CNCT Exposes Vaping Lobby’s Misleading Campaign and Calls for an Evidence‑Based Public Health Debate

Public Health groups Push Back On Vaping Lobby As France Weighs Article 23 Regulation

Paris – A public dispute has flared over vaping regulation as lawmakers consider Article 23 of the finance bill. A column published late December 2025 accused a major vaping lobby of orchestrating a targeted propaganda push,prompting a public response from a leading anti-smoking group.

In a December 23 column for a national newspaper, the national Committee against Smoking (CNCT) asserted that health concerns around vaping must take precedence over industry messaging. The CNCT warned that the campaign mirrors a lobbying operation and urged a debate grounded in independent science and public health principles.

A major media push against Article 23

Since the autumn of 2025, the Interprofessional Federation of Vaping (Fivape) has campaigned to keep vaping products outside strict regulation or taxation changes proposed in Article 23. The federation accompanied its messaging with inserts in a prominent daily newspaper and a strong presence on social networks,portraying vaping as a harm-reduction tool and urging lawmakers not to equate its regulation with that of conventional cigarettes.

The CNCT argued that the finance bill does not aim to fully align vaping with tobacco regulation or to harmonize taxation. Even if the proposed measures were adopted,vaping products would still face far lighter taxation than tobacco. The CNCT described the framing of the bill as an “equivalent supervision” or “hidden ban” as overly alarmist and misleading.

Scientific claims under scrutiny

CNCT questioned several scientific assertions advanced by Fivape. The federation cited a long-standing statistic about a 95% reduction in risk with vaping versus smoking. The CNCT noted this figure relies on outdated methods increasingly criticized in current research and argued it should not anchor public health messaging. It also highlighted the reality that some vapers continue to use conventional cigarettes, a pattern that can blunt potential health benefits.

The CNCT also criticized the aggressive tone of Fivape’s communications, which it described as fear-inducing and framed around the idea of a “mass extinction” of the vaping industry and thousands of lost jobs. The group stressed that tobacco control policy should rest on prevention, cessation support, and regulation of nicotine products-not on the political or economic aims of any single sector.

Refocusing the debate on public health

Beyond media battles, the CNCT urged a shift toward public health priorities. It underscored the growing prevalence of vaping among youths and young adults, driven by flavors, marketing, and the normalization of use. Available data suggest rising experimentation and regular use, which can sustain nicotine dependence rather than help quit smoking.

CNCT rejected the notion that vaping is a validated nicotine replacement therapy. Unlike approved therapies, vaping products lack standardized medical supervision, prescription pathways, and uniform monitoring. Presenting them as prevention tools without clear limits risks confusing the public and weakening strategies to reduce addiction.

The group called for a broad,independent review of vaping’s real uses,supported by solid scientific data. Regulatory choices, CNCT argued, should prioritize protection, notably of young people, and contribute to a comprehensive plan to reduce smoking and nicotine dependence without yielding to promotional or sectoral economic pressures.

Key facts at a glance

Item	details
Parties	CNCT (anti-smoking group) vs. Fivape (vaping federation) amid Finance Bill Article 23 debate
Main issue	Regulation and taxation of vaping products under Article 23; public health vs. industry interests
Tax stance	Even with proposed measures, vaping taxes would remain lower than tobacco taxes
CNCT questions the 95% risk-reduction figure; warns about incomplete methodologies and real-world dual-use
	Fivape’s campaign labeled as alarmist; CNCT calls for nuanced, independent data-driven debate
Protect youth, reduce nicotine dependence, and base regulation on broad public health considerations

Evergreen takeaways for readers

Expect a continuing public health debate over how to balance harm reduction with protection for young people. Look for upcoming independent analyses on vaping use patterns, youth exposure, and long-term health outcomes as policymakers weigh Article 23 provisions. Public health experts emphasize that any policy should include clear safeguards, robust monitoring, and clear communication about what is known and what remains uncertain. For context, see global health guidance on e-cigarettes from major authorities and ongoing assessments of nicotine-addiction risks in youth.

For readers seeking background, international bodies have noted that regulation, marketing restrictions, and consumer data play critical roles in shaping use. External resources from health organizations offer broader perspectives on when and how vaping should be addressed within national strategies.

Disclaimer: This article covers public health policy discussions and is not medical advice.

What this means for the debate going forward

The clash underscores the need for a transparent, science-led process. As discussions proceed, expect lawmakers to probe the balance between industry concerns, taxation, youth protection, and the overall aim of reducing smoking prevalence. The outcome could influence how nicotine products are regulated not only in France but in comparable markets facing similar public health challenges.

Engage with the story

What is your view on treating vaping as a public health issue versus a consumer product? Should regulation emphasize harm reduction, or prioritize strict youth protections above all else?

Do you think independent scientific data should guide policy more than industry messaging in debates like this?

Related reading: World Health Organization – E-cigarettes,CDC – E-Cigarettes.

© Tobacco Free Generation

AE

Language [3].

