We still allow the tobacco industry to have a say in public health laws. This must stop.

Research suggests that persuasive and misleading communication practices are widely used by tobacco and vape industry actors to undermine the development of public policy that threatens their profits.

As a signatory to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Australia is obligated to ensure that laws regarding tobacco products are protected from industry interference.

At the 6^th Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2014, it was recommended that laws for electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems also be protected from vested interests.

This was both predictive and protective, with each major tobacco company either producing or investing in these devices by 2018, often under the guise of tobacco harm reduction and creating a smoke-free world.

Despite this, some Australian political parties, such as the Nationals, still accept sizeable donations from the tobacco industry, with these donations peaking during times when tobacco control legislation is being considered by policy makers.

The tobacco and vape industries, as well as those in the retail sector and others who profit from these harmful products, also routinely make submissions to government consultations.

This simultaneously reflects government best practice guidelines and contravenes our obligations to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, highlighting a troubling paradox.

Concerningly, our research — the first of its kind to be conducted in Australia — shows that the tobacco and vape industries, as well as their allies in the retail sector, are taking full advantage of this access.

Our research

We identified all national and state-level government consultations on electronic nicotine delivery systems (eg, vapes) conducted between 2017 and 2023.

This period was a critical one in Australia for vape legislation. As we grappled with soaring rates of vaping among adolescents, governments all over the country wanted to hear from experts about what could be done to minimise misuse and optimise public health outcomes.

The 13 consultations we identified in this period attracted 6198 submissions, of which 406 were found to be written by the tobacco industry, vape industry and other organisations or individuals who had received monetary or non-monetary gratuities from the tobacco or vape industries (or organisations funded by them).

We selected a random sample of 196 of these submissions and explored how industry actors such as manufacturers, distributors and retailers present research evidence in their responses to consultations, and the specific arguments made by these vested interests.

The results make for depressing — but not surprising — reading. Here are some key highlights:

Almost all submissions (96%) misused evidence in their arguments. This included submitters making unsupported factual statements, promoting weak evidence, misquoting evidence, quoting sources out of context, omitting important information, and making misleading inferences.

Statements of fact were made without evidence to support the claims’ legitimacy. For example, submitters argued that e-cigarettes were safe, or that vape stores have helped millions of people and saved the community millions of dollars each year.

Almost half of all submissions cited industry-funded or industry-linked work. Work that had not been peer-reviewed (eg, blog posts) was also used as supporting evidence.

Submitters excluded relevant evidence or used evidence that was entirely irrelevant to the point being made. They also privileged the testimony of purported experts, despite some of these experts receiving direct or indirect industry funding.

Perhaps most egregiously, submitters frequently misquoted evidence. For example, incorrectly claiming that a study found that e-cigarettes were safe when the study found no such thing.

We also examined the use of logical fallacies and flawed arguments — highly persuasive forms of communication routinely used in the spread of misinformation. Most (88%) of submissions featured at least one of these fallacies, with the “bandwagon fallacy” used most often. For example, submitters claimed that Australian legislation should reflect that of other countries and the wishes of purportedly large numbers of Australians who use e-cigarettes. Here, submitters completely ignored that in countries that have legalised vapes, such as the UK, a significant rise in use by young people has been observed. As a result, these countries are now frantically introducing stricter laws in an attempt to reduce youth use.

Similarly, almost half of the submissions featured an appeal to hypocrisy, with submitters often claiming it was hypocritical for tobacco cigarettes to be more freely available than e-cigarettes. This fallacy ignores the complex history of tobacco legislation, the lessons learned from it, and recent efforts to tighten restrictions on, or even eradicate, tobacco cigarettes.

When it came to the specific arguments used by submitters, the vast majority featured unsubstantiated claims about the adverse effects of restrictions and the benefits of permissive regulation.

Unsurprisingly, most submissions also promoted alternative legislative approaches that favoured vested interests. For example, some submitters suggested that education was sufficient to prevent misuse. This mirrors a common argument that the tobacco industry uses to place the burden of responsibility on individuals. If you were to ask them, they just make the product — they don’t put it in children’s mouths and so aren’t to blame for nicotine addiction. Nor has youth use got anything to do with the millions the industry has spent on marketing designed to make these products look cool.

So what?

Our research suggests that persuasive and misleading communication practices are widely used by tobacco and vape industry actors to undermine the development of public policy that threatens their profits.

The tobacco industry remains one of the most profitable industries globally. They have the resources and motivation to protect their commercial interests and remain profitable in an increasingly hostile legislative environment. We must be vigilant to industry interference in policy making to protect health policy from commercial interference, especially via third parties whose links to the tobacco industry may not always be obvious. Measures that protect public policy from industry influence, misinformation and disinformation are urgently needed.

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control recognises that public health policy cannot be approached in the same way as commercial or economic policy. As a signatory to this treaty, Australia must be bold and entirely reject the views of those with a commercial interest.

Those who produce, promote and sell dangerous and addictive products have no place at the policy making table.

Associate Professor Michelle Jongenelis has expertise in health promotion, intervention development and evaluation, behavioural psychology, and clinical psychology. She works across multiple and diverse health-related behaviours including alcohol and tobacco control, nutrition, and physical activity.

Dr Rebekah Anderson is a lecturer and researcher whose work focuses on science communication and pro-environmental and health behaviour change.

Melissa Jones works in tobacco control at Cancer Council NSW.

The statements or opinions expressed in this article reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy of the AMA, the MJA or InSight+ unless so stated. 

Subscribe to the free InSight+ weekly newsletter here. It is available to all readers, not just registered medical practitioners. 

If you would like to submit an article for consideration, send a Word version to mjainsight-editor@ampco.com.au.