Moldovan Academics used to push Tobacco Lobby Narratives in EU Consultation

Sursa Foto: Collage by Sănătate INFO

Irina Papuc

05 noiembrie, 2025, 14:24

Vizualizări: 145

A democratic process of public consultation has turned into an integrity scandal in the Republic of Moldova. Several professors from two universities say their identities were used without consent by unknown individuals who appear to have submitted pro-tobacco positions on the European Commission’s website in their name. This happened during the ongoing public consultation on the new European directive on the taxation of tobacco products

On the Commission’s official Have Your Say platform, multiple feedback entries appeared under the names of professors from the Moldova State University and the Nicolae Testemițanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy. All of these submissions shared a striking feature: under the guise of scientific evidence, they advocated for more lenient taxation of new nicotine products and heated tobacco products, aligning with the interests of the tobacco industry.

The case escalated into a public integrity scandal once the information reached the leadership of both universities. The professors whose names appeared on these submissions insist that they never provided such feedback, do not recognize the texts, and believe their identities were misused to create the false impression of academic endorsement for pro-tobacco narratives. To protect its reputation, the Nicolae Testemițanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy sent an official letter to the European Commission, categorically denying any involvement in academic “whitewashing” of the tobacco industry. The letter was made public, and the falsified feedback was subsequently removed from the Commission’s website.

European Commission consultations – a fertile ground for influence

In the summer of this year, the European Commission launched the public consultation “Tobacco taxation – excise duties for manufactured tobacco products (updated rules)”, with a deadline set for October 31, 2025. The consultation process is open not only to EU Member States, but also to non-EU countries, and the submissions collected may influence future European fiscal policy on tobacco and nicotine products.

So far, nothing unusual. The issue arose when the Center for Health Policies and Analysis (PAS Center) discovered several feedback submissions published under the names of university academics from the Republic of Moldova, clearly aligning with the interests of the tobacco industry. These submissions echoed industry-driven narratives, claiming that new nicotine products and heated tobacco products are less harmful than traditional cigarettes and should therefore be taxed according to a so-called “risk-proportionality” model.

“Neither I, Silvia Agop, nor the Nicolae Testemițanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy have authored or submitted the comment that appears on that page”

For example, in the comment attributed to Associate Professor Silvia Agop of the Nicolae Testemițanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy, the European Union was urged to follow the U.S. approach to differentiated taxation.

„ (...) Differentiation in taxation that protects health is feasible. The European Union should adopt a similar, science-based tiered taxation model that protects young people, promotes smoking cessation, and strengthens the EU’s role as a leader in evidence-based policy” stated the feedback posted on the European Commission’s Have Your Say consultation platform.

The feedback raised concerns among public health experts because it appeared to come from a university scholar and invoked the institutional identity of the Nicolae Testemițanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy.

In response, the Center for Health Policies and Analysis (PAS Center) sent an official letter to the university, warning about the serious risks created when such positions appear to reflect the academic community’s voice.

“Our analysis shows that the arguments presented match entirely the narratives and positions of the tobacco industry, and contradict the principles and decisions of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC/COP8(22); FCTC/COP9/9), which recommend treating all tobacco and nicotine products as potentially harmful and subject to the same restrictive fiscal policies. The arguments also contradict the role and mission of a public medical education institution, especially one of the standing of the Nicolae Testemițanu University, which has a responsibility to promote public health and scientific integrity”, was stated in the letter sent by PAS Center.

Caught in the midst of a reputational controversy, the Nicolae Testemițanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy reacted promptly. The institution stated that it had discussed the matter with those involved, including Associate Professor Silvia Agop, and confirmed that she never submitted feedback to the European Commission and would not support positions that favor the tobacco industry. Consequently, the university requested that the European Commission remove the falsified feedback and instead publish the institution’s official position.

„Following internal verification, Associate Professor Silvia Agop confirmed that she did not draft, approve, or authorize the publication of the feedback attributed to her. Moreover, she has already submitted an official request to the European Commission to remove the incorrect attribution, stating:

The content displayed is incorrect and misleading. Neither I, Silvia Agop, nor the Nicolae Testemițanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy have authored or submitted the comment currently appearing on that page. We therefore respectfully and urgently request that this false information be removed and the record corrected as soon as possible. The Nicolae Testemițanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy reiterates its firm commitment to promoting public health, advancing evidence-based policy, and fully upholding the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), including the obligation under Article 5.3 to protect public health policies from the influence of the tobacco industry”.

“I did not write that. You can clearly see it was written by ChatGPT. This is a cyberattack”

Another feedback with the same academic whitewashing pattern appeared shortly after. This one was presented as coming from the Association of Dentists, represented by Valeriu Fală, who is also the head of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry. This comment—also removed in the end—supported key arguments pushed by major tobacco companies, which seek to justify a differentiated tax treatment for new nicotine products compared to conventional cigarettes.

The comment attributed to Fală was accompanied by a study in which several university academics from the Republic of Moldova had participated, including Valeriu Fală himself — university professor, Doctor Habilitatus in Medical Sciences, and corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova.

The study, titled “Navigating the dual burden of dental and periodontal care in individuals who also smoke: an expert review,” examines the effects of smoking on oral health, particularly in patients with dental and periodontal conditions. The study turned out to serve the tobacco industry's communication needs conveniently. The authors concluded that chronic smoking “accelerates periodontal tissue destruction, and smoking cessation remains the most effective strategy to reduce these risks.” However, among the recommended harm reduction strategies, the study also strategically inserted references to “alternative nicotine products,” such as e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products.

What is even more striking is that the study’s Conflict of Interest section lists Global Action to End Smoking, an organization that the World Health Organization has warned is funded by the tobacco industry. Under these circumstances, the impartiality and credibility of the study’s conclusions become questionable. The organization’s name is deliberately misleading: it suggests a public health mission, while in reality, it is part of a broader strategy to reshape public perceptions of smoking risks.

„Global Action to End Smoking operates using funds from Philip Morris International. Its activities support a broader tobacco industry strategy to mislead the public about the dangers of tobacco and nicotine product use. WHO is particularly concerned about potential efforts to target children and young people, creating a new generation of tobacco and nicotine users. WHO urges governments and the public health community to remain vigilant and prioritize genuine, independent public health efforts to end tobacco and nicotine use”, World Health Organization stated.

In a discussion with a Sănătate INFO reporter, Professor Valeriu Fală said he did not know that the study had been funded by the tobacco industry. Regarding the feedback submitted to the European Commission, Fală says it does not belong to him and that it is “obvious” it was written using ChatGPT.

“I did not write that. It was sent from a fake email address. (…) And you can clearly see it was written by ChatGPT. This is a cyberattack, and I regret that they used my name. I didn’t write anything, and I do not have time for such things. So my question is the opposite: how are we protected from cyberattacks? Instead of looking for who is responsible for writing these false statements, you are accusing us of having written them”, stated Valeriu Fală

As for the study he co-authored — the one funded by the tobacco industry — Fală says all he knows is that prominent international researchers took part, and he believes the conclusions of the research have been taken out of context.

“We conducted a clean and scientific study. I do not smoke and I do not recommend anyone to smoke. I work in science, and we have demonstrated clearly that all forms of smoking are harmful. (…) But now we are getting stuck on small details, on one word, like the fact that it mentioned e-cigarettes” - Valeriu Fală.

“The Association of Dentists of the Republic of Moldova does not exist”

The Association of Dentists in the Republic of Moldova also issued a reaction. “The Association of Dentists of the Republic of Moldova is the only registered organization that represents the European Regional Organization and the World Dental Federation, serving as the official voice of dental professionals in the Republic of Moldova. The so-called ‘Association of Dentists’ does not exist and is not registered in the Republic of Moldova,” the statement reads.

The Association also expressed concern about the claims made in the feedback attributed to Valeriu Fală, particularly the call for differentiated taxation of tobacco products. The organization requested that the European Commission either remove the fabricated feedback entirely, or at least delete the section recommending the recognition of non-combustion products as a separate fiscal category.

The letter was published on the European Commission’s Have Your Say platform.

Studies funded by the tobacco industry and opinions favorable to it. MSU: The Faculty of Chemistry has never submitted any statements on this matter

A third academic involved in the same pattern is Viorica Gladchi, Doctor of Science, university professor, and Dean of the Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology at Moldova State University. On October 21, another feedback submission appeared on the same platform, containing the following statement:

“The Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology of the Republic of Moldova was established in 1946 as the Faculty of Chemistry. Our scientific mission focuses on studying the composition, structure, and properties of chemical compounds, developing innovative methods for synthesizing substances with unique characteristics, and promoting high-performance, environmentally sustainable technologies.

The Faculty’s work has always been closely connected to public and industrial safety priorities. Over the past two decades, our researchers have conducted several studies on the chemical composition of tobacco products and derivatives, including major investigations in 2002, 2005, and 2023, culminating in a recent scientific review on the composition of aerosols produced by heated tobacco products.

Independent evaluations conducted by scientific bodies of the European Union and its Member States confirm that aerosols from heated tobacco products contain significantly lower levels of toxic substances than cigarette smoke. These findings are used to support a risk-proportionate approach to regulating and taxing tobacco products.

The application of such an approach is also presented as being in line with the EU Consumer Rights Framework, under Directive 2011/83/EU and its delegated acts, which guarantee consumers the right to accurate and complete information.

This principle is invoked to argue that citizens should not be misled into believing that all tobacco-based products carry the same risks. Transparent communication of scientific differences—recognized by ISO standards and validated by EU independent assessments—is presented as consistent with both the letter and the spirit of consumer protection policies.

(…)

In this context, the Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology recommends:

• Recognizing heated tobacco products (HTPs) as a distinct product category in EU fiscal legislation, in accordance with ISO 6080:2024 and current scientific evidence;

• Setting excise taxation for HTPs in a way that reflects their non-combustible nature and the substantially reduced toxic emissions they are claimed to produce, in line with the EU’s commitment to evidence-based policy and harm reduction;

• Ensuring the consumer’s right to accurate information in all regulatory communications, so that EU citizens can make informed choices based on scientific facts rather than generalized assumptions about risk”.

However, it is important to note that the feedback attributed to Dean Viorica Gladchi referenced a study funded by the tobacco industry.

The PAS Center sent a formal notice to the Rector of Moldova State University, Igor Șarov, detailing these concerns.

“In our view, the content of this feedback raises serious concerns regarding scientific integrity, transparency, conflict of interest, and the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Republic of Moldova under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), ratified by Law No. 124 of May 11, 2007. The feedback promotes the narrative of a ‘scientific differentiation of risk’ for tobacco and nicotine products and advocates for a risk-proportionate taxation of heated tobacco products — an approach that reproduces the rhetoric of the tobacco industry and contradicts the clear recommendations of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and the decisions of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention (FCTC/COP8(22); FCTC/COP9/9).

In this context, it is essential to note that the study attached to the feedback, entitled ‘Tobacco Heating System: A Scientific Review of the Scientific Literature on Aerosol Composition’, contains an explicit funding declaration stating: ‘Philip Morris Sales and Marketing SRL is the sole source of funding and sponsor of this research publication.’

This information unequivocally confirms that the entire research project was funded and sponsored by the tobacco industry. Therefore, the inclusion of this study, attached to the feedback, in a European public consultation under the name of a public higher education institution, without clearly disclosing the funding source in the public submission, constitutes a serious violation of the principles of transparency and scientific integrity.

Furthermore, the study itself acknowledges major limitations of its conclusions, namely:

i) A reduction in emissions of certain harmful components cannot be interpreted as a proportional reduction in health risks — independent long-term studies are required;

ii) The literature review shows that, while levels of some substances on the PMI-58 list are lower in the aerosols of heated tobacco products, another 56 substances not included in these lists are present at higher levels, including 50 identified as potentially carcinogenic;

iii) Exposure to free radicals remains much higher than that from ambient air, and the impact of many substances remains unknown. These findings of the study clearly show that chemical-analytical evidence, in the absence of independent epidemiological studies and analyses of the impact on consumer behavior (initiation, dual use, substitution), is not sufficient to justify fiscal policy changes that would reduce taxation on heated tobacco products. Therefore, even according to the study attached to the feedback, there is no solid scientific evidence that heated tobacco products reduce health risks—which makes it unacceptable to use this material as an argument for a differentiated tax policy", was stated in the public letter published by the PAS Center .

The Moldova State University issued a response on October 31. The higher education institution does not appear to be concerned by the fact that the study in question, authored by Viorica Gladchi, Maria Gonța, and Elena Bunduchi, was funded by the tobacco industry. The data used in the research were collected from scientific databases such as Scopus, PubMed, Medline, and others. In addition, public data from Philip Morris International and “other relevant web resources” were also used. Another argument put forward by MSU is that the study underwent a peer review process prior to publication. However, these arguments do not change the evidence regarding the source of funding.

Nevertheless, MSU states in its response that the Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology has never submitted “letters, requests, or opinions related to the subject of the public consultations on tobacco product fiscal policy.”

As a result, the comment attributed to Dean Viorica Gladchi was also removed from the European Commission’s website. No official position of MSU or public clarification was published in its place.

National Agency for Public Health: We strongly support the proposal to increase taxes and eliminate existing fiscal disparities at EU level

On the final day of the public consultations, a feedback submission from the National Agency for Public Health of the Republic of Moldova was also published on the European Commission’s Have Your Say platform. The institution emphasized the importance of increasing taxes on all tobacco products, including new ones, and called for the elimination of excise discrepancies, in order to avoid the traps of the tobacco industry, which seeks to promote preferential taxation under the pretext of risk reduction:

“From a public health perspective, we consider that a higher minimum level of taxation is expected to reduce consumption and improve health outcomes, which is why we support the European Commission’s approach: the approximate alignment of rates and the prioritization of protecting young people from the false perception of reduced risk associated with the use of e-cigarettes or heated tobacco.

The National Agency for Public Health observes that this revision is part of a broader health policy initiative, namely the European Cancer Beating Plan, which aims for a tobacco-free generation (<5% tobacco use by 2040). We support the European Commission’s proposal to extend the scope of the directive, especially to include new products, provided that minimum excise levels are increased for all tobacco and related products.

We strongly support the proposal to increase taxes and to eliminate existing fiscal discrepancies at EU level, particularly between conventional tobacco products and new products. At the same time, we consider that allowing any differentiation in taxation between conventional products and new products would favor the narratives of the tobacco industry, which promotes tobacco and related products (such as heated tobacco and e-cigarettes) as ‘reduced-risk’ products, a claim that would encourage consumption among young people and adolescents.

Therefore, from a public health perspective, we kindly ask you to take into consideration the Belgrade Declaration on Tobacco Taxation, adopted at the 10th European Conference on Tobacco Control on October 23, 2025, which we firmly support”.

Ghenadie Țurcanu, Program Director, Center for Health Policies and Analysis (PAS Center):

“The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the subsequent decisions of the Conference of the Parties (FCTC/COP8(22); FCTC/COP9/9) recognize that the tobacco industry promotes pseudo-scientific concepts such as ‘risk reduction’ in order to obtain the relaxation of regulation and taxation. The WHO has confirmed that no tobacco or nicotine product is safe, and that all forms of consumption, including heated tobacco products, cause addiction and harm to health.

Differentiated taxation or the recognition of ‘risk reduction’ would contradict the fundamental principle of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, namely discouraging tobacco consumption in all its forms.

In light of the provisions of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the feedbacks referenced cannot be considered legitimate contributions to the policymaking process at the European level.

They represent, in essence, manifestations of tobacco industry interference in the academic and political space—an issue that requires a firm and transparent response from the public institutions of the Republic of Moldova and from the European Commission.”

How far can the tobacco industry go?

The case involving the suspected misuse of university academics’ identities to influence the European Union’s decision-making process highlights how vulnerable public institutions can be to the tobacco industry’s attempts to shape policy agendas. However, so far, neither Associate Professor Silvia Agop nor Valeriu Fală have clearly stated whether they intend to report these incidents to the police.

At this stage, it is not clear who submitted the falsified feedback, how many of the submissions were indeed false, and just as importantly, on whose initiative they were sent. This is a lesson from which the academic community, state institutions, and civil society organizations can learn — to be more vigilant, to inform themselves properly, and to build adequate protection measures.

What the new European directive on the taxation of tobacco and nicotine products proposes

The European Commission is proposing the most extensive reform in recent years in the fiscal regulation of tobacco and nicotine products, which includes increasing the minimum excise rates for all tobacco products and extending taxation to newer products — such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches. The aim is to eliminate the discrepancies that allow the industry to present alternative products as “safer” and keep them affordable.

The new rules seek to reduce consumption, prevent the initiation of smoking among young people, and establish a unified fiscal framework across the European Union. The directive is part of the European Cancer Beating Plan, which aims for a tobacco-free generation by 2040.

Public health organizations strongly support these measures, while the tobacco industry continues to promote the idea of differentiated taxation for new products — a narrative rejected by the WHO as a strategy intended to manipulate fiscal policy.

Public consultations concluded on October 31.

Între promisiune și realitate: Ce a reușit și ce n-a reușit în cei patru ani Ministerul Sănătății

„Vă îndemnăm să adoptați legislația privind controlul tutunului fără modificări care ar slăbi protecțiile propuse”. Scrisoarea Directorului General al Campaniei pentru Copii Fără Tutun către Parlament

ANCHETĂ/ Reforma cu interes infect(ios)

Tag: Tobacco industry interference Public health policy EU fiscal reform Academic integrity

Categoria: Știri Interne

Preluarea articolelor de pe www.sanatateinfo.md se realizează în limita maximă de 1.000 de semne. Este obligatoriu să fie citată sursa și autorul informației, iar dacă informația este preluată de către alte platforme informaționale on-line trebuie indicat link-ul direct la sursă. Preluarea integrală a informației poate fi realizată doar în baza unui acord încheiat cu Redacția Sănătate INFO. Toate materialele jurnalistice publicate pe platforma on-line www.sanatateinfo.md sunt protejate de Legea 139 privind drepturile de autor și drepturile conexe. De asemenea, de Codul Deontologic al Jurnalistului din Republica Moldova. Pe lângă actele juridice care ne protejează drepturile, mai există o lege nescrisă – cea a bunului simț.