How does the tobacco industry get ingested in government attempts to prevent smokers from smoking?



[ad_1]

IIt is thought that two out of three smokers want to give up their deadly habit, and with good reason – it is thought that the same proportion of them die prematurely because of smoking. Around the world, this habit kills more than 6 million people a year.

Still, it is notoriously difficult to stop smoking. Smoking tobacco is a habit of addiction that the Royal College of Physicians of the United Kingdom has compared to heroin addiction and cocaine.

But that does not mean we can not do anything. Evidence suggests that increasing tobacco taxes is the most effective way to reduce tobacco use. These taxes, recommended by the World Health Organization and the World Bank, increase the price of tobacco products in stores, reducing their price – a situation that encourages smokers to quit and discourages others from starting.

Taxation is particularly important because low-income smokers are less likely to respond to many other anti-smoking campaigns and regulations designed to encourage quitting. Yet these smokers, including many young people, are the most sensitive to rising prices.

If addiction alone is not enough, another challenge is that tobacco companies simply do not want smokers to stop smoking. They do not want to lose their customers and the substantial profits they provide.

It is therefore not surprising that the tobacco industry has a well-established reputation for lowering regulations to control the use and sale of tobacco in the interest of public health. For example, the largest tobacco companies continued to sell cigarettes to children around the world, although they claimed not to, and often in places where advertising is prohibited. In the UK, where tobacco advertising is banned, Philip Morris International has effectively circumvented the ban by launching its recently launched 'Stop Smoking' campaign, which continues to promote its tobacco products.

Pay a heavy price

Many of these tactics are obvious, but some are more difficult to detect. Our latest research reveals another: the tobacco industry's pricing tactic in the UK minimizes the expected public health impact of tobacco tax increases.

Tobacco companies offer a cheaper range of products to help people stay smokers (and encourage new consumers to start) while offering a range of more expensive brands to really help those who can not or will not quit smoking .

When tobacco taxes are increased, they play with their prices to mitigate the effects of tax increases on smoking. They absorb tax increases, especially on the cheapest brands, by delaying and stopping planned price increases. In this way, price increases are gradually applied to their brand portfolio to prevent smokers from facing a sudden rise in prices causing cessation when the government raises taxes.

Further tactics adopted by the industry include shrinkflation – cutting the number of cigarettes in a pack to disguise price rises and prevent the cost of a packet of tobacco being tipped over certain psychological levels.

Reducing the number of cigarettes in a pack from 20 to 19, 18 or even 17, while keeping the price stable means the higher cost per cigarette isn’t immediately obvious to most smokers – and the producer can make greater profits.

The industry also used price marked packaging to limit the ability of retailers to increase their small markup on tobacco sales as a further way of keeping tobacco cheap. Sales of 10-cigarette packs increased and very small packs of loose tobacco (10g or less) were introduced. These small packets appeal to the most price sensitive smokers as they cost less to buy.

Such tactics and small packs have recently been banned in the UK with the introduction of standardised packaging (where tobacco has to be sold in a standardised format with drab packaging) but are still available elsewhere. The UK has also introduced a new minimum excise tax which puts the average price at over £10 for a packet of 20 cigarettes stopping the sale of ultra-cheap mainstream tobacco products.

Ultimately the tobacco industry wouldn’t be manipulating price if it wasn’t so effective in ensuring young people take up smoking and in preventing existing smokers from quitting. So what more can we do?

Stubbing it out

Further restricting industry use of pricing tactics would be a good option. Companies could be limited in the number of brands and brands variants they sell to cut down on the range of prices on offer, and in the number of times they can change prices in order to remove their ability to smooth prices and directly undermine the public health benefits of tax increases.

There is even a case for directly regulating tobacco prices in the same way that prices for public utility services, such as water and electricity are often determined by independent government agencies. Public utilities are important services, which is why the government looks to protect the public from company pricing choices – but then tobacco is a very addictive and deadly product where price matters too.


Soutenez le journalisme libre-pensée et abonnez-vous à Independent Minds

Meanwhile, Bloomberg Philanthropies recently announced a $20m (£16m) investment to create Stop (Stopping Tobacco Organisations and Products) – a global tobacco industry watchdog to help expose more of these practices. The Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath is one of three partners funded to lead this initiative.

The public can cannot afford to let the industry operate under the radar when the product they make kills two out of three long term users. This new partnership will serve as a necessary watchdog to expose their deadly tactics.

Anna Gilmore is a professor of public health and director of the Tobacco Control Research Group, J Robert Branston is a senior lecturer in business economics and Rosemary Hiscock is a research associate at the University of Bath. This article first appeared on The Conversation (theconversation.com)

[ad_2]
Source link