At COP11, the Philippines must promote health and stop carrying the tobacco industry’s agenda

By Ulysses Dorotheo

As countries gather in Geneva for the 11th session of the Conference of Parties (COP11) to the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) on Nov. 17 to 22, this question looms large: Will the Philippines stand firm to protect public health or will it protect the tobacco industry? If history is any indication, there are grave concerns that tobacco industry influence may again overshadow the nation’s public health commitments.

In 2005, the Philippines ratified the WHO FCTC, committing to protect public health policies from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry, as mandated under FCTC Article 5.3. This means government decisions on tobacco control must be made without industry influence, regardless of the industry’s repeated claims about supposed “economic benefits,” because reality tells another story.

While tobacco excise taxes earn the government about P150 billion annually, this pales against the enormous costs of nicotine addiction and tobacco-caused diseases, disabilities, and deaths. In addition to the P263-billion annual economic burden from tobacco use, more than 112,000 Filipinos are killed every year by tobacco-caused diseases, a staggering and preventable toll. Despite these human and socioeconomic costs, the country implements policies that fail to protect people and allow the tobacco industry to flourish.

This vulnerability is reflected in the Philippines receiving five Dirty Ashtray Awards at previous COPs, an international symbol of shame that calls out governments that speak as if they represented tobacco industry interests. This year, with the country’s rank in the 2025 Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index deteriorating to 68th out of 100 countries, we are again at high risk for international disrepute and perhaps more Dirty Ashtrays. In the 2025 FCTC Scorecard, the Philippines also recorded one of the steepest declines in ASEAN for failing to safeguard government policies from tobacco industry interference.

This regression reflects persistent, well-funded tobacco industry efforts to weaken regulations and create a new generation of nicotine users. While adult cigarette smoking prevalence declined from 28.3% in 2009 to 18.5% in 2021, e-cigarette use among Filipino youth is rising at alarming rates. In this context, the tobacco industry is attempting to rebrand itself as a partner in “harm reduction” and pretending to care about Filipinos, when this is just a deliberate business strategy to ensure its profits by keeping people addicted.

In public health practice, genuine harm reduction helps smokers quit nicotine for good. The tobacco industry, however, has distorted this principle to market e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches as “safer alternatives,” while continuing to aggressively market and profit from conventional cigarettes. The goal of the industry is not to eliminate nicotine addiction but to sustain and expand it, especially among the youth.

Big Tobacco’s dual strategy is clear; while publicly claiming to drive a “smoke-free future,” it is increasing cigarette sales globally and in the Philippines. Meanwhile, these new nicotine products are designed to look cool and are marketed with flavors to appeal to younger customers. The result is not genuine harm reduction, but harm creation.

The industry’s fake harm reduction narrative is being amplified through groups that present themselves as supposedly independent “consumer advocates,” “health champions,” or “scientific experts,” but they simply echo the industry’s misleading messages. They focus on unproven “reduced harm,” while dismissing substantial evidence of health risks and aggressive youth targeting. As Singapore’s Minister of Home Affairs recently highlighted, these groups “are essentially paid mouthpieces for the tobacco industry,” peddling “snake oil” to mislead governments and citizens with overstated claims of safety. The Minister also noted that such arguments do not reflect mainstream public health evidence and can even normalize risky behavior among the youth.

The passage of the Philippines’ Vape Law, which lowered the minimum age of access to nicotine products from 21 years to 18 and shifted regulatory authority away from the health sector, led to a rise in youth vaping and widespread marketing on social media platforms. Instead of reducing smoking, this law opened new pathways to nicotine addiction for younger generations and allowed these fake harm reduction narratives to thrive. These outcomes are not coincidental. They are preventable consequences of policymaking that is shaped by industry influence rather than genuine public health principles.

With more than 110 million Filipino lives on the line, the promise that “Sa Bagong Pilipinas, Bawat Buhay ay Mahalaga” (“Every Life Matters in the New Philippines”) must translate into clearly pro-health policy positions at COP11. If every life truly matters, the entire Philippine government (trade, agriculture, labor, finance, social welfare, justice, local government, foreign affairs, and health) must uphold Article 5.3 by ensuring that the government delegation’s positions on tobacco control are free from industry influence, including groups that indirectly represent industry interests. This also means that the government must reject the industry’s misuse of the term “harm reduction” and ensure that regulations are enforced and strengthened to eliminate youth access by prohibiting tobacco marketing and banning all flavored tobacco and nicotine products.

COP11 is a critical opportunity for the Philippine government to pivot toward genuine public health leadership. Genuine adherence to its WHO FCTC commitments requires rejecting industry narratives, ensuring that tobacco and nicotine use are addressed through evidence-based interventions free from tobacco industry interference.

The Philippine government can either continue down the path influenced by the industry, or it can take this opportunity to put our people first. The question is whether political will exists to make it happen.

Dr. Ulysses Dorotheo is a Filipino neuro-ophthalmologist and public health physician and the executive director of the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA).