Sainsbury's and Morrisons issued warning to make urgent change to stores
The UK Government has clarified the rules around displaying certain posters and videos in store.
Supermarket giants Sainsbury's and Morrisons have been issued a warning as they have been seen to "promote and advertise" tobacco products. The items in question are the heated tobacco products that produce vapours that contain nicotine instead of smoke.
It was revealed by the BBC back in February this year that both supermarkets were displaying posters and video screens that featured the tobacco products. This is an issue as the promotion and advertisement of tobacco products in the UK has been banned since 2002.
This ban is said to apply to all tobacco products that can be "smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed", reports the Mirror. However, at the time, both supermarkets said they believed the adverts in their stores were legal and not included in the ban.
Morrisons argued that the ban did not apply to the heated tobacco products as they do not produce any smoke. As the products instead produce a vapour, the chain felt this did not apply to the ban.
However, the BBC has now shared a new statement from the Government that has clarified the ban. They have revealed that heated tobacco products are in fact included in the ban and that the Government has written to the supermarkets regarding the matter.
Despite this, the BBC has said that the advertisements of the heated products were still on display in stores this month.
A spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said: "In May, we wrote to supermarkets reiterating that the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002… applies to all tobacco products currently on the market, and formally requested they stop advertising and promoting heated tobacco products in stores."
On top of this, a spokesperson from Morrisons told our sister title, the Mirror, that they are reviewing the letter.
A Sainsbury's spokesperson also said: "We offer a range of age-restricted products under our strict Think25 policy, including this heated tobacco device which is advertised.
"This is an alternative to cigarettes and is fully compliant with current legislation. We recognise the deeply complex and emotive nature of this topic.
"We remain in close contact with the Government and industry partners and are planning our transition to ensure we also comply with planned incoming legislation."
All tobacco and vape advertising and sponsorship is set to be banned once the Government passes its Tobacco and Vapes Bill. This bill is currently at the committee stage in the House of Lords.
This follows the ban set on disposable vapes at the beginning of the month, which made it illegal for any retailer in the UK to sell the product. This includes both in-store and online transactions and retailers caught selling the vapes could face punishments such as fines and prison sentences.
However, retailers are still allowed to sell the reusable vapes which require the devices to be repeatedly refilled with e-liquid or for the pod to be replaced. This device is a more sustainable and cost-effective substitute to the disposable products.
According to figures released by Action on Smoking and Health, the number of vapers in the UK who mainly use single-use vapes fell from 30 per cent in 2024 to 24 per cent in 2025.
On top of this, the number of 18 to 24-year-old vapers was seen to fall from 52 per cent in 2024 down to 40 per cent the following year.
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
MP claims assisted dying could be ‘trojan horse that breaks the NHS'
It is expected MPs will have a vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, which could see it either progress to the House of Lords or fall. It will be the first time the Bill has been voted on in its entirety since November's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55. While supporters of the Bill say it is coming back to the Commons with better safeguards after more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent on it to date, opponents claim the process has been rushed and that the Bill is now weaker than it was when first introduced last year. A key change was the replacing of a High Court judge requirement for sign-off of applications from terminally ill people, with a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel. While the Bill has the backing of some MPs from medical backgrounds, concerns have also been raised by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists. Disability campaigners have voiced worries about coercion and how vulnerable people could be caught up in any new law, although the proposed legislation is supported by MP and disability rights advocate Marie Tidball as well as former director of public prosecutions Sir Max Hill. On Tuesday, Mr Streeting confirmed no money has yet been allocated for the setting up of an assisted dying service and reiterated the Government is neutral on the Bill. Mr Streeting voted no last year and has since indicated he remains opposed to the Bill. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. He was asked by Labour MP Katrina Murray, who also voted no in November, whether the NHS has the money to fund assisted dying on top of its other priorities. She said: 'If passed, the assisted dying Bill would make thousands of terminally ill people every year eligible to end their lives on the NHS. 'Does our health service have the money to fund this service as well as its priority of bringing down waiting lists?' Mr Streeting responded: 'Of course, the Government is neutral (on assisted dying). It's for the House to decide. 'There isn't money allocated to set up the service in the Bill at present, but it's for members of this House and the Lords, should the Bill proceed, to decide whether or not to proceed and that's a decision that this Government will respect either way.' Mr Streeting said last year that there were 'choices and trade-offs', adding 'any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities'. Dame Siobhain McDonagh, fellow Labour MP who is also opposed to the Bill, claimed an assisted dying service could 'rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources'. She said: 'When asked today in the House of Commons the Secretary of State for Health made clear to MPs that there is no money allocated to the NHS to fund the assisted dying Bill. 'It's now clear that the assisted dying Bill will rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources and could become the trojan horse that breaks the NHS, the proudest institution and the proudest measure in our Labour Party's history. 'We already know from the impact assessment that this new system could cost tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds making our mission to cut waiting times and rebuild our NHS harder. 'I urge Labour MPs not to vote for the assisted dying Bill to protect the vulnerable and our NHS.' An impact assessment published by the Government last month estimated that the establishment of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the three-member expert panels would cost an average of between £10.9 million and £13.6 million per year, although overall implementation costs of a service were not possible to work out yet. While noting that cutting end-of-life care costs 'is not stated as an objective of the policy', the assessment estimated that such costs could be reduced by as much as an estimated £10 million in the first year and almost £60 million after 10 years. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has said the proposed legislation is about giving dying people choice at the end of their lives, saying it is 'about the human cost' and 'not about pounds and pence'. She has described her Bill as the 'most robust piece of legislation in this area in the world'. Dozens of Labour MPs called for Friday's overall vote to be delayed, asking Commons Leader Lucy Powell for more time to scrutinise a Bill they say is 'perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations'. But a Government spokesperson pointed out that it is a Private Members' Bill and 'the amount of time for debate is therefore a matter for the House'.
