By entering the site, you certify that you are over the age of 21, and you acknowledge you have read and understand the following California Proposition 65

Warning: This product contains nicotine, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Charecterizing Flavors in Ecig and Eliquid

Cigarettes, E-Cigarettes and Characterizing Flavors


One of the most hotly-debated aspects of e-cigarettes is the multitude of flavors they’re available in. You see countless news stories discussing the implications of e-liquid flavors, in particular, looking at the idea that such flavors will attract teens and youth to vaping, hook them into lifelong nicotine addiction and ultimately lead to them taking up smoking.

With the FDA’s draft deeming regulation of e-cigarettes having been released, vaping products are on the cusp of falling under federal regulations, with the final rule due in June this year. The initial draft didn’t propose any limitation on flavors, but it did request further evidence on them – a move which many saw as looking for justifications for further action. So with that in mind, what does the future hold for e-cigarette flavors? Why the hostility towards something so mundane? Vaping isn’t smoking, but the answers ultimately lie in past discussions of characterizing flavors in cigarettes.  

Characterizing Flavors in Cigarettes

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act established a rule for cigarettes, valid from late September 2009, banning the use of characterizing flavors in cigarettes or their components (including the tobacco, the filters and the paper). Characterizing flavors means any artificial or natural flavor other than tobacco or menthol, including many flavors currently used in e-liquids, like vanilla, chocolate, cherry, cinnamon and basically any e-liquid flavor you care to think of.

This rule is for cigarettes, and the lack of a broad reference to all “tobacco products” (which e-cigarettes are being “deemed” as in the FDA’s proposed regulations) means that it won’t necessarily be broadened to include e-cigarettes, but the possibility is definitely there.

For tobacco, the case against flavorings is laid out in an FDA fact sheet, arguing that flavored cigarettes are appealing to youth and may hook them into lifelong smoking. One referenced study found that almost 23 percent of 17-year old smokers had used flavored cigarettes in the past month, compared to under 7 percent of smokers aged over 25. Other studies suggest that youth in 2008 (the year before the rule came in) were twice as likely as adults to see (or at least recall seeing) ads for flavored tobacco products or the products themselves. Most worryingly, some youth claimed to choose flavored combustible products under the mistaken belief that they’re safer than unflavored tobacco.

Couple this with leaked documents from tobacco companies – which often explicitly state that adding flavors to cigarettes is a strategy to get youths smoking – and you have the perfect storm: more than enough reason to think about seriously limiting flavored cigarettes. While not everyone may agree that it’s necessary to limit adult consumers’ choices for this reason, it’s clear that a strong argument can be made for such a move.

Extending the Characterizing Flavor Ban to E-Cigarettes

The case for extending the flavor ban to e-cigarettes is notably weaker, however. Firstly, the underlying principle behind such actions is the fundamental and undeniable danger associated with combusted tobacco use. E-cigarettes, in comparison, are undoubtedly much, much safer than cigarettes, and in fact, based on current evidence there’s no reason to expect significant harm from them at all.

This becomes even more difficult to justify when e-cigarettes’ role as reduced harm tobacco substitutes is considered. Despite concerns about youth e-cigarette use, the evidence to date strongly suggests that almost all regular users (and the vast majority of those who’d ever tried vaping) are (or were) smokers. Any consideration of the risks and benefits of e-cigarettes must therefore be placed into context with the risks of tobacco, and it’s clear from any such comparison that using e-cigarettes represents a huge reduction in risk for smoking youth. The fundamental underlying justification for harsh actions against cigarettes simply doesn’t apply to e-cigarettes.

Other research provides even more reason to question the logic of a ban on characterizing flavors in e-cigarettes. Firstly, studies show that e-cigarette flavors are very important to the success of e-cigarettes for adult users. Not only do they provide a benefit of e-cigarettes in comparison to tobacco cigarettes (they taste better), they also help to differentiate vaping from smoking as a habit. This may be one of the reasons that there is no evidence of e-cigarettes being a gateway to tobacco cigarettes.

The most directly relevant study directly asked youth and adults how appealing they found various e-cigarette flavors. The results were unanimous: teens really don’t care much about bubblegum flavored e-cigarettes or any of the other flavors commonly used as examples of e-cigarettes appealing to youth. They did appeal to one group, though: adult smokers. You may recognize this as the intended market for e-cigarettes.

Despite all of this, you’ll have undoubtedly noticed that the exact same arguments are used against e-cigarette flavors as were used against tobacco cigarette flavors. State-level bans of characterizing flavors in e-cigarettes are increasingly being proposed, and it’s looking like something similar may be considered at federal level in the future.

