Scotland's policy on minimum unit pricing for alcohol: the legal barriers are gone, so what are the implications for implementation and evaluation?

Anticipated responses to a hypothetical minimum price for cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco: an online cross-sectional survey with cigarette smokers and ex-smokers in the UK

OBJECTIVES

As tobacco companies can circumvent tax increases, a minimum retail price per-cigarette/per-gram of roll-your-own tobacco presents an additional mechanism for governments to reduce smoking. We examined (1) anticipated responses to a hypothetical minimum price-per-cigarette/per-gram among smokers in the UK; (2) what demographic and smoker characteristics are associated with anticipated responses; and (3) whether minimum pricing may help ex-smokers stay quit.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey (May-July 2019).

SETTING

UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult cigarette smokers (n=2412) and ex-smokers (n=700).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Anticipated responses to a hypothetical minimum price of £10.00 for 20 cigarettes (£0.50 per-cigarette) and £13.50 for 30 grams of roll-your-own tobacco (£0.45 per-gram); approximately £0.10 per-cigarette/per-gram increases on the cheapest prices in leading UK supermarkets (January 2019). Smokers were presented with ten options (eg, 'Try to quit') and asked which they would do (Yes/No) and then which they would most likely do. Ex-smokers were asked to what extent the minimum prices would help them stay quit (A lot vs Lesser agreement).

RESULTS

Among smokers, 55.6% said they would most likely smoke the same amount, 10.7% they would smoke less, 9.5% they would try to quit and 5.8% they would use e-cigarettes more often. Anticipated reactions were associated with demography and smoker characteristics, for example, C2DE (lower social grade) smokers were less likely than ABC1 (higher social grade) smokers to say they would smoke the same as they do now (ORAdj=0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.88). Among ex-smokers, 38.5% said the minimum prices would help them stay quit 'A lot', more so among C2DE than ABC1 participants (ORAdj=1.80, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.49).

CONCLUSIONS

In response to a hypothetical minimum price for cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco, approximately a fifth of smokers in the UK indicated they would smoke less or quit and almost two-fifths of ex-smokers indicated the prices would help them stay quit.

Heterogenous wealth effects of minimum unit price on purchase of alcohol: Evidence using scanner data

One of the key arguments given to oppose the "sin taxes" is that they are regressive in nature and place disproportionately higher cost on the poor thereby reducing their net wealth. The response to a reduction in net wealth attributed to tax can potentially have significant effects through an increase in alcohol purchase by heavy drinkers reinforcing or even offsetting the direct price or substitution effect of these taxes in reducing alcohol consumption. Comparatively little is known empirically about the net wealth effect associated with changes in alcohol tax policy, and this study aims to help fill this gap in the literature. In this study we aim to estimate how the wealth effects of introducing a minimum unit price (MUP) of A$2.00 per standard drink vary over the distribution (quantiles) of alcohol consumers. The data used in this study is a longitudinal panel of 1,395 households' daily alcohol purchases (scanner data) recorded over a full year. Our analysis involves (i) quantile regression to estimate income elasticity over the distribution of consumption, and (ii) using these elasticities to estimate the potential wealth effects of a hypothetical change in alcohol prices from introducing an MUP policy. We control for consumer demographic characteristics, alcohol product prices and prices of close substitutes, and quarterly seasonal effects. We find that the estimated wealth effect from increasing the price of alcohol under a MUP policy is not significant at any point over the distribution of alcohol consumers. The policy increases per capita tax impact by less than A$5.00 per week for light/moderate consumers (50th-80th quantile) and decreases their daily per capita alcohol consumption by less than 0.02 standard drinks. Wealth effects attributable to an MUP policy are likely to be negligible. Substitution effects of the policy dominate the wealth effects in generating key health related outcomes such as reductions in alcohol consumption.

Awareness of alcohol marketing, ownership of alcohol branded merchandise, and the association with alcohol consumption, higher-risk drinking, and drinking susceptibility in adolescents and young adults: a cross-sectional survey in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To explore awareness of alcohol marketing and ownership of alcohol branded merchandise in adolescents and young adults in the UK, what factors are associated with awareness and ownership, and what association awareness and ownership have with alcohol consumption, higher-risk drinking and susceptibility.

DESIGN

Online cross-sectional survey conducted during April-May 2017.

SETTING

The UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adolescents and young adults aged 11-19 years in the UK (n=3399).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) (0-12) and indication of higher-risk consumption (>5 AUDIT-C) in current drinkers. Susceptibility to drink (yes/no) in never drinkers.

RESULTS

Eighty-two per cent of respondents were aware of at least one form of alcohol marketing in the past month and 17% owned branded merchandise. χ2 tests found that awareness of marketing and ownership of branded merchandise varied within drinking variables. For example, higher awareness of alcohol marketing was associated with being a current drinker (χ2=114.04, p<0.001), higher-risk drinking (χ2=85.84, p<0.001), and perceived parental (χ2=63.06, p<0.001) and peer approval of consumption (χ2=73.08, p<0.001). Among current drinkers, multivariate regressions (controlling for demographics and covariates) found that marketing awareness and owning branded merchandise was positively associated with AUDIT-C score and higher-risk consumption. For example, current drinkers reporting medium marketing awareness were twice as likely to be higher-risk drinkers as those reporting low awareness (adjusted OR (AOR)=2.18, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.42, p<0.001). Among never drinkers, respondents who owned branded merchandise were twice as likely to be susceptible to drinking as those who did not (AOR=1.98, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.24, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Young people, above and below the legal purchasing age, are aware of a range of alcohol marketing and almost one in five own alcohol branded merchandise. In current drinkers, alcohol marketing awareness was associated with increased consumption and greater likelihood of higher-risk consumption. In never drinkers, ownership of branded merchandise was associated with susceptibility.