Should cigarette pack sizes be capped?
Cigarette pack size
choice architecture
policy
portion size
public health
tobacco control
Journal
Addiction (Abingdon, England)
ISSN: 1360-0443
Titre abrégé: Addiction
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9304118
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
received:
29
03
2019
revised:
14
05
2019
accepted:
30
07
2019
pubmed:
4
8
2019
medline:
9
3
2021
entrez:
4
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Very few countries regulate maximum cigarette pack size. Larger, non-standard sizes are increasingly being introduced by the tobacco industry. Larger portion sizes increase food consumption; larger cigarette packs may similarly increase tobacco consumption. Here we consider the evidence for legislation to cap cigarette pack size to reduce tobacco-related harm. We first describe the regulations regarding minimum and maximum pack sizes in the 12 countries that have adopted plain packaging legislation and describe the range of sizes available. We then discuss evidence for two key assumptions that would support capping pack size. First, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between pack size and tobacco consumption, observational evidence suggests that people smoke fewer cigarettes when using smaller packs. Secondly, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between reducing consumption and successful cessation, reductions in number of cigarettes smoked per day are associated with increased cessation attempts and subsequent abstinence. However, more experimental evidence is needed to infer the causal nature of these associations among general populations of smokers. Cigarette pack size is positively associated with consumption and consumption is negatively associated with cessation. Based on limited evidence of the causal nature of these associations, we hypothesize that government regulations to cap cigarette pack sizes would positively contribute to reducing smoking prevalence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Very few countries regulate maximum cigarette pack size. Larger, non-standard sizes are increasingly being introduced by the tobacco industry. Larger portion sizes increase food consumption; larger cigarette packs may similarly increase tobacco consumption. Here we consider the evidence for legislation to cap cigarette pack size to reduce tobacco-related harm.
AIMS AND ANALYSIS
We first describe the regulations regarding minimum and maximum pack sizes in the 12 countries that have adopted plain packaging legislation and describe the range of sizes available. We then discuss evidence for two key assumptions that would support capping pack size. First, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between pack size and tobacco consumption, observational evidence suggests that people smoke fewer cigarettes when using smaller packs. Secondly, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between reducing consumption and successful cessation, reductions in number of cigarettes smoked per day are associated with increased cessation attempts and subsequent abstinence. However, more experimental evidence is needed to infer the causal nature of these associations among general populations of smokers.
CONCLUSION
Cigarette pack size is positively associated with consumption and consumption is negatively associated with cessation. Based on limited evidence of the causal nature of these associations, we hypothesize that government regulations to cap cigarette pack sizes would positively contribute to reducing smoking prevalence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31376200
doi: 10.1111/add.14770
pmc: PMC7187431
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
802-809Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 206853/Z/17/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.
Références
Med Care. 2009 Jan;47(1):115-20
pubmed: 19106739
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 14;(9):CD011045
pubmed: 26368271
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Oct;43(5):1483-6
pubmed: 25125581
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:CD008033
pubmed: 23152252
Tob Control. 2006 Dec;15(6):472-80
pubmed: 17130377
Tob Control. 2019 Sep;28(5):485-492
pubmed: 30068563
COPD. 2009 Aug;6(4):277-83
pubmed: 19811387
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018 Sep/Oct;24(5):448-457
pubmed: 29346189
Nicotine Tob Res. 2003 Feb;5(1):13-25
pubmed: 12745503
BMC Med. 2015 Oct 12;13:257
pubmed: 26456865
Tob Control. 2018 May 31;:
pubmed: 29853560
Addict Behav. 2011 Jul;36(7):764-8
pubmed: 21420791
Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Apr 17;21(5):648-654
pubmed: 29579250
Health Rep. 2009 Sep;20(3):31-9
pubmed: 19813437
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2004 Jul-Aug;10(4):338-53
pubmed: 15235381
Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 Jan;18(1):88-92
pubmed: 25744970
Am J Public Health. 1986 Nov;76(11):1337-8
pubmed: 3766833
Lancet Psychiatry. 2016 Jul;3(7):646-59
pubmed: 27289303
Nicotine Tob Res. 2012 May;14(5):531-9
pubmed: 22311963
Nicotine Tob Res. 2007 Jun;9(6):631-46
pubmed: 17558820
Health Psychol. 2003 May;22(3):245-52
pubmed: 12790251
Psychol Addict Behav. 2018 Mar;32(2):249-254
pubmed: 29369671
Psychol Addict Behav. 2005 Jun;19(2):221-5
pubmed: 16011395
Addiction. 2011 Dec;106(12):2110-21
pubmed: 21752135
BMJ. 2015 Dec 02;351:h5863
pubmed: 26630968
Med J Aust. 1998 Mar 2;168(5):209-13
pubmed: 9539898
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 10;10(9):e0137520
pubmed: 26356844
Tob Control. 2018 Jul;27(e1):e85-e92
pubmed: 29321273
Nicotine Tob Res. 2010 Oct;12 Suppl:S45-50
pubmed: 20889480
BMJ. 2018 Jan 24;360:j5855
pubmed: 29367388
Addict Behav. 2014 Sep;39(9):1318-24
pubmed: 24837754
Addiction. 2020 May;115(5):802-809
pubmed: 31376200
Am J Epidemiol. 2013 Sep 1;178(5):770-9
pubmed: 23825165
Tob Control. 2015 Mar;24(e1):e116-22
pubmed: 24789601
Tob Control. 2018 Sep;27(5):580-584
pubmed: 28993520
Addict Behav. 2009 Apr;34(4):365-73
pubmed: 19097706
Ann Intern Med. 2016 May 3;164(9):585-92
pubmed: 26975007