International research shows tobacco display bans

International research shows tobacco display bans not working

An independent research paper shows that bans on displaying tobacco products in retail outlets is not achieving any of the public health objectives claimed by anti-tobacco groups.

The paper was presented at a meeting in the UK House of Commons on 15 June 2010 and examines four major international situations where tobacco displays have been banned – Canada, Iceland, Ireland and Thailand.

The paper’s conclusions are particularly relevant here where the Government is being asked by the Maori Party to ban displays of tobacco from community-based, family-owned stores in New Zealand.

The author of “Canada’s Ruinous Tobacco Display Ban- Economic & Health Lessons”, Dr Patrick Basham from the UK Democracy Institute, reviewed empirical evidence about the public health effectiveness and economic impact of displays bans in Canada. The paper also provides a comparative analysis of the display ban data in Iceland, Ireland and Thailand.

Murray Gibson, a tobacco spokesperson for the Association of Community Retailers, says the paper must be a signal to Government Ministers and MPs that anti-tobacco groups have exaggerated the supposed benefits of a tobacco display ban in New Zealand.

“Anti-tobacco groups in New Zealand have spread misinformation and exaggerated claims about what banning tobacco displays will achieve. These groups have seriously misrepresented the effects of the Canadian display ban and worked to keep from the public evidence that shows none of their claims have merit.

“The public can now see the evidence – banning displays does not reduce smoking and leads only to dire economic circumstances for our small, community retailers,” Mr Gibson said.

The paper’s conclusions are based on empirical evidence taken from official health and retail association reports. It shows that smoking prevalence among youth in Canada has changed little since display bans were implemented there. Nine of the 10 Canadian provinces have display bans in place. In 2006, when only two provinces – Manitoba and Saskatchewan—had display bans, there were no statistical significant differences in youth prevalence rates between those provinces that had bans and those that did not. In 2006, the two provinces with the highest youth smoking rates were the two with display bans.

The paper shows that while tobacco display bans in Canada have been ineffective in reducing tobacco consumption and smoking prevalence among youth smokers, it has succeeded at moving tobacco sales away from legitimate retailers (disproportionately independent corner shops) and towards the illicit tobacco market. Display bans blur the distinction between legal and illicit tobacco products, the paper says.

The Canadian experience demonstrates that since display bans were implemented, the tobacco market has been distorted through reducing the number of legal tobacco retailers and, in doing so, has driven smokers towards the illicit black market.

The paper quotes the Canadian Convenience Store Association’s “Contraband Tobacco in Canada: Time for Action”, Toronto 2009, which found that 61 percent of Ontario smokers and 75 percent of Quebec smokers smoked illicit cigarettes.

The ban has also distorted competition between different sorts of tobacco retailers, significantly affecting one sort of retailer (the independent, community retailer) more than others (supermarkets).

In other international jurisdictions, the paper says the Thai Government acknowledges that smoking is increasing among both women and adolescents despite the display ban, and according the World Health Organisation, smoking prevalence in Thailand has increased almost 5 percent since the ban on displays were introduction in 2005.

It adds that a “Youth in Iceland” survey of 14-16 year olds reports a mid-2006 smoking prevalence of 15.5 percent, still above the 14.4 percent prevalence among that age group before the ban was implemented in 2001.

Retailers in New Zealand find the research illuminating and say it reinforces the views that have been expressed since 2007.

“The Government is being pressured by the Maori Party to implement a ban here. The Maori Party is the voice of the anti-tobacco groups that claim a ban on displays is justified because it would lead to reduced youth smoking and help those wanting to quit smoking, while having little impact on the retail sector. This paper shows that these claims are groundless,” Mr Gibson said.

The Association of Community Retailers says the Government needs to stick to its decision in March 2009. “The National Government said it would look at the international evidence before making a decision on banning tobacco displays. I would urge them to look closely at this document and take leadership by rejecting proposals to ban displays,” said Mr Gibson.

ENDS