Who Speaks for Consumers? Industry Funding Links Raise Transparency Questions Over Vaping Advocacy on Kenya’s Tobacco Bill

ATIM calls for transparency as internationally connected vaping advocacy group seeks weaker regulation of new nicotine products

As Kenya considers amendments to strengthen its tobacco-control legislation, an international vaping advocacy organisation has entered the policy debate calling for differentiated regulation of vaping and other nicotine products.

On 3 July 2026, the World Vapers’ Alliance (WVA) published an article titled “Kenya’s Tobacco Control Bill Should Follow Science, Not Fear,” arguing that the proposed Tobacco Control Amendment Bill fails to adequately distinguish between cigarettes and newer nicotine products. The article calls for regulation based on claimed differences in product risk and argues against applying similar restrictions across different nicotine products.Presented as the voice of consumers, WVA describes itself as a global movement representing vapers and advocating for access to what it calls lower-risk nicotine products. However, understanding who stands behind such advocacy is important when assessing apparently independent consumer perspectives entering public health policymaking.

Following the network behind the messenger

WVA itself acknowledges that it was originally launched by the Consumer Choice Center (CCC) and continues to receive partial funding from the organisation. CCC similarly publicly confirms that it established WVA as part of its tobacco harm-reduction advocacy. Independent tobacco-industry monitoring provides additional context. Tobacco Tactics reports that CCC has received funding from transnational tobacco companies and has campaigned against tobacco control measures in several jurisdictions. It also reports that WVA has previously received direct funding from British American Tobacco.

These documented relationships do not establish that a tobacco company commissioned, funded or directed the specific July intervention in Kenya, and ATIM has found no evidence to make such a claim. They do, however, demonstrate why transparency about organisational origins, funding and relationships matters when advocacy organisations present themselves to policymakers and the public primarily as independent consumer voices.

A familiar policy message at a critical moment

The timing and content of the intervention are particularly relevant. Kenya is considering legislation that would strengthen regulation of emerging tobacco and nicotine products at the same time that tobacco companies are seeking to expand these products in the country. WVA argues that Kenya should adopt differentiated regulation based on relative risk and invokes international examples to support greater regulatory accommodation for alternative nicotine products. This policy framing closely corresponds with arguments increasingly advanced by tobacco and nicotine companies seeking different regulatory treatment for their non-combustible product portfolios.

Alignment of policy positions does not, by itself, establish coordination. However, where organisations advancing such positions have documented funding or institutional relationships within networks connected to tobacco- and//or vaping-industry funding, policymakers should know whose interests and perspectives are represented when assessing their submissions.

Kenya should protect its policymaking from vested interests

The issue is not whether consumers should participate in policymaking. Their voices are important. The issue is whether organisations claiming to represent consumers provide sufficient transparency for policymakers and the public to understand their funding, affiliations and potential commercial relationships. Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control requires governments to protect public health policies from the commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry. That protection becomes increasingly important as tobacco companies diversify beyond cigarettes and policy advocacy is channelled through broader networks of consumer groups, trade associations, consultants and other third parties.

Kenyan policymakers should therefore require full disclosure of relevant funding and affiliations from organisations and individuals participating in the tobacco and nicotine policy process and carefully assess whether apparently independent submissions have direct or indirect commercial connections.

A regional pattern that deserves attention

The Kenyan intervention also comes as similar arguments for “product differentiation” and tobacco harm reduction are being advanced elsewhere in Africa.

In South Africa, ATIM recently highlighted paid advocacy seeking differentiated treatment for non-combustible products while Parliament considers its Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill clause by clause. The messenger in that intervention had a publicly disclosed consultancy relationship with South Africa’s vaping-industry association and links to WVA.

The recurrence of similar arguments through interconnected advocacy networks across different African policy processes warrants regional scrutiny and response. It does not prove that individual interventions are centrally coordinated by tobacco companies. It does demonstrate why tobacco-industry monitoring must increasingly look beyond tobacco-company statements themselves and examine the organisations, funding relationships and networks behind the messenger.

ATIM calls on governments, parliamentarians, civil society organisations and journalists across Africa to ask a simple question whenever ostensibly independent consumer or expert voices intervene in tobacco and nicotine policy debates:

Who speaks for consumers? Who stands behind the organisations speaking in their name?

Transparency is not a reason to exclude legitimate consumer participation. It is a necessary condition for ensuring that policymakers can distinguish genuinely independent perspectives from advocacy occurring within networks that have documented commercial-industry relationships.