Cross-sectional relations between slim cigarettes and smoking prevalence

Transcription

1 Cross-sectional relations between slim cigarettes and smoking prevalence Adam Slater Oxford Economics Ltd, Abbey House, 121 St Aldates, Oxford, OX1 1HB, UK David Ghosh Philip Morris International, Rhodanie Campus, Avenue de Rhodanie 50, 1001 Lausanne, Switzerland 1

2 Definition of slim cigarettes Slim Standard Cigarette Diameter: 6.04 mm Cigarette Diameter: 7.95 mm Draft EU TPD Cigarettes with a diameter of less than 7.5 mm shall be deemed to be misleading. 2

3 Slim a cigarette overview 2014 Market Share of slim cigarettes Source: PMI estimates based on AC Nielsen and in-market sales. a Includes slims, extra slims, super slims and micro slims. Source: PMI estimates based on AC Nielsen and in-market sales. 3

4 Regulatory Status of Slim Cigarettes No country has banned slim cigarettes. In 2012 a slim cigarette ban was considered in the EU. After considerable debate among legislators and EU Member States the ban on slim cigarettes was ultimately excluded from the final version of the EU TPD. The COP6 mandated the WHO to prepare a report based on scientific evidence on specific cigarette characteristics of interest, including slim/super slim designs... for the working group of articles 9&10. Based on this report, the working group for article 9&10 may develop draft guidelines. 4

5 Allegations against slim cigarettes: Anti Tobacco Organizations allege that slim cigarettes: are more attractive. The slims and super slims were consistently rated as most attractive. a are deceptive and mislead consumers into believing that slims are less harmful. Overall, the three slimmer cigarettes were rated weakest and least harmful because of their small diameter. The general view was that because they contain less tobacco, they must, therefore, be less harmful. a target female consumers. Connotations created by white, slim cigarette sticks help young women deal with the negative stereotypes of smokers. b Source: a Adolescent perceptions of cigarette appearance, Allison Ford, Crawford Moodie, Anne M. MacKintosh, Gerard Hastings, European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 24, No. 3, , b How do young adult women smokers perceive dissuasive cigarette sticks?, Janet Hoek, Cherie Robertson, David Hammond and Lisa McNeill, Poster Presentation at the ASPIRE2025 research at the 2012 World Conference on Tobacco or Health, Singapore,

6 Cross-sectional relations between slim cigarettes and smoking prevalence * Adam Slater, Jonathan Buss Oxford Economics Ltd, Abbey House, 121 St Aldates, Oxford, OX1 1HB, UK This study has been commissioned and funded by Philip Morris International. * Manuscript submitted to Nicotine and Tobacco Research Journal

7 Study concept Cross-country and multi year assessment of the relationship between the preference for slim cigarettes (market share) and smoking prevalence. Data set: Smoking prevalence a (overall, male, female) from Ng et al. Slim cigarettes market share b 2012 (95 countries); 2006 (75 countries); 1996 (28 countries) Assessment of 1. Simple correlations: slim cigarettes market share & smoking prevalence. Source: 2. Multivariate regression: additionally considering regional and cultural variables. 3. Multivariate regression: additionally considering socio-economic variables. a Smoking prevalence data source: Ng, M. et al. Smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption in 187 countries, , Journal of the American Medical Association 311(2), 2014, b Slim cigarette market share data Source: PMI estimates based on AC Nielsen and in-market sales. Includes slims, extra slims, super slims and micro slims.

8 2012 slim cigarette market share vs. overall smoking prevalence Source: Smoking prevalence data source: Ng, M. et al. Smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption in 187 countries, , Journal of the American Medical Association 311(2), 2014, Slim cigarette market share data Source: PMI estimates based on AC Nielsen and in-market sales

9 2012 Overall smoking prevalence statistical analysis Overall Regression Regression Regression (1) (2) (3) CONSTANT (23.10) *** (23.76) *** (-1.57) SLIM 0.19 (3.21) ** 0.01 (0.24) (0.08) Cent. CEE & East. Eur (3.87) *** 5.56 (3.36) ** Latin LATAM America (-3.81) *** 8.12 (-3.82) *** AFRICA (-6.29) *** 6.79 (-4.18) *** ASIA MUSLIM (-2.63) ** 3.39 (-2.48) * LOG(GDPCAP) (2.07) * LOG(GDPCAP) (-2.06) * R Observations Regression (1) univariate regression; Regression (2) includes also additionally regional & cultural dummies; Regression (3) includes also additionally socio-economic control variables. * Significance level at 10%; ** Significance level at 5%; *** Significance level at 1% + positive association; - negative association LOG(GDPCAP): natural log of real GDP per capita at purchasing power parity exchange rates LOG(GDPCAP) 2 : natural log of squared GDP per capita at purchasing power parity exchange rates Source: International Monetary Fund / Oxford Economics

10 2006 slim cigarette market share vs. overall smoking prevalence Source: Smoking prevalence data source: Ng, M. et al. Smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption in 187 countries, , Journal of the American Medical Association 311(2), 2014, Slim cigarette market share data Source: PMI estimates based on AC Nielsen and in-market sales

11 1996 slim cigarette market share vs. overall smoking prevalence Source: Smoking prevalence data source: Ng, M. et al. Smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption in 187 countries, , Journal of the American Medical Association 311(2), 2014, Slim cigarette market share data Source: PMI estimates based on AC Nielsen and in-market sales

12 Summary of statistical results Year 2012 Analysis Overall Male Female Sign Sig. Sign Sig. Sign Sig. Regression (1) + ** + *** - Regression (2) + + ** - Regression (3) Regression (1) + + *** Regression (2) Regression (3) Regression (1) Regression (2) Regression (3) NA NA + NA NA Results for statistical association between slim cigarette market share and smoking prevalence. Regression (1) univariate regression; Regression (2) includes also additionally regional & cultural dummies; Regression (3) includes also additionally socio-economic control variables. * Significance level at 10%; ** Significance level at 5%; *** Significance level at 1% + positive association; - negative association

13 Conclusion In conclusion, this study shows that once potential confounding factors are controlled for, there is no indication that the preference for slim cigarettes (measured as the market share of slim cigarettes) is associated with smoking prevalence across countries. This was the case both for overall smoking prevalence and for male and female prevalence considered separately. * The cross-country variation in smoking prevalence can instead be explained by regional and cultural factors, as well as socio-economic variables such as income. * *Manuscript submitted to Nicotine and Tobacco Research Journal Cross sectional relations between slim cigarettes and smoking prevalence by Adam Slator and Jonathan Buss.

14 Implications Our results suggest that policy measures aimed at restricting slim cigarette sales are unlikely to have an effect on smoking prevalence rates. * *Manuscript submitted to Nicotine and Tobacco Research Journal Cross sectional relations between slim cigarettes and smoking prevalence by Adam Slator and Jonathan Buss.

15 Thank you. 15