AL Gor 16 December 2024
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Australia have played a significant role in shaping vaping policy. Still, much of their influence is driven by self-interest, often at the expense of public health. These organisations, which rely heavily on funding from tobacco sales, have adopted a fear-based, alarmist stance on vaping while ignoring its potential as a harm-reduction tool for smokers. Rather than promoting evidence-based solutions, their financial dependence on tobacco sales incentivises them to maintain the status quo. This public health model focuses on the harm caused by smoking while largely overlooking the potential of vaping to help smokers quit. This dynamic has led to policies that restrict access to safer alternatives and often force smokers back to smoking or push them toward illegal, more harmful products. A key factor in this is the influence of my side bias, which shapes the way these NGOs interpret and present evidence on vaping, often disregarding data that doesn't support their entrenched positions.
1. NGOs' Financial Dependence on Tobacco Sales
A central issue in understanding the influence of NGOs on vaping policy is their reliance on funding from tobacco sales—a major source of revenue in Australia. Governments impose high taxes on tobacco products to reduce consumption and generate revenue for public health programmes. However, NGOs like Cancer Council Australia, Quit Victoria, and VicHealth have long been partially funded by a portion of this revenue. This financial model creates a conflict of interest because these organisations are financially incentivised to maintain the status quo—high tobacco consumption and continued sales of tobacco products.
This reliance on tobacco sales has skewed their priorities, leading many public health NGOs to prioritise the war against tobacco and the maintenance of high tobacco tax revenues. Their focus on traditional cigarette consumption makes it less financially advantageous for them to embrace vaping as a harm-reduction strategy. By continuing to frame vaping as a significant health threat, NGOs can justify their calls for more restrictive regulations, which in turn helps preserve tobacco sales and, consequently, their funding streams. These organisations are motivated not just by public health concerns but by financial self-interest in ensuring that tobacco taxes remain high.
2. Myside Bias and Selective Evidence
The concept of Myside bias—where individuals or organisations favour information that supports their own pre-existing beliefs—can be seen in how these NGOs approach the issue of vaping. NGOs like Cancer Council Australia, Quit Victoria, and VicHealth are strongly biased against vaping, viewing it through the lens of their longstanding anti-smoking campaigns. This bias shapes how they interpret and present the available evidence on vaping.
Rather than considering vaping as a potential harm reduction tool—which it is shown to be for many smokers—they selectively highlight studies or findings that support their pre-existing narrative that all forms of nicotine consumption are harmful. Evidence that vaping is significantly less harmful than smoking and can be an effective smoking cessation tool is often downplayed or ignored altogether, while risks (some of which are unsubstantiated or based on limited evidence) are exaggerated. This bias prevents them from engaging with new, nuanced scientific perspectives and leads to policy recommendations that continue to restrict access to vaping in ways that might benefit smokers trying to quit.
For example, when the UK government’s public health advice supported the use of vaping for harm reduction, these Australian NGOs rejected this evidence in favour of their own beliefs that all nicotine use is bad. This selective acceptance of data, rooted in myside bias, distorts the debate on vaping and prevents smokers from benefiting from the potential advantages of switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.
3. Exaggerating the Risks of Vaping
The alarmist rhetoric that NGOs use to describe vaping often borders on misleading. While there is still some debate about the long-term risks of vaping, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it is far less harmful than smoking traditional cigarettes. However, NGOs continue to portray e-cigarettes as an equivalent threat to smoking, inflating the risks without acknowledging the significant harm reduction potential.
NGOs have frequently claimed that vaping is a gateway to smoking among youth, even though the vast majority of vapers are adult smokers trying to quit or reduce their smoking. While it’s true that youth uptake is a concern, overstating the risks of vaping and pushing for blanket bans on flavours or marketing often ignores the real-world consequences for adult smokers. The result is that many smokers, deterred by the negative portrayal of vaping, return to smoking or continue with it, knowing there are no better alternatives available.
This focus on sensationalist claims serves the interests of NGOs, as it enables them to rally for stricter regulations on vaping, which in turn helps to maintain their funding from tobacco sales. The continued sales of tobacco are essential for their operations, and without it, their funding would likely diminish, creating a financial incentive to vilify vaping. Their bias in interpreting the evidence means that they reinforce their own entrenched narrative, even if this leads to policy decisions that harm smokers.
4. Over-regulating Vaping to Preserve Tobacco Sales
Australia has some of the strictest tobacco regulations in the world, and NGOs have been instrumental in pushing for these tight restrictions. While this may have contributed to a decline in smoking rates, the same organisations are now pushing for similarly strict controls on vaping. These regulations, such as banning flavoured e-liquids and enforcing pharmacy-only access to nicotine, make vaping less accessible to smokers trying to quit.
