Kenya is an interesting case in the forever information war about nicotine. It has a mix of harm reduction advocates who are steeped in pragmatism. It also harbours some frankly bonkers prohibitionists who faithfully tow the WHO line, typically with arguments that wouldn’t stand up to a light breeze.
Countries deserve better from their politicians than regurgitating WHO fact sheets while being totally, hopelessly unaware that alternative arguments to these positions exist.
However, there is also a middle ground of sensible people, such as Senator Catherine Muyeka Mumma of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) party. She recently wrote an article in The Standard, arguing for the importance of the Kenyan Tobacco Bill 2024.
Let’s take a look.
The article
The article draws very heavily on tobacco control bombast. The headline, Time to Protect Consumers from 'Safer’ Alternatives to Cigarettes, sets the tone.
As a statement, it’s a bit absurd. It’s not far from suggesting something like, “It’s time to protect users from the chaffing effect of seatbelts during otherwise fatal car accidents.” However, that nonsense might be more due to the editor at The Standard, rather than Catherine Muyeka Mumma’s position.
The article continues with the obligatory legend that vapes and pouches are part of a Big Tobacco plot to hook a new generation. Anyone with a passing interest in the history of these products will know they were, at least in part, citizen-led inventions. Early vapes were made by Hon Lik, while the late Curt Engel is known as “father of portioned snus,” which eventually gave rise to nicotine pouches.
Later, Muyeka Mumma styles her support of the Tobacco Control Act as a “long overdue moral intervention.” This framing is classic WHO double-speak. It also reveals the motivation of the modern-day rage against these products.
Opponents, believing they are an extension of tobacco industry trickery, think they are fighting an honourable battle. However, if anything, reduced-risk products have done more to disrupt the tobacco industry by eliminating the need for and the harms of combustible tobacco. Sometimes people are so focused on their enemy, they can’t see the forest for the trees.
What the bill proposes
The sad thing is that this cheap, emotive sophistry is not necessary. It’s also below Muyeka Mumma, who is an otherwise sensible, fair-minded politician with no shortage of integrity. If we look at the main points of the Kenyan Tobacco Bill, it’s not something I would disagree with, provided it was sensibly enforced. For example, the bill:
- Acknowledges that pouches exist in a regulatory grey zone.
- Pushes for licensing requirements for those who manufacture, import, or sell these products.
- Sets limits/ceilings for nicotine concentrations in e-liquids and similar products.
- Wants clear health warnings and transparent labelling for vapes and pouches.
- Enforces age limits.
- Restricts advertising and marketing.
- Extends existing smoke‑free protections so that vaping is also restricted in public spaces, similar to cigarette smoking.
OK, banning vaping in public is just pageantry. It will have no positive health effect. However, all the other proposals are sensible enough. If anything, they could form the bedrock of a regulatory system that allows adults to enjoy nicotine or transition away from cigarettes, but without encouraging youth use.
Unfortunately, a lot of the rhetoric around the topic uses the language of stuffy prohibitionists or just outright unhinged Big Tobacco conspiracy thinking.
It also does that weird sleight of hand where it pretends it doesn’t understand the difference between “less harmful” and “harmless”, or “safer” and “safe”. In fact, the only people I know who totally confuse these terms are tobacco control groups or media figures, like the editor of The Standard piece, who puts the word safer in scare quotes, as if there exists a reality where these products are just as lethal as cigarettes.
Final thoughts
Moralistic or paranoid communication around the Kenyan Tobacco Control Act exists to trick the public. I’d much rather see arguments that state what is happening: These products are far healthier than cigarettes; however, we need to regulate them to make them as safe as possible for the broad population, including youths. If governments were less in thrall to the WHO fact sheets, this could be so simple.
