Research and analysis

RPC opinion: options for standardising packaging for vaping products and nicotine products

Published 7 August 2026

Lead department: Department of Health and Social Care

Summary of proposal: to consult on standardising packaging features across all vaping and nicotine product packaging.

Submission type: options assessment - 15 October 2025

Legislation type: secondary

RPC reference: RPC-DHSC-25094-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 rising use of vaping and nicotine products by young people, while recognising that vaping can provide smoking cessation benefits
• 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 ahead of 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 assessment outlines the problem under consideration and the argument for intervention, which is focused on the need to reduce the rising use of vaping and nicotine products by young people. The assessment has set out two 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 ahead of 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 for Health and Social Care (DHSC) proposes to consult on standardising packaging features across all vaping and nicotine product packaging. The use of vaping and nicotine products amongst young people has risen substantially in recent years. Evidence suggests that child-appealing packaging design and flavour descriptors are key contributors to this trend.

The department has assessed that standardised packaging requirements will reduce the appeal of vaping and nicotine products amongst young people and improve the consistency of product information, while maintaining a clear distinction to tobacco product packaging to reflect the difference in health harms, and thus still appeal to adult smokers looking to quit smoking.

There are 4 shortlisted options:

• option 0 – do nothing: packaging subject to current regulations
• option 1 – preferred: to introduce plain white packaging, permit one regulated form of branding and restrict flavour names
• option 2: to introduce plain white packaging, restricting flavour names but with no brand differentiation permitted
• option 3: to introduce dissuasive packaging (for example, Pantone 448C, a drab dark brown colour), similar to that of tobacco packaging

The OA states that the preferred option is option 1. The department estimates the Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business (EANDCB) as £74.5 million and the Net Present Value (NPV) as -£641 million.

Rationale

Problem under consideration

The key issue considered by the department is that packaging design and flavour descriptions are key contributors to the rising use of vapes and nicotine products by young people. In addition, there is a lack of legislation on how product information should be communicated on vaping and nicotine product packaging, leading to confusion amongst consumers around the nicotine strength of products.

The use of enticing packaging is part of a wider effort by industry to market vaping and nicotine products in ways that appeal to young people. This undermines the government’s advice on vaping: if you smoke, you should switch to vaping; but if you don’t smoke, don’t vape, and children should never vape. 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 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 that government intervention is necessary because there is a fundamental conflict between the commercial interests of vaping and nicotine product manufacturers and public health objectives. Retailers and producers have little incentive to standardise packaging voluntarily, and the OA notes limited evidence of any meaningful self-regulation.

The assessment supports this position by citing research indicating that previous packaging restrictions for tobacco products contributed to reduced smoking prevalence. The assessment could be strengthened by expanding its rationale for intervention to identify market failures, such as negative externalities linked to health costs and information asymmetry.

It could also draw on international examples in more detail by including evaluations of success; and reference additional evidence from the post-implementation review of tobacco packaging to reinforce the case.

Objectives and theory of change

The assessment has set out 2 overall policy objectives, including to reduce vaping and nicotine product use amongst young people and to continue to enable vapes as a smoking cessation aid to help adult smokers quit smoking. The assessment then links these objectives to a set of strategic wider government priorities.

The objectives would be improved by clarifying the SMART objectives further and 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.

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.

The OA explains why options were discounted at each stage and uses RAG ratings to assess alignment with policy objectives. However, Table 1 (products in scope) does not specify the criteria underpinning these ratings, which limits transparency.

Consideration of alternatives to regulation

The OA briefly considers non-regulatory changes ahead of the long-listing stage. The department discusses the possibility of introducing a voluntary scheme, or issuing guidance, however neither of these options have been included in the long list. 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, businesses have not been restrained on the more influential elements of packaging. 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 long-list.

Justification for the short-listed options

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 assessment could be improved by providing greater qualitative detail on why discounted options are not suitable e.g. further discussion of potential risks or explanation as to why an option may not be feasible. This process has resulted in three options being short-listed, in addition to the ‘do bothing’ option. All three options include standardising packaging for vapes and nicotine products, but these options vary in their scope.

Small and micro business assessment and medium-sized business assessment

The OA includes a good small and micro business assessment but the medium-sized business assessment could be developed further. The department describes how most affected business, including convenience stores, vape shops and pharmacies are small business, using Office for National Statistics and industry data to give an indication of the scale of this impact. Because of this, the department argues it would not be possible to achieve the policy objectives with small and micro 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. 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. The department has briefly considered a potential mitigation for businesses when dealing with the impact of new regulations – allowing for an appropriate lead-in time to give businesses enough time to produce complaint packaging and sell through existing stock. The department plans to use its consultation to identify an appropriate lead-in time and implementation period.

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 net present values (NPVs) are -£641 million for option 1 and -£593 million and -£673 million for options 2 and 3 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 to account for these but has not provide overall cumulative low and high estimates.

The OA also includes break even analysis to show the number of fewer children and young people required to not take up vaping or nicotine products or adults required to quit to break even. The department should correct the typographical error in Table 47. Evidence gaps remain, notably on the number of UK manufacturers of other nicotine products, which should be addressed during consultation.

The assessment discusses how standardising packaging of products in scope will meet the department’s policy objectives, resulting in a decrease in youth vaping, which would lead to improved health outcomes. The OA suggests that individuals deterred from vaping 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 vaping as a net welfare gain without accounting for the loss of consumer utility or that other unhealthy products could be substituted. 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 IA 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 1). Many of the costs have been monetised, with an NPV of -£641 million. This includes familiarisation costs, redesign and manufacturing costs, transaction costs, training costs, reconfiguration costs, leaflet 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 vape and nicotine product 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. However the department needs to explain how they are confident that the net health benefits will exceed the costs.

The department estimates the equivalent annual net direct cost to business (EANDCB) as £74.5 million. This is based on the aforementioned costs to retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers. The policy is expected to have an uncertain effect on households, with a household NPV estimated at -£0.2 million and an equivalent annual net direct cost to households (EANDCH) of £0.02 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, 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 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 vapes and nicotine 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 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 IA 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.