The flavour ban is particularly problematic, as many smokers use flavoured e-liquids to make the transition from cigarettes to vaping. The push for this ban is driven more by the need to "protect children" from the perceived dangers of vaping than by any evidence that these flavours significantly increase smoking rates among youth. Adults who are trying to quit smoking, on the other hand, find these bans incredibly frustrating, as flavours make the transition from cigarettes easier and more enjoyable. But for NGOs that rely on tobacco sales, it is more profitable to maintain the narrative of vaping as harmful, regardless of the real impact on adult smokers. By pushing for these harsh regulations, they essentially deny smokers a viable alternative, forcing many to return to smoking or keep smoking, which in turn maintains the flow of tobacco sales revenue.
5. VicHealth and Universities' Role in the Debate
VicHealth, as one of the key public health organisations in Australia, has played a pivotal role in the public discourse surrounding vaping. Despite the evidence suggesting vaping can help smokers quit, VicHealth has remained firmly entrenched in the anti-vaping camp, often promoting messaging that equates vaping with smoking and portraying it as a public health crisis. VicHealth’s stance is problematic, especially considering that its policies are often shaped by funding derived from tobacco sales. By promoting restrictive vaping policies, VicHealth helps limit access to harm-reducing alternatives for smokers, effectively keeping smokers trapped in their nicotine addiction.
As a recipient of funding linked to tobacco tax revenues, VicHealth’s push for heavy regulation on vaping may also reflect its desire to protect the income stream generated by tobacco sales. Like other NGOs, VicHealth may feel an indirect obligation to advocate for policies that preserve tobacco consumption to secure ongoing funding for its various health initiatives. This creates a financial incentive for VicHealth to resist harm reduction policies that focus on vaping, even if such policies would be beneficial for smokers looking for a safer alternative.
In addition to VicHealth, universities that conduct public health research have also played a significant role in shaping public opinion on vaping. Many universities, particularly those with longstanding ties to traditional tobacco control programmes or those funded by government health bodies, have aligned themselves with NGOs in promoting anti-vaping narratives. Academic researchers in these institutions often have financial incentives to perpetuate the fear-based rhetoric around vaping because their research grants are tied to tobacco control efforts. These universities may downplay or ignore research that supports vaping as a harm reduction tool in favour of studies that highlight potential risks, particularly when their research is funded by tobacco control bodies or grants linked to anti-smoking initiatives.
6. The Negative Impact on Smokers
The ultimate consequence of NGO-driven vaping policies is the harm caused to smokers. These organisations, while claiming to advocate for public health, have created a toxic environment where smokers are denied access to a safer alternative. Instead of supporting vaping as a less harmful alternative, NGOs have been actively involved in policies that prevent smokers from accessing e-cigarettes, forcing many to continue smoking. Some smokers, deterred by the harsh regulations or the negative portrayal of vaping, simply choose to stick with the more harmful option of smoking. Others may turn to black-market products, which are even less regulated and potentially more harmful.
By continuing to frame vaping as a public health crisis, NGOs are undermining their own goals of reducing smoking-related harm. Rather than embracing a more nuanced and balanced approach, where vaping is recognised as a legitimate harm reduction tool, these organisations have stubbornly clung to outdated views, driven by their financial dependence on tobacco sales and their myside bias. As a result, many smokers are stuck with no better options, and smoking rates remain higher than they should be.
Conclusion: Financial Motives and Myside Bias at the Heart of the Debate
The influence of NGOs on vaping in Australia is heavily shaped by their reliance on funding from tobacco sales, which creates a clear conflict of interest. Their ongoing portrayal of vaping as a major public health threat, despite evidence to the contrary, reflects a self-interested push to maintain revenue streams from tobacco sales. By pushing for overregulation, misleading public campaigns, and fear-based rhetoric, these NGOs have effectively restricted smokers’ access to a safer alternative and forced many back to smoking.
Their financial dependence on tobacco sales has led to a situation where their funding priorities take precedence over the public health needs of smokers. This not only undermines harm reduction strategies but also ensures that smoking remains the default option for many smokers, perpetuating a cycle of addiction and harm. Instead of embracing vaping as a potential tool for reducing smoking-related harm, these NGOs—including VicHealth—are motivated by a desire to protect their funding base, leaving smokers with fewer options and forcing them to return to smoking—a far more dangerous habit. Their bias has resulted in the suppression of evidence-based approaches that could significantly reduce harm and improve public health outcomes.