Research and analysis

RPC opinion: options for restricting the appearance of vapes and heated tobacco products

Published 7 August 2026

Lead department: Department of Health and Social Care

Summary of proposal: to reduce the appeal of heated tobacco and vaping devices, by restricting the appearance of these products.

Submission type: options assessment - 15 October 2025

Legislation type: secondary

RPC reference: RPC-DHSC-25093-OA(1)

Date of issue: 26 November 2025

RPC opinion rating

Fit for purpose:

• the options assessment (OA) outlines the problem under consideration, focused on the need to reduce the use of vape and heated tobacco products in order to improve health outcomes
• the assessment considers various measures at the long-list stage, progressing 3 to the shortlist
• the assessment considers alternatives to regulation
• the small and micro business assessment provided is sufficient
• the OA includes a qualitative justification for its preferred way forward, based on how each option performs against the policy objectives
• the scorecard provides a satisfactory summary of expected impacts, focussing on the business impacts
• the OA includes a good plan for monitoring and evaluation, with a clear review timeline, evaluation questions and potential data sources

RPC opinion summary

Rationale: Green

The assessment outlines the problem under consideration and the argument for intervention, which is focused on the need to reduce the use of vape and heated tobacco products in order to improve health outcomes.

Identification of options: Green

The assessment considers various measures at the long-list stage, progressing 3 options to the shortlist. The assessment considers alternatives to regulation, justifying why they have not been carried forward. The small and micro business assessment provided is sufficient.

Justification for preferred way forward: Green

The OA includes a qualitative justification for its preferred way forward, based on how each option performs against the policy objectives. The assessment could benefit from comparing the impact of each option in more detail.

Regulatory scorecard: Satisfactory

The scorecard provides a satisfactory summary of expected impacts, focussing on the business impacts. The assessment could be improved by monetising some of the potential health benefits of the proposal or explaining how this uncertainty will be reflected in final decisions.

Monitoring and evaluation: Good

The assessment includes a good plan for monitoring and evaluation, with a clear review timeline, evaluation questions and potential data sources, as well as considering the possible unintended consequences. The department should clarify that a single, integrated monitoring and evaluation plan covering all 5 tobacco and vapes measures is proposed, given the overlapping objectives and outcomes.

Summary of proposal

The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) is responsible for the regulation of the appearance of vaping and heated tobacco products in England. The use of vaping and heated tobacco products amongst young people has risen substantially in recent years, leading to associated detrimental health outcomes. This OA proposes to reduce the appeal of heated tobacco and vaping devices, by restricting the appearance of these products.

There are 3 shortlisted options proposed in this assessment:

• option 1: do minimum – restrict the colour of vapes and heated tobacco devices to a choice of white, grey, or black, prohibit products from mimicking the design of other products, no limit to logos or branding
• option 2: intermediate (preferred) - restrict the colour of vaping devices to a choice of white, grey, or black, with heated tobacco products restricted to a single colour, prohibit products from mimicking the design of other products, only the brand name would be permitted on devices
• option 3: do maximum - restrict the colour of vapes and heated tobacco devices to a single colour, prohibit products from mimicking the design of other products, only the brand name would be permitted on devices

Option 2 has been preferred by the department at this stage. However, it is continuing to consider the other shortlisted options as it conducts its consultation.

Rationale

Problem under consideration

The key issue considered by the department is that the appearance of vapes and is an important persuading factor for customer whether to make a purchase, and what type of vape to choose.

The appearance of vaping products is a contributory factor in the rise of youth vaping, with brands designing their products to be more colourful to resemble products that appeal to children, such as games or highlighters, which make them harder to detect.

This is leading to increased harm, as vaping has been found to be associated with a higher risk of developing respiratory illness, gastrointestinal disorders and could present dangers from metals in the devices.

Heated tobacco is similar in function and appearance to vapes, and so the department also considers the same issues to apply to these products, as well as containing tobacco, a known carcinogen.

The problem under consideration would benefit from going into more detail on the potential issues with heated tobacco products more specifically.

The OA does well to use a range of evidence to support this problem statement, using reviews, survey data and evidence from other jurisdictions to show how the appearance of vapes is a key factor to choosing a product, and these designs are increasingly targeted and noticed by children and young people.

The OA could do more to link the specific current practices of vape companies to the rise in use by young people of these products. The department should seek to use the upcoming consultation to strengthen the evidential case for health risks associated with vaping and other nicotine products for the final impact assessment, particularly where causal links are less certain, and/or to reflect the degree of uncertainty in their assessment of options.

Argument for intervention

The department argues it is necessary for the government to intervene as there is an irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco and vape industry’s interests and public health policy interests. As such, there is little incentive for business to address the colourful marketing and promotion of vapes, with only limited evidence of any voluntary action.

The OA supports this argument using evidence from the UK’s Public Health Responsibility Deal (2011-2015) to suggest that a lack of accountability mechanism meant that there was little incentive for business to make changes.

The assessment should be improved by expanding on the rationale for intervention, including by identifying a market failure to support this argument, such as by discussing the negative externalities associated with vapes and heated tobacco.

Objectives and theory of change

The assessment has set out 3 overall policy objectives, including to reduce youth vaping, maintain the availability of vapes as a smoking cessation aid and to reduce tobacco consumption. The assessment then links these objectives to a set of strategic wider government priorities and success indicators.

The objectives would be improved by specifically linking each objective to the SMART framework, showing how they are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-limited. The department has also set out a high-level theory of change model to demonstrate how the proposed intervention will achieve the policy objectives, using a logic model.

Objectives across the 5 tobacco and vapes OAs should be reviewed for clarity and consistency. Current wording makes it difficult to disentangle which measure contributes to which outcome, which could undermine effective monitoring and evaluation. Where multiple measures contribute to an outcome (such as reduced vaping by young people) this should be reflected in assessment of benefits and monitoring plans to avoid double counting across multiple OAs.

Identification of options

Identification of the ‘long-list’ of options

The assessment considers a range of potential interventions to form its long-list. This has been split into separate sets of options for both vapes and heated tobacco. Within these 2 areas, the department considers a range of sub-options for a variety of different elements of a potential intervention, including products in scope, device design, branding and prohibition on mimicking other products. These interventions have each been briefly summarised qualitatively, however the assessment should be improved by providing more detail on each of the long-listed options that were not advanced to the shortlist.

The assessment could also be improved by including detail on the process behind developing the long-list of options, such as how research and other evidence have been used to form these policies. This would also have benefitted from using the Green Book’s Strategic Options Framework Filter (SOFF), which could help the present the long-list in greater detail whilst retaining a clear and concise structure.

The long-list of options has been assessed in stages, describing why options have not been advanced to the short-list in turn through each of the sub-levels. The assessment clearly assesses each of the options against the policy objectives using RAG ratings.

Consideration of alternatives to regulation

The OA briefly considers non-regulatory changes ahead of the longlisting stage. The Department discusses the possibility of introducing a voluntary scheme, or issuing guidance, however neither of these options have been included in the longlist. The assessment provides a sufficient justification for discounting these options ahead of the long-list stage and therefore pursuing regulatory change, arguing that businesses would be unlikely to comply.

The department supports this argument by discussing how despite previous voluntary interventions, there is still a significant range of available products. Therefore, voluntary action alone is unlikely to achieve the policy objective of reducing youth vaping. The OA would be improved by giving this non-regulatory option full consideration as part of the longlist.

Justification for the short-listed options

The assessment has discounted most of the proposed sub-options, progressing 2 options for vape design, 2 for heated tobacco design, 2 for branding and one for prohibition on mimicking other products. The have been combined into overall options packages, resulting in 3 headline options (aside from a ‘do-nothing’ option) progressing to the shortlist: option 1, a do minimum option, option 2, an intermediate options and option 3, a do maximum option.

