Why comparing social media and tobacco misses the point

The latest comparison between social media and tobacco comes courtesy of Denmark's Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, whose comments that she would "rather have [her] children smoking than allowing them to stay on their own on social media" have sparked debate. Frederiksen later clarified that her intention was to draw attention to the risks children face online, not to downplay the harms of smoking.

The reaction highlights a broader trend. Whether it is politicians, campaigners or commentators, comparisons between social media and tobacco seem to be increasingly common. In May, UK headlines were also dominated by similar comparisons following comments by Wes Streeting and a report from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC).

Comparing anything to tobacco – the deadliest consumer product ever sold, responsible for killing nearly two-thirds of long-term users – certainly has shock value. But does the comparison stand up to scrutiny?

In reality, both Frederiksen, Streeting and the AMRC were making a more nuanced point than the headlines suggest. Frederiksen was highlighting concerns about children's exposure to social media and arguing that society has been too slow to respond to emerging online harms. Streeting was comparing the tactics used by big tech companies to those historically employed by the tobacco industry, while the AMRC drew parallels between today’s growing concern about online harms to children and the concern many in the medical community once felt as the health impacts of smoking emerged.

There are genuine parallels to be drawn, particularly when we consider that both involve hugely powerful, innovative industries with enormous commercial interests at stake. Like tobacco companies before them, tech firms lobby hard to preserve the status quo because stronger regulation could threaten their profits. There is a well-trodden path of big commercial industries using the tobacco industry playbook to try to delay or derail policy – read more here.

Smoking rates have fallen dramatically over recent decades, but not because the tobacco industry voluntarily changed course. Progress came through sustained government action: a series of evidence-based policies backed by regulation that forced industry change. One of the clearest lessons from tobacco control is that industries profiting from harmful products cannot be relied upon to solve the problems they create. The conflict of interest is simply too great.

There are also parallels in the growth of public support for stronger protections, particularly for children. In tobacco control, support for regulation increased steadily with each new policy introduced. A major turning point came 20 years ago with smokefree legislation, which prioritised people’s right, especially workers’ rights, not to be exposed to second-hand smoke over the convenience of smoking indoors. Today, it feels almost unimaginable that smokefree laws were once so controversial, but at the time they were the subject of a fierce political battle.

Since then, tobacco regulation has continued to evolve, with measures including standardised packaging, graphic health warnings and, more recently, legislation to create a smokefree generation by gradually raising the age of sale each year.

While there are clear parallels, it is also important not to lose sight of the limits to those comparisons. Framing debates around whether social media is “as harmful as” or “more harmful than” tobacco may generate headlines, but it risks oversimplifying two very different public health challenges. We often see commentators referring to other products as the ‘new tobacco’, be it sugar, gambling or social media. But harm is not a competition, and acknowledging the risks associated with one issue does not diminish the seriousness of another. Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, while concerns about online harms, particularly for children and young people are increasingly significant and deserving of serious attention in their own right. The more useful comparison lies not in ranking harms against each other, but in understanding how governments respond when evidence of harm collides with powerful commercial interests.

So, while it may not be straightforward to compare the harms of tobacco and social media explicitly, the comparison is useful in another way. It highlights how society responds when powerful industries profit from products or platforms that can cause widespread harm, particularly to children. The lesson from tobacco is not that every harm is identical, but that waiting for industries to regulate themselves rarely works and that meaningful change often requires public pressure, political will and effective regulation.