Original Article
Pubblicato: 2021-12-01

Electronic nicotine delivery systems in Brazil: to ban or not to ban, that’s the question

Population Research Division, Coordination of Prevention and Surveillance, Brazilian National Cancer Institute
Executive Secretariat of the National Commission for the Implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Brazilian National Cancer Institute
Electronic cigarettes nicotine tobacco products regulation public policy susurveillance and monitoring


Introduction: Debates on policy options for tobacco “endgame” have suggested that addicted cigarette smokers have access to likely less toxic alternative sources of nicotine. Methods: We discussed facts and challenges pertaining to current regulatory environment on electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in Brazil, including conventional cigarette smoking prevalence, burden of mortality, morbidity and costs for society associated with smoking, and the current tobacco control policy. Results: In Brazil, advertising/sale of ENDS has been banned since 2009. However, in 2019, under strong pressure from the tobacco industry, the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency decided to include in its regulatory agenda the discussion about the current ENDS restriction. Brazil has achieved the largest decrease in daily smoking prevalence in the world between 1990 and 2015; however, there are still 20 million conventional cigarette smokers and 162 thousand tobacco-related deaths per year, and the annual cost of smoking is US$22 billion. This scenario stimulates a debate about the risks and benefits of changing current ENDS regulation to allow adult smokers to have legal access to non-combusted sources of nicotine, such as ENDS. One of the main concerns is that young people might become more vulnerable to smoking uptake after a massive introduction of ENDS. Conclusions: Understanding how the emerging ENDS market may adversely or positively affect tobacco control outcomes is crucial for developing public health policies. Although this paper focused primarily on the Brazilian context, the issues raised by the authors may be useful for other countries facing the same dilemma. 


Electronic cigarettes (EC) are the most known form of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) in Brazil. EC are battery-powered devices that vaporize and deliver a liquid solution of nicotine, propylene glycol, and other chemicals to the user. The types of EC have increased rapidly and they vary according to format, battery power, liquid flavor and functionalities, including those the systems of which allow consumers to manipulate the e-liquids contents [1,2].

EC were first introduced in the market in 2004 by a small company and their consumption grew exponentially in some countries in the late 2000s [3]. Big tobacco companies reacted to the threaten to conventional cigarette market, at first, by entering into the EC market as well and, later, by developing heat-not-burn/heated tobacco products (HTP), which are types of hybrid products between combusted conventional cigarettes (CC) and EC [4,5]. HTP also function through a battery-operated heating system (i.e., they are also classified as ENDS), but, differently from EC, heat solid tobacco and have a better performance in delivering nicotine to human brain than EC, resulting in a more CC-like experience [4,6,7].

Analyses of some EC brands showed they had less toxicants than conventional cigarettes [8,9]. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that it is unlikely that EC are harmless, but it is very likely they are less toxic than conventional cigarettes [10-14]. Although there are less available studies on HTP toxicity, one of the studies showed that, unlike EC, the smoke released by HTP contains elements from thermogenic degradation such as benzopyrene and carbon monoxide that are the same constituents of conventional tobacco cigarette smoke [7]. Moreover, the carcinogenic potency of emissions from HTP is higher than that observed for EC [6,15]. In short, both EC and HTP are not innocuous, as they contain (or generate) carcinogenic substances that also cause damage to the lungs and the cardiovascular system [6-15].

As the effects of traditional tobacco control policies to decrease smoking prevalence to very low levels take time, great part of the current high burden of morbidity and mortality associated with smoking is related to the still widespread use of combusted conventional cigarettes among “remaining smokers” [16-20]. In this sense, debates on policy options for tobacco “endgame” have proposed combusted cigarettes to be made less addictive through reducing their nicotine contents, and that addicted cigarette smokers could have access to likely less toxic alternative sources of nicotine, including ENDS [21-25]. The main rationale behind these proposals is that people smoke for nicotine but die from tar generated by combusted cigarettes [26]. On the other hand, the limited scientific knowledge, particularly about ENDS longer-term effects on health [11,12,27], aid for smoking cessation [28], dual use [29], and their potential to be a gateway for smoking conventional cigarette among youth [30,31], are important concerns, which have raised critical questions about how they should be regulated [32-34].

The global tobacco control community is, in fact, divided. Both the 6th and 7th Conference of the Parties (COP) held in 2014 and 2016, respectively, among countries that had ratified the WHO framework convention on tobacco control (WHO FCTC) [35] did not reach a clear consensus on how to regulate ENDS use [10,36]. Parties were invited to consider applying regulatory measures to prohibit or restrict the use of ENDS, as appropriate to their national laws and public health goals. And the WHO FCTC COP8 held in 2018 encouraged countries to regulate HTP as if they were conventional tobacco products [5].

Meanwhile, the fact that ENDS have been promoted both as safer alternatives to conventional cigarettes and as aid for smoking cessation by tobacco companies has led to a fast increase of its consumption in the world [37-39]. At the beginning of EC dissemination, some countries banned their trade [1]. Comparisons across countries showed that, as expected, the use of EC became more common in places with little or no regulation [37-39]. After that, some countries started to review their regulations to legalize smokers’ access to EC, while adopting at the same time measures to restrict their access for children and adolescents [17,40,41]. In the United States of America (USA), for example, with no restrictions whatsoever until 2016, the prevalence of EC use grew fastly among high school students (from 1.5% in 2011 to 20.8% in 2018) [42-44], mainly when Juul, an EC brand shaped like a USB flash drive and with high level of nicotine, entered the USA market in 2017 [45]. In 2019, the USA faced an outbreak of acute lung injury associated to e-cigarette/vaping-product use (EVALI) [46]. The median age of patients was 24 years and 16% of patients were under 18. Despite most of these patients reported using tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products in their electronic devices, some reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products. In December 2019, the USA government issued a new law raising the federal minimum age of sale of tobacco products, including EC and HTP, from 18 to 21 years [47]. The most recent example of a country-specific regulatory action on ENDS came from Uruguay, a country that has one of the lowest proportions of ENDS use among smokers/ex-smokers [39], which changed its current ban on ENDS to allow only HTP to legally enter into the market [48].

The objective of this paper was to discuss facts and challenges pertaining to current regulatory environment on ENDS in Brazil, including conventional cigarette smoking prevalence, burden of mortality, morbidity and costs for society associated with smoking, and the current tobacco control policy.

Electronic cigarettes restriction in Brazil

In May 2009, São Paulo state, which is the most populous state in Brazil, launched a new law banning smoking in enclosed public places [49]. And, in June 2009, in opposition to that law, the National Inventors Association announced in the national media the intention to import an e-cigarette brand named Smoking Everywhere saying that, “in times of hard siege to smokers, e-cigarettes are the solution to the inconvenience caused by tobacco smoke” [50]. However, in August 2009, the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) published a resolution stating that the authorization of sales and imports of any “electronic smoking device” intended for smoking cessation or as a substitute for conventional cigarettes was subject to confirmatory epidemiological and toxicological studies [51]. This restriction was extended to all accessories and all formats of “electronic smoking devices”, regardless of their nicotine contents; moreover, the resolution also banned their advertising at national level. As no manufacturer has complied with these requirements so far, the 2009 measure “has been acting, in fact, as a ban”. On the other hand, the resolution did not prohibit individuals to bring these devices from other countries outside Brazil when for personal use.

What did happen next?

Seemingly the prompt answer from ANVISA prohibiting ENDS advertising and restricting sales may have had some effect in delaying their dissemination in the national territory, as Brazil still has lower proportions of ENDS use compared to countries with less restrictive measures on them [37-39,52-55]. However, the two most recent nationally representative studies to address this issue found that between 2015 and 2019 the prevalence of ENDS use among individuals aged 15-65 years increased from 0.45% (about 0.7 million people) to 0.72% (about 1.1 million people) [52,53]. And the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC) conducted in three of the most populous Brazilian cities showed that the proportions of EC awareness and EC ever use increased between 2013 and 2017 both among smokers and non-smokers who came to know and acquired the products through the internet, outside country, and/or in popular markets [54].

The entry of big tobacco companies in the HTP market posed additional pressure on current ENDS restriction in Brazil [4,5,56]. In March 2017, ANVISA started a public consultation to improve its general resolution on tobacco product registration in force since 2007 [57,58]. The original definition of the tobacco products regulated by this 2007 resolution includes “manufactured products derived from tobacco using leaves or extracts of leaves or other parts of tobacco plants in their composition, intended to be smoked, chewed or inhaled”. In order to try to circumvent the 2009 resolution [51], the tobacco industry proposed to consider HTP as products derived from tobacco, and EC as a “new non-tobacco special product” [56,59]. Moreover, this public consultation called the attention of the international scientific community supported by the tobacco industry and, therefore, ANVISA also received contributions from outside Brazil. For instance, one of these urged ANVISA to amend the resolution by including HTP and EC as “low-risk alternative nicotine delivery systems” (ANDS) and establishing an appropriate regulatory and fiscal framework for their registration [60]. It is worth mentioning that, in Brazil, tobacco products are subject to the measures of the WHO FCTC (35) ratified by the country in 2005 related to the reduction of demand for tobacco (or to the reduction of supply of tobacco), which clearly explains why the tobacco industry tried to exclude ENDS from this more restrictive regulatory environment applied to conventional tobacco products. At the end of the public consultation process, the original resolution remained unaltered [58].

In June 2019, in the light of updated scientific studies and growing international experiences about ENDS use and their impact on tobacco control outcomes [12-15,28-31,44,61], ANVISA decided to include in its regulatory agenda the discussion about the ENDS restriction in force since 2009 [51,62,63]. At the same time, the Philip Morris International launched in Brazil the campaign entitled “We need to talk about better alternatives to combusted cigarettes” [64] and promoted several seminars convening health professionals and scientists to present its HTP as a harm reduction tool. In order to allow a broad participation of the actors involved in this regulatory discussion, a “social participation plan” was outlined by ANVISA and included two public hearings held in 2019 [63]. All scientific and technical evidence presented during the public hearings was evaluated and consolidated through year 2020 to be included in a “final broader regulatory impact assessment”. The “social participation plan” was originally conceived to establish an additional independent expert working group to review the existing literature on ENDS [62]. However, based on publicly available minutes of several meetings held in 2019 [65,66], the tobacco industry took advantage of the fact that ANVISA is obliged to meet with the economic sectors regulated by the public authorities to question impartiality of this working group, thus interfering with the regulatory agenda. The deadline for completion of the regulatory impact assessment and, therefore, for also a final decision on a new resolution on ENDS, is October-December 2021. Meanwhile, as strange as it can be, in 2020, the Philip Morris International tried to register its HTP in the Brazilian market, which was denied by ANVISA’ technical staff in view of both 2007 and 2009 legal resolutions and the ongoing discussion around the regulatory agenda that started in 2019 [51,57,62,63,67].

Brazil: challenges and dilemmas

IIn Brazil, the implementation of several tobacco control measures in the last 30 years has contributed to a marked decrease in smoking prevalence [68,69]. For instance, among 195 countries, Brazil is the country with the greatest reduction in prevalence of daily smokers aged 15 years or older between 1990 and 2015 [20]. It is also worth mentioning that Brazil has achieved a large and progressive decrease in smoking prevalence among young adults (18-24 years old), which may reflect both a decrease in smoking initiation rate among adolescents [20,70], and an increase in cessation rate among young adult smokers [46]. However, there are still 20 million conventional cigarette smokers [37,46] and, every year, smoking is responsible for 162 thousand deaths that contribute to 4.2 million years of potential life lost and cost the country US$ 22 billion [71].

Considering the high achievements of tobacco control policy in Brazil, it is of paramount importance to understand what would be the risks and benefits if ANVISA changed its current resolution to allow smokers to have legal access to ENDS. Would this change allow low income and low education smokers, which represent the vast majority of the Brazilian smoking population [53,69], to shift from conventional cigarettes to more expensive ENDS? Based on available scientific evidence [28-31,44,66, 72-75], would such a decision contribute to reduce even more the prevalence of conventional cigarette smokers or would it slow down the current trend by stimulating initiation among young never smokers and/or increasing dual use? Finally, would it contribute to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with smoking in the future?

The arguments in favor of keeping the current restrictive measures on ENDS are based on the divergent results on their effectiveness as aid for smoking cessation when compared with other methods [28], the unknown benefits and risks of dual use with conventional cigarettes [29-31,75], the risks of manipulation and poisoning with EC liquids containing nicotine [45,75], the risks of EVALI (46), and the risks of liquid leaks and devices explosions [76]. One of the main arguments is that the legal entry of these products in Brazil could generate a substantive increase in experimentation among adolescents, as it has happened in some countries of Europe [38,77-79] and in the USA [30,43,44], and that the ENDS could become a gateway for conventional cigarette consumption in this population group, including those who otherwise would have never tried tobacco products [30,31,72-74]. The entry of traditional tobacco companies in the ENDS market further increased this concern considering their unfair practices to promote conventional cigarette use by targeting youth [80]. On the other hand, the main argument in favor of regulating ENDS as if they were conventional cigarettes (i.e., to regulate them as tobacco products) is supported by the guidelines for the implementation of articles 9 and 10 of the WHO FCTC [35,81] and/or policy options for tobacco endgame [21-25], which allow addicted smokers to replace conventional combusted cigarettes and similar products by likely less toxic, although not innocuous, alternative sources of nicotine [6-15].

There are many other important country-specific questions that could be considered by ANVISA in its final regulatory impact report: i) how to manage the ban on ENDS advertising by e-commerce and the ban on selling them to minors, when Brazil is already struggling to enforce compliance with already existing anti-tobacco laws for conventional combusted cigarettes [82]? ii) would the large use of flavors additives in liquids for EC make more difficult to win a lawsuit filed by the tobacco industry in the Supreme Court in 2012, which suspended ANVISA’ resolution prohibiting the use of additives in tobacco products [83,84]? iii) one of the arguments used by the tobacco industry to pressure ANVISA to review its current restrictions on ENDS use is based on a commitment with “products of potential lower risk”, and statements that they will be leaving the market of conventional combusted cigarettes [85]; thus, would it be a conducive moment to subject the changes in the current ENDS resolution to a legal obligation from tobacco industry to exclude any kind of combusted tobacco products from their business within a given period? If so, how will tobacco companies react to avoid the disruption of their business model designed to sustain high levels of addicted consumers? iv) can one assume that articles 9 and 10 of the WHO FCTC [35,81], which support the implementation of effective actions to test, measure, regulate and disclose the contents and emissions of tobacco products, currently provides the necessary tools to watch over and to monitor changes in the engineering and chemistry of so many different types of new tobacco products as well as their impact on health? Moreover, although in 2012 ANVISA inaugurated the first tobacco laboratory in Latin America, it has not started functioning on a regular basis due to budget restrictions. These are important issues, as articles 9 and 10 of the WHO FCTC are deeply aligned with policy options for harm reduction and prevention of smoking initiation that encourage new products to be made less toxic, less addictive through reducing their nicotine contents, and less attractive through eliminating additives [21-25]; v) finally, it is worth mentioning that the implementation of tobacco control policies and/or the decision to change current regulatory measures are also dependent on the country-specific tobacco epidemic curve. For instance, the entry of ENDS in countries where conventional cigarette smoking prevalence appears to be stagnant could show results that may not be replicated in other countries, where smoking prevalence and selected tobacco-related diseases still follows a sustained downward trajectory, as it is the case of Brazil [69,86,87].

Understanding how the emerging ENDS market may adversely or positively affect tobacco control outcomes is crucial for developing public health policies. Further research is necessary to better understand the best regulatory approach to this emerging market. For this purpose, as stated by article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC [35], it is of paramount importance to recognize the fundamental conflict of interest between the tobacco industry and public health policies.


Although Brazil implemented strong tobacco control policies and, as a consequence, experienced a large decline in smoking prevalence, the entry of the tobacco industry in the business of electronic nicotine delivery devices, including EC and HTP, has built pressure on ANVISA to allow these products to formally enter in the Brazilian market. The issues raised by the authors may be useful for current/future debates on ENDS regulation in Brazil and for other countries facing the same dilemma.


  1. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Conference of the Parties to the WHO FCTC. Fifth session. Electronic nicotine delivery systems, including electronic cigarettes. Report by the Convention Secretariat. Seoul, Republic of Korea, 12–17 November 2012.Publisher Full Text
  2. Brandon TH, Goniewicz ML, Hanna NH, Hatsukami DK, Herbst RS, Hobin JA. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: a policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33:952-63. DOI
  3. Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Papale G, Russo C, Polosa R. The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2012; 6:63-74. DOI
  4. The Motley Fool. Will “heat-not-burn” e-cigs kill off vaping? With a more cigarette-like experience, the next generation of electronic cigarettes could make vaping obsolete.Publisher Full Text
  5. World Health Organization (WHO). Heated tobacco products: information sheet.Publisher Full Text
  6. Stephens WE. Comparing the cancer potencies of emissions from vapourised nicotine products including e-cigarettes with those of tobacco smoke. Tob Control. 2018; 27:10-7. DOI
  7. Auer R, Concha-Lozano N, Jacot-Sadowski I, Cornuz J, Berthet A. Heat-not-burn tobacco cigarettes: smoke by any other name. JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177:1050-2. DOI
  8. Goniewicz ML, Knysak J, Gawron M, Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Kurek J. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control. 2014; 23:133-9. DOI
  9. Goniewicz ML, Gawron M, Smith DM, Peng M, Jacob P, Benowitz NL. Exposure to nicotine and selected toxicants in cigarette smokers who switched to electronic cigarettes: a longitudinal within-subjects observational study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017; 19:160-7. DOI
  10. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Conference of the Parties to the WHO FCTC. Seventh session. FCTC/COP7(9) - Electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic nonnicotine delivery systems. Delhi, India. 2016. Publisher Full Text
  11. Ministério de Saúde. Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva INCA. Cigarros eletrônicos: o que sabemos?. INCA Rio de Janeiro. 2016. Publisher Full Text
  12. Sleiman M, Logue JM, Montesinos VN, Russell ML, Litter MI, Gundel LA. Emissions from electronic cigarettes: key parameters affecting the release of harmful chemicals. Environ Sci Technol. 2016; 50:9644-51. DOI
  13. Jain RB. Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and mercury in blood among US cigarettes, cigars, electronic cigarettes, and dual cigarette-e-cigarette users. Environ Pollut. 2019; 251:970-4. DOI
  14. Liu Q, Huang C, Chris Le X. Arsenic species in electronic cigarettes: determination and potential health risk. J Environ Sci China. 2020; 91:168-76.
  15. Fried ND, Gardner JD. Heat-not-burn tobacco products: an emerging threat to cardiovascular health. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2020; 319:H1234-9. DOI
  16. Levy DT, Cummings KM, Villanti AC, Niaura R, Abrams DB, Fong GT, Borland R. A framework for evaluating the public health impact of e-cigarettes and other vaporized nicotine products. Addiction. 2017; 112:8-17. DOI
