Research and analysis

RPC opinion: options for standardised packaging and pack inserts for tobacco products

Published 7 August 2026

Lead department: Department of Health and Social Care

Summary of proposal : the department proposes to consult on legislation to standardise the packaging of tobacco products, heated tobacco devices, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to bring the packaging of these products broadly in line with existing regulations on cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco

Submission type: options assessment - 15 October 2025

Legislation type: secondary

RPC reference: RPC-DHSC-25096-OA(1)

Date of issue: 26 November 2025

RPC opinion rating

Fit for purpose:

• the options assessment (OA) outlines the problem under consideration, including evidence for market failures such as information failure and negative externalities
• the assessment considers both products in scope and packaging requirements to form its long-list
• within this, the department considers a range of elements such as appearance, branding, size and shape
• the OA briefly considers non-regulatory changes during the long-listing stage
• the small and micro business assessment provided is sufficient
• the scorecard provides a satisfactory summary of expected impacts, focussing on monetising 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 OA outlines the problem under consideration and argument for intervention, including evidence for market failures such as information failure and negative externalities. The assessment has set out 3 overall policy objectives and links these to wider government priorities.

Identification of options: Green

The assessment considers both products in scope and packaging requirements to form its long-list. Within this, the department considers a range of elements such as appearance, branding, size and shape. The OA briefly considers non-regulatory changes during the long-listing stage. The small and micro business assessment provided is sufficient.

Justification for preferred way forward: Green

The assessment of options includes a monetised analysis of each shortlisted option against the baseline scenario. The assessment would benefit from explaining why the preferred option was chosen over other shortlisted alternatives.

Regulatory scorecard: Satisfactory

The scorecard provides a satisfactory summary of expected impacts, focussing on monetising 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 proposes to consult on legislation to further standardise the packaging of tobacco products, heated tobacco devices, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to bring the packaging of these products broadly in line with existing regulations on cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco.

The proposed legislation is intended to improve the consistency of packaging and reduce the appeal of these products. The regulations will be updated by secondary legislation, UK-wide, under Section 5 of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. There will be a public consultation on the detail of the legislative proposals.

There are 5 shortlisted options:

• option 0 – do nothing: business as usual
• option 1 – do minimum: align with upcoming restrictions on vapes and nicotine products (no pack inserts)
• option 2: standardise broadly in line with the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulation (SPoT) – with no pack inserts
• option 3 – preferred: standardise broadly in line with SpoT and including inserts
• option 4: do maximum: In line with SPoT above with larger health warnings (75% of a packaging face or larger) and include inserts

The OA states that the preferred option is option 3. The department estimates the Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business (EANDCB) as £11.1 million and the Net Present Value (NPV) as -£101.9 million.

Rationale

Problem under consideration

The key issue considered by the department is that packaging increases the appeal of tobacco products and the likelihood of people using them. The products within the scope of this policy, such as cigars, heated tobacco and chewing tobacco are not subject to stringent packaging regulations that cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco are.

This means that they can be packaged in colourful or appealing packaging, or in a way to convey a premium feel, increasing their appeal. This leads to increased harm, as tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death and illness in the UK. This also undermines the goal of the government to make the UK smokefree. The OA supports the problem statement with a range of evidence from research studies.

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 IA, 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 provides a clear justification for intervention, citing a fundamental conflict between the commercial interests of the tobacco industry and public health objectives. Retailers and producers have limited incentive to standardise packaging voluntarily, and the OA notes minimal evidence of meaningful self-regulation.

The assessment strengthens its case by identifying market failures, including negative externalities associated with smoking and imperfect information that limits consumer awareness of health risks. It draws on international examples and evaluates their effectiveness, providing comparative evidence to demonstrate the feasibility and impact of similar measures elsewhere.

Further, the post-implementation review of existing tobacco packaging regulations reinforces the rationale for expanding the scope of standardisation. Evidence suggests that these measures have been effective and that there is stakeholder support for extending requirements to all tobacco products.

Objectives and theory of change

The assessment has set out three overall policy objectives, including to reduce the appeal and attractiveness of tobacco products, to increase awareness of the health harms, and to increase awareness of the benefits of quitting. The assessment then links these objectives to a set of strategic wider government priorities.

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 considered the Green Book’s Critical Success Factors and have applied these in the context of the proposed policy.

The department has also set out a theory of change model to demonstrate how the proposed intervention will achieve the policy objectives. The department provides a qualitative assessment of how this policy may interact with other policies implemented through secondary legislation as part of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

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 wide range of potential interventions to form its long list. This has been split into separate sets of options considering both products in scope and packaging requirements. Within the long-list of packaging requirements, the department considers a range of elements such as appearance, branding, size and shape.

These interventions have each been briefly summarised qualitatively, however the assessment could be improved by providing more detail on each of the long-listed options that were not advanced to the shortlist. This would be best formalised as a numbered list of options.

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.

Consideration of alternatives to regulation

The OA briefly considers non-regulatory changes during the long-listing stage. The department discusses the possibility of introducing a voluntary scheme or issuing guidance. The OA explains that a fully non-regulatory approach would not lead to comprehensive compliance by all producers supplying the UK market. The Department intends to develop guidance materials alongside regulations to support businesses and make them aware of any new requirements.

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 inconsistently applied voluntarily standardised packaging would also likely confuse consumers. The OA would be improved by giving this non-regulatory option full consideration as part of a formalised long-list.

Justification for the short-listed options

The assessment would benefit from a more consistent and transparent approach to option appraisal. While the OA provides a brief rationale for discounting certain options at long-list stage, primarily on the basis of misalignment with policy objectives, this explanation would benefit from a structured approach using critical success factors (CSFs) and RAG ratings to assess feasibility, effectiveness, and proportionality.

Applying this framework would provide a more robust basis for decision-making and demonstrate that all options have been assessed against common criteria.

This process has resulted in 4 options being short-listed, in addition to the ‘do nothing’ option. All 4 options include standardising packaging for tobacco products, but these options vary in their scope from a ‘do-minimum’ option through to a ‘do-maximum’ option.

Small and micro business assessment and medium-sized business assessment

The OA includes a good small and micro business assessment and medium-sized business assessment. The department describes how most affected business, including UK tobacco manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers, are small and micro business.

The OA includes ONS data to give an indication of the number of micro, small and medium sized businesses impacted. Without consistency in packaging of products, this could create a misconception that products not subject to standardised packaging are less harmful than products with standardised packaging.

Because of this, the department argues it would not be possible to achieve the policy objectives with micro, small or medium businesses exempted. This justification is sufficient. The OA discusses the potential impacts on small and micro businesses caused by the proposal, such as reduced profits from fewer sales and costs of changing packaging.

The small and micro business assessment includes a table that estimates the average cost per small and micro sized businesses across the appraisal period. The department plans to use its consultation to ask for evidence on feasibility and implementation of the regulations and ensure accurate transition periods and sell by periods are permitted.

Justification for preferred way forward

Appraisal of the shortlisted options

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 of options includes a monetised analysis of each shortlisted option against the baseline scenario. The estimated NPVs are -£101.9 million for option 3 and -£94 million, -£94 million and -£101.9 million for options 1, 2 and 4 respectively.

These figures do not include the potential health and environmental benefits of the scheme. The OA sets out the methodology behind each of the quantified costs and benefits. The department uses a standard 10-year appraisal period, using 2024 prices and 2027 present value base year, as well as a 3.5% discount rate.

The department has described the evidence gaps and uncertainties within the OA. The department has undertaken sensitivity analysis for the preferred option to account for these but has not provide overall cumulative low and high estimates. The OA also includes break even analysis to provide an indication of the level of health benefits to individuals required to offset the estimated costs.

The assessment discusses how standardising packaging of products in scope will meet the department’s policy objectives, resulting in a decrease in usage of tobacco products, which would lead to improved health outcomes.

The OA suggests that individuals deterred from using tobacco products may benefit from increased disposable income, which could be spent on other goods or services. This assumption is not robust, as it treats reduced expenditure on tobacco products as a net welfare gain without accounting for the loss of consumer utility. The argument therefore overstates potential economic benefits and should be revised to reflect standard welfare economics principles.

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. However, the rationale for selecting the preferred option is not clearly articulated.

The assessment would benefit from explaining why this option was chosen over other shortlisted alternatives, including a comparison of appraisal values to demonstrate relative merits. Currently, the appraisal values have not been used to justify the selection of the preferred option. Linking these quantified results to the decision-making process would improve transparency and strengthen confidence in the robustness of the approach.

Regulatory scorecard

Part A

The scorecard has been used to provide an indication of the impact of the preferred option (option 3). As before, many of these impacts have been monetised, with an NPV of -£101.9 million. This includes familiarisation costs, redesign costs, transaction costs, training costs, reconfiguration costs, pack insert costs and profit loss, as well as the cost to consumers of increased purchasing time.

The department expects these costs will be offset by the health benefits caused by reduced tobacco usage, which is described in a discussion of the non-monetised impacts. In addition, there are other non-monetised benefits, such as reduced litter and cost savings to businesses through lack of branding.

The department estimates the Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business (EANDCB) as £11.1 million. This is based on the aforementioned costs to retailers and wholesalers. It is assumed that manufacturers are predominantly transnational and not based in the UK, so costs to manufacturers have not been included in the EANDCB or NPV.

The policy is expected to have an uncertain effect on households, with a household NPV estimated at -£0.15 million and an EANDCH of £0 million. This is driven by increased transaction costs to consumers. The department should justify treating the overall household impact as uncertain, given the scale of health benefits is very likely to outweigh the small transaction costs. The department considers the distributional effects of the scheme, stating that populations that have higher prevalence of tobacco product usage may experience more of the health benefits of the policy.

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 states that standardised packaging is likely to reduce the ability for businesses to compete through branding and attractiveness of packaging, which may increase price competition.

The assessment includes a summary of international considerations, highlighting that the impact is uncertain because tobacco products imported into the UK will need to comply with the UK packaging regulations. The extent to which this impacts trade depends on the global regulatory landscape.

The department explains that the overall impact on natural capital and decarbonisation is uncertain. A reduction in users of tobacco products may also reduce fire costs associated with smoking and resulting carbon emissions. Conversely, pack inserts increase the overall amount of packaging for tobacco and the amount of potential litter associated with tobacco.

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.