NHMRC - National Health & Medical Research Council Ecig Influencers

Pippa Starr
Jan 24, 2022
4 min read

Updated: Apr 24

Jan 24 2022 - NHMRC Vaping Postion Is A Disgrace

"THE NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, Australia’s peak medical body has released its latest guidelines on vaping. However, the guidelines are alarmist, seriously flawed, do not reflect the latest evidence on vaping and will harm public health." Full Article>>

2022 - CEO Statement On Electronic Cigarettes

⚠️ Warning - The Statement Contains:

Critical Limitations

1. Risk Inflation via Data Absence

The report conflates data absence with potential risk by framing the lack of inhalation toxicity data as cause for concern. This supports a precautionary principle stance without balanced risk-benefit evaluation.
It assumes that substances permitted in food or medicine might pose inhalation risks without verifying real-world exposure levels, dosage, or cumulative risk in vapers.

2. Lack of Quantitative Risk Assessment

No attempt is made to evaluate exposure thresholds, bioavailability, or dose-response curves. The presence of a hazard is not equivalent to actual harm.
The report doesn't differentiate between trace amounts versus harmful doses under real-life vaping conditions.

3. Scoping Review Without Risk of Bias Assessment

The review fails to assess the quality or reliability of the 89 included studies. No filter for methodological rigour undermines the credibility of aggregate findings.
Only 12 studies examined individual chemical constituents—yet sweeping generalizations are made about all ingredients.

4. No Comparative Context (Smoking vs. Vaping)

There is no comparison with the toxicant load from cigarette smoke, which weakens any claim about potential health risks.
This omission is critical given vaping’s harm reduction premise. Without it, the report cannot inform regulatory prioritization in a meaningful way.

5. Misuse of Food/Medicine Safety Frameworks

The report suggests that chemicals safe in food or medicine might be unsafe when inhaled, which is true in principle—but this needs to be quantified, not speculated upon.
It fails to assess thermal degradation products in context (e.g., aldehydes at realistic power settings vs. dry puff conditions).

🧪 Scientific Caution vs. Policy Alarmism

The document adopts a precautionary tone throughout. While this may be justifiable in a research roadmap, it becomes problematic when interpreted as justification for prohibitionist policies—especially since:

Most studies reviewed are in vitro or animal-based, not reflective of actual vaping behavior.
Real-world data showing reduced biomarkers of harm in vapers (compared to smokers) is absent from consideration.

✅ Recommendations for a More Balanced Approach

Incorporate Exposure-Based Risk ModelsE.g., margin of exposure (MOE) or probabilistic risk assessments, as used in toxicology and pharmacology.
Compare Against Cigarette ToxicologyPlace findings in context with known harms from smoking to assess relative, not absolute, risk.
Prioritize Research Funding for Human DataFocus on longitudinal, observational human studies and biomarker analyses.
Avoid Regulatory Overreach Based on Data GapsDo not regulate or restrict based on unproven speculation—support innovation in safer formulations instead.

🧾 Conclusion

This NHMRC report provides a broad and cautious overview of potential risks associated with non-nicotine e-liquid ingredients, but it is fundamentally hamstrung by missing inhalation toxicity data, lack of exposure quantification, and absence of comparative context. It underdelivers on actionable science while overselling speculative harm, which risks misleading policymakers and the public.