Chile ranks among the highest countries globally for rates of childhood overweight and obesity [1]. To combat this issue, in 2016 Chile implemented one of the world’s most comprehensive and ambitious food policies, the Food Labelling and Advertising Law (FLAL) [2].

The FLAL targets foods and drinks high in sugars, saturated fats, salt, or calories through three core measures: mandatory front-of-package warning labels in the form of black octagons (images available here), restrictions on the sale of such products in schools, and limits on food marketing directed at children.

Prof Guillermo Paraje, Professor of Economics, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Business School (Chile), says, “Although individual national measures like sugar taxes on soft drinks have been associated with improved health outcomes, this is the first study to plausibly demonstrate that a package of policies can reduce early childhood overweight/obesity risk at the national level.

“These results offer strong evidence for policymakers around the world. They support mandatory front-of-pack nutrition warning labels, restrictions on unhealthy food in schools, and marketing bans as effective, practical ways to tackle the childhood obesity epidemic.”

National data on more than 300,000 schoolchildren aged four to six in Chile was used to compare children’s weight from the years before the introduction of FLAL with the weight and size of children in the same school grades after the first phase of the law came into place in 2016.

The study found that children who had been at school for 18 months after the introduction of FLAL Phase 1 were less likely to be overweight or have obesity than those in the same grades before FLAL. Girls had a 2.9% lower risk of overweight or obesity (a reduction of 1.4 percentage points from a pre-FLAL rate of 47.7%) while boys had a 2.4% lower risk (a reduction of 1.2 percentage points from a pre-FLAL rate of 52%.)

The study also found a plausible causal impact in the cohort of schoolchildren aged four to six after only six months of the FLAL Phase 1; girls had a 1.9% lower risk of overweight or obesity (a reduction of 0.9 percentage points from a pre-FLAL prevalence of 47.4%) and boys a 2.2% lower risk (a reduction of 1.2 percentage points from a pre-FLAL prevalence of 52%).

Phases 2 and 3 of FLAL set stricter limits on sugars, saturated fats, salt, or calories. These phases were introduced in 2018 and 2019, so they did not impact the study’s results.

Dr Nieves Valdes, Associate Professor of Economics, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Business School (Chile), says, “Although the reduction in obesity and overweight risk among young school children may seem modest, it is likely that the further tightening of the law in later years will have increased the impact, especially given evidence that there was a greater drop in sales of labelled food products during Phase 2 of the FLAL compared to Phase 1.”

“Additionally, even a small weight reduction for children who have overweight or obesity is likely to bring meaningful long-term health benefits, given the strong links between childhood obesity and later risk of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease, as well as evidence that early prevention can substantially lower these risks.”

The researchers note some limitations of their studies, including that the plausible causality of the relationship relies on the assumption that, if the FLAL hadn’t been introduced, the two cohorts of school children would have followed the same nutrition trends, which cannot be tested although support for the assumption was provided through pre-policy trends. Additionally, the children’s weight was collected by school staff who, although trained for this task, may not achieve the same precision typically found in primary health care settings.

Writing in a linked Comment, Professor Simone Pettigrew and Dr Daisy Coyle, The George Institute for Global Health (Australia), who were not involved in the study, say, “In a policy environment where industry opposition constitutes a formidable obstacle to the implementation of health-promoting policies, high-quality, real-world evidence is critical. […] the research results strengthen the case for governments to move beyond incremental, single-policy approaches and to instead implement comprehensive, integrated strategies to improve food environments. In particular, the results highlight the potential for policy suites including mandatory warning labels and marketing restrictions on unhealthy foods and school food minimum standards to produce meaningful outcomes.”

