Smaller Cigarette Pack as a Commitment to Smoke Less? Insights from Behavioral Economics

Tobacco purchasing in Australia during regular tax increases: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project

OBJECTIVE

We examined Australian tobacco purchasing trends, the average self-reported price paid within each purchase type and the association between type of tobacco product purchased and participant characteristics, including quit intentions, between 2007 and 2020.

METHODS

We analysed data collected from adults who smoked factory-made and/or roll-your-own (RYO) cigarettes in nine waves (2007-2020) of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project Australia Survey (nsample=5452, nobservations=11 534). The main outcome measures were type of tobacco products purchased: RYO, carton, pack or pouch size and brand segment. Logistic regression, fit using generalised estimating equations, was estimated the association between the outcome and participant characteristics.

RESULTS

The reported price-minimising purchasing patterns increased from 2007 to 2020: any RYO (23.8-43.9%), large-sized pack (2007: 24.0% to 2016: 34.3%); shifting from large-sized to small-sized packs (2020: 37.7%), and economy brand (2007: 37.2% to 2020: 59.3%); shifting from large (2007: 55.8%) to small economy packs (2014: 15.3% to 2020: 48.1%). Individuals with a lower income, a higher nicotine dependence level and no quit intention were more likely to purchase RYO and large-sized packs.

CONCLUSION

RYO, large-sized packs and products with a low upfront cost (eg, small RYO pouches and small-sized economy brand packs) may appeal to people on low incomes. Australia's diverse tobacco pack and pouch sizes allow the tobacco industry to influence tobacco purchases. Standardising pack and pouch sizes may reduce some price-related marketing and especially benefit people who have a low income, are highly addicted and have no quit intention.

Longitudinal analysis of cigar use patterns among US youth and adults, 2013-2019

BACKGROUND

Cigars are available in a range of pack quantities, which contrasts regulations requiring cigarettes to be sold in packs of 20 or greater. Smaller packages may be associated with increases in initiation while larger packs may lead consumers to smoke more. The purpose of this study was to inform pack quantity regulations by examining whether usual cigar pack quantity purchased was associated with use, initiation, and discontinuation among youth and adults for four cigar types: premium cigars, large cigars, cigarillos, and filtered cigars.

METHODS

We analyzed waves 1-5 (2013-2019) of the adult and waves 2-5 (2014-2019) of the youth Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Samples included those responding to the item on pack quantity and providing data at all waves (adults: premium cigars [N = 536], large cigars [N = 1,272], cigarillos [N = 3,504], filtered cigars [N = 1,281]; youth: premium cigars [N = 55], large cigars [N = 217], cigarillos [N = 1514], filtered cigars [N = 266]). Generalized estimating equation models examined the population-averaged effects of pack quantity on cigar use, initiation, and discontinuation.

RESULTS

Adult pack quantity was positively associated with the days used per month for premium cigars (b: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.34), large cigars (b: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.25), cigarillos (b: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.003, 0.24), and filtered cigars (b: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.10), and positively associated with amount smoked per day for all cigar types. Youth pack quantity was positively associated with days used per month for premium cigars (b: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.33, 1.43), large cigars (b: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.43, 1.15), and cigarillos (b: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.34). Adult initiation was associated with pack quantity for filtered cigars (b: -2.22, 95% CI: -4.29, -0.13), as those who initiated purchased smaller pack quantities compared to those who did not initiate that wave. Pack quantity was not associated with discontinuation for adults or youth.

CONCLUSIONS

Cigar use increased as usual pack quantity purchased increased across cigar types for youth and adults. Small increases in pack quantity (e.g., one additional cigar) are likely to result in consuming less than one additional day per month, though larger increases (e.g., 10 additional cigars per pack) may result in greater use.

Cigarette pack size and consumption: a randomized cross-over trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Smoking fewer cigarettes per day may increase the chances of stopping smoking. Capping the number of cigarettes per pack is a promising policy option, but the causal impact of such a change is unknown. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that lowering cigarette pack sizes from 25 to 20 reduces the number of cigarettes smoked.

