Is There A Problem With Vape Advocacy?

Is there a problem with advocacy organisation claiming to represent vapers? One newspaper certainly thinks so in a recent article. It called some groups “AstroTurf” and sought to impugn their motives, but genuine independent voices exist who work hard to campaign for evidence-based policy making when it comes to smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction.

What is an AstroTurf organisation?

Groups that campaign for causes are commonplace in modern society. Name something and there’ll be a group who speak out for or against it, usually made up of those who have been personally impacted by the subject. They seek to sway public opinion and hope to influence future events through raising awareness or influencing government policy. These are commonly spoken of as being “money-poor but people-rich”, low on funds but have many volunteers or advocates.

An AstroTurf organisation wants to give the appearance of being a grassroots entity but is covertly funded by a large company or collection of companies. It purports to be grassroots but will only have a few people working for it and a large amount of money to spend on advertising, entertainment, and resources such as banks of data and access to politicians of a similar political philosophy.

William Greider, a journalist, said that AstroTurf groups represent “democracy for hire.”

What did the newspaper say about vaping and AstroTurf groups?

It is no secret that the tobacco industry funded groups claiming to campaign on behalf of smokers. The one in the UK continues to campaign, consisting of one man and a lot of money.

The vaping movement developed organically as it was a consumer driven technology. Ex-smokers switched to vaping and began their own juice companies, manufacturing businesses, retail shops, and spoke to their friends about the success they had switching from smoking to vapes – educating the public and advocating for the wider adoption of vape devices.

The first consumer group was entirely made up from everyday people. This gave way to the New Nicotine Alliance (NNA), a group of unpaid volunteers with an interest in or experience of reducing tobacco related harm and promoting research evidence about nicotine and its use. The NNA is proud to say it doesn’t take any of its funding from the tobacco or ecig industries, relying on donations from the public.

Over the last few years a number of other “consumer” groups have appeared on the scene who conduct high profile advertising campaigns on social media. The Guardian says they are “being run by secretive lobby groups with links to Big Tobacco.”

Why is this an issue for vaping?

The article quotes some people who have been campaigning against electronic cigarettes since they first became aware of them. When a group advocating for tobacco harm reduction products such as vapes is shown to take tobacco money it gives ammunition to those people and muddies the water when it comes to open and honest debate about the evidence.

The article points to the AstroTurf campaigns encouraging ecig users to contact their MPs to oppose the World Health Organization (WHO) – but this is also the position of the NNA because of the real threat the WHO poses to the success the UK has experienced with reducing smoking rates, through calling for outright bans.

The Guardian writes that one ad says: “The UK must stand up for our sovereignty, protect the right for smokers to choose less harmful alternatives and make it clear to the WHO that UK laws are decided by us.”

It quotes the Head of the WHO’s No Tobacco Unit describing them as “misinformation” and claiming the WHO’s position is “based on the best scientific evidence available”.

The NNA believes the WHO’s forthcoming conference presents a real risk and that such statements are not misinformation at all. See https://vapekit.co.uk/blog/who-plays-bad-cop/

Clive Bates is an independent harm reduction expert who used to be a Director of Action on Smoking and Health. He produces a regular blog called The Counterfactual.

Mr Bates says the WHO “continues to present misleading information about e-cigarettes that spreads doubt and confusion among the public, media and policymakers.”

The WHO claims that vaping leads no-smokers into using tobacco. Mr Bates says: “There is no evidence to support a causal gateway effect and much to suggest the opposite, notably the dramatic decline in youth smoking in the United States that coincided with a rapid rise in youth vaping”.

The WHO claims that vaping causes heart disease and lung disorders. Mr Bates says: “There is no convincing evidence that [vapes] are seriously harmful to health.” He points out that the research the WHO relies on ignores the possible impact of decades of smoking prior to the adoption of ecigs.

The WHO asks: “Are e-cigarettes more or less dangerous than conventional tobacco cigarettes?” Mr Bates responds: “The most important feature … is that WHO does not answer this question with a truthful answer like ‘much less dangerous’. This is the correct unambiguous answer based on current scientific knowledge. In fact, WHO does not answer the question it poses at all – I suspect this is in order not to have to answer it truthfully.”

So, should I be concerned about the newspaper article and AstroTurf organisations?

Yes, it can act against the best interests of vapers because it entrenches a view in politicians that all advocates for ecigs are in the pay of the tobacco industry, negating their views and barring them from discussions.

And no, because the independent evidence amassed from UK studies is overwhelmingly positive – so positive in fact that it appears the UK delegation to this year’s WHO conference will include a leading light in vape/harm reduction research, being able to influence other nations and confirming to Parliament that we are on the right road and vaping is a means to end decades of tobacco related misery and suffering.

The NNA will continue to speak out on behalf of nicotine consumers and be your voice at conferences and government committee evidence gathering events, advocates such as Clive Bates will continue to speak truth to power, and the body of supportive research will continue to grow at British universities.