The 2024 UKVIA forum focused on the UK’s proposed Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
By George Gay
As many people have noted, it seems odd that after decades of handwringing over the negative health consequences of tobacco smoking, the health community has been at best lukewarm and at worse fundamentally opposed to the introduction of new-generation nicotine products. After all, these products are significantly less risky than combustible cigarettes, and they have been more effective at helping smokers quit their habit than any of the products or strategies previously used. The health community seems to have been intent, and largely successful, on reviving the tobacco wars as the nicotine wars—this time, with it comprising the bad guys.
The health community has obstructed the introduction of these new products, which it generally recognizes as being less risky than cigarettes, partly on the grounds that, since they are relatively new, it is not known what negative health effects they might cause in the future, after prolonged use. This, of course, is to misapply the precautionary principle given that the new products are being used to replace combustible cigarettes, which the health community likes to describe as comprising a consumer product that will kill you when used in the way it is designed to be used. Since humans are unable to predict the future with certainty, such an approach comprises an ideology that rules out change, including progress, of any kind.
The health community has resisted the introduction of less risky products also on the grounds that they are used by those too young to buy them legally. Consumption by those underage is often described as comprising an epidemic, but this is hyperbole, often used, apparently unashamedly, by people who put themselves forward as scientists. It has also been used by U.K. politicians who, while saying that nobody wants children to come to harm, vote against providing meals to young people from financially impoverished families.
It seems that many in the health community and many politicians prefer to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to the rising level of child poverty in the U.K. and prefer to remain in that rather uncomfortable—not to say undignified—position rather than admit that many underage vapers are the risk-takers who, if they had not been vaping, would have been smoking.
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that if some of those who are too young to buy vapes legally are vaping regularly, then somewhere along the line, the law has probably been broken, and this law-breaking should not be allowed to continue to happen with impunity. Indeed, this is something the U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) has recognized for a long time. For years, it has called for the introduction of a retail licensing scheme that would allow sanctions to be imposed on retailers who sold vapes to the underaged and indulged in other illegal activities.
And from this point of view, one provision of the U.K. government’s much-trailed Tobacco and Vapes Bill (T&V) 2024, which was published 10 days before the UKVIA held its annual forum in London on Nov. 15, drew a cautious welcome from participants. In part, the bill provides for the introduction of a licensing scheme* for the retail sale of vapes and nicotine products as well as tobacco products, herbal smoking products and, somewhat bizarrely, cigarette papers (but not cigarette lighters). The welcome was cautious because a few flies could drop into the ointment, one of which could be a lack of enforcement, a problem that was given a new-to-me angle during the forum.
In the past, it has been said that government austerity measures had left Trading Standards (TS) with inadequate resources to fully carry out its responsibilities, which, among many others, include enforcing compliance with retail laws as they apply to tobacco and nicotine products. But a forum presentation by Kate Price, the lead officer for vaping at the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, seemed to cast doubt on whether this lack of TS funding was the most significant issue and, therefore, on whether an increase in funding would make a great deal of difference.
The forum was told that TS teams worked for local authorities that also had seen their funding slashed, leaving them needing to control their budgets tightly. The implication seemed to be that these authorities, with responsibilities that include the protection of vulnerable children and older people, might not see retail offenses as a high priority for prosecution through the courts, which anyway were suffering from backlogs caused by their own funding issues.
Neither, it seemed, would it make much difference if, as some have suggested, the revenue from licensing fees were to be ringfenced for use by TS because, presumably, this would do nothing to relieve the bottlenecks further down the line that lead to court appearances. One other provision in the T&V bill might be more positive in that, if enacted, it would give TS powers to issue on-the-spot fines, but the industry seems to believe, not without justification, that the level of fines being discussed would not present much of a deterrent given the profits that can be made by retailers who sell illicit products and/or licit and illicit products to those underage.
I shouldn’t give the impression that Price is against further funding for TS; she isn’t. In fact, she made the point that it was difficult for TS to cover the 60,000 premises from which vapes are sold, and, because of this, she asked industry players to report whenever they came across rogue retailers. This was all well and good and in line with the industry’s desire to work closely with TS, but later in the forum, retail representatives seemed to suggest that many reports were made, but few seemed to be acted upon. It was said that there were few prosecutions, and those prosecutions attracted low penalties.
It was said too that the system of enforcement needed to move from reactive to proactive, using, among other things, a system of regular test purchases, and I got the impression that there was a need for a complete rethink because the whole system of retail oversight and enforcement seemed far too cumbersome to produce timely prosecutions. The industry is aware that this is the most important issue that it needs to address because the retail sale of illicit products and the sale of all products to the underaged are two big sticks with which its opponents can keep beating it. On the positive side, the government says that it intends to strengthen enforcement activity to support the implementation of the measures outlined in the T&V, but, with government coffers hardly overflowing, the industry would be unwise to hold its breath on this one.
Price’s presentation, informative and useful as it was, rather put me in mind of some of the wise words of the late JJ Cale on his Grasshopper album, where he laments that “Prop up the front, the back falls down.” In fact, come to think of it, those words might comprise a suitable theme for the 2025 UKVIA forum.
