Review paper
Standardized packaging and illicit tobacco use: A systematic review
 
More details
Hide details
1
Northumbria University, UK
2
Newcastle University, UK
3
Fresh Smoke Free North East
Publish date: 2017-05-02
Submission date: 2016-09-28
Final revision date: 2017-04-06
Acceptance date: 2017-04-06
 
Tob. Prev. Cessation 2017;3(May):13
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
To systematically review the evidence regarding the effect of standardized packaging on illicit tobacco use.

Material and Methods:
Data sources were EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, PsycInfo, Medline, and the British Library catalogue, from 01/01/1987 to 28/11/2016. Reference lists of included studies were hand searched for additional papers. Search strategies were based on the terms ‘tobacco’, ‘packaging’ and ‘illicit’. The search was restricted to English language references. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for empirical studies that addressed the topic of standardized packaging and illicit tobacco use. This resulted in 153 full text papers retrieved for screening. Following exclusions, ten papers were included in the review. Two reviewers’ extracted data using piloted standardized data extraction forms. Studies were assessed for quality and relevance using CASP.

Results:
There was little homogeneity between included studies, so a narrative synthesis was employed. Of the relevant studies five reported smokers did not intend to or actually purchase further illicit tobacco following standardized packaging, although one suggested a small number of responders to online news felt smokers would be more inclined to purchase illicit tobacco, following standardized packaging. Two studies reported retailers did not intend to or actually increase sales of illicit tobacco following standardized packaging. Finally, two studies reported industry data on illicit tobacco were of poor quality and not supported by independent data.

Conclusions:
There were few studies examining tobacco standardized packaging and illicit trade, however those available showed no evidence that standardized packaging could lead to increases in illicit trade.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Catherine Haighton   
Northumbria University, Department of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Coach Lane Campus West, NE7 7XA Newcastle, United Kingdom
 
REFERENCES (46):
1. World Health Organisation. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic. 2013. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organisation.
2. Giovino GA, Mirza SA, Samet JM, Gupta PC, Jarvis MJ, Bhala N, Peto R, Zatonski W, Hsia J, Morton J, Palipudi KM. Tobacco use in 3 billion individuals from 16 countries: an analysis of nationally representative cross-sectional household surveys. The Lancet. 2012;380(9842):668-79. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61085-X.
3. Department of Health. Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A Tobacco Control Plan for England. 2011. London, England, Department of Health.
4. World Health Organisation. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 2003. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organisation.
5. World Health Organisation. Guidelines for implementation of Article 11 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Packaging and labelling of tobacco products). 2008. Available at: http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_11.pdf (accessed 25 September 2012).
6. Moodie C, Hastings G. Tobacco packaging as promotion. Tobacco Control. 2010;19(2):168-70. doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.033449.
7. Wakefield M, Morley C, Horan JK, Cummings KM. The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents. Tobacco Control. 2002;11(suppl 1):i73-80. doi:10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i73.
8. Pilditch, J. The Silent Salesman: How to Develop Packaging That Sells. 1961. London, England, Harper and Row.
9. Eindhoven, G. Elegant packs promote image, defend property rights. 1999. World Tobacco, 170, 16-18.
10. Moodie, C., Stead, M., Bauld, L., et al. Plain Tobacco Packaging: A Systematic Review. 2012. Stirling, Scotland, Centre for Tobacco Control Research: University of Stirling.
11. Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations. Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011.
12. Department of Health. Consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products. 2012. London, England, Department of Health.
13. Philip Morris International. Standardised tobacco packaging will harm public health and cost UK tax payers billions: A response to the Department of Health consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products. 2012. Richmond, England, Philip Morris International.
14. Japan Tobacco International. Response to the Department of Health's Consultation on the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products. 2012. London, England, Japan Tobacco International.
15. Imperial Tobacco. Bad for business; bad for consumers; good for criminals. 2012. London, England, Imperial Tobacco.
16. British American Tobacco. UK Standardised Packaging Consultation: Response of British American Tobacco UK Limited. 2012. London, England, British American Tobacco.
17. Gilmore, A.B., Branston, J.R. and Sweanor, D. The case for OFSMOKE: how tobacco price regulation is needed to promote the health of markets, government revenue and the public. Tobacco Control. 2010, 19(5), pp.423-430. doi:10.1136/tc.2009.034470.
18. HM Revenue & Customs. Tackling Tobacco Smuggling - building on our success. 2011. London, England, HMRC.
19. HM Revenue & Customs 2015. Measuring tax gaps 2015 Edition: Tax gap estimates for 2013-14. London, England, HMRC.
20. Gilmore A.B., Rowell A., Gallus S., et al. Towards a greater understanding of the illicit tobacco trade in Europe: a review of the PMI funded ‘Project Star’ report. Tobacco Control, 2013; 0: 1–11. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051240.
21. Peters, M., Saffron, M. Patterns of non-compliant tobacco use in Sydney estimated using an empty cigarette pack survey. 2015. Respirology 20(2), 60. PMCID: PMC1564449.
22. Moodie, C., Angus, K., Stead, M. et al. Plain Tobacco Packaging Research: An Update. 2013. Stirling, Scotland, Centre for Tobacco Control Research: University of Stirling.
23. Chantler, C. Standardised packaging of tobacco. Report of the independent review. 2014. London, England, Kings College London.
24. Hughes N, Arora M, Grills N. Perceptions and impact of plain packaging of tobacco products in low and middle income countries, middle to upper income countries and low-income settings in high-income countries: a systematic review of the literature. BMJ open. 2016 Mar 1;6(3):e010391. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010391.
25. Stead M, Moodie C, Angus K, Bauld L, McNeill A, Thomas J, Hastings G, Hinds K, O'Mara-Eves A, Kwan I, Purves RI. Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies. PloS one. 2013 Oct 16;8(10):e75919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075919.
26. Hammond, D. Standardized packaging tobacco products evidence review: prepared on behalf of the Irish Department of Health. 2014. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON Canada.
27. Beede P, Lawson R. The effect of plain packages on the perception of cigarette health warnings. Public health. 1992;106(4):315-22. PMID: 1529094.
  Pubmed
28. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. 2009. PLoS Med, 6(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. Epub 2009 Jul 21.
29. Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Data collection form. EPOC resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Health Services; 2013. Available at: http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-specific-resources-review-authors. (accessed 07/12/16).
30. Moodie, C., Hastings, G., Joosens, L. Young adult smokers' perceptions of illicit tobacco and the possible impact of plain packaging on purchase behaviour. 2012. European Journal of Public Health, 22, 251-253. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckr038.
31. CASP. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. 2013. Available at: http://www.caspinternational.org/?o=1012. (accessed 22/04/16).
32. Moodie, C., Purves, R., Mckell, J. et al. Young women smokers’ perceptions and use of counterfeit cigarettes: Would plain packaging make a difference? 2014. Addiction Research and Theory, 22(3), 263-270.
33. Freeman, B. Tobacco plain packaging legislation: a content analysis of commentary posted on Australian online news. 2011. Tobacco Control, 20, 361-6. doi: 10.1136/tc.2011.042986.
34. Rowell, A., Evans-Reeves, K., Gilmore, A.B. Tobacco industry manipulation of data on and press coverage of the illicit tobacco trade in the UK. 2014. Tobacco Control, 23, e35-e43. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051397.
35. Evans-Reeves, K.A., Hatchard, J.L., Gilmore, A.B. ‘It will harm business and increas illicit trade’: an evaluation of the relevance, quality and transparency of evidence submitted by transnatioanl tobacco companies to the UK consultation on standardised packaging 2012. 2015. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051930Tobacco Control, 24, e168-e177.
36. Scollo, M., Zacher, M., Durkin, S. et al. Early evidence about the predicted unintended consequences of standardised packaging of tobacco products in Australia: a cross-sectional study of the place of purchase, regular brands and use of illicit tobacco. 2014. BMJ Open, 4, e005873. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005873.
37. Scollo, M., Zacher, M., Coomber, K. et al. Use of illicit tobacco following introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco products in Australia: results from a national cross-sectional survey. 2015. Tobacco Control, 24, ii76-ii81. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052072.
38. Scollo, M., Bayly, M., Wakefield, M. Availability of illicit tobacco in small retail outlets before and after the implementation of Australian plain packaging legislation. 2015. Tobacco Control, 24, e45-e51. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051353.
39. Guthrie, J., Hoek, J., Darroch, E., Wood, Z. A qualitative analysis of New Zealand retailers’ responses to standardised packaging legislation and tobacco industry opposition. 2015. BMJ Open; 5:e009521. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009521.
40. Chmiel A, Sienkiewicz J, Paltoglou G. et al. Negative Emotions Accelerating Users Activity in BBC Forum. Cornell University Library E-Prints. 2010. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5459v1. (accessed 15/12/16).
41. BAT v Department of Health 2016 EWHC 1169.
42. Australian Government Department of Health. Post-Implementation Review: Tobacco Plain Packaging: 2016. Office of Best Practice Regulations.
43. Joossens L, Merriman D, Ross H, Raw M. The impact of eliminating the global illicit cigarette trade on health and revenue. Addiction. 2010; 105(9): 1640-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03018.x.
44. Bouchard M, Tremblay P. Risks of arrest across drug markets: A capture-recapture analysis of “hidden” dealer and user populations. Journal of Drug Issues. 2005; 35(4): 733-54.
45. Reuter P, Majmundar M. Understanding the U.S. Illicit Tobacco Market: Characteristics, Policy Context, and Lessons from International Experiences. 2015. Chapter: 4 Measuring the Size of the Illicit Tobacco Market. The National Academies Press, Washington.
46. Canadian Cancer Society. Plain Packaging – An International Overview A summary of developments around the world. 2015. Available at: http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_960.pdf (accessed 22/04/16).
eISSN:2459-3087