Vaping Scandal

Public Health England their role in the scandal

Who Public Health England Were — And How Their Vaping Advice Changed

Summary. Public Health England (PHE) was the government agency responsible for protecting and improving health in England until 2021. In 2015, PHE amplified the headline that e-cigarettes were “around 95% less harmful than smoking,” a message intended to support harm reduction for adult smokers. Over time, as evidence and youth vaping trends evolved, official communications shifted toward a more cautious balance: potential benefits for smokers vs clear risks of addiction and normalisation for children and non-smokers. This page explains who PHE were, how their stance moved, and how the UK approach compares with the USA, Canada, and Australia.

What Public Health England did

Public Health England (est. 2013) advised ministers, ran national campaigns (e.g., Stoptober), produced evidence reviews, and supported local public health teams and the NHS. In October 2021, PHE was dissolved. Its functions moved to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) for health protection and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) for long-term health improvement, including tobacco and vaping policy.

Timeline: how UK messaging on vaping evolved

2015
“Around 95% less harmful” becomes the headline from a PHE-commissioned evidence review. Intent: harm reduction for adult smokers. Effect: widespread reassurance, rapid uptake, and industry legitimacy. Critics question the strength of the evidence behind the precise percentage.

2016–2018
Updated reviews continue to state that vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking and may aid cessation. Meanwhile, youth use rises and concerns emerge about dependence, nicotine strength, disposables, and long-term unknowns. Debate intensifies around the original framing.

2019–2021
Messaging begins to emphasise adult smokers only and warns non-smokers/children not to start. PHE is abolished (2021); roles split to UKHSA (protection) and OHID (improvement). Communications increasingly acknowledge uncertainty and youth risks.

2022
OHID’s evidence update reflects higher adult and youth prevalence, growth of disposables, and ongoing uncertainty about long-term effects. The balance: vaping may help adult smokers quit, but youth normalisation and dependence are priority concerns.

2023–Now
Policy rhetoric pairs harm reduction (e.g., support for smokers who switch) with stronger action on youth access/marketing. The communications lens shifts from confident reassurance to qualified caution: benefits for smokers must be weighed against addiction and normalisation risks, especially for children.

Why the message changed

  • Usage patterns: vapes enable continuous dosing (no “end of cigarette”), driving higher overall nicotine intake for many users.
  • Real-world harms: frequent reports of headaches, nausea, gut irritation, sleep disruption and anxiety — especially with heavy use.
  • Youth uptake: disposable vapes and sweet flavours normalised in schools; rising dependence among children.
  • Evidence gaps: long-term outcomes remain uncertain; a precise safety percentage was premature and over-interpreted.

How UK messaging compares with the USA, Canada and Australia

Broad policy lines differ across countries. The UK historically leaned more on harm reduction for adult smokers, while others emphasised precaution and youth protection more strongly, especially during surges in youth use.

Jurisdiction Overall stance Messaging to adult smokers Youth & non-smokers Regulatory notes
United Kingdom (PHE → OHID/UKHSA) Historically pro-harm reduction; early high-confidence framing shifted to qualified caution. Vaping may help smokers quit; intended as an alternative for adult smokers only. Consistent: children and non-smokers should not vape; increasing emphasis on youth risks. Age limits; flavour/marketing scrutiny; evolving actions on disposables and retail controls.
United States (CDC/FDA/Surgeon General) More precautionary; strong focus on youth “epidemic” and product regulation. Vaping not endorsed as first-line cessation; nicotine products regulated; some authorised products only. High concern about youth uptake; aggressive warnings and enforcement against youth-appealing products. Premarket authorisation (PMTA) via FDA; national age-21 sales; flavour restrictions in many jurisdictions.
Canada (Health Canada) Harm-reduction framing for adult smokers with visible caution on youth. May help some smokers quit; messaging stresses risks for non-smokers. Strong youth-protection emphasis; marketing and nicotine caps; provincial variability. Tobacco and Vaping Products Act (2018); nicotine strength limits; promotion restrictions.
Australia (Therapeutic Goods/States) Most restrictive among peers; precaution first. Nicotine vaping generally prescription-only for cessation/therapy settings. Strong stance against youth access; retail nicotine e-liquids tightly controlled/illegal without script. Import and retail controls; state enforcement; tightening rules on disposables and flavours.

Note: This table summarises broad public messaging and regulatory direction. Specific rules and timelines vary and continue to change.

What the UK learned from the early messaging

  • Precision matters: a confident percentage (“95% less harmful”) was heard as certainty, then echoed by media and industry.
  • Behaviour changed: reassurance encouraged heavy, all-day use — the pattern most associated with everyday harms.
  • Youth normalisation: when adults call a product “far safer,” perceived risk among children and parents collapses.
  • Trust costs: as harms and dependence became visible, public trust in official advice was dented.

Conclusion

The UK’s position began with bold harm-reduction messaging and is now closer to cautious balance: help adult smokers who switch, protect children and non-smokers from a highly addictive product, and avoid absolute claims. The lesson is simple: when evidence is evolving, humility beats headlines.