Science, Not Myth: Why Vaping Deserves a Fair Assessment in South Africa

As the Portfolio Committee on Health (PCoH) is in the process of holding public hearings on the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill (Tobacco bill) in the Northern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces, the Committee and the public will be bombarded with unproven and often contradictory about the harms of vaping. This is based on the experience on the public hearings conducted by the PCoH of the 6th Parliament.

The carefully planned campaign to discredit vaping as a harm-reduced alternative to smoking is geared to distort the public’s understanding of the harms of vaping and hinder its inclusion in South Africa’s tobacco control arsenal. The distortionary attempts rely on misrepresenting scientific evidence about nicotine, misrepresenting trends about youth vaping, dismissing harm reduction, and drawing parallels between vaping and smoking, including making false allegations about vaping and nicotine causing cancer and heart disease.

We will debunk some of the myths and claims that will be coming from the public hearings.

Nicotine is inherently toxic

The Department of Health is attempting to characterise nicotine as the chemical responsible for smoking-induced illness. While toxic if consumed in large quantities, nicotine itself is a relatively benign substance, though it is highly addictive. According to Public Health England (PHE) and the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), nicotine, while addictive, is not a primary cause of diseases associated with smoking. These diseases, including lung cancer and heart disease, are largely caused by harmful chemicals produced during combustion in tobacco smoking, not by nicotine itself. By ignoring this distinction, the Department of Health is misleading the public, fostering undue fear around vaping products that could otherwise serve as safer alternatives to smoking.

Vaping as a “Gateway” to Smoking

The notion that vaping encourages smoking among youth lacks robust scientific backing. According to new data from the United States’ (U.S.) National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) released on 05 September 2024 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), half a million fewer U.S. youth reported current use of e-cigarettes in 2024 compared to 2023.

NYTS is an annual school-based, self-administered survey of U.S. middle (grades 6–8) and high school (grades 9–12) students. Findings showed there was a significant drop in the number of U.S. middle and high school students who reported current (past 30 days) e-cigarette use – a decrease from 2.13 million (7.7%) youth in 2023 to 1.63 million (5.9%) youth in 2024. The Health Department’s unfounded claim risks discouraging smokers from switching to a less harmful alternative.

The bill’s regulations treat vaping like smoking, prohibiting vaping in certain outdoor areas, which can obscure the fundamental differences between the two. Vaping lacks combustion, meaning it produces significantly fewer toxins than cigarette smoke. Research across countries has shown that treating these products identically overlooks the health benefits associated with switching from smoking to vaping, potentially driving individuals back to smoking rather than supporting a harm-reduction approach.

Policy Driven by Selective Science

By emphasising only the risks associated with vaping, the Department of Health and anti-vaping NGOs have been selectively ignoring global scientific research supporting its benefits. Countries such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand have employed vaping as part of harm-reduction policies, incorporating it into public health strategies. These countries have regulated vaping with a focus on educating the public about its relative safety while still protecting vulnerable groups. Rather than presenting a balanced perspective, the Department’s narrow focus on potential risks seeks to ensure that vaping is killed in its infancy, sacrificing public health outcomes for an agenda-driven approach.

The Department of Health well-intentioned focus on protecting vulnerable populations is greatly supported by the Vapour Products Association South Africa (VPASA) and we are also running programmes and awareness campaigns to that effect. However, the argument from VPASA is that seeking to regulate vaping in the same way as smoking will have unintended outcomes. Research shows that overly restrictive vaping regulations discourage smokers from switching to vaping, limiting access to a harm-reduction option that is scientifically proven to be safer than smoking. Vulnerable populations, including youth and pregnant women, would benefit more from public education campaigns that highlight the risks of smoking over vaping, rather than blanket bans that obscure these nuances.

VPASA urges the 7th parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Health to approach the tobacco bill with an open mind and a commitment to following sound science. Furthermore, the public should not unquestionably fall for unsound claims and should ask questions about what the anti-vaping disciples spew about vaping. Depending on how the Committee processes the proposed Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill, it will have profound consequences for smoking in South Africa, good or bad.