• Jascayd (nerandomilast) for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) or progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF), two serious lung diseases that involve progressive and irreversible scarring (fibrosis) of the lung tissue.
• Vijoice (alpelisib) for the treatment of patients with severe PIK3CA-related overgrowth spectrum (PROS) disorders.
• Boey (trenibotulinumtoxinE) for the temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe lines between the eyebrows when these have an important psychological impact in adults.
• Etcamah (camizestrant) for the treatment of adults with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with a specific mutation in the ESR1 gene.
• Ablymico (liraglutide), indicated for weight management.
• Liraglutide STADA (liraglutide) for the treatment of insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes as an adjunct to diet and exercise.
• Colchicine AGEPHA Pharma (colchicine) for the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in adults with coronary disease who have been stable for at least six months.
• Vislyfa (ranibizumab) for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, visual impairment and other retinopathies.

The committee recommended extensions of indication for 13 medicines that are already authorised in the European Union (EU): Braftovi, Enhertu, Erbitux, Fasenra, Hetronifly, Iclusig, Keytruda, Maviret, Padcev, Palynziq, Sogroya, Tepkinly and Trodelvy.

The One Health social media initiative is a joint project between the EMA and several other EU bodies, including the European Food Safety Authority, European Environmental Agency and European Chemicals Agency. It’s part of a Europe-wide effort to raise awareness of the close links between human, animal and environmental health.

The One Health approach aims to prevent the emergence of health threats, and to help mitigate their impact and societal costs; reduce human pressures on the environment; and safeguard key societal needs such as food security, and access to clean air and water.

The Instagram account connects younger people with EU work on One Health. The account focuses on simplifying complex topics related to science, health, environment, and safety through visual storytelling and relatable content.

The Award for Good Administration recognises EU projects that have a meaningful and positive impact on the daily lives of European citizens and beyond. A public vote is under way, closing on 15 June, before the award ceremony on 30 June.

The initiative is part of a wider effort to support clinicians and the public in understanding the robust regulatory system that underpins vaccine safety. It shows how regulators require strong evidence to approve vaccines, but also highlights how real-world evidence is collected from millions of doses after vaccines become available to the public.

The first Vaccine Essentials publication focuses on Meningococcal group B vaccines (MenB). MenB vaccines were chosen in part because the story of how they are regulated illustrates the value of combining immunogenicity data (which shows that the vaccine induces an immune response) with real-world effectiveness studies that determine impact of a vaccine in a clinic.

‘In the case on MenB vaccines, by supplementing the initial evidence (pre-approval) with additional data (post-approval), regulators were able to further confirm the vaccines’ safety, effectiveness, as well as their favourable benefit/risk balance,’ the EMA says.

The MenB factsheet was developed with the European Academy of Paediatrics and based on a peer-reviewed publication. ‘MenB vaccines represent a success story on the prevention of a very serious disease mainly affecting infants and teenagers,’ said Dr Hans J. Dornbusch of the European Academy of Paediatrics. ‘In clinical practice, in a child with fever, if all meningococcal immunisation is up to date, the risk of severe illness including meningitis is really low.’

The Agency has also assembled a new advisory group on vaccine confidence, bringing together international experts to advise on how to build and maintain trust in the regulatory system. Rather than championing vaccines per se, the regulator seeks to ensure that important health decisions are taken based on evidence and a sound understanding of science.

The pathway aligns regulatory review by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) health technology appraisal process, so that decisions are reached simultaneously.

But Huseyin Naci at the London School of Economics and Political Science notes that these two bodies require different forms of evidence. The MHRA focuses on a product’s clinical effectiveness and safety, while NICE assesses its comparative effectiveness and long term value for money against current NHS treatments.

Rather than aligning evidentiary standards, the pathway runs two independent processes in parallel with the aim of synchronising their conclusions, he explains, offering companies earlier revenue and a longer rebate-free window, while benefits for patients and the NHS are less clear.

He acknowledges that earlier access to effective new drugs can matter for patients with significant unmet needs, but says, unlike the patient-focused Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP), the new pathway expedites all new medicines regardless of added therapeutic benefit.

