NOT PEER REVIEWED
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify and correct some of the recent statements about our research article, ‘Exploring the Twitter activity around the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’.

Mr Sarangapani, Director of the Association of Vapers India (AVI), is incorrect in claiming that our article makes “false allegations” and “unsubstantiated claims”, and that it frames AVI as a tobacco industry (TI) front group. We categorise his organisation as a ‘next generation product (NGP) advocate’ and we state that AVI is a member of the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO). We also report that INNCO has received funding from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW),[1] which is an organisation that continues to be funded solely by Philip Morris International.[2] Thus, AVI is a member of an organisation that receives indirect funds from Philip Morris International, via the FSFW. Those statements are factual and substantiated; readers can locate further details and references to the FSFW’s grantees and tax returns via our Tobacco Tactics pages, as referenced in our article. In his letter, Mr Sarangapani points out that the Founder-Director of AVI is the current President of INNCO’s Governing Board; however, our research article makes no mention of that fact. We clearly state that: “We found no evidence that the individuals affiliated with INNCO or its member organisations were themselves funded by FSFW or by the TI directly” (p4). I acknowledge that on page 5 of the article, we have referred to AVI by their Twitter handle (vapeindia), as opposed to the organisation’s full name.

Mr Cullip’s interpretation of our article as a “smear” against vaping consumer advocates is an inaccurate representation of our research. As set out in our research objectives (p2), we examined the main themes and sentiment of tweets about WHO FCTC COP8, identified and classified the most active tweeters, explored how people who tweeted about COP8 engaged with one another and, lastly, explored the presence of TI links among the most active tweeters. Our article makes no statements that denigrate vapers’ opinions. Rather, we conclude there was an extensive online presence by Philip Morris International (PMI) executives, and by organisations and individuals funded directly and indirectly by PMI (e.g. Consumer Choice Center, Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, INNCO, Knowledge-Action-Change). We conclude that our findings are consistent with PMI’s 2014 corporate affairs strategy, which was leaked as part of an exposé by Reuters.[3] Far from being a “mythical tobacco industry plot” as Mr Cullip claims, PMI’s corporate affairs strategy described engaging tobacco harm reduction advocates to “amplify and leverage the debate on harm reduction” around events such as the WHO FCTC COP.[3]

Dr Gilchrist’s letter contains several inaccurate assertions. Our research does not “malign” either the individuals or the organisations that participated in the Twitter debate during COP8. We do not use the term “front group” in relation to any of the organisations supporting tobacco harm reduction referred to in our article. Nor do we imply that “any person or organisation who publicly supports tobacco harm reduction are paid to do so by the industry”. Our research article presents a factual account of the most common topics and sentiment of tweets that used #COP8FCTC, the categories of individuals and organisations tweeting, and their networks and patterns of engagement with one another. Around one-fifth of the most active tweeters were either tobacco companies, third-party organisations that have received direct tobacco industry funding, or employees of those organisations. We refer (accurately) to those tweeters as ‘tobacco industry actors’; we provide a detailed definition of our inclusion criteria and provide references to evidence tobacco industry funding. The only specific criticism Dr Gilchrist makes about our study is that we did not explore links between the most active tweeters and non-tobacco industry sources of funding. Given the irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and tobacco control policy interests, and given tobacco companies’ repeated attempts to influence policy via third parties and intermediaries,[4] our focus on documenting tobacco industry involvement in FCTC debates is justified. Unlike tobacco companies, public health advocacy groups do not stand to generate or lose billions of dollars in profit as a result of decisions made at WHO FCTC COP. Neither do they have a history of obfuscating their funding sources.

Professor Stimson’s letter incorrectly states that we claim tobacco industry money is behind all the activity on Twitter by harm reduction advocates; in fact, on page 4 we state: “…for 23 of the 50 NGP [next generation product] advocates, we found no publicly available evidence of any link with the TI”. Professor Stimson is correct that we state: “…vaping consumer advocacy groups that receive TI funding are emerging and attempting to influence the WHO.” He insinuates this claim is unsubstantiated, yet we provide clear evidence that factasia.org and INNCO, each of whom describe themselves as a vaping consumer advocacy organisation, receive funding from PMI (directly and indirectly, respectively).[1,5] We do not claim TI links with national vaping advocacy groups and, as already noted, we state: “We found no evidence that the individuals affiliated with INNCO or its members organisations were themselves funded by FSFW or by the TI directly” (p4). As Professor Stimson points out, our article includes a paragraph where we report that a member of INNCO, ProVapeo Mexico, encouraged vapers to tweet during COP8. Professor Stimson interprets our research as “picking on” that organisation, yet we make no criticism of ProVapeo Mexico’s activities. Our article documents only the facts about the number of tweets using #COP8FCTC that appear to have been posted as a result of ProVapeo Mexico’s appeal.

