Background Concerns about the magnitude of illicit cigarette trade have prevented the Government of Pakistan from increasing tobacco taxes. We estimated the proportion of illicit cigarettes sold in Pakistani cities. Moreover, we compared two methods for collecting cigarette packs and investigated if the illicit cigarette trade equates to tax evasion.
Method We analysed cigarette packs collected from 10 cities of Pakistan using two methods: consumer survey based on a two-stage random sampling strategy to recruit adult smokers and photograph their cigarette packs and waste recycle store survey to purchase used cigarette packs. Cigarettes were considered illicit if any one of the following was absent from their packs: text and pictorial health warning, underage sale prohibition warning, retail price and manufacturer’s name. From the consumer survey, we also estimated the proportion of smokers who purchased loose cigarettes (illegal) and packs below the minimum retail price. Taxation officers (n=4) were consulted to assess their level of confidence in judging tax evasion using the above criteria.
Results Out of 2416 cigarette packs in the consumer survey, 454 (17.8%; 95% CI 15.4% to 20.2%) were illicit. Similarly, out of 6213 packs from waste recycle shops, 1046 (16.8%; 95% CI 15.9% to 17.7%) were illicit; the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.473). Among consumers, 29.5% bought loose cigarettes and 13.8% paid less than the minimum retail price. The taxation officers considered the manufacturer’s name and retail price on cigarette packs as the most relevant criteria to detect tax evasion.
Conclusions One in six cigarette packs consumed in Pakistan could be illicit. These figures are far less than those propagated by the tobacco industry. Collecting packs from waste recycle stores is an efficient and valid method to estimate illicit cigarette trade.
- illegal tobacco products
- low/middle income country
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Twitter @aminakhan67, @Kamsidd66
Contributors The study was conceptualised by KS, HR, ZI, FD and AK. The study protocol was developed with inputs from RI, ZK, RH and SMA. AK led the study, SS managed and supervised the field work and SA managed and curated the data. The data were analysed by SA and interpreted by MK, KS, ZI, FD, AK and HR. The manuscript was drafted by AK, KS and FD and revised and approved by all co-authors.
Funding The study was funded by European Union Horizon 2020, grant number 680 995. Additional support for this publication was provided by the Tobacco Control Capacity Programme (MR/P027946/2) supported by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) with funding from the Global Challenges Research Fund.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.