This year’s forum, which was held under the theme “The Changing Vaping Environment— Succeeding in a New Policy Landscape,” comprised a packed program of practical presentations and panel discussions that, along with a modest exhibition space, embraced nicotine pouches as well as vapes.
In opening remarks, forum participants were told that the vaping industry faced an unprecedented period of change but that it could succeed and even thrive in the new policy landscape. The industry, the government, regulators and the public health community could work together to ensure that vaping could achieve its full potential—a smoke-free U.K. and the health benefits that would flow from such an outcome.
John Dunne, the director of the UKVIA, said, however, that the industry had to deal with the issue of youth uptake and, in this regard, he expressed delight that the government had reintroduced its T&V bill and added a provision to include a vaping licensing scheme. The industry supported evidence-based and well-balanced regulation aimed at addressing the issues of packaging, product design and flavor descriptions that young people might find overly appealing, he added. But he issued a word of warning in asking the government to oppose any measures that could equate vaping with smoking because far too many people still believed that vaping was as harmful or more harmful than smoking.
I’m afraid this is a plea destined to fall on deaf ears. In fact, if the T&V bill goes through in anything close to its present form, which seems likely, I think the equating horse will have already bolted. You only have to look at the name of the bill to see that smoking and vaping are being lumped together, and many of the bill’s provisions, as they stand, give the idea that cigarettes and vapes need to be dealt with in lockstep. Unfortunately, smokers are likely to interpret this as meaning that there is no point in switching.
The only way in which it would be possible to view this bill as having been put together by people who intended to engage the full potential of vaping to reduce the incidence of smoking would be to assume they were suffering from a nasty case of cognitive dissonance. I think the bill indicates that the U.K. is on the cusp of throwing away its previous positive approach to tobacco harm reduction.
How else is it possible to explain how a country that has stated officially that vaping is 95 percent less risky than smoking and that has been operating a “swap (vapes for cigarettes) to stop” scheme is now proposing that the advertising and sponsorship of nicotine products be banned, putting them into the same basket as cigarettes? In a bill factsheet, the government states unequivocally that its intention is to equate nicotine products with tobacco products in this respect. “The bill will ban the advertising and sponsorship of all vapes and other nicotine products (such as nicotine pouches), mirroring impactful restrictions on tobacco [my emphasis],” it says. This seems to me to be the exact opposite of what is needed, which is the vigorous promotion of the advantages of smokers switching to vapes and other nicotine products.
There is much more that is of concern too. “The bill also provides powers to make places vape-free and heated-tobacco-free, insofar as they are smoke-free places,” the factsheet states. “Vape usage is already prohibited in many places, and, as with smoke-free places, proposals for any restrictions will be subject to full public consultation.” Once again, the government is implying that there is no difference between smoking and vaping, without having rescinded its 95 percent less risky stance. This is cognitive dissonance on stilts.
Although it is not necessarily relevant here, it is worthwhile examining the government’s thinking on tobacco smoke in outdoor settings. “Secondhand smoking poses a risk to your health even outdoors,” it states in the “Rationale for Intervention” section of its factsheet. “It is particularly dangerous for vulnerable people like children, pregnant women and those with preexisting but usually invisible health conditions such as asthma and heart disease.
In some public settings, exposure can be high—if you can smell smoke, you are inhaling it.” Of course, it could have added: If you can smell e-cigarette vapor, you are inhaling it. And it could have further added for those who enjoy being frightfully continental and sitting at pavement cafes with diesel traffic chugging by that the opposite is not true, so you can inhale a busload of toxic fumes that your olfactory system has not warned you about. The truth is that you can get up and move away from tobacco smoke, which, like e-cigarette vapor, is also visible, but even if you detected it, you would have to move to the Outer Hebrides to get away from vehicle pollution. But then who is interested in the truth when half-truths and hypocrisy will win the argument?
The bill will also provide ministers with powers to regulate the flavors, packaging and display of all vapes and other nicotine products, which, as Dunne indicated, are not issues that would necessarily concern the industry. But the sweeping powers are surely of concern, if for no other reason than that they leave the industry at the mercy of the whims of ministers, who come and go. This is a difficult position in which to leave an industry that runs on costly innovation and therefore needs stability.
As was said often during the forum, the devil is in the detail, which is currently out for “consultation.” The trouble here is that there are consultations and consultations, and if the tobacco industry’s experience is anything to go by, this consultation will be between the government and those who support the government’s position or want its interventions to be more draconian than those proposed.
This is not to suggest that the industry and its supporters should not interact with the consultation, especially if they are the sorts of people who find comfort in whistling Dixie. But my guess would be that many of the most popular flavors among adult consumers will be junked. And in further measures that will emphasize in the minds of consumers the idea that smoking and vaping are the same, packaging will be tightly regulated, possibly with the inclusion of unfounded health warnings, and vapes will be regulated out of sight in retail outlets.
What is probably the standout provision of the T&V will make it an offense to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers—what has the government got against small pieces of paper?—to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2009. This provision seems to be supported by the vaping industry, but for the life of me, I cannot see why. In the unlikely event that this measure is made to work, and the industry sticks to its position that vapes should be used only by cigarette smokers to quit their habit, all the generational tobacco sales ban will do is ensure that the industry runs out of potential customers faster than it would do otherwise.
In addition, you have to wonder whether the industry really believes that, having been successful with its generational tobacco sales ban, a future government won’t turn its sights on a generational nicotine ban. The signs are there for those who look, not the least of which is the fact that heat-not-burn products are to be included in the tobacco sales ban. The best way to encourage smokers to quit their habit is to offer them a range of alternative low-risk products, and heat-not-burn systems have proved that they should be part of the range. The government should take cognizance of the fact that while you can kick logic out the door, it will come back at you through the window.
Surely, a better industry approach would be for it to oppose the generational tobacco sales ban on the grounds that, since so-called smoking-related diseases take decades to manifest themselves, such an ungainly policy will take far too long to show any significant effects. It could argue, rightly, that a much faster route to a healthier population is available and is one that will not involve the government in spending huge sums on enforcement, that will not require it possibly getting bogged down in issues of identity cards and that will not involve it getting into a fight with libertarians and others concerned with individual rights.
All the government has to do is bring in an effective vaping product registration scheme, which anyway is one of the provisions of the T&V, stop equating vaping with smoking and start promoting the health benefits of smokers switching to vaping. What is a highly innovative industry will do the rest.
Innovation was to the fore during the forum, and one session looked at “How vape technologies are evolving as we approach a post-disposables future and a new era of responsible vaping.” Although what was an interesting but shortened session ranged much wider than the title suggests, it is to be welcomed, I think, that the title, with its “new era of responsible vaping,” seemed to suggest that the industry has come to terms with the ban on disposables that will come into effect at the beginning of April next year. There are some fights worth engaging in, but they don’t include those that are difficult to win because they are ethically suspect at a time of environmental breakdown.
Of course, some will say that the ban won’t work. The phrase “bans have never worked and never will work,” rang out often at the forum. But this simply isn’t true. There are a huge number of bans that work under any reasonable definition of the word “work” in this context, car speed limits comprising one. Only if you apply to the word “work” the unreasonable definition that brooks no or few contraventions can it be claimed that bans don’t work. This is not to say that all bans are a good idea, of course.
In fact, there is widespread tacit approval of bans within the vaping industry, though these industry-friendly bans are supported because they operate under the cover of being positive developments, as well they might be, rather than negative ones. Look at the title of this session: “From licensing to product and regulatory compliance—killing the black market, not the consumers.”
The licensing scheme referred to here will ban all those who cannot obtain a license for selling vapes while the regulatory compliance scheme will ban any product that doesn’t conform. And, of course, it goes without saying that the black market is banned. Those who don’t believe in bans should come out against the licensing proposal, they should come out against the regulatory compliance proposal, and, in fact, they should agitate to make everything legal. Such a position, if enacted, would at least save a fortune on enforcement.
And such a position would save another fortune on lawyers. But for the time being, at least they are involved, as was made obvious by an informative presentation on“A case for vaping —What legal recourse does the industry have against misinformation, infringement, bad regulation and the illicit market?”This was an interesting presentation in line with the UKVIA forum’s emphasis on the practical, including as it did a look at patent infringements and anti-competitive practices, among other topics.
Meanwhile, there were presentations on “Politics in the spotlight—Working with a new government and understanding the vaping products duty.” The latter presentation was interesting, not least because it highlighted a measure brought in by the new government that clearly is another way in which smokers might be persuaded that the consumption of vapes is as harmful as smoking. Looked at in a more positive light, however, Price mentioned in her piece that the application of duty would drag into the vapes enforcement arena bodies with more powers than TS has—HMRC (revenue and customs) and Border Force.
It is worth mentioning that the duty issue comprised a positive example of the industry’s being able to use the consultation process. It wasn’t able to dissuade the government from applying a duty, but it was able to persuade it to bring in a flat rate rather than the tiered system that had been proposed. In fact, the forum was told that the Labour government had proved more approachable and receptive than the previous Conservative government had proved more approachable and receptive. The industry had been able to have a good level of engagement with the government, TS and HMRC.
The forum included a couple of sessions focused on the truth, or lack of it, within the vaping sphere: “Closing the trust gap—How public education campaigns can be critical to correcting the vape narrative” and “Taste of truth—Understanding the key role of flavors in harm reduction.” One session looked at “The balancing act—What is the best route to further unlock vaping’s potential to improve harm reduction while also protecting young people?,” and the final session gave the floor to consumers by “Adding consumers to the conversation—A live focus group with the industry’s biggest stakeholders.”
*Health issues are generally the responsibility of the U.K.’s devolved governments and administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but, in this instance, the licensing scheme will apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland while the bill will expand the scope of Scotland’s existing retail register to include herbal smoking products and nicotine products.
