials have influenced anti-vaping laws across Latin America, while Thailand faces pressure from foreign entities on tobacco policies without public consultation. The session underscored the importance of organised consumer advocacy, showcasing Chile as a model where users mobilised to change legislation. Additionally, barriers to democratic engagement, such as cultural fears and lack of trust, were explored, alongside concerns about WHO meetings excluding consumer voices. The need for non-partisan, clear advocacy messaging was emphasised, particularly as political polarisation affects the effectiveness of vaping votes. The discussion concluded with a focus on long-term advocacy strategies, illustrating that persistence and engagement are key to reshaping health policy.

IN AN IDEAL WORLD, HOW SHOULD GOVERNMENTS REGULATE NICOTINE?

Participants: Chair, Jeff Smith, Gabriel Oke, Ignacio Leiva, Kurt Yeo, oss Marchand

This closing panel featured advocates, analysts, and legal experts discussing effective, humane nicotine regulation across regions, addressing a common frustration with chaotic and inconsistent government responses despite scientific understanding of safer nicotine products. Ignacio Leiva presented Chile’s success, emphasising the need to differentiate vaping from smoking, advocating for sensible laws that protect harm reduction communication. Kurt Yeo described South Africa’s problematic approach, where vaping was banned during the pandemic, calling for alcohol-like regulatory models. Ross Marchand criticised the FDA’s aversion to risk, proposing a faster approval model to accelerate access to reduced-risk alternatives. A recurrent theme was the danger of over regulation driving consumers to illegal markets, as noted by Dr. Mark Tyndall, who urged for regulations that are realistic and enforceable. The panel underscored the ethical imperative to protect minors and highlighted the misinformation vacuum in areas where nicotine products are new. The session concluded that ideal regulation should:

1. Treat vaping and pouches as distinct from smoking,
2. Regulate as adult consumer products,
3. Apply international safety standards,
4. Ensure youth protections,
5. Allow harm reduction communication,
6. Avoid pharmaceutical-style regulation, and
7. Compete with illegal markets.

The panel expressed gratitude for global advocates, emphasising a renewed commitment to the cause heading into COP12.

REFORM OF THE WHO: THE STATE THEY ARE IN

Participants: Chair, Maria Papaioannoy, Jeannie Cameron, Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, Prof. Tikki Pangestu

This final GoodCOP 2.0 panel addressed whether the World Health Organisation (WHO) has become overly politicised and underfunded, prompting discussions on necessary reforms. Panellists Jeannie Cameron, Dr. Tikki Pangestu, and Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos shared critical insights regarding WHO’s structural issues affecting global tobacco policy and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). They highlighted a significant funding crisis, noting that only 12% of WHO’s budget comes from core member-state contributions, leading to conflicts of interest and “mission creep” in tobacco control strategies, which now focus on eliminating nicotine rather than reducing smoking.Dr. Pangestu pointed out that the governance structure, where only member states have decision-making power, creates a one-party system that excludes civil society voices. He mentioned past crises, such as Ebola, where bureaucratic delays hindered timely action. He called for reforms to include diverse governance, decentralisation, streamlined decision-making, and independence from donor influences.Dr. Farsalinos criticised the FCTC Secretariat for prioritising bureaucratic processes over public health outcomes, with ideological biases overshadowing evidence-based policies. He noted that countries like Sweden and Japan have been ignored despite their successful harm-reduction strategies, resulting in a backlash against WHO directives and increased support for harm reduction during COP11.Cameron traced the FCTC’s shift from its initial purpose of smoking reduction to an anti-nicotine stance influenced by earmarked funding. She suggested that meaningful reform will stem from member states pushing back rather than from WHO itself, with COP11 marking a pivotal moment as more countries endorsed harm reduction, emphasising the need for consumer and public advocacy.The panellists concluded on a hopeful note, asserting that the power of the public and experts is crucial to transition towards effective harm-reduction leadership, although misinformation remains a barrier. They underscored the importance of educating the public and advocating for accountability and evidence-based governance to better serve the people WHO is designed to help, acknowledging the challenges inherent in reforming such a large institution. 

OPEN DISCUSSION

The final session of GoodCOP 2.0 was an open-mic reflection circle where participants shared personal stories about their journeys into the tobacco harm-reduction (THR) movement. These narratives were deeply human, revealing how individuals were motivated by love, loss, grief, and necessity rather than ideology. Many speakers described their initial encounters with safer alternatives like vaping and snus, often framed within poignant moments of life change or struggle, such as the realisation of the dangers of smoking or the frustration with government regulations restricting access to safer products.The session uncovered painful histories of family loss due to smoking-related illnesses which fuelled their commitment to THR. Accounts of injustice, such as government confiscations of vaping devices from terminal patients or the stigmatisation of nicotine users, illustrated the common frustrations faced globally. Despite these challenges, the atmosphere was one of connection and solidarity. Participants expressed gratitude for finding a supportive community, highlighting how online interactions transformed into real friendships and collaborations.The event concluded on a hopeful note encapsulating a commitment to a collective fight for harm reduction, emphasising that while the road ahead is challenging, no advocate stands alone in this pursuit.