New Study Challenges Effectiveness of Provincial Vape Flavour Bans
Recent academic research has delivered a significant blow to provincial policies aimed at restricting flavoured vaping products. According to a comprehensive study conducted by economists Brad Davis, Abigail Friedman, and Michael Pesko, the implementation of flavour bans across several Canadian provinces has produced an unintended and counterproductive consequence: a notable increase in cigarette smoking among former vape users.
Research Reveals Alarming Trend
The study, which analyzed sales data and consumer behaviour patterns, found that when provinces moved to prohibit most flavoured vapes, a substantial portion of former flavoured vape users did not quit nicotine altogether. Instead, they reverted to smoking traditional cigarettes. The research indicates that these flavour restrictions have directly contributed to a nearly 10 per cent increase in cigarette sales in affected regions.
This finding presents a serious challenge to the public health objectives behind such bans. As the report notes, "while consumers often respond in the intended (policy) direction, policies can also trigger offsetting behavioural responses that undermine or even outweigh their goals."
The Harm Reduction Paradox
The research highlights a critical public health dilemma. Vaping products have been shown to be approximately 95 per cent less harmful to human health than traditional combustible cigarettes. Furthermore, flavoured vaping products play a crucial role in smoking cessation efforts, with studies indicating they can increase adult smoking cessation success rates by a remarkable 230 per cent.
Despite these benefits, policymakers have implemented flavour restrictions based primarily on concerns about youth vaping. However, the study presents compelling counter-evidence:
- Youth vaping rates have declined dramatically in recent years, reaching a low of six per cent in 2024
- Youth smoking rates stand at just two per cent, challenging the gateway theory
- Compliance with age restrictions at retail locations remains exceptionally high
Retail Compliance and Access Considerations
The research also examined the retail environment for vaping products in Canada. The findings reveal that:
- Approximately 98 per cent of vapes are purchased at convenience stores or gas stations
- These retail outlets demonstrated a 97 per cent compliance rate with Tobacco and Vaping Products Act regulations
- Restricting access to these convenient locations may inadvertently drive consumers toward more harmful alternatives
Broader Implications for Nicotine Alternatives
The study's conclusions extend beyond vaping products to include other nicotine alternatives like nicotine pouches. These products, which are 99 per cent less harmful than smoking cigarettes, face similar flavour restrictions despite their potential to aid smoking cessation.
Current regulations have limited nicotine pouch flavours to only mint and menthol while removing them from convenience stores and gas stations—locations where the majority of users previously purchased them. This restriction has similarly contributed to increased cigarette sales, as consumers opt for more readily available but significantly more harmful tobacco products.
Policy Recommendations and Future Directions
With Canada's smoking rate still exceeding 10 per cent, the researchers argue that policymakers should reconsider their approach to tobacco harm reduction. The evidence suggests that:
- Flavoured nicotine alternatives significantly improve smoking cessation outcomes
- These products can be responsibly sold through existing retail channels with high compliance rates
- Focus should shift from blanket flavour bans to enhanced point-of-sale enforcement
The study concludes that embracing harm reduction strategies—including maintaining access to flavoured vaping products and nicotine pouches—represents the most effective approach to further reducing smoking rates across Canada. As the research demonstrates, current flavour restriction policies may be doing more harm than good in the fight against tobacco-related illness.