In response to Julie Woessner’s letter, at no point does our article state that INNCO is a tobacco front group. As I note above, our article documents substantial activity on Twitter during COP8 both by PMI, and by organisations (and people affiliated with those organisations) that have received money from PMI either directly, or indirectly via the FSFW. We believe this activity is consistent with proposed actions laid out in PMI’s leaked 2014 corporate affairs strategy, which included plans to: “Establish the concept of harm reduction as legitimate public policy in tobacco regulation”, “Identify and engage non-traditional 3rd party stakeholders/allies (e-cigarette manufacturers and retailers, adult consumers of RRP products, tobacco harm reduction advocates…” and “Amplify and leverage the debate on harm reduction around global events (eg, COP6)”.[3] We believe our findings raise important questions about PMI’s claims of transformation, as the activity we have documented appears part of a long-standing corporate affairs plan. Our article presents the facts that some harm reduction-related organisations receive PMI (or FSFW) funds. We do not cast those funded organisations as “nefarious”.

Our research aims to increase transparency in tobacco control policy-making. Making known any links between tobacco companies and individuals and organisations that participate in tobacco control policy debates, even if those links are indirect and occur through intermediaries, is in the public interest and consistent with the principles of WHO FCTC Article 5.3.[6] Vapers who belong to INNCO-affiliated organisations are also entitled to know the network (or “umbrella organization”) to which their organisation belongs receives tobacco industry funding via the FSFW. It is encouraging therefore to observe that following our publication, INNCO appears to have added a statement declaring its FSFW funding onto its homepage (that development appears to have occurred between 1 and 16 November 2020).[7,8]

We are transparent about our research funders. The researchers working on this paper were funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies through the STOP initiative, and by Cancer Research UK; neither funder, nor any of the STOP partners, had any role in the research conceptualisation, study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Lindsay Robertson, MPH, PhD
Conflict of Interest: None declared

References

[1] Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG). International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO). https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/international-network-of-nicotine-consum... (accessed 23 November 2020).
[2] Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG). Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/foundation-for-a-smoke-free-world/ (accessed 23 November 2020).
[3] Philip Morris International (author unknown). 10 Year Corporate Affairs Objectives and Strategies (p.5). 2014. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4333395/10-Year-Corporate-Aff... (accessed 23 November 2020).
[4] Ulucanlar S, Fooks GJ, Gilmore AB. The policy dystopia model: an interpretive analysis of tobacco industry political activity. PLoS Medicine 2016; 13(9): doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002125.
[5] Factasia.org. Our Supporters. 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20200302113900/https://www.factasia.org/our-... (accessed 2 March 2020).
[6] World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Available at: https://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 20 August 2020).
[7] International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations. Home page. https://web.archive.org/web/20201101140032/https://innco.org/ (accessed 1 November 2020).
[8] International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO). Home page. https://web.archive.org/web/20201116161303/https://innco.org/ (accessed 16 November 2020).

NOT PEER REVIEWED

When doing scientific research, following the scientific method, you have a hypothesis (question) that you are going to investigate - in this case: Does xxx consumer organisation have any direct ties to tobacco companies that influence their advocacy?

After you have chosen your method, you then gather your evidence, make an objective analysis and state your findings and make a conclusion.

Your method SHOULD be thorough and your research should be objective in order to maintain the integrity of your research (and yourself). The evidence will either prove/disprove your original hypothesis.

Instead, the authors have chosen to not only demonise the participation of consumers in the narrative of their own health, one has lobbied false claims about tobacco industry connections that do not exist.

It is very concerning that the authors find it necessary to disenfranchise the very people who are fighting for their right to make informed choices about their health. It defies logic, and the principles of fairness and decency.

It perhaps would have been more helpful to all concerned if the authors had done due diligence beyond looking at a website that does not have verified information, to cast aspersions on consumer advocacy organisations.

It definitely would be more productive to welcome the voices of the people for whom felt impassioned enough to get involved in consumer advocacy to help smokers not only have the choices they need switch to less harmful alternative, but to be informed consumers of safer nicotine products.

