Britain’s approach to non-tobacco nicotine is losing coherence, and it is creating growing commercial risk for retailers.
The UK has long been a global leader in harm reduction. Vapes and other non-tobacco nicotine alternatives have helped millions of adults move away from smoking, supported by NHS policy, a clear scientific consensus, and a solid base of responsible retailers, distributors and manufacturers.
But while the public health case is well understood, the regulatory framework around these products is not keeping pace with the market – and the consequences are increasingly visible on the high street.
Responsible retailers are competing against an ever-growing wave of illicit operators. Mini-marts selling non-compliant products have sprung up across the country, often targeting younger consumers with clearly inappropriate designs. These businesses operate entirely outside the rules, undercutting legitimate players already struggling to keep pace with the legislative changes flowing from the Tobacco and Vapes Act.
Enforcement, meanwhile, can be inconsistent and overstretched. Trading Standards teams are doing what they can, but the system is reactive, fragmented and slow. In practice, this means bad actors can move faster than regulators and the law.
The compliance trap
At the same time, new sweeping bans and tighter restrictions may be politically attractive, but they tend to penalise compliant businesses while leaving illicit supply chains largely untouched – or even strengthened.
For retailers, that creates a damaging imbalance. Those that invest in compliance, staff training and responsible sales practices are undercut by operators that ignore the rules entirely. The commercial incentive to do the right thing is weakened, rather than reinforced, by the very laws designed to protect consumers.
There is a more effective alternative – and one the UK already leads the world in it.
The UK’s alcohol sector operates under a co-regulatory model led by the Portman Group, an organisation I used to run. It combines statutory oversight with an independent, industry-funded body that sets and enforces standards on marketing, packaging and responsibility.
Complaints and decisions are handled independently. Non-compliant products are publicly identified and sanctioned. Retailers are expected to delist sanctioned products or risk clear consequences to their license. The system creates a strong commercial incentive for both producers and retailers to comply, while allowing responsible companies to grow and keeping money out of the hands of criminals.
That clarity is exactly what the non-tobacco nicotine market lacks.
The co-regulatory case
A comparable co-regulatory framework for non-tobacco nicotine would give retailers a defined set of product standards and confidence that those standards are being enforced consistently across the market. It would allow rapid responses to emerging innovations, from packaging trends to new product formats. It would strengthen age-verification processes and provide clear guidance on what constitutes responsible retailing. And it would give enforcement bodies a credible partner in identifying and removing bad actors.
Most importantly, it would restore public trust in the market.
Responsible retailers would no longer be competing against non-compliant operators on unequal terms. Consumers would have greater confidence in the products available to them. And policymakers would have a more effective mechanism for protecting young people without undermining harm reduction.
The UK’s success in reducing smoking rates is built on recognising that not all nicotine products are the same. Any regulatory approach that loses sight of that risks reversing progress.
Responsible retailers are not the problem here. In many cases, they are the first line of defence.
The question is whether the system supports them or continues to leave them exposed.
A co-regulatory model would do the former, and would go a long way to supporting the UK’s struggling high streets by reintroducing a basic principle the market currently lacks: that playing by the rules should pay.
Henry Ashworth is managing director of Potash Strategy
No comments yet