Leader Live
33 minutes ago
- Leader Live
MP claims assisted dying could be ‘trojan horse that breaks the NHS'
It is expected MPs will have a vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, which could see it either progress to the House of Lords or fall. It will be the first time the Bill has been voted on in its entirety since November's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55. While supporters of the Bill say it is coming back to the Commons with better safeguards after more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent on it to date, opponents claim the process has been rushed and that the Bill is now weaker than it was when first introduced last year. A key change was the replacing of a High Court judge requirement for sign-off of applications from terminally ill people, with a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel. While the Bill has the backing of some MPs from medical backgrounds, concerns have also been raised by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists. Disability campaigners have voiced worries about coercion and how vulnerable people could be caught up in any new law, although the proposed legislation is supported by MP and disability rights advocate Marie Tidball as well as former director of public prosecutions Sir Max Hill. On Tuesday, Mr Streeting confirmed no money has yet been allocated for the setting up of an assisted dying service and reiterated the Government is neutral on the Bill. Mr Streeting voted no last year and has since indicated he remains opposed to the Bill. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. He was asked by Labour MP Katrina Murray, who also voted no in November, whether the NHS has the money to fund assisted dying on top of its other priorities. She said: 'If passed, the assisted dying Bill would make thousands of terminally ill people every year eligible to end their lives on the NHS. 'Does our health service have the money to fund this service as well as its priority of bringing down waiting lists?' Mr Streeting responded: 'Of course, the Government is neutral (on assisted dying). It's for the House to decide. 'There isn't money allocated to set up the service in the Bill at present, but it's for members of this House and the Lords, should the Bill proceed, to decide whether or not to proceed and that's a decision that this Government will respect either way.' Mr Streeting said last year that there were 'choices and trade-offs', adding 'any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities'. Dame Siobhain McDonagh, fellow Labour MP who is also opposed to the Bill, claimed an assisted dying service could 'rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources'. She said: 'When asked today in the House of Commons the Secretary of State for Health made clear to MPs that there is no money allocated to the NHS to fund the assisted dying Bill. 'It's now clear that the assisted dying Bill will rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources and could become the trojan horse that breaks the NHS, the proudest institution and the proudest measure in our Labour Party's history. 'We already know from the impact assessment that this new system could cost tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds making our mission to cut waiting times and rebuild our NHS harder. 'I urge Labour MPs not to vote for the assisted dying Bill to protect the vulnerable and our NHS.' An impact assessment published by the Government last month estimated that the establishment of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the three-member expert panels would cost an average of between £10.9 million and £13.6 million per year, although overall implementation costs of a service were not possible to work out yet. While noting that cutting end-of-life care costs 'is not stated as an objective of the policy', the assessment estimated that such costs could be reduced by as much as an estimated £10 million in the first year and almost £60 million after 10 years. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has said the proposed legislation is about giving dying people choice at the end of their lives, saying it is 'about the human cost' and 'not about pounds and pence'. She has described her Bill as the 'most robust piece of legislation in this area in the world'. Dozens of Labour MPs called for Friday's overall vote to be delayed, asking Commons Leader Lucy Powell for more time to scrutinise a Bill they say is 'perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations'. But a Government spokesperson pointed out that it is a Private Members' Bill and 'the amount of time for debate is therefore a matter for the House'.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Abortion prosecution horror as woman arrested in hospital while still bleeding
A law change aimed at decriminalising abortion in England and Wales was debated in the House of Commons after a string of women have faced prosecution and even jail Half a dozen women in England and Wales have recently faced prosecution after having an abortion, but after more than a century, this week could see a major change that allows women the right to choose. MPs debated in the Commons on a law change aimed at decriminalising abortion in England and Wales. While the Abortion Act in 1967 allowed access to abortion, the 1861 law - the Offences Against the Person Act - was not revoked. It means abortion was illegal, but allowed up to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, and beyond then if the mother's life is in danger. Recent changes to the law, introduced in lockdown, have meant that women can access pills to terminate pregnancies under 10 weeks at home through the "pills by post" scheme. In 2022, the most recent available data, more than 250,000 abortions were reported, the highest figure since records began. However in the last five years, abortion providers have reported 100 requests for medical records from police officers in relation to suspected abortion offences, the BBC reports. Just last month, Nicola Packer, 45, was cleared by a jury after being accused of having an illegal abortion. In November 2020, when she was 26 weeks pregnant, she took an abortion medicine at home during the coronavirus lockdown, Isleworth Crown Court heard. Ms Packer, then 41, took the medications after they were prescribed over the phone due to lockdown restrictions. She delivered the baby and took her to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in a backpack the following day. Ms Packer said she hadn't realised how far along she was in her pregnancy, and expressed her "shock" at being pregnant given her age. She told the jury that if she had known she was more than 10 weeks, she wouldn't have gone ahead with the medication. Ms Packer had spent the night of November 7 in the hospital and had initially said she miscarried naturally. She had told two midwives the next day that she had taken abortion pills through the post, received from Marie Stopes, one of the largest providers of contraception and abortions. While recovering from surgery for a stillbirth and still bleeding, she was arrested at the hospital by police the same day. Prosecutors had picked apart her sex life during the trial, with it taking her four years to clear her name. Ms Packer is one of six women to be prosecuted for the crime since the end of 2022 under the Offences Against the Person Act, which, since its introduction in 1861, had only been used three times. In June 2023, a mum-of-three was jailed for more than two years for inducing an abortion after the legal limit. Carla Foster, 45, who became pregnant in 2019, had moved back in with her estranged partner at the start of lockdown whilst carrying another man's baby. The court heard she had sought to hide her pregnancy, which the judge accepted as "emotional turmoil". Ms Foster had a remote consultation before being prescribed the medication, and said she wasn't sure how far along she was. Stoke Crown Court heard she was between 32-34 weeks when she took the pills. Judge Mr Justice Edward Pepperall said it was a "tragic" case, adding that the defendant, who later pleaded guilty to administering drugs to procure abortion, was "wracked by guilt" and had suffered depression. Her 28-month sentencing outraged campaigners, with the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) saying it was "appalled" by the sentencing based on "archaic law". In January 2024, Bethany Cox, 22, was found not guilty of carrying out an illegal abortion on herself. On the eve of her trial, the prosecution dropped the case due to "evidential difficulties". Nicholas Lumley KC, for Ms Cox, said she had given birth in July 2020 at the end of the coronavirus lockdown. Whilst "in the throes of grief", the young woman, from Stockton, had been interviewed by police and was under police investigation for three years before being charged. Mr Lumley said it was "beyond regrettable" that she had suffered so extensively. In December last year, Sophie Harvey, 25, and her boyfriend Elliot Benham were given community orders after prosecutors accepted she did not illegally abort their baby. Meanwhile another woman, whose identity was protected, had her case dropped, with a judge saying he was "flabbergasted" to see it in court. Then there are the women whose names didn't make headlines, including a teenager who was arrested in front of her neighbours after having a late miscarriage, the Guardian reports, and cases of women who have been denied contact with their children whilst being investigated. Some women and girls who have had terminated pregnancies past the legal cut-off have been vulnerable, including victims of domestic violence. A BPAS spokesperson told The Guardian: 'We're aware of cases where the woman has been investigated, or even imprisoned, and nothing has happened to her abusive partner.' The harrowing case of Ms Packer put England and Wales' current abortion laws back into the spotlight, with the trial demonstrating "just how outdated and harmful" current abortion law was, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Dr Ranee Thakar, the college's president, said: "As a doctor, I am acutely aware of how vital it is that women can access essential healthcare in a safe and supportive environment. "Restrictive abortion laws in England and Wales nurture an environment of fear, stigmatisation and criminalisation. Abortion reform is urgently needed, and now is the time for change." Two Labour MPs, Tonia Antoniazzi and Stella Creasy, tabled rival amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. The aim was to prevent women from being investigated, prosecuted, or imprisoned for terminating their own pregnancies. Ms Antoniazzi has argued that the probes are "dehumanising and prolonged and the women forced to endure them are often extraordinarily vulnerable". She added: "The reality is that no woman wakes up 24 weeks pregnant or more and suddenly decides to end their own pregnancy outside a hospital or clinic. "But some women, in desperate circumstances, make choices that many of us would struggle to understand. What they need is compassion and care, not the threat of criminal prosecution." Meanwhile, Ms Creasy's rival amendment would position abortion access as a human right.
