Use of supporting evidence by health and industry organisations in the consultation on e-cigarette regulations in New Zealand

Abstract

Objectives: Scientific evidence to support the development of appropriate policy for electronic cigarette use is limited by rapidly changing technology and a lack of long-term data. Perceptions of risk and benefits determine diverse framings of the e-cigarette debate and complicate policy decisions. E-cigarette use by smokers who are attempting to quit may result in improved health outcomes, while their use among young people and non-smokers may lead to adverse health consequences. The purpose of this study was to identify the types of evidence used during public consultations on proposed revisions to New Zealand's e-cigarette legislation in 2020.

Methods: Using submissions to parliament made by the tobacco/e-cigarette industry and the health sector, we assessed the cited evidence for quality and independence measured by publication type and tobacco industry connections. We identified themes from a sub-sample of frequently cited evidence to understand how stakeholders and organisations used evidence.

Results: The sample consisted of 57 submissions from the e-cigarette and tobacco industry (n = 21) and health organisations (n = 36). A total of 442 pieces of evidence were cited at least once. Health organisations were more likely to cite peer-reviewed evidence (OR = 2.99). The industry was more likely to cite evidence outside of peer review and sources with tobacco industry connections (OR = 4.08). In the sample of frequently cited evidence, youth prevalence and flavours were the most common themes. In some cases the same evidence was used by both groups to support opposing policy positions.

Conclusions: The industry continues to rely more heavily on evidence published outside of the peer-review process, which is, therefore, subjected to less scientific scrutiny. By using a smoking-cessation or harm-reduction narrative, the industry could be seen as a legitimate stakeholder in policy development.

Fig 1. Sample identification procedure.