Tag: United Kingdom

Driving Transformation

Photos: BAT
BAT’S new U.K. Innovation Center demonstrates the company’s commitment to become a predominantly smokeless business.
By George Gay
Is BAT edging into the field of transhumanism, specifically democratic transhumanism? This thought struck me when, during an introductory presentation ahead of a tour of BAT’s new U.K. Innovation Center in Southampton, the company’s director of research and science, James Murphy, described the range of BAT products now on offer, a seven-category range that transcends nicotine to include well-being and stimulation products.
Using science, technology and innovation to take human beings to the next level is, of course, a rough definition of transhumanism, and doing so with a product that can be afforded by most people would put this project into the realm of democratic transhumanism. Certainly, such speculation is not at odds with BAT’s stated aim of creating “A Better Tomorrow.”
On a more practical level, what to me was most significant about the Innovation Center and the research and development site within which it sits was the ambition on display. Hundreds of specialists are working there on prototype smokeless tobacco and nicotine products, on scientific research to determine the relative risk of using such products compared to smoking cigarettes and on building capabilities beyond nicotine. This is tobacco harm reduction (THR) plus—writ large.
Doing Good and Making Money
Of course, a lot of people opposed to or unconvinced of the benefits of THR claim that the major tobacco companies are only in business to turn a handsome profit and don’t care about the harm they cause nor about reducing it. And it is true that these companies are hugely profitable. Murphy mentioned that BAT had reported revenues of just over £27 billion ($33.93 billion) and profits of about £12.5 billion in its latest full-year results. But what seems to get lost in this argument is that it is possible to do good while making a handsome profit: one only need look at pharmaceutical companies to realize this is true. Indeed, perhaps it is necessary to make such profits because the investments needed to reinvent an industry, which is what is happening in respect of the tobacco industry, are not inconsiderable.
That BAT is reinventing its business can be seen from the fact that of the just-over £27 billion in revenue the company earned, £3.5 billion came from its new category business. Again, the cynics will point out that the new category business made up only a relatively small part of the overall business. And again, this is true, but that reading of the situation needs some grounding. BAT launched its first new category product only in 2013, so while it has been manufacturing traditional tobacco products and people have been consuming those products for more than 100 years, it has been offering new category products for just over 10 years. Additionally, while combustible tobacco products are on sale universally, because regulatory climates vary around the world, the sale of reduced-risk, noncombustible products is allowed only on about 55 percent to 60 percent of markets, something that Murphy chalked up as one of the challenges BAT faced. How, he wondered aloud, could more regulators be encouraged to embrace THR?
Unfortunately, if the February Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) (see “Doubling Down on Failure,” page 12) is anything to go by, the answer to Murphy’s question must be, “with difficulty.” Apparently, the Global Alliance on Tobacco Control, previously known as the Framework Convention Alliance, used COP10 to hand its “Dirty Ashtray” award to the Philippines for having had the temerity to promote THR.
And while the intellectual debate around THR bumps along the bottom in this way, there seems little hope of quickly expanding the number of markets where regulated THR products are made available. Not surprisingly, the WHO holds sway in many countries, especially those that find it difficult to fund independent health research.
The investment in the Southampton facility follows the opening of BAT’s Innovation Centers in Italy and China.
The Promise of New Products
This is all very sad because those who call the FCTC shots refuse to engage with the tobacco industry even though the industry has much to say that is informed and interesting to anybody concerned with reducing the harm caused by cigarette smoking. And one industry voice worth listening to is that of Elaine Round, a geneticist who is head of the global life sciences team at Southampton, where she has been for two years on an international assignment for U.S.-based R.J. Reynolds, which BAT bought in 2017.
Alongside Murphy, Round took part in the introductory presentation to a group of journalists, and it soon became clear that while she was involved in the THR quest in a scientific capacity, she also had skin in the game. Before describing some of the results of the emissions and toxicology tests that BAT carries out on its three main reduced-risk products, Round mentioned that she had joined Reynolds in 2008 when she saw a job description that indicated the company was making efforts around harm reduction. At that time, she said, people in her family smoked, and she wanted to make sure they had options to use reduced-risk products if they were unwilling to quit.
That timeline, which suggests that the tobacco industry has been concerned with THR for longer than most people realize, probably needs some explanation. Reynolds was in the vanguard of the quest for reduced-risk products and, as far as I am aware, was the first company to produce a heated-tobacco product (HTP). That product, which was different from the HTPs available today and which, for various reasons, was commercially unsuccessful, nevertheless provided a spark that was later to be reignited.
The three main reduced-risk products described by Round comprised the vaping device Vuse, the HTP Glo and the oral nicotine pouch Velo, for which BAT scientists have published respectively 81, 85 and 25 peer-reviewed studies. Vuse delivered toxicant levels 99 percent lower than those of a combustible cigarette, Round said, while Glo delivered toxicant levels 90 percent to 95 percent lower, and Velo delivered toxicant levels 99 percent lower compared with those of cigarette smoke.
Velo nicotine pouches must comprise one of the most interesting reduced-risk products to emerge in recent years because they produce toxicant levels down even on those of snus, an oral product that has been credited with helping to reduce the smoking rate in Sweden to around 5 percent and having thereby sent lung cancer rates in that country crashing. Indeed, nicotine pouches sit comfortably alongside nicotine-replacement therapy products on the continuum of risk and are perhaps the most environmentally friendly of all the reduced-risk products being used to assist smokers to move away from cigarettes. It is not surprising, therefore, that BAT has demonstrated its confidence in this product by including in its Innovation Center a nicotine pouch pilot plant that allows researchers to go from concept to trial product in an hour.

At BAT’s Southampton Innovation Center, specialists are working on prototype smokeless tobacco and nicotine products, on scientific research to determine the relative risk of such products compared to smoking cigarettes and on building capabilities beyond nicotine.
Supporting the Mission
Officially opened on March 7 in the presence of BAT’s entire management board, the Innovation Center is housed within BAT’s Southampton research and development facility, which has been in operation since 1956 on a site occupied by the company for more than 100 years. In a press note, BAT said the £30 million investment in the Innovation Center would support its mission to become a predominantly smokeless business in which 50 percent of its revenue was derived from noncombustibles by 2035.
The group of journalists, of which I was one, was given, on March 8, a tour of the Innovation Center, entering by way of a vast atrium that put me in mind of going to school in a finger-concealing blazer with the words of my mother ringing in my ears, “you’ll soon grow into it.” Clearly, bigger and better things will be happening there in the years to come. Some of the Innovation Center was off limits because of commercial sensitivities, and we passed various spaces that were yet to be occupied. But we were taken into a large flavors laboratory, which is likely to be at the forefront of the battle to keep reduced-risk products appealing to adult consumers while complying with the seemingly inevitable restrictions imposed by regulators fearful of these products being used by those underaged. Overlooking the working, clean-space, nicotine-pouch pilot plant from a room above and adjacent to it was a highlight of the tour, but I was amazed, too, at the large number of specialists working at computers on new product design, until it was pointed out to me that products must be customized to a certain extent to meet the regulatory requirements and consumer preferences of many different markets.
The Innovation Center provides nine specially designed technical spaces to aid the development of BAT’s portfolio of new category products. “These spaces are dedicated to research for modern oral nicotine pouches, for liquids and flavor for vapor products, for heated products and for well-being and stimulation beyond nicotine,” the press note said. “The investment will also support work on packaging, engineering, innovation development and system integration ….
“The new facilities will bring together cross-functional and key R&D teams—with 400 highly specialized scientists and engineers, drawn from a range of fields, including biotechnology and clinical trials. These teams will accelerate the development of the next generation of BAT’s new category products and provide the robust evidence necessary to encourage adult smokers to switch to less risky alternatives, backed by science.”

