Public health's greatest hits
Researcher
On June 1st, buying or selling disposable vapes becomes illegal. Only reusable devices — those with rechargeable batteries, replaceable coils, and refillable chambers — will remain on the legal market. Though environmental legislation technically introduces the ban, many are celebrating it as a significant public health win. Advocates claim it will “tackle the scourge of vaping” and curb nicotine addiction in teenagers. The urgency is clear: children as young as 12 have been hospitalised and placed in induced comas due to lung and nerve damage caused by vaping.
Yet the policy has sparked backlash. Some argue the ban might drive people back to smoking cigarettes, questioning why adults shouldn’t be able to decide for themselves what’s best. There is also a public health argument that this environmentally-driven policy doesn't do anything meaningful to curb vaping itself — why wouldn't people simply switch to non-disposable vapes, let alone driving people back to smoking? Others simply decry it as an outright “attack on freedom”.
Such resistance is no surprise; people have always disliked being told what they can and cannot do, buy, or smoke. Seatbelt mandates in the 1980s sparked protests about "stolen freedoms,” while mask mandates during the Covid-19 pandemic triggered similar uproar.
But public health interventions, despite their controversies, can deliver life-saving results. And for this weeks’ Re:Think, I want to revisit some of public health’s “greatest hits” to understand whether their surrounding controversies were proportionate in response to their impacts.
- Seatbelt Legislation, 1983
When the UK mandated front seatbelt use in 1983, it faced significant opposition. Critics argued it infringed on personal freedoms and autonomy. Some believed seatbelts were uncomfortable or even dangerous in certain scenarios. Letters to newspapers reflected sentiments of being "trussed up like a chicken" and concerns over reduced control while driving. In Parliament, debates highlighted fears of governmental overreach and questioned the effectiveness of the law.
The law prevailed, and its impact was immediate. It led to a significant increase in seatbelt usage, with 90 per cent compliance shortly after implementation. In turn, this resulted in a 29 per cent reduction in fatal injuries and a 30 per cent decrease in serious injuries among front-seat passengers that year. Over time, the legislation gained widespread public acceptance and is now considered a cornerstone of road safety.
- The Smoking Ban, 2007
By the early 2000s, evidence linking second-hand smoke to serious health issues like cancer and heart disease was indisputable. In response, the UK introduced the Health Act 2006, banning smoking in all enclosed public spaces and workplaces in England.
And, just as with the banning of disposable vapes, there was significant backlash. Hospitality industries, particularly pubs and clubs, expressed concerns about revenue loss. They argued that a smoking ban would deter patrons, particularly smokers, from frequenting their establishments. Similarly, groups like FOREST (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco), argued that the ban infringed on personal freedoms and was pure governmental overreach.
Yet the results were transformative. Smoking prevalence dropped by 1.9 million people over a decade. Pubs adapted, and public opinion shifted rapidly — 79 per cent of the public supported the ban just 18 months after implementation.
- Sugar Tax, 2018
The 2018 sugar tax aimed to reduce childhood obesity by incentivising manufacturers to cut sugar in soft drinks. Unsurprisingly, industry resistance claimed that the tax would hurt sales and lead to job losses, and other critics called it “regressive” and argued it would disproportionality affect lower-income families.
But as with the other interventions, it generated vast public health benefits. The tax incentivised manufacturers to reformulate their products, leading to a significant decrease in sugar content in soft drinks. Daily sugar intake from beverages fell by approximately 5.2 grams in adults and 3 grams in children within a year. Further, research indicates that the levy prevented over 5,000 cases of childhood obesity annually, with the most substantial reductions observed in deprived communities.
People may resist being told what they can eat, drink, or do, but governing demands choice. Policies like these, designed to improve public health, especially for the young and disadvantaged, prove their worth time and again. If this Government is prioritising such measures, it’s a choice worth backing.