Une campagne de promotion du vapotage, financée par des intérêts industriels, s'attaque au projet de loi sud-africain sur le tabac à un stade crucial, celui de l'examen clause par clause

Business Tech recently published a paid “Partner” content presented by Vaping Saved My Life (VSML) and authored by its co-founder, who has previously disclosed consulting work for the Vapour Products Association of South Africa (VPASA), an industry body representing commercial vaping interests and which has historically included tobacco-company-owned vaping interests among its membership.

The sponsored article, titled “Product differentiation has been accepted. Now the Bill must reflect it,” explicitly urges Parliament to ensure that the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill provides “meaningful” regulatory differentiation between combustible and non-combustible products. The article argues that this differentiation should extend across key provisions of the Bill and advances familiar harm reduction arguments concerning relative risk, consumer information, illicit trade and regulatory implementation.

The timing is particularly noteworthy. The paid policy communication appeared as Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Health entered the critical clause-by-clause stage of considering the Bill,when members move from debating its broad principles to determining the wording and regulatory effect of individual provisions. The intervention therefore goes beyond general advocacy for vaping or tobacco harm reduction: it seeks a specific regulatory outcome at a consequential point in South Africa’s legislative process.

The commercial links surrounding advocacy are relevant to understanding the interests represented. Although VSML presents itself as a consumer advocacy organization, its co-founder has publicly disclosed consulting work for VPASA. VPASA represents manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of vaping products and engages government and regulators on vaping policy. Its membership has also historically included tobacco-company-owned vaping interests. These documented relationships underscore the importance of transparency when apparently consumer-led organisations participate in tobacco and nicotine policy debate, particularly where readers and policymakers are unaware of the relationship behind the messenger.

The Portfolio Committee should therefore ensure that its deliberations remain consistent with Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), which requires Parties to protect public health policies from the commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry. This includes ensuring transparency around industry and industry-linked engagement, limiting interactions with the tobacco industry to those strictly necessary for effective regulation, and carefully scrutinizing commercially aligned submissions and policy arguments.

As Parliament considers the Bill clause by clause, the overriding consideration should remain the protection of public health. Regulatory decisions should be guided by independent public health evidence and the public interest, rather than commercial interests seeking preferential treatment for particular nicotine products.

Lisez l’article réservé aux partenaires de Business Tech:https://businesstech.co.za/news/industry-news/868568/product-differentiation-has-been-accepted-now-the-bill-must-reflect-it/