The inclusion of a nicotine pouch pilot plant at the Innovation Center demonstrates BAT’s confidence in the product category.
A Positive Path
Meanwhile, BAT said it had more than 1,600 specialists spread across the U.K., the U.S., Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and China. “The £30 million investment in the Southampton facility follows the opening of BAT’s Innovation Centers in Trieste, Italy, in 2021 and in Shenzhen, China, in 2022, and an investment of £300 million a year in R&D to develop new category products and establish substantiation of their reduced-risk potential,” the company said.
This summary of the totality of BAT’s investment in R&D is significant because it gives an indication of the capability uplift the company has had to bring about within its ranks during a relatively short time and therefore its commitment to THR and, more latterly, well-being products. In 1956, and for a long time afterward, the R&D carried out at Southampton would have involved mostly scientists working with tobacco while in recent years, it has had to venture into fields formerly far beyond its comfort zone, so it has had to recruit, for instance, software engineers, formulation chemists and flavorists.
I started this piece by speculating about whether BAT was venturing into transhumanism. That was a bit of a stretch, but it is worth noting that the company, at Southampton and its other Innovation Centers, is carrying on in a specialist field the humanist project that stretches back to the Enlightenment and the use of scientific methods to better understand the world and the place of humans within it. The cynics will point out that the Enlightenment journey has not always wound up in good places, and, again, this is true, but I cannot see how anybody could argue that the general direction of travel has not been hugely positive. Science-led THR, properly applied, follows in that direction.
George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.

May 1, 2024
U.K. Misleading Public

Mora Gilchrist (Photo: PMI)
Philip Morris International has accused the U.K. Department of Health of spreading misinformation about heated-tobacco products after a social media post warning that “all forms of tobacco are harmful,” reports The Grocer.
A tweet posted by the department in a thread of “myths” about vaping and tobacco contained false and misleading statements and risks driving consumers back to cigarettes or dissuading current smokers from making the switch to alternatives, according to the multinational.
“What hope do adult smokers have when seeking out accurate information on smoke-free products if it’s the government that’s spreading misinformation?” said PMI Chief Communications Officer Moira Gilchrist.
“All forms of tobacco are harmful, and there is no evidence that heated-tobacco products are effective for helping people to quit smoking,” the tweet stated.
“Laboratory studies show clear evidence of toxicity from heated-tobacco products. Unlike vapes, there is no evidence they are effective for helping people to quit smoking,” the post continues, citing a 2017 report by the Committee on Toxicity.
According to Gilchrist, such statements “distort the scientific evidence base” and “seriously misleads the public.”
While acknowledging that heated tobaccos are not risk-free, Gilchrist said it is misleading to imply that all forms of tobacco are equally harmful.
A Public Health England report in 2018 said that available evidence suggested that heated-tobacco products “may be considerably less harmful than tobacco cigarettes” but “more harmful than e-cigarettes.”
The Grocer
April 25, 2024
Lawmakers Urged to Close ‘Loopholes’ in Disposables Ban

Image: Cybrain
Activists are urging U.K. lawmakers to close “loopholes” in the ban on disposable vapes that is set to take effect next April, reports the BBC.
In anticipation of the measure, manufacturers such as Elfbar and Lost Mary have been launching reusable versions of their popular disposable vapes.
“We are continuing to diversify our product lines by providing viable alternatives to single-use devices, addressing the demand for a harm reduction tool that is helping to assist millions of adults [to quit smoking],” an Elfbar spokesman was quoted as saying.
The reusable versions differ from their disposable counterparts primarily in that nicotine liquid comes in a replaceable pod, and a USB port at the bottom allows the battery to be recharged. It means the body of the vape can be reused.
Critics contend that the new vapes will not deliver the environmental benefits envisioned by the ban. “This switch may have negligible environmental impact as these are still items which are low priced and easy to throw away,” said Scott Butler, executive director of Material Focus, a non-profit organization set up tackle electrical waste.
A spokesman for the Local Government Association, which was one of the leading voices calling for the ban said the addition of a USB port to disposable vapes amounted to an attempt to bypass the restrictions, and called on lawmakers to define “disposable” in a way that would prevent producers from exploiting loopholes
In a filing with Companies House, the U.K. registrar of businesses, Elf Bar and Lost Mary distributor Green Fun Alliance noted that the disposable vape ban would have a detrimental effect on sales and profitability.
“However, management have been preparing for this and are well equipped to pivot their business to the exclusive sale of non-disposable vapes and related products,” the company wrote.
April 22, 2024
Britain’s Generation Ban Passes First Vote

