New Review Supports Flavors as Essential for Tobacco Harm Reduction

---

Key Points:

• New Review: Cureus analysis of 230+ sources finds non-tobacco e-cigarette flavors do not pose higher toxicological risks than tobacco flavors.

• Health Findings: Flavor-related toxicants are far lower than cigarette smoke; dependence potential driven by nicotine delivery, not flavors.

• Adult Switching: Non-tobacco flavors (fruit, dessert, menthol) linked to higher quit success, reduced relapse, and sustained cigarette reduction.

• Youth Use: Flavors not the main motivator – curiosity, peers, stress, and risk-taking behaviors drive experimentation.

• Policy Lessons: Flavor bans often backfire – pushing consumers to illicit markets, DIY mixing, and even back to cigarettes.

• Evidence Base: Studies show bans reduce vaping but increase smoking; maintaining flavor diversity supports adult cessation.

• Recommendations: Balance youth protection with adult access via licensing, responsible marketing, product standards, and toxicological assessments – rather than blanket bans.

• Public Health Risk: With youth vaping at decade lows and 20 million+ U.S. adults vaping, bans undermine harm reduction and slow smoking declines.

---

A new narrative review in Cureus examines the role of flavors in e-cigarettes and whether non-tobacco flavors increase health risks, encourage unintended use among youth, or instead help adults who smoke transition completely away from cigarettes. The authors draw on a large body of evidence, citing more than 230 sources including peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews, clinical trials, regulatory documents, and policy analyses.

On the question of health risks, the review found no strong evidence that non-tobacco flavors pose greater toxicological danger than tobacco-flavored e-liquids. Some studies reported the presence of metals, aldehydes, or flavor-derived compounds in aerosols, but many of these were undermined by methodological flaws such as unrealistic puffing regimens, overheated devices, or the absence of comparisons with cigarette smoke. Certain flavorings, including cinnamaldehyde, vanillin, and diacetyl, can raise concerns when used in high concentrations, yet overall the toxicants generated by flavorings are significantly lower than those found in combustible tobacco.

When considering dependence potential, the authors conclude that abuse liability is driven primarily by the speed and magnitude of nicotine delivery rather than by flavorings, a conclusion supported by both clinical and population studies. The evidence on whether flavors help adults switch away from cigarettes is mixed, but a substantial body of research indicates that flavors play an important role. Non-tobacco options such as fruit, dessert, and mint or menthol were consistently associated with higher rates of cigarette reduction, full switching, and lower relapse. Menthol flavors were particularly important for menthol cigarette smokers, while longitudinal studies suggest that many adults gradually migrate from tobacco flavors to non-tobacco flavors, a shift that supports sustained cessation.

The review also examined youth use. While young people do report using flavored products, flavors are not the primary driver of experimentation. Surveys consistently find that curiosity, peer influence, stress relief, and seeking a nicotine buzz are stronger motivators than the presence of flavors. Claims that vaping acts as a gateway to smoking lacked strong evidence, with observed associations better explained by common liability – that is, a predisposition toward risk-taking behaviors.

On policy, the authors conclude that flavor bans are largely ineffective and often counterproductive. Such measures have driven users toward unregulated devices, illicit markets, and even do-it-yourself mixing, which may heighten toxicological risks. In several jurisdictions, bans were followed by increases in cigarette sales, undermining public health goals. In contrast, maintaining flavor diversity was found to support adult switching and was associated with lower smoking prevalence. Restricting flavors reduced quitting success, increased relapse, and led to higher cigarette consumption. In short, bans risk harming public health by removing tools that can help adults who smoke move to less harmful alternatives.

The review recommends regulatory strategies that balance youth protection with adult access, including preserving flavor diversity under controlled standards, enforcing existing youth access restrictions, removing products that are overtly attractive to youth, and requiring toxicological risk assessments for e-liquids. Additional measures such as licensing schemes, responsible marketing, and product standards are proposed as better alternatives to blanket bans.

This analysis adds to a growing body of evidence that flavor bans are reactive policies that generate unintended consequences. A July 2025 study in JAMA reported that statewide bans in the United States were followed by increases in cigarette use, particularly among young adults. A 2024 study in JAMA Health Forum found that bans reduced daily vaping by 3.6 percentage points but increased daily smoking by 2.2 points compared to states without restrictions. A 2020 report from Tobacco Harm Reduction 101 on local bans in California similarly found that while vaping remained stable or even increased, combustible cigarette use rose at the same time.

Meanwhile, U.S. youth e-cigarette use is at a ten-year low, while adult use has grown significantly, with more than 20 million adults vaping in 2023. Declines in cigarette sales coincide with growth in e-cigarette sales – mostly unauthorized products, as the Food and Drug Administration has only authorized 39 e-cigarettes, all limited to tobacco and menthol flavors, which do not reflect consumer demand.

As policymakers continue to grapple with youth use of age-restricted products, the evidence shows that flavor bans are an ineffective response. They do little to reduce youth vaping and instead undermine adult access to effective tobacco harm reduction tools. To accelerate declines in smoking and reduce smoking-related disease, policies should encourage adult smokers to switch while ensuring responsible guardrails, rather than stripping away the product features that make switching possible.

Nothing in this analysis is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of Tobacco Harm Reduction 101.