The department has used its policy objectives to assess the long-listed options, setting out in a table each of the potential interventions and how they perform against these objectives. This table has been used to demonstrate how rejected long-listed options fail to meet the policy objectives, with a description of why these options are an inadequate fit.

The OA has also provided a good qualitative summary describing why options have been progressed to the shortlist or not, before describing the 3 shortlisted options. The OA could be clearer on how sub-options from the longlist have been combined to form the shortlisted options. The table assessing longlist options could also be improved to assess options against each of the objectives, rather than just a single overall summary.

Small and micro business assessment and medium-sized business assessment

The OA includes a good small and micro business assessment. The department describes how most affected small and micro businesses will be wholesalers and retailers, with 71% of convenience stores, all specialist vapes shops, 99% of specialist tobacconists and 95% of pharmacies estimated to be small and micro sized.

Because of this, the department argues that it is not possible for small and micro businesses to be exempted, as allowing small businesses to create or sell products with less stringent appearance restrictions would undermine the policy objectives by allowing products that are appealing to continue to enter the market. This justification is sufficient. The assessment could be improved by considering how many affected businesses are micro-sized.

The OA discusses the potential impacts on small and micro caused by the proposal, such as reduced profits from fewer sales. The department also anticipates a disproportionate familiarisation cost for smaller businesses relative to larger businesses that will be more equipped to deal with the regulations. Overall small and micro businesses are expected to face costs of £217 million over a 10-year appraisal period (2024 prices, 2027 present value year).

The department has briefly considered potential mitigations for businesses when dealing with the impact of new regulations. These include an appropriate lead in time to mitigate smaller businesses disadvantage in familiarising with the new regulations. The department plans to use its consultation to identify further mitigation opportunities.

The OA also considers briefly the potential impact on medium sized businesses, which may face a similarly disproportionate familiarisation cost relative to large businesses.

Justification for preferred way forward

Appraisal of the shortlisted options

The assessment includes a qualitative discussion of the shortlisted options. This appraisal considers the how each of the options performs at achieving the initial policy objectives relative to one another. An NPV calculation has also been provided, for each of the options, focussing on the costs. This assessment results in the selection of the intermediate option as the preferred option; however this approach is subject to an upcoming consultation, which could lead to policy changes.

The assessment discusses how only allowing vapes to be black, white or grey removes more appealing and vibrant colours whilst retaining a degree of consumer choice. The department argues in favour of restricting heated tobacco products to a single colour so that it cannot be appealing through colour. The department should address the inconsistency between allowing a small range of colour options for vapes and not heated tobacco, which could be achieved whilst retaining a colour difference between the two products.

The OA should do more do consider the relative non-monetised impacts of each of the shortlisted options. The assessment of options includes a monetised analysis of the shortlisted options against the baseline scenario. The estimated Net Present Value (NPV) for all 3 of the options is -£330.3 million (2024 price year, 2027 present value (pv) base year), based on familiarisation costs and profit loss for businesses, and enforcement costs for authorities. These figures do not include the potential health and environmental benefits of the scheme.

The department should do more to justify not monetising these impacts. The department should also clarify why the costs to business are the same for each option when option 1 involves no changes to current branding restrictions compared to options 2 and 3 which introduce new regulations.

The level of analysis conducted by the department is sufficient at this stage. The assessment usefully includes a clear definition of the baseline and the analytical assumptions, as set out in Annex A of the OA.

The assessment would benefit from highlighting the varying non-monetised impacts in more detail to demonstrate the differences between the shortlisted options. The OA has done well to test key assumptions with a sensitivity analysis, which considers profit margins, market size and varying scales of impact.

The department should clarify the extent of overlap in benefits across the 5 tobacco and vapes measures. While some narrative on this is present at OA stage, the final impact assessment should explicitly state how benefits are apportioned or aggregated across the package. This will help ensure transparency and avoid overstating the overall welfare impact.

