Following the publication, in the daily Libération, of advertising inserts carried by the Interprofessional Federation of Vaping (Fivape), the National Committee against Smoking (CNCT) wanted to provide a public response in order to re-establish the facts and alert on a communication strategy comparable to a lobbying operation. In a column published on December 23, 2025, the CNCT recalls the health issues linked to vaping, denounces the dissemination of partial or misleading information and underlines the need for a public debate based on independent scientific data and a public health approach.
A media campaign to challenge the regulation of vaping
Since the fall of 2025, the Interprofessional Vaping Federation (Fivape) has launched a major media campaign to oppose the integration of vaping products within the scope of article 23 of the finance bill (PLF). Through inserts published in Liberation and significant mobilization on social networks, the federation presents vaping as a central tool for reducing risks and helping to quit smoking, while denouncing an alleged desire by public authorities to align the regulation of electronic cigarettes with those of traditional cigarettes.
The CNCT points out, however, that the PLF aims neither for complete regulatory assimilation nor for fiscal alignment of vaping with tobacco. Even if all the measures envisaged were adopted, the taxation applicable to vaping products would remain very much lower than that of tobacco products. Presenting these developments as an equivalent placing under supervision or as a disguised ban is, according to the CNCT, an excessively alarmist interpretation of the text.
In its communication, Fivape relies on several scientific arguments that the CNCT judges to be either incomplete or inaccurate. The federation states in particular that the 95% reduction in the risks associated with vaping compared to tobacco would never have been called into question. However, this figure comes from an old estimate, based on a methodology that is now widely criticized and discredited in the scientific literature, and cannot constitute a solid basis for public health messages. Likewise, Fivape ignores the reality of vaping, that is to say the concomitant use of electronic cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, although it has been documented and widely spread, considerably limiting the claimed health benefits.
The CNCT also underlines the particularly aggressive and anxiety-provoking nature of the campaign led by Fivape, marked by a catastrophic discourse evoking an alleged “extermination” of the vaping industry and the planned disappearance of thousands of jobs. This rhetoric is accompanied by a portrayal of Fivape as a central, even main, player in the fight against smoking, a position that the CNCT firmly contests. The association recalls that the tobacco control policy is based on global strategies, based on prevention, support for cessation and the regulation of nicotine products, and cannot be confused with the economic interests of an industrial sector.
For the CNCT, this campaign is part of a communication strategy aimed at influencing the legislative debate through the dramatization and excessive simplification of issues, to the detriment of complete, nuanced information consistent with the state of scientific knowledge.
Refocus the debate on public health issues and the general interest
Beyond the media controversy, the CNCT calls for refocusing the debate on public health issues. It warns of the increasing commonality of vaping, particularly among young people and young adults, in a context marked by the attractiveness of products, linked to aromas, marketing and the normalization of consumption gestures. The available data show an increase in experimentation and regular use without any prospect of stopping smoking, contributing to the establishment or maintenance of nicotine dependence.
In this context, the CNCT contests the assimilation of vaping to validated nicotine treatments. Unlike the latter, vaping products are not part of a supervised therapeutic pathway and do not benefit from the same level of evaluation, prescription and monitoring. Presenting these products as prevention tools without reminding them of their limits contributes, according to the association, to confusing the public’s benchmarks and weakening policies to combat addiction.
The CNCT finally calls for a public debate based on the general interest, based on a complete analysis of the real uses of vaping and on independent scientific data. He recalls that regulatory choices must primarily aim to protect populations, particularly the youngest, and be part of an overall strategy to reduce smoking and nicotine dependence, without giving in to promotional communication logic or sectoral economic interests.
©Tobacco Free Generation
AE
National Committee Against Smoking |