NOT PEER REVIEWED
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in a free society. There is no justification to either interfere with the right of stakeholders to participate in the public debate regarding tobacco harm reduction policy, or to malign those that exercise that right. Given that the outcome of these policy discussions will affect the lives of more than one billion people on the planet who smoke, everyone must be free to advance arguments for and against any policy, and each argument must be scrutinized and evaluated on its evidence base and merits. Unfortunately, the recent paper in Tobacco Control—Exploring the Twitter activity around the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control—missed the opportunity to do this.
Instead of engaging in a discussion on the key issues and arguments put forth in the public discussion around the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP8), the authors employ diversionary ad hominem tactics. They mischaracterize Philip Morris International’s (PMI’s) legitimate participation in the public debate on the role that products with the potential to reduce the risk of harm compared to smoking can play in global public health policy. Using phrases like ‘tobacco industry actors’ and ‘front groups’ the authors falsely imply that any person or organization who publicly supports tobacco harm reduction are paid to do so by the tobacco industry, and specifically PMI.
We fundamentally disagree with the authors’ approach. However, if they wish to pursue it in a robust way, we invite them to address an obvious inconsistency, and lack of rigor, in their present publication: the failure to explore the funding or linkages of individuals or organizations they deemed not to have tobacco industry links. By excluding this analysis, the authors have ignored the potential bias of almost one third of the Twitter accounts that they say engaged in the debate around COP8, including many who have links to their own funders (Bloomberg Philanthropies’ STOP: Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products), and who have their own agendas (1-4) . Completing this analysis would be a useful way to shift from ad hominem attacks and move forward to a robust, science-based debate about tobacco harm reduction in the context of the next Conference of the Parties (COP9).
The importance of tobacco harm reduction policy to hundreds of millions of the world’s population means that it deserves a reasoned, fact-based dialogue between all parties, with science and consumers at the centre of discussion. It is legitimate to disagree, but ad hominem attacks have nothing to do with the argument at hand and simply serve to undermine progress. Dismissing views that differ from one’s own, or—worse still—attempting to intimidate dissenters into silence, will not move the debate forward. Emotions should not be allowed to dictate what and who does and does not get heard—truth and accuracy should be the only considerations.
For more than a decade, PMI has been at the forefront of researching, developing and scientifically assessing products that have the potential to reduce the risk of harm compared to smoking for adults who would otherwise continue to smoke. We are convinced that such products can contribute to improving public health. We are confident in the robustness of our scientific findings and the arguments in favor of tobacco harm reduction. We are proud of our scientists who have developed products that have the potential to reduce the risks of harm compared to smoking for those adults who do not quit. These products are precisely the ones which can make the policy of tobacco harm reduction work. We are open to discuss our strategies, actions and achievements with everyone who has a role to play in shaping public policy to reach better outcomes for men and women who smoke. If the authors of the recent paper—or anyone else—would like to engage in a factual discussion on the issues that really matter, we are ready and willing to debate with them.
(1) https://www.who.int/tobacco/about/partners/bloomberg/en/ (accessed 20 Nov 2020)
(2) https://www.fctc.org/about-us/ (accessed 23 Nov 2020)
(3) https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/bloomberg-philanthropies-sele... (accessed 23 Nov 2020)
(4) https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/what-we-do/global/bloomberg (accessed 20 Nov 2020)

NOT PEER REVIEWED
We appreciate the authors’ concern about industry “astroturfing.” We believe astroturf activities undermine the genuine consumer movement that INNCO and its members represent. But the conclusions that the authors draw from their research are attenuated and inaccurate. In particular, we object strenuously to the authors’ conclusion that because INNCO has received funding from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (the Foundation), we are a tobacco front group.

INNCO was formed in 2016, a year before the Foundation was established. All of INNCO’s members are autonomous, independent consumer organisations, and with rare exception are run by volunteers on a shoe-string budget. These organisations joined forces to create INNCO, and they nominate and elect INNCO’s Governing Board members, who serve without compensation.

INNCO only accepts funding from sources where our independence as an organisation run by and for consumers is assured. INNCO operated for more than two years with only volunteer efforts and no funding. (Funding from the Foundation was received in December of 2018, which is after the period this paper covers.)

As the authors note, INNCO was formed in large part to ensure the consumer voice is heard on international platforms. However, we question the authors’ intent in casting our desire to engage as legitimate stakeholders as nefarious.

While the authors have cited numerous references on the motivations of the tobacco industry, they appear to not understand the tobacco harm reduction consumer space, relying solely on the previous work of their own organisation to draw inferences. Consumer advocates are passionate about alternatives that have helped them wean off smoking, and are committed to ensuring continued access for these potentially life-saving products.

Consumers are aligned with FCTC’s goals of mitigating tobacco-related death and disease, although our approach differs in that we reject prohibitionism and stigmatisation in favour of pragmatic, humane and ultimately more effective policies that recognise human rights and the agency of users to become proactive participants in improving their health. INNCO thus brings a unique, ear-to-the-ground perspective to tobacco control efforts, and should be welcomed as FCTC observers.

By encouraging governments, policymakers and others to view consumers and consumer groups as fronts for the tobacco industry, the authors deplatform and disenfranchise an already unfairly marginalised group. We urge the authors to consider the ethical implications of nudging decisionmakers to dismiss the consumer voice. This disregard of the most profoundly affected stakeholders occurs in no other health or policy arena.