Stories

A report from the Kentucky Injury Prevention and Research Center highlighted a rise in emergency department visits linked to vaping, sparking moral panic and alarming headlines. However, the increase in cases is influenced by coding changes and increased documentation, rather than solely reflecting a surge in vaping-related illnesses. Medical coding and biases play a significant role in this trend, raising questions about the accuracy of data and the need for transparent reporting. Policymakers and public health officials should carefully interpret the numbers to avoid misallocating resources and address the real health risks, such as smoking-related illnesses that remain a more significant public health concern.

Governments originally implemented smoking bans to protect individuals from secondhand smoke exposure, claiming health concerns. However, recent proposals to also ban vaping and nicotine pouches in public spaces suggest a hidden agenda of stigmatizing nicotine users. Despite lacking evidence of harm to bystanders, governments are enforcing unjust restrictions on these products. The comparison between cigarette smoke and e-cigarette vapor highlights the minimal risk posed by vapor. Policies should be evidence-based and respect personal liberties, rather than imposing unwarranted bans driven by moral panic. The true intention behind smoking bans seems to be controlling and marginalizing certain groups, rather than safeguarding public health.

The report "Regulating the Tobacco and Nicotine Market in the American Public Interest: A Reform Agenda for the FDA" emphasizes that safer alternatives to cigarettes—such as vapes, pouches, and heated tobacco—are being restricted by the FDA’s approval process, which has fueled the growth of an unregulated black market.

Philip Morris USA Inc. successfully challenged FDA rules on cigarette labeling and advertising in court, citing the agency's failure to disclose important data during the rulemaking process. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, including cigarette manufacturers and retailers, stating that the FDA's lack of transparency prejudiced their participation in the process. The FDA's attempt to enhance public understanding of smoking risks through new warning labels was supported by the judge, who found the agency's approach compliant with legal requirements. The case highlights legal battles over tobacco regulation and the balance between public health communication and industry interests.

The seizure of vaping products by federal authorities raises concerns for U.S. manufacturers, contradicting Trump's support for the industry. The Vapor Technology Association revealed that many seized products were American-made. The industry employs over 90,000 workers but faces regulatory challenges. Vaping, deemed less harmful than smoking, helps adults quit cigarettes. Critics question the FDA's focus on vaping over traditional tobacco products. Amid calls for clear guidelines and support for harm reduction, the industry struggles with limited FDA approvals. The crackdown and lack of regulation hinder American companies, despite the potential for domestic growth.

The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) has criticized the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) for making public registration for its COP11 conference in Geneva nearly impossible. Executive Coordinator Nancy Loucas called the process an "insane system" designed to exclude legitimate stakeholders. Requirements such as detailed documents, letters of intent, and CVs create unnecessary obstacles, while the applicant declaration effectively bars consumer advocacy groups. Loucas argues this reflects a long-standing pattern of exclusion within the WHO FCTC process.

A study led by Sulakshan Neupane at the University of Georgia, based on over 1.2 million CDC survey responses, found that exclusive e-cigarette users were 7% more likely to develop prediabetes compared to non-smokers, equal to about 7,000 additional cases per million users. Traditional smokers had a 15% higher risk, while dual users faced a 28% higher risk. Neupane warned that although e-cigarettes are marketed as a safer alternative, they may still contribute to long-term health problems such as prediabetes and diabetes.

Participants aged 18-35, including ENDS users and controls, underwent saliva and subgingival plaque collection. Periodontal screening was conducted using CPITN. Saliva was collected after rinsing with water. Puffing behavior was assessed, and VOC emissions were analyzed. Subgingival plaque samples were collected following HMP protocols. DNA isolation, amplicon sequencing, and taxonomic annotation were performed. Microbiome analysis included diversity assessment and beta diversity using Bray-Curtis distances. Functional profiling was done using Tax4Fun2. Salivary metabolomics were analyzed, and microbiome-metabolome functional connections explored. Network integration analysis using xMWAS was conducted. Statistical analyses were adjusted for demographic factors. The study aimed to understand oral microbiome responses to ENDS use and associated metabolomic changes.

In Kuala Lumpur, a vape shop faces closure due to Malaysia's planned vape ban by mid-2026, leading to uncertain industry regulations. Health experts advocate for controlled regulation over a complete ban, citing concerns of boosting an illicit market. Authorities are urged to enhance enforcement of existing tobacco product laws. While some warn of health risks, others propose a harm reduction approach. Public Health Ministry's comment is awaited amid industry uncertainties.

Public health’s assault on vaping and safer nicotine products isn’t guided by evidence, it’s driven by fear, outrage, and a profound misunderstanding of risk. At GFN 2025 in Warsaw, David Zaruk, the “Risk-Monger,” reveals how emotion overrides science in policymaking. From the misuse of the Precautionary Principle to the denormalization of entire industries, Zaruk argues that activist zeal and WHO dogma have turned nicotine into a moral battleground, sacrificing harm reduction and leaving millions of smokers without safer options.