The pathway will also impose timelines to ensure that MHRA and NICE decisions are reached simultaneously. Yet Naci points out that fixed drug evaluation deadlines have historically been linked to higher rates of adverse events, and fast-tracked medicines are more prone to post-marketing safety issues than those approved through standard routes.

A further problem is that NICE committees may be asked to assess products on evidence not yet fully vetted by the MHRA, compounding the uncertainty under which they already operate, he writes.

Earlier adoption of expensive, potentially low-value medicines will also extend the period over which they divert NHS resources from more cost-effective interventions, a problem exacerbated by the 2025 US-UK trade agreement committing NICE to a 25% higher cost-effectiveness threshold, he adds.

Naci urges the government to ground medicines access policy in patient need and population health, calling for clarification on the assumptions underpinning the pathway and assessment of its anticipated benefits and harms for all stakeholders, not just industry.

NICE’s focus on synchronisation of decisions risks overlooking whether the NHS will be adequately protected from the earlier adoption of medicines that prove harmful, ineffective, or poor value, he concludes.

The study examined the facilitators and challenges of so-called tobacco endgame policies in Europe. These policies refer to goals and measures aimed at reducing the use of tobacco products in the population to such a low level that it no longer places a significant burden on public health. Tobacco causes more than seven million premature deaths worldwide each year.

The EU’s Tobacco-Free Generation target was launched in the 2021 Cancer Plan and was recently reinforced in the Safe Hearts Plan. The aim is to reduce the use of tobacco products among the European population to below five per cent by 2040.

EU support is decisive for achieving the targets

According to the study, achieving the targets is particularly supported by broad political commitment, effective and long-term cooperation between different actors, and an active civil society that keeps the issue visible and brings public opinion to light.

In contrast, tobacco industry influence on decision-making, the visible marketing of new nicotine products, and the slowness of regulation make progress towards the targets more difficult.

The interviewees saw the EU’s role as central in reducing the use of tobacco and nicotine products. Common EU regulation and examples from other countries can accelerate national measures and encourage countries to set more ambitious targets for reducing the use of tobacco and nicotine products.

“The ongoing revision of EU tobacco legislation provides an important opportunity to strengthen Member States’ actions and accelerate progress towards the Tobacco-Free Generation target,” says Senior Specialist Hanna Ollila from the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare.

Finland has been a forerunner

In some countries, the target has been extended to cover nicotine products as well. Finland has been a forerunner in this respect. In Finland, the objective of the Tobacco Act is to end the use of tobacco and nicotine products. In practice, the aim is to achieve a prevalence below five per cent by 2030.

“It is important for Finland to continue its active role and ensure that national regulation remains up to date, particularly with regard to new nicotine products. The rapid increase in the use of nicotine pouches among young people requires swift additional measures, such as raising the age limit,” Ollila states.

The study is based on interviews with 23 experts in eight European countries. The interviewees included officials, researchers and representatives of non-governmental organisations. It was carried out as part of the Joint Action on Tobacco Control 2 -project, within a work package led by THL.

The warning label currently required on alcohol containers in the United States has not changed since its adoption in 1988, despite new evidence linking alcohol to several diseases. The label states the risks of drinking during pregnancy and while driving or operating machinery and warns generally that drinking alcohol “may cause health problems.” The label often goes unnoticed and unremembered by consumers.

“We wanted to test whether new warnings could better inform consumers about alcohol’s harms and better encourage people to consider cutting back on their drinking,” says lead author Anna H. Grummon, Ph.D., M.S.P.H., assistant professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine. The study was conducted as part of a larger project co-led with Marissa G. Hall, Ph.D., associate professor at the University of North Carolina.

Designed to compare the effects of differently worded and designed warning labels, the study recruited a nationally representative sample of 1,036 adults of legal drinking age (21 and older) who reported drinking at least once a week.

Participants viewed 10 messages — one control, eight new warning labels, and the current U.S. warning label — in random order. They then rated each message on how well it encouraged them to drink less alcohol, reminded them of alcohol’s harms, and informed them of something new.

