What Should Make Up A
Good Regulatory Regime
THR regulation should aim to maximise the number of smokers switching to safer, smoke-free products. Public health strategies should focus on addressing misperceptions that hamper adult smokers from adoption of potentially harm reducing smoke-free products. It should also strike the balance between ensuring that nicotine products remain accessible and as safe as possible without compromising their appeal to smokers.
What should good regulation look like:
- It should be science-based
- It should be proportionate to the degree of risk to the consumer
- It should be based on applying the most restrictive regulations to the most harmful product (i.e. cigarettes)
- It should be based on applying the least restrictive regulations for the least harmful products
- It should protect youth from initiation
UK Case Study
England is seen as one of the world’s most progressive backers of tobacco harm reduction, where its approach covers law and regulation, taxation, communications, research and service provision.
There is a broad consensus in favour of tobacco harm reduction among the main agencies and non-governmental organisations including key players like Public Health England, Cancer Research UK, the Royal College of Physicians, Action on Smoking and Health and a group of credible academics.
In 2017, the Department of Health (UK/England) released its Tobacco Control Plan for England: Towards a Smoke-Free Generation. The plan highlights its support of vaping and other low-risk alternatives to smoking throughout. This is one of the first significant government policy papers anywhere that recognises and pursues the opportunities of tobacco harm reduction, rather than defining these technologies as a threat it needs to suppress.
According to the most recently published ONS data (2023), 11.9% of the UK population or around six million people aged 18 and over smoked cigarettes in the UK. This was the lowest proportion of current smokers since records began in 2011. Around 5.1 million adults aged 16 years and over (9.8%) currently used an e-cigarette daily or occasionally.
What Is Regulation Best Practice?
The most advantageous regulatory regime would strike a subtle balance between protecting users, non-users, bystanders and limiting the risks of harmful unintended consequences.
For example, for e-cigarette regulation, the preferred regulatory frameworks for this category should achieve the following objectives:
- To ensure that e-cigarettes and vapour products are as safe as possible without compromising their appeal as alternatives to smoking
- To ensure that they are not marketed in a way that increases total population harm, including through recruitment of young people or non-smokers who would not otherwise smoke
What can go wrong when there is poor regulation?
Poor regulation is the primary risk to public health. At the heart of the regulatory challenge is a “double negative” – as being tough on e-cigarettes is being tough on the competitive alternative to cigarettes. This may have unintended harmful consequences, such as protecting the cigarette trade which results in more smoking than there otherwise would be.
The following are a few plausible consequences of excessive regulation:
POLICY
PLAUSIBLE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE
High compliance costs or barriers to market entry
A loss of product diversity means consumers are unable to personalize the vaping experience or find products they enjoy. Users may find the experience less satisfactory and continue to smoke or relapse. Alternatively, a black market of possibly unregulated products could develop, harming responsible domestic producers.
Prohibit health or relative risks claims
This denies smokers truthful information about relative risk and may reduce switching from cigarettes. It erects unnecessary barriers to truthful communication and obscures important consumer benefits.
Restrictions on advertising, promotion and sponsorship
Limits the ability of firms to inform adult smokers about less harmful alternatives, reduces visibility for smaller legal businesses, and may push marketing into less transparent or illicit channels.
Restrictions on nicotine strength in liquids
Low-strength limits may make products less effective for smokers trying to switch, leading to failed cessation attempts or continued heavier smoking.
Ban on flavours
Removing flavours may reduce the appeal of products for adult smokers seeking alternatives and lower switching rates. It may also encourage illicit flavoured products to appear on the market.
Policy compliance burdens (packaging / labelling etc.)
Complex requirements may disproportionately affect small producers, reducing competition and innovation. Higher costs may be passed to consumers or push some activity into informal markets.
Raise taxes on e-cigarettes
High taxes can remove the price advantage over cigarettes, discouraging switching and keeping smoking prevalence higher. They may also incentivize an illicit market for cheaper products.