Explaining the recent ban on e-cigarettes

Gayatri Mann - September 19, 2019

On Wednesday, the government promulgated an Ordinance to ban electronic cigarettes in India. In this context, we look at what are electronic cigarettes, what are the current regulations in place, and what the Ordinance seeks to do.

What are electronic cigarettes?

The Ordinance defines electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as battery-operated devices that heat a substance, which may or may not contain nicotine, to create vapour for inhalation. These e-cigarettes can also contain different flavours such as menthol, mango, watermelon, and cucumber. Usually, e-cigarettes are shaped like conventional tobacco products (such as cigarettes, cigars, or hookahs), but they also take the form of everyday items such as pens and USB memory sticks.

Unlike traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes do not contain tobacco and therefore are not regulated under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. This Act regulates the sale, production, and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco products in India, and prohibits advertisement of cigarettes.

What are the international regulations for e-cigarettes?

India is a signatory to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) which was developed in response to the globalisation of the tobacco epidemic. In 2014, the WHO FCTC invited all its signatories to consider prohibiting or regulating e-cigarettes in their countries. This was suggested due to emerging evidence on the negative health impact of these products which could result in lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and other illnesses associated with smoking.

Since then, several countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Singapore, and Thailand have banned the production, manufacture, and sale of e-cigarettes. Recently, the states of New York and Michigan in USA banned the sale of flavoured e-cigarettes. Whereas, in UK, the manufacture and sale of e-cigarettes has been allowed based on certain conditions. Further, the advertisement and promotion, and the levels of nicotine in e-cigarettes is also regulated.

Prior to the Ordinance, were e-cigarettes regulated in India?

In August 2018, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had released an advisory to all states requiring them to not approve any new e-cigarettes and restrict the sale and advertisements of e-cigarettes. Based on this advisory, 15 states including Delhi, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh have since banned e-cigarettes. However, this advisory was challenged in the Delhi High Court in March 2019, which subsequently imposed a stay on the ban.

What does the Ordinance do?

The Ordinance prohibits the production, manufacture, import, export, transport, sale, distribution and advertisement of e-cigarettes in India. Any person who contravenes this provision will be punishable with imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of one lakh rupees, or both. For any subsequent offence, the person will be punishable with an imprisonment of up to three years, along with a fine of up to five lakh rupees.

Additionally, storage of e-cigarettes will be punishable with an imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of Rs 50,000 or both. Once the Ordinance comes into force (i.e., on September 18, 2019), the owners of existing stocks of e-cigarettes will have to declare and deposit these stocks at the nearest office of an authorised officer. Such an authorised officer may be a police officer (at least at the level of a sub-inspector), or any other officer as notified by the central or state government.

Note that, the Ordinance does not contain any provisions regarding possession or use of e-cigarettes. The Ordinance will be in force for the next six months, and must be approved by Parliament within six weeks of the commencement of the next session of Parliament. If it is not passed within this time frame, it will cease to be in force.

Policy

Arguments regarding FDI in retail

Vishnu - December 4, 2012

After months of discussion, the issue of FDI in retail is being deliberated in the Lok Sabha today. In September 2012, the Cabinet had approved 51% of FDI in multi-brand retail (stores selling more than one brand). Under these regulations, foreign retail giants like Walmart and Tesco can set up shop in India. Discussions on permitting FDI in retail have focused on the effect of FDI on unorganised retailers, farmers and consumers. Earlier, the central government commissioned the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) to examine the impact of organised retail on unorganised retail. The Standing Committee on Commerce also tabled a report on Foreign and Domestic Investment in the Retail Sector in May, 2009 while the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) released a discussion paper examining FDI in multi-brand retail in July, 2010. Other experts have also made arguments – both in support of, and in opposition to, the move to permit FDI in retail sales. The table below summarises some of these arguments from the perspective of various stakeholders as collated from the above reports examining the issue.

Stakeholder	Supporting arguments (source)	Opposing arguments (source)
Unorganised retail	No evidence of impact on job losses (ICRIER). The rate of closure of unorganised retail shops (4.2%) is lower than international standards (ICRIER). Evidence from Indonesia and China show that traditional and modern retail can coexist and grow (Reardon and Gulati). Majority of small retailers keen to remain in operation even after emergence of organised retail (ICRIER).	Unorganised retailers in the vicinity of organised retailers saw their volume of business and profit decline but this effect weakens over time (ICRIER). Other studies have estimated that traditional fruit and vegetable retailers experienced a 20-30% decline in incomes with the presence of supermarkets (Singh). There is potential for employment loss in the value chain. A supermarket may create fewer jobs for the volume of produce handled (Singh). Unemployment to increase as a result of retailers practicing product bundling (selling goods in combinations and bargains) and predatory pricing (Standing Committee).
Farmers	Significant positive impact on farmers as a result of direct sales to organised retailers. For instance, cauliflower farmers receive a 25% higher price selling directly to organised retailers instead of government regulated markets (mandis). Profits for farmers selling to organised retailers are about 60% higher than when selling to mandis (ICRIER). Organised retail could remove supply chain inefficiencies through direct purchase from farmers and investment in better storage, distribution and transport systems. FDI, in particular, could bring in new technology and ideas (DIPP).	Current organised retail procures 60-70% from wholesale markets rather than farmers. There has been no significant impact on backend infrastructure investment (Singh). There are other issues like irrigation, technology and credit in agriculture which FDI may not address (Singh). Increased monopolistic strength could force farmers to sell at lower prices (Standing Committee).
Consumers	Organised retail lowers prices. Consumer spending increases with the entry of organised retail and lower income groups tend to save more (ICRIER). It will lead to better quality and safety standards of products (DIPP).	Evidence from some Latin American countries (Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina), Africa (Kenya, Madagascar) and Asia (Thailand, Vietnam, India) reveal that supermarket prices for fruits and vegetables were higher than traditional retail prices (Singh). Even with lower prices at supermarkets, low income households may prefer traditional retailers because they live far from supermarkets, they can bargain with traditional retailers and buy loose items (Singh). Monopolistic power for retailers could result in high prices for consumers.

Source: ICRIER [1. "Impact of Organized Retailing on the Unorganized Sector", ICRIER, September 2008]; Standing Committee [2. "Foreign and domestic investment in retail sector", Standing Committee on Commerce, May 13, 2009]; Singh (2011) [3. "FDI in Retail: Misplaced Expectations and Half-truths", Sukhpal Singh, Economic and Political Weekly, December 17, 2011]; Reardon and Gulati (2008) [4. "Rise of supermarkets and their development implications," IFPRI Discussion Paper, Thomas Reardon and Ashok Gulati, February 2008.]; DIPP [5. "Discussion Paper on FDI in Multi-brand Retail Trading", Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, July 6, 2010]

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

Explaining the recent ban on e-cigarettes

Arguments regarding FDI in retail

Recent Posts