Photo: sezerozger
Lawmakers approved British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s plan to ban anyone aged 15 and under from ever buying cigarettes despite opposition from some prominent members of his Conservative party, reports Reuters.
The bill passed a vote in Britain’s parliament with 383 in favor and 67 against.
Fifty-seven Conservatives, including Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch, voted against the plan. Earlier, two former prime ministers, Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, had come out against the legislation, with Truss describing the draft legislation as “unconservative” and Johnson calling it “nuts.”
The ban enjoys strong support among healthcare professionals, who say that smoking causes 80,000 premature deaths every year, along with many more smoking-related illnesses.
In a recent YouGov poll, a third of voters supported the phased approach and 30 percent supported a ban for everyone at the same time. Only a quarter said there should be no ban.
Badenoch said that while she agreed with Sunak’s intentions, she opposed the bill as she was concerned about its impact on people’s rights and difficulty in enforcing the policy.
Earlier this year, New Zealand scrapped a similar law after a new coalition government took power in late 2023. The government said it favored a harm-reduction approach to discourage smoking, but critics accused it of succumbing to tobacco lobbying.
Britain’s generational tobacco ban will now progress to the next stage in parliament, where it can be subject to amendment.
April 16, 2024
Criticism Mounts as U.K. Debates Generation Ban

Photo: Mistervlad
Criticism has been mounting ahead of a debate in the U.K. House of Commons on the government’s proposed generational tobacco ban.
Boris Johnson labeled the plans as “nuts,” according to the Daily Mail. During an appearance at a Canadian conference, the former British prime minister questioned why the party of cigar-chomping Winston Churchill wants to ban cigars.
On April 16, lawmakers are scheduled to debate a plan that would prevent anyone who is turning 15 this year or is younger from ever being able to legally buy tobacco products.
“We are, on the whole, in favor of freedom, and it is that single Anglo-Saxon idea of freedom that I think unites conservatives, or should unite conservatives,” said Johnson.
“And when I look at some of the things that we are doing now, or that are being done in the name of conservatism, I think they are absolutely nuts.”
Liz Truss, another former conservative prime minister, branded the proposal as “profoundly unconservative.”
Smokers’ rights group Forest called the legislation “ageist.”
“Given all the problems facing the country at home and abroad, it beggars belief that the prime minister has chosen to prioritize raising the age of sale of tobacco,” said Forest Director Simon Clark.
“If you are legally an adult, it’s ageist if you are denied the same rights as adults who may be only a year or two older than you are.”
Clark also cited a poll revealing that almost two-thirds (64 percent) of the public believe that if people are allowed to drive a car, join the army, possess a credit card, purchase alcohol and vote at 18, they should also be allowed to buy cigarettes and other tobacco products.
Despite such criticism, the law is likely to pass with support from opposition parties. The legislation is backed by a high proportion of the population, with another recent poll showing that almost three-quarters of Tory voters (71 percent) support it.
April 15, 2024
Half Measures