  17. Cobb NK, Abrams DB. The FDA, e-cigarettes, and the demise of combusted tobacco. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371:1469-71. DOI
  18. Fiore M, Schroeder SA, Baker T. Smoke, the chief killer — strategies for targeting combustible tobacco use. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:297-9. DOI
  19. Royal College of Physicians. London; 2016. Publisher Full Text
  20. GBD 2015 Tobacco Collaborators. Smoking prevalence and attributable disease burden in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2017; 389:1885-906. DOI
  21. World Health Organization (WHO); Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation (Tob Reg). World Health Organization Geneva; 2015. Publisher Full Text
  22. McDaniel PA, Smith EA, Malone RE. The tobacco endgame: a qualitative review and synthesis. Tob Control. 2016; 25:594-604. DOI
  23. Fairchild AL, Bayer R, Colgrove J. The Renormalization of Smoking? E-Cigarettes and the Tobacco “Endgame”. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:293-5. DOI
  24. Kozlow LT, Abrams DB. Obsolete tobacco control themes can be hazardous to public health: the need for updating views on absolute product risks and harm reduction. BMC Public Health. 2016; 16:432. DOI
  25. Fagerström KO, Bridgman K. Tobacco harm reduction: the need for new products that can compete with cigarettes. Addict Behav. 2014; 39:507-11. DOI
  26. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US) Atlanta; 2014.
  27. Hendlin YH, Vora M, Elias J, Ling PM. Financial conflicts of interest and stance on tobacco harm reduction: a systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2019; 109:e1-8. DOI
  28. Wang RJ, Bhadriraju S, Glantz SA. E-cigarette use and adult cigarette smoking cessation: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2021; 111:230-46. DOI
  29. Piper ME, Baker TB, Benowitz NL, Jorenby DE. Changes in use patterns over 1 year among smokers and dual users of combustible and electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020; 22:672-80. DOI
  30. Khouja JN, Suddell SF, Peters SE, Taylor AE, Munafò MR. Is e-cigarette use in non-smoking young adults associated with later smoking? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2021; 30:8-15. DOI
  31. Gaiha SM, Halpern-Felsher B. Public health considerations for adolescent initiation of electronic cigarettes. Pediatrics. 2020; 145:S175-80. DOI
  32. Hajek P, Foulds J, Le Houezec J, Sweanor D, Yach D. Should e-cigarettes be regulated as a medicinal device?. Lancet Respir Med. 2013; 1:429-31. DOI
  33. Cressey D. Regulation stacks up for e-cigarettes. Nature. 2013; 501:473. DOI
  34. Cobb N, Cobb C. Regulatory challenges for refined nicotine products. Lancet Respir Med. 2013; 1:431-3. DOI
  35. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). World Health Organization (WHO) Geneve; 2003. Publisher Full Text
  36. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Decision FCTC/COP6(9) - Electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery system. Russian Federation: Moscow; 2014. Publisher Full Text
  37. Gravely S, Fong GT, Cummings KM, Yan M, Quah AC, Borland R. Awareness, trial, and current use of electronic cigarettes in 10 countries: Findings from the ITC project. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11:11691-704. DOI
  38. Yoong SL, Stockings E, Chai LK, Tzelepis F, Wiggers J, Oldmeadow C. Prevalence of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use among youth globally: a systematic review and meta-analysis of country level data. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2018; 42:303-8. DOI
  39. Gravely S, Driezen P, Ouimet J, Quah ACK, Cummings KM, Thompson ME. Prevalence of awareness, ever-use and current use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) among adult current smokers and ex-smokers in 14 countries with differing regulations on sales and marketing of NVPs: cross-sectional findings from the ITC Project. Addiction. 2019; 114:1060-73. DOI
  40. Health Canada. Seizing the opportunity: the future of tobacco control in Canada 2016.Publisher Full Text
