Analyzing arguments on tobacco tax increases. Focus on French parliamentary questions and responses, 2000–2020

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Tax increases are the most effective but still the least-used tobacco control measure. The tobacco industry (TI) employs lobbying strategies to oppose the implementation of tax policies on its products. Over the past two decades, French tobacco tax policies have been characterized by a relative inconsistency. This research aims to understand why, by analyzing the arguments of French policymakers (MPs and government) between 2000 and 2020 in favor or against tax increases. METHODS To capture parliamentary debates, we performed an advanced term search on the French National Assembly website, using the keyword ‘tobacco’. The search returned 5126 available documents out of which 1106 (12.6%, 645 questions, 461 responses) covered price and taxation and were included. They were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis (NVivo) and were compared, when relevant, to arguments raised in the international literature on TI lobbying against taxation increases. RESULTS We found 3176 arguments on tobacco taxation: 77.2% were against tobacco tax increases and 22.7% were in favor of tax policies. Arguments varied depending on the source: 92.4% of MPs’ arguments were against tax increases, while 52.1% of arguments from government responses were in favor. The anti-tax arguments were similar to those identified in the international literature that singled out negative economic and social consequences (illicit trade, penalizing tobacconists). Other arguments that were more specific to the French context, highlighted the key economic and social role played by tobacconists in France. Pro-tax arguments highlighted the health, economic and social benefits of tax policies. CONCLUSIONS This is the first French tobacco research on parliamentary documents, although Parliament is a place of direct TI lobbying. It will enable public health actors to better understand the arguments used by the TI in order to counter them in front of MPs, and to better monitor debates in Parliament.