{"id":36420,"date":"2026-04-20T10:16:05","date_gmt":"2026-04-20T10:16:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/?p=36420"},"modified":"2026-04-21T08:46:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T08:46:08","slug":"dutch-flavour-ban-pushed-some-vapers-into-smoking-study-suggests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/post\/dutch-flavour-ban-pushed-some-vapers-into-smoking-study-suggests\/","title":{"rendered":"Dutch flavour ban pushed some vapers into smoking, study suggests"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"clear-before-content-2\" style=\"margin-top: 20px;margin-bottom: 20px;margin-left: auto;margin-right: auto;text-align: center;\" id=\"clear-2665455042\"><img src=\"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/caafc5c68900198b80aee12c11b50184.avif\" alt=\"\"   style=\"display: inline-block;\" \/><\/div>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>40% of vapers reduced use after the ban, including 22% who quit entirely<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>6% started smoking cigarettes and linked this to the policy<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>10.8% reported using alternative products more, \u201cpredominantly cigarettes\u201d<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Most quitters (73%) did not switch to another product<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>A <a href=\"https:\/\/tobaccocontrol.bmj.com\/content\/early\/2026\/03\/31\/tc-2025-059567\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">major new study<\/a> on the Netherlands\u2019 flavour ban is being used to support tougher regulation &#8211; but a closer look at the data suggests a more complex and potentially concerning picture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The research, led by the Dutch public health institute RIVM, found that vaping fell sharply after non-tobacco flavours were removed from the market. But it also identified a measurable shift into smoking among some users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Smoking uptake linked to the ban<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The study, based on a survey of more than 1,000 people who used vapes before the ban, reports that: \u201cSix per cent of all participants started cigarette smoking and attributed this initiation to the e-cigarette flavour ban.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It also found that some existing users increased their cigarette consumption. \u201cA minority of participants who smoked before the ban increased their cigarette consumption: 10.0% reported smoking more due to the ban,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Overall, \u201c10.8% of all N=1005 respondents reported an increased use of previously used alternative products, predominantly cigarettes.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Vaping falls sharply &#8211; but interpretation disputed<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>At the same time, the authors highlight a substantial drop in vaping.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cAs a result of the ban, 40% (95% CI 36% to 43%) of respondents reduced vaping, including 22% (95% CI 20% to 25%) who quit entirely,\u201d the study said.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Most of those who quit did not switch to another product. \u201cMost consumers (73%) who quit vaping due to the ban did not use a substitution product.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The paper concludes: \u201cThe e-cigarette flavour ban effectively reduced e-cigarette use among pre-ban users, potentially benefiting public health.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And it goes further, recommending: \u201cinternational adoption of similar measures or other strategies to restrict cross-border purchasing.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Critics: smoking signal downplayed<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>However, critics say the study\u2019s headline conclusion risks obscuring important unintended effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Behavioural scientist Arielle Selya said the results show a significant trade-off between reduced vaping and increased smoking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cSix per cent of all participants started cigarette smoking and attributed this initiation to the e-cigarette flavor ban.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>She argues this matters more than the headline decline in vaping, noting: \u201cIt doesn\u2019t matter that overall rates of combustible tobacco use went down in absolute terms; this is in spite of the increase in smoking, and could have been even lower if people who smoke would have been allowed to keep using flavored e-cigarettes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>She also points to additional shifts within the data, saying: \u201cAll in all this is 10.8% who compensated by smoking more + 5.5% who initiated cigarette smoking, which totals 16.3% who increased their cigarette smoking.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Questions over missing behaviour changes<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Further concerns have been raised about how the study accounts for dual use &#8211; people who both smoke and vape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Harm reduction expert Clive Bates said the analysis may not fully capture important behavioural shifts. He said: \u201cOne aspect of the study I am super-concerned about is dual use.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>He notes that dual use fell sharply over the study period but questions what happened to those users: \u201cMost of the sample was \u2018dual use\u2019 at baseline (53.9%) but this fell to 20.4% at evaluation 9 months later = -33.5% of the entire sample were no longer dual users.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>He added: \u201cIt is not obvious to me that they have been fully accounted for.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Cross-border sales and workarounds<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The study also highlights how users adapted to the ban rather than simply quitting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Among those still using banned flavours, \u201cthe largest group (35.6%) purchased them in physical shops abroad.\u201d&nbsp; This points to the limits of national restrictions in a single market like the EU, where cross-border purchasing remains possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Policy implications<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>While the authors frame the policy as a success, they acknowledge some unintended effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cIn addition, 9.1% of respondents initiated replacement products as substitutes for e-cigarettes, with 5.5% starting to smoke cigarettes,\u201d the study says. They also note this outcome is \u201cnotable and concerning on the individual level.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The findings add to a growing debate over whether flavour bans reduce harm overall &#8211; or risk pushing some users towards more dangerous products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For policymakers, the key question may not be whether vaping falls, but what replaces it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Arielle Selya is an employee of Pinney Associates and consults to Juul Labs on tobacco harm reduction. She also serves as a scientific advisor to the Global Forum on Nicotine. Her opinions here are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her employers or clients.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n<div class=\"clear-after-content-2\" style=\"margin-top: 20px;margin-bottom: 20px;margin-left: auto;margin-right: auto;text-align: center;\" id=\"clear-951718707\"><img src=\"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/caafc5c68900198b80aee12c11b50184.avif\" alt=\"\"   style=\"display: inline-block;\" \/><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A major new study on the Netherlands\u2019 flavour ban is being used to support tougher regulation &#8211; but a closer look at the data suggests a more complex and potentially concerning picture. The research, led by the Dutch public health institute RIVM,&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":990002,"featured_media":36444,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[257,259],"tags":[340],"slider":[],"class_list":["post-36420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-science","tag-netherlands"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/990002"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36420"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36420\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36560,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36420\/revisions\/36560"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/36444"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36420"},{"taxonomy":"slider","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clearingtheair.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/slider?post=36420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}