Tobacco harm reduction (THR) advocates don’t just face misinformation in the form of false and misleading claims about safer nicotine products. Too often, they’re also subjected to smears.
Individuals and groups who receive no funding from the tobacco or vape industries may nonetheless be characterized as nefarious agents of those interests—a cheap way for opponents of THR to dismiss arguments without troubling to grapple with their merits. For media, such claims are often about eyeballs.
That’s why a recent ruling from New Zealand’s Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) carries such significance.
ASH (Action for Smokefree 2025) is an organization campaigning for smoking cessation and THR in New Zealand. It’s funded by its members, and by donations and grants. It does not accept funding from the tobacco, vape, nicotine or pharmaceutical industries.
But ASH NZ found itself under attack in a July 26, 2024 TV broadcast by ThreeNews—a New Zealand news bulletin, produced by the media company Stuff, which airs on a channel owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.
A ThreeNews reporter interviewed ASH Director Ben Youdan without informing him of the true nature of the story—which was ultimately presented as a special investigation into alleged links between ASH and the “pro-vaping lobby” in Australia.
This centered, as the BSA ruling expressed it, on “an alleged ‘pro-vape lobbyist’ who was reported as having received funding from vaping companies and having facilitated a trip by [Youdan], to Australia to ‘promote’ New Zealand’s vaping policies.”
For what it’s worth, New Zealand’s pro-vape policies have had far better public health outcomes than Australia’s heavy restrictions on vapes. And Youdan’s trip was not paid for by industry funding.
The broadcast included the ThreeNews allegations and clips of Youdan, interspersed with a clip of a spokesperson from the organization Vape Free Kids, who said, “We’ve learned that the words ‘harm reduction’ are a battle cry for the tobacco industry and their friends.”
ASH NZ complained about this set-up to Warner Bros. Discovery, but the company rejected its complaints. So ASH referred the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
“These stories appeared intentionally slanted against ASH and the broadcaster persisted with that narrative despite having information to the contrary.”
The BSA found in its March 26 ruling that the broadcast “had the potential to cause harm under each of the three standards nominated—fairness, balance and accuracy—which outweighed the broadcaster’s freedom of expression and is significant enough to warrant our intervention.”
The broadcaster’s failings, which the BSA described as “at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness,” included misleading ASH about the nature of the story prior to the interview, omitting important facts, and not giving ASH a fair right of reply to the allegations.
A second ThreeNews broadcast, on July 30, 2024, was also subject to the ruling. This was portrayed as a “breaking news” story, focusing on a school’s reluctance to participate in a survey on smoking and vaping due to its concerns over ASH’s stance on vaping.
ASH’s “multiple complaints” about that broadcast, as it explained in a press release, included that ThreeNews “omitted the crucial fact that correspondence from the school was from 2021, and had been responded to despite being labeled breaking news.”
The BSA found that the item demonstrated “shortfalls,” and failed to include central information that would have made a difference to viewers’ opinions.
“These two ThreeNews broadcasts fell short of the standards the public expects of New Zealand broadcasters …” the BSA concluded. “These stories appeared intentionally slanted against ASH and the broadcaster persisted with that narrative despite having information to the contrary, causing serious damage to the reputation of a charitable entity and its director.”
The BSA has now ordered Warner Bros. Discovery to publish a statement conveying the decision, and to pay costs to ASH NZ and the Crown.
The ruling, Youdan said, “rightfully erodes trust in those who are using dirty tactics to undermine the evidence.”
Reflecting on the decision, ASH Director Youdan told Filter that it’s “a very significant ruling for New Zealand, and at a level of seriousness rarely seen.”
Asked if he saw it as a victory for THR, he replied that “it’s not about a victory, but about holding people across the spectrum of harm reduction debate to account.”
“This includes those reporting on vaping and other products,” he continued. “I hope the outcome is to encourage balance, and more responsible reporting rather than sensationalism.”
The ruling and penalty imposed by the BSA, Youdan said, “rightfully erodes trust in those who are using dirty tactics to undermine the evidence.”
Youdan explained how New Zealand has made substantial progress in reducing its smoking rate over the decades, and how harm reduction—including people switching to vapes and heated tobacco products—has played a big role in continuing that decline in recent years.
However, “it is frustrating when progress is undermined by a debate that has deteriorated to attacking reputation and integrity,” he said. “We hope this decision will help us return to a far more respectful and balanced discussion.”
That wish is echoed by Colin Mendelsohn, a doctor and longtime THR advocate from Sydney, Australia, who has written for Filter. He has endured a number of similar experiences of being smeared.
“I was portrayed on a national television program as a representative of Big Tobacco. The television network denied any wrongdoing until I hired a lawyer.”
Dr. Mendelsohn explained that he has conducted advocacy at his own expense. He has never received funding from the tobacco or vape industries. But that hasn’t stopped media outlets saying that he has.
“I was portrayed on a national television program as a representative of Big Tobacco,” he told Filter. “The television network denied any wrongdoing until I hired a lawyer and took the matter to the national television regulator. A ruling was made in my favor and an apology issued.”
The Australian Media and Communications Authority issued this ruling against Channel 7 Sydney in June 2024, as Mendelsohn described in his blog.
In addition, “Anti-vaping advocates have repeatedly tried to block my presentations, teachings and media articles,” Mendelsohn said.
In 2022, an invitation to present the evidence on vaping at a leading Sydney hospital was withdrawn, Mendelsohn recounted, after a professor falsely and secretly accused him of being funded by a tobacco company.
One of Mendelsohn’s peer-reviewed publications was almost retracted, he continued, based on a fabricated conflict-of-interest claim. That was only reversed after he spent thousands on legal representation.
“These personal attacks are unfortunately common and are a sign of desperation,” Mendelsohn said. “When critics can’t win the scientific argument, they attack the messenger. The aim is to undermine our credibility and discourage advocacy—a form of censorship.”
Youdan agreed that instead of valid debates over differences in opinion, the THR field is facing “increased efforts to attack integrity and reputation, however tenuous or untrue.”
“Such smear campaigns are often anonymous, which makes them harder to refute,” Mendelsohn said. “While these attacks once strengthened my resolve, over time they wear you down.”
Smears can divert advocates from important work, costing them considerable time, money and emotional energy.
“Such smear campaigns are often anonymous, which makes them harder to refute,” Mendelsohn said. “While these attacks once strengthened my resolve, over time they wear you down and affect your effectiveness.”
All of this contributes to a wider climate of fear in tobacco harm reduction, with flimsy-to-nonexistent connections to industry funding being used by anti-THR groups to exclude and silence both credentialed experts and people with lived experience.
Some THR advocates do receive nicotine industry funding, while Pharma companies have funded certain harm reduction organizations that support people who use drugs. Funding for the nonprofit behind Filter includes unconditional donations from tobacco and vape companies.
Though it’s a contentious area, many harm reduction advocates believe that such funding, particularly if disclosed, does not invalidate evidence-based arguments that have the potential to help people in need.
When it comes to the kind of mud-slinging he was subjected to, Youdan is clear about who pays the biggest price.
“Ultimately,” he said, “the people who lose are those who still smoke, and are being denied access to good information and support.”
Photograph (cropped) by Pixabay via Picryl/Public Domain