CONFERENCE PROCEEDING
Using discarded packs collection to estimate illicit cigarrette trade in Colombia
More details
Hide details
1
PROESA-Centro de Estudios en Protección Social y Economía de la Salud, Universidad Icesi, Cali, Colombia
2
Fundación Anaas, Bogotá, Colombia
3
Facultad de Economía, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia
4
Departamento de Salud Pública, Universidad Icesi, Cali, Colombia
5
Escuela de Negocios, Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, Santiago de Chile, Chile
Publication date: 2025-06-23
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2025;23(Suppl 1):A468
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Tobacco taxes in Colombia have remained essentially unchanged since 2017. However, relevant changes in the political context, such as deteriorating security conditions at the Venezuelan border, may influence the penetration of illicit trade. Using a littered-pack methodology applied for the first time in Colombia, this study estimates illicit trade in the five cities with the largest smoker populations (Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Cartagena, and Cúcuta).
METHODS: A weighted probabilistic sample survey with two-stage selection was employed. Using data from the 2019 National Survey of Psychoactive Substances and the 2018 National Household and Population Census, a logistic regression model estimated the smoking probabilities in each city. Census tracts were grouped into clusters based on smoker densities, and random starting points within the cluster were selected. Structured analyses identified attributes of cigarette packs, such as brands and countries of origin for licit and illicit cigarettes.
RESULTS: Illicit trade accounted for 16.9% of cigarette consumption in the five cities. Penetration varied significantly, ranging from 6.6% in Bogotá (the capital) to 73.7% in Cúcuta (a border city near Venezuela). Over half (53.7%) of the illicit packs lacked origin information. However, the dominance of the leading illicit brand, Rumba, suggests that many of these cigarettes originate from the USA. Results reveal that prior industry reports overestimated illicit trade by nearly 20 percentage points.
CONCLUSIONS: The increase in illicit trade penetration reflects a complex interplay of factors, including border vulnerabilities, humanitarian crises in neighbouring countries, and socio-political disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest. Contrary to industry claims, the difference between cities reflects that common factors, such as taxation, cannot explain the increase in illicit trade penetration. These findings underscore the need for regular, independent analyses to counteract regular industry reports that regularly overestimate illicit trade.