“Each participant rated multiple warnings covering a range of health harms — such as cancer, liver disease, hypertension, and dementia, among others — so we could make direct, apples-to-apples comparisons between them,” says Grummon.

All the new alcohol warnings in the study outperformed the current U.S. warning label, but those highlighting cancer risk were particularly effective. This finding is notable as policymakers in the United States and abroad debate whether to adopt a cancer warning on alcohol products.

“Ireland, for example, is set to require cancer warnings on alcohol containers in the coming years, and Alaska already requires a cancer warning to be posted in bars, restaurants, and liquor stores where alcohol is sold,” says Grummon. “Our findings suggest these policies could help people understand the risks of drinking and potentially reduce consumption.”

Study participants also rated the effectiveness of warning icons and label design. Triangles and octagons were perceived as more effective and attention-grabbing than other icons, such as a magnifying glass.

More research is underway. Grummon and Hall are currently running a randomized trial to test whether new alcohol warnings effectively lead people to drink less. The study will also measure whether the warnings improve knowledge of alcohol-related harms over time.

“We know from tobacco control that well-designed warnings can inform consumers and encourage healthier choices,” says Grummon. “Given that alcohol-related deaths are increasing, we hope policymakers will consider whether updating alcohol warnings should be part of a broader strategy to address alcohol-related harms.”
—–
Grummon, A. H., Lee, C. J. Y., Campos, A. D., Lazard, A. J., Brewer, N. T., Whitesell, C., Ruggles, P. R., Greenfield, T. K., & Hall, M. G. (2026). New alcohol warnings outperform the current U.S. warning in a national survey experiment. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 87(3), 433-443. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.25-00226

By W.B. Kagan

image: “Government warning” alcohol label

View more Credit: Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

The purchasing and consumption of foods high in energy, saturated fat, free sugars, and salt, is associated with an increased risk of obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. In recent years, the UK Government has set a series of voluntary targets for manufacturers, retailers, and restaurants to reduce the sugar, salt, and calorie content of food. The sugar targets were intended to be met by 2020, the salt targets by 2024, and the calorie targets by 2025. Few studies have assessed the nutritional quality of foods in the restaurant sector, despite an increasing percentage of weekly food intake coming from takeaway or restaurant meals.

In the new study, researchers gathered nutritional information from the 21 highest-grossing restaurant chains in the UK in 2024, using PDF menus or nutritional information on restaurant websites. They calculated the proportion of menu items from each restaurant and food subcategory that met the nutritional targets. Nine of the 21 restaurants had more than half of their menu items meeting all applicable targets. Menu items from Papa John’s were the lowest adhering to the calorie (35%) and salt (8%) targets, while menu items from Burger King, KFC, Nando’s, and Vintage Inns had zero adherence to the sugar targets.

Food within the same subcategory varied in adherence to the targets, with salads and breakfast items having the highest overall adherence, and desserts and pizzas the lowest. However, there were examples of companies across all subcategories performing well, indicating that performance is not constrained by the type of cuisine being offered.

“Our findings demonstrate that there was low adherence to the UK Government’s sugar, salt, and calorie reduction targets in 2024,” the authors say. “This is consistent with other research that finds limited effectiveness of voluntary regulation on reformulation, suggesting that mandatory regulation may be a more effective approach to improving the nutritional quality of out-of-home food.”

Alice O’Hagan adds, “Our study shows that the UK Government’s voluntary sugar, salt, and calorie reduction targets were not being met consistently across the highest-grossing UK restaurant chains, in 2024. Only 43% of menu items met all of the targets they were eligible for, and adherence to the targets varied widely between restaurants and food categories, showing that healthier menus are achievable but are not yet the norm.”

“Interestingly, restaurants with similar menu styles performed quite differently in meeting the targets. This shows the nutritional quality of menus is not fixed by cuisine type, making the shift towards healthier menus a more attainable goal for food companies.”

Co-author Lauren Bandy adds, “Voluntary targets alone are not delivering consistent improvements in the salt, sugar or calorie content of food items on offer in UK restaurants. Our findings highlight the potential value of stricter regulation in the out-of-home sector, and show that improving transparency and accountability of individual food companies will be key in supporting healthier food provision for the UK population.”

Freely available paper in PLOS Medicine: https://plos.io/4bNeHl9

Citation: O’Hagan A, Pechey R, Forde H, Bandy L (2026) Adherence to voluntary UK sugar, salt, and calorie reduction targets in the highest-grossing restaurant chains: A cross-sectional study. PLoS Med 23(5): e1004681. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004681

Author countries: United Kingdom

Funding: AOH and RP are supported by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (https://oxfordhealthbrc.nihr.ac.uk/). RP is also supported by the Royal Society and Wellcome Trust (Sir Henry Dale fellowship; 222566/Z/21/Z; https://www.royalsociety.org/grants/henry-dale/). HF is funded by the SHIFT: Sustainable and Healthy Interventions for Food Transitions project, which is funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant reference 227132/Z/23/Z; https://wellcome.org/research-funding/funding-portfolio/funded-grants/shift-sustainable-and-healthy-interventions-food), and by the COPPER project, which is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (grant reference NIHR133887; https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR133887). LB is supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Oxford and Thames Valley (https://www.arc-oxtv.nihr.ac.uk/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Image: Dan Gold, Unsplash (CC0, https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)

In an expert commentary titled ‘AI can reason like a physician; what comes next? published in Science, Flinders researchers caution that while new AI systems show impressive capabilities, strong results in controlled studies do not mean they are ready for routine use in hospitals or clinics.

The authors say there is an urgent need to understand how emerging AI tools can be safely integrated into everyday clinical practice, with patient outcomes remaining the central focus.

Despite these warnings, the researchers acknowledge that recent advances in AI create genuine opportunities to support doctors, particularly in busy and high-pressure care settings.

The commentary reviews new research showing that advanced reasoning-based AI systems can work through diagnostic scenarios step by step and, in some cases, closely match or even exceed the diagnostic performance of experienced doctors.

Erik Cornelisse, a PhD candidate at Flinders University and co-author of the commentary, says this shift marks a move from simple question answering tools towards algorithms capable of seemingly human-like clinical reasoning on text-based tasks.

However, the Flinders team stresses that real world medical care involves far more than text-based reasoning or test performance.

They say clinical practice depends on physical examination, listening to patients, understanding medical and social context, and taking responsibility for outcomes, elements that current AI systems cannot safely provide on their own.

“Health care decisions are complex, high stakes, and deeply human, and accuracy alone, particularly on just text-based cases, does not make a system safe for patients,” says Mr Cornelisse from the College of Medicine and
Public Health.

Senior author Associate Professor Ash Hopkins, an NHMRC Investigator and leader of Flinders’ Clinical Cancer Epidemiology Lab, says modern healthcare relies on judgement, accountability, and ethical oversight.

“AI systems have demonstrated that they can reason through clinical problems with similar performance to doctors, notably on the same scenarios used to train clinicians themselves. This presents genuine opportunities to support clinicians in the future,” says Associate Professor Hopkins.

“Multiple stakeholders are currently working on the frameworks for AI in terms of legal, professional, or moral responsibility for its decisions, and presently there is a critical need for deliberate and controlled integration into clinical care.”

The commentary highlights known risks linked to poorly evaluated systems, including bias, inequitable care, and unintended patient harm.

“History shows that algorithms can worsen outcomes when deployed without sufficient safeguards and can amplify problems as easily as they solve them, particularly when systems are trained on incomplete or unrepresentative data,” says Mr Cornelisse.

Looking ahead, the Flinders researchers argue that enthusiasm for medical AI must be matched by strong governance and clearer standards for evaluation.

“We do not allow doctors to practise without supervision and evaluation, and AI should be held to comparable standards,” says Mr Cornelisse.

The researchers stress that improvement in real patient outcomes, not exam scores, benchmarks, or demonstrations, must be the true measure of success.

Associate Professor Hopkins says AI holds enormous promise but must be applied responsibly.

“Patients deserve technology that improves care in the real world, not systems that only look impressive in studies,” he says.

“With careful design, strong oversight, and rigorous evaluation, AI could become a powerful tool to deliver safer, fairer, and more effective care across health systems worldwide,” concludes Associate Professor Hopkins.

The paper, ‘AI can reason like a physician; what comes next?’, by Ashley M. Hopkins and Erik Cornelisse is published in SCIENCE.  DOI 10.1126/science.aeg8766 (link live after embargo lifts)

In 2024, the FDA updated the definition of the term “healthy” as it relates to how manufacturers can use the word on food packages. The new definition replaced one from 1992 and is consistent with current nutrition science and federal dietary guidance.

Also for the first time, the agency proposed an “FDA healthy” label icon for food packages, which is still undergoing approval.

The new study, led by researchers at Oregon State University and Tufts University, examined consumer purchasing preferences for snack products with and without healthy labels, focusing on the new FDA definition and healthy symbol to understand how endorsement from a regulator, such as the FDA, shapes consumer choices.

“Our main finding is that trust in government was an important part for people and that they were willing to pay more for that label,” said lead author Katherine Fuller, an assistant professor at Oregon State University who studies consumer behavior, particularly in the context of food and sustainability.

Fuller noted that the finding mirrors past research related to the USDA “organic” label, which has also been associated with a premium price.

For the new study, published in Food Quality and Preference, the researchers conducted an experiment in 2023 with 267 shoppers in person at six grocery stores in the Boston area. In the stores, participants were given tablets and shown pictures of 15 real-world products, nine of which were considered healthy and six that were not.

Participants first viewed products without any special healthy label and then viewed the same products, with those products meeting the new FDA “healthy” standards bearing either a generic healthy label or the FDA-healthy label. Participants received $5 in cash and a $10 gift card from the store. They were informed that the $5 could be applied toward the purchase of a product they selected in one of the scenarios they were presented. This procedure ensured the participants’ decisions had real economic consequences.

“Giving study participants purchasing power in a setting that mirrored a real shopping experience let us better observe how the labels might influence behavior,” said senior author Sean Cash, chair of the Division of Agriculture, Food and Environment at the Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University and an economist studying food policy and consumer behavior.

Each participant also completed a survey providing information about their demographics, knowledge of healthy food options and levels of generalized trust and trust in government.

Research findings from the study included:

• Consumers were more likely to choose the healthy snacks over unhealthy options.
• Consumers’ preference for healthy snacks increased when products were labeled with healthy icons. While the FDA and generic labels were associated with higher selection of healthy snacks, only the FDA label had a statistically significant effect.
• Prior findings that consumers are willing to pay more for labeled healthy foods were confirmed, and, additionally, the new results showed that adding a healthy label increases this premium further. For example, consumers were willing to pay 59 cents more on average for a healthy product with an FDA-endorsed label compared to a product with no label.
• The stronger effect of the FDA label reflects the role of perceived institutional credibility. These results are consistent with previous studies that demonstrate institutionally credible labels more effectively shape consumer decisions.
• The effectiveness of the FDA’s healthy label varied with the degree to which consumers indicated they trusted the government.

“Our findings demonstrate that labels act as signals for consumers, and policy can shape how well those signals work,” said Cash. “When labels are viewed as credible, such as when they have the endorsement of a government agency, they are more likely to influence eating patterns and purchasing habits.”

“Right now, there is a lot of misinformation about what is healthy and what isn’t healthy,” Fuller added. “Having a clear label, supported by scientific research, saying this is healthy because we checked, is important.”

Co-authors of the paper are Julia Reedy Sharib, Bingbing Fan and Dariush Mozaffarian, of the Friedman School at Tufts University, and Jennifer L. Pomeranz, of New York University.

Citation and Disclaimer: Research reported in this article was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute under award number R01HL115189. Complete information on authors, funders, limitations, methodology and conflicts of interest is available in the published paper. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders.

Researchers surveyed 700 adults across the United States who had used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days. Study participants made hypothetical monthly purchases across seven product categories: disposable e-cigarettes, pod devices, pod starter kits, pod refill packs, tank devices, e-liquids, and cigarettes.

The study found that higher pre-tax base prices and higher taxes both reduced e-cigarette use, measured by product units purchased and the amount of nicotine consumed.

To reflect real-world conditions, the experiment used three pre-tax price levels, low, medium, and high, representing roughly the 25^th, 50^th, and 75^th percentiles observed in the marketplace. Compared with lower prices, mid-range prices were linked to roughly 30 to 33% fewer product units purchased, while the highest prices were linked to roughly 49% to 51% fewer products purchased. Higher taxes also reduced purchases.

The analysis found that different e-cigarette types often act as substitutes: when the price of one product rises, adults may switch to another. At the same time, certain products function as complements, such as tank devices and e-liquids, or pod devices and refill packs, because they are used together. Notably, the study did not find statistically significant evidence that raising e-cigarette prices led to greater cigarette consumption among the general adult e-cigarette-using sample.

“Our findings suggest that increasing e-cigarette prices can effectively reduce vaping without the unintended consequence of more smoking among adult vapers,” said Shaoying Ma, PhD, first author of the study and research scientist at the Center for Tobacco Research at the OSUCCC – James. “However, because adult vapers navigate a complex marketplace of disposables, pods, and tanks, a one-size-fits-all tax may not be sufficient to reduce nicotine consumption. Policymakers may consider tiered tax designs to achieve specific public health goals.”

The researchers emphasize that price remains a powerful tool for curbing nicotine use, as states continue to refine their tobacco control strategies.

Coauthors in the study include Sooa Ahn, Hojin Park, Qian Yang, John FP Bridges, and Ce Shang.

Every year, EMA issues EU recommendations for the composition of seasonal influenza vaccines on the basis of observations by the World Health Organization (WHO), which are informed by regular monitoring activities on the prevalence and characteristics of different influenza viruses worldwide.

Manufacturers of live-attenuated vaccines or egg-based vaccines should include these three virus strains for the 2026/2027 season:

• an A/Missouri/11/2025 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus;
• an A/Darwin/1454/2025 (H3N2)-like virus;
• a B/Tokyo/EIS13-175/2025 (B/Victoria lineage)-like virus.

Manufacturers of cell-based vaccines should include these three virus strains for the 2026/2027 season:

• an A/Missouri/11/2025 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus;
• an A/Darwin/1415/2025 (H3N2)-like virus;
• a B/Pennsylvania/14/2025 (B/Victoria lineage)-like virus.

Previously, most authorised influenza vaccines were formulated to protect against the four main strains of influenza responsible for seasonal flu, including the strain known as B/Yamagata.

However, since B/Yamagata has not been detected in circulation since March 2020, it is considered to no longer pose a threat to public health. As a result, there is no EU recommendation for a B/Yamagata strain in seasonal influenza vaccines for the 2026/2027 influenza season, which is in line with the respective WHO recommendation regarding the composition of vaccines for 2026/2027.
In case quadrivalent vaccines are still required (e.g. in regions where the transition to trivalent vaccines has not been finalised yet), vaccine manufacturers of inactivated vaccines can consider producing a quadrivalent vaccine containing two influenza B virus strains for the 2026/2027 season. For these vaccines it is proposed to follow WHO recommendations from previous years for the B/Yamagata strain, i.e. a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (B/Yamagata lineage)-like virus.

Influenza viruses continuously change and evolve. The periodic replacement of the virus strains contained in influenza vaccines is therefore necessary to keep the vaccines effective.