Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

June 6th, 2016:

Effect of Pictorial Cigarette Pack Warnings on Changes in Smoking Behavior


Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs draw attention and increase quit intentions, but their effect on smoking behavior remains uncertain.


To assess the effect of adding pictorial warnings to the front and back of cigarette packs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This 4-week between-participant randomized clinical trial was carried out in California and North Carolina. We recruited a convenience sample of adult cigarette smokers from the general population beginning September 2014 through August 2015. Of 2149 smokers who enrolled, 88% completed the trial. No participants withdrew owing to adverse events.


We randomly assigned participants to receive on their cigarette packs for 4 weeks either text-only warnings (one of the Surgeon General’s warnings currently in use in the United States on the side of the cigarette packs) or pictorial warnings (one of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act’s required text warnings and pictures that showed harms of smoking on the top half of the front and back of the cigarette packs).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary trial outcome was attempting to quit smoking during the study. We hypothesized that smokers randomized to receive pictorial warnings would be more likely to report a quit attempt during the study than smokers randomized to receive a text-only Surgeon General’s warning.


Of the 2149 participants who began the trial (1039 men, 1060 women, and 34 transgender people; mean [SD] age, 39.7 [13.4] years for text-only warning, 39.8 [13.7] for pictorial warnings), 1901 completed it. In intent-to-treat analyses (n = 2149), smokers whose packs had pictorial warnings were more likely than those whose packs had text-only warnings to attempt to quit smoking during the 4-week trial (40% vs 34%; odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.54). The findings did not differ across any demographic groups. Having quit smoking for at least the 7 days prior to the end of the trial was more common among smokers who received pictorial than those who received text-only warnings (5.7% vs 3.8%; OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02-2.29). Pictorial warnings also increased forgoing a cigarette, intentions to quit smoking, negative emotional reactions, thinking about the harms of smoking, and conversations about quitting.

Conclusions and Relevance

Pictorial warnings effectively increased intentions to quit, forgoing cigarettes, quit attempts, and successfully quitting smoking over 4 weeks. Our trial findings suggest that implementing pictorial warnings on cigarette packs in the United States would discourage smoking.

WHO report on e-cigs to be presented at COP7 conference

Tobacco control leaders from around the globe will be presented with the latest findings of the World Health Organization (WHO) on e-cigarettes and public health at a meeting in India this November.

The seventh Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) – generally known as COP7 – will take place in Delhi from 7th to 12th November, and may issue recommendations on e-cigarette regulation after hearing the WHO’s views.

On the agenda, under the heading “control and prevention of globally emerging products”, is the presentation of a report by the WHO that the last meeting, COP6, requested in 2014.

That report is expected to be published before the Delhi conference, most likely during September.

Both the FCTC and the broader WHO, the international body under whose aegis it stands, have become notorious for their sceptical attitude toward e-cigarettes.

The COP6 meetin g suggested that member countries, which include nearly all major nations with the notable exception of the U.S., should consider a regulatory repertoire that could include restrictions on vaping in public places, advertising bans, or even complete prohibition of e-cigarettes and similar products.

What This Means: FCTC recommendations are not necessarily binding on members, but they – and WHO attitudes – have a strong influence on policy. This is especially true in the developing world, and is undoubtedly one reason why India (for example) is cracking down so hard on e-cigs; and even in other countries it adds considerable weight to arguments for tight regulation.

We wrote in 2014 that “there is no escaping the fact that [COP6] is encouraging governments to approach [ecigarettes] with grave suspicion”, and given the tenor of the WHO’s attitude toward vaping – infused by loathing of combustible tobacco and its history – we suspect we will be writing much the same this November.

– Barnaby Page ECigIntelligence staff

Is plain cigarette packaging just smoke and mirrors?

The Marlboro Man is one of the most iconic advertising images from the 20th century. The cowboy, depicted in some rustic setting, was single-handedly responsible for turning Marlboro’s annual sales from $5 billion a year to over $20 billion a year in the two years after the campaign was introduced. Since the success of that campaign, anti-smoking activists have tried several different ways to limit cigarette advertising. The latest salvo comes in the form of last week’s WHO statement on plain packaging, where they recommended plain packing as part of “comprehensive approach to tobacco control that includes large graphic health warnings and comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.” Plain packing standardizes how cigarettes are sold, keeping the picture health warnings, but making the brand names, pack size, colour scheme all identical to limit their appeal.

Australia and France are the only countries with an active plain packaging policy, while other countries are in various stages of implementing plain packaging as a potential strategy to discourage people from starting smoking. The House of Commons in the UK recently passed legislation by an overwhelming majority (367 to 113) to have standardized packaging for cigarettes, the Seanad in Ireland passed the law in March of last year. Canada has started examining whether this is a cost-effective approaching, and recently the Public Health Agency of Canada issued a public tender to determine the effectiveness of plain packaging legislation. However, while the rest of the world is moving towards plain packaging, the US noticeably lags behind. As this excellent piece by Julia Belluz states, there are many reasons for this, ranging from the First Amendment to intense lobbying efforts (and associated money) being poured in the US Congress from tobacco companies to prevent changes from occurring. As Belluz writes in her article:

The powerful tobacco lobby in the US has managed to delay federal regulation of the industry for decades. The Food and Drug Administration only gained authority over the tobacco industry in 2009 with the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

Unsurprisingly, the new legislation has led to considerable resistance from tobacco companies. In this CBC interview, a spokesperson for a tobacco company describes the legislation as “a public relations stunt by the federal government mainly orchestrated by a few but loud anti-tobacco lobbyists.” They also point to research (some funded by the tobacco industry) that shows no change in sales after the introduction of plain packaging legislation in Australia as an indication that plain packaging is a failure.

The tobacco industry also has very deep pockets, and has even taken governments to court over this legislation. Due to the Australia–Hong Kong Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (IPPA) of 1993 between Hong Kong and Australia, Philip Morris was able to sue the Australian government, under the guise that their profits were hurt by new regulatory measures. They’ve also engaged in astroturfing and other proxy battles to fight plain packaging legislation in the court of public opinion.

It remains to be seen how effective plain packaging is, and if this is a viable way to prevent people from taking up smoking. When we know that a large proportion of smokers want to quit, and on average only 2% are successful, the best intervention may be preventing people from starting to smoke in the first place.

How Adelaide pubs are getting ready for outdoor smoking ban

PUBLICANS and restaurant owners across Adelaide are bracing for a drop-off in business when new outdoor smoking bans come into place in a few weeks time.

But they hope the pain will be short-lived.

We headed out across suburban Adelaide to see how our pubs are readying themselves for the change.

NORWOOD publicans and restaurant owners are bracing for a slight downturn in business when smoking is banned in all outdoor dining areas from next month.

But they say the long-term benefits of the new statewide law, which starts on July 1, will outweigh the short-term pain.

Cafe Buongiorno co-owner Ronald Anderson said while the ban may turn smokers away in the short term, he expected an increase in patronage over time.

“It stops us and others from worrying about what areas are smoking and what areas are non smoking,” Mr Anderson said.

“I think it will make it more comfortable for families to sit outside … so that will be a winner.”

The Bath Hotel owner Tony Franzon said some smokers may be put off by the new laws but he expected business to quickly return to normal.

“History shows that any time you change the goalpost of something, it has a detrimental effect,” Mr Franzon said.

“It’s probably not going to be as bad because it’s been a phase in, and less people smoke.”

Norwood Hotel manager Vanessa Swift was unsure how the law would affect business.

“We will just have to deal with it,” Ms Swift said.

“We have two outdoor dining areas and we might turn one of those areas into a smoking-only area and patrons won’t be able to eat in that area.”

Cafe Bravo patron Julia Conte, of Kensington Park, said the new law could help smokers reduce the number of cigarettes they had each day.

“It absolutely won’t stop me from dining outdoors,” Ms Conte, a smoker, said.

“It just means we will smoke less … it’s a positive thing.”

Fay Wilton, a nonsmoker and patron of Danny’s Thai Bistro, said cafes should cater for smokers.

“My husband smokes … there should be an area right back away from where people eat,” Mrs Wilton said.

The law will come into effect about 18 months after Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Council agreed to lobby the State Government to introduce a smoking ban on The Parade.

The council was yet to approach the government on the issue, saying it would wait at least until the end of the year because it wanted to assess the impact of the statewide ban in outdoor dining areas.

It had not decided whether a ban would take in all of The Parade or just the main retail section between Osmond Tce and Portrush Rd.

SA Health’s director of health protection Chris Lease said businesses who chose to divide outdoor areas into smoking and nonsmoking sections would need to build a wall of at least two metres high.

HE State Government’s decision to ban smoking in all outdoor areas has attracted a mixed reaction from Mitcham’s pub and cafe owners.

From July 1, smoking will be banned in all alfresco dining areas where food is served.

Artisan Cafe owner Heather Holmes-Ross said the blanket ban was an “over-reaction”.

“I can understand why people wouldn’t want (smoking) at busy trade times like lunch, but it is quite a pity that smokers can’t go and have a cigarette anywhere,” Ms Holmes-Ross said.

“It is a pity that it can’t be outside of peak hours.”

Businesses must display signs alerting customers to the ban or face a $1250 fine, while people caught smoking in the area could be fined up to $200.

Ms Holmes-Ross said the new rules would impact the atmosphere of her Blackwood cafe.

“To be forced to put no smoking signs around the place it makes me feel a little cross and an invasion of my right to decorate my cafe the way that I want to,” she said.

A local pub manager, who did not want to be identified, said the changes would be detrimental to his hotel’s large outdoor dining area.

“We live in a democracy anyway and people should be able to have some freedoms as smoking is still legal,” the manager said.

“It has been working very well at our business before this legislation came in.” However, Torrens Arms Hotel manager Tom Marshall said the ban was understandable.

“It will really help to promote a family-friendly venue, especially for people who are looking to dine outside,” Mr Marshall said. “The hardest part for us will be the transitional period when it comes into effect.”

Smoking will still be allowed in outdoor areas where pre-packaged snacks, such as chips and nuts, are available.

SA Health’s director of health protection Chris Lease said businesses who chose to divide outdoor areas into smoking and nonsmoking sections would need to build a wall of at least two metres high.

Substance Abuse minister Leesa Vlahos said the changes would provide a safe space for all patrons.

“These new laws help keep downward pressure on smoking rates, and help improve the health of the community,” she said.

Study nails doubters of pictorial smoke warnings

New Delhi, June 6: Pictures that portray the health hazards of smoking when printed on cigarette packets appear to increase smokers’ attempts to quit, new research has suggested, challenging claims by the tobacco industry that there isn’t evidence to support such warnings.

A clinical trial in the US has demonstrated the impact of pictorial warnings, showing that 40 per cent of smokers whose cigarette packs had pictorial warnings tried to quit compared with 34 per cent whose cigarette packets had text-only alerts.

Public health specialists say the findings are relevant to India where the health ministry earlier this year made mandatory pictorial warnings on 85 per cent of the surface area of tobacco packs, resisting persistent opposition by sections of MPs and the tobacco industry.

The New Delhi-based Tobacco Institute of India, which represents the domestic cigarette industry, has described the 85 per cent pictorial warnings images on tobacco packs as “large and gruesome warnings… directed at creating shock and evoking emotion among consumers”.

Under the old rules, the warnings in India had to cover 40 per cent of the pack’s front portion.

The US has seen similar disagreements between industry and public health professionals about the need for and the effectiveness of pictorial warnings. Sections of the US tobacco industry had used a lawsuit to stall the implementation of the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. A US court had ruled against nine pictorial warnings proposed by the Food and Drug Administration, saying the FDA had “not provided evidence” that the pictorial warnings reduced smoking.

