21 May 2008


Print	Email

Tobacco display ban would damage c-stores, says SGF

Tobacco

independent

Related stories

Tobacco display ban moves closer
21 May 2008

Small retailers protest at plans to ban tobacco displays
01 May 2008

ACS claims banning in-store tobacco displays will bring "considerable costs"
25 Mar 2008

Tobacco giants fight point of sale
23 Apr 2004

A ban on tobacco displays would result in “significant and damaging cost to the convenience store sector”, says the Scottish Grocers' Federation (SGF).

The plan for a ban on the display of tobacco was included in the Scottish Government's Smoking Prevention Action Plan, unveiled earlier today.

The plan includes consideration of measures to ban the display of tobacco, introduce a licensing scheme and ban the sale of packs of 10s.

SGF chief executive John Drummond said:

“The display of tobacco products is essential to enable adult consumers to make an informed choice based on availability, price and brand from the wide range of tobacco products on the market.

“The cost of compliance with a tobacco display ban will place a significant financial burden on small retailers.

“The cost to modify a shop in Canada in order to meet the proposed standards was between £1,000 and £2,000. Convenience store retailers in Scotland can expect to pay a similar amount to modify their shops, which does not take into consideration the loss of trade during a changeover.

“Results from countries which have implemented a display ban demonstrate that the benefits of a ban in reducing smoking rates among young people are not proven.

“In Iceland, where displays were banned in 2001, youth smoking remains at the same levels and in parts of Canada youth smoking even increased following display bans resulting in the ban being overturned after 18 months.

“SGF members are concerned that concealing tobacco products under the counter could encourage some smokers, who do not see tobacco product on display in legitimate stores, to buy from rogue traders who are prepared to sell illicit products.

“Whist SGF understands the health of Scotland is a very serious matter for the government, we believe that banning in-store display is a step too far.”

On the plan to ban packs of 10s, Drummond said: “People do not only buy packs of 10s because they are cheaper but because it enables them to limit and control their consumption.

“Forcing smokers to buy a packet of 20 rather than 10 means they are more likely to smoke more. In the Republic of Ireland where packs of 10s are banned the number of cigarettes consumed by the average smoker increased.

“The Scottish Government is sending out a conflicting message, one week they say buying more alcohol makes you drink more, and then the next week they say buying more cigarettes will make you smoke less. They can't be right on both counts.”

“Also banning packs of 10s may well encourage smokers who buy packs of 10s for price reasons to turn to the black market for cheaper cigarettes and tobacco.”

On licensing he added: “Rather than consideration being given to any licensing scheme, SGF believe there should be better enforcement of the present system regarding the sale of tobacco via support of a national recognised proof of age card.

“SGF members are responsible retailers who are aware of the risk to their business if they do not enforce the legislation on age restricted products, including tobacco, correctly.

“Many have adopted a Challenge 25 policy, whereby any customer looking younger than 25 must provide photographic ID before the sale can be made. As long as there is a black market, there will always be tobacco available for children which will be cheaper than tobacco available in shops.

“As a member of the Scottish Ministerial Working Group on Tobacco Control, SGF have made the case for the introduction of legislation which would make it illegal, as it is for alcohol, to attempt to buy tobacco under the age of 18 and for an adult to supply tobacco to a child.

“Currently the legal onus is only on the retailer, this is an anomaly which is clearly unfair and must be corrected.”

Email this to a friend