Anti-Vaping Misinformation: How Tobacco Control Distorts THR

Tobacco harm reduction (THR) is a public health strategy aimed at reducing the health risks associated with combustible tobacco use. It does so by promoting safer alternatives such as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), heated tobacco products (HTPs), and oral nicotine pouches. Despite this promising solution, many anti-THR articles routinely present these alternatives in misleading ways— ignoring scientific nuance, failing to compare harms relative to smoking, and misrepresenting data to amplify fear.

A recurring tactic is to generalize that alternative nicotine products “contain harmful substances,” while avoiding the more relevant question: how much and compared to what? A toxicology principle states, “the dose makes the poison.” In one example, Prof. Ayo-Yusuf cites that South African HTPs contain higher levels of carcinogens than those sold elsewhere—yet this comparison is used to imply that HTPs are inherently dangerous, without acknowledging that even these “higher” levels are still dramatically lower than those found in cigarettes. This omits the key distinction between combustion (burning tobacco) and heating it—a difference that significantly reduces the formation of toxicants.

Similarly, the article notes that smoking just one cigarette a day produces over 50% of the risk for coronary heart disease, a fact meant to downplay the benefits of “low exposure” to toxins; this statement is a red herring. Harm reduction is not about eliminating all risk and it doesn’t claim to be —it is about reducing risk when complete cessation isn’t achievable. By emphasizing “any harm” over “less harm,” such arguments ignore the real-world public health benefits of switching from smoking to reduced-risk products.

Lastly, the claim in this article that e-cigarettes “reduce long-term quitting” and “increase nicotine dependence” misrepresents the broader body of evidence, which shows that vaping can be a more effective cessation tool than traditional nicotine replacement therapy for some users. Highlighting dual use without acknowledging that it can be part of a transition away from smoking ignores the process many smokers go through on their path to quitting.

In conclusion, anti-THR content often relies on fear-based framing, selective evidence, and misleading comparisons. By failing to place risks in context and ignoring the clear differences between combustion and non-combustion, such narratives risk undermining informed public health choices and delaying the adoption of less harmful alternatives by people who need them most.

The full report is available here