Towards a smoke-free world? Philip Morris International's new Foundation is not credible

The Philip Morris-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: tax return sheds light on funding activities

“…1 The Foundation claims to be an independent scientific body aiming to "accelerate an end to smoking". 2 Yet controversy has surrounded the Foundation since its inception; its claims of legitimacy and independence have been strongly disputed 3,4 and WHO 5 and hundreds of public health organisations globally 6 have taken a strong stance in rejecting collaboration with the Foundation.…”

“…Despite acknowledging these alarming data, the declaration of the recent UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs' ministerial segment (CND 2019) and the UN System Common Position on drug-related matters 2 paradoxically regress from the position reached at the UN General Assembly special session on the world drug problem of 2016 (UNGASS 2016), which highlighted the need to protect public health in the design and the implementation of drug policies. Although it included a new section on access to controlled essential medicines for pain relief, 3 the outcome document of the special session has failed to delineate the principles of a public health approach to drug policy, raising hope to advance this issue at the CND 2019.…”

The hidden power of corporations

“…Recently, the food company Mars pulled out of ILSI, noting concern about its “advocacy led studies” that “mostly for the right reasons, have been criticized.”15 The new Philip Morris funded Foundation for a Smoke Free World has attracted much adverse comment,16 and many universities and public health associations have stated that they will not accept funding from it. The US National Institutes of Health has withdrawn from an alcohol industry funded project on moderate drinking and issued new guidelines for such partnerships 17.…”

Larger Than Life: Injecting Hope into the Planetary Health Paradigm

“…Such study is not exclusive to the individual; rather, the health of civilizations is dependent upon an understanding of how groups and their leaders-including those who profess to prioritize public and planetary health-operate in the cognitive, emotional and behavioral planes. In other words, there needs to be a scientific understanding of how dominant groups and influential organizations (or in-groups) selectively use science, and its monies, in the public square [9,[63][64][65][66][67][68][69]; as these references demonstrate, public health is replete with examples of initiatives which look good from far, but are far from good. Trust is deeply intertwined with hope [70], and each time science is selectively used for specific agendas (as references [63][64][65][66][67][68][69] clearly highlight), public trust, and thus hope, is undermined.…”

“…While certainly unintentional, these 'optics' do not look good. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the senior author of the Lancet Planetary Health Report-a one-time senior executive of one of the planet's largest soft drink manufacturers-has since moved to lead a lucrative project with planetary tobacco giant Phillip Morris International [63,69]. Still, original research [223,224] and commentaries [225] in the new Lancet Planetary Health journal are, encouragingly, prioritizing and emphasizing the mental health value of nature.…”