Vaping Control
New Zealand moves to ban vaping ads, sales to minors
(Reuters) – New Zealand’s government said on Sunday it will introduce laws banning all advertisements of e-cigarettes and the sale of such products to people under 18 in a move to regulate a market that has been under pressure globally.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-vaping/new-zealand-moves-to-ban-vaping-ads-sales-to-minors-idUSKCN20H00M
A string of vaping-related deaths and illnesses tied to e-cigarettes, which allow users to inhale nicotine vapor, often flavored, without smoking, have been reported in the United States, leading to lawsuits and restrictions.
The New Zealand bill, posted on the health ministry’s website, also seeks to ban e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in smoke-free areas, restrict who can sell them and give the government the powers to recall or suspend vaping products.
“We are making sure that we are protecting our kids but at the same time ensuring that smokers who want to use vaping as a quit tool still have access to those products,” Associate Health Minister Jeny Salesa told state-owned TVNZ.
Although the number of people smoking has steadily fallen in New Zealand, according to official data, nearly one in eight adults, or close to half a million people, are regular cigarette smokers.
The government said in the bill, which will be proposed to parliament on Monday, that it “acknowledges” that vaping and smokeless tobacco products are less harmful than smoking and the bill would exempt vaping products from some of the provisions that apply to tobacco products.
“(The bill) enables all retailers to display products in-store, in contrast to requirements that require tobacco products to be out of the public’s sight,” the government said.
In the United States, the Trump administration earlier this year banned some popular e-cigarette flavours to curb rising teenage use of vaping products, allowing only menthol and tobacco flavours to remain on the market.
The New Zealand government came short of prohibiting flavours, but the bill limits general stores, such as convenience outlets, to selling only three flavours: tobacco, mint and menthol.
“Flavors may be used to attract children and young people to vape or use smokeless tobacco products, however, they also seem to be an important factor in supporting smokers to switch,” the government said in the bill.
Framing and scientific uncertainty in nicotine vaping product regulation
An examination of competing narratives among health and medical organisations in the UK, Australia and New Zealand
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395920300402
Abstract
Aims
To compare the policy positions of health and medical organisations across Australia, New Zealand, and the UK as they relate to sale and supply of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and evaluate factors that have informed the differences in policy recommendations among these countries.
Methods
We used mixed methods to analyse data from position or policy statements published by health and medical organisations regarding NVPs (n = 30) and consultation documents submitted to government committees regarding policy options for the regulation of NVPs (n = 26). Quality assessment of included documents was conducted using the six-item Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, and findings were presented narratively. Qualitative data were coded using NVivo 12 software and analysed using thematic analysis.
Results
An overwhelming majority of health bodies, charities and government agencies in the UK and New Zealand portrayed NVPs as a life-saving harm reduction tool. In contrast, concerns about addicting non-smoking youth to nicotine, a perceived lack of clear and convincing evidence of safety and efficacy and the potential to undermine tobacco control progress continues to define attitudes and recommendations towards NVPs among Australian health and medical organisations. Although the profoundly divided views among stakeholders seem to arise from empirical uncertainties and disagreements over the level and credibility of evidence, the source of most of these disagreements can be traced back to the fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the framing of the NVP debate, and varied tolerability of risk trade-offs associated with NVPs.
Conclusion
Progress in resolving the controversy surrounding NVP policy requires stakeholders to be frame-reflective and engage in a meaningful dialogue of risk trade-offs, as well as both intended and unintended consequences of proposed policies.