Cigarette price, affordability and smoking prevalence in the European Union Ilze Bogdanovica, Rachael Murray, Ann McNeill & John Britton UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, University of Nottingham, Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, Nottingham, UK ABSTRACT Aims To describe current and recent changes in cigarette affordability across the current 27 European Union (EU) Member States, and to assess the impact of these changes on smoking prevalence in countries that were EU members in 2004 (old Member States) compared to countries that have joined since 2004 (new Member States). Design Investigation of cigarette affordability using the minutes of labour measure, and comparisons of changes in affordability, tax and smoking prevalence in old and new EU Member States. Participants Current 27 EU Member States. Settings European Union. Measurements Cigarette prices, overall tax yield and incidence, hourly wages and smoking prevalence in the EU were obtained from published sources, and the affordability of the EU Most Popular Price Category (MPPC) cigarettes estimated as the number of minutes of labour required to earn the price of 20 cigarettes in the years 2003, 2006 and 2009. Findings The mean [standard deviation (SD)] number of minutes of labour required to purchase 20 MPPC cigarettes in EU Member States in 2009 was 31.3 (SD 10.7), but ranged fourfold across the EU, and was significantly higher in new than old Member States. The number of minutes of labour measure increased more, although not significantly so, between 2003 and 2009 in new [mean (SD) 12.1 (10.9)] than in old [6.7 (4.0)] Member States, largely because of proportionately higher increases in taxation. However, there was no correlation between change in affordability and change in smoking prevalence in recent years. Conclusions Cigarette affordabil- ity varies substantially and cigarettes are generally becoming less affordable in European Union Member States. However, these reductions in affordability do not appear to have impacted substantially on smoking prevalence in recent years. Keywords Cigarette affordability, European Union, income, prices, smoking prevalence, taxation. Correspondence to: Ilze Bogdanovica, UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, University of Nottingham, Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Building, City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK. E-mail: mcxib3@nottingham.ac.uk Submitted 14 March 2011; initial review completed 10 May 2011; final version accepted 13 July 2011 INTRODUCTION Tobacco taxation is a key component of tobacco control policy [1,2]. In the short term, using tax to increase ciga- rette prices by 10% reduces consumption by up to 6.5% [3,4] and smoking prevalence by up to 4% [5,6], indepen- dent of absolute price levels [7]. However, over the longer term these effects can be offset partially or completely by changes in income and hence affordability [1]. When assessing the extent to which different countries utilize price as a tobacco control measure it is therefore impor- tant to measure levels and trends in cigarette affordability as well as absolute price. Cigarette affordability is gener- ally measured by expressing prices in relation to mea- sures of national income such as per capita gross domestic product (GDP) [7–9]; or to individual income, as the number of minutes of work required to earn the cost of a pack of 20 cigarettes [8–10]; or in relation to the local cost of other consumer goods, for example the local cost of a MacDonald’s Big Mac [11,12]. Although cigarette prices in the European Union (EU) are subject to minimum levels of excise duty, the amounts of specific and ad valorem tax levied, and hence the retail price of cigarettes, vary substantially between EU Member States [13–15]. Previous comparisons of ciga- rette prices between EU Member States have adjusted for national income [13,14] or the purchasing power of cur- rencies [15], but changes in price, tax and affordability over time, and hence the extent to which cigarette afford- ability is being used as a tobacco control measure have not been compared comprehensively. It is also not clear whether the adoption of EU tax policy has had an impact RESEARCH REPORT doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03588.x © 2011 The Authors, Addiction © 2011 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction, 107, 188–196