Photo: Be Free
Though a generational tobacco ban is not without merit, the U.K. will not allow it to work in the way that it could—and thus the measure should be shelved.
If I have this correctly, the U.K.’s proposed generational tobacco sales (GTS) ban has been attacked by libertarians as being contrary to the principles that people should be allowed to make their own choices about the risks they are prepared to take in life and to take responsibility for the consequences of those choices, providing they act within the law and their actions do not harm others.
These are powerful arguments, but are they enough to defeat the proposal, which, as currently envisaged, would mean that from Jan. 1, 2027, anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2009, could never be sold tobacco products legally in the U.K.? I suspect not.
One problem arises because the first duty of the government is to protect U.K. citizens, and while, by not allowing smoking in public places, the U.K. government might be seen mostly to have discharged that responsibility in the case of smoking, it is not difficult to imagine how some might argue otherwise. Smokers may still smoke at home, affecting family members, and because, we are told, smoking has a negative economic impact on society, it must be seen as causing harm to nonsmokers by robbing society of the funds to help those in need.
These are powerful arguments, but are they enough to support the radical idea of a GTS ban? I suspect not.
A major problem to my way of thinking is that the GTS ban is based, as is much else to do with tobacco and vaping, on faulty statistics and information and on ideological rather than rational ideas. Regulatory skyscrapers have been and are being built on dodgy foundations.
Here is an example. The first words of a GTS ban blog post from the U.K. Department of Health on Jan. 30, titled “Creating a smoke-free generation and tackling youth vaping: What you need to know,” had it that “The prime minister has set out plans to build a better and brighter future for children.”
I find it intolerable that I am being told by a government department that I need to know something that is misleading. A Feb. 20 story by social policy editor Patrick Butler published in The Guardian newspaper and quoting the Association of Directors of Children’s Services had this to say: “In a withering assessment of the government’s record over the past few years, they said ministers had presided over deepening child poverty, crumbling schools and an exploding health and well-being crisis in young people, with low-income families worst affected. The government’s failure to prioritize the post-pandemic needs of children in England was a ‘massive missed opportunity’ that would leave many thousands of youngsters ‘left behind.’”
The prime minister referred to in the blog is Rishi Sunak, who has been either prime minister or chancellor of the exchequer during almost the entire time frame referred to in The Guardian piece. Does it really sound like he has been building a better and brighter future for children?
Of course not. So the question arises as to why anybody should believe anything else in the blog or any of the other so-called information put out by the government in relation to the GTS ban. And the answer is that there is no reason to believe and every reason to suspect one is being conned. You have only to gaze briefly at the graphic “warnings” on tobacco packages to realize how misleading they are and, I would contend, are meant to be. And the statistics linking diseases and death directly to smoking and to no other causes (drinking, eating highly processed food and taking nonprescription drugs, etc.) are clearly misleading.
But as they say, we are where we are, and whether you accept the necessity of the GTS ban will probably depend largely on whether you believe the information put out by the government. So let’s for the moment accept the government’s position and say that because of the tragic consequences of smoking, and smoking alone, it is necessary to put an end to the habit.
At this point, we need to ask whether the GTS ban is the best approach, and I think you have to say that probably it is. Nearly everyone dismisses the idea of outright prohibition because they say it would not work, and once you say that, you know it won’t be allowed to work—you have set yourself up to fail. Another idea would be to employ tobacco harm reduction (THR), but this will take forever because there are so many people opposed to it, and even those who believe in it can be made to jump and think again simply by saying, “Boo! Children!”
So a GTS ban is the best game in town? Possibly, but that is not to say that even it would work. Let’s take a look. Despite what I wrote in the second paragraph, the blog actually says that from Jan. 1, 2027, anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2009, “will never be able to legally sold tobacco.” That does not make sense, of course, and it makes you wonder how much effort has gone into the GTS proposal, which is being hurried along in an election year. But, no matter, the idea is not without merit. It has the advantage that, in theory, nobody who has taken up smoking after being sold tobacco products legally will ever be forced to quit.
