WHO Applauds Malaysia's Tobacco Reforms, Backed By Pharmacists, Advocates
KUALA LUMPUR, May 31 (Bernama) -- Malaysia's anti-smoking campaign received a significant boost on World No Tobacco Day, as three national health advocates were honoured by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for their contributions to tobacco control.
Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Ministry of Health deputy director of the Disease Control Division Dr Noraryana Hassan and Malaysian Council for Tobacco Control (MCTC) chairman Assoc Prof Dr Murallitharan Munisamy were recognised for their roles in shaping Malaysia's tobacco policy.
In a statement today, the Malaysian Pharmacists Society (MPS) welcomed the award as a sign of global recognition for the country's collaborative approach.
MPS president Amrahi Buang reiterated the society's support for stronger domestic measures, including stricter enforcement against unregulated vape sales and the Generational End Game (GEG) provision to phase out smoking for future generations.
He said the society remains active in national policymaking platforms such as the MCTC, the Poisons Board and the Pharmacy Board of Malaysia.
'Pharmacists are on the front lines of cessation work. Through the mQuit programme, we provide nicotine replacement therapy and counselling at both public and private healthcare facilities. We need clear, consistent policy support to ensure these efforts succeed,' he added.
In a separate statement, MCTC Secretary-General Muhammad Sha'ani Abdullah said 2025 had marked two major milestones in Malaysia's tobacco control efforts, namely the international recognition from the WHO and the successful adoption of the Lung Health Initiative Resolution at the World Health Assembly, a global commitment to strengthening the prevention of lung diseases.
He noted that the passage of the Tobacco Control Act 852 earlier this year also laid crucial groundwork for regulating tobacco and nicotine products, but warned that passing the law is only the first step.
'The Act is only the beginning. What we need now is a commitment to put public health ahead of profit and realising Malaysia's vision of a tobacco-free society,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
Health Ministry urges sugary drink tax as consumption soars in Vietnam
HANOI: The Ministry of Health (MoH) has raised concerns over the sharp rise in sugary drink consumption in Vietnam, warning that failure to impose a special consumption tax could come at the cost of public health. In 2023, the average Vietnamese consumed around 66 litres of sugary beverages, equivalent to 18g of sugar per day, or 36 per cent of the World Health Organization (WHO)'s maximum recommended intake for adults. Between 2009 and 2023, sugary drink consumption quadrupled, nearly doubling in the past decade alone. Per capita consumption surged by 350 per cent, from 18.5 to 66.5 litres per year. A 2019 national survey found that nearly 34 per cent of students aged 13–17 drank carbonated beverages at least once a day. The WHO estimates that without stronger controls, sugary drink consumption in Việt Nam could rise by an average of 6.4 per cent annually through 2028, fuelling higher rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. The MoH says that taxing sugary beverages is one of the most effective and low-cost interventions to reduce sugar consumption and prevent non-communicable diseases. The WHO recommends a tax that raises retail prices by at least 20 per cent. According to research by the Hanoi University of Public Health, such a tax in Việt Nam could reduce rates of people who are overweight or obese by 2.1 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively, prevent 80,000 diabetes cases and save nearly VNĐ800 billion (US$30.77 million) in healthcare costs. At a National Assembly session debating amendments to the Law on Special Consumption Tax, Finance Minister Nguyen Van Thang said WHO data showed Vietnam was among the countries with the fastest-growing sugary drink consumption. 'Most of the sugar we consume comes from these beverages, driving obesity. WHO recommends a minimum 20 per cent tax. Frankly, we should have acted sooner,' he said. Delegate Le Hoang Anh from Gia Lai Province rejected the proposed 8–10 per cent tax from 2027 as too slow and too weak, arguing it fails to align with the national priority of putting health first. He pointed to countries like Thailand, which introduced a sugary drink tax in 2017, and the Philippines and Malaysia, which now collect billions of dollars annually from similar levies. 'If we don't act today, we will pay tomorrow, in lives lost, higher medical costs and reduced productivity,' he warned. Anh recommended adopting a 10 per cent tax starting in 2026, rising to 20 per cent by 2030, along with an absolute tax based on sugar content, like Thailand's. At least 108 countries have already imposed a special consumption tax on sugary drinks, including six in South-East Asia: Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Cambodia and Laos. The MoH says this demonstrates that such a tax is feasible and necessary for developing countries like Vietnam. Since 2017, Thailand has imposed a tiered excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages based on their sugar content, rather than a flat percentage. The higher the sugar content, the higher the tax, reaching up to 5 baht ($0.15) per litre for drinks with more than 14 grammes of sugar per 100ml. On top of this, a 14 per cent value-added tax is also applied to the ex-factory price. The tax increases retail prices by approximately 11 to 20 per cent, encouraging manufacturers to reduce sugar content and helping curb sugar-related health risks. In the Philippines, the excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages has been in effect since 2018. It imposes a specific excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, charging 6 pesos ($0.10) per litre for drinks sweetened with sugar or non-caloric sweeteners and 12 pesos per litre for those containing high-fructose corn syrup. This tax has effectively raised retail prices by about 16 to 20 per cent, aiming to curb consumption and tackle health issues like obesity and diabetes. — Vietnam News/ANN
Free Malaysia Today
2 days ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Trump's WHO withdrawal could cost the US dearly