“The court said there was inadequate evidence to support the warnings. I and many others disagreed with the court at the time,” Noel Brewer, associate professor of health behaviour at the University of North Carolina, who led the new study, told The Telegraph.

“Our new trial provides strong evidence that we believe the court will find compelling,” Brewer said.

The study’s findings, published today in JAMA Internal Medicine, a journal of the American Medical Association, also show that 5.7 per cent of smokers who had pictorial warnings on their cigarette packs had quit smoking for at least a week, compared to 3.8 per cent of smokers who had packs with text-only warnings.

Public health experts in India have in the past argued that pictorial warnings are all the more necessary in this country, where text-only warnings may have limited impact due to literacy barriers. The new US study found that pictorial warnings also increased forgoing a cigarette, intentions to quit smoking, negative emotional reactions, thinking about the harms of smoking and conversations about quitting.

In their trial, Brewer examined the smoking patterns and behaviour of 2,149 smokers, some of whom were given cigarette packs with pictorial warnings, while the others had packs with text-only warnings. The scientists say the effectiveness of the pictorial warnings was apparent despite the short duration of the trial that lasted only four weeks.

Make Hong Kong a smoking-free territory to improve people’s health

With the World No Tobacco Day just passed, now would be a good moment to review just how far Hong Kong is falling behind other jurisdictions in seeking to limit the occurrence of smoking, and to consider what more could be done to bring Hong Kong up to the latest global standards by introducing stronger anti-smoking measures.

Such measures are not proposed specifically to deprive regular smokers of their pleasure; rather, they are intended to severely limit the occurrence of smoking with a view to saving the lives of those addicted to this seriously dangerous habit. The use of tobacco products kills more people every year than any other product on the legal market. Measures are needed to limit the number of cigarettes smoked by regular users; to limit youth uptake of this deadly habit; and to encourage smokers to quit — for the sake of their own health, and that of the people around them (who can also be made ill, by passive smoking).

It has recently been announced that New Zealand, with a population of some 4.5 million (a smaller number than Hong Kong with just over 7 million) intends to work toward becoming smoker-free by 2025. It plans to gradually but greatly increase the cost of buying a packet of cigarettes, by increasing the taxes on tobacco products, as one way of pricing cigarettes out of the market for many New Zealanders. It is estimated that about 5,000 New Zealanders die each year from the deadly ill effects of smoking: It is to limit such a dreadful but avoidable death rate that those stern tax measures are to be introduced there.

It is noted that these days in Hong Kong, the prevalence of smoking is highest among the less-educated sectors of our society. Construction site workers may not choose to spend money on protecting themselves by wearing protective boots or other safety equipment, but many a worker goes about his demanding physical tasks with a cigarette propped almost permanently between his lips. It is sad to see such lowly paid workers devoting an inordinate proportion of their earnings to buying cigarettes. Were a packet of cigarettes to be taxed at a far higher level here in Hong Kong, they might be dissuaded into buying fewer of them, thereby reducing the chances of their tobacco addiction killing them. If cigarettes became as financially unreachable as buying caviar or vintage champagne for these people, the incidence of smoking would surely greatly decline.

Almost 3,000 people meet their deaths every day on the mainland from a range of ghastly smoking-caused illnesses. The Beijing city authorities have bravely instituted a smoking ban in public areas. But, in a vast country with an estimated 320 million regular smokers, the challenge is to find ways to effectively enforce that ban, which so far is widely flouted. Nevertheless, the Beijing approach could usefully be emulated in other parts of China — including here in Hong Kong. Transport interchanges have recently seen the introduction of smoking bans in Hong Kong. Such prohibitions — if effectively enforced — could usefully be extended to all public areas here, as Beijing has already done.

Here in Hong Kong, it is already illegal to smoke inside a restaurant, bar or coffee shop. However, lax enforcement means that many local places simply ignore the ban, and actually encourage smoking by providing ashtrays on the tables within their establishment. The common practice here of restaurants setting tables just outside their frontages with ashtrays is a blatant encouragement to smokers. Furthermore, the smoke wafts inside, thus polluting the air and potentially poisoning the customers seated inside. Staff members are also thereby exposed to dangerous health risks. That widespread problem needs to be addressed by vigorous enforcement of the laws to prohibit smoking anywhere near restaurant frontages.

Greater use of pictures of horrible-looking smoking-caused diseases on cigarette packets could also serve to deter people from taking up the habit, or at least to limit the prevalence of smoking. More talks and showing of videos to school pupils on the known health risks of smoking would also play an important role in helping deter youngsters from ever taking up the habit.

When I was a 7-year-old child in England, I asked to try one of my uncle’s cigarettes. He wisely gave me one to smoke, which of course made me sick — as he expected. As a result, I never felt tempted to try another one. Such negative conditioning can be very effective. Greater availability of cessation services, supporting those who would like to cut down or give up smoking, should be made more widely available.

The writer is a veteran commentator and university lecturer in Hong Kong and active in meaningful local civil societies.

Reinet vs BAT

Is there more to Reinet than just a proxy for British American Tobacco?

An investment in Reinet is, essentially, an investment in global tobacco group British American Tobacco, which accounts for about 70% of its net asset value (NAV) and has, since Reinet listed in 2008 been the major contributor to growth in NAV.

But it is also an investment in the investment skills of Remgro/Richemont chairman Johann Rupert, in whose judgement investors are putting their faith to make profitable and sustainable long-term returns.

It is, for Reinet’s South African shareholders, a pretty reliable rand hedge stock, much like Rupert’s Richemont.

Reinet, which is an investment fund not dissimilar to Remgro, but with a leaning towards unlisted investments, is centred on the initial investment in BAT, whose dividends and share price growth fund new investments.

When Reinet was formed in 2008, taking Richemont’s BAT shareholding as its primary holding, there was a flurry of excitement as investors envisaged a chance to participate in a private equity fund managed by none other than Rupert himself. The reality, however, has been more mundane as BAT has continued to dominate the fund and other investments have showed mixed returns. Initial speculation that Reinet would skew its purchases towards technology and high-growth sectors has been unfounded. It is, in fact, largely invested in other investment managers and traditional businesses like insurance, although there is some global spread.

The biggest concern for investors is whether it is worth investing in Reinet as opposed to a direct investment in BAT. Reinet, ostensibly, offers BAT as well as potential upside in the form of other elements of the portfolio.

Reinet’s share, at R33.40, has gained 34% over a year, 70% over three and 175% over five. BAT’s share, on the other hand, at R940, has gained 74% over a year, 77% over three and 214% over five.

Reinet, at a P:E of just 5 against BAT’s 23, looks considerably cheaper, but P:E ratios are not that informative for investing in NAV plays. Reinet’s dividend payments have been patchy, while BAT’s have not.

By the March 2015 year-end, Reinet’s NAV had increased 23% year-on-year to over €5 billion, reflecting a compounded return of 19% per annum since March 2009, including dividends paid. By end-March 2016, NAV was €5.2 billion, and increase over 2015 of just 4%. In the March quarter alone, NAV dropped by €140 million from €5.36 billion at end-December, which was in turn up €278 million from end-September.

Reinet trades at a huge (over 30%) discount to NAV, which is not uncommon for diversified investment groups. A May 2016 consensus forecast published by the Financial Times showed an expectation for Reinet to outperform the market.

Imara SP Reid shares the sentiment, saying it has a “positive call” on Reinet as the size of the discount more than compensates for fees.

Fees have been a contentious issue. In financial 2015, the performance fee was €78 million and the management fee €39 million.

On the one hand, there has been criticism that this is high given the passive nature of its investments. On the other, Reinet management has not been idle – having invested over €1.6 billion (by the March 2015 year-end) and committed to further funding of €405 million in a number of companies.

It has 74.3 million shares or 3.9% of BAT, valued at €3.8 billion at end-December, and while BAT’s percentage of total NAV has dropped to around 70%, it is still, essentially, the only unit in the portfolio showing positive returns.

The rest of the portfolio includes, among others, Pension Corporation, a UK-based provider of risk management solutions to defined benefit pension funds, Trilantic Capital Partners, a private equity firm focused on North America and Western Europe, 36 South Global, a fund manager and Milestone China, whose funds invest in Chinese high-growth companies seeking capital and US-based real estate.

NanoDimension is a venture capital firm that invests in the growth and commercialisation of nanotechnology, including pharmaceuticals and drug delivery structures, optical and electronic switches and film photo-chromatic coatings.

Reinet’s two South African diamond projects, which are hedged, are Rooipoort and Jagersfontein.

Moneyweb pointed out, after its interim results to September, that while the overall value of the investment portfolio rose, this was largely due to the performance of the BAT shares, which rose by 4.5%. This masked the performance of some of the individual investments in the portfolio, which “were highly unsatisfactory”.

In fact, there was not a positive return among them.

It did, however, make some new investments including a gold ETF and digital music. And since then, in the quarter to December, Pension Corporation has shown some strong growth.

For an investment in BAT and BAT dividends, it is better to invest in BAT itself. But for a value investment, access to investments which private investors would not be privy to and some risk and potential reward, Reinet could be a good option.

Global Vape Market expect to reach $32.11 billion by 2021

Vape Market (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) Market – Report Insights

A vape product or broadly known as e-cigarette, electronic cigarette, and vaporizer is a battery operated device and has been reckoned as an alternative to traditional tobacco cigarettes by many vendors. Without the inhalation of smoke, it gives the experience of tobacco smoking where the user inhales the vaporized nicotine emitted by the device. Vape products are smoke and tobacco-free consumer products. These are also designed and used as a tobacco harm reduction (THR) product and are sold as medical devices in many countries. The major turning point for the vape product market was the year 2014 as the market witnessed a record number of major acquisitions, the launch of technologically advanced product, patent warfare, and the introduction of government regulations.

The effects of vaping on the human body are not yet fully known. However, they are considered less toxic than traditional tobacco cigarettes because they produce vapor instead of smoke. They are considered as an effective method that helps smokers quit smoking, though there is no scientifically grounded evidence for this.

Vape market (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) research report covers the present scenario and the growth prospects of the Worldwide Vape Products (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) Market for the period 2015-2021. The report provides in-depth analysis of market size and growth of Worldwide Vape market. This market research report includes a detailed market segmentation of the Worldwide Vapor Products Market by

Vape (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) Products Segmentation

  1. Closed System Vape Products
    1. Cigalikes (also known as disposables/first-generation e-cigarette)
    2. Rechargeables (also known as second-generation e-cigarette)
    3. Refill Cartridges
  2. Open System Vape Products
    1. Vapor/tanks/mods or VTMs (also called personal vaporizer/modulars/electronic cigarette/third-generation e-cigarette)
    2. E-liquids/e-juices

Vape (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) Products Geographic Segmentation

  1. North America
  2. Europe
  3. APAC
  4. ROW

Vape (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) Products Distribution Channels

  1. Online
  2. Retail
    1. Convenience stores
    2. Vape shops
    3. Tobacco shops
    4. Grocery
    5. Drug stores
    6. Others

The report also provides market share and profiles the key vendors operating in the Worldwide Vape Products Market and also provides the detailed competitive landscape of key players.

Vape (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) Products – Market Size and Dynamics

A vaping device or vapor product is a battery-powered inhaler that simulates tobacco smoking. It is designed to provide inhaled doses of e-juice by vaporizing the flavored liquid, and then simulating the effects of smoking by vaporizing the liquid, which the user inhales and exhales. A vaping device, also known as an e-vaping device, a personal vaporizer, or an ENDS uses a heating element to vaporize the flavored liquid. The e-juices in the market are available in more than 3,000 flavors with many more being added every month.

Vape products are broadly classified into two categories: closed systems (cigalikes, rechargeables, and refill cartridges) and open systems (VTMs and e-liquids). Market research analysts at Beige Market Intelligence, expect the Worldwide Vape Products Market to reach approx. US$32.11 billion by 2021.

The Worldwide Vape Products market has been segmented on the basis of distribution channels and geographical region. North America accounted for the largest market share of more than 40% of the market in 2015; it is expected to grow at a high CAGR of around 27% between 2015 and 2021. However, APAC market is expected to account for a share of around 21% of the market in 2021.

Try Sample Report @ Global Vape Market (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) – Strategic Assessment and Forecast Till 2021

Vape (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) Products – Drivers and Trends

This market research report provides market overview of the factors driving and restraining the growth of the market. The report also outlines the key trends emerging in the market that will contribute to the growth of Worldwide Vape Products (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) Market during the forecast period. The factors driving the growth of the market include consumers’ perception of vapor products as an alternative to traditional tobacco cigarettes. There is increased desire among consumers worldwide to quit smoking tobacco and this has made vaping a rapidly growing concept worldwide. The global sales volume of traditional cigarettes has declined owing to an increase in sales of e-cigarette and vaping. The US witnessed about 19% decline altogether in traditional cigarette sales among adults, i.e., a drop from 20 of every 100 adults (19.8%) in 2008 to nearly 16 of every 100 adults (15.7%) in 2015. Due to this, the majority of the global players in the tobacco industry witnessed a massive decline in the shipment of traditional cigarettes in 2015, prompting bigger tobacco companies like Altria Group, Imperial Tobacco, and Reynolds American to rush into the vapor products market. Also, the increasing number of deaths caused by smoking-related cancer has propelled people to stop smoking traditional cigarettes. For instance, as per the US government, approximately 480,000 people, due to active smoking, and nearly 42,000 people, due to passive smoking, die in the country every year. The tobacco smoking is attributed to one in every five deaths in the US.

Some of the major challenges confronting the Worldwide Vape Products (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) Market include governments introducing stringent norms to regulate vapor products. Vape products are banned in many major economies such as Brazil, Japan, and Indonesia. Also, the governments of Poland and India are considering imposing a complete ban on the sale and use of these products. In March 2016, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) banned the use of e-cigarette, vape pens and vaporizer or vapes in flights. Moreover, growing health concerns related to the use of vapor products is acting as a challenge to the growth of the market. Regulatory bodies are still not clear on how much nicotine or other chemicals are actually being inhaled by the body while vaping. In addition, the effectiveness of these products in helping people quit smoking has not been fully studied. Researchers have indicated that e-liquids containing chemical flavoring have substances which cause lung diseases. About 90% of the flavored e-liquid or e-juice in the market contain an organic compound called Diacetyl. This flavoring chemical, i.e., Diacetyl has also been linked to severe lung diseases. Exposure to this chemical leads to Bronchiolitis obliterans, spirometry abnormalities and other harmful respiratory symptoms.

The market research report also provides the Porter’s five forces analysis along with a description of each of the forces and its impact on the market.

Vape (e-Cigarette and Vaporizer) Products – Key Vendors and Market Share

This market research report profiles the major companies in the market and also provides the competitive landscape and market share of key players. Within the report covers the entire market outlook regarding the value chain operating within the market. The major players in the market include Altria Group, British American Tobacco (BAT), Imperial Brands (earlier Imperial Tobacco), Japan Tobacco, NJOY, and Reynolds American.

Other prominent vendors in the market include Ballantyne Brands, CB Distributors, Gamucci, Nicotek, RRR Chemicals, Vapor, ECIG, VMR Products, and White Cloud among others.