Article Text
Abstract
Background In May 2016, the UK announced standardising packaging legislation for tobacco products. There was a 12-month transition period with both branded and standardised packs on the market until May 2017. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the implementation of standardised packaging in England was associated with changes in illicit tobacco and cross-border purchasing.
Methods We used Smoking Toolkit Study data covering the time period from 2012 to 2020. We ran time-series analysis using Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average with Exogenous Variable models to investigate the monthly changes in illicit tobacco and cross-border purchasing in England. The model was adjusted for other tobacco control policies implemented during the relevant time period and tobacco pricing. We used May 2017 as an implementation point and run sensitivity analysis using July 2016 and February 2017 as alternative implementation points given phased introduction of the policy.
Results The average prevalence of illicit tobacco and cross-border purchasing in the past 6 months was 14.4%. The implementation of standardised tobacco packaging legislation was associated with a monthly decline in illicit tobacco and cross-border purchases after May 2017 by 0.16% per month (beta=−0.158, 95% CI −0.270 to −0.046). The results were robust to considering different implementation points for the policy (July 2016: beta=−0.109, 95% CI –0.213 to −0.005; February 2017: beta=−0.141, 95% CI −0.245 to −0.036).
Conclusions In contrast to the tobacco industry’s argument that the legislation would lead to an increase in the illicit tobacco and cross-border market, this study demonstrates that the implementation of the policy is associated with a decline in illicit tobacco and cross-border purchases in England.
- Illegal tobacco products
- Packaging and Labelling
- Public policy
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Footnotes
Twitter @anthonylav
Contributors HV—formal analysis and write-up. IB—conceptualisation, analysis and write-up, guarantor. EB—conceptualisation. JB—conceptualisation. AAL—conceptualisation and write-up.
Funding The work was supported by Cancer Research UK (grant number C45256/A20606). Cancer Research UK (C1417/A14135) supported the data collection and is funding JB and EB. IB, JB and EB are members of SPECTRUM, a UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP) Consortium (MR/S037519/1). UKPRP is an initiative funded by the UK Research and Innovation Councils, the Department of Health and Social Care (England) and the UK devolved administrations, and leading health research charities. AAL is supported by the NIHR School for Public Health Research (PD-SPH-2015).
Disclaimer No funders had any involvement in the design of the study, the analysis or interpretation of the data, the writing of the report or the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.