It has the advantage, too, that it is not really a ban. Smokers, we are told, smoke for the nicotine, and, as things stand and in theory, those who are born after Jan. 1, 2009, will still be able to buy nicotine in inhalable and possibly other forms once they have turned 18. I write that with a feeling of trepidation, however, because a U.K. representative at the February meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control said that no nonsmoker should use a vape. Whether this was meant to be simply a moral judgement whose basis was not spelled out or whether it heralded a regulatory extension of the GTS to cover vapes was not clear. If the latter is the case, GTS is probably dead in the water.
If, on the other hand, the former is the case, it looks like GTS is set to roll, right? Not so fast. One of the major objections made against the ban is that it would create a two-tier society where some people are allowed to buy tobacco products and some are not. I am not sure that this should be seen as a huge problem because we already have age-determined dividing lines in our society in respect of many products and activities; it would just be the case that the dividing line would be on a sliding scale in respect of one product, which is not something that should send us into an intellectual death spiral. After all, the pension age has also been moved on to such a scale.
A connected and more concerning issue to my mind is that the ban would put retailers in an invidious position because they would be required to tell the difference between two adults, one of whom was one year older than the other. There is age estimation technology available that can reliably tell if somebody is under 25 and therefore trigger a request for that person to prove they are over 18, but it seems unlikely that it could split, say, a 40-year-old from a 41-year-old.
There are ways around this problem using some form of identity documents but none that I can think of that would be foolproof in a society where not everybody has such documentation and where not everybody who does carries it with them. And it would be a brave politician who raised the specter of a universal system of identity cards in the U.K. simply to help smokers.
The only answer to this problem as I can see it is to make it illegal for anyone born after Jan. 1, 2009, to buy tobacco products, putting the onus on the buyer rather than the seller, who would nevertheless still be required not to sell to those under the age of 18.
The objection here would be that people would ignore the rules and buy tobacco products illegally. But would this really matter? The law would be in place in large part to protect the individual so that if an individual decided to sidestep the law, it would be their fault if they fell ill from smoking, were fined, not an unlikely outcome at some time given that they would need to buy a pack every day or two, or if somewhere down the line they were forced to quit because the last licit smoker had died or if manufacturers withdrew cigarettes on the grounds that there were too few people left who could buy tobacco legally.
So, we are back on track? A GTS ban it is? No, sorry, there are still a few things we need to clear up. For a GTS ban to work, in my view, it is necessary to have a long-term THR policy in force that provides a range of attractive, reasonably priced, less risky alternative products to help those who want to quit smoking and, importantly, so as not to discriminate against people based on age—one year of age. And despite the U.K.’s reputation of having embraced THR, we are nowhere near having a comprehensive policy that people can rely on to still be in force next month. Snus is banned, and the government continues to dither over heat-not-burn products. Even vapes are subject to winds of change. The government is going to ban disposable products, it is set as I write this piece to further tax these products, and, because the middle classes said, “Boo! Children!,” it is going to ban various flavors.
And worse is to come. Because, despite what it says, the government will not adequately fund the organizations charged with controlling the retail sale of products to those underaged, the general media will soon be crawling with stories about how little Johnny, the light of his mother’s life, was sold vaping products laced with crack, drawn into a den of vice and reduced to a life that was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Let’s face it: Though GTS is not without merit, it is not going to be allowed to work in the way that it could, and it needs to be shelved. It is true that it is simply too risky to design policy initiatives when politicians are trawling for votes, as they currently are in the U.K.
George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.

