Skip to content

Should cigarette pack sizes be capped?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages8
DateAccepted/In press - 30 Jul 2019
DatePublished (current) - 30 Aug 2019


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.

    Research areas

  • cigarette pack size, choice architecture, policy, portion size, public health, tobacco control

    Structured keywords

  • Brain and Behaviour
  • Tobacco and Alcohol
  • Physical and Mental Health

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Wiley at . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 239 KB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups