Enforce Existing Advertising Restriction Laws
Background
Several studies have indicated that tobacco use and addiction usually take root in adolescence or even childhood (3, 9). According to the Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance, in 2003, 22% of high school students (9th-12th grade) had smoked during the 30 days prior to the survey (2). Though tobacco use has been declining among teens over the past several years, children and teenagers still constitute the majority of all new smokers, with over 90% of adult smokers having started in their teens (10). Tobacco advertising and promotion campaigns often have special appeal to these young people.
The store environment is important because it is the main channel used by the tobacco companies to advertise and market to new and future customers, with 2.5% of all tobacco expenditures spent on point-of-sale advertising in 2001. All tobacco companies together had an annual $11.2 billion advertising budget in 2001, and 85% of that budget was devoted to advertising in the store environment, in order to influence buyers at the place that they are most likely to make a purchase (11). In addition to the point-of-sale advertising expenditure, 40% of total expenditures was spent on promotional allowances, and another 42.5% was spent on retail value added items, such as "buy-one-pack-get-one-free" discount offers for cigarettes, and music CDs sold with a double pack (11).
Though the retail environment is the main channel through which tobacco companies entice new smokers and retain existing smokers, there is very little regulation of the store environment. Research on the link between retail-specific advertising and tobacco use indicates that the relative share of interior retail advertising dedicated to specific brands is related to the choices that youth make about their preferred brand of cigarettes in the convenience stores that are located closest to their schools. (12).
Research has also shown that stores near schools may serve as a primary site for adolescent tobacco acquisition and experimentation. A 1999 study found that convenience, convenience/gas, and liquor stores were the most likely of several store environments to have pro-tobacco environments and have the largest share of retail tobacco sales (1). Three out of four teenagers shop at convenience stores at least once a week, giving them easy access to these promotional messages about tobacco (1). Smoking materials to entice sales to teens are quite common. A study conducted in California in 1999 found that stores selling cigarettes had an average of 17 cigarette ads and promotional items such as displays in each store, with the highest number (27 items) found in liquor stores. About 85% of the materials were in the area around the cash register, referred to as the "golden zone," because it promotes sales. Almost half of the items in this area were at or below 3 feet from the ground, making them particularly attractive to children (4).
Though recent court decisions have made it difficult for local and state jurisdictions to restrict tobacco advertising, there are several ways in which communities can reduce advertising. For example, local laws could limit advertising signs of all types to no more than a certain percentage of window space, for aesthetic and safety reasons. By enforcing such laws at the local level, as well as other existing laws and regulations, communities can decrease youth exposure to tobacco advertising.
Policies
Use existing state and local laws to reduce certain types of promotional displays.
Several recent Supreme Court decisions (Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Reilly and FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation) have limited the extent to which local and state jurisdictions, as well as federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, can affect tobacco advertising.
However, states and local jurisdictions do have some control over tobacco advertising. As of 2000, sign laws cannot ban tobacco content but can restrict the size and shape of the advertisements. In addition, jurisdictions can require that retailers of tobacco products have a license to do so, and can limit the location of new tobacco retail outlets (to ensure that they are not near schools). Local jurisdictions can also use zoning ordinances to limit advertising of all products, though they cannot specifically single out tobacco advertising (8).
In California, state law requires that no more than 33% of total square footage of windows and clear doors of off-sale premises shall bear advertisement of any sort. Cigarette self-service displays are no longer permitted in California, in order to reduce youth access and exposure to tobacco advertising (7). Local ordinances have also restricted "sandwich board" advertisements outside stores, which include tobacco advertisements. Generally, there is no active enforcement of such laws, unless residents make complaints (5).
Ensure that local retailers comply with provisions of the Master Settlement Agreement.
While the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) does not directly address tobacco retailing, it prohibits or restricts tobacco companies from engaging in certain conduct at retail outlets. The MSA restricts point-of-purchase ads to 14 square feet in size, and prohibits multiple ads being pieced together in "mosaic" format (6). The MSA also bans the use of cartoons in tobacco ads, selling or distributing merchandise bearing a tobacco brand name or logo, and distributing free samples except in adult-only facilities, where youth are not present. Although retailers are not technically bound by the MSA, the tobacco companies have an obligation to take commercially responsible steps against third parties such as retailers who violate any of these provisions in the advertising or promotion of their brands (6). The MSA is enforced by the Attorney General of the state in which an alleged violation occurs. Advertising or promotion in retail stores that appears to violate any of the above provisions should be reported to the state's Attorney General.
