LATEST ALERTS
The US-based Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) will cease lobbying efforts later this year and wind down completely before the start of 2026.
The CASAA joins the likes of the American Vaping Association (AVA) and France-based Sovape, among others, in similar recent closures.
These three organisations gave different reasons for calling it quits. The CASAA blamed a lack of money, Sovape said its dissolution was due to a hostile lobbying environment, and the AVA did not spell out its motive for folding, but from context it would be safe to assume it was down to a lack of experienced personnel.
The three closures really have more in common than the explanations might suggest. It’s important to note, for example, that these endings do not mean those involved with reduced-risk products think there is no longer need for advocacy and lobbying. That may seem like an obvious point, given the continued trend of increasingly restrictive global regulations for reduced-risk products. But it is one that should be made, as it is not why funds are drying up.
It is instead a vicious cycle – continued derision of vaping in public forums and increased restrictions on products have led to decreases in sales and revenues for many companies. But a lack of well-funded lobbying organisations leaves the industry with little ability to counter misinformation in public spheres or present industry arguments on proposed regulations.
Increased competition from providers of disposable vapes, illicit e-cigarettes on the market and other possible rival products have also contributed to reduced market share of independent companies that would have favoured supporting grassroots advocacy organisations. Reduced revenue has meant a tightening in outgoings, and some of the first areas where discretionary spending could be cut are general advocacy and lobbying for an entire category (for example, just heated tobacco) or for all reduced-risk products (such as heated tobacco as well as nicotine pouches and e-cigarettes).
What can happen without tobacco company money
At the same time, industry lobbying organisations have grown pickier about where they accept donations from, as they want to avoid accusations of being Big Tobacco proxies. Big Tobacco itself has also significantly reduced its spending on pro-vaping advocacy, choosing instead to support its own reduced-risk products that are more in its wheelhouse, such as heated tobacco or nicotine pouches.
And for groups like the CASAA that have relied on consumer donations or subscriptions as well as funding from businesses, increased cost of living means there are very few people willing to pony up such a non-essential non-cost-of-living expense.
All this means little is coming in for groups to use at a serious crunch time. And that will have had an impact on all three closures regardless of their reasons given. Both the AVA and Sovape said they had money left over after closing down, which they would donate to other groups working on similar issues. The AVA said it had $15,000, and Sovape did not specify an amount. But this is absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of lobbying spending. They may have put forward other reasons for closing, but it can be safely assumed that if those final balances contained a few more zeros, both the AVA and Sovape would have found some way to continue operating.
This only goes to emphasise the David and Goliath struggle that is putting forward harm-reduction viewpoints – particularly in the US. Compare the almost $50m in contributions and grants the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids reported in its 2022 filing to the money Sovape had left over, or take the fact that the CASAA said it needed $10,000 per month in order to continue operating, which works out to only $120,000 minimum revenue per year.
Instead, the CASAA said it was getting around just $2,000 per month from consumer donations, with corporate donations unable to bridge the gap. This was in part due to its cutting down on tobacco company funding. It was said this was a decision taken by the organisation – though it continued to receive some funding from Philip Morris International (PMI). And the CASAA did continue to represent all reduced-risk nicotine products, not just vaping products, which would have kept more tobacco company interest. But it is worth considering how much of a choice the CASAA had in the reduction in tobacco funding.
After all, it would presumably be better to continue in some regard, even if compromised by tobacco funding, than to give up entirely. And it has been widely reported that tobacco companies have cut funding for vaping-focused lobbying to concentrate more on lobbying that supports predominantly Big Tobacco–owned reduced-risk products such as heated tobacco or pouches.
Struggling with contradiction
A member of the CASAA’s board of directors said the organisation had grown frustrated with anti-vaping tobacco lobbying, such as support for the current process of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs), which is stacked against brands that are not funded by tobacco companies. But it could be equally likely that the decision to reduce funding came from the other direction too, as tobacco companies have chosen to take a new approach to influencing reduced-risk product policy.
This dichotomy is at the heart of many of the issues plaguing vaping. For one, the industry would not exist were it not for the sale of nicotine-containing tobacco products and their destructive effect on health. For all the talk of a post-cessation future for nicotine products, there is almost no chance nicotine would ever have featured as a common substance across global cultures without the discovery of tobacco smoking, and vaping would not have existed if smoking was even somewhat less harmful than it is.
So reduced-risk products are at the same time completely opposed to and yet tied to tobacco products. And the sector itself is at once vehemently opposed to tobacco influence and yet forced to live in a reality where tobacco companies can control entire reduced-risk categories and simply move in and buy the biggest brands in the categories they do not already control.
This has led to a situation where those outside the industry may view all reduced-risk products lumped together, or even – horror of horrors – all nicotine products lumped together so as to include products like conventional cigarettes. Exactly how to internally divide the industry has led to its own issues. Some organisations, like the CASAA, have attempted to represent all reduced-risk products.
Many have tried to stick with just one (mostly vaping), and for those that have, there have been further divisions to consider, such as whether to represent any and all brands (including those solely controlled by Big Tobacco or Chinese manufacturers) or to divvy things up further.
An impossible question to answer
Those internal divisions (and the lack of outside awareness of them) have likely hindered lobbying for reduced-risk products almost as much as funding deficiencies. From the outside perspective, it has been easy enough to dismiss any non-prohibition lobbying as tobacco companies acting in proxy. The monetary support – however minimal – would have done nothing to alleviate accusations that pro-harm-reduction lobbying groups are merely tobacco companies in a different guise.
Being labelled as a tobacco pawn, useful fool or astroturf organisation (a fake grassroots group really created by corporate interests to look like a spontaneous movement) has been a major danger for those like the CASAA that have chosen to continue receiving tobacco funding or represent products owned by Big Tobacco companies.
Conversely, there is still a need to represent the entirety of the vaping industry (including Big Tobacco brands) for specific issues and, similarly, there is also a need to represent the entirety of the reduced-risk spectrum of things. Plus, of course, those who do so open themselves to significantly more potential funding.
Exactly how to square the circle of divided loyalties and priorities while addressing outside perceptions of tobacco influence remains an impossible puzzle to solve. Evidently, it was too much for Sovape, which put its closure down to difficulties in this regard. It said accusations of being a tobacco stooge hindered it from being able to put forward a harm-reduction message or to counter misinformation – particularly in such a highly charged and partisan atmosphere.
Beyond that, the lobbying space for reduced-risk products is, and always has been, riven by rivalries anyway. In-fighting has probably cost the industry almost as much in terms of energy and resources as combatting flawed assumptions and regulations. Some of this division was built based on whom to exclude from lobbying efforts, but quite a lot also appears to be a result of clashing personalities in the reduced-risk space. Regardless, neither has helped the overall cause.
In many ways, it’s no wonder vaping has fared poorly in terms of regulation and lobbying compared to traditional tobacco or even other reduced-risk alternatives. It has continually had an under-funded, over-stretched and divided advocacy outreach that has failed to impress a message of harm reduction or positive public health impact on either lawmakers or much of the wider public. The CASAA’s shuttering will do little to further help an already dire situation.
– Freddie Dawson TobaccoIntelligence senior contributing editor
Image: AI-generated
