Retailer licensing and tobacco display compliance: are some retailers more likely to flout regulations? Rae Fry, 1 Suzan Burton, 2 Kelly Williams, 1 Scott Walsberger, 1 Anita Tang, 1 Kathy Chapman, 1 Sam Egger 3 ABSTRACT Objectives To assess retailer compliance with a licensing scheme requiring tobacco retailers to list their business details with the government, to examine whether listed retailers are more likely to comply with a point-of-sale (POS) display ban and other in-store retailing laws and to explore variations in compliance between different retailer types and locations. Method An audit of 1739 retailers in New South Wales, Australia, was used to assess compliance with tobacco retailing legislation. Auditors actively searched for and audited unlisted retailers and all listed retailers in 122 metropolitan and regional postcodes. Multivariate generalised linear regression models were used to examine associations between compliance and retailer type, remoteness and demographic characteristics (socioeconomic level, proportion of population under 18 years and proportion born in Australia). Results One unlisted tobacco retailer was identified for every 12.6 listed tobacco retailers. Unlisted retailers were significantly more likely than listed retailers to breach in- store retailing laws (p<0.001). Compliance with the POS display ban was observed in 91.3% of tobacco retailers, but compliance with all retailing laws was only 73.4%. Retailers in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas had lower compliance than those in high socioeconomic areas. Conclusions Some tobacco retailers did not list their business details with the government as required, even though there was no financial cost to do so. Unlisted retailers were more likely to violate in-store regulations. The results suggest licensing schemes can be useful for providing a list of retailers, thus facilitating enforcement, but require a system to search for, and respond to, unlisted/unlicensed retailers. INTRODUCTION The retail environment is an avenue for tobacco marketing, providing a venue for advertising and promotion and a means of widespread distribution. In response to evidence that retail availability of tobacco facilitates smoking uptake and limits cessa- tion success, there is growing interest in reducing the number of tobacco retailers. 1 Licensing retai- lers, with a moratorium on new licences until a target is reached, could reduce tobacco density by attrition. 2 An increase in any license fee could be used to reduce the number of retailers, though one study found an increased license fee did not appear to result in any reduction in retailers with high tobacco sales. 3 Licensing of retailers can also assist in enforcing tobacco control legislation, allowing spot checks of licensed retailers and penalties for infringements, including license revocation. 1 Australia has advanced policies to regulate the tobacco retailing environment, but licensing requirements vary among the eight states and terri- tories. New South Wales (NSW), the most popu- lous state, requires retailers to list their business details with the NSW Ministry of Health via the Tobacco Retailer Notification (TRN) scheme before being allowed to sell tobacco. This type