Understanding commercial actors’ engagement in policy debates on proposed e-cigarette regulation in Scotland

Abstract

IntroductionThere is growing concern about transnational tobacco corporations’ (TTCs) and other commercial actors’ involvement in e-cigarette policy development. Previous analyses suggest that TTCs used e-cigarette debates to demonstrate alignment with public health and re-gain policy influence. Less is known about the engagement of other types of commercial actors in e-cigarette policy debates.MethodsThis paper is the first to empirically analyse commercial actors’ engagement in an e-cigarette policy consultation process and to examine their views on proposed regulation. It applies mixed methods, drawing on policy consultation submissions (n=32), semi-structured interviews (n=9) and a social network analysis of website links among 32 commercial actors.ResultsThe results show that commercial actors’ positions on e-cigarette regulation aligned with business interests. TTCs, independent e-cigarette manufacturers and other non-licensed commercial actors were opposed to most aspects of potential e-cigarette regulation (except for age of sale restrictions), whereas licensed commercial actors, including pharmaceutical companies, supported more stringent regulation. While collaboration was viewed as strategically important to gain policy influence, distinct commercial interests and concerns about TTC credibility led to strategic distancing and to collaboration being largely confined to sector boundaries. In addition to reiterating arguments employed by TTCs in previous regulatory debates, commercial actors focused on highlighting the technical complexity and harm reduction potential of e-cigarettes.ConclusionAwareness of the various commercial interests and strategic positioning of commercial actors in e-cigarette policy should inform public health advocacy and policy development, including managing conflicts of interest in the context of Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Article 5.3.

Arguments used by proponents and opponents in Brazil’s regulatory discussions of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products

“…Regarding the use of the argument ‘aggressive marketing’, a research group at Stanford University compared the images used today and in the past and found that the pattern was very similar: e-cigarettes are associated with sophistication and cheerful lifestyle and even use the images of health professionals endorsing the use of such products 34 35. In contrast, in the UK tobacco and e-cigarette industries opposed to the restriction of marketing of e-cigarettes claimed that these practices were already controlled by self-regulation and social responsibility practices 12…”

“…Discussions on the regulation of e-cigarettes have been held in several countries, namely in the UK 10. Government and non-government organisations, and researchers in the UK who have traditionally supported strong tobacco control were divided 10–12. Despite both sides claiming to be supported by the evidence, some have advocated that e-cigarettes should be regulated as tobacco products, while others wanted to regulate them as pharmaceutical products.…”

Understanding experts’ conflicting perspectives on tobacco harm reduction and e-cigarettes: An interpretive policy analysis

“…Ikegwuonu et al, by contrast, analyzed commercial actors engagement in an e-cigarette policy consultation in Scotland, finding that commercial actors' positions on e-cigarette regulation aligned with business interests (41). Transnational tobacco companies, independent ecigarette manufacturers and other non-licensed commercial actors were largely opposed to most e-cigarette regulations, while licensed commercial actors, such as pharmaceutical companies, supported significantly more regulations.…”

Legal Education for a Tobacco-Free Lifestyle in Muslim Communities

“…A study suggests that no-smoking signs, when not supported by regulations, do not significantly impact smoking behaviour; therefore, installing no-smoking signs is crucial (Platter & Pokorny, 2018). Studies in several countries support tobacco restrictions and the placement of health warning signs due to smoking behaviour (Payán et al, 2022), and collaboration is considered strategically crucial for policy influence (Ikegwuonu et al, 2021).…”