Public health communication around nicotine is full of mixed messages. From blurring key scientific distinctions to issuing guidance that treats very different products as interchangeable, several high-profile campaigns risk confusing the very people they aim to inform.
Here are six examples of messaging that misses the mark – and why clarity matters.
1. Treating “nicotine” and “smoking” as the same thing
Some youth-focused campaigns continue to present nicotine use and smoking interchangeably. For example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Health Effects of Vaping” page warns that “No tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, are safe” and states that aerosol from vapes “can contain harmful and potentially harmful substances.”
While nicotine is addictive, the danger of smoking comes overwhelmingly from inhaling smoke from burning tobacco. Messaging that treats very different products as equivalent still risks reinforcing widespread misconceptions among young people and adults trying to quit.
2. Oversimplifying environmental warnings
Several UK councils have recently highlighted the environmental harms of disposable vapes – often without acknowledging that cigarette butts remain one of the world’s most common forms of plastic litter.
Across the UK, councils and government departments have issued warnings about the environmental impact of disposable vapes. These messages often focus on the batteries, plastics and fire risks associated with single-use devices, which are legitimate concerns.
But many of these campaigns give little or no attention to the far larger environmental problem posed by cigarette litter – still one of the most common forms of plastic waste in the world. By highlighting vapes in isolation, public messaging risks giving the public a distorted sense of scale.
3. Ignoring adult use when discussing flavours
Messaging linking flavoured vapes to youth appeal continues to dominate, with little reference to the millions of adults who prefer non-tobacco flavours when switching from smoking.
Resources such as Truth Initiative’s “Flavored tobacco use among youth and young adults” focus almost exclusively on youth appeal. This framing omits a key reality: adult vapers overwhelmingly choose flavours that are not tobacco-related. Failing to mention this may undermine public understanding of why flavours matter for adults trying to quit smoking.
4. Advising people to “avoid smoking or vaping indoors” without context
A number of health bodies continue to pair smoking and vaping together in indoor-use guidance. NHS Tayside’s public health guidance advises people not to vape “inside buildings” or in other indoor spaces – an approach that mirrors typical smoking restrictions and risks reinforcing the idea that the two behaviours carry similar risks.
While organisations may choose to set unified policies for practical reasons, messaging that treats the behaviours as equivalent obscures the difference between inhaling smoke from combustion and inhaling far lower toxicity aerosol. This risks giving the impression that the risks are comparable.
5. Presenting uncertainty about long-term vaping as established harm
Some public health messaging presents uncertainty about long-term vaping as if it were an established harm. Australia’s Department of Health, for example, states: “The long-term effects of vaping aren’t known yet, but what we know right now isn’t great,” and goes on to warn that “there’s no such thing as safe vaping, even occasional vaping can be harmful to your health.”
The combination of admitted uncertainty and categorical statements can leave the public with the impression that unknown risks are already proven.
Communicating uncertainty is important – but presenting speculation as established harm distorts the evidence base and risks discouraging adult smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives.
6. Encouraging young people to feel “bothered” by harmless behaviour
Youth-facing campaigns in the U.S. continue to prompt young people to express discomfort about seeing nicotine products used in public, even when the products pose no risk to bystanders.
Wisconsin’s FACT movement – managed by the American Lung Association and funded by the state health department – asks teens: “What bothers you about seeing these products?”
This framing risks teaching young people to oppose behaviours that have no direct effect on them, shifting messaging from evidence-based guidance to social disapproval.
Why messaging matters
Clear, precise communication is essential in public health. When messages omit context, overstate risk, or conflate very different products, the result is not better awareness – but deeper confusion.
