Doctors Lean on Science When it Comes to Smoking Cessation Best Practice
Scientific evidence that supports vaping as an additional approach to tackle smoking-related morbidity and mortality is fast growing. The time is ripe for decisionmakers to embrace tobacco harm reduction and to steer away from precautionary principle-based tobacco control policies. This is according to Dr Riccardo Polosa, Founder of the Centre of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction (CoEHAR) and Professor of Internal Medicine of the University of Catania, Italy.
Towards the end of 2022, the South African Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill was officially introduced into parliament by the Minister of Health. Now, in the coming months, it will be discussed and possibly amended by a portfolio committee.
With this Bill lumping Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS, i.e. e-cigarettes and vapes) in the same category as smoking, Kurt Yeo, co-founder of consumer advocacy group Vaping Saved My Life (VSML), explains that it is essential for those involved in this process to consider the mounting scientific evidence demonstrating that vaping is far less harmful than tobacco smoking and is an effective way to support smokers seeking less risky alternatives and/or wanting to quit.
Dr Colin Mendelsohn is an Australian academic, researcher and clinician, who has helped smokers quit for over 30 years, says that vaping nicotine is a more effective quitting aid than nicotine replacement products such as patches and gums and is the most popular aid for quitting or reducing smoking globally. “It has the potential to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of South African smokers and prevent untold disease and suffering.”
He adds that vaping has been estimated to cause no more than 5% of the harm from smoking. “While the long-term effects have not yet been established, e-cigarettes are certain to be far less harmful than smoking. Vaping carries only a small fraction of the risk of tobacco smoking and is an effective quitting aid or long-term safer substitute for smoking. Vaping should be easily accessible to help adult smokers to quit deadly cigarettes.”
Dr Polosa highlights that decisionmakers and the public should also beware of many flawed articles scientific and fake news that are propagating ‘findings’ of potential harms, thus feeding the counter-narrative that e-cigarettes are ‘not as safe as promoted’. “Proliferation of poor-quality science and fake news need to be actively contrasted by good quality science and by correct information/education.”
The proof is in the numbers
“Countries which have supported vaping such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand have had accelerated declines in smoking rates,” explains Dr Mendelsohn. “For example, in New Zealand the national adult smoking rate fell by an unprecedented 33% in the two years between 2020 and 2022 after vaping was legalised.”
Illustrating this point further, Dr Polosa says that according to the same national surveys used for reporting smoking prevalence to the World Health Organization (WHO), these countries show faster declines in smoking prevalence compared with neighbouring countries with lower uptake of these alternatives. “In Sweden and Norway, eradication of smoking is now almost a reality with a daily smoking prevalence among Norwegian and Swedish youth close to zero (1% and 3%, respectively). Widespread diffusion of e-cigarettes in New Zealand and the United States is also contributing to the historical acceleration in the downward trend in daily prevalence of smoking among young people (1.3% and 1.9%, respectively).”
Regulation is essential, but the proposed Bill is deeply flawed
When it comes to regulation, Dr Polosa asserts that vaping and smoking are completely different animals. “Smoking kills. Vaping does not.”
Therefore, to regulate vaping in the same way as smoking does not make any sense, says Dr Polosa. “Doing so denies smokers access to much lower risk products. Rather, the South African government should table a risk-proportionate approach where the main regulatory levers are applied differentially.”
“This means that the most stringent and restrictive regulation would be applied to the most harmful products: tobacco cigarettes. Regulation of the smoke-free alternatives would focus on consumer protection (i.e., benefits to the consumer) and control of uptake by adolescents in a way that does not cause significant harm to adult smokers. This would meet the demands of people who cannot or do not wish to quit completely, but with much less cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory disease as a result,” Dr Polosa explains.
Dr Mendelsohn agrees and says that the preferred regulatory model is for nicotine liquids for vaping to be sold as adult consumer products from licensed premises, with strict age verification, like cigarettes and alcohol. “Regulation of e-cigarettes should be proportionate to risk and a light touch approach is more appropriate. A balanced regulatory model is needed which allows adult smokers easy access to regulated vaping products while restricting access to underage users. The current proposals will restrict adult smokers’ access to an effective quitting aid which can save lives and prevent smoking-related illness.”
“A precautionary approach to prevent the use of much less harmful smoke-free products is unjustified in the face of the massive burden of smoked tobacco products, which are widely available. This principle requires policymakers to compare the risks of introducing a product with the risks of delaying its introduction. In the case of vaping, the relatively small risks of harm will be outweighed by the far more substantial harms from delaying access to current smokers,” Dr Mendelsohn explains.
He points out that harsh restrictions on the sale and marketing of electronic cigarettes will have negative unintended consequences and will lead to black market sales of unregulated products to both adults and children. “The public health goal should be to encourage smokers who are unable to quit to switch to vaping, a far safer alternative.”
Yeo concludes by saying: “With the Bill aiming to reduce the incidence of tobacco-related illness, disability and death, regulations should be drawn up based on all available research and case studies to ensure South Africa’s smokers are truly helped.”
