By Roger Bate at Brownstone dot org.
When delegates gather in Geneva on November 17 for the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), few will ask the obvious question: who pays for the room where it happens?
The FCTC is the world's only binding treaty on tobacco control. It now shapes national law far beyond its original remit, guiding taxation, packaging, advertising, and - indirectly - the regulation of new nicotine products. Yet the decisions that ripple out from Geneva are made within an ecosystem financed not by member-state dues but by a tight web of foundations, governments, and advocacy groups whose interests align with one another - and with parts of the pharmaceutical industry.
The Philanthropic Powerhouses
Since 2007, Bloomberg Philanthropies has poured more than $1.6 billion into global tobacco control. Through its Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use, it funds Vital Strategies, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK), The Union, and the University of Bath's Tobacco Control Research Group. These organizations run the STOP consortium, a mainstay of FCTC side events and briefings.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation plays a complementary role, notably bankrolling the Knowledge Hub on Tobacco Taxation at the University of Cape Town, co-funded by Cancer Research UK. And donor governments - particularly the UK, Norway, Australia, and the European Commission - finance the FCTC 2030 program, which underwrites participation by poorer countries.
Between them, these actors pay for the travel grants, research networks, and technical papers that shape what becomes official orthodoxy. Their combined effect is to make global tobacco policy a donor-driven enterprise rather than a genuinely multilateral one.
The Quiet Pharmaceutical Presence
Article 5.3 of the FCTC excludes tobacco-industry involvement, but it says nothing about pharmaceutical companies. That leaves the door ajar for firms whose products - nicotine-replacement therapies, prescription cessation drugs - benefit directly from restrictive tobacco and vaping policy.
The connection is not theoretical. Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, makers of Chantix and Nicorette, sponsored major WHO-endorsed conferences such as the 2006 and 2009 World Conferences on Tobacco or Health. Professional societies tied to the WHO, including the European Respiratory Society, routinely accept pharmaceutical sponsorship for congresses and fellowships while collaborating on cessation guidelines. The International Pharmaceutical Federation, an observer accredited to the FCTC, promotes pharmacist-led cessation within COP sessions.
Meanwhile, commercial NRT brands sustain visibility through sports and "quit-smoking" campaigns that echo WHO messaging. Each new guideline or subsidy for cessation pharmacotherapy expands its potential market. It is a tidy symmetry: what the FCTC defines as a public-health obligation also functions as product promotion for the companies supplying the sanctioned cure.
The Absent (and Excluded) Industry
By contrast, tobacco and vaping manufacturers are nowhere near the COP's official agenda. The Secretariat's donor lists include no industry money; Article 5.3 is interpreted to mean zero contact. When firms seek a hearing, they do so outside the tent - through events like the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum or the "counter-conferences" that coincided with COP10 in Panama. Delegates are advised to stay away.
Whatever one's view of the industry, this asymmetry matters. It ensures that only one side of the nicotine-policy spectrum has institutional access, and that side is heavily financed by donors and industries whose interests are presented as moral rather than commercial.
The Bootleggers, the Baptists - and Their Modern Merger
The economist Bruce Yandle first coined the phrase "Bootleggers and Baptists" in 1983 to describe how moral campaigners and profit-seekers can support the same...