The largest cost element across the 5 tobacco and vapes measures is expected to be reduced sales. It is expected that the health benefits of these measures will also be in proportion to reduced sales/consumption, so this provides a helpful mechanism to prevent costs and benefits from diverging significantly.

Selection of the preferred option

Overall, the qualitative discussion of the proposed options and monetised analysis used to justify the preferred approach is sufficient at this stage. The discussion reasonably sets out how the proposed intervention could lead to a reduction in youth vaping, leading to improved health outcomes, whilst retaining some degree of consumer choice.

The non-monetised impacts should be highlighted more clearly in the appraisal of shortlisted options. The department does well to leave open the possibility for policy changes following consultation.

Regulatory Scorecard

Part A

The scorecard has been used to set out how it considers the policy will have an uncertain impact on total welfare, with new cost requirements on businesses being balanced out by the health benefits of reduced consumption of vaping and heated tobacco products.

As before, some of these costs have been monetised, with an NPV of -£330 million (2024 price year, 2027 pv base year), based on familiarisation costs, profit loss and enforcement costs. In addition to health benefits, the department expects these costs will be offset by reduced health and social care costs, reduced fire risk and a reduction in litter. The OA could have highlighted the breakeven analysis in the scorecard to give an indication of the likely impact on overall welfare.

The department estimates the Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business (EANDCB) as £38.4 million (2024 prices, 2027 pv base). This is based on the aforementioned familiarisation costs and profit loss.

The department has not produced a monetised estimate of the impact on households, with the policy expected to have an uncertain effect. This is driven by the potential health benefits being countered by the costs to smokers who may have used vaping products as a smoking cessation aid.

The department should do more to justify treating the overall household impact as uncertain, given the scale of health benefits should be outweighing the risk to vaping products as a smoke cessation aid for the intervention to be justifiable. The department considers the distributional effects of the scheme, arguing that as vape prevalence is higher in less advantaged social grades, they are more likely to experience a health benefit.

Part B

The assessment usefully considers the potential impact on the business environment for the proposed intervention, covering the possibility that the measures may lead to reduced attractiveness of the sector and an increase in barriers to entry. The OA also discusses the likely impact on competition, as standardised appearances will make it harder for businesses to compete through the branding and attractiveness of devices.

This could be improved by considering the possibility that the imposition of relatively larger costs for smaller business could lead to a stronger market position for larger firms.

The assessment includes a summary of international considerations, highlighting that the proposal will lead to increased barriers to trade, as imported vaping products will now have to meet specific UK regulations. The OA should also consider the possibility that reduced consumption of vaping products may result in a decrease in imports.

The department has not included any impacts on natural capital and decarbonisation, however given the OA describes environmental gains and benefits in other sections. These should be summarised here.

Monitoring and evaluation

The assessment includes a good plan for monitoring and evaluation. The department has outlined how it plans on conducting a post implementation review (PIR) 5 years after the legislation comes into effect, which is expected to be 2027, leading to a 2032 review.

The OA sets a potential evaluation methodology, including a range of evaluation questions which could be used to assess if the policy has met the department’s objectives. The plan also includes a detailed range of potential data sources, a list of unintended consequences and external factors that could be considered and an example of a previous PIR the department has conducted following this methodology.

The department should clarify that a single, integrated monitoring and evaluation plan covering all 5 tobacco and vapes measures is proposed, given the overlapping objectives and outcomes. The OA would benefit from including a clear explanation of how collective success will be assessed.

Other comments

The RPC recommends that the final impact assessment should present the combined cost of all 5 tobacco and vapes measures alongside the combined benefits to provide a clearer picture of proportionality.

Reviewing each OA in isolation risks misinterpretation of the overall cost-benefit balance, especially given the significant monetised costs and absence of monetised benefits. A consolidated view will improve transparency and decision-making.