Commentary
What to consider when regulating electronic cigarettes: Pros, cons and unintended consequences

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.03.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • To provide e-cigs regulation that maximizes their impact as a low-risk replacement.

  • Involving consumers in the regulatory process, will help policy makers.

  • Consumers will help policy makers point out unintended consequences of any actions.

  • Regulatory measures should address safety-quality standards.

  • Should primarily address verification of nicotine levels and ingredients.

Abstract

Many public health experts, medical research societies, large health organizations and policy makers have expressed concerns about the increased popularity of electronic cigarettes and have pushed for more restrictive measures ranging from complete bans to tight regulations of these products either as medicines or as tobacco products. But these concerns have never been adequately qualified nor quantified. Without judicious assessment and thorough evaluation, regulations may have unintended consequences that can do more damage than good in public health terms.

In this article, we will appraise the existing prominent regulatory frameworks for e-cigarettes, namely, general consumer product, medicinal product and tobacco product regulation, to highlight their pros and cons. Moreover, we provide concrete examples of the unintended consequences which may arise from inappropriate regulatory action.

Introduction

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-operated devices designed to turn a liquid solution into an aerosol (“vapor”) to simulate the act of smoking. The base of the liquid solution is propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin. The liquid also contains water and flavorings, and may or may not contain nicotine. Puffing activates a heating element in the atomizer and the resulting vapor is inhaled.

The original models were designed to closely resemble a regular cigarette, down to an orange LED at the tip that glows when the consumer activates the unit by inhaling. Now, however, many different models are available. Some look like traditional cigarettes, cigars, or pipes. Others look similar to a pen, and some even look like small flashlights. Some have LED lights, and some do not. Some are single-use disposables, or use prefilled cartridges, and others have refillable cartridges. They come in numerous shapes and sizes and have different features as a very large number of companies seek a marketplace advantage in catering to those who wish to distance themselves from anything resembling a traditional cigarette or want a longer battery life, and/or better performance, and/or the personal satisfaction of having cutting-edge technology.

The success of e-cigarettes as a tobacco cigarette substitute is such that these products have been rapidly gaining on conventional cigarettes (Adelman, Grainger, Ayala, & Paxton, 2013). According to a recent Wells Fargo prediction analysis, e-cigarette consumption could surpass conventional cigarettes within the next decade (Mangan, 2013). The popularity of e-cigarettes’ appears in large part to be related to the fact that they share many similarities with smoking in the behavioural aspect of use (Caponnetto et al., 2012, Caponnetto et al., 2013b). Users are predominantly smokers, who report using them long term to reduce cigarette consumption or quit smoking, to relieve tobacco withdrawal symptoms, and to continue having a ‘smoking’ experience (Farsalinos et al., 2013, Farsalinos et al., 2014), but with much reduced health risks (Farsalinos & Polosa, 2014). Data from clinical trials (Bullen et al., 2013, Caponnetto et al., 2013a, Polosa et al., 2011, Polosa et al., 2013) have confirmed that e-cigarettes may help smokers quit smoking or reduce their tobacco consumption long term, thus reducing overall exposure to toxins and carcinogens. Moreover, the popularity of e-cigarettes appears to be associated with the fact that they can be used in many smoke-free areas, their prices are competitive, and they are perceived as a much less harmful smoking alternative (CASAA, 2013, Etter, 2010, Etter and Bullen, 2011, Heavner et al., 2010, Siegel et al., 2011).

In the face of the growing popularity of e-cigarettes among users, many public health experts, medical societies, large health organizations and policy makers have expressed concerns. These concerns can be essentially classified into two main categories: concerns for individual health risks, and concerns for population effects.

Specifically, they include:

  • a)

    Individual health risks:

    • -

      whether e-cigarette (long-term) use results in higher overall absorption of nicotine/nicotine overdose, or some as-yet-unknown health risks associated with vapor constituents;

    • -

      whether e-cigarettes perpetuate smokers’ addiction to nicotine;

  • b)

    Population effects:

    • -

      whether the use of e-cigarettes serves as a gateway to smoking for non-users, particularly youth;

    • -

      whether e-cigarettes make smoking socially acceptable again, thus undermining current no-smoking policies.

Scientific evidence that seems to provide reassuring answers to these questions is already accumulating (Abrams et al., 2014, Hajek et al., 2014). Nevertheless, international health organizations and regulatory authorities in many countries – by invoking a very constraining version of the precautionary principle – have hurriedly recommended and introduced restrictions on the manufacturing, import, sale and advertising of e-cigarettes. In this article, we will analyze the three possible regulatory classifications for e-cigarettes under existing regulatory frameworks, critically appraising their pros and cons. Moreover, we will try to elucidate some possible unintended consequences that may arise from the application of certain regulatory action.Existing regulatory frameworks for e-cigarettes

In most jurisdictions, there are essentially three possible regulatory classifications for e-cigarettes under existing regulatory frameworks: as a general consumer product, a medicinal product or a tobacco product. The product classifications will drive both the strategy for bringing the products to market and the manner in which companies can commercialise them, including the claims the company can make on the packaging and in other commercial communications.

Many refer to general consumer products as being “unregulated” consumer products. That is often a misnomer. Many jurisdictions do regulate consumer products by subjecting them to general safety requirements, such as those found in the European Union General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC (GPSD). Often a patchwork of other more specific rules would apply, such as rules governing electrical safety and compatibility contained in the Low Voltage Directive 2006/95/EC and the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive 2004/108/EC, which apply to electronic components of an e-cigarette.

In general terms, the GPSD requires that producers only place safe products on the market. A product will be “safe” if it “does not present any risk or only the minimum risks compatible with the product's use.” In determining whether a product is to be regarded as “safe,” the following considerations are relevant:

  • the characteristics of the product, including its composition, packaging and instructions;

  • the effect of the product on other products, where it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used with other products; and

  • the presentation of the product, including labelling, warnings and instructions.

Pursuant to the GPSD, a product may be deemed safe when it conforms with relevant EU and national laws and, in the absence of such laws, with: (i) voluntary national standards; (ii) European Commission recommendations setting out guidelines on the assessment of product safety; (iii) codes of good practice as regards health and safety; (iv) the current state of the art; and (v) the consumers’ safety expectations.

There are no EU-wide standards on e-cigarettes. However, in the UK, the British Standards Institute (BSI), with input from the Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association (ECITA), is developing a Publicly Available Specification (PAS) providing guidance for the importation and sale of electronic cigarettes and directly related products. The PAS represents the first UK attempt to prepare a voluntary standard for e-cigarettes. It covers product safety and quality, packaging and labelling, and testing methodologies (ECITA, 2014). BSI is expected to publish the PAS in March 2015.

Consumer products are subject to general advertising laws, requiring that advertisements be substantiated, factual, balanced and not misleading. There is, however, potential for national advertising regulators to set standards and deem certain types of claim to be inappropriate or unsubstantiated for certain categories of products. In the UK, for example, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) have adopted new rules governing the marketing of e-cigarettes (CAP, 2014). The rules do not have the force of law. However, companies are expected to comply with them when marketing their products in the UK. Non-compliance can have negative consequences, including possible referral to OFCOM or the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), although this is rare in practice. The rules are intended as an interim measure until the Tobacco Products Directive is implemented into UK law. Among other things, the rules require that companies make clear in their marketing communications that the product is an e-cigarette and not a tobacco product and that such communications do not contain health or medicinal claims unless the MHRA has authorised the product for such purposes.

  • The general requirement that products must be safe, coupled with other consumer protection laws may provide for a flexible, proportionate approach.

  • The creation and enforcement of standards for particular products allows the creation of detailed technical requirements, covering both quality, performance and safety.

  • The voluntary nature of most standards, of the selective application of parts of standards relevant to the product, allows for innovation.

  • E-cigarettes can be advertised freely, subject to the need to ensure that claims are substantiated, are fair, balanced and not misleading. Advertising regulators may provide additional guidance on the types of claims and substantiation required. Medicinal claims, e.g. that the products can assist with smoking cessation or alleviate the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, may trigger regulation as a medicine.

  • Relative lack of legal clarity or certainty, e.g. in terms of standards for product safety, performance and quality.

  • While it is possible to establish relatively sophisticated safety, quality and performance standards and to control advertising within this regime, based on standards and guidance documents, enforcement can be challenging unless laws make standards mandatory.

  • No dedicated system of pre-market notification or review.

  • No clear system for post-market monitoring and surveillance, except perhaps in the event of a product recall.

  • No clear regulation of manufacturing quality or practices, unless reflected in applicable standards.

While it is possible to achieve a relatively high level of technical regulation via general consumer product rules, the lack of pre-market regulatory review and approval and gaps in the regulation of the quality of the manufacturing and supply chain, coupled with deficiencies in post-market monitoring and surveillance, means that some legislators and regulators have sought to regulate e-cigarettes as medicines.

For example, the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) favoured regulating all nicotine-containing products that are not tobacco products as medicinal products by function, irrespective of whether the manufacturer made any medicinal claims linked to smoking cessation or alleviation of the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. To do so, it had to argue that e-cigarettes fall within the definition of a medicinal product under EU, and hence UK, law. EU law, namely the Medicines Directive 2001/83/EC (EC, 2001), defines a “medicinal product” as:

  • (a)

    Any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings; or

  • (b)

    Any substance or combination of substances which may be used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis.

The MHRA faced a number of challenges with this definition, in that few if any e-cigarette manufactures make smoking cessation, nicotine withdrawal or disease prevention claims.

There is also some ambiguity in the operative part of the medicines definition under EU and UK law dealing with the function of the product. One might argue, as the MHRA has done, that nicotine exerts a pharmacological effect and that nicotine delivery products are medicinal. Alternatively, one could argue that many substances exert a pharmacological effect, including alcohol and chocolate, and that the purpose for which they are administered is key. This is position that appears to be prevailing in the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

In November 2014, the German Supreme Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, “BVerwG”) ruled that nicotine-containing liquids that are vaporised and inhaled via e-cigarettes are not medicines and therefore e-cigarettes are not medical devices. The BVerwG found that the liquids are not medicines by function. Although nicotine is a substance that appreciably influences human physiological functions through a pharmacological action, the assessment of a product as a medicine by function must follow on a case-by-case basis and take into account all characteristics of the product. On this basis, the BVerwG ruled that such liquids do not possess any medicinal properties. These liquids do not have a therapeutic ability because use of e-cigarettes as an aid for a long-term smoking and nicotine withdrawal is not scientifically proven. As a result, consumers do not attribute any medicinal purpose to nicotine-containing liquids but use them as consumer goods.

Ultimately, the debate has been resolved in the EU by Article 20 of the new Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU, which provides that the Directive does not apply to e-cigarettes that are subject to an authorisation requirement under the Medicines Directive 2001/83/EC. In accordance with the Medicines Directive, a product will be classified as a medicinal product if it is associated with medicinal claims.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) regulates only e-cigarettes that are marketed for therapeutic purposes. E-cigarettes that do not make medicinal claims are currently unregulated.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) currently regulates cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The FDCA also permits the FDA to issue regulations deeming other “tobacco products” (defined, in pertinent part, as “any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption”) not named in the Tobacco Control Act to be subject to the FDCA. FDA has recently issued a proposed rule, known as the Deeming Regulation, that would extend the CTP's tobacco authority to cover additional products that meet this definition, including e-cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco and waterpipe tobacco.

Consistent with currently regulated tobacco products, these additional products will be subject to regulatory scrutiny, including a requirement for manufacturers to register with the FDA and report product and ingredient listings, and a restriction on the ability to make reduced risk claims. The Deeming Regulation will also impose minimum age restrictions on sales and requirements to include health warnings on product packages and in advertisements.

In the UK, companies required to seek approval of e-cigarettes as medicines or that voluntarily decide to do so would face greater developmental and regulatory hurdles. There appears to be some acceptance within key medicines regulators, such as the MHRA, that a pragmatic approach to the regulation of e-cigarettes as medicines is necessary. The MHRA has indicated that it “will use the flexibilities within the existing licensing framework to enable products that meet medicinal standards to be available”, but the words “that meet medicinal standards” are telling (MHRA, 2013). The standards for the approvability of medicines are set out in laws and guidelines adopted at the EU level and national medicines agencies have only have so much discretion to deviate from them.

  • Generally the highest standards for the protection of public health.

  • Well-established regime, concepts and standards.

  • The ability to advertise non-prescription medicines to both members of the healthcare professions and the general public, provided that the advertising is consistent with the marketing authorisation.

  • No health warnings on packaging or restrictions on comparative safety claims, provided that the advertising is consistent with the marketing authorisation.

  • Extensive regulatory burdens, both pre- and post-authorisation.

  • Significant costs and barriers to market entry.

  • It is far from clear that many current e-cigarette technologies will meet with pharmaceutical standards, particularly as regards the performance of the devices against pharmaceutical standards for inhaled products.

  • Supply chain may be restricted to pharmacies in some jurisdictions.

The final regulatory option is to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products. Although nicotine is usually manufactured from tobacco, pure nicotine does not contain tobacco per se, which is a feature of many legal definitions of tobacco products. Under such circumstances, bringing e-cigarettes within the scope of the tobacco rules may require legislation, such as the FDA's proposed Deeming Regulation discussed above. At EU level, the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU establish a specific regime for such products. The Directive provides the following definition:

‘electronic cigarette’ means a product that can be used for consumption of nicotine-containing vapour via a mouth piece, or any component of that product, including a cartridge, a tank and the device without cartridge or tank. Electronic cigarettes can be disposable or refillable by means of a refill container and a tank, or rechargeable with single use cartridges.

Electronic cigarettes that do not make medicinal claims and contain nicotine at a level below 20 mg/ml will be regulated under Article 20 of the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU. Article 20 allows the marketing of e-cigarettes, subject to certain nicotine content, volume and dose, quality and performance requirements, an obligation to notify the relevant Member State before marketing and a number of other conditions and restrictions.

Even though the threat of medicines regulation appears removed for products that satisfy these conditions, the regime largely mirrors medicines regulation without the benefits, namely, without the ability to advertise the product. This is because the Directive expressly prohibits any commercial communications (and indeed private interactions with individuals) that are aimed, directly or indirectly, at, promoting electronic cigarettes and refill containers (other than trade advertising) (Art. 20(5)). In addition, it is possible that such products could be subject to “plain packaging” and display bans that operate (or may operate in the future) in relation to other tobacco products. This would reduce further the access to e-cigarettes despite the clear public health benefit in making these products widely available.

In contrast, nicotine-inhaled products that are licensed as medicines, such as the Nicorette Inhalator and the recently approved Voke, may be advertised (and displayed) to the general public (at least in the UK).

The very strict standards required by the EU Directive are unlikely to be met by many existing e-cigarette operators, leaving it to those organisations with the largest resources to develop products that can satisfy these requirements. Indeed, that is why there is currently an application pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking the annulment of Article 20. A key plank of the application is that the data requirements and also the inability to advertise e-cigarettes are disproportionate given the potential health benefits. The application, brought by Totally Wicked, a manufacturer of e-cigarettes, argues that the assumption made by the Commission in enacting the legislation – i.e., that they present an equivalent health risk to tobacco products – is flawed, and is not supported by the available scientific evidence.

  • Clarity of regime, concepts and standards.

  • Pre-market regulatory review.

  • Essentially medicines-like regulation and standards without the benefits.

  • Extensive regulatory burdens, both pre- and post-authorisation.

  • Significant costs and barriers to market entry.

  • It is far from clear that many current e-cigarette technologies will be able to comply, particularly as regards the dose reproducibility requirement.

The health consequences of combustible cigarettes obviously represent a great challenge for regulators, and those seeking to influence them to focus on health-oriented, science-based approaches aimed at moving nicotine use as far down the spectrum of risk as can be achieved. Existing evidence-based approaches should be applied when designing a sensible and coherent regulatory framework for electronic cigarettes (Polosa & Caponnetto, 2013b). Taking action to limit hypothetical risks can have unintended consequences that work against achieving the ultimate goal: saving lives by reducing the morbidity and mortality caused by smoking. We propose a framework of these possible unintended consequences (see Table 1), correlated to a certain regulatory action settled to resolve a specific issue.

Section snippets

Concluding remarks

Given the enormous health and economic losses due to cigarette smoking, the presence of approximately one and a half billion people who obtain nicotine through the inhalation of the products of combustion, the realization that ‘people smoke for the nicotine but die from the smoke’ (Russell, 1976), and the relatively low success rates using traditional quitting methods, it is clear that a different, more effective approach is needed to reduce the harm from cigarette smoking. It is therefore

Acknowledgements

Pasquale Caponnetto is Senior Research Fellow at the CPCT – Centro per la Prevenzione e Cura del Tabagismo (Italian acronym for Smoking Prevention and Cessation Centre) of the University of Catania, and he is supported by the same University.

Daniela Saitta is Expert of Health Communication at the Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine and she is supported by the University of Catania, Italy.

David Sweanor is a self-supporting adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of

References (26)

  • Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA)

    Results of web-based survey. Survey Monkey website

    (2013)
  • Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association (ECITA)

    Summary of British Standards Institute PAS 54115, 29 July 2014

    (2014)
  • J.F. Etter

    Electronic cigarettes: A survey of users

    BMC Public Health

    (2010)
  • Cited by (24)

    • Do tobacco 21 laws work?

      2023, Journal of Health Economics
    • Comparing the regulation and incentivization of e-cigarettes across 97 countries

      2021, Social Science and Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      This approach prevents non-smokers from legally accessing e-cigarettes, while allowing access to current smokers in order to reduce the harms associated with conventional tobacco smoking. A major advantage is that most jurisdictions already have well-established regulations for medicinal products (Caponnetto et al., 2015). If regulated and prescribed as medicinal products, e-cigarettes and e-liquids could potentially be provided or reimbursed by health insurance plans.

    • A typology of vaping: Identifying differing beliefs, motivations for use, identity and political interest amongst e-cigarette users

      2017, International Journal of Drug Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      In the US, the Federal Drug Administration has controversially brought e-cigarettes under its tobacco regulatory control.1 Correspondingly regulatory responses are polarized (Caponnetto, Saitta, Sweanor, & Polosa, 2015). In some countries (e.g. Norway), selling e-cigarettes is banned.

    • Counseling patients with asthma and allergy about electronic cigarettes: An evidence-based approach

      2016, Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
      Citation Excerpt :

      In future, larger and longer-term studies will better define any residual risks from EC use; this knowledge will guide the establishment of appropriate quality control and safety standards and decrease any residual risks to as low as possible. In the meantime, expected regulatory measures should primarily address manufacturing quality standards, child-proof caps on liquid containers, verification of accurate nicotine levels and product ingredients, complete and accurate package labeling, safety warnings, and postmarketing surveillance addressing any potential unintended consequences of any proposed actions that policy makers might overlook.81 With this in mind, clinicians can more objectively and responsibly respond to inquiries from their patients with allergy about use of ECs and related products.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text