@article{41562d3d16a441598cbe3d3c6279a3a4,
title = "Australian researchers oppose funding from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World",
abstract = "We support the recent statement by the Council of Academic Public Health Institutions Australasia, Public Health Association of Australia and World Federation of Public Health Associations:We will not accept any kind of funding or support from Foundation for a Smoke Free World [FSFW], nor will we work together with this Foundation on any research, advocacy, or other projects. We encourage and expect our members and member institutions not to accept any funding or support from the tobacco industry, directly or indirectly, including through non-profit organisations such as Foundation for a Smoke Free World.1",
keywords = "Australia, Biomedical Research, Foundations/organization \& administration, Global Health, Humans, Organizational Objectives, Smoke/adverse effects, Smoke-Free Policy, Smoking Prevention, Tobacco Industry",
author = "Thomas, \{David P.\} and Marita Hefler and Billie Bonevski and Tom Calma and Jonathan Carapetis and Catherine Chamberlain and Simon Chapman and Mike Daube and Sandra Eades and Finlay, \{Summer May\} and Becky Freeman and Raymond Lovett and Ross MacKenzie and Raglan Maddox and Melanie Wakefield",
note = "Funding Information: Australian researchers oppose funding from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Funding Information: The creation of FSFW was announced in September 2017. It is funded by an annual US\$80 million pledge for 12 years from Philip Morris International (PMI). To date, its activities have included funding a {\textquoteleft}Worldwide State of Smoking Survey: Baseline of the Global State of Harm Reduction{\textquoteright}2 and a {\textquoteleft}Centre of Research Excellence on Indigenous Sovereignty and Smoking{\textquoteright}in Auckland.3Initial funding requests were issued in November 2017, and outcomes scheduled to be announced following a series of workshops in February 2018.4 Other funding schemes are currently open or under consideration for nicotine exposure biomarkers and agricultural transformation. Shortly after the creation of FSFW, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a statement advising that WHO will not engage with FSFW. The decision is based on the UN General Assembly recognition of a “fundamental conflict of interest between the tobacco industry and public health”, and accords with Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which obliges countries to protect public health policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.5 Other international public health groups and leaders also rejected FSFW, recognising that the tobacco industry has a long history of funding supposedly independent research that has been used to prevent or delay effective tobacco control policies.6,7 Seventeen leading schools of public health in the USA and Canada have affirmed they will not accept FSFW funding,8 the BMJ publication Tobacco Control will not publish FSFW-funded research9 and the Polish government has advised universities that it considers FSFW to be part of the tobacco industry and will not take into account any FSFW-generated research when developing legislation.10 All the institutions of the authors of this article have policies against accepting tobacco industry funding. FSFW president Derek Yach has asserted that FSFW meets criteria for independence from the tobacco industry,11 drawing heavily on a 2009 paper published in Tobacco Control.12 However, the authors of that paper have rebutted his claims, concluding: “Due to lack of independence, the potential for conflicts of interest, and clear public relations gains, the foundation does not represent a tobacco industry-supported funding model that should be acceptable to the research community.”13 FSFW{\textquoteright}s strategy for {\textquoteleft}ending smoking{\textquoteright}focuses heavily on the substitution of {\textquoteleft}harm reduction{\textquoteright} products, the role of which are contentious within tobacco control. The debate largely centres on the potential for harm reduction products to either undermine or support existing evidence-based tobacco control measures. The authors of this editorial hold a range of views about the role of harm reduction products; such debates are appropriate as e-cigarettes and other alternatives to combustible tobacco products evolve. However, we all agree that tobacco industry interests are not based on concerns for public health.",
year = "2018",
month = dec,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1753-6405.12861",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "506--507",
journal = "Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health",
issn = "1326-0200",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",
}
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being