Fact sheets ? countering tobacco retailer* arguments

(* Tobacco retailer arguments mainly derive from ‘Stay Displays’ website)

Tobacco retailer argument: There are less restrictive and more effective ways of reducing smoking such as strict enforcement of minimum age laws which all responsible retailers promote and enforce.

• Community level youth access restrictions are insufficient to reduce youth uptake of smoking. 1, 2, 3 
• Many retailers are in breach of the current restrictions, in part because they are overly complex and hard to enforce. 
• In New Zealand, over 60 percent of retail stores do not comply with current retail display regulations Non-compliance has been shown to be higher in areas with a high population of children.1
• A complete ban is unambiguous, easy to comply with and is in line with other laws regarding tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
• Display bans have been shown to be practical in similar jurisdiction, including a number of Canadian provinces.4

Tobacco retailer argument: There is currently no reliable evidence showing a ban would be effective

• The evidence that tobacco displays influence purchases is clear and unambiguous. Studies show that tobacco displays are tobacco advertising which normalise tobacco use, and are targeting children, and quitting or ex-smokers. 5, 6, 7, 8 
• A survey done by the Cancer Council of Victoria showed that 60 percent of smokers found that displays influenced them to buy cigarettes when they wanted to quit.6
• Children and adolescents who visit stores with tobacco displays frequently or self report exposure to tobacco displays are more likely to experiment and start smoking.5, 9

Tobacco retailer argument: A ban on tobacco displays will mean that retailers spend their day bending down to get products from under the counter and continually lifting heavy shutters each time they sell one of these products.

• There are various options for setting up stores which protect children from exposure to tobacco advertising as well as staff from occupation injury. 
• Retail workers already move around to help customers, stacks shelves and move stock around. 
• There have been no reports of changes to occupational health of retailers since bans on retail displays have been introduced in other jurisdictions

Tobacco retailer argument: ‘The negative impact on retailers is disproportionate with the unproven levels of success. It is too early to say if it works, but early evidence (from other jurisdictions) suggests it does not.’

• The display bans in Canada’s Saskatchewan province were well accepted by the public, and ex-smokers reported that the ban helped them to stay smokefree. 10
• There were minimal economic costs to retailers and no evidence of adverse effects on small retailers. No shops were closed and no staff were laid off as a result of a display ban. 4 
• Other product manufacturers could be expected to take over from the tobacco industry in paying retailers for the premium advertising position behind the counter.

Tobacco retailer argument: ‘This is not a smoking issue. It is about our rights as retailers to maintain autonomy over our own businesses and how we run them’

• This IS a smoking issue. Tobacco is not a normal consumer product that is highly addictive and causes serious diseases. It kills 4,500 people in New Zealand every year. It makes no sense that a product responsible for so many deaths is promoted so widely in dairies and convenience stores everywhere. 
• The continued existence of retail marketing of tobacco products is out of step with public expectations and legislation which bans other types of tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
• Banning displays makes the regulations at point of sale easier to comply with and will most likely make this simpler for retailers.

Tobacco retailer argument: Restrictions would deprive customers of their basic right to information on products for sale, and the pricing of those products.

• A pricing and product list can still be made available.
• Smokers are extremely brand loyal consumers and will ask for their chosen brand.
• The only basic right to information that customers should not be deprived of is the harmful effect of tobacco products and passive smoking. Cigarettes should be treated according to the harm they cause, not as a normal consumer product to be browsed at leisure.

Tobacco retailer argument: Restrictions would deprive health authorities and retailers of the ability to inform customers of the health risks of tobacco products before they are purchased.

• Many if not most smokers will not be able to see the small text and pictures on the front of the packs, when they are displayed behind the counter.
• Not having them on display before purchase will only strengthen the impact, as smokers will not be able to choose their pack based on warnings they are least affected by. 
• Alongside a complete ban, a large graphic health-warning poster should be posted at the location where tobacco is sold. A Quitline telephone number should also be included on the posters, as per the package warnings.

Tobacco retailer argument: A ban might make tobacco products “forbidden fruit” in the eyes of some youth, making the ban counter-productive.

• Young people are more affected by what they can see than what they cannot. 
• Ready access to tobacco products can send young people mixed messages about smoking and help to sustain smoking habits. Removing it from sight will be an important part of showing young people that this is not a normal product.

Tobacco retailer argument: Retailers will incur significant costs changing their shop layouts and furniture their shop layout and furniture,

• Many tobacco displays already have shutters, and retailers already have experience keeping other products and stock under the counter. As there would not be a display, retailers would not need to have the same volumes of stock on the shop floor and not require huge cabinets to store tobacco products.

Tobacco retailer argument: ‘Retailers could incur … a higher risk of shoplifting. If we have to spend longer turning our backs on customers, we believe the shoplifting rate will increase’

• One of the main items stolen from small shops is tobacco. Reports of crime relating to the theft of tobacco from small retailers are mostly due to tobacco being on display and the store being broken into to steal cigarettes. Retailers already turn their back to retrieve cigarettes from displays behind the counter. If tobacco products are under the counter then retailers would not even be turning their backs, but reaching under the counter top.
• There have been no reported increases in thefts after the introduction of tobacco retail display bans in other jurisdictions.

Tobacco retailer argument: A ban would distort free competition because consumers could perceive bigger retail outlets have a wider range of products,

• Bigger retail outlets already have a bigger range and offer more competitive pricing. This is more to do with their purchasing power, and tobacco displays are completely irrelevant to this. The ban would apply to all retailers and would actually make the market place more even, as bigger retailers could not have bigger displays according to the number of cash registers they had. Cigarette purchases are often done on impulse or at short notice, and smokers will buy from their local store rather than travel a long distance to purchase from a larger outlet.
• Other consumer trends are far more significant in affecting small retailers. Tobacco has been a declining market for decades. Retailers have been diversifying their business for a number of years, knowing that products like tobacco are on their way out.

Tobacco retailer argument: A ban may lead to an increase in sales of illegal tobacco products

• New Zealand does not have a significant tobacco smuggling problem. Most tobacco is purchased legitimately from retailers. Evidences from other countries show no rise in illegal tobacco products due to a ban on tobacco retail displays.

Tobacco retailer argument: Pricing of tobacco products would be more likely to become a competitive marketing tool

• Under the current law it is illegal to promote tobacco products, including advertising prices as a market tool.

Tobacco Industry argument: Smoking is an adult choice

• Almost all smokers begin smoking as minors. The average age that smokers start in New Zealand is 14.6 years. 
• Smoking is far from being choice, two thirds of smokers want to stop, and every year 45% of NZ smokers make an active quit attempt. 72.3 percent of smokers under 24 wish they never started. Their quit attempts are often undermined by a powerfully addictive substance (nicotine) and the continued existence of tobacco marketing through retail displays.

Tobacco retailer argument: Cigarettes are a legal product

• The legality of tobacco products is a historical anomaly which should not be used to protect it from regulations in the public interest. If invented today tobacco products would never be allowed to be sold.

Tobacco retailer argument: Cigarettes don’t need any more restrictions. They are already highly controlled

• Cigarettes are less restricted than alcohol, food products, paint, asbestos, party pills, medicine, drugs, make-up, cars and sweets yet they kill nearly five times more than all of these things put together.