DESIGN

This randomized controlled cross-over trial had two 14-day intervention periods with an intervening 7-day period of usual behaviour. Participants purchased their own cigarettes. They were instructed to smoke their usual brand from either one of two sizes of pack in each of two 14-day intervention periods: (a) 25 cigarettes and (b) 20 cigarettes. Participants were randomized to the order in which they smoked from the two pack sizes (a-b; b-a).

SETTING

Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were adult smokers who smoked from pack sizes of 25, recruited between July 2020 and June 2021. Of 252 randomized, 240 (95%) completed the study and 236 (94%) provided sufficient data for the primary analysis.

MEASUREMENTS

Cigarettes smoked per participant per day.

FINDINGS

Participants smoked fewer cigarettes per day from packs of 20 cigarettes [n = 234, mean = 15.7 standard deviation (SD) = 7.1] than from packs of 25 (n = 235, mean = 16.9, SD = 7.1). After adjusting for pre-specified covariates (baseline consumption and heaviness of smoking), modelling estimated that participants smoked 1.3 fewer cigarettes per day [95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.7 to -0.9], equivalent to 7.6% fewer (95% CI = -10.1 to -5.2%) from packs of 20 cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking from packs of 20 compared with 25 cigarettes reduced the number of cigarettes smoked per day.

Small/Kiddie Cigarette Packaging Size and Its Impact on Smoking: A Systematic Review

Background: Small cigarette pack sizes contain less than 20 cigarette sticks in a pack. Smaller packs may suggest lower costs, increasing affordability among lower-income users, especially the younger generation, which could lead to tobacco-related diseases and economic costs, including human capital lost results from tobacco-attributable morbidity and mortality. This concern has caused many countries to ban the sale of single cigarette sticks or kiddie packs. However, small cigarette pack sizes were proposed recently to be reintroduced by the tobacco industry with an excuse to prevent consumers from buying illicit cigarettes. This would demean efforts in combating tobacco consumption based on the existing tobacco control policies to prevent minors from purchasing cigarettes. Given the competing influences of affordability and availability of tobacco on consumption and the dearth of evidence-based review on the impact of pack size on smoking, this systematic review was conducted to identify the link between kiddie packs and smoking specifically on the initiation of smoking, urge/tendency to buy cigarettes among the general population and attempt to reduce cigarette consumption and prevalence of smoking using kiddie packs among current smokers. Methods: We include all studies except for reviews, guidelines, conference papers, commentaries, editorials, or opinion pieces. A database search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus on 27 November 2021. The results were presented in the form of narrative synthesis under four groups: initiation of smoking; urge/tendency to buy cigarettes; the prevalence of smoking, and attempt to reduce cigarette consumption. The literature search identified 1601 articles, of which 21 articles had met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of all included articles was determined using a validated 16-item quality assessment tool (QATSDD). The average quality score for all papers was 34.8%. Discussion: Given the diverse study settings of the articles and despite the challenges of the methodological quality of some articles, this review provides some evidence that kiddie packs may increase the urge/tendency to buy cigarettes and mixed evidence on the attempt to reduce cigarette consumption. This review also found some evidence that kiddie pack purchasing among teenage smokers was higher compared to adults. However, we are uncertain about the link between kiddie packs and smoking initiation. Nevertheless, since most studies were of low quality, further high-quality studies are needed to conclude about the impact of kiddie packs on smoking to assist the policymakers and stakeholders in formulating new policies and strengthening existing strategies related to the kiddie packs.

Association of preferred flavorings and device type with box or pack purchase behavior of electronic nicotine delivery systems in the United States

This study examined the associations of preferred flavorings and device type of ENDS with box or pack purchase behavior. We analyzed current adult ENDS users in the United States who reported purchase of their own ENDS. Logistic regression revealed an increased likelihood of box/pack purchase behavior among users of menthol or mint-flavored ENDS, disposable, pod-based devices, and those who purchase ENDS from the Internet. A moderation analysis showed that the magnitude of the association between menthol or mint-flavored ENDS use and box/pack purchase was stronger among disposable and pod-based device users compared to tank or mods (customizable devices) users. In a subsequent stratified analysis menthol or mint flavor users were more likely than non-flavor users to engage in box/pack purchase among disposable and pod-based device users, but not among tank or mods users. Regulating flavors and maximum unit sale quantities of ENDS by device could thwart ENDS box/pack purchase behavior.