The lack of a clear rationale behind such a move is obvious to anybody who’s spent time looking at the research into e-cigarettes, but if we’ve learned anything from what’s happened with e-cigarettes so far, it’s that things like this proceed even without science to back them up.

A Damaging Decision, But One We’re Ready For

Banning characterizing flavors in e-cigarettes would leave only tobacco and menthol, impacting on many vapers and crippling the vast majority of e-liquid companies. Such a move would make it harder for smokers to quit through vaping, would remove one of the major benefits of vaping and would do so while providing no benefit whatsoever to consumers or society at large.

Here at Black Note, we don’t use any characterizing flavors anyway – our e-liquids are all based on naturally-extracted tobacco flavors (with one menthol e-liquid) – We might be ready for whatever irrational regulatory decisions the future holds, but we stand firmly and resolutely against them. E-cigarettes need to be appealing to as many smokers as possible; jeopardizing that to allay unfounded concerns about youth non-smokers taking up vaping would be tragic and ultimately harmful.   

Michael Grey
Find Me Here

Michael Grey

With a passion to educate through my writings and a passion to help others, I found my place here at Black Note. Being that I am a former smoker who quit smoking because of vaping, I knew I could help others do the same. Working for Black Note is a true blessing. Not only do I help educate vapers on a daily basis through my writings, but I am also enjoying the benefits of working with an amazing team and sharing an authentic tobacco solution with the vaping community.
Michael Grey
Find Me Here
  • Average Joe American

    One of the most intelligent articles I’ve seen on this subject.
    Having been smoke free (after 45 years of combustible tobacco use) for over six years now, I view with growing horror the attempts by the US FDA and the various government- and donation-funded organizations (American Heart and Lung Association, American Cancer Society, et al) to restrict or outlaw a technology which has been proven to be saving the lives of millions of users worldwide. On the subject of e-liquid flavorings (the “appeals-to-kids” argument comes up constantly, with “studies” and “polls” showing that X% of teenagers have tried e-cigs–as if the fact that you can buy bubblegum flavored e-liquid makes e-cigs an ideal gateway to chain smoking Marlboros and Kools).
    When I see that a growing number of teenagers have “tried” e-cigs (along with coffee, alcohol, marijuana, pornography, and everything else they know adults do), I rejoice. If e-cigs had been available to me at the age of fourteen perhaps I wouldn’t have spent most of my life roller-coastering between Pall Malls, cold turkey, cigars, pipes, snuff, patches, nicotine gum, low tar cigarettes, and back to unfiltered cigarettes again. Like a crack baby, I was literally born addicted to nicotine, my brain and neural circuitry were adapted to it in utero.
    The notion that flavoring a tobacco product is somehow a new and frightening development in the world of nicotine addiction is historically absurd. In pre-colonial times tobacco was cured and blended with everything from molasses and sugar to chocolate, vanilla, coffee, spices, maple syrup, apples, cherries, whiskey, rum, brandy, hemp and more. E-liquid manufacturers certainly didn’t invent the idea of flavored tobacco products. Even Big Pharma’s FDA-approved (failed) nicotine gum experiment included flavorings.
    As far as I’m concerned, kids can “experiment” all they like with e-cigs (including the no- and low-nicotine varieties so rarely mentioned). Judging by the number of teens who smoke and drink already, a large percentage of them are gong to try them anyway. Better electronic cigarettes than filching Camels from mom’s purse, courting serious (read deadly) health problems down the road.
    Defining e-cigarette use as a “gateway to smoking” or saying it simply “reinforces bad behavior” is like villifying decaf coffee drinkers or condemning a tea-totaller for sipping Virgin Marys in a bar.
    Or by “gateway to smoking” (like puffing pot leads to heroin addiction), do they mean that when they finally succeed in their concerted endeavors to severely restrict or outlaw vaping, people will turn to their only remaining nicotine puffing option: Big Tobacco (who, unlike electronic cigarette companies, help fund the FDA and are the primary reason outfits like the ALA and ACS continue to exist).
    In the end it’s not about flavor, folks. It’s about color. The color of money.



WARNING: Black Note products are not smoking cessation products and have not been tested as such. Black Note products are intended for use by adults of legal smoking age (21 or older in California), and not by children or women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Black Note products contain nicotine, a chemical known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. Ingestion of the non-vaporized concentrated ingredients can be poisonous. Keep out of reach of children and pets. For immediate advice, contact poison control center: (800) 222-1222