Industry actor communication practices in submissions on electronic nicotine delivery system policy in Australia

Commercial actor interference in public health policy is recognised as an impediment to the effective regulation of harmful products. To provide greater insights into the strategies being used to sway public policy related to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), we examined the communication practices adopted by those with a direct and indirect stake in these products in their submissions to government consultations.

We conducted a content analysis of 196 submissions made by ENDS industry actors (eg, manufacturers, retailers, trade associations) to 13 public consultations conducted during a critical period in Australian ENDS legislation (2017-2023). Adapting a framework used in alcohol and tobacco control, we classified communication practices into higher-order categories (eg, misuse of evidence, logical fallacies/flawed arguments). We also coded the specific arguments used in submissions.

Almost all submissions featured the misuse of evidence (96%), with the use of unsupported factual assertions (92%) and the promotion of weak evidence (79%) the most common practices identified. Most submissions featured logical fallacies (88%). In terms of the arguments used, almost all submissions featured content denying the effectiveness of ENDS control strategies (95%), with (1) unsubstantiated claims about the adverse effects of ENDS restrictions (85%) and (2) the promotion of alternative regulation that favours vested interests (85%) most common.

Those with direct and indirect financial interests in ENDS are engaging in misleading communication practices to interfere with public policy. Immediate action is required to limit the influence of these actors on policymaking and protect population health.