Experts Warn Against the Vape Tax

Expert vaping related researchers at the London South Bank University are warning government ministers against the “unintended negative health consequences” of implementing a tax on eliquids and other vaping products. They say the way the tax has been designed will probably force vapers to vape harder, for longer, and leave them exposing themselves to increased levels of potential toxins.

The relative risk
Before anyone gets concerned about the health impact of vaping, the Royal College of Physicians released a new report on E-cigarettes and harm reduction this month.
 
When considering the potential harm of vaping, first you have to remember the true cost of the smoking it replaces, the report saying: “The harm of smoking to human health is beyond doubt, accounting for 8 million deaths globally each year and 76,000 deaths annually in the UK. 2 out of 3 people who continue to smoke will die from a smoking-related disease. Using e-cigarettes for harm reduction to reduce morbidity and mortality from combustible tobacco is based on clear evidence that e-cigarettes cause less harm to health than combustible tobacco.”
The Royal College of Physicians reviewed studies looking at the levels of tobaccospecific nitrosamines, compounds linked to cancers of the lung, pancreas, oesophagus, and oral cavity in people who use tobacco products. They found that levels in vapers were similar or higher than those in non-vapers / non-smokers but much lower than those found in smokers.
 
The message is that the public health experts say that vaping remains substantially safer than smoking – but that doesn’t mean it is risk-free.
It’s like car insurance
Insurance companies cost out policies based on risk and charge those more likely to have to make a claim more money. Two identical people, one will be charged more if the cover a very large number of miles, typically over 20K a year, as it means they’ll be more likely to be involved in an incident.
Health experts look at vaping in a similar fashion. While regular vaping is assessed to be “at least 95% safer than smoking”, if people take harder draws on their device, pulling in more vapour, or vaping with a much higher level of frequency, then experts believe the health benefit of vaping instead of smoking will be reduced – and increase the chance of health issues at some point in the future.
The vape tax
Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced in his last Budget statement that the Conservative government plans to levy a tax on nicotine-free and nicotine containing vaping products.
The tax is going to be split into three bands:
1.Nicotine-free products will carry a £1 charge
2.10ml bottles of 11mg/ml strength eliquid will carry a £2 charge
3.10 ml bottles of 12mg/ml strength or higher will carry a £3 charge
The tax is due to begin being applied in stores and online in October 2026.
Experts are concerned
Experts refer to things called “compensatory puffing” and “self titration” – this is when, without thinking, a person who is vaping isn’t getting enough nicotine into their blood system for their brain to make them want to stop vaping for a time. They will puff more, puff deeper and puff for longer.
The science
We have known about this behaviour for a long time. In 2016, scientists behind the paper Self-titration by experienced e-cigarette users: blood nicotine delivery and subjective effects discovered, “vapers engaged in compensatory puffing with lower nicotine strength liquid, doubling their consumption”.
 
One of the team from that paper worked on a study the following year that produced the paper Compensatory Puffing With Lower Nicotine Concentration E-liquids Increases Carbonyl Exposure in E-cigarette Aerosols.
 
The researchers concluded: “Higher levels of carbonyls associated with more intensive puffing suggest that vapers switching to lower nicotine concentrations (either due to the EU-TPD implementation or personal choice), may increase their exposure to these compounds. Based on real human puffing topography data, this study suggests that limiting nicotine concentrations to 20 mg/mL may not result in the desired harm minimalization effect.”
She continued with another team to produce the paper ‘Real-world’ compensatory behaviour with low nicotine concentration e-liquid: subjective effects and nicotine, acrolein and formaldehyde exposure in 2018. Yet again, they found “use of a lower nicotine concentration e-liquid may be associated with compensatory behaviour” and the potential for increased exposure to formaldehyde as a result.
 
Finally, the same professor worked with yet another team to produce Daily exposure to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde and potential health risk associated with use of high and low nicotine e-liquid concentrations in 2020. They found, “daily exposure for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde was higher … when using low (6 mg/mL) compared with high (18 mg/mL) nicotine e-liquid concentration when power was fixed”.
LSBU’s professor
The professor behind all four of those studies was London South Bank University’s Professor Lynne Dawkins, Professor of Nicotine and Tobacco Studies. One of the UK’s foremost experts in this area of study.
 
Professor Dawkins has gone on record to say: “The proposal to add duty to e-liquid according to nicotine strength is ill-conceived, not based on the scientific evidence, and could cause more harm than good. Higher duty on higher nicotine strength e-liquids will encourage people to purchase lower nicotine strengths, but that will just encourage users to vape more to try and achieve the blood nicotine levels they need.
 
“Our research has consistently shown that using lower nicotine strengths is associated with consuming more e-liquid through taking longer, harder and more frequent puffs. This results in greater exposure to potentially harmful chemicals in the vapour.
“The proposed tier structure misses the point that any harms associated with vaping are likely to come from other constituents such as propylene glycol, vegetable glycerine and flavours, not the nicotine. It’s the nicotine which smokers need in sufficiently high strengths to successfully quit smoking.”
 
Will the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer listen?