- Vape product sales declined and the sales of tobacco products went up in places where flavours were banned. They found the same was true where outright bans on a vape product sales was instituted.
- The effect of bans became more marked with time - meaning that the longer a flavour or complete ban was in place the more the sales of tobacco products grew.
- 71% of the increase in tobacco sales came from tobacco flavoured cigarettes and not menthol, leading them to conclude that flavours don't play a major role in choice and therefore shouldn't be banned.
- The cigarette brands which showed the largest growth in sales were those preferred by young people under the age of 18, showing that the bans only served to worsen the health of youths.
- Restricting the sale of flavoured products to licenced specialists still led to a decline in vape sales and an increase in smoking.
Study Analyses Vape Ban Impact
Dave Cross |
A recent research paper from the Universities of Yale, Missouri, and Georgetown looked at the impact of permanent restrictions on the sale of flavoured vapes. We consider the implication for the United Kingdom as the Government deliberates over banning disposable ecigs, especially as Cancer Research UK are warning that the poorest are lagging behind the rest of society and won't be "smokefree" until 2050.
The drive to ban flavoured vape products
Globally, the answer is the same regardless of the country - single-use vape products have been the excuse for governments to look towards bans.
By virtue of having little by way of national vape legislation at the time, American states took it upon themselves to curb the growing popularity of flavoured e-liquids. Eventually the pressure grew and a Juul voluntarily withdrew all its flavoured products bar menthol and tobacco. With successive states and counties implementing their own bans, the national organisation (the Food and Drugs Administration) took it upon itself to restrict access to popular products.
The door was open - or rather, closed - and other countries began using the United States as an example and began drawing up their own prohibitive legislation packages, with many of them copy-pasting the USA's legislation into their own statutes.
Europe takes its cue
Vaping as we know it in the UK was shaped by the European Union's Tobacco Products Directive (from when we were a member). It took concerted action by harm reduction advocates and European vapers to oppose harsher restrictions and we coped with smaller bottles of juice, a cap on nicotine strength and limits placed on how products could be marketed.
UK vapers were very influential in that process and prohibitionist MEPs have gained strength with the removal of their voice. The next iteration of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) is currently underway, but in the meantime individual nations have begun putting harsher restrictions in place.
Ireland
is being won over by the #BanDisposableVapes campaign,
Germany
looks set to do the same,
France
recently announced its "
crackdown
" on vapes, and Belgium is treading water pending the EU finalising the TPD and implementing a ban across the Union.
Without the UK's contribution to the debate and the USA's "
success
" in doing away with fruity flavours, the flavour ban carried out by the
Netherlands
appears highly likely to be confirmed next year.
The research
Against this backdrop comes research from a Stateside-based team consisting of Professors Friedman, Liber, Crippen, and Pesko - all with a long history of experience in tobacco harm reduction work. Together they produced
E-cigarette Flavor Restrictions' Effects on Tobacco Product Sales
.
Leading harm reduction advocate and ex-policy advisor to the Tony Blair government Clive Bates said of the work: "
A great new paper assesses the impact of vape flavour restrictions on cigarette sales. Given they are substitutes, one might expect restrictions on vapes to have the effect, if not the intention, of promoting cigarettes. This unintended (though foreseeable) consequence of vape flavour bans has been extensively discussed, but there is now 'quasi-experimental' economic research to support it
."
He continued: "
Many flavour bans have been introduced with no plan to evaluate the overall effects and not much sign of interest in knowing. This paper is an important rejoinder to that sort of complacency among policymakers and activists recommending flavour bans all over the world
."
The team looked into the impact of the bans carried out in over 375 US localities and 7 states, despite the fact that "
research largely supports the harm reduction argument
(in favour of substituting smoking for vaping)".
They quote the Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems saying: "
current evidence suggests
[vapes]
are substantially less lethal than combustible cigarettes
".
The research team note that the initial impact of a local flavour ban is that vapers (and smokers looking to switch) travel to a nearby state where they can make their purchase or attempt to source supplies from the black market.
Earlier this year, an
investigative report
produced by the
Planet of the Vapes
looked at how successful the complete ban on the sale and use of vape products is going in Thailand. It discovered that the ban was a complete failure with illicit ecig products openly on sale and in use.
The aforementioned Clive Bates detailed
on his website
related arguments that he contributed to a UK Government's recent evidence gathering exercise. With reference to banning flavours, he expressed his disagreement, saying: "
I strongly disagree with category-wide flavour bans of the type implemented in some jurisdictions and mentioned here. I strongly disagree with bans on characterising flavours as these are integral to the success of vapes as an alternative to cigarettes.
"
Adding, "
None of the data provided show that the vaping flavours cause vaping uptake, rather than just inform the choice of product. None of the evidence cited shows that a broad flavour ban would work and not have harmful unintended consequences - for example, by increasing smoking, increasing risky practices in making, sharing or selling flavours informally or promoting illicit trade (which also would draw some young people into criminal networks
)."
Is the Thailand experience and Bates' fear born out in the United States?
The research team presented five key findings:
