Jurisdictions that have removed tobacco retail displays

Transcription

1 Supplementary 1. Factsheet on international tobacco display bans. March 2011 Jurisdictions that have removed tobacco retail displays An increasing number of countries and jurisdictions have already implemented tobacco retail display bans, including Australia, Canada and Ireland. Implementation date Australia ACT Australian Capital Territory December 2009 (All retailers) December 2010 (Specialist tobacconists) NSW New South Wales July 2010 (All retailers) July 2013 (Specialist tobacconists) Northern Territory January 2011 Queensland Mid 2011 South Australia January 2012 Tasmania February 2011 Victoria January 2011 Western Australia September 2010 British Virgin Islands May 2007 Canada Alberta July 2008 British Columbia March 2008 Manitoba January 2004 New Brunswick January 2009 Newfoundland and Labrador January 2010 Northwest Territories January 2007 Nova Scotia March 2007 Nunavut February 2004 Ontario May 2008 Prince Edward Island June 2006 Quebec May 2008 Saskatchewan July 2001 Yukon Territory May 2009 Finland January 2012 Iceland August 2001 Ireland July 2009 Norway January 2010 Thailand September 2005 Wales October 2011 Northern Ireland October 2011 Scotland January (delayed) 1

2 Finland Finland s * president has signed a new law including a complete ban on tobacco retail displays. The new legislation comes into force on 1 January Scotland On March 2010, Scotland passed a bill removing tobacco retail displays. Progress has been delayed as a result of a legal appeal launched by Imperial Tobacco after losing their legal case to have judicial review on the Bill. However, the Scottish government is committed to implement a tobacco display ban to discourage a future generation of smokers. * Medical News Today. 22 August Finland Bans Tobacco Displays in Europe s Toughest Tobacco Control Law. The Scottish Government Tobacco display ban delayed. (accessed 28 February 2011) 2

3 Evaluation of the impact of the removal of tobacco displays in Ireland Brief background The provision to remove tobacco retail displays in Ireland was implemented on 1 July 2009, seven years after its enactment and legislative challenge by the major Irish tobacco groups Gallaher (Dublin) Ltd, PJ Carroll & Co. Ltd and John Player and Sons Ltd and other tobacco associated parties. The plaintiff withdrew the case and the Minister of State signed a commencement order. One year since its implementation, two studies 1 2 were conducted to evaluate the overall impact of the provision in Ireland. These are two of the first peer-reviewed studies which assess the impact of national legislation removing tobacco displays. Quinn, C et al reviewed cigarette sales data from all retail outlets including outlets such as independent stores, service stations, TSNs and large supermarket chains between 2006 and June McNeill, A et al used a series of outcome measures to assess the short term impact after the removal of tobacco retail displays. Findings of McNeill, A et al showed tobacco retail displays had a desired effect. Teens were significantly more likely to recall tobacco displays in shops before the law change (80%) then after the law was introduced (20%). The result also showed that the drop in recall among children was greater than that among adults. Likewise, the drop in recall among smokers was also significantly greater than that among non-smokers. These findings suggested that tobacco displays are more attractive and noticeable to children and smokers. Putting tobacco displays from sight is thus an important measure to protect children from smoking initiation and smokers from impulse purchase. Key findings Sales and retailers income Quinn, C et al suggested that there was no statistically significantly change observed in the sales of cigarette packs in retail outlets in the 12 months of monitoring since implementation of the law. The study has taken into account seasonal patterns and underlying economic trends. The author concludes that the sale of cigarette pack showed no short-term impact on retailers, one year after legislation to remove tobacco retail displays. Compliance Two months after introduction there was a 97% compliance rate among retailers. Compliance level varied across types of store, with chains and larger stores having the highest compliance level. Small independent stores were 95% compliant. Awareness and attitudes Youth TSNs independent stores and garages that have at least 50% of their profits from tobacco, sweets and newspaper. Statistically significant/significant a result is called statistically significant after it has been proved by statistical method that is unlikely to happen by chance. 3

4 214 teenagers were interviewed before the legislation s introduction and 180 were interviewed after the legislation s introduction (84%) Within the short time frame during the law was implemented, the increase in current regular smoking post-legislation (from 10% pre-legislation to 10.5% post-legislation) was not statistically significant. There was a significant decrease in teens who recalled seeing tobacco displays in shops, from 80% prior, down to 22% after the legislation. The proportion of teens who thought that children of their age would be successful in buying tobacco had also dropped from 32% before, down to 25% after removal of displays. The proportion of teens who thought that children of their age smoked significantly decreased from 62% before the law to 45% afterwards. Adult A random telephone survey of participants aged 15 and over assessed recollection of seeing tobacco displays in shops between April 2009 and February The percentage of interviewees who recalled seeing tobacco displays in shops in the previous month dropped from 49% before to 22% after the legislation. The effect of the law on recall was greatest among smokers than non-smokers. Fifty-nine % of smokers recalled viewing tobacco displays before the law was in place, dropping to 20% of surveyed smokers after the law came into effect. Support for removing tobacco displays has also significantly increased from 58% before the legislation to 66% after the legislation. 4

5 Recent evidences on the impact of point of sale promotion on teenagers The Henrisksen study 2010 published in Pediatrics Journal A recently published study in the US has measured the amount of point of sale promotion that students are exposed to then measured how many had started smoking 12 months later and 30 months later. 3 This is really important because it measures exposure to point of sale advertising and smoking status at one point in time then measures smoking status at a later date so this study is proof that tobacco promotion at point of sale is not just associated with smoking initiation, but that it triggers smoking initiation. Exposure to tobacco retail advertising was assessed by multiplying the frequency of visits by the number of advertising impressions in stores near schools of cigarette-branded ads, product displays and functional objects, such as clocks or register mats. The number of students who were able to be contacted for follow up was very high (81%). This study also measured other factors that influence whether or not teenagers will smoke such as ethnic group, parental and peer smoking, parental care and academic achievement. Higher exposure to point of sale promotion significantly increased the odds of a student being a smoker even when other factors influencing smoking initiation are considered. This study provides very strong evidence that point of sale promotion triggers smoking initiation. This study increases the credibility that an association is found between smoking experimentation, susceptibility and frequency of visits to stores in which tobacco is displayed. Findings of Paynter et al 2009 The cross-sectional study surveyed nearly New Zealand 14 and 15 year olds on their exposure to tobacco displays. This study significantly showed that never smokers who visited stores at least 2-3 times per week are almost twice as susceptible to taking up smoking as those who visited stores less than weekly. Students who noticed tobacco most or every time they visited stores were about two times more likely to be susceptible to smoking. The study is one of the largest of its kind and was conducted when tobacco marketing in New Zealand was banned except for tobacco retail displays 4. The study has been quoted in both Scottish and UK Parliaments in deliberations leading to legislation removing tobacco retail displays. Systematic review of the impact of tobacco promotion at point of sale A systematic review in a leading international journal by two New Zealand researchers found a significant association between tobacco retail displays and uptake of smoking or increased susceptibility to try smoking in seven out of eight observational studies 5. 5

6 Impact of smoking on unplanned purchases, quit attempts and relapse An Australian population based cohort study 6 assessed whether sensitivity to point of sale (POS) cigarette displays influenced quitting behaviour among smokers. The study showed 50% of respondents had medium sensitivity to POS displays and 18% had high sensitivity. Younger respondents were more sensitive to POS than older smokers who had a medium to high sensitivity to POS displays were significantly less likely to have quit at follow-up. Sensitivity to POS displays is determined by the frequency of noticing displays, impulse purchasing and deciding on brand based on POS displays. A study conducted in 2009 on the influence of tobacco retail displays on unplanned purchases shows tobacco retail displays influenced nearly four times as many unplanned purchases as planned purchases. The study found that four times as many smokers were supportive of a ban on tobacco displays than were unsupportive 7. Research 8 conducted by Macquarie University examined factors that contribute to quitting smokers relapsing. Findings confirm that tobacco displays are a major barrier for smokers trying to quit. Seeing cigarettes for sale increases the likelihood of a person smoking within a four hour period by more than 25%, even if they do not actually buy a packet of cigarettes. People who are trying to quit are particularly influenced to smoke and to buy cigarettes after seeing them displayed within the first month of quitting. People who are making a quit attempt are more likely than regular smokers to buy cigarettes while out in pubs and clubs. A NZ qualitative study 9 interviewed 20 smokers who had attempted to quit in the past six months. Participants in the study found that tobacco retail displays elicited an emotional and physical reaction that created on-going temptation, stimulated impulse purchase and undermined quit attempts. Most participants strongly supported the removal of tobacco displays. The qualitative study aligned with results from experimental studies and surveys which suggested that eliminating tobacco retail displays would reduce initiation and support addicted smokers to make a quit attempt. Impact of removing tobacco displays on retailers NZ retailers views on removing tobacco retail displays a qualitative study An qualitative study commissioned by the Cancer Society of New Zealand explored 11 retailers 10 on their experiences in putting tobacco out of sight. Retailers in this study showed a positive view towards putting tobacco out of sight. This is in contrast to the arguments made by tobacco front groups on the negative reaction of small retailers. In this study, retailers identified two main reasons for removing tobacco products from sight to improve the overall shop security and they felt removing tobacco displays was a socially responsible action. Retailers expressed that there was a positive reaction from customers and improved compliance with underage sales. 6

7 References 1. Quinn C, Lewis S, Edwards R, McNeill Ann. Economic evaluation of the removal of tobacco promotional displays in Ireland. Tobacco Control 2010;Online first. 2. McNeil A, Lewis S, Quinn C, Mulcahy M, Clancy L, Hastings G, et al. Evaluation of the removal of point-of-sale tobacco displays in Ireland. Tobacco Control 2010;Online first. 3. Henriksen L, Schleicher NC, Feighery EC, Fortmann SP. A longitudinal study of exposure to retail cigarette advertising and smoking initiation. Pediatrics 2010;126(2): Paynter J, Edwards R, Schluter PJ, McDuff I. Point of sale tobacco displays and smoking amongst year olds in New Zealand: cross-sectional study. Tobacco Control 2009(18): Paynter J, Edwards R. The impact of tobacco promotion at the point of sale: A systematic review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2009;11(1): Germain D, McCarthy M, Wakefield M. Smoker sensitivity to retail tobacco displays and quitting: a cohort study. Addiction 2009;105: Carter OBJ, Mills BW, Donovan RJ. The effect of retail cigarette pack displays on unplanned purchases: results from immediate post purchase interviews. Tobacco Control 2009;18: Retail distribution and display: Tobacco consumption and purchase by smokers and attempting quitters. Oceania Tobacco Control Conference; 2009; Darwin October Hoek J, Gifford H, Pirikahu G, et al. How do tobacco retail displays affect cessation attempts? Findings from a qualitative study. Tobacco Control 2010;19: Hoek J, Vaudry R. Putting tobacco "out of sight", an analysis of retailers' experiences. A report prepared for Cancer Society of New Zealand. Wellington: University of Otago,