  41. New Zealand Ministry of Health. Policy Options for the Regulation of Electronic Cigarettes. A consultation document. 2016. Publisher Full Text
  42. Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law. U.S. e-cigarette regulations - 50 state review (2021). 2021. Publisher Full Text
  43. Cullen KA, Ambrose BK, Gentzke AS, Apelberg BJ, Jamal A, King BA. Notes from the field: use of electronic cigarettes and any tobacco product among middle and high school students - United States, 2011-2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018; 67:1276-7. DOI
  44. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. E-cigarette use among youth and young adults: a report of the Surgeon General. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health Atlanta. 2016. Publisher Full Text
  45. Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. JUUL and youth: rising e-cigarette popularity.Publisher Full Text
  46. King BA, Jones CM, Baldwin GT, Briss PA. The EVALI and youth vaping epidemics - implications for public health. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382:689-91. DOI
  47. US Food and Drug Administration. Selling tobacco products in retail stores.Publisher Full Text
  48. Instituto Nacional de Impresiónes y Publicaciones Oficiales (IMPO). 2021. Publisher Full Text
  49. Bialous SA, Martins S. Brazil: Sao Paulo takes the lead. Tob Control. 2009; 18:341. DOI
  50. Ucho.info. A Marca da Notícia. 2009. Publisher Full Text
  51. Ministéro de Saúde du Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. RDC 46/2009. Proíbe a comercialização, a importação e a propaganda de quaisquer dispositivos eletrônicos para fumar conhecidos como cigarro eletrônico.Publisher Full Text
  52. Bertoni N, Szklo A, Boni RD, Coutinho C, Vasconcellos M, Nascimento Silva P. Electronic cigarettes and narghile users in Brazil: Do they differ from cigarettes smokers?. Addict Behav. 2019; 98:106007. DOI
  53. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde 2019: Percepção do estado de saúde, estilos de vida e doenças crônicas – Brasil, Grandes Regiões e Unidades da Federação. IBGE Rio de Janeiro. 2020. Publisher Full Text
  54. Szklo A, Perez C, Cavalcante T, Almeida L, Craig L, Kaai S. Increase of electronic cigarette use and awareness in Brazil: findings from a country that has strict regulatory requirements for electronic cigarette sales, import, and advertising. Tob Induc Dis. 2018; 16:A273. DOI
  55. Dai H, Leventhal AM. Prevalence of e-cigarette use among adults in the United States, 2014-2018. JAMA. 2019; 322:1824-7. DOI
  56. Relatório Reservado. Souza Cruz pressiona Anvisa por tabaco eletrônico. 2019. Publisher Full Text
  57. Ministéro de Saúde du Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. RDC 90/2007. Dispõe sobre o registro de dados cadastrais dos produtos fumígenos derivados do tabaco.Publisher Full Text
  58. Ministéro de Saúde du Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária.Publisher Full Text
  59. Ministéro de Saúde du Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Planilha de contribuições – análise.Publisher Full Text
  60. Bates C, Sweanor D. Rational tobacco and nicotine policy in Brazil. Response to ANVISA Public Consultation No. 314. Revision to RDC 90 Registration of tobacco-based smoking products. 2017. Publisher Full Text
  61. Soneji S, Barrington-Trimis JL, Wills TA, Leventhal AM, Unger JB, Gibson LA. Association between initial use of e-cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking among adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2017; 171:788-97. DOI
  62. Ministéro de Saúde du Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. TEMA 11.3 – Novos tipos de produtos fumígenos.Publisher Full Text
  63. Ministéro de Saúde du Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Cigarro eletrônico. 2020. Publisher Full Text
  64. Philip Morris Brasil.Publisher Full Text
  65. The Intercept Brasil. Futuro da Fumaça. Como a indústria do cigarro esconde os perigos do vape para convencer você a fumar. 2020. Publisher Full Text
  66. Ministéro de Saúde du Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Dados Completos do Procedimento número: 892142.Publisher Full Text
