NGOs have asked MPs to ensure incoming legislation puts the same marketing restrictions and health warnings on vaping products as those on cigarettes and other tobacco products.
At a hearing on the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill held by parliament's portfolio committee on health, anti-smoking bodies said vaping companies were allowed to use bright branding, event sponsorships and brand stretching to market their products.
The bill seeks standardised packaging and labelling on tobacco products and electronic delivery systems such as e-cigarettes and vapes, including graphic health warnings. It also seeks to completely prohibit the advertising of these products and the removal of vending machines that sell them.
Zanele Mthembu, South African lead for the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK) — a US anti-tobacco NGO — said they supported the bill without exception.
Citing a study conducted by a research unit at the University of Cape Town, Mthembu said enforcing plain package branding and graphic pictorial warnings on the packaging of tobacco and vaping products had a huge impact on consumer behaviour.
E-cigarettes are not only targeted, marketed, promoted and advertised to those who are smokers
— Zanele Mthembu of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
“The plain packets are perceived to be less desirable than branded packets”, meaning they were effective in discouraging people from smoking, she said.
CTFK describes itself as working in developing countries to address health challenges, including the impact of tobacco consumption on public health systems.
The business constituency of the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) has previously accused the organisation of manipulating the council’s report to parliament on the bill.
Mthembu said: “These products, the e-cigarettes, are widely available and accessible to anybody and everybody. They are not only targeted, marketed, promoted and advertised to those who are smokers.”
She was critical of the argument advanced by the vaping industry that the products contribute to harm reduction as a safer alternative to smoking.
She said the R12.5bn vaping industry had its own definition of harm reduction that allowed its products to saturate the South African market and appeal even to non-smokers.
“If the e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, nicotine pouches and everything else ... have to be available and allowed in South Africa, we would need strict regulation, and those measures would need to be followed.”
Lungile Mavundla, policy and advocacy officer at the National Council Against Smoking (NCAS), warned of “brand stretching”, which is the practice of selling one product while offering another product for free as an incentive for the purchase. For example, a vape brand called Nasty offers a free energy drink under the same brand with each disposable vape sold, she said.
“These products are advertised and promoted through various avenues, including the use of flavours ... we also see that the use of social media influencers is quite prominent. We see the use of event sponsorship through youth events.”
Azhar Zainal, vice-president of marketing at NSTY Holdings, denied that the company used its energy drinks to lure vaping customers, saying: “Nasty energy drinks and Nasty vape products are distinct product categories, managed separately, with their own distribution channels and regulatory considerations.”
Mavundla said there was a rise in vaping among young people who had never smoked cigarettes, and companies were using marketing strategies banned for traditional tobacco.
Asanda Gcoyi, business lead for Nedlac on the bill and CEO of the Vapour Products Association, said business was surprised that a Nedlac report and a revised bill had not been formally considered and that representatives had not been invited to present during the parliamentary hearings.
“This is concerning, given the significant time and effort spent deliberating on the bill. Failing to properly interrogate these documents risks undermining the procedural integrity of the committee as they near the end of oral presentations.”
She said the business constituency and Nedlac disagreed with some stakeholders’ positions on the risk profile of non-combustible nicotine products and how these should be treated in the bill.
“We objected to the inclusion of a well-known international anti-tobacco and anti-vaping NGO within the government constituency. This is significant because the CTFK is widely recognised for advancing a particular narrative in low- and middle-income countries — one that closely aligns with the views of its funder, Bloomberg Philanthropies.”
The only credible way to resolve the issue would be to convene a scientific forum to debate the science and ideally reach some form of consensus, Gcoyi said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.