Each of the alternative sources of data used to estimate tobacco consumption—production and trade data, tax receipts, sales data, self-reported use of cigarettes and self-reported expenditure on tobacco products—has advantages and disadvantages. And readers will have noted throughout this Chapter that each provides different estimates of total and per capita consumption at any one point in time. This section explores the strengths and limitations of the major data sources used in this Chapter, and compares per capita consumption estimates from various sources from the 1970 onwards.
2.6.1 Limitations of data
While quantifying the number of cigarettes produced in Australian factories or levied for duty prior to sale may seem like a straightforward, highly objective process, it must be remembered that data on manufacturing and duties is generated by individuals interpreting and reporting on data entered into electronic databases by other individuals. There is still room for error and inconsistency over time and between individuals in the way that products are coded and the ways that quantities are recorded and aggregated.
One can be reasonably confident about the accuracy of data provided by tobacco companies registered in Australia to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which was covered by an act of law1 requiring companies to comply with official requests. International research agencies compiling data on numbers of cigarettes produced or sold by contrast have no such legal sway over respondents, and no legislative requirement to disclose and correct errors if these emerge.
Production and trade data may be lower or higher from year to year not because retail sales have decreased, but rather because of changes in timing of production schedules, importing and exporting opportunities, and warehousing practices.2 Some commentators suspect that tobacco companies may even alter production schedules to reduce or increase measures of apparent consumption over particular periods to attempt to persuade governments that certain tobacco-control initiatives are ineffective.3,4
Data on weight of tobacco products manufactured or excised over the years provide only a rough estimate of the numbers of cigarettes consumed, given that the weight of tobacco in manufactured cigarettes in sold in Australia declined in the 1980s and 1990s (see Chapter 13, Section 13.6.3), with little information available about the average weight of a cigarette in each year. Estimates of cigarette imports to and exports from Australia based on weight may somewhat underestimate the actual numbers of cigarettes being imported and exported if these are based on international rather than Australian averages of cigarette weight which are known to be substantially lower. Similarly, the amount of tobacco used in roll-your-own (RYO) cigarettes is variable, but has declined on average,5 meaning that converting the weight of smoking tobacco manufactured or imported into cigarette equivalents may produce inconsistent estimates over time. Patterns of use of cigarettes and RYO tobacco among people who smoke have also changed over time, with exclusive use of RYO tobacco increasing in the Australian population in the 2010s6 (see also Chapter 1, Section 1.12). Consumption estimates that include only manufactured cigarettes will underestimate consumption by an increasing magnitude over time.
It is also important to remember that the quantities of tobacco products on which duties are levied and the quantities of tobacco products sold by licensed tobacco companies and wholesalers underestimate consumption to the extent that they miss illegally sold tobacco and cigarettes.
Self-reports of amounts of tobacco consumed in surveys of people who smoke are subject to variability and responder bias. Self-reported estimates of consumption are likely underestimates because:
- Questions concerning daily (or weekly or monthly) consumption by people who smoke in Australia have generally asked people who smoke for their estimates of numbers smoked in recent periods of time; however it is known that retrospective reports generate significantly lower estimates than do reports generated when people are required to keep electronic or paper-based diaries.7,8
- Estimates of amounts consumed may be more likely to be rounded down rather than rounded up (for instance, rounding down to ten per day, even if consumption is actually closer to 15).
- Even large representative population surveys usually do not sample people living in very remote communities, institutions, or people experiencing homelessness—all groups with higher rates of tobacco use.
- May not capture behaviours such as stubbing out cigarettes early, and/or relighting cigarettes, behaviours more common in some population groups.9
However, estimates of consumption based on self-reported survey data may be more reliable and comprehensive than other sources in several ways:
- Some of the disparity between the figures based on official records and self-report data may also be accounted for by stock that is past the use-by date or damaged and returned not sold, meaning that official statistics on imports or duties include more tobacco that is actually consumed. There may also be a considerable lag between date of import or excise paid on tobacco products and the date it is actually consumed.
- Estimates of tobacco sales and consumption based on excise and customs receipts do not include products on which such duties have been evaded. Use of illicit tobacco is inherently captured in self-report measures of total tobacco consumption.
- Self-report data is also the only way to examine different patterns of consumption among different population groups, such as by social disadvantage or geographic area,10 to better understand policy impacts and priority areas.
It is clear that people who smoke do underestimate the amount they smoke each day or week.11-14 There is no good evidence, that the tendency or extent of under-reporting has changed over time, though it is possible that people are more accurate in reporting smaller than larger numbers of cigarettes smoked.
Industry sales data found periodically on the websites of tobacco companies or published in trade magazines should also be interpreted with caution. Methods of collecting the data and sources are often not reported and may be inconsistent between reports. Sometimes such data are based on raw figures; sometimes they represent 12-month running averages. Often the basis for estimates is not reported. For instance, these reports rarely explain how cigarette numbers were estimated from data based on weight, and vice versa. Figures are often revised without explanation, and without corresponding revision of historical figures included in data tables.
Nicotine consumption in a population can be monitored through analysis of biomarkers in wastewater. The concentration of drug metabolites, such as nicotine (cotinine and hydroxycotinine), are measured in samples taken from wastewater treatment plant sites. Detection of tobacco-specific nicotine metabolites (anabasine) in wastewater samples is possible, and may indicate changes in use of tobacco relative to other nicotine-containing products.15,16 Comparison of tobacco-specific metabolites to tobacco sales data may also indicate the extent of illicit tobacco use.17
Table 2.6.1 attempts to compare and contrast the various limitations associated with each source of data relevant for estimating tobacco consumption in Australia. All the limitations described above warn against unqualified acceptance of any one figure as a definitive estimate of consumption in Australia. Interpreting changes over time and comparisons between countries is especially fraught. A US study examining the level of agreement between self-reported and sales data recommended that studies examining the impact of tobacco control policies use both supply-side (e.g. imports, sales data) and demand-side (e.g. self-reported use) to effectively monitor changes in tobacco consumption.18
Frustration about lack of reliable data on tobacco consumption has led researchers and policy experts since the early 2000s to call for the government to require tobacco companies to report on sales using their own records of stock supplied to and returned from wholesalers and retailers.19-21 The availability of timely data on the types, quantities, prices, and geographic location of tobacco sales would enable health authorities to evaluate the effectiveness of tobacco control strategies in each jurisdiction and among priority population groups. Such reporting of sales is required in other counties, such as under the Smokefree Environments Act 1990 in New Zealand22 and the Tobacco Reporting Regulations in Canada.23 Reporting of tobacco sales data to the Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing is now required under the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023.24
2.6.2 Consistency of downward trends across various datasets
Figure 2.6.1 sets out per capita estimates based on all the various sources of data that provide insights into tobacco consumption in Australia from 1970 to 2024. This includes the weight of tobacco manufactured in Australia, adjusted for imports and exports, from Section 2.1, the total weight of tobacco, and then number of cigarettes and RYO equivalents, on which duties were levied from Section 2.2, self-reported number of cigarettes consumed annually from Section 2.3, private household consumption on cigarettes and tobacco from Section 2.4, and the weight and volume of cigarettes sold in Australia from industry reports in Section 2.5.
Refer to references for each series from the following Sections:
Per capita cigarette production and importation (number of cigarettes): See Box 2.1.1 in Section 2.1.
Grams per capita of tobacco imported, less exports, in Australia, from UN Comtrade database: See Figure 2.1.3 in Section 2.1.
Grams per capita of tobacco products dutied: See Table 2.2.4 and Boxes 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 in Section 2.2.
Estimated grams per capita of loose tobacco and cigarettes: Based on Table 2.2.5b in Section 2.2, estimated assuming 0.7 grams per cigarette.
Per capita annual cigarette consumption based on self-reported smoking among Australians aged 14+ years: Based on calculations for Table 2.2.6 in Section 2.2 using National Drug Strategy Household Survey data, including both manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes. Most recent data point is for 2022-23.
Private household consumption of tobacco, ABS Chain volume (seasonally adjusted) per capita, $: See Figure 2.4.1 in Section 2.4.
Industry reports of number of cigarettes sold, as reported by Euromonitor: Euromonitor International. Tobacco in Australia, Global Market Information Database, 2011. London: Euromonitor International, 2012. Available from: http://www.euromonitor.com.
Grams per capita of manufactured cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco sold each year in Australia from industry reports: See Figure 2.5.1 in Section 2.5.
Although the various estimates of consumption shown in Figure 2.6.1 are calculated from very different data sources so that no series can be seen as a continuation of another, the overall trends—the steepness of decline in particular periods—are highly consistent.
While we might not be able to say exactly what current tobacco consumption actually is at any point in time in Australia, from the similarity of the pattern of reductions in all the data sources, we can be certain that it has been reducing for many decades and has continued to decline into the 2020s.
2.6.2.1 Consistency of changes in consumption and the prevalence of smoking
Trends in long-running estimates of per capita consumption of tobacco products seemed to closely mirror trends in population smoking prevalence. Figure 2.6.2 plots per capita consumption against smoking prevalence between 1980 and 2024.
Until 1991, household consumption of tobacco products and population smoking prevalence showed a highly consistent rate of change. Between 1991 and the early 2000s (a period of rapid adoption of smokefree policies) consumption appears to have fallen more steeply than prevalence. This is consistent with reviews that demonstrated a reduction in cigarettes per day among people who smoke who are subjected to workplace smoke-free laws.25-28 Since approximately 2004, consumption and prevalence appear once again to be falling in parallel. Sales appear to be falling faster than prevalence in recent years, with increasing use of illicit tobacco likely contributing to this pattern. Periods of change in tobacco consumption, and the driving factors behind this change, is discussed further in Section 2.7.
Relevant news and research
A comprehensive compilation of news items and research published on this topic
Read more on this topic
Test your knowledge
References
1. Census and Statistics Act. 1905 ( Cth); Available from: http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/casa1905241/.
2. Sheikh ZD, Branston JR, and Gilmore AB. Tobacco industry pricing strategies in response to excise tax policies: a systematic review. Tobacco Control, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34373285
3. Guindon G and Boisclair D. Past, Current and Future Trends in Tobacco Use. New York: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2003. Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/HEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/Resources/281627-1095698140167/Guindon-PastCurrent-whole.pdf.
4. Ross H, Tesche J, and Vellios N. Undermining government tax policies: Common legal strategies employed by the tobacco industry in response to tobacco tax increases. Prev Med, 2017. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28625418
5. Branston JR, McNeill A, Gilmore AB, Hiscock R, and Partos TR. Keeping smoking affordable in higher tax environments via smoking thinner roll-your-own cigarettes: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey 2006-15. Drug Alcohol Depend, 2018; 193:110-6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30352334
6. Bayly M, Scollo MM, and Wakefield MA. Who uses rollies? Trends in product offerings, price and use of roll-your-own tobacco in Australia. Tobacco Control, 2019; 28:317-24. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30030409
7. Shiffman S. How many cigarettes did you smoke? Assessing cigarette consumption by global report, Time-Line Follow-Back, and ecological momentary assessment. Health Psychology, 2009; 28(5):519–26. Available from: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2009-14439-001&CFID=25424632&CFTOKEN=11215373
8. Pierce J. Electronic recording, self-report, and bias in measuring cigarette consumption. Health Psychology, 2009; 28(5):527–8. Available from: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2009-14439-002&CFID=25424632&CFTOKEN=11215373
9. Young WJ, Kennedy M, Wackowski OA, Mitarotondo A, Assan MA, et al. Measurement of cigarette relighting: A common but understudied behavior. Drug Alcohol Depend, 2024; 257:111257. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38493565
10. Jackson SE, Brown J, Buss V, and Cox S. Sociodemographic and Regional Differences in Cigarette Consumption Across Great Britain: A Population Study, 2022-2024. Nicotine Tob Res, 2025. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40675180
11. Warner K. Possible increase in the underreporting of cigarette consumption. Journal of the American Statistics Association, 1978; 73(362):314-18.
12. Liber AC and Warner KE. Has Underreporting of Cigarette Consumption Changed Over Time? Estimates Derived From US National Health Surveillance Systems Between 1965 and 2015. Am J Epidemiol, 2017; 187(1):113-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx196
13. Gallus S, Tramacere I, Boffetta P, Fernandez E, Rossi S, et al. Temporal changes of under-reporting of cigarette consumption in population-based studies. Medical Journal of Australia,, 2011; 20(1):34-9. Available from: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/20/1/34.full.pdf
14. Shiffman S. How many cigarettes did you smoke? Assessing cigarette consumption by global report, time-line follow-back, and ecological momentary assessment. Health Psychology, 2009; 28(5):519-26.
15. Lee HS, Chun MR, and Lee SY. Simultaneous Measurement and Distribution Analysis of Urinary Nicotine, Cotinine, Trans-3'-Hydroxycotinine, Nornicotine, Anabasine, and Total Nicotine Equivalents in a Large Korean Population. Molecules, 2023; 28(23). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38067415
16. Zheng Q, Gerber C, Steadman KJ, Lin CY, Tscharke BJ, et al. Improving Wastewater-Based Tobacco Use Estimates Using Anabasine. Environ Sci Technol, 2023; 57(21):7958-65. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37192131
17. Wang Z, Zheng Q, O'Brien JW, Tscharke BJ, Chan G, et al. Analysis of wastewater from 2013 to 2021 detected a recent increase in nicotine use in Queensland, Australia. Water Res, 2023; 250:121040. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38154341
18. Kim H, Nam HK, and Kang H. Tobacco consumption, sales, and output as monitoring indicators in the era of the tobacco endgame. Epidemiol Health, 2023:e2023030. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36915272
19. VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control. Tobacco Control: A Blue Chip Investment in Public Health. Melbourne: The Cancer Council Victoria, 2003. Last update: Viewed Available from: http://www.vctc.org.au.
20. Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy. Meeting the challenges of the next five years - 7: Ideas and resources for improving information to fine-tune policy. National Tobacco Strategy, supporting documents, Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2005.
21. Gartner C, Chapman S, Hall W, and Wakefield M. Why we need tobacco sales data for good tobacco control. Medical Journal of Australia, , 2010; 192(1):3-4. Available from: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/192_01_040110/gar11174_fm.html
22. Smoke-free Environment's Act, 1990: New Zealand. Available from: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0108/51.0/DLM223191.html.
23. Tobacco Reporting Regulations, 2000, Canada. Available from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2000-273/.
24. Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023. 2025 [cited C2025C00142 (C02); Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2023A00118/latest/text.
25. Brownson RC, Hopkins DP, and Wakefield MA. Effects of smoking restrictions in the workplace. Annual Review of Public Health, 2002; 23:333–48. Available from: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140551?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dncbi.nlm.nih.gov
26. Chapman S, Borland R, Scollo M, Brownson RC, Dominello A, et al. The impact of smoke-free workplaces on declining cigarette consumption in Australia and the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 1999; 89(7):1018–23. Available from: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/89/7/1018
27. Fichtenberg C and Glantz S. Effect of smokefree workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 2002; 325(7357):188. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7357/188?view=long&pmid=12142305
28. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Evaluating the effectiveness of smoke-free policies. Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, Tobacco Control, vol. 13 Lyon, France: IARC, 2009. Available from: https://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/prev/handbook13/handbook13.pdf.