Impact of Little Cigars and Cigarillos Packaging Features on Product Preference

Background: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) among young adult cigarette smokers in the period July–August 2018 to examine their preference for cigarillos in response to various packaging-related attributes, including flavor, flavor description, quality descriptors, pack size, and prices. Methods: A convenience sample of 566 US young adult cigarette smokers aged 18–34, among whom 296 were current little cigar and cigarillo (LCC) smokers, were recruited using Facebook ads and invited to participate in an online (Qualtrics) tobacco survey containing DCE and tobacco use questions. In the experiment, participants chose among two cigarillo products or “neither” (opt-out). Results: We analyzed preferences for LCCs using multinomial, nested, random parameter logit models. Results showed that young adult cigarette smokers preferred grape over menthol, tobacco/regular, and wine flavors; “color only” and “color and text” flavor depictions over text only; “smooth” and “sweet” quality descriptors over “satisfying”; and larger pack sizes and lower prices. Conclusions: Regulating packaging-related features will impact LCC choices among US young adult smokers. FDA regulation over these packaging-related features may impact LCC use among young adult smokers.

Reasons for Pack Size Purchase among US Adults Who Purchase Cigars

With municipalities across the US establishing minimum cigar pack size regulations, it is critical to understand what drives pack size preference. The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify reasons for cigar pack size purchase. We used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to survey adults who had purchased cigars and reported past 30 day use. Participants responded to an open-ended item asking their reasons for purchasing their usual pack size. Responses were double-coded and categorized. Of 152 respondents, 61 used traditional cigars, 85 used cigarillos, and 36 used filtered cigars. Across all cigar types, most participants (73.7%) purchased boxes rather than singles; 5–9-packs were the most popular pack size category (19.7%), followed by 20+-packs (18.4%). We identified 16 reasons for pack size purchase across seven categories: price, consumption, social aspect, convenience, product characteristics, availability, and general preferences. Reasons varied according to whether the consumer purchased larger or smaller pack sizes. In this exploratory study to identify reasons for cigar pack size purchases, findings were consistent with those identified through tobacco industry documents and in the cigarette literature. Future research should examine the prevalence of these reasons, including as a function of demographic and use characteristics, to help inform the understanding of potential minimum cigar pack regulations.

Cigarette pack size and consumption: an adaptive randomised controlled trial

Background

Observational evidence suggests that cigarette pack size – the number of cigarettes in a single pack – is associated with consumption but experimental evidence of a causal relationship is lacking. The tobacco industry is introducing increasingly large packs, in the absence of maximum cigarette pack size regulation. In Australia, the minimum pack size is 20 but packs of up to 50 cigarettes are available. We aimed to estimate the impact on smoking of reducing cigarette pack sizes from ≥25 to 20 cigarettes per pack.

Method

A two-stage adaptive parallel group RCT in which Australian smokers who usually purchase packs containing ≥25 cigarettes were randomised to use only packs containing either 20 (intervention) or their usual packs (control) for four weeks. The primary outcome, the average number of cigarettes smoked per day, was measured through collecting all finished cigarette packs, labelled with the number of cigarettes participants smoked. An interim sample size re-estimation was used to evaluate the possibility of detecting a meaningful difference in the primary outcome.

Results

The interim analysis, conducted when 124 participants had been randomised, suggested 1122 additional participants needed to be randomised for sufficient power to detect a meaningful effect. This exceeded pre-specified criteria for feasible recruitment, and data collection was terminated accordingly. Analysis of complete data (n = 79) indicated that the mean cigarettes smoked per day was 15.9 (SD = 8.5) in the intervention arm and 16.8 (SD = 6.7) among controls (difference − 0.9: 95%CI = − 4.3, 2.6).