April 1, 2024
Tax Would Restrict Harm Reduction to the Rich

Photo: Anastasia Kargapolov
The U.K. risks becoming a harm reduction country for the wealthy only, according to the World Vapers Alliance (WVA).
The government, led by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, is reportedly planning to impose increased taxation on vaping products alongside traditional cigarettes. The proposal has sparked significant concern among U.K. vaping advocates, who argue it threatens to undermine the nation’s progress in harm reduction and smoking cessation efforts.
“It appears that in a bid to generate additional tax revenue, the U.K. government is willing to compromise the health of thousands of smokers,” said WVA Director Michael Landl. “This is yet another step in the wrong direction. By making less harmful alternatives to smoking more expensive, the government is effectively deterring smokers from making the switch. This measure will disproportionately affect the less affluent and exacerbate health inequalities, especially during a cost of living crisis.”
The WVA cites statistical evidence revealing the disproportionate impact of smoking on lower socioeconomic groups. In 2021, the Office for National Statistics highlighted a stark disparity in smoking prevalence related to economic status in the U.K. Unemployed individuals reported a significantly higher smoking rate (25.7 percent) compared to those in paid employment (13.3 percent). Furthermore, in England, a pronounced smoking prevalence was observed in the most deprived neighborhoods (23.8 percent) in contrast to the least deprived (6.8 percent).
Landl also criticized the government’s proposed bans on disposable vapes and generational restrictions on heat-not-burn products.
“Along with the proposed tax increases, these bans will only serve to transform the U.K. from a leader in tobacco harm reduction into a haven for black market activities,” he said.
February 29, 2024
U.K. Poised to Announce Vaping Levy

Photo: spectrumblue
U.K. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is expected to announce a “vaping products levy” during the presentation of the government budget on March 6, reports The Guardian.
The tax would be similar to 15 schemes in European countries, including Germany, where a €1.60 ($1.73) tax is charged on every 10 mL of vape liquid, and Italy where the rate is €1.30. The EU is also planning a vaping levy across the 27-nation bloc.
The U.K. tax would charge higher rates for products with more nicotine. There would also be a one-off increase in tobacco duty to ensure that vaping remains a cheaper alternative, with the two measures expected to raise more than £500 million ($633.73 million) a year by 2028–2029, according to The Times.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak plans to ban smoking for the next generation by steadily increasing the legal smoking age in England so that tobacco would end up never being sold to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2009.
Vaping industry representatives described the tax plan as an attack on people trying to quit smoking.
“Vaping is proven to be the most effective way for smokers to quit and in doing so helps drastically reduce the cost of care the NHS [National Health Service] provides to smokers,” said John Dunne, director general of the U.K. Vaping Industry Association, in a statement.
“It makes absolutely no sense to make it more difficult for adults to stop smoking by penalizing those who choose a safer and healthier option in vaping. Smoking kills 250 people every day in the U.K. and according to Action on Smoking and Health costs the U.K. £17 billion a year,” Dunne added.
“A Centre for Economics and Business Research report in 2022 found that smokers switching to vaping saved the NHS £322 million, a figure that was estimated to more than double if 50 percent of U.K. smokers made the switch to vapes.
“Surely, we should be doing everything we can to help smokers escape a habit that kills so many. Increasing taxes on vaping will make vapes less accessible for the most disadvantaged in society who have the highest smoking rates and are most in need of an effective tool to quit.
“The government continue to hide their heads in the sand while taking actions that will fuel a black market which is already in danger of being out of control. Restricting access to vapes will not only mean more smokers; it will also mean more illegal and unregulated vapes. We need the government to license vape retailers and properly enforce the law against youth access before it is too late.”

It makes absolutely no sense to make it more difficult for adults to stop smoking by penalizing those who choose a safer and healthier option in vaping.
John Dunne, director general, UKVIA
“A Centre for Economics and Business Research report in 2022 found that smokers switching to vaping saved the NHS £322 million, a figure that was estimated to more than double if 50 percent of U.K. smokers made the switch to vapes.”
“Surely, we should be doing everything we can to help smokers escape a habit that kills so many. Increasing taxes on vaping will make vapes less accessible for the most disadvantaged in society who have the highest smoking rates and are most in need of an effective tool to quit.
“The government continue to hide their heads in the sand, while taking actions that will fuel a black market which is already in danger of being out of control. Restricting access to vapes will not only mean more smokers; it will also mean more illegal and unregulated vapes. We need the government to license vape retailers and properly enforce the law against youth access before it is too late.”
February 27, 2024
U.K. Licensing Scheme Proposed

