Search Results (2)

Background: E-cigarette use has risen sharply among young never-smokers, largely driven by the availability of several thousand appealing flavours. This narrative review synthesises evidence on the health effects of vaping, flavour toxicology and attractiveness, designs and outcomes of flavour bans, and complementary measures. Methods: Peer-reviewed publications and institutional reports (up to January 2026) were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and reference lists of included articles. Evidence from about 200 references was synthesised by a multidisciplinary working group. Results: Although flavouring substances are generally considered safe for ingestion, their inhalation toxicity remains uncertain. In vitro and in vivo studies have reported oxidative stress, inflammation, cytotoxicity, impaired ciliary function, transcriptomic changes, genotoxicity, and DNA damage. These findings—along with the strong youth appeal of fruit/sweet flavours, the inconclusive effects of flavours on smoking cessation, and persisting uncertainties—support banning non-tobacco e-cigarette flavours under the precautionary principle. Flavour bans can reduce e-cigarette use and initiation, especially among young adults, although partial substitution towards combustible cigarettes has been reported in some U.S. states. Policy success requires effective enforcement, prevention of industry circumvention, curbing cross-border sales, and closing regulatory loopholes—ideally at the international level (e.g., EU-wide). Conclusions: E-cigarette flavours may increase vaping toxicity and strongly appeal to youth, justifying flavour bans to prioritise youth protection. To maximise effectiveness, accompanying measures and sustained investment in tobacco prevention, youth education, and accessible evidence-based smoking cessation support are essential. Full article

Besides nicotine replacement therapies, a realistic alternative for smoking cessation or for smoking substitution may come from electronic cigarettes (ECs), whose popularity has been steadily growing. As for any emerging behaviour associated with exposure to inhalational agents, there is legitimate cause for concern and many health organizations and policy makers have pushed for restrictive policy measures ranging from complete bans to tight regulations of these products. Nonetheless, it is important to reframe these concerns in context of the well-known harm caused by cigarette smoking. In this article, we discuss key public health principles that should be considered when regulating ECs. These include the concept of tobacco harm reduction, importance of relative risk and risk continuum, renormalization of smoking, availability of low-risk product, proportionate taxation, and reassessment of the role of non-tobacco flavours. These public health principles may be systematically scrutinized using a risk assessment matrix that allows: (1) to determine the measure of certainty that a risk will occur; and (2) to estimate the impact of such a risk on public health. Consequently, the ultimate goal of responsible ECs regulation should be that of maximizing the favourable impact of these reduced-risk products whilst minimizing further any potential risks. Consumer perspectives, sound EC research, continuous post-marketing surveillance and reasonable safety and quality product standards should be at the very heart of future regulatory schemes that will address concerns while minimizing unintended consequences of ill-informed regulation. Full article