Belgium is currently getting ready to ban all vape flavours except tobacco, following new recommendations from its Superior Health Council and strong backing from Health Minister Frank Vandenbroucke. Naturally, the stated goal is to prevent youth nicotine uptake by removing flavours officials believe are designed to attract teenagers and mask the risks of vaping. Yet this approach overlooks a growing body of evidence showing that flavours play a crucial role in helping adult smokers quit combustible cigarettes—and that removing them may unintentionally push people back toward smoking, the most harmful form of nicotine use.
The Superior Health Council’s revised position marks a shift from earlier caution about blanket flavour bans. Its latest assessment argues that any potential benefit to adult smokers is outweighed by the need to protect young people. This change has been driven by concerns about rising experimentation among adolescents, with school surveys showing that nearly one in three pupils have tried vaping and that weekly use has quadrupled over five years. These figures are understandably alarming, but they do not exist in isolation from adult smoking trends or the wider public-health context.
Belgium’s policymakers often cite the Netherlands as a template. Since January 2024, the Netherlands has limited e-cigarette flavours to tobacco only. Early self-reported data suggest that around 30 percent of Dutch vapers reduced their use after the ban, and more than 20 percent said they stopped vaping altogether without returning to cigarettes. On the surface, these numbers appear reassuring. However, they tell only part of the story. The Dutch experience has also been marked by widespread illicit trade, with flavoured products readily available through informal channels, raising concerns about product safety, enforcement capacity, and the loss of regulatory oversight.
Belgian retailers are already warning of similar consequences. Perstablo, which represents press, tobacco, and gaming outlets, has condemned the proposal as disproportionate and legally questionable, arguing that it will fuel black markets while harming legitimate businesses. These concerns mirror patterns seen elsewhere, where prohibition has often shifted demand rather than eliminated it.
Do flavour bans protect youth or push smokers back to cigarettes?
Beyond Belgium and the Netherlands, international evidence increasingly challenges the assumption that flavour bans produce net public-health benefits. Data from the United Kingdom offer a useful contrast. Vaping now surpasses smoking among adults, with roughly 5.4 million people vaping compared with 4.9 million smokers. Over the past decade, cigarette use has nearly halved, a decline widely attributed to smokers switching to less harmful alternatives. Yet progress has begun to slow, driven in part by growing public confusion about relative risk. Many smokers now incorrectly believe vaping is as harmful as smoking, a misconception exacerbated by tight restrictions on communicating risk differences.
Sales data from Haypp, a major online retailer, underline how central flavours are to adult cessation efforts. Since the UK’s disposable-vape ban, fruit flavours continue to dominate purchases, followed closely by mint and fruit-mint blends. Older adults, particularly those over 55, show a clear preference for mint, reflecting familiarity with menthol cigarettes. Importantly, these patterns suggest adult-driven demand rather than youth-oriented novelty.
The role of vape flavours in adult smoking cessation
The concern that flavours are “for kids” is also contradicted by large-scale empirical research. A major U.S. study involving over 376,000 young adults found that flavour bans reduced vaping but were associated with increases in cigarette smoking. This substitution effect is particularly troubling from a harm-reduction perspective, given that cigarettes account for the overwhelming majority of nicotine-related disease and death.
More recent economic analyses reinforce this pattern. A 2025 study published in Health Economics examined statewide flavour bans using nationally representative data and robust econometric methods. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, vaping declined by two to three percentage points after bans were introduced—but cigarette smoking rose by nearly the same amount. Similar trends were observed in other analyses, including a JAMA Health Forum study and research using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data, all pointing to the same conclusion: when safer alternatives are restricted, some users revert to smoking.
These findings are especially relevant for adults who struggle to quit abruptly. Clinical trials from institutions such as Queen Mary University of London show that vaping, even alongside temporary dual use, reduces toxic exposure and increases the likelihood of eventual cessation. Flavours appear to play a key role in sustaining these transitions by making alternatives more appealing and effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapies alone.
Governments are right to be concerned about youth uptake, but evidence increasingly suggests that prohibition is a blunt instrument. More targeted approaches—such as strict age verification, marketing controls, product standards, and enforcement against illicit sellers—are likely to protect young people without undermining harm reduction for adults. The UK’s move toward digital product verification using QR codes is one example of how regulators can address illegal supply while preserving access to regulated, safer products.
Smoking is the enemy, not flavours
At its core, the flavour debate reflects a broader tension in tobacco control: whether policy should focus on eliminating all nicotine use or prioritising the elimination of smoking-related harm. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the latter. Flavours are not a side issue; they are a central component of why safer nicotine products work for millions of adults.
Belgium now faces a critical choice. By following a prohibitionist path, it risks slowing smoking decline, fuelling illicit markets, and repeating mistakes made with other substances. By contrast, a harm-reduction approach—grounded in evidence rather than assumptions—could protect youth while continuing to drive down smoking, the true enemy of public health.