  67. Ministéro de Saúde du Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Resolução re nº 884, de 26 de fevereiro de 2021.Publisher Full Text
  68. Levy D, Almeida LM, Szklo A. The Brazil SimSmoke policy simulation model: the effect of strong tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence and smoking-attributable deaths in a middle-income nation. PLoS Med. 2012; 9:e1001336. DOI
  69. Szklo AS, Souza MC, Szklo M, Almeida LM. Smokers in Brazil: who are they?. Tob Control. 2016; 25:564-70. DOI
  70. Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia para Políticas Públicas do Álcool e Outras Drogas Universidade Federal de São Paulo - UNIFESP. Segundo Levantamento Nacional de Álcool e Drogas Relatório 2012.Publisher Full Text
  71. Instituto de efectividad clinica y sanitaria (IECS). The importance of raising tobacco taxes in Brazil.Publisher Full Text
  72. Primack BA, Soneji S, Stoolmiller M, Fine MJ, Sargent JD. Progression to traditional cigarette smoking after electronic cigarette use among US adolescents and young adults. JAMA Pediatr. 2015; 169:1018-23. DOI
  73. Leventhal AM, Strong DR, Kirkpatrick MG, Unger JB, Sussman S, Riggs NR. Association of electronic cigarette use with initiation of combustible tobacco product smoking in early adolescence. JAMA. 2015; 314:700-7. DOI
  74. Know the risks. E-cigarettes & young people. Surgeon general’s advisory on e-cigarette use among youth. 2018. Publisher Full Text
  75. Pokhrel P, Herzog TA, Muranaka N, Regmi S, Fagan P. Contexts of cigarette and e-cigarette use among dual users: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15:859. DOI
  76. eCig One. E-Cigarette Explosions: Comprehensive List. 2019. Publisher Full Text
  77. Vardavas CI, Filippidis FT, Agaku IT. Determinants and prevalence of e-cigarette use throughout the European Union: a secondary analysis of 26 566 youth and adults from 27 Countries. Tob Control. 2015; 24:442-8. DOI
  78. de Lacy E, Fletcher A, Hewitt G, Murphy S, Moore G. Cross-sectional study examining the prevalence, correlates and sequencing of electronic cigarette and tobacco use among 11-16-year olds in schools in Wales. BMJ Open. 2017; 7:e012784. DOI
  79. Rennie LJ, Bazillier-Bruneau C, Rouëssé J. Harm reduction or harm introduction? prevalence and correlates of e-cigarette use among french adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2016; 58:440-5. DOI
  80. Campaign for Tobacco Free-Kids. Tobacco company marketing to kids.Publisher Full Text
  81. Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Fourth session. FCTC/COP4(10) - Partial guidelines for implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Regulation of the contents of tobacco products and Regulation of tobacco product disclosures) – Annex.Publisher Full Text
  82. Szklo AS, Cavalcante TM. Noncompliance with the law prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors in Brazil: an inconvenient truth. J Bras Pneumol. 2018; 44:398-404. DOI
  83. Zare S, Nemati M, Zheng Y. A systematic review of consumer preference for e-cigarette attributes: flavor, nicotine strength, and type. PloS One. 2018; 13:e0194145. DOI
  84. Jusbrasil. Supremo Tribunal Federal. CNI questiona atuação da Anvisa e contesta resolução sobre cigarros. 2012. Publisher Full Text
  85. BBC News. Philip Morris could stop making conventional cigarettes.Publisher Full Text
  86. Carvalho de Souza M, Giunta DH, Szklo AS, Almeida LM, Szklo M. The tobacco epidemic curve in Brazil: Where are we going?. Cancer Epidemiol. 2020; 67:101736. DOI
  87. McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, Hitchman SC, Hajek P, McRobbie H. E-cigarettes: an evidence update. A report commissioned by Public Health England. Public Health England London. 2015. Publisher Full Text


André Salem Szklo

Population Research Division, Coordination of Prevention and Surveillance, Brazilian National Cancer Institute

Tânia Maria Cavalcante

Executive Secretariat of the National Commission for the Implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Brazilian National Cancer Institute


© Sintex Servizi S.r.l. , 2021

  • Abstract visualizzazioni - 461 volte
  • PDF downloaded - 64 volte