Conclusion

It remains unclear whether reducing cigarette pack sizes from ≥25 to 20 cigarettes reduces cigarette consumption. Importantly, the results of this study provide no evidence that capping cigarette pack sizes would be ineffective at reducing smoking. The limitations identified in this study can inform a more efficient RCT, which is urgently required to address the dearth of experimental evidence on the impact of large cigarette pack sizes on smoking.

Trial registration

10.1186/ISRCTN34202533

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-11413-4.

A meta-analysis of financial self-control strategies: Comparing empirical findings with online media and lay person perspectives on what helps individuals curb spending and start saving

Self-control can be assisted by using self-control strategies rather than relying solely on willpower to resist tempting situations and to make more goal-consistent decisions. To understand how self-control strategies can aid financial goals, we conducted a meta-analysis (Study 1) to aggregate the latest research on self-control strategies in the financial domain and to estimate their overall effectiveness for saving and spending outcomes. Across 29 studies and 12 different self-control strategies, strategies reduced spending and increased saving significantly with a medium effect size (d = 0.57). Proactive and reactive strategies were equally effective. We next examined whether these strategies studied in the academic literature were present in a media sample of websites (N = 104 websites with 852 strategies) and in individuals' personal experiences (N = 939 participants who listed 830 strategies). About half the strategies identified in the meta-analysis were present in the media sample and about half were listed by lay participants as strategies they personally use. In sum, this paper provides a comprehensive overview of the self-control strategies that have been studied in the empirical literature to date and of the strategies promoted in the media and used in daily life, identifying gaps between these perspectives.

Size matters: An analysis of cigarette pack sizes across 23 European Union countries using Euromonitor data, 2006 to 2017

INTRODUCTION

The tobacco industry (TI) has used small cigarette pack sizes to encourage brand-switching and consumption, and to mitigate the impacts of tobacco tax increases. Since 2016, the European Union (EU) Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) specifies a minimum pack size of 20 cigarettes. We examined cigarette pack sizes in the EU and whether pack size composition differed between cheap and expensive price segments, as well as the impact of the revised TPD.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal analysis of pricing data from 23 EU countries between 2006-2017. We examined pack sizes over time to assess the impact of the TPD, differences in pack size composition between cheap and expensive price segments, and compared gaps in median prices between products using actual and 'expected' prices (price if all packs contained 20 sticks).

RESULTS

Cigarette pack sizes changed over time, across the EU. The distribution of pack sizes varied between price segments, with small pack sizes especially frequent in the cheap segment of the cigarette market, but this varied over time and across countries. Packs of <20 cigarettes almost disappeared from the data samples after implementation of the TPD.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the TPD appears to have virtually eliminated packs with <20 cigarettes, restricting their use by the TI. Our analysis suggests pack sizes have been used differentially across the EU. Country-level analyses on the industry's use of pack sizes, consumer responses, and evaluations of restricting certain pack sizes are needed to confirm our findings and strengthen policy.

Association between purchasing behaviors and cigar use: A longitudinal analysis of Waves 1-3 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study

Introduction

Over 120 US jurisdictions have implemented policies mandating minimum cigar pack quantities, yet little empirical research exists on the relationship between pack quantity and use. We examined whether cigar use was associated with purchasing cigars by the box/pack or as singles, purchase quantity, and price paid per cigar.

Methods

Data are from Waves 1–3 (2013–2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, analyzed in 2019. The sample included adults who reported current use of any type of cigars (cigarillos [N = 3,051], traditional cigars [N = 2,586], and filtered cigars [N = 1,295], including with marijuana) at Wave 1. For each cigar type, a generalized estimating equation model was used to examine the population-averaged effects of purchasing behavior on cigar use.

Results

Cigar users of each type who purchased by the box or pack smoked more per day than users who purchased singles (cigarillos: β = 1.02, p<0.0001; traditional cigars: β = 1.40, p<0.0001; filtered cigars: β = 2.55, p<0.01). Cigar users who purchased larger quantities smoked more per day (cigarillos: β = 0.16, p<0.0001; traditional cigars: β = 0.04, p<0.0001; filtered cigars: β = 0.24, p<0.0001). Higher price per cigar was significantly associated with smoking fewer traditional cigars (β = -0.12, p<0.01) and filtered cigars (β = -0.86, p = 0.02), but not cigarillos (β = 0.08, p = 0.62).

Conclusions

Smaller pack quantities and higher price per cigar were associated with smoking fewer cigars per day. Given the authority of the Food and Drug Administration and local jurisdictions over cigar pack quantity, this study provides data pertinent to potential minimum and maximum package quantity regulations and policies.

Should cigarette pack sizes be capped?

BACKGROUND

Very few countries regulate maximum cigarette pack size. Larger, non-standard sizes are increasingly being introduced by the tobacco industry. Larger portion sizes increase food consumption; larger cigarette packs may similarly increase tobacco consumption. Here we consider the evidence for legislation to cap cigarette pack size to reduce tobacco-related harm.

AIMS AND ANALYSIS

We first describe the regulations regarding minimum and maximum pack sizes in the 12 countries that have adopted plain packaging legislation and describe the range of sizes available. We then discuss evidence for two key assumptions that would support capping pack size. First, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between pack size and tobacco consumption, observational evidence suggests that people smoke fewer cigarettes when using smaller packs. Secondly, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between reducing consumption and successful cessation, reductions in number of cigarettes smoked per day are associated with increased cessation attempts and subsequent abstinence. However, more experimental evidence is needed to infer the causal nature of these associations among general populations of smokers.

CONCLUSION

Cigarette pack size is positively associated with consumption and consumption is negatively associated with cessation. Based on limited evidence of the causal nature of these associations, we hypothesize that government regulations to cap cigarette pack sizes would positively contribute to reducing smoking prevalence.

Cigar package quantity and smoking behavior

BACKGROUND

Several jurisdictions in the US and abroad limit the minimum number of cigars that can be sold per package. Research has not evaluated whether small packages might result in cigar use initiation, or whether adding cigars to packages might result in purchasers smoking more cigars.

METHODS

Using nationally representative US adult data from Waves 1 and 2 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, we assessed links between cigar package quantity (number of cigars in the package a person usually buys) and (1) price, and (2) cigar and cigarette use over time, for three cigar types: filtered cigars, cigarillos, and large cigars.

RESULTS

Smaller quantity packages (i.e., packages with fewer cigars) were cheaper per-pack than larger quantity packages but more expensive per-stick for all three cigar types. For filtered cigars, past-year starters tended to buy smaller quantity packages compared to longer-term users (geometric mean = 6.31 vs. 11.75, respectively; b = -.18, 95%CI: -.32, -.04). Also, those who bought smaller quantity packages of filtered cigars tended to smoke fewer cigars over time compared to those who bought larger quantity packages (b = 1.16, 95%CI: 0.45, 1.87). Neither of these associations was observed for cigarillos or large cigars. We also found little evidence that buying larger quantity packages predicted continuing to use cigars or using cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we found consistent associations between package quantity and price, we found few associations between package quantity and changes in cigar smoking behaviors over time, particularly for cigarillos and large cigars. Key limitations include our adult-only analyses and inability to determine the package quantity that cigar users initiated with. Future studies could examine whether package quantity plays a causal role in filtered cigar use initiation or consumption rates.

Cigarette brand diversity and price changes during the implementation of plain packaging in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Plain packaging of cigarettes appeared in the United Kingdom in July 2016 and was ubiquitous by May 2017. The change coincided with another legislative change, raising the minimum pack size from 10 to 20 cigarettes. Laws imposing plain packaging on cigarette packs remove another promotional route from tobacco companies, but the effect of such laws on brand diversity, pricing and sales volume is unknown. This study aimed to (1) describe and quantify changes in brand diversity, price segmentation and sales volumes and (2) estimate the association between the introduction of plain cigarette packaging and cigarette pricing in the United Kingdom.

DESIGN

We used a natural experiment design to assess the impact of plain packaging legislation on brand diversity and cigarette prices. The data comprised a sample of 76% of sales of cigarettes in the UK between March 2013 and June 2017.

SETTING

United Kingdom.

MEASUREMENTS

Cigarette prices, number of brands and products and volumes of sales.

