Product differentiation has been accepted. Now the bill must reflect it.
By Kurt Yeo
The Portfolio Committee on Health is set to begin clause-by-clause deliberations on the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill.
This is the point at which the committee’s conclusions must be translated into law.
The committee has already recognised an important principle: combustible and non-combustible products present different levels of risk and should be regulated accordingly.
The greatest harm associated with smoking primarily stems from combustion; drawing that conclusion is significant. Burning tobacco creates the toxic smoke responsible for most smoking-related cancers, cardiovascular disease and chronic lung disease. Products that do not burn tobacco may still carry risks, but they do not expose users to the same toxicological profile.
They are not harmless, but they are certainly not the same.
The challenge now is to consistently reflect this distinction throughout the bill.
Differentiation must be meaningful
Product differentiation cannot remain a general policy statement while the operative clauses continue to treat all products identically.
Every provision should be tested against a simple question:
Does this clause recognise the material difference between combustible and non-combustible products, or does it revert to the assumption that “harm is harm”?
Risk-proportionate regulation does not mean abandoning controls over non-combustible products. It means calibrating those controls according to the nature and level of risk they present.
Direct the strongest measures at the products that cause the greatest harm. Lower-risk alternatives should still be subject to age restrictions, product standards, responsible marketing rules and appropriate warnings, but regulation should not automatically erase the differences between them and cigarettes.
Harm reduction strengthens public health
Harm reduction is not an alternative to tobacco control. It is an integral component of tobacco control, as outlined in Article 1D of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
South Africa already applies harm reduction across public health. Condoms reduce HIV transmission. Seatbelts and crash helmets reduce injury. Medicines and prevention programmes reduce risk, even where it cannot be eliminated.
The same principle applies to smoking.
The best outcome is for smokers to quit completely. But many do not. For those who would otherwise continue smoking, moving away from combustion may reduce exposure to the substances responsible for most smoking-related disease.
Recognising this reality does not promote nicotine use. It acknowledges that reducing harm is better than allowing preventable harm to continue.
Legislation also communicates
Laws don’t just regulate products and behaviours; they also shape our understanding.
The Bill’s definitions, warnings and restrictions will influence what health professionals say, what the media reports and what the public believes.
Many smokers may conclude that switching offers no benefit if the Bill treats cigarettes and non-combustible alternatives as equally harmful. That would undermine informed decision-making and could discourage people from moving away from the most dangerous product.
Public health communication must be capable of expressing two truths at once:
Non-combustible products carry some risk, but substantially less than combustible tobacco does.
Accurate communication builds trust. Indiscriminate warnings may weaken it.
Regulation must work in practice
The committee must also consider enforcement practice.
South Africa already faces severe challenges with the illicit tobacco trade. Regulations that are overly restrictive, poorly targeted or difficult to enforce can strengthen illegal markets, weaken product oversight and divert limited enforcement resources.
A law is not effective because it appears strict on paper. It is effective when it changes behaviour, protects young people, reduces smoking-related harm and can be enforced consistently.
Protecting children must remain non-negotiable. Strong age restrictions, retail controls and penalties for unlawful sales are essential. But protecting young people and giving adult smokers accurate information are not opposing goals.
South Africa can do both.
The committee should hold its position
The committee reached its conclusion based on extensive public participation and expert evidence. Members listened, reconsidered earlier assumptions and accepted that product differentiation must guide the Bill.
That is evidence-based law making.
Clause-by-clause deliberations are now the opportunity to ensure that the principle survives in the final text.
South Africa does not need a law that merely appears tough. It needs one that is scientifically accurate, proportionate, enforceable and capable of reducing the death and disease caused by combustible tobacco.
The committee has recognised the difference and now needs to ensure that the bill also meets these criteria.
Yeo is the co-founder of Vaping Saved My Life
Loading ...