IBVTA Responsible Vaping Manifesto – Independent British Vape Trade Association

The IBVTA is intent on working collaboratively with the new Government to ensure that vaping policy, law and regulation is developed in a way which ultimately achieves the shared objectives of reducing youth vaping, while recognising, and not disproportionately impacting the proven role of vaping in supporting adult smoking cessation.

In light of the election taking place on the 4th of July, we have launched our Responsible Vaping Manifesto.

Download a PDF copy here

If you own or operate a vape business and you would like to use our manifesto, we have added more resources below.

The IBVTA is calling on all political parties to ensure the following:

Vaping must be treated differently than smoking
Potential health benefits must be recognised and embraced
Flavours are vitally important to adults
Regulation of single-use vapes must align with public health
The illicit market can only be challenged with a radical rethink in policy
The tax burden on vapes should balance relative harm to smoking

Vaping must be treated differently from smoking

▪ 80,000 people die each year in the UK due to smoking, it remains the leading cause of preventable deaths. With more than 6 million adult smokers, concerted action is needed to reduce smoking rates further. The generational smoking ban whilst laudable should if re-introduced be treated separately from vaping regulations.

▪ While both are addictive, vaping is substantially less harmful. Balance is needed in favour of less harmful products, with proper recognition of the enormity of the difference in harm.

▪ Vaping is a proven smoking cessation tool[1]. Regulations must be based on robust evidence, fully exploring the potential public health impacts of any new intervention e.g. packaging, flavours, display, with an extensive and statutory consultation process.

▪ Whilst there is a clear challenge with youth access, it is important to recognise a plateauing of young people using vapes and the overall percentage of young people trying vapes has fallen in 2024[2].

2. Potential health benefits must be recognised and embraced

▪ Latest data from ASH, shows that 50% of adult smokers believe vaping is equally or more harmful than tobacco[3]. Latest research from the Behavioural Insights Team suggests it’s even higher[4]. Unsurprisingly the decline in cigarette consumption is stalling.

▪ Unintended consequences of uptake by never-smokers, particularly those that are under 18, must be closely monitored and controlled. However, this should never be at the expense of giving the best information to those than can most benefit from vaping. That is, adult smokers that are struggling to quit, and are likely to have their lives shortened by combustible tobacco.

3. Flavours are vitally important to adults

▪ Beyond nicotine, flavours are the most important factor in the success of vaping in displacing adult smoking. The assumption that attractive flavours are unnecessary for adult smokers to switch to vaping is a false one. To say flavours have only been developed to attract young people presents a dangerously misleading narrative.

▪ A survey by Opinium of 6K UK adults (May ‘24) found that of those who use vaping to help them quit, 59% use a fruit flavour once a week or more and 61% reported that having a range of flavours helps them reduce their smoking or prevents them from going back to smoking.

▪ The Swap to Stop scheme, introduced by the previous Government, has to date delivered many tens of thousands of refillable vapes to adult smokers, as evidenced by a new IBVTA survey, where more than 57% of e-liquids supplies were fruit flavoured.

▪ The IBVTA’s Code of Conduct[5] that leading manufacturers have embraced ensures product flavours are responsibly marketed. The use of emotional flavour names has no place in the legitimate market.

▪ Regulating flavours must be carefully considered given their clear importance to adults quitting smoking and preventing adult vapers from switching back.

4. Regulation of single-use vapes must align with public health

▪ Banning single-use vapes will not solve all issues without full consideration of both the illicit market, and consumer behaviour – primarily ease of use and relative affordability to smokers.

▪ The compliant sector has invested significant resources to meet environmental compliance targets, through producer compliance schemes and retail take-back.

▪ Prohibition of a whole class of product must be combined with effective and increased co-ordinated enforcement resources. The scale of demand for these single use products (over 80% of the legitimate market, Nielsen IQ w/e 22/5/24) indicates that in the absence of increased enforcement resources there is a material unintended consequence on the illicit market, as evidenced in Australia and the US.

5. The illicit vape market can only be challenged with a radical rethink in policy

▪ At least a third of the market is comprised of illicit vapes. Illicit vapes are unregulated, untested, and are a material threat to consumer safety. The use of cartoon characters, irresponsible flavour names / packaging, youth access through such products, and retailers that stock them require a comprehensive and collaborative enforcement strategy with vital resources for trading standards and related enforcement.

▪ A retail licensing scheme might form part of that policy. We would welcome treating non-nicotine vapes under the same framework as nicotine containing vapes, effective fixed penalty notices, and premises and sale orders for repeat offenders.

Example seizure, source: Oxfordshire County Council

6. The tax burden on vapes should balance relative harm to smoking

▪ Any new excise duty should be underpinned by full consideration of the need for sufficient nicotine strength for smokers to quit using vapes, and the environmental impact of vaping’s waste streams. Current HMRC proposals, based on a multi-tier tax with higher excise on higher strength nicotine fail to recognise the opportunity to influence desirable consumer behaviour positively.

▪ A flat rate of duty used in many other European countries across all nicotine strengths would be most effective in meeting smokers’ needs.