While the Covid-19 pandemic is firmly in the past for many Americans, US households continue to bear the costs of infectious-disease outbreaks. A few months ago, the price of eggs in the US soared to a record high, largely owing to the spread of H5N1 bird flu. Since March 2024, the virus has ravaged US chicken farms, leading to tens of millions of poultry deaths from infection or culling. More ominously, at least 70 human cases of bird flu have been identified in the US, with one death reported in Louisiana. In a recent report about enhancing the response to H5N1 in America and globally, the Global Virus Network, a consortium of the world's top virologists, warned of 'the terrible consequences of underreacting to current threats'. But while bird flu poses the most immediate risk to Americans, it is by no means the only one. Virulent infectious-disease outbreaks in other countries, such as mpox in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ebola in Uganda, Marburg in Tanzania, and multi-country outbreaks of cholera, do not respect borders, and thus are a threat to people everywhere – including in the US. Without the efforts of the World Health Organization (WHO) to contain these outbreaks, the risk of wider transmission would be much greater. This underscores the need for a global agency like WHO to supervise cross-border cooperation – and the shortsightedness of President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the organisation. Despite being the world's richest and most powerful country, America is not immune to another Covid-style calamity, and abandoning multilateralism and neglecting pandemic preparedness (such as the stockpiling of treatments and vaccines) will make it all the more vulnerable. One might think that the deadly spread of Covid-19, prolonged by the emergence of new virus strains, would convince policymakers to strengthen the world's public-health architecture – especially as experts warn that future pandemics could be even worse. But with other leaders indicating that they may follow Trump's example and leave WHO, the resources for pandemic prevention and control could dwindle to the point that global outbreaks become more frequent and difficult to overcome. If Trump follows through with the move, his administration will become increasingly isolated and impotent. American officials, including at US military installations abroad, will lose access to WHO-led and -facilitated global networks that collect and share information about infectious-disease threats and respond to outbreaks. Moreover, the US government will have no say in developing new solutions (which will almost invariably be less effective) for controlling the spread of diseases across borders – including its own. Trump has suggested that he may change his mind, presumably if the grievances set out in his executive order to withdraw the US from the organisation are addressed. This implies that WHO should apply pressure on China to identify the pandemic's origins. WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, for his part, has refused to accept the Chinese government's prevarications. If Trump can propose a way to determine the cause of Covid-19, I am sure that WHO's leadership would gladly hear it. Trump's second condition is that WHO undertakes reforms and uses its resources more effectively at the local level, with a greater focus on stopping the spread of infectious diseases. This is a demand that can and should be met. To that end, Tedros has already promised more targeted use of funds and implemented other measures to transform the organisation. In addition, under Tedros, WHO has transformed the way it raises funds. Its member states have sharply increased their annual contributions, and it has diversified its donor base to share the funding load more widely. This is all part of WHO's drive to be more sustainably financed, a plan launched as part of Tedros's effort to transform the organisation's operations after he took office in 2017. Back then, he and member states assessed that the departure of a major donor could leave WHO's programmes and independence vulnerable to funding shocks. Who knew it would be the US. But, had those changes not been made, we can only imagine how much more challenging WHO's current financial situation would be. The Trump administration should welcome these changes, not least because it benefits from having a seat at the table. If the US ultimately abandons WHO, developing evidence-based guidance and regulations for chronic-disease prevention and management will be significantly harder, undermining the administration's goal of addressing America's chronic-disease epidemic. The US will also no longer be a part of WHO's medicine prequalification process, a programme that opens a host of new markets for drug producers in a cost-effective manner. Instead, US pharmaceutical companies will be forced to sell their prequalified products to each country individually, putting them at risk of losing access to highly profitable multibillion-dollar markets. Twenty-first-century trends – including more mobility and international travel, greater urbanisation, and increasing human encroachment on nature – fuel the global spread of infectious diseases, to the detriment of everyone. US officials would be better positioned to protect their citizens if they joined – and perhaps even led – a discussion on how WHO and other global health organisations, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, can meet the world's needs. One such initiative, in which the US had been a strong partner until Trump took office, was to negotiate a WHO Pandemic Agreement, which was adopted by consensus by WHO member states at the World Health Assembly on May 20. This historic compact, based on the principles of equity, collaboration, and the reaffirmation of national sovereignty in public-health decision-making, will make the world safer from future pandemics. The US, bolstered by its world-class medical professionals and substantial public investment in medical research, has long exerted considerable influence on global health priorities. But withdrawing from WHO places America on the outside, unable to shape the agency's policy agenda and reforms. When the next pandemic strikes, the US will be left watching from the sidelines, as WHO and its remaining member countries manage the global response and pick up the pieces as they see fit. Gordon Brown, a former prime minister of the UK, is UN special envoy for global education and chair of Education Cannot Wait. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Malaysiakini
2 days ago
- Malaysiakini
1.6m fall ill daily from unsafe food, warns WHO
Every day, 1.6 million people around the world fall ill due to unsafe food, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned today, urging stronger global efforts to ensure food safety through science-based policies and practices, Anadolu Ajansi reported. 'Food safety is a global responsibility,' said Simone Moraes Raszl, the scientist at WHO's Nutrition and Food Safety Department, during a UN press briefing in Geneva ahead of World Food Safety Day on Saturday. 'These illnesses are...
