A serious health risk shouldn’t be regulated like an ordinary product

Vapes were once marketed as “safer” options compared to cigarettes, but as vaping continues to rise among the youth, the treatment should not be focused on how to market them as a consumer product, but as a health concern.

When Republic Act No. 11900 or the Vape Law was passed in 2022, it aimed to regulate vape products while protecting public health and restricting youth access. However, despite the health concerns linked to vaping, the law placed vape regulation under Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), instead of the Department of Health (DOH).

Since then, the debate on whether to regulate vape products has continued to grow.

When regulation becomes trade-centered

Under the Vape Law, the DTI became the lead agency responsible for vape and novel tobacco products. This includes overseeing registration, technical standards, sale regulation, online selling compliance, and enforcement.

While the DOH and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still participate in some health-related responsibilities, such as issuing health warnings and regulating therapeutic claims, DTI remains the agency with the primary jurisdiction or judgement over vape regulation.

And for health organizations, this setup creates a contradiction.

The DTI’s scope of work mainly focus on trade, business compliance, and industry regulation. Its role is designed to supervise markets and commercial activities. While products such as vapes are already being linked to addiction, heart diseases, lung problems, and other long-term health concerns.

Hence, vaping should not be treated simply as just an ordinary commercial product.

In 2024, organizations like the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA) questioned why products associated with nicotine addiction and disease were not being directly regulated  by health authorities.

SEATCA Executive Director Dr. Ulysses Dorotheo described the issue as part of broader attempts to weaken tobacco control policies designed to protect public health.

“This legal battle is a classic example of the tobacco industry’s tactic to delay and derail life-saving tobacco control policies… We must actively protect the power of health authorities to regulate the tobacco industry and reject any attempts to undermine or discredit these health authorities,” he stated.

Problems unsolved, concerns rising

According to the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development, vaping in the Philippines increased by 110% from 2015 to 2019. Among those were students aged 13 to 15 years old, with 14.1% reportedly using vape products.

And unlike ordinary consumer products, vape devices expose users to nicotine, a highly addictive substance that may affect long-term health and behavior, especially among younger individuals.

Moreover, flavored vape products, colorful packaging, online promotions, and advertisements make vaping even more appealing to minors despite existing restrictions.

With this, the DOH urges DTI to either ban vape products entirely or limit them to plain tobacco flavors to lessen their appeal to the youth.

“The DOH urges the Department of Trade and Industry, as the mandated authority, to strictly enforce the provisions of the vape law, to prohibit access to these harmful products, especially among the youth,” the agency said.

But beyond stricter implementation, another issue remains unsolved — which agency should actually lead vape regulation in the first place?

The DTI focuses on trade and industry compliance. Meanwhile, DOH addresses addiction, disease prevention, and long-term effects linked to nicotine. The FDA, which operates under the DOH, also regulates nicotine products and monitors manufacturing and distribution.

This distinction matters given that vape involves understanding addiction, reducing health risks, protecting minors, and preventing future healthcare burdens — outside the scope of commercial standards and mere market oversight.

More than a market problem

Because if vaping is already linked to serious health risks, then regulation cannot remain focused on trade oversight.

Otherwise, vaping just remains easier to market than to medically regulate.