The CoEHAR Founder prof. Riccardo Polosa addressed a letter to Australian Senators on the possible 2024 Vaping Reform. In the letter, the outcomes of ten years of scientific research conducted by the scientist and CoEHAR clearly emerge, firmly supporting harm reduction principles and warning of the consequences of a total ban of vaping products
The Australian Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 seeks to implement the second stage of a vaping reform: the aim is to prohibit the importation, domestic manufacture, supply, commercial possession and advertisement of non-therapeutic and disposable vaping goods.
As a result, vaping is effectively classified as a medicinal product to be prescribed by licensed physicians, pharmacists or authorized healthcare personnel.
This is the last measure to reform the Australian vaping law after the introduction of a ban on the importation of single-use vapes in January 2024, and a ban on all other vapes (unless certain requirements are met) in March 2024 .
However, this decision significantly contradicts the last decade of scientific research in the field of electronic nicotine delivery systems, completely disregarding harm reduction principles within healthcare policies.
Prof. Riccardo Polosa, founder of the CoEHAR and one of the most authoritative scientists in the field of tobacco harm reduction, decided to send an open letter to the Australian Senate to disseminate years of scientific research conducted at the Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction at the University of Catania.
The letter aims to clarify and consolidate the data that comes from the CoEHAR high-quality and excellence-driven research, by acknowledging four areas of interest when discussing vaping regulation: effectiveness, safety, youth vaping and regulation.
Prof. Polosa published the first randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of e-cigarettes in 2013: since then, over 150 studies have been published on vaping, solidifying CoEHAR as one of the most authoritative centers in the field.
According to the studies, “CoEHAR research in patients with COPD patients, asthma, high blood pressure, schizophrenia show clear benefits with objective evidence for harm reversal after switching from smoking.. and also showed that lung function and respiratory symptoms and muco-ciliary clearance improve after switching from smoking to vaping”.
One of the most pressing issues to address concerns youth addiction: according to many health organizations, vaping could serve as a substitute for combustible smoking, potentially leading to a gateway effect that drives young people toward cigarette
In 2022, a CoEHAR review on the evidence for youth vaping in the US concluded that “There was no evidence that vaping was a gateway to smoking and there was a dearth of data on the long-term health implications of EC usage in adolescents and young adults”.
Additionally, “There should be strict age verification on sale and harsh penalties and loss of licence for sales to minors. However, the harm from vaping by young people is likely to be small as most use is experimental and short term. Regular vaping is rare. There is also no good evidence that vaping causes young people to take up smoking”.
This is just the latest of several initiatives involving CoEHAR researchers, who have often sought to promote the culture and principles of harm reduction with governments worldwide, expressing both solidarity with public health choices and proposing alternative viewpoints based on the experience and findings of scientific research conducted in Catania, as in the case of South Africa or Malaysia.
A challenge that Professor Polosa also tackles within the Italian territory, which has decided to adopt a precautionary approach towards THR: during a hearing in the Social Affairs Commission of the Chamber, in the context of the examination of the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the ‘European plan to fight against cancer, prof. Polosa underlined the need of integrating the principle of harm reduction with existing measures, taking the example of virtuous countries such as Great Britain, Sweden, Norway and Japan.
These are clear examples of how science can effectively engage with governments to support public health decisions: such instances should be based on real and scientific data. Only by making decisions grounded in evidence, those changes in public health can be achieved.
In conclusion, the principle of lower risk associated with vaping products should reconsider a ban on harm reduction principles at the population level. Furthermore, a restrictive approach could have public health consequences for all smokers who are unable to quit.
Full letter attached