Enlist a wide range of tobacco control advocates as part of strategy to educate tobacco retailers.
When using local sign laws to reduce tobacco-related advertising, it is important to educate retailers about the reasons for the campaign, and show them how violations of the sign law can help encourage young people to smoke. Educating business owners can be done most effectively by code enforcement staff, law enforcement or the chamber of commerce. These officials are more likely to gain the retailer's respect (5). Likewise, local law enforcement agencies can play an important role. In Santa Clara County, California, the Sheriff and the President of the County Police Chiefs Association arranged mass mailings to businesses. Every tobacco retailer in the County received an explanation of the importance of the sign law and was urged to comply (5).
Effectiveness Data
By decreasing the total number of ads on store windows, the amount of tobacco advertising will also be reduced, which could lead to decreased tobacco sales. Compliance is improved when residents continue to monitor how much of a store's window space is covered. Publicizing results of community efforts may maximize the effect of enforcement efforts by giving retailers the impression that they will be cited if they are not in compliance with the law.
Resources
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Office on Smoking and Health
1600 Clifton Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30333
(404) 639-3311
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco
California Department of Health Services,
Tobacco Control Section
P.O. Box 942732, MS #555
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
(916) 327-5425
http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/tobacco/
TALC (Technical Assistance Legal Center)
Public Health Institute
505 14th Street, Suite 810
Oakland, CA 94612
http://talc.phi.org
510-444-8252
References
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002). Point-of-Purchase Tobacco Environments and Variation by Store Type - United States, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 51(09):184-7.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004, May). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 53(SS02).
- Everett, S., Warren, C., Sharp, D., Kan, L., Husten, C., & Crossett, L. (1999). Initiation of cigarette smoking and subsequent smoking behavior among U.S. high school students. Preventive Medicine. 29:327-333
- Feighery, E., Ribisl, K., Schleicher, N., Lee, R., & Halvorson, S. (2001). Cigarette advertising and promotional strategies in retail outlets: results of a statewide survey in California. Tobacco Control. 10:184-188.
- Jensen, P., & Kole, S. (1996, December). Reducing Tobacco Product Marketing in Retail Stores: Challenges and Opportunities. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center for Research in Disease Prevention.
- State of California Office of the Attorney General. (2001). Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement Summary. Accessible at: http://caag.state.ca.us/tobacco/resources/msasumm.htm
- Technical Assistance Legal Center. (2001). Interpreting the Supreme Court Decision in Massachusetts. Accessible at http://talc.phi.org
- Technical Assistance Legal Center. (2004). Tobacco Laws Affecting California. Accessible at: http://talc.phi.org
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1994). Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: Author.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2002). Results from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Calculated based on 2002 data at:http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/SAMHDA-SERIES/00064.xml#das
- U.S. Federal Trade Commission. (2003). Federal Trade Commission - Cigarette Report for 2001. Retrieved June 15, 2004 from: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/06/2001cigreport.pdf
- Wakefield, M. Ruel, E., Chaloupka, F., Slater, S., & Kaufman, N. (2002). Association of point-of-sale tobacco advertising and promotions with choice of usual brand among teenage smokers. Journal of Health Communication, 7:113-122.
Acknowledgements
Tess B. Cruz, MPH, PhD, Director, TIME Project, Keck School of Medicine, Institute for Prevention Research, University of Southern California, Alhambra, CA
Alan Lieberman, JD, Deputy Attorney General, California State Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA
The Center for Health Improvement also acknowledges the following reviewers for providing comments on the original version of this policy profile:
Michael P. Eriksen, Sc.D., Former Director, Office of Smoking on Health, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA
David Fleming, M.D., Former State Epidemiologist, Oregon Health Division, Portland, OR
Sally Herndon-Malek, Former Director, Project ASSIST, DHHS, Raleigh, NC
Philip Huang, M.D., M.P.H., Chief, Bureau for Disease and Injury Prevention, Texas Department of Health, Austin, TX
Kevin Keane, Former Director, Cancer Control, American Cancer Society, California Division, Oakland, CA
Jon Lloyd, Director, Tobacco Control Program, Planning and Policy, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, CA
Paul Minicucci, Former Executive Director, California Next Generation Tobacco Control Alliance, Sacramento, CA
Jane Pritzl, Field Director, Assist Project, Division of Prevention Programs, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado, UT
Randy Schwartz, American Cancer Society, New England
Updated 6/30/04
