E-cigarettes: A framework for comparative history and policy.

BACKGROUND: England, Australia and the United States have approached the regulation of e-cigarettes in very different ways, yet all three countries have appealed to the concept of evidence as underpinning policy responses. We compared these policy responses using a combination of the methodologies of historians and policy scientists in order to elucidate the factors that had influenced policy in each country. ARGUMENT/ANALYSIS: Each country's evidence and values intersected in different ways, producing very different responses within specific national contexts and histories. Our analysis accordingly emphasized the historical precursors of the policy issues raised by e-cigarettes and placed the policy debate within the context of regulatory bodies and the networks of researchers and advocates who influenced policy. Issues also of importance were the nature of the state; political context; the pre-history of nicotine for smoking cessation; the role of activism and its links with government; the influence of harm reduction ideas from drugs and HIV; and finally, whom policy was perceived to benefit. In the United Kingdom, based on this pre-history of the smoking issue, it was the existing smoker, while in the United States and Australia, protecting children and adolescents has played a central role. CONCLUSIONS: Structural and historical factors appear to underpin differences in e-cigarette policy development in England, Australia and the United States.

The E-Cigarette Debate: What Counts as Evidence?

Two major public health evaluations of e-cigarettes-one from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), the other from Public Health England (PHE)-were issued back to back in the winter of 2018. While some have read these analyses as broadly consistent, providing support for the view that e-cigarettes could play a role in smoking harm reduction, in every major respect, they come to very different conclusions about what the evidence suggests in terms of public health policy. How is that possible? The explanation rests in what the 2 reports see as the central challenge posed by e-cigarettes, which helped to determine what counted as evidence. For NASEM, the core question was how to protect nonsmokers from the potential risks of exposure to nicotine and other contaminants or from the risk of smoking combustible cigarettes through renormalization. A precautionary standard was imperative, making evidence that could speak most conclusively to the question of causality paramount. For PHE, the priority was how to reduce the burdens now borne by current smokers, burdens reflected in measurable patterns of morbidity and mortality. With a focus on immediate harms, PHE turned to evidence that was "relevant and meaningful." Thus, competing priorities determined what counted as evidence when it came to the impact of e-cigarettes on current smokers, nonsmoking bystanders, and children and adolescents. A new clinical trial demonstrating the efficacy of e-cigarettes as a cessation tool makes understanding how values and framing shape core questions and conclusive evidence imperative.

The Two Faces of Fear: A History of Hard-Hitting Public Health Campaigns Against Tobacco and AIDS.

Fear is now commonly used in public health campaigns, yet for years ethical and efficacy-centered concerns provided a challenge to using fear in such efforts. From the 1950s through the 1970s, the field of public health believed that using fear to influence individual behavior would virtually always backfire. Yet faced with the limited effectiveness of informational approaches to cessation, antitobacco campaigns featured fear in the 1960s. These provoked little protest outside the tobacco industry. At the outset of the AIDS epidemic, fear was also employed. However, activists denounced these messages as stigmatizing, halting use of fear for HIV/AIDS until the 21st century. Opposition began to fracture with growing concerns about complacency and the risks of HIV transmission, particularly among gay men. With AIDS, fear overcame opposition only when it was framed as fair warning with the potential to correct misperceptions.