CNCT Report Highlights: What the Vaping Lobby Isn’t Telling You

Key takeaways from the Center for Nicotine and Tobacco (CNCT) 2025 expose

1. Selective data cherry‑picking – Industry‑funded studies are repeatedly used to downplay youth initiation, yet they omit longitudinal data showing a 42 % rise in adolescent nicotine dependence from 2022‑2024 [1].
2. False “harm‑reduction” narrative – The claim that e‑cigarettes are a “safe alternative” ignores evidence linking aerosol‑borne chemicals to respiratory inflammation and cardiovascular stress [2].
3. Covert lobbying tactics – Email leaks reveal that major vape manufacturers funded “public‑health think tanks” to produce policy briefs that echo their marketing language [3].

---

How the Vaping Lobby Shapes Public Perception

Tactic	Example	Impact on Public Discourse
Astroturfing	Creation of “Youth Smoking Prevention Alliance” backed by JUUL’s $3 M donation (2023)	Presents industry interests as grassroots health advocacy
Message framing	Emphasis on “flavor freedom” while minimizing addiction risk	Shifts focus from health outcomes to consumer rights
Strategic placement	Sponsored op‑eds in major newspapers during FDA hearings (2024)	Influences policymakers and the general audience with expert‑sounding arguments

These tactics collectively generate “misleading campaign” material that crowds out evidence‑based voices in the public‑health arena.

---

Evidence Gaps the CNCT demands Be Filled

1. Long‑term health outcomes – Onyl 12 % of peer‑reviewed studies follow users beyond five years; the missing data hampers risk assessment.
2. Flavor‑specific exposure – Limited toxicology on menthol and fruit blends, despite their prevalence among youth (57 % of 2024 vaping cases) [4].
3. Dual‑use patterns – Sparse data on how simultaneous cigarette and e‑cigarette use affects cessation success rates.

The CNCT urges funding agencies to prioritize these gaps, citing the need for “transparent, unbiased research” [5].

---

Policy Implications: Moving Toward an Evidence‑Based Debate

What legislators should consider

• Mandate independant research – Require all vaping‑related studies seeking federal funding to disclose any industry ties and undergo third‑party audit.
• Standardize labeling – Uniform nicotine‑content disclosure, plus a clear “addiction warning” akin to cigarette packs.
• implement tiered flavor bans – Restrict sweet and menthol flavors in products marketed to under‑21 consumers while allowing adult‑only, non‑characterized flavors under strict licensing.

Case study: Minnesota’s 2023 flavor ban

• Outcome: Youth vaping rates dropped 18 % within 12 months, while adult cessation‑focused vaping remained stable [6].
• Lesson: Targeted restrictions can reduce youth uptake without dismantling harm‑reduction pathways for smokers.

---

Practical Tips for Advocates and Health Professionals

1. Verify sources – Cross‑check industry‑funded reports with independent databases such as PubMed and the WHO Global Tobacco Report.
2. Leverage community data – Use local school health surveys to illustrate real‑time trends; these data often expose discrepancies between national industry narratives and grassroots realities.
3. Engage in media literacy training – Equip journalists with fact‑checking tools to spot vaping‑lobby spin, especially during legislative windows.

Rapid checklist for a balanced public‑health statement

• ☐ Cite peer‑reviewed studies (preferably > 5‑year follow‑up)
• ☐ Disclose any potential conflicts of interest
• ☐ Include both harm‑reduction benefits and documented risks
• ☐ Provide actionable recommendations for policymakers

---

real‑World Data Snapshot: Youth Vaping trends 2022‑2024

• 2022: 19.3 % of high‑school students reported past‑30‑day vaping (CDC youth Risk Behavior Survey).
• 2023: Spike to 22.7 % after the launch of “disposable pod” devices marketed as “flavor‑free” but containing hidden sweeteners.
• 2024: Decline to 18.9 % following implementation of state‑level flavor restrictions and intensified school‑based education campaigns.

These fluctuations illustrate how quickly policy and marketing shifts translate into measurable health behavior changes.

---

Call to Action: Building a Transparent Public‑Health Dialog

• Researchers: Publish raw data sets alongside journal articles to enable independent replication.
• Policymakers: Schedule public hearings that include unbiased experts, not just industry‑sponsored spokespeople.
• Public: Demand clear, evidence‑based facts from health agencies and scrutinize any “campaign” that appears to sidestep scientific consensus.

By grounding the debate in solid evidence and exposing the vaping lobby’s misinformation tactics, stakeholders can steer nicotine policy toward genuine harm reduction and public‑health protection.

---

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Tobacco Use Surveillance 2022‑2024. CDC, 2025.
2. National Academies of sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public Health Consequences of E‑Cigarette Use. 2023.
3. Federal Trade Commission. Investigative Report on Vaping Industry Lobbying Activities, 2024.
4. American Lung Association. E‑Cigarette Flavor Toxicology Review, 2024.
5. CNCT.Exposure Report: Vaping Lobby Campaign Strategies, 2025.
6. Minnesota Department of Health. Impact Evaluation of the State Flavor Ban, 2024.