Research shows limited impact of ban on flavored e-cigarettes

Dec.01.2022
Research shows limited impact of ban on flavored e-cigarettes
The US ban on flavored e-cigarettes has had limited effectiveness, as users turn to alternative products and flavors.

On February 6, 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration banned the sale of several flavors of electronic cigarettes, with some significant exceptions.


According to a survey published in the journal "Tobacco Control," out of 3500 adult users of electronic cigarettes who were surveyed, less than 5% of them stopped using electronic cigarettes due to the ban on flavored e-cigarettes. The remaining respondents switched to other types or flavors of electronic cigarettes or other tobacco products that were not covered by the ban.


More and more literature suggests that the flavorings in e-cigarettes can cause harm when inhaled, making a ban on these flavorings reasonable, according to tobacco research expert and Professor of Public Health Sciences and Community Center Deborah J. Ossip. "But bans don't seem to be effective. People, including young people, can still access flavored products and are still using them," she added. This statement was made at the University of Rochester Medical Center's Department of Public Health and Prevention.


According to Dongmei Li, the lead author of the study and associate professor of clinical and translational research, obstetrics and gynecology, and public health sciences, a significant part of the problem is that the ban does not cover newer products such as disposable e-cigarette pods and e-cigarette pods that use canisters instead of cartridges/boxes.


Other forms of flavored electronic cigarettes, particularly disposable ones, have become very popular after FDA policies were implemented," said Li. "The FDA's policies did not prohibit products with mint or tobacco flavors - our research indicates that many people switched to mint-flavored e-cigarettes after the ban. It seems that many people find menthol to be a favorable taste.


According to this study, nearly 30% of the survey respondents switched to canned or disposable flavored e-cigarettes, and another 30% switched to mint or tobacco flavored pods. Some reported turning to traditional tobacco products: 14% switched to combustible products like cigarettes, and 5% switched to smokeless products such as chewing or dipping tobacco. Less than 5% of respondents stopped using e-cigarettes after the FDA ban.


Researchers used statistical models to identify factors related to changes in e-cigarette usage behavior. They found a close correlation between using tank system e-cigarettes and switching to other flavors not regulated by the FDA's flavor law enforcement policies.


The use of mint-flavored electronic cigarettes over the past 30 days is associated with switching to mint-flavored electronic cigarettes. Those who reported smoking every day or every few days were more likely to switch to tobacco-flavored electronic cigarettes or combustible tobacco products.


On the other hand, people who use flavored electronic cigarettes without nicotine are more likely to quit smoking. Although the study was not intended to establish a causal relationship, the association supports previous research showing that reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes can help smokers quit. However, further research is needed to better understand the relationship between the use of low-nicotine electronic cigarettes and smoking cessation.


Looking towards the future, Li Dongmei believes that if this policy covers all flavors of electronic cigarettes (including mint and all types of electronic cigarettes) and actively monitors the implementation and compliance of the policy, then the policy may be effective. "Both are important in reducing the popularity of electronic cigarettes among young people in the United States," she said.


2FIRSTS will continue to cover this topic, with updates available on the "2FIRSTS APP". Scan the QR code below to download the app.



Disclaimer

This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.

Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.

The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.

This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright Notice

This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.

No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.

For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.

 

AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice

Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.

Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.

UK Directors Banned After 352,688 Vapes Imported From China Were Misdeclared as Medical Nebulizers in £15 Million Tax Case
UK Directors Banned After 352,688 Vapes Imported From China Were Misdeclared as Medical Nebulizers in £15 Million Tax Case
The UK Insolvency Service said YSK Enterprises imported large quantities of vapes from China in 2023, with a shipment addressed to the company declared as medical nebulizers before Border Force found 352,688 vaping products. HMRC calculated nearly £15 million ($20.3 million) in unpaid VAT and customs duty, alongside about £437,000 in corporation tax. Two directors were disqualified for nine years. The case predates the UK's Vaping Products Duty, which will introduce vape-specific excise and duty-stamp requirements from October 2026.
Regulations
Sep.11
India Duty-Free Nicotine Pouch Sales Face Regulatory Test as ZYN, FOX Classification Remains Open
India Duty-Free Nicotine Pouch Sales Face Regulatory Test as ZYN, FOX Classification Remains Open
The Bombay High Court has ruled that airport duty-free shops are not exempt from India's domestic regulatory laws merely because they operate beyond the customs barrier, leaving in place a sales halt covering ZYN and FOX nicotine pouches at Mumbai's international airport. The court, however, did not determine that the products necessarily qualify as "drugs" under India's Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The retailers have four weeks to submit product information to the appropriate authorities, including CDSCO, which must complete its review within 30 days of receiving the submissions.
Sep.24
Malaysia’s Vape Rules Face Review as Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad Addresses Dropped Nicotine Appeal
Malaysia’s Vape Rules Face Review as Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad Addresses Dropped Nicotine Appeal
According to Free Malaysia Today on August 26, 2026, Malaysia’s Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad said the Health Ministry would explain the government’s decision to withdraw its appeal against a High Court ruling involving the exemption of liquid nicotine used in vape products from the Poisons List. The High Court previously ruled that the exemption decision was irrational. Dzulkefly said withdrawing the appeal did not mean the government would stop regulating vaping, and that future regulatory approaches would continue under existing legal frameworks.
Aug.28
Malaysia Withdraws Appeal Against Liquid Nicotine Ruling as Vape Regulation Framework Enters New Phase
Malaysia Withdraws Appeal Against Liquid Nicotine Ruling as Vape Regulation Framework Enters New Phase
Malaysia’s government has withdrawn its appeal against a High Court ruling concerning the regulatory status of liquid nicotine used in vape and e-cigarette products, according to reports by New Straits Times, Free Malaysia Today and CodeBlue on August 18, 2026. The Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled on May 15 that the government’s decision to remove liquid nicotine from the scheduled poisons list under the Poisons Act 1952 was irrational and made without proper consultation with the Poisons Board. The withdrawal ends the government’s appeal process, while the future regulatory framework for nicotine vape products remains under discussion.
Aug.21
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
According to VitalLaw on August 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated an FDA marketing denial order (MDO) against NicQuid LLC, ruling that the agency’s comparative-efficacy standard for electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) applications had become a substantive rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court did not reject FDA’s authority to compare the public health benefits and risks of flavored vapes, but held that the agency could not establish a broadly binding standard through informal adjudications. The case was remanded to FDA for further proceedings.
Aug.28
As JUUL2 Wins FDA Authorization, Harm Reduction Journal Highlights the Role of Real-World Evidence in Nicotine Product Regulation
As JUUL2 Wins FDA Authorization, Harm Reduction Journal Highlights the Role of Real-World Evidence in Nicotine Product Regulation
A commentary published in the international open-access, peer-reviewed Harm Reduction Journal argues that randomized controlled trials remain central to evaluating smoking cessation efficacy but cannot alone capture real-world uptake, complete switching, longer-term use and population impact of non-combustible nicotine products such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and nicotine pouches. The authors frame impact as “reach × efficacy” and call for real-world evidence to complement RCTs. Three days after publication, the FDA authorized three JUUL2 products and highlighted complete switching among adult smokers in explaining its decision, providing a timely regulatory backdrop to the debate.
Sep.08