Use of Illicit Tobacco Following Introduction Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research paper Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052072 on 25 February 2015. Downloaded from Use of illicit tobacco following introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco products in Australia: results from a national cross-sectional survey Michelle Scollo, Meghan Zacher, Kerri Coomber, Melanie Wakefield – Centre for Behavioural ABSTRACT universe of all packs used by smokers.14 17 Further, Research in Cancer, Cancer Objectives To assess whether following such studies cannot determine the proportion of Council Victoria, Melbourne, ’ Victoria, Australia standardisation of tobacco packaging in Australia, packs non-compliant with Australia s packaging smokers were, as predicted by the tobacco industry, legislation that were legitimately purchased overseas – Correspondence to more likely to use illicit tobacco. either duty-free or with duty paid on entry.16 18 Dr Michelle Scollo, Centre for Methods National cross-sectional telephone surveys While consumer surveys provide alternative esti- Behavioural Research in conducted continuously from April 2012 (6 months mates of use of illicit tobacco not subject to these Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 615 St Kilda Rd, before implementation of plain packaging (PP)) to March problems, respondents may not know the tax-paid Melbourne, VIC 3004, 2014 (15 months after) using responses from current status of the tobacco products they purchase, may Australia; cigarette smokers (n=8679). Changes between pre-PP, not admit to knowingly buying illicit tobacco or [email protected] the transition to PP and PP phase were examined using conversely may be more ready to believe than is Received 29 September 2014 logistic regression models. warranted that cigarettes sold at low prices are Accepted 13 January 2015 Results Among those whose factory-made cigarettes counterfeit. However, directly observing smokers’ were purchased in Australia, compared with pre-PP, packs19 or asking smokers objective concrete facts there were no significant increases in the PP phase in about their packs is likely to elicit responses that use of: ‘cheap whites’ (<0.1%; OR=0.24, 95% CI 0.04 are both honest and less subject to respondent to 1.56, p=0.134); international brands purchased for error. 20% or more below the recommended retail price In their study across 18 European countries, (0.2%; OR=3.49, 95% CI 0.66 to 18.35, p=0.140); or Joossens et al19 asked cigarette smokers to show packs purchased from informal sellers (<0.1%; field interviewers their latest purchased pack of copyright. OR=0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.47, p=0.124). The cigarettes or hand-rolled tobacco. Packs were prevalence of any use of unbranded illicit tobacco defined as illicit if they had at least one of the fol- remained at about 3% (adjusted OR=0.79, 95% CI lowing tax evasion indicators: (1) it was bought 0.58 to 1.08, p=0.141). from illicit sources, as reported by smokers, (2) it Conclusions While unable to quantify the total extent had an inappropriate tax stamp, (3) it had an of use of illicit manufactured cigarettes, in this large inappropriate health warning or (4) its price was national survey we found no evidence in Australia of substantially below the known price in their increased use of two categories of manufactured market. Adaptation of such a study in Australia http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ cigarettes likely to be contraband, no increase in needed to take account of that fact that tax stamps purchase from informal sellers and no increased use of are not required in Australia and that only very unbranded illicit ‘chop-chop’ tobacco. well-funded studies could include fieldworkers able to examine packs. While an audit of Australian retailers’ willingness to sell illicit tobacco conducted INTRODUCTION over 2012 and 2013 found some clear instances of Opponents of plain packaging (PP) in Australia products without health warnings,20 the price was claimed that the legislation would have major unin- somewhat volatile over this period with instances – tended consequences,1 3 in particular that the stan- of retailers trying to run down supplies of fully dardised appearance of the packs would make branded tobacco products, and a few cases of retai- 4 them easier to counterfeit and that this, combined lers selling stock in the old packaging at reduced on September 23, 2021 by guest. Protected with the reduced valuing of brands, would lead to rates afterwards.20 Further, tobacco companies an increase in use. The increased use of contraband claimed that prices of tax-paid products would fall sharply as a result of PP. Price was therefore not a Open Access cigarettes as well as unbranded illicit tobacco, it Scan to access more was argued, would disadvantage retailers and stable or reliable indicator of illicit status over the free content advantage ‘criminal gangs’ purported to be widely period immediately prior to and after the introduc- involved in its distribution.56Many of the same tion of PP. 20 arguments have been proffered by those opposed The World Customs Organization has identified to the introduction of standardised packaging in the problem of cigarettes produced by operators in the UK,78Ireland9 and New Zealand.10 11 one country being smuggled to the illicit market in Studies funded by Australian tobacco companies, other countries—so-called ‘cheap whites’.21 Its which rely heavily on surveys of discarded cigarette 2102 annual report listed a number of ‘brand’ To cite: Scollo M, packs, have reported increases in the size of the names of cigarettes falling into this category. The Zacher M, Coomber K, et al. illicit tobacco market following the introduction of report also listed several major international brands Tob Control 2015;24: PP legislation.12 13 Packs discarded in public places that appeared frequently among cigarettes identi- – ii76 ii81. are likely to provide a poor representation of the fied by customs officials and intercepted because it ii76 Scollo M, et al. Tob Control 2015;24:ii76–ii81. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052072 Research paper Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052072 on 25 February 2015. Downloaded from was believed that the required taxes had not been paid. Any additional brands (Nanjing, Su Yan and Zig Zag)as‘cheap reported purchase of ‘cheap whites’ in Australia would represent whites’, as no registered manufacturer could be located. clear cases of use of illicit tobacco. International brands such as Marlboro, Dunhill and Benson & Hedges are regarded as ‘International brands purchased at suspiciously low prices’ premium products in Australia and are rarely discounted.22 Any FM brands named in World Customs reports21 as frequently instances of purchase of such products at highly discounted smuggled included Benson & Hedges, Brooks, Camel, Craven A, prices would also therefore be highly likely to be illicit. Dunhill, Furongwang, Golden Eagle, LM, Lucky Strike, A study our group conducted in the Australian state of Marlboro, Mild Seven, Philip Morris, Rothmans, Shuangxi and Victoria between 2011 and 2013—1 year before and 1 year 555. We considered current packs of these brands suspicious after the introduction of PP—detected no changes among where the pack contained 20 cigarettes (the standard inter- smokers in use of unbranded tobacco, and low levels of use in national pack size, and the one most frequently smuggled) and November 2013 of cigarettes deemed likely to be contraband.23 where the reported price paid was 20% or more below the The current study aims to extend this analysis using a large recommended retail price (RRP), as reported in the Australian national data set and including baseline estimates of prevalence Retail Tobacconist.27 Where cigarettes were purchased in cartons of smokers reporting any use of several categories of cigarettes from large retail outlets, this cut-off point was relaxed slightly to which are highly likely to be contraband. We aimed to assess the accommodate prices just a few cents below the cut-off and to significance of changes since the period prior to PP in the per- take account of typically lower average prices for carton sales. We centage of current cigarette smokers whose current pack of also considered packs of 25 cigarettes suspicious if the reported cigarettes: price was 20% or more below the RRP of a pack of 20 cigarettes ▸ Carried a ‘brand’ name corresponding with known ‘cheap of that brand. whites’; ▸ Was a brand frequently observed in international intercep- Purchase from informal sellers tions of contraband tobacco and was purchased in Australia Current smokers were also asked “Where did you get the cigar- at a suspiciously cheap price; ettes you are currently smoking?” Those who indicated that rela- ▸ Was purchased from an informal seller. tives or friends had purchased their cigarettes were further asked We also aimed to assess any changes in the proportion of smokers from where this person had purchased them. Responses coded as ▸ Who had any self-reported recent use of illicit unbranded a ‘purchase from an informal seller’ were ‘from someone selling tobacco. independently and/or illegally (not at a store, shop or other main- stream establishment, but perhaps at local markets, delivery METHODS service, door-to-door, in a pub or just in the street)’. copyright. Design and participants We used data from national cross-sectional telephone surveys Unbranded illicit ‘chop-chop’ tobacco which were conducted continuously between 9 April 2012 and Use of unbranded illicit tobacco known in Australia as ‘chop- 30 March 2014, with about 100 respondents per week, chop’ could be reported in several ways throughout the survey. described more fully in Wakefield et al24 (this volume). After the initial question inquiring about tobacco products used, This study includes n=8679 adult smokers who reported smokers were asked whether they currently smoked any other smoking at least once per month.