10.2. SR 09-08-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

15 4 Regulatory issues 4.1 Poor regulation is the primary risk to public health The primary risk to the otherwise highly positive developments with e-cigarettes is poor and excessive regulation. At the heart of the regulatory challenge there is a ‘double negative’: being tough on e-cigarettes is being tough on the competitive alternative to cigarettes. There is a danger that loss-averse regulators and officials will place excessive focus on the residual risks associated with vapour products, but in doing so render them less effective and appealing as alternatives to smoking. In doing so, they will increase total health risks through the unintended consequence of additional continuing smoking. All regulatory proposals advanced so far suffer from this weakness. 4.2 Unintended consequences of regulation will dominate The following table illustrates how it is possible for regulatory measures to have unintended harmful consequences – protecting the cigarette trade and leading to more smoking than there otherwise would be. These effects are likely to far outweigh the intended consequences of most regulatory proposals under development today. Regulatory idea Likely unintended consequence Ban e-cigarette use in public places Diminishes value proposition of e-cigarettes to users and ‘denormalises’ vaping, a much less risky option, diminishes the appeal of vaping relative to smoking, May promote relapse in existing vapers if they join smokers outside. Likely to lead to more smoking. Restrictions on advertising, promotion and sponsorship Reduces ability of e-cigarette brands to compete with cigarettes, and diminishes means to communicate value proposition to smokers. May reduce means to communicate innovation or build trusted brands. May turn ads into bland public information notices. Some restrictions are undoubtedly justified and a balance should be struck, but excessive restriction will protect the cigarette trade. Product design restrictions and requirements – testing and paperwork There are numerous subtle trade-offs in product design between safety and appeal and cost. For example, the perfectly safe product that no-one wants to buy may be worse for health if it means more people smoke. Excessive design regulation can impose high costs, burdens and restrictions, slow innovation and drive good products and firms out of the market through ‘regulatory barriers’ to entry. Very high spec regulations will tend to favour high volume, low diversity commoditised products made by tobacco or pharmaceutical companies. Regulation can adversely reshape the market and reduce the pace of innovation. Ban flavours All e-cigarettes and liquids are flavoured with something – and this forms a key part of the appeal. Many former smokers report switching to non-tobacco flavours as a way of moving permanently away from smoking. There is significant risk that loss of broad flavour categories will cause relapse among e-cigarette users, fewer smokers switching, and development of DIY and black market flavours – which may be more dangerous. Ban flavours that appeal to kids It is a common mistake in public health to believe that adolescents are attracted to things that adults regard as child-like, such candy-flavours. Adolescent experimentation is often about emulating adults or rejecting childhood. A ban on flavouring may have impacts on adults, but adolescents may simply switch to a different flavour – like tobacco. Ban open systems because they may be used for other drugs This might require ‘closed systems’ to be made mandatory (as proposed by tobacco company RJ Reynolds with this justification, but probably for anti-competitive reasons). But this has the effect of removing the ‘open system’ 2nd and 3rd generation products from the market. Many vapers report these are more effective alternatives to smoking. Note vaping may be a safer way to take other drugs than smoking – so there may be a harm reduction benefit to drug users. Health warnings Alarmist health warnings, even if technically correct, can be misleading and misunderstood by the public. This has always been the case with smokeless tobacco – warnings do not adequately communicate relative risk and therefore understate smoking risks or the advantage of switching. They may obscure much more important messages about relative risk compared to smoking that is not provided in official communications.