Thread by @MadMeathead

Let's talk about vaping/smoking relative risk statements in Canada. Why they are forbidden. How they were almost permitted and then disappeared, and why I think @PattyHajdu and @GovCanHealth are looking at RR statements from the wrong angle.

A Thread 1/16

May 2018. Tobacco and Vaping Products Act comes into force. Part IV, Div. 2, Sect. 30.43 (1) prohibits cessation claims (in Canada, cessation is considered an intervention). You can't say "quit" and you can't say "stop" with regards to smoking.

2/16

Sect. 30.43 (2) prohibits comparing vaping products and their emissions to smoking products or their emissions. You can't say better, less harmful, fewer toxins, or no smoke.

3/16

You cannot reference science or academia in the promotion of a vaping product. No RCP (London). No Cochrane Reviews. No published studies or papers. You cannot reference Health Canada's own (well hidden) published statements on relative risk.

4/16

You CAN say cheaper. You can say tastes better. You can say "available in 8 fantastic colours, including rose-gold."

"Look at how shiny it is under the light, and oooh the creamy, delicious clouds."

Aesthetics and appeal are legal marketing measures.

5/16

Now in the discussions of S-5, leading to the TVPA, we grumbled about that. Loudly.

How the hell can I reach a target audience of adult smokers if I can't compare vaping to smoking?

We were told that Health Canada would provide a list of approved statements we could use.

6/16

September 4th, 2018. I was notified by e-mail that I could respond to:
Health Canada Consultation on the List of Statements for Use in the Promotion of Vaping Products / Santé Canada consultation pour la liste d’énoncés à utiliser dans la promotion des produits de vapotage

7/16

So I did: 4 of the 7 statements I would use in an advertisement without question. 2 of the statements I would use as is but would prefer it if they were worded slightly differently. One of the statements I would not use. See image.

8/16

Now Health Canada has a website where you can look for these consultations. It can be found here: canada.ca/en/government/…
and that's where this consultation was. About 5 months later, it was gone. POOF. Never existed.

9/16

Now I don't know why. Might have been blowback from PH NGOs. Could have been Dr. David Hammond running around on CBC telling us "Damned right we should be worried" about his mathematical error.

It was gone and ever since HC has been clear they don't want to talk about it.

10/16

Now, whenever I get a form letter from @PattyHajdu or @GovCanHealth talking about how I need to "be responsible" for impacting youth uptake... I look at the shop signage 5 outside 4 within 5 feet of the door inside... all telling little people to bugger off...

11/16

I gaze at my $2500 optical ID scanner and the $200 a month bill to ensure that privacy laws are met.

I might look at the list of legal age patrons I have banned because they bought the product and then handed it to a minor in front of the shop.

12/16

I think about how I could use any one of those 7 statements to target adult smokers who believe that vaping is just as, or more harmful than smoking.

I think of turning 3% of adults over 25 who have tried vaping into 15% (same as the current smoking rate).

13/16

I think of turning "50% of adults who have tried vaping did so with the intent to reduce or quit smoking" into 80% or even 90%.

14/16

And I make sure that the next adult customer who walks past the signs, has her ID scanned and is allowed in, know that "Vaping is cheaper", "There are plenty of flavours" and "The devices are available in 8 colours including rose-gold"

15/16

When she raises a question about some nonsense she saw on CBC from Can-Lung and asks me "Am I better off smoking?" I will stand there mute. Gagged by @PattyHajdu and @GovCanHealth

I will say.

"The devices are available in 8 colours, including rose-fucking-gold"

Fin

@threadreaderapp unroll