The government's public consultation on "Tobacco and vapes: packaging, appearance and display" is open until 11:59pm on October 2nd. You can respond using the online survey at this link. You can read the NNA's briefing on the consultation here.
Consumers are stakeholders too
There is something deeply wrong with the way consumers are treated in the debate over tobacco and nicotine policy.
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) recently encouraged people to respond to the consultation on tobacco and vape packaging, appearance and display. It even provided guidance on which boxes respondents should tick. Yet it condemned consumer associations for doing the same, ominously commenting that “some vape industry and consumer groups are mobilising opposition to the proposed vape regulations through the ‘SaveVaping’ campaign and lobbying through the media.”
While we welcome the link to the NNA’s campaign website, it is extremely disappointing that ASH has chosen to imply that consumers taking part in the democratic process is somehow wrong. As a reminder, according to government statistics, there are approximately 9 million users of nicotine products (smokers, vapers, dual users etc). That’s 9 million total stakeholders. Why should their participation be criticised?
When ASH tells people to respond to a government consultation, that is apparently legitimate advocacy. But when consumer organisations encourage people to respond, it is suddenly described as “industry mobilisation”, an extraordinary double standard.
Consumers are not only legitimate stakeholders, but they should also be the most important ones. Consumers have a direct and personal interest in the laws being proposed, and they have every right to organise, campaign and make their views known.
A consumer who argues against a proposed restriction is not transformed into an industry lobbyist simply because a manufacturer might also oppose the restriction. Public consultation responses should be legitimate whichever side of an argument they come from, they cannot suddenly become illegitimate when they oppose it.
We would like to ask exactly who is ASH representing when they make comments such as this. Where is the serious consideration of the interests of people who continue to smoke, including those who might otherwise switch to lower risk alternatives? Where is the concern for adults who have quit smoking by using vaping products and nicotine pouches?
Why should people who have successfully moved away from combustible tobacco and do not want government policy to make that alternative less accessible, less attractive or more expensive, not have their say?
ASH’s attitude appears to be more interested in defending a policy agenda than understanding, or even caring about, adults who are most affected by the measures being proposed. Smokers and nicotine consumers have a great deal at stake. They bear the consequences of taxation, restrictions, stigma, reduced choice and, potentially, the growth of illicit markets when legal products become unnecessarily difficult to obtain.
Yet consumers are almost always absent from the rooms where policy is discussed. Organisations now produce reports about what is supposedly best for smokers and vapers while consumers themselves are never invited to give evidence and discuss policy. For example, consumers have been completely excluded from all oral evidence sessions in formulating the Tobacco and Vapes Act.
Instead, organisations with privileged access to ministers, officials and parliamentary committees can present themselves as the voice of “public health”, while consumer representatives struggle to get a seat at the table.
ASH and other organisations are perfectly entitled to oppose vaping, support tighter restrictions or advocate whatever policies they believe are appropriate. But they should not be allowed to define the boundaries of legitimate participation.
Consumers should not have to rely on public health organisations that have decided in advance what is best for them and will condemn them for expressing their views. Ignoring the public is not the way to approach public health.
Consumers have legitimate interests that deserve consideration. And when they disagree with government policy, they have exactly the same democratic right as everyone else to say so.
A consultation is not supposed to be an exercise in collecting only the answers policymakers want to hear. It is supposed to listen to the people affected by the decision and that includes consumers.