FINDINGS

During the period analysed, there was a slight decrease in the number of cigarette brands. There was also an initial increase observed in the number of cigarette products, due mainly to an increase in the number of products in packs of fewer than 20 cigarettes sold before July 2016, which was then followed by a rapid decrease in the number of products that coincided with the implementation of the new legislation. Cigarette sales volumes during this period did not deviate from the preceding secular trend, but prices rose substantially. Regression results showed that price per cigarette, regardless of pack size, was 5.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.8-5.3] pence higher in plain than in fully branded packs. For packs of 20 cigarettes, price increases were greater in the lower price quintiles, ranging from 2.6 (95% CI = 2.4-2.7) GBP in the lowest to 0.3 (95% CI = 0.3-0.4) GBP per pack in the highest quintile.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of standardized packaging legislation in the United Kingdom, which included minimum pack sizes of 20, was associated with significant increases overall in the price of manufactured cigarettes, but no clear deviation in the ongoing downward trend in total volume of cigarette sales.

How tobacco companies have used package quantity for consumer targeting

INTRODUCTION

Package quantity refers to the number of cigarettes or amount of other tobacco product in a package. Many countries restrict minimum cigarette package quantities to avoid low-cost packs that may lower barriers to youth smoking.

METHODS

We reviewed Truth Tobacco Industry Documents to understand tobacco companies' rationales for introducing new package quantities, including companies' expectations and research regarding how package quantity may influence consumer behaviour. A snowball sampling method (phase 1), a static search string (phase 2) and a follow-up snowball search (phase 3) identified 216 documents, mostly from the 1980s and 1990s, concerning cigarettes (200), roll-your-own tobacco (9), smokeless tobacco (6) and 'smokeless cigarettes' (1).

RESULTS

Companies introduced small and large packages to motivate brand-switching and continued use among current users when faced with low market share or threats such as tax-induced price increases or competitors' use of price promotions. Companies developed and evaluated package quantities for specific brands and consumer segments. Large packages offered value-for-money and matched long-term, heavy users' consumption rates. Small packages were cheaper, matched consumption rates of newer and lighter users, and increased products' novelty, ease of carrying and perceived freshness. Some users also preferred small packages as a way to try to limit consumption or quit.

CONCLUSION

Industry documents speculated about many potential effects of package quantity on appeal and use, depending on brand and consumer segment. The search was non-exhaustive, and we could not assess the quality of much of the research or other information on which the documents relied.

The role of travel distance and price promotions in tobacco product purchase quantity

INTRODUCTION

Rural Americans are particularly vulnerable to tobacco price reducing promotions are known to be directed to and used by vulnerable populations. Tobacco purchasing decisions, such as unit quantity purchased, may vary by rurality, by price promotion use, and possibly by the interaction between the two. Purchase decisions are likely to affect tobacco use behavior. Therefore, explanation of variation in tobacco purchase quantity by factors associated with rural vulnerability and factors that fall under the regulatory scope of the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) of 2009 could be of value to regulatory proposals intended to equitably benefit public health.

METHODS

Our sample included 54 combustible tobacco users (298 purchase events) and 27 smokeless tobacco users (112 purchase events), who were asked to report all tobacco purchases on a smartphone application. We used an ecological momentary assessment methodology to collect data about tobacco users' purchasing patterns, including products, quantity purchased, and use of price promotions. A parent cohort study provided relevant data for home-outlet distance calculation and covariates. Our analysis examined associations between our outcome-purchase quantity per purchase event-and distance from participant's home to the nearest outlet, whether a price reducing promotion was used, and the interaction of these two factors.

RESULTS

Combustible users showed an increased cigarette pack purchase quantity if they lived further from an outlet and used a price promotion (i.e., an interaction effect; RR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.11, 2.62]). Smokeless users purchased more units of snuff when they used price promotions (RR = 1.81, 95% CI [1.02, 3.20]).

CONCLUSIONS

Regulatory action that imposes restrictions on the availability or use of price promotions could alter the purchasing behavior of rural Americans in such a way that makes it easier to reduce tobacco use or quit. Such action would also restrict flexibility in the price of tobacco products, which is known as a powerful tobacco control lever.