Photo: VPZ
The vaping industry was poised to present a proposal for a retailer and distributor licensing scheme to U.K. lawmakers today.
In addition to a self-sustaining fee structure, the proposed scheme includes governance and oversight mechanisms along with criteria that businesses would need to meet before qualifying for a license. It also outlines a fine and penalty system for those who breach the terms of the license and the conditions under which a license can and should be revoked.
To qualify for a license, retailers will need to show they have put measures in place to prevent the sale of vapes to minors; do not sell nicotine-free vapes to minors; only stock and sell compliant products; operate legally across all areas of the business; promote products within the advertising regulations; and meet their environmental obligations.
Vape retailers and distributors may be blocked from obtaining a license under a number of circumstances, including if they’ve previously been caught selling vapes without the appropriate certifications or if they are attempting to reapply within two years of having their license revoked.
Under the plans, retail licensees would also have to undergo test purchasing exercises at least every six months to ensure they are following youth access prevention procedures as well as having their stock inspected to ensure the products they sell are registered on the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency-notified products list.
They would also be checked on a regular basis to ensure they are complying with advertising and environmental regulations. Licensed distributors would be subject to regular inspections to ensure they are meeting compliance requirements across the board.
“It doesn’t matter what legislation the government introduces, whether the newly announced ban on disposables or any future restrictions, a robust and balanced licensing system is critical to ensuring the law can actually be enforced and for ushering in a new era of responsibility, accountability and best practice,” said Dan Marchant, co-founder of the U.K. Vaping Industry Association and managing director of Vape Club, which led the development of the proposed scheme, in a statement.
The presentation of the plan comes just days after a new investigation revealed a near twentyfold increase in the number of illicit vapes seized by councils across the U.K. since 2020.
February 21, 2024
Deborah Arnott to Retire from ASH

Photo: Lyubov
Deborah Arnott will be retiring from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) on Sept. 30, and the board of trustees is starting the recruitment process for her successor.
During her 21-year tenure at ASH, Arnott developed and led campaigns that contributed to U.K. legislation prohibiting smoking in public places, putting tobacco out of sight in shops and plain standardized tobacco packs. According to ASH, the ratcheting up of regulation has been accompanied by substantial declines in smoking prevalence of more than half among adults and more than 80 percent among children aged 11–15.
Before Arnott retires, Parliament is expected to have passed laws to create a smoke-free generation.
“I want to thank Deborah for her passion and determination over the last 21 years,” said Nick Hopkinson, chair of trustees at ASH, in a statement. “While everyone at ASH will be sad to see Deborah go, she leaves ASH in a robust position, with sound finances and a talented staff team. The next chief executive will inherit a highly motivated group of colleagues and supporters. Now is an exciting time for tobacco control, with government commitments to a smoke-free future and raising the age of sale to create a smoke-free generation overwhelmingly supported by the public and Parliament.”
Arnott said, “I am proud to be leaving ASH at a good time and in safe hands, well on the way to delivery of our mission to eliminate the harm caused by tobacco. Our values, the strength of our team, the quality of ASH advocacy and networking, and our reputation and influence all stand us in good stead for the future. Whoever takes over from me is inheriting the leadership of an outstanding organization.”
Bob Blackman, Member of Parliament and chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, which ASH provides the secretariat for, said, “What has been achieved in tobacco legislation over the last 21 years is in no small measure due to the brilliant work led by Deborah at ASH. Working in collaboration with politicians from across the political spectrum, she has built and sustained a truly cross-party consensus on ending the harms from smoking. As a result, I have no doubt that MPs from every party will vote to create a smoke-free generation later this year. We have much to thank her for.”
February 13, 2024