Details

Created: 12 October 2026

The NNA has written to James Murray MP, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to request that his department perform a post-implementation review of the vaping duty tax which came into force on 1st October. The new duty risks making safer alternatives less affordable and weakening the financial incentive for smokers to switch.

Evidence from Canada suggests that higher taxes and tighter regulation can shrink the legal vaping market without reducing consumption, potentially driving consumers towards illicit products or back to smoking. The Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that higher prices may encourage some people to switch to tobacco.

Falling legal sales do not necessarily mean a public health success. The Government must establish whether consumers have stopped vaping, returned to smoking or turned to unregulated products.

If the duty undermines switching or encourages illicit trade, the Government must be prepared to reconsider its approach.

You can read the letter at this link. 

Details

Created: 14 September 2026

The government's public consultation on "Tobacco and vapes: packaging, appearance and display" is open until 11:59pm on October 2nd. You can respond using the online survey at this link. You can read the NNA's briefing on the consultation here. 

Consumers are stakeholders too

There is something deeply wrong with the way consumers are treated in the debate over tobacco and nicotine policy.

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) recently encouraged people to respond to the consultation on tobacco and vape packaging, appearance and display. It even provided guidance on which boxes respondents should tick. Yet it condemned consumer associations for doing the same, ominously commenting that “some vape industry and consumer groups are mobilising opposition to the proposed vape regulations through the ‘SaveVaping’ campaign and lobbying through the media.”

While we welcome the link to the NNA’s campaign website, it is extremely disappointing that ASH has chosen to imply that consumers taking part in the democratic process is somehow wrong. As a reminder, according to government statistics, there are approximately 9 million users of nicotine products (smokers, vapers, dual users etc). That’s 9 million total stakeholders. Why should their participation be criticised?

When ASH tells people to respond to a government consultation, that is apparently legitimate advocacy. But when consumer organisations encourage people to respond, it is suddenly described as “industry mobilisation”, an extraordinary double standard.

Consumers are not only legitimate stakeholders, but they should also be the most important ones. Consumers have a direct and personal interest in the laws being proposed, and they have every right to organise, campaign and make their views known.

A consumer who argues against a proposed restriction is not transformed into an industry lobbyist simply because a manufacturer might also oppose the restriction. Public consultation responses should be legitimate whichever side of an argument they come from, they cannot suddenly become illegitimate when they oppose it.

We would like to ask exactly who is ASH representing when they make comments such as this. Where is the serious consideration of the interests of people who continue to smoke, including those who might otherwise switch to lower risk alternatives? Where is the concern for adults who have quit smoking by using vaping products and nicotine pouches?

Why should people who have successfully moved away from combustible tobacco and do not want government policy to make that alternative less accessible, less attractive or more expensive, not have their say?

ASH’s attitude appears to be more interested in defending a policy agenda than understanding, or even caring about, adults who are most affected by the measures being proposed. Smokers and nicotine consumers have a great deal at stake. They bear the consequences of taxation, restrictions, stigma, reduced choice and, potentially, the growth of illicit markets when legal products become unnecessarily difficult to obtain.

Yet consumers are almost always absent from the rooms where policy is discussed. Organisations now produce reports about what is supposedly best for smokers and vapers while consumers themselves are never invited to give evidence and discuss policy. For example, consumers have been completely excluded from all oral evidence sessions in formulating the Tobacco and Vapes Act.

Instead, organisations with privileged access to ministers, officials and parliamentary committees can present themselves as the voice of “public health”, while consumer representatives struggle to get a seat at the table.

ASH and other organisations are perfectly entitled to oppose vaping, support tighter restrictions or advocate whatever policies they believe are appropriate. But they should not be allowed to define the boundaries of legitimate participation.

Consumers should not have to rely on public health organisations that have decided in advance what is best for them and will condemn them for expressing their views. Ignoring the public is not the way to approach public health.

Consumers have legitimate interests that deserve consideration. And when they disagree with government policy, they have exactly the same democratic right as everyone else to say so.

A consultation is not supposed to be an exercise in collecting only the answers policymakers want to hear. It is supposed to listen to the people affected by the decision and that includes consumers.

Details

Created: 07 September 2026

The government is currently holding a consultation on "Tobacco and vapes: packaging, appearance and display" which closes at 11:59pm on 2nd October. It plans regulating safer nicotine like smoking, with restrictions on packaging, displays, advertising, flavours and more. The NNA has produced a website - which you can read here - to let our supporters know how to have your say about the new government proposals. 

The consultation is very involved and features a large number of questions. So, we have produced a briefing, below, which may help those who wish to submit. We have given our views on the consultation questions which you may find helpful. You can also click here for the briefing as a PDF file. 

Please do read the website and respond to the consultation. Consumers are the most affected in this process and should have the most important voice. If you do not have your say, other people will make decisions which could seriously affect you. 

NNA Briefing on the government public consultation.

Here is a guide to the UK government’s ongoing consultation on “Tobacco and vapes: packaging, appearance and display.”

• Consultation closing date: 11.59pm on 2 October 2026
• The online submission form can be accessed here
• Your responses are vital, whether or not you are a nicotine consumer
• Make your case clearly and firmly but please remember to be polite and constructive
• You are not required to answer every question
• You do not have to complete the questionnaire in one go, you can get a link for your saved answers
• The consultation asks that you offer your suggestions on the aims of government proposals, how they would work in practice, and what issues they may cause

The NNA has assessed the consultation questions. If the government wants to see fewer smokers, it makes no sense to treat products which pose far lower health risks in the same way as cigarettes. In effect, this policy effectively protects cigarettes from competition.

We highlight below highly relevant questions on proposals which relate to reduced risk products (i.e pouches, vapes and HTPs) that consumers should definitely consider responding to. Please note that some of the points raised can apply to several questions.

Proposals for further plain packaging requirements

The Government has repeatedly and inappropriately equated heated tobacco products with combustible tobacco products. As a reduced risk nicotine product, it is wrong to treat heated tobacco the same as cigarettes. The important health distinction is between combustion and non-combustion, rather than between tobacco and non-tobacco products.

There is an abundance of research which finds that heated tobacco presents a far lower risk of disease than smoking.

The same is true for the next two questions on text health warnings and picture health warnings on the packaging of heated tobacco devices.

We question whether such health warnings could provide consumers with the most useful and actionable information: that the risks from HTPs are substantially lower than those from smoking, even if they are not zero. A warning that “this product causes lung cancer”, applied equally to heated tobacco products and cigarettes, would be highly misleading.

Likewise, the consultation information states that: “The images on the picture warning may need to be related to the harms caused by using each specific product.” No harms specific to heated tobacco have been evident so far. Any images would be misleading.

Proposals for pack inserts in packaging for all tobacco and heated tobacco products

The NNA has consistently advocated for the inclusion of pack inserts for smoking products to signpost people who smoke to reduced risk products. However, we believe that quitting messaging and related leaflets should focus primarily on combustible smoking products. Heated tobacco products should be treated as an option for smokers seeking to quit smoking.

Smokefree products such as vapes and nicotine pouches should not be overlooked as options in this process. The government could, for example, direct smokers to the highly successful Swap to Stop Campaign by way of these inserts.

Proposals for banning lights, branding, imagery, artwork and digital screens on heated tobacco devices

Restrictions on heated tobacco products the same as required for combustible cigarette packaging would mislead the public as to their relative risks. Heated tobacco products should appear more appealing than cigarettes to attract people away from smoking combustible tobacco.

Heated tobacco devices should not be styled in a way that could attract minors. They should never mimic toys, cartoons, sweets, or any other imagery that appeals to children.

Proposals for vaping and nicotine product packaging and shape

There is no credible evidence that setting strict limits or uniform standards on the size, shape, or colour of vaping devices discourages youth vaping. Considering that vaping is known to be the most effective and most popular means of adult smokers quitting smoking, all proposals should be evidence-based.

Proposals for restrictions on imagery, branding and text of vaping products

The effectiveness of reduced risk nicotine products in helping smokers quit depends on allowing people to find an experience that is more attractive to them than combustible tobacco. Preserving this diversity is crucial to supporting successful transitions away from smoking.

Proposals for packaging of all nicotine products to be child-resistant

Regulations should prioritise ensuring that refill bottles and tanks are fitted with child-resistant packaging. Overly complicated packaging, however, could make these products harder for adult smokers with dexterity issues to use.

The government should adopt the international ISO standard for “Child-resistant packaging — Requirements and testing procedures for reclosable packages”

Proposals to restrict flavour descriptors of all vaping products to a single lead flavour

For vape products, pouches and heated tobacco, flavours are vitally important. The proposals are to alter the 'flavour descriptors' (the names given to the flavours) rather than to ban the flavours themselves. This is relatively positive, as there is a wealth of evidence demonstrating that flavour bans are counterproductive to public health. However, the devil is in the detail, and we are concerned that these proposals on descriptors are ill thought out and could effectively remove thousands of flavours.

15% of adult vapers say that restrictions on flavours “will cause an increase in their smoking” according to the latest survey by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Some of the government’s proposals would require the vendor to misdescribe them. For example, with regard to sensory flavours, there is a difference between “Blueberry” and “Blueberry Ice”. Using “ice” in the descriptor conveys information to the user that the flavour contains menthol or mint. According to ASH, “43% of [adult] vapers sometimes or always use ‘ice’ flavours”.

Epidemiological research has repeatedly found limiting flavours is shown to lead to an increase in smoking, especially amongst youth. By limiting flavours to a single word descriptor, the regulation would effectively ban thousands of flavours which are used by adults.

Proposals for information on and inside vaping and nicotine products packaging

This is common sense information. The NNA has particularly argued that the display of nicotine pouch strength should be standardised so that it is clearly visible to the consumer what they are buying.

Proposals to limit the colour of vaping devices, and restrict branding, imagery, and artwork

Adults who have switched from cigarettes to products which the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) concludes present “a fraction of the harms of smoking” should not be restricted in the same way as if they were using harmful combustible products. Plain packaging, as is being proposed, and restrictions of brands treats far safer products the same as cigarettes.

The Royal College of Physicians has stated that any approach which “makes e-cigarettes less easily accessible, less palatable or acceptable, … less consumer friendly … causes harm by perpetuating smoking."

Proposals for restricting the digital screens on vapes

There is no credible evidence that screens encourage youth vaping. Vaping is the most effective and most popular means of adult smokers quitting smoking, all proposals should be evidence-based.

The sum of these measures will further reinforce misinformation in the minds of the public. Already, surveys have found that a majority of the public wrongly believe that vaping is as harmful or more harmful than smoking. Evidence-free measures such as this will have no public health benefit but will undoubtedly convince many more people that vapes are as harmful as cigarettes.

Digital screens on vaping devices should be allowed when they serve practical functions such as showing battery life or device settings.

Proposals to stop vapes imitating other products

Vaping products should avoid designs that mimic toys, cartoon imagery, sweets, or any other shapes and objects likely to attract children. Their appearance should reflect that they are intended for adults.

Proposals to restrict the display of heated tobacco devices and prices

Heated tobacco is a reduced risk nicotine product which should not be treated in the same way as cigarettes. Many smokers have found heated tobacco to be a way out of using combustible tobacco and a product which can improve their health. There is an abundance of research which finds that heated tobacco presents a far lower risk of disease than smoking.

Proposals to restrict the display of nicotine products

Vaping and nicotine pouch use is not smoking. Safer nicotine products are not cigarettes. There is a huge difference between the products. This is key to their success in transitioning smokers to taking their nicotine in a far safer form. Restricting their display the same as combustible tobacco will send entirely the wrong message to the public. Misconceptions around the relative risks compared to smoking will be reinforced which can only have harmful consequences for public health.

Proposals to restrict the display of prices for nicotine products

This information is vital to consumers when they purchase the products.

Banning the displays of these items along with their prices treats far safer products exactly the same as cigarettes. There should be some recognition that low risk nicotine products are vastly safer than cigarettes and they should not be treated in the same way.

Proposals to allow for the display of vaping products in relevant trade premises BUT NOT to vape shops, since they are not clinical settings.

Specialist vape retailers employ staff who can demonstrate products, help with appropriate product selection and offer advice which could help an adult quit smoking. They often work hand in hand with smoking cessation services. Many supply items for the government’s Swap to Stop campaign which has helped hundreds of thousands of smokers quit smoking.

Hiding products from adult smokers actively seeking alternatives to smoking serves no public health purpose. In fact, it will only serve to confirm, in the minds of the public, that safer nicotine products are as harmful, or more harmful, than smoking.

Observations on the consultation stage impact assessments

The government’s Impact Assessment states that “display restrictions could discourage some adult smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives such as vapes.” All the measures directed at safer nicotine products will, without doubt, reinforce negative misinformation in the minds of the public and hinder people switching.

Public understanding of the relative risks of vaping compared with smoking is already significantly flawed, especially among smokers who do not use vapes. Introducing measures that treat vaping in the same way as combustible tobacco, risks reinforcing the mistaken belief that the two carry similar levels of harm.

Protecting children is an entirely legitimate objective. Responsible manufacturers, retailers, and consumer groups all support robust age restrictions and sensible enforcement against youth access, but policies designed to protect young people should not come at the expense of millions of adults who smoke or have quit smoking by using safer products.

Details

Created: 21 August 2026

We are increasingly disappointed by the attitude of politicians toward tobacco harm reduction in the United Kingdom.

The change has been breathtaking. Britain was once regarded internationally as a leader in recognising that lives could be saved by moving away from combustible tobacco and switching to much safer nicotine products. Today, that progressive approach is being rapidly dismantled.

The government appears increasingly determined to treat vaping, nicotine pouches and other reduced risk nicotine products as though they were cigarettes. This threatens to undermine one of the most successful public health developments of modern times.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham recently claimed, extraordinarily, that vape shops provide no benefit to communities. Why, then, does the government's Swap to Stop scheme provide adult smokers with free reusable vape starter kits to help them quit smoking? Products which are supplied by independent businesses that the Prime Minister has now dismissed as offering no benefit to society.

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has described Mr Burnham’s comments as “knee-jerk” and “unhelpful”, and rightly so. Vaping has played a significant role in the dramatic decline in smoking in Britain. Smoking rates are now at historic lows, and there are more people who vape than smoke. This should be celebrated as a major public health success.

ASH has warned that a majority of the public now incorrectly believes that vaping is as harmful as smoking or more harmful. On the face of it this is wrong but doubly so when the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has concluded that vaping presents only “a small fraction of the harms of smoking.”

Yet the government consultation on tobacco and vape packaging, appearance and display proposes measures that make safer nicotine products seem as harmful as cigarettes. The new proposals are to hide vapes, nicotine pouches and heated tobacco behind screens, just like cigarettes; to ban advertising, just like cigarettes; to impose plain packaging, just like cigarettes; to restrict flavours, just like cigarettes; to ban vending machines, just like cigarettes; to control the shape, colour and size of devices, just as the government controls the shape, colour and size of cigarette packets.

This is on top of a new vape tax which will be imposed in October which more than doubles the cost of many vape liquids, and a desire to ban vaping in public places without any scientific evidence whatsoever that vape aerosols have any negative health impact on bystanders.

Britain now appears to be moving toward a regulatory model that increasingly treats safer nicotine products as if they were combustible tobacco, for no valid reason whatsoever.

The government's approach is particularly difficult to understand given its own stated commitment to reducing smoking. If smoking remains an urgent public health problem, policymakers should be making it easier for smokers to move away from cigarettes, not making effective alternatives increasingly harder to access.

Britain once showed the world what sensible tobacco harm reduction could achieve but now our policymakers seem determined to throw that achievement in the gutter.

Consumers deserve better. Smokers deserve better. And the public’s health deserves better than policies that will drive people back towards cigarettes which government claims it wants them to quit.

That is why we have established a campaign website to help consumers respond to the government's proposals. If you care about protecting access to safer nicotine products and preserving Britain's successful harm reduction approach, please visit the website, read the proposals and make your voice heard in the public consultation which closes on 2^nd October.

The future of tobacco harm reduction should be based on evidence, proportionality and consumer choice, not ignorance and populist misinformation from politicians who should know better.

Details

Created: 10 July 2026

The NNA can welcome one part of the Department of Health’s latest crackdown on vaping. At least ministers have stopped short of proposing a blanket ban on all vape flavours, something that would have removed one of the most effective tools helping millions of adults stay away from cigarettes.

Unfortunately, much of the rest of the suite of proposals risks sending exactly the wrong message to smokers.

Only this week, new polling from Action on Smoking and Health revealed that a majority of adults now wrongly believe vaping is as harmful as, or more harmful than, smoking. That misconception is already preventing many smokers from switching to products that leading public health bodies have consistently described as posing only a small fraction of the risk of smoking. Yet the government's new proposals seem almost guaranteed to reinforce public misunderstanding.

The government plans to impose plain white packaging, products hidden behind screens, severe restrictions on branding and flavours and intends to limit the colour of devices to black, white, or grey. It is difficult to see how applying the same policies to vaping as have been applied to cigarettes can do anything other than convince even more people that the products present similar risks.

The overwhelming majority of Britain's 5.5 million vapers are former smokers. Many of them claim that vaping has helped them quit after previous attempts had failed. Under the proposed restrictions, many future smokers may never make that switch.

The combined population of adult smokers and adult vapers is around sixteen times larger than the equivalent youth population. While preventing youth uptake is an important public health objective, adult smokers remain by far the largest group at risk of serious disease and premature death, but this government announcement doesn’t seem to take account of that.

The government’s press release acknowledges that vaping is less harmful than smoking, yet its proposals treat vaping in much the same way as cigarettes. In fact, Health Secretary James Murray has told the Daily Mirror that it plans to treat e-cigarettes the same as cigarettes. Combined with the introduction of a substantial new vaping tax later this year, it seems that ministers believe the difference in risk is relatively small.

They could not be more wrong. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has stated that “vaping poses only a small fraction of the risks of smoking.” If even a modest number of smokers decide not to switch because they wrongly believe vaping is just as dangerous, the resulting increase in smoking related disease would easily outweigh any reduction achieved by reducing youth vaping rates.

The consultation gives no indication that specialist vape shops will be exempt from display restrictions. The government is introducing a licensing scheme to ensure that only responsible individuals sell the products, and they are, and will be, adults only retail environments. Hiding products from adult smokers actively seeking alternatives to smoking serves no public health purpose.

The proposals also target other reduced risk smoking alternatives. Heated tobacco products sit in a significantly lower position on the continuum of risk than combustible cigarettes, yet ministers propose regulating them exactly the same as combustible tobacco, despite a significant body of scientific evidence showing they are much less harmful. Likewise, nicotine pouches, which are among the lowest risk nicotine products currently available, face restrictions on display, marketing, flavours, and packaging that could discourage smokers from switching.

While the government is not planning to ban flavours outright, it has stated its intention to ban fruit, confectionery, dessert, and other non-tobacco flavours. Thousands of former smokers rely on these flavours to help break the association with smoking. Removing these options risks makes relapse more likely for many adults.

Protecting children is an entirely legitimate objective. Responsible manufacturers, retailers, and consumer groups all support robust age restrictions and sensible enforcement against youth access, but policies designed to protect young people should not come at the expense of millions of adults who smoke.

The government should also understand that perception matters. When products that are widely accepted to be far less harmful than smoking are packaged, displayed, taxed, and regulated almost exactly like cigarettes, the inevitable consequence is that many members of the public will assume they pose the same dangers. That misunderstanding already exists and these proposals will only make it worse.

The government repeatedly says these products are "less harmful than smoking", but almost every regulatory measure it proposes tells the public exactly the opposite. If ministers genuinely believe vaping poses only a small fraction of the risk of smoking, why are they regulating it to look, feel and be sold almost exactly like cigarettes?

The government consultation was launched today and will close in 12 weeks’ time. The NNA will be evaluating the consultation questions and will give our guidance as to how best to respond. It is important that consumers do so because it is clear from the government’s proposals that it has not taken the views of smokers and vapers into account.

Action on Smoking and Health’s survey found that 54% of UK adults and 52% of smokers wrongly believe vaping is as harmful or more harmful than cigarettes. This latest move by government will reinforce and turbo-charge what is already a worrying lack of understanding.

Details

Created: 22 March 2026

The New Nicotine Alliance has launched a new campaign website to encourage supporters to respond to the government’s consultation on a proposed ban on vaping in public places and to contact their MP. We have also produced a supporting press release explaining why the proposal is a bad idea. 

You can view the website by clicking on https://savevaping.org/.

The consultation raises serious concerns for those who recognise the role of vaping in reducing smoking rates. We believe the proposal represents an unnecessary and disproportionate step, lacking clear evidence of benefit and risking unintended consequences for public health.

At the heart of the campaign is a simple message. The voices of people with real-world experience matter. Individuals who have used vaping to move away from combustible tobacco are uniquely placed to explain why such policies could be counterproductive. Our lived experience provides valuable insight that should not be overlooked in policymaking.

The campaign website has been designed to support and encourage participation in the consultation and to help consumers and others to get in touch with their elected representatives. The NNA drafted a briefing on the issues which you can read here. Supporters are urged to focus on personal stories and to highlight the broader impact a public ban could have on harm reduction efforts.

Importantly, respondents are also encouraged to point out that current scientific evidence does not demonstrate material harm to bystanders from vaping, a key consideration in assessing the justification for public restrictions, and that there are no discernible benefits to the policy.

Submissions do not need to be lengthy or technical to be effective. Honest, personal accounts can play a powerful role in ensuring that decisions are grounded in evidence, proportionality, and common sense.

With the UK having made significant progress in reducing smoking prevalence, this consultation represents a critical moment.

The NNA is calling on all supporters to take part and help ensure that future government policy protects, not undermines, the potential of lower risk nicotine products. We hope we can count on you to use the tools the website provides to enable you to have your say.

Please remember that the NNA is staffed by volunteers on a very limited budget. Please donate to us by any of the methods listed at our donate page here, if you can. We cannot speak up for tobacco harm reduction in the UK without your support.

Details

Created: 24 February 2026

The government has recently opened a public consultation regarding a proposed ban on vaping in public places. The New Nicotine Alliance believes that this is a mistake and an unnecessary legislative overreach for which there is no justification.

As a charity, we believe it is vital that the voices of those who understand the benefits of harm reduction are heard during this process. Your personal experiences and insights are the most powerful tools we have to ensure that future policies are based on evidence and common sense.

We are sharing the following briefing to help inform your perspective, but the most important thing is that you participate. Please take a few moments to complete the official consultation by visiting the government website here and sharing your views. When you fill out the form, you might find it helpful to focus on how vaping has helped you or others stay away from combustible tobacco. Do not be put off by questions which ask for new evidence, your lived experience is evidence in its own right, so please feel free to tell your stories.

You can also mention that current scientific evidence shows no material harm to bystanders, as explained in our briefing.

Your contribution does not need to be long or overly technical to be effective. It simply needs to be an honest reflection of why a public ban would be counterproductive to health goals. By speaking up now, we can help protect the progress the UK has made in reducing smoking rates. Thank you for your continued support and for taking the time to make your voice count in this important discussion.

You can access the government consultation and supporting materials here. To have your say, click on “Respond online” at the foot of the page. Responses must be submitted by 11:59pm on Friday May 8th.

Details

Created: 28 November 2024

For immediate release

• The government’s all-out offensive on vaping will undo years of advances in helping smokers quit
• Restrictions on the availability and accessibility of vapes will cause avoidable deaths
• Consumers in the UK want to know who will take responsibility for the avoidable deaths and disease caused by the ill-thought-out Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which got its second reading in the House of Commons this week

LONDON, November 28, 2024: For all their talk about saving future generations from the evils of smoking, the UK government is doing a very good job of driving people back to cigarettes.

MPs spent much of Tuesday debating the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which could see onerous restrictions on vapes - the very thing that has helped millions of people in this country to quit smoking.

"Make no mistake, this is pro-smoking legislation,” according to Clive Bates, long-standing smoking and health campaigner and a voluntary public health adviser to the New Nicotine Alliance. 

“The government has a range of anti-vaping measures which will worsen the smoking problem: if you raise taxes, impose bans on the most popular products, and prevent the advertising of safer alternatives to cigarettes, then you are protecting the cigarette trade and prolonging the smoking epidemic,” he said.

The government’s consultation document in October 2023 stated that “swapping to vaping is already helping 50,000 to 70,000 smokers in England quit each year - saving thousands of lives.^[1]” And the impact assessment on the ban on single use vapes suggests that as many as half a million vapers might revert to smoking as a result^[2].

Now, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill proposes to hide e-cigarettes away from consumers, which together with the ban on disposables (the most popular choice) and Rachel Reeves’ eye-watering taxes on vaping liquids, will only serve to compound the problem of consumer misperceptions – consumers increasingly and mistakenly believe that vaping is more harmful than smoking.

NNA Chair, Bernice Evans, a consumer herself said, “We are already hearing stories of vapers returning to smoking cigarettes because they believe that vaping must be as bad as smoking because the government seems to want to ban it. The proposals on vaping products in this bill will only convince more to do the same.”

The suggestions for banning flavours are particularly dangerous. There is comprehensive evidence that bans on vape flavours increase smoking prevalence, most notably amongst adolescents^[3][4][5].

The proposal to ban vending machines for vapes and other safer nicotine alternatives to cigarettes also seems unnecessary and spiteful, considering they are only sited in hospitals and mental health facilities. It is hard to imagine a policy more effective for prolonging cigarette use.

The NNA would like to know who will take responsibility for the avoidable future death and disease which could result from these proposals.

ENDS

Issued on behalf of the New Nicotine Alliance

Note to Editors: The NNA is a registered UK charity staffed by consumer volunteers, formed to increase understanding about the benefits of “new” risk-reduced nicotine products and a better recognition of long-term recreational use of nicotine as a powerful incentive for smoking cessation^[6].

The second reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill took place yesterday^[7].

The threats to vaping and other reduced risk products are numerous and damaging:

• Bans on flavours
• Reducing the appeal of vapes
• Removing vapes from display
• Ban on all promotion to smokers and restrictions on where they can be used
• Ban on vending machines in hospitals and mental health facilities
• Introducing full prohibition of heated tobacco and snus

[1] Government sets out next steps to create ‘smokefree generation’ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-next-steps-to-create-smokefree-generation

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ban-on-the-sale-and-supply-of-disposable-vapes-in-england-rpc-opinion-green-rated

[3] The Effect of E-Cigarette Flavor Bans on Tobacco Use, DOI 10.3386/w32535, June 2024

[4] Friedman, Abigail and Liber, Alex C. and Crippen, Alyssa and Pesko, Michael, E-cigarette Flavor Restrictions’ Effects on Tobacco Product Sales (January 29, 2024). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4586701 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4586701

[5] Hrywna M, Teotia A, Miller Lo E, Giovenco DP, Delnevo CD. The Impact of New Jersey's 2020 E-cigarette Flavor Ban on E-cigarette, Cigarette, and Cigar Sales in New Jersey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2024 Nov 22;26(12):1700-1707. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntae151. PMID: 38913006.

[6] https://nnalliance.org/

[7] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3703

Details

Created: 27 November 2024

Due to health reasons, Louise has had to end her time as Chair of the New Nicotine Alliance.

The Charity Commission will be informed.

Louise wishes trustees, associates and supporters of the NNA every success with their future work to help people understand the benefits that safer nicotine products bring, and how these products can help to reduce smoking rates.

‘Tobacco Harm Reduction is a hugely polarising area of work; I want to pay tribute to those who can put themselves in the shoes of other people who use nicotine but don’t want to smoke it. To those who think they know what’s best for other people, I would ask them to show some humility and learn from people with lived experience.’

Louise Ross, 26.11.24   

Details

Created: 31 October 2024

Yesterday, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, announced amendments to the vape duty which was originally proposed by Jeremy Hunt in the spring budget that preceded the general election.

The NNA wrote at the time that Hunt’s plans were “wrong in principle and childlike in application.” They seemed to be rushed, were based on flawed reasoning, and relied on a fundamental lack of understanding of how vaping works to reduce smoking rates.

It was to be hoped that a new government would take time to consider the problems that would arise as a result and study the subject more seriously. However, the new government appears to be as ill-informed as the last and likely swayed more by tabloid rhetoric than sober, evidence-based research. The new government promised change, but little has changed for the better.

On the plus side, the government has commendably abandoned the three-tier approach to taxation which would financially disadvantage higher strength liquids most used by people switching from combustible cigarettes. It instead proposes a flat rate of tax, but that is where the common sense ends.

Cost of a 10ml and 100ml e-liquid bottle before and after applying tax

Once again, we have a government which rightly continues to promote supplying one million free vapes to smokers, only to then disincentivise those who take up the offer by applying heavy duties to the liquids they need to actually use them.

As in the previous version of the vape duty, there is no appreciation of the vast difference in risk between combustible tobacco and vaping products. The government’s response to the vape duty consultation, which took place before the election, was published to coincide with the budget announcement and makes the same mistake as many commentators in seeing nicotine as the problem, rather than combustion.

It states that the duty will “further disincentivise young people and non-smokers … who may switch to refillable products in response to the ban [on disposables]." Single use vapes were supposedly banned because of their impact on the environment, hence why the legislation was added to the Environmental Protection Act. Those who supported the ban argued that it was not a burdensome imposition because vapers could use refillable devices instead, but it is now clear that the Labour government sees all vaping as undesirable.

It is highly naive to expect all users of disposable vapes to simply quit use of nicotine. To aspire to that goal is extremely irresponsible. The tax to be imposed means it is now far more likely that the chosen alternative following the disposables ban will be cigarettes rather than more environmentally friendly alternatives to single use products.

The government seems oblivious to NHS guidance that “nicotine itself does not cause cancer, lung disease, heart disease or stroke and has been used safely for many years in medicines to help people stop smoking.” Cigarette use is so dramatically more harmful than vaping that it is beyond belief that the government would flirt with the possibility of people returning to smoking, or seeking nicotine from combustion instead, by actively discouraging other vaping options.

Commenting on the previous vape tax regime, we criticised the irrelevant obsession with calculating the nicotine in vapes and comparing it with nicotine in cigarettes. It should be obvious that it is a pointless exercise when one product is vastly more harmful than the other, not due to nicotine content but because of the effects of combustion. The calculation in Jeremy Hunt’s supporting documentation at least had the merit of explaining the reason for setting differential vape duty for varying strengths of liquid, however flawed it was.

It is even less understandable now that the proposal is for a flat tax but has led to this extraordinary table in the HMRC documentation behind the duty announcement.

There is no explanation as to how they have come to the assessment that 10ml/mg of vaping liquid equates to 100 cigarettes. It is plainly wrong, as Action on Smoking and Health explained in their briefing for local authorities on youth vaping in 2022.

“Disposable vapes DO NOT contain as much or more nicotine as a packet of 20 cigarettes. Comparing like with like, a UK standard 2 ml disposable vape contains 40 mg of nicotine, an average pack of 20 cigarettes contains 250 mg of nicotine which is more than six times as much.”

The ASH explanation refers to a single use vape containing 20mg/ml of nicotine. Therefore, a 10ml bottle at the same strength would contain 200mg of nicotine, which is around 16 cigarettes, nowhere near 100. Using this mythical justification, the government has significantly over-estimated the threat of vaping and/or under-estimated the risks of smoking.

Consequently, the level of taxation proposed for vaping liquid is fatally flawed. The Chancellor announced that there would be an equivalent increase of £2.20 per 100 cigarettes in tobacco duty to "maintain the financial incentive to switch from tobacco to vaping". It is nothing of the sort. The Chancellor has considerably reduced the financial differential between smoking and vaping

According to the Office of National Statistics, the average price of a pack of 20 cigarettes is £15.88, meaning the tobacco duty increase is 44p per pack, or 2.77%. The government’s own estimation of the increase in cost for vape liquid is 105% before VAT is included, more than doubling the cost of quitting smoking. It is more alarming still when you consider that low-income vapers can currently buy bottles for £1 from some stores, which would increase by 264%.  

This is without factoring in the large increase in costs for vape liquid manufacturers to cope with tax regulations which they have not encountered before. The new proposals involve registering with the government and buying tax stamps to prove products have complied with regulations, at their own cost, which will surely raise retail prices before tax. It is worth noting that even cigarettes do not have to apply tax stamps in the UK.

As we explained in March, the only result of this will be a significant deterrent to smokers who are considering switching to vaping, an increase in sales of illicit products, and relapse by many back to smoking cigarettes.

This misguided attack on quitting smoking means only one thing, that the government’s Smokefree 2030 target is now nothing but a pipe dream.

Details

Created: 03 October 2024

On 8th August, the NNA wrote to the House of Commons Library following publication of its research briefing concerning “Advertising, marketing and promotion of vaping products”.

We were concerned that the section addressing views of stakeholders did not include those of consumers. We suggested that the document could be amended to include points made in our submissions to the government in recent months. Sadly, we have not yet received a reply.

We will continue to emphasise to government authorities that the consumer voice should be heard when considering policymaking considering those who use reduced risk products are the most affected by their decisions. You can read the full letter here, below.

Details

Created: 11 July 2024

On Friday 5 July, Wes Streeting MP was appointed Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

We have written to Wes Streeting on the new government’s approach to smoking and vaping.

You can read our letter in full by clicking here, or by scrolling below.

Details

Created: 27 May 2024

Today, the NNA submitted our response to the government’s public consultation on the proposed new duty on vaping liquids.

Although parliament has been dissolved in advance of the general election, the business of government continues so the consultation process is still ongoing. All submitted responses will therefore still be read and considered. If you have not already submitted a response, please do so by the deadline of midnight on Wednesday. We have produced a guide on how to respond which you can read here. Please also share it with anyone else you think may wish to have their say on the matter

You can read our consultation response submission in full here, or below.

Details

Created: 29 April 2024

Key facts:

• Consultation closing date: May 29, 2024
• Via template form or written comments
• Responses to be emailed to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
• Your responses are vital, whether or not you are a nicotine consumer
• Make your case clearly and firmly but please remember to be polite and constructive

Proposals for a tax on vaping were announced during Jeremy Hunt’s budget on 6 March this year. It was announced in the budget policy paper that “the government is introducing a new duty on vaping and increasing tobacco duty from October 2026, raising revenue to support public services like the NHS.” It is expected to raise up to £445 million in revenue per year.

The proposed level of tax is summarised below with an accompanying illustration of how it will affect products (VAT at 20% will be applied to all duty rates). The NNA has set up a website to campaign against the proposals which you can access here. You can also read the NNA’s statement following announcement of the tax here for suggested points to make.

The public consultation document released alongside the budget announcement states that users of stronger liquids (≥11mg/ml) will face a 143% price increase. Weaker liquids (<11mg/ml) will go up by 98%, and nicotine-free liquids by 48%.

It is vital that as many consumers and supporters of vaping as a harm reduction tool make their view known by responding to the government’s public consultation by the closing date of 29 May.

HOW TO RESPOND

The consultation document can be accessed at this government web page. It also contains a link to the Vaping Products Duty Consultation response form which you can download in order to respond.

The guidance for respondents also states that “You are not limited to only answering the questions asked and we will also consider written submissions provided to the consultation.” This suggests that you may send your thoughts on the tax directly to the email provided at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

If choosing the template form, it is designed so you are able to type your responses directly onto the file, then save or print off for submission.

The consultation comprises 59 questions which you can view on page 40 of the consultation document here. You do not have to answer all of the questions.

Firstly, the document asks if you are an individual or a business and for your name and address (an email will suffice). It then asks for a declaration which you should answer.

Question 4: Do you have any direct or indirect links to, or receive funding from, the tobacco industry?

Most of the other questions apply to vaping businesses rather than consumers, but we highlight below highly relevant questions that consumers should definitely consider responding to.

Question 6: Do you agree that the rates and structure will encourage manufacturers to reduce the nicotine content of their products?

Question 7: What do you think the likely impact the rate structure will have on consumers’ vaping behaviour?

Question 8: Should production of vaping products by individuals for their own use be within scope of the duty?

Question 58: Do you believe the introduction of the new duty would lead to consumers switching to alternative nicotine containing products?

Question 59: Unless already covered in your responses to other questions within this document, is there anything else you would like us to note about the impact of the duty?

You will notice that none of the questions ask if the proposed level of duty is proportionate. It is the NNA’s view that the duty rates, as currently set, are draconian and unwarranted. The UK would, overnight, be responsible for the second most expensive and punishing tax on vaping in Europe. This will significantly deter people who smoke from switching to vaping and will certainly result in many new vapers returning to smoking.

It will also further entrench the incorrect belief amongst a majority of the public that vaping is at least or more dangerous than smoking and, effectively, expose the government’s commitment to public health as just hollow words.

Do visit our campaign website at https://novapetax.uk/ where you can submit a personal testimonial to us on the proposals and for guidance on how to contact your MP.

Details

Created: 12 April 2024

Fight the UK Vape Tax!

Today the New Nicotine Alliance and vapers.org.uk launch the NoVapeTax website.

We are joining forces to encourage all UK vapers and their supporters to ACT NOW, while we have the chance, to resist the highly damaging and ill-thought-out proposed tax on vape liquids.

This is a huge increase and will also disproportionately affect those struggling with the cost of living. The UK government misunderstands the importance of high nicotine levels required for heavily dependent smokers.

ACT NOW – share it, add your story, respond to the consultation and write to your MP. You may have thought you were safe in the UK, compared with the rest of the world, but this budget proposal shows that we need to act now.

Details

Created: 09 April 2024

On Tuesday 19 March 2024, the Regulatory Policy Commitee submitted a Impact Assessment (IA) for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. The NNA has written to the RPC to give consumer group comments on the IA.

The NNA believes that the IA does not adequately reflect the balance of benefits and detriments and will have the effect of supporting legislation for which there is an extremely weak rationale and major scope for unintended consequences. 

The full Impact Assessment can be found online here.
You can read our letter in full here, or below.

Details

Created: 29 January 2024

The New Nicotine Alliance is extremely disappointed to hear that the UK government plans to ban single use vapes, restrict many flavours which can help people quit smoking, enforce plain packaging, and severely reduce the visibility of life-saving products.

The government’s response to the recent public consultation has ignored the most knowledgeable experts in tobacco control and put forth measures which will fail to tackle the issue of youth vaping and illicit sales, while also producing outcomes which will be damaging to public health.

The government states that single use “disposable” vapes have been a key driver behind a recent rise in youth vaping so have proposed a comprehensive ban on their sale. This fails to recognise that over 50% of sales of disposable devices are already counterfeit, non-compliant, or illegal. Prohibiting the products entirely will only affect legitimate, regulated traders while giving a boost to criminal enterprises who will now fully control a market with high demand.

There have been reports that the government is also planning to restrict flavours to just four. Namely, tobacco, mint, menthol, and “fruit”. As consumers repeat ad nauseam, the wide array of flavours currently available are vital for the success of vaping products to tempt people who smoke to switch and stay quit.

It is extremely concerning that ministers have given little or no thought to how their proposed actions will affect adult vapers and adults who currently smoke.

There is a valid argument that packaging should be regulated to ensure it is not blatantly child-friendly and likely to appeal to minors. However, it is facile and unsubstantiated to claim that any particular flavour is only developed to market to children. The most cited is bubblegum flavour, yet it has been a very popular flavour for adults since the early days of vaping; one of our trustees (who is 47), for example, uses it almost exclusively to avoid relapse to smoking.

It is important to recognize that fruit, dessert and candy flavours are the most popular category among adult vapers, with more than half of all vapers choosing them. Removing these flavours will weaken the appeal of vapes for smokers considering switching, while enforcing plain packaging will cement the already widespread incorrect assumption amongst the public that vaping is as or more harmful than smoking.

The result can only be less switching, more relapsing to smoking, and a further increase in misperceptions amongst the public. All these outcomes will cost a significant amount of lives.

We regret that the government has taken a naïve and simplistic approach to the problems it set out to tackle, without properly assessing the evidence, and dismissing the testimonies of experts in the field.

The government has ignored Fresh and Balance – a tobacco control organisation in the north east where smoking rates are the highest in England – which is opposed to banning single use vapes for fear of stoking an already rampant black market.

The government has ignored Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) – England’s foremost tobacco control charity - which opposes prohibition of single use vapes because they “may have a role to play for some groups of particularly disadvantaged smokers.” ASH’s consultation response also remarked that “It should be noted that many stop smoking services remain keen to have access to disposable vapes as part of the Government’s swap to stop programme specifically because of the benefits to some groups of smokers” and “the risk of unintended consequences is too great for us to support a ban.” It appears that the government has discarded this advice.

ASH also advocated caution on the issue of flavours, stating that “the risk of adverse unintended consequences is too great at the current time to implement ad hoc restrictions or bans on flavours.” This adds to the long tally of expert testimony that the government has dismissed.

The government has also ignored stop smoking services who recognise that the convenience and wide choice of flavours is useful for helping smokers to switch to a safer product, especially amongst heavier smokers and disadvantaged, homeless, and vulnerable groups. Disposable vapes don’t require refilling and recharging, so are easier to use. People who have problems with dexterity find them very useful and their low cost and convenience helps to prevent relapse to smoking.

When it comes to adult use, the more forward-looking stop smoking services regularly recommend smokers opt for a single use vape both as a cost-efficient entry-level product to help them quit, and for the purpose of trying out different flavours before opting for something more permanent. Banning the devices would close off this option for adult smokers seeking to quit. It would also affect older would-be quitters and those with disabilities, who say they find disposables easier to manage, without the added complication of filling a tank and changing coils.

Those who have already successfully quit using single use products would see their exit from smoking closed off and could relapse to combustible tobacco.

Just this week, a study by University College London, funded by Cancer Research UK, found that a ban on single use vapes would “affect 2.6 million adults” and “could have substantial unintended consequences for people who smoke.” It further warned that it would “discourage use of e-cigarettes among people trying to quit smoking and may induce relapse among those who have already used disposables to quit.” The government has paid no heed to this, either.

The government’s ill thought-out response has even ignored the spirit of its own independent tobacco review in 2022 which recommended that government “embrace the promotion of vaping as an effective tool to help people to quit smoking tobacco” and identified that “the alternative is far worse.” Banning vaping products, implementing plain packaging, and restricting flavours is the opposite of an embrace.

Worse still, it has also ignored its own Health and Social Care Committee which did not recommend a ban on disposable vapes, warning “The Government should approach the issue with caution … owing to the risk of unintended consequences such as increasing the supply of illegal, unregulated vapes.”

It is clear that single use vape devices are popular among young people. But the government has forgotten that 25 years ago the same demographic would have been initiating their nicotine use from smoking instead of vaping. We are seeing a generational shift of nicotine use from burning tobacco to using a far safer delivery device and if, as they will, adolescents are to experiment with anything, is it not far better that it be vaping than combustible cigarettes? 

In summation, to satisfy a populist and largely unenlightened panic, the government’s proposals fail to consider the disadvantage they will cause to adult ex-smokers and the predicted rise in illicit supplies. They have been compiled without due reference to its own expert advisers, and without regard to the inevitable increase in supply of illicit products. It ignores the certain damaging effect on public health which will result from fewer adult smokers switching and vapers of all ages relapsing to combustible tobacco.

Worst of all, the UK is quite rightly lauded for its world-leading policy of guiding smokers towards lower-risk nicotine alternatives such as e-cigarettes. These proposals not only risk trashing our proud reputation amongst credible global public health academics but will also lead to promotion of ignorance and poor policy in other countries which will cost lives worldwide.

The government has decided on policies which will only exacerbate the problems it is seeking to solve. The focus should be on better enforcement of the comprehensive laws we already have and a robust crackdown on those who are contravening them.

Details

Created: 13 October 2023

On Thursday, the Department of Health and Social Care published a new consultation on measures to tackle the issues presented by both smoking and vaping. The process will be in collaboration with the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The issues around vaping and other non-combustible nicotine products stem from fears that young people need to be protected from 'becoming addicted to nicotine'.  

The threats to consumers of safer nicotine products in this document are many. Options being consulted on by the government include:

• Taking a very hard line on vaping flavours, with suggestions to restrict the way flavours are described or to harshly limit which flavours can be sold. One suggestion is to only allow tobacco flavoured vapes.
• Mandating vaping products to be kept behind counter either on display or hidden like cigarettes. The document discusses a possible exemption for vape shops, not a definite one.
• Restricting or completely prohibiting attractive packaging for vaping products. Proposals go from banning child-friendly images right up to full plain packaging the same as cigarettes.
• Whether to prohibit sales of single use (disposable) vaping products and how it should be implemented. It includes a question asking which other products should also be banned.
• Including non-nicotine products in current legislation for nicotine containing vapes.
• Regulating nicotine pouches in the same manner as vaping products.
• Taxing vaping products to deter youth uptake.
• Dismissing the less harmful nature of heated tobacco products by including them in the proposed generational ban on sales of cigarettes to anyone born after 1 January, 2009.

The proposals also include introducing new powers for local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices for anyone found to be selling tobacco and nicotine products to minors, which includes proxy purchasing (an older person buying on behalf of a younger person).

Entitled Creating a smokefree generation and tackling youth vaping: your views, it consists of a consultation document and a series of questions and is open to all groups and individuals, with a closing date of 6 December. 

The NNA will be submitting a response to the consultation in due course, but we hope all our supporters will recognise the importance of submitting individual responses too. Please do consider getting involved in this process and have your say.

Consumers and supporters of harm reduction are a powerful voice. In 2010, consumers successfully fended off very unwise government plans to strangle vaping at birth. Consumers from across Europe also fought an attempt by the European Union a decade ago to prohibit sales of vaping products except by medical prescription and won. It is time to step up and fight again.

NNA trustee, Michelle Jones, has written a very helpful guide on responding to the consultation, which you can read here.

You may also wish to read the NNA’s response to the government’s call for evidence which preceded this consultation in which we made many observations on the dangers of over-regulation in this area. The full response is available here.

Details

Created: 14 September 2023

The government would be making a grave mistake if it decides to ban disposable vapes as it would be a significant over-reaction to the exaggerated perception of harms to youth .

Public health organisations such as Action on Smoking and Health, Fresh Balance and NCSCT are opposed to a ban, and for good reason. The convenience and wide choice of flavours are useful for helping smokers to switch to a safer product, especially amongst heavier smokers and disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. Disposable vapes don’t require refilling and recharging, so are easier to use. People who have problems with dexterity find them very useful and their low cost and convenience helps to prevent relapse to smoking.

Industry estimates that over 50% of single use vapes in circulation are already illegal, so banning the regulated market does not make sense. Illicit sellers would continue to import and supply unregulated and potentially unsafe nicotine vaping products to adults and young people, but with increased competitive advantage in the absence of regulated products.

There are justified concerns about youth vaping, but surveys suggest that most youth vaping is experimental or amongst adolescents who were already smoking. Much is made of the range of flavours but it is important to recognize that fruit, dessert and candy flavours are the most popular category among adult vapers, with more than half of all vapers choosing them. It is clear that single use vape devices are popular among young people. But it seems to have been forgotten that 25 years ago the same demographic would have been initiating their nicotine use from smoking instead of vaping.

Furthermore, banning these products would equate vaping with smoking in the minds of many people. This will deter many smokers from switching to a far safer alternative and some former smokers who currently vape will return to smoking.

Details

Created: 06 July 2023

On Wednesday 28 June, the government’s Health and Social Care Committee held an oral evidence session on youth vaping. It consisted of two panels of witnesses who gave evidence and were questioned by MP members of the committee.

We watched proceedings on Parliament TV and were disappointed that much of the discussion wasinaccurate and often ill-informed. In light of this, we have written to the committee today to highlight the many inaccurate, misleading, or false statements and remarks during the hearing. We hope committee members will recognise these areas of concern and take them into account when considering their future recommendations.

The full parliamentary session online at this link, and the transcript has been published here.
You can read our letter in full here, or below.