Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40122604›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2026

The UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill (2023/4): framing strategies used by tobacco and nicotine industry actors faced with an endgame policy (a generational sales ban of tobacco products) and nicotine product restrictions.

Britta K Matthes, Tess Legg, Rosemary Hiscock, Allen W A Gallagher, Karin Silver, Hala Alaouie, Duncan Thomas, Anna B Gilmore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Britta K MatthesDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK bkm28@bath.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2346-066X
Tess LeggDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3157-048X
Rosemary HiscockDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Allen W A GallagherDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3669-0360
Karin SilverDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3894-4974
Hala AlaouieDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8286-9476
Duncan ThomasDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Anna B GilmoreDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2023, the UK government proposed a Bill introducing a generational ban on the sale of tobacco products and measures targeting youth nicotine product (NP) use. Industries' responses remain unexplored.

methodsWe analysed 43 consultation and evidence submissions from tobacco and nicotine industry-linked actors, assessing their connections to transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) and using an evidence-based taxonomy to examine framing strategies.

resultsTTCs and actors with known current TTC links accounted for 42% of submissions. Other actors-some with historic TTC ties-were other tobacco products (OTPs) specialists, NP specialists and retailers. Tobacco and nicotine industries were generally portrayed as 'good' with TTCs framing themselves as public health champions, while policymakers, the public health community and non-compliant sellers were depicted as 'bad' actors. TTCs, linked groups and additional OTP actors opposed the generational ban, arguing it lacked evidence and would harm the economy and increase violence against retailers. Proposed alternative approaches included exempting heated tobacco products (HTPs) and OTPs, and raising the age of sale to 21. TTCs, linked actors and NP actors opposed restrictions on NP flavours, packaging and display, arguing these would infringe on rights, harm retailers, stifle innovation, and increase smoking and illicit trade. They framed youth NP use as resulting from irresponsible individuals and advocated for education, stricter penalties and self-regulation.

conclusionWhen faced with tobacco endgame and nicotine control policies in the UK, tobacco and nicotine industries pushed back using framing strategies common to health-harming industries. Despite contradicting their 'transformation' narratives, TTCs still sought to position themselves as public health actors deserving policy access. Advocates, researchers and policymakers can anticipate opposition to endgame policies-such as a generational sales ban-and NP restrictions, proactively preparing to counter this opposition in order to safeguard public health policy from vested interests.

Indexed as

CommerceTobacco IndustryTobacco ProductsVapingElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsGovernment RegulationHumansTobacco ControlUnited KingdomElectronic nicotine delivery devicesEnd gamePublic policyTobacco industry

Identifiers

PMID40122604
PMCPMC13479673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.