BackgroundTobacco companies’ intentions to influence the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) via the Conference of Parties (COP; the official biannual meeting where Parties review the Convention) are well documented. We aimed to analyse Twitter data to gain insights into tobacco industry tactics, arguments and allies.MethodsWe retrieved 9089 tweets that included #COP8FCTC between 1 and 9 October 2018. We categorised the tweets’ content and sentiment through manual coding and machine learning. We used an investigative procedure using publicly available information to categorise the most active Twitter users and investigate tobacco industry links. Network analysis was used to visualise interactions and detect communities.ResultsMost tweets were about next-generation products (NGPs) or ‘harm reduction’ (54%) and tended to argue in support of NGPs; around one-quarter were critical of tobacco control (24%). The largest proportion of most active tweeters were NGP advocates, and slightly over half of those had either links to the Philip Morris International (PMI) funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) and/or to the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations, a network to whom the FSFW granted US$100 300 in 2018. PMI was the most active transnational tobacco company during COP8.ConclusionsThe nature of the activity on Twitter around COP8, including a substantial online presence by PMI executives and NGP advocates with links to organisations funded directly and indirectly by PMI, is highly consistent with PMI’s 2014 corporate affairs strategy, which described engaging tobacco harm reduction advocates to ‘amplify and leverage the debate on harm reduction’ around events such as the COP.

BackgroundThe Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products requires all parties to establish a tobacco track and trace (T&T) system. In 2016, the European Commission held a public consultation on T&T implementation where parties were asked to respond online to 22 multiple-choice questions and were given additional opportunities to leave comments. In May 2019, the European Union’s (EU) T&T system became operational. This paper explores tobacco industry influence over and policy positions within the consultation process.MethodsWe identified consultation respondents and investigated any financial links with the tobacco industry and if these were transparent. Respondent’s answers to the consultation’s multiple-choice questions were collated to explore whether industry-linked respondents held the same policy positions as transnational tobacco companies (TTCs). Associations between policy positions and respondent’s financial link status were tested using χ2 and Cranmer’s V tests.FindingsOf the 197 consultation respondents identified, 131 (66.4%) had financial links to the industry; 29 (22.1%) were not transparent about these links. A large number of trade associations responded (87), the majority of which (74/87) had financial links to the industry. There was a clear divide in the policy preferences of respondents with and without a financial link. Collectively, respondents with a financial link supported an industry-operated T&T solution.ConclusionsThere was an extensive lobbying effort by the tobacco industry over the EU’s T&T system, with TTCs’ interests being represented repeatedly through multiple trade associations. The transparency requirements regarding consultation respondents’ affiliations with relevant stakeholders (eg, tobacco manufacturers) should be improved for future consultations.

Background The Illicit Trade Protocol (ITP) requires all Parties to establish a tobacco track and trace (T&T) system. In 2016, the European Commission held a public consultation on T&T implementation in which interested parties were asked to respond online to 22 multiple-choice questions and were given additional opportunities to leave comments if desired. In May 2019, the EU's T&T system became operational. This paper explores tobacco industry influence over and policy positions within the consultation process. Methods The Illicit Trade Protocol (ITP) requires all Parties to establish a tobacco track and trace (T&T) system. In 2016, the European Commission held a public consultation on T&T implementation in which interested parties were asked to respond online to 22 multiple-choice questions and were given additional opportunities to leave comments if desired. In May 2019, the EU's T&T system became operational. This paper explores tobacco industry influence over and policy positions within the consultation process. Results Of the 197 consultation responses analysed, 131 (66.4%) had financial links to the tobacco industry. 89 respondents were trade associations, 74 of which were financially linked (33 had TTC members). 29 (22.1%) of the financially-linked respondents were not transparent about their links. There was a clear divide in the policy preferences of respondents with and without a financial link. Collectively, respondents with a financial link supported an industry-operated solution. Conclusions There was an extensive lobbying effort by the tobacco industry over the EU's T&T system, with TTCs' interests being represented repeatedly through multiple trade associations. The transparency requirements regarding consultation respondents' affiliations with relevant stakeholders (such as tobacco manufacturers) should be improved for future tobacco-related consultations. Key messages There was an extensive lobbying effort on the part of the tobacco industry Several respondents with financial links to the tobacco industry did not disclose these. Collectively, respondents with a financial link to the tobacco industry supported an industry-operated solution which would not have met the requirements of the ITP.

Introduction Advocates of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) increasingly use Twitter to promote liberal ENDS policies. ‘World Vape Day’ (WVD) is an annual campaign organised by pro-ENDS advocacy groups, some of which have links to the nicotine industry (e.g., via funding from ‘Foundation for a Smoke-Free World’). In 2020, the campaign used dedicated social media accounts to disseminate WVD-branded images and campaign messages. We examined tweets posted as part of WVD 2020 to identify and analyse pro-ENDS policy arguments. Methods We extracted tweets posted between 26 May and 3 June 2020 that included the hashtag #WorldVapeDay. We used qualitative thematic analysis to code a random sample (n=2,200) of approximately half the original English language tweets (n=4,387) and used descriptive analysis to identify the most frequently used co-hashtags. Results Arguments related to four themes: harm reduction, smoking cessation, rights and justice, and opposition to ENDS restrictions. Tweets criticised individuals and groups perceived as opposing liberal ENDS regulation, and used personal testimonials to frame ENDS as a harm reduction tool and life-saving smoking cessation aid. Tweets also advanced rights-based arguments, such as privileging adults’ rights over children’s rights, and calling for greater recognition of consumers’ voices. Tweets frequently used hashtags associated with the WHO and World No Tobacco Day (WNTD). Conclusions The WVD campaign presented a series of linked pro-ENDS arguments seemingly aimed at policy-makers, and strategically integrated with the WHO’s WNTD campaign. Critically assessing pro-ENDS arguments and the campaigns used to promote these is vital to helping policy actors develop proportionate ENDS policy. Implications Social media platforms have considerable potential to influence policy actors. Tweets are easily generated and duplicated, creating an impression of sizeable and influential stakeholders. Evidence that the ‘World Vape Day’ campaign was supported by groups with industry links, and targeted - at least in part - at WHO officials and those who follow the WHO World No Tobacco Day campaign, highlights the importance of critically reviewing such campaigns. Further research could examine how health advocates could engage in pro-ENDS campaigns to support balanced messaging and informed policy-making.