Kozminski University, College of Law, Jagiellonska St. 57/59, 03-301, Warsaw, Poland.
Institute for Legal Studies of the Centre for Social Sciences , Tóth Kálmán St. 4, Budapest, H-1097, Hungary.
Global Health. 2020 Sep 11;16(1):81. doi: 10.1186/s12992-020-00596-x.
In October 2018, the Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC or Convention) adopted its first decision on novel and emerging tobacco products, including heated tobacco products (HTPs). The decision remains ambiguous, e.g. by making a distinction between tobacco sticks and HTP devices. Against this background, the article seeks to answer two interrelated questions: whether and to what extent HTPs are covered by the FCTC, and whether regime provided by the Convention is suitable for their regulation.
HTPs need to be classified under the FCTC as tobacco products. The distinction made by the Conference of the Parties between sticks and devices leads however to unsatisfactory results as it creates loopholes in tobacco control standards existing at the international level. A better approach, as argued in this article, is to conceptualize the notion of 'tobacco products' in functional terms as a combination of both a device and stick. While subjecting HTPs to all FCTC disciplines is, in light of our current scientific knowledge, a rational approach, such classification can be modified in the future once a sufficient amount of new evidence on their risk profile is collected. Any decision on the optimal regulatory model for HTPs will need to take into account not only health risks and potential benefits for individual users, but also the specific systemic concerns (e.g. HTPs as a gateway product). The state of scientific research is however not the only factor that will determine the fate of HTPs under the Convention. What is equally important is a conceptualization of the FCTC's objectives. If a complete eradication of the tobacco epidemic is the ultimate goal, reduced levels of risk may not be enough to justify the different (i.e. more lenient) regulatory regime for HTPs.
The Conference of the Parties should clarify the definition of tobacco products in light of recent changes in the market. When designing the regulatory regime for HTPs under the FCTC in the future, one has to consider not only scientific evidence but also pay attention to the objective of the Convention (or more generally to the values that underlie the current tobacco control paradigm).
2018 年 10 月，《烟草控制框架公约》（FCTC 或公约）缔约方会议通过了其第一项关于新型和新兴烟草产品的决定，包括加热烟草产品（HTPs）。该决定仍然存在模糊性，例如，对烟棒和 HTP 设备进行了区分。在此背景下，本文旨在回答两个相互关联的问题：HTPs 是否以及在何种程度上受《公约》的约束，以及《公约》规定的制度是否适合对其进行监管。
HTPs 需要被归类为《公约》下的烟草产品。然而，缔约方会议在烟棒和设备之间做出的区分导致了不理想的结果，因为它在国际层面上为现有的烟草控制标准制造了漏洞。正如本文所主张的，一种更好的方法是以功能术语将“烟草产品”的概念概念化为设备和烟棒的组合。虽然根据我们目前的科学知识，将 HTPs 纳入所有《公约》的纪律范围内是一种合理的方法，但一旦收集到足够多的关于其风险概况的新证据，这种分类可以在未来进行修改。任何关于 HTPs 最佳监管模式的决定都不仅需要考虑到个别使用者的健康风险和潜在利益，还需要考虑到特定的系统性问题（例如 HTPs 作为一个入门产品）。然而，科学研究的状况并不是决定 HTPs 在《公约》下命运的唯一因素。同样重要的是对《公约》目标的概念化。如果彻底消除烟草流行是最终目标，那么降低风险水平可能不足以证明为 HTPs 制定不同（即更宽松）的监管制度是合理的。
缔约方会议应根据市场的最新变化，澄清烟草产品的定义。在未来根据《公约》为 HTPs 设计监管制度时，不仅要考虑科学证据，还要注意《公约》的目标（或更普遍地说，要注意构成当前烟草控制模式基础的价值观）。