Tobacco industry strategies undermine government tax policy: evidence from commercial data

OBJECTIVE

Taxation equitably reduces smoking, the leading cause of health inequalities. The tobacco industry (TI) can, however, undermine the public health gains realised from tobacco taxation through its pricing strategies. This study aims to examine contemporary TI pricing strategies in the UK and implications for tobacco tax policy.

DESIGN

Review of commercial literature and longitudinal analysis of tobacco sales and price data.

SETTING

A high-income country with comprehensive tobacco control policies and high tobacco taxes (UK).

PARTICIPANTS

2009 to 2015 Nielsen Scantrak electronic point of sale systems data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Tobacco segmentation; monthly prices, sales volumes of and net revenue from roll-your-own (RYO) and factory-made (FM) cigarettes by segment; use of price-marking and pack sizes.

RESULTS

The literature review and sales data concurred that both RYO and FM cigarettes were segmented by price. Despite regular tax increases, average real prices for the cheapest FM and RYO segments remained steady from 2013 while volumes grew. Low prices were maintained through reductions in the size of packs and price-marking. Each year, at the point the budget is implemented, the TI drops its revenue by up to 18 pence per pack, absorbing the tax increases (undershifting). Undershifting is most marked for the cheapest segments.

CONCLUSIONS

The TI currently uses a variety of strategies to keep tobacco cheap. The implementation of standardised packaging will prevent small pack sizes and price-marking but further changes in tax policy are needed to minimise the TI's attempts to prevent sudden price increases.

Compliance with Uruguay's single presentation requirement

Introduction

Tobacco companies vary pack colours, designs, descriptors, flavours and brand names on cigarette packs to target a multitude of consumers. These different brand variants can falsely imply that some brand variants are less harmful than others. Uruguay is the only country that requires cigarette companies to adhere to a single presentation (one brand variant) per brand family.

Methods

An existing, systematic pack purchasing protocol was adapted for data collection. Neighbourhoods in Montevideo were categorised into five strata by percentage of poor households. Five neighbourhoods within each stratum were selected based on geographical variation. In each neighbourhood, a ‘starting hub’ was identified and a systematic walking protocol was implemented to purchase unique packs at four key vendor types.

Results

Unique packs were purchased in 9 out of 25 neighbourhoods. Fifty-six unique packs were purchased, representing 30 brands. Of these, 51 packs were legal, representing 26 brands. The majority of the legal brands (n=16; 62%) were compliant with the requirement. The remaining packs were non-compliant due to differences in colour, design element, brand name, crest and descriptors. Although not prohibited by the single presentation requirement, 16 legal brands had more than one stick count (10, 11, 14 or 20 sticks), and packs from four brands had more than one packaging type (hard, soft or tin).

Conclusion

Overall, compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement was good. In addition to the current restrictions, future single presentation requirements could expand to include packs in more than one stick count and packaging type.

Combustible cigarettes cost less to use than e-cigarettes: global evidence and tax policy implications

Background

Some scholars suggest that price differences between combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes could be effective in moving current combustible smokers to e-cigarettes, which could reduce tobacco-related death and disease. Currently, in most jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are not subject to the same excise taxes as combustible cigarettes, potentially providing the category with a price advantage over combustible cigarettes. This paper tests whether e-cigarettes tax advantage has translated into a price advantage.

Methods

In a sample of 45 countries, the price of combustible cigarettes, disposable e-cigarettes and rechargeable cigarettes were compared.

Results

Comparable units of combustible cigarettes cost less than disposable e-cigarettes in almost every country in the sample. While the e-liquids consumed in rechargeable e-cigarettes might cost less per comparable unit than combustible cigarettes, the initial cost to purchase a rechargeable e-cigarette presents a significant cost barrier to switching from smoking to vaping.

Discussion

Existing prices of e-cigarettes are generally much higher than of combustible cigarettes. If policymakers wish to tax e-cigarettes less than combustibles, forceful policy action—almost certainly through excise taxation—must raise the price of combustible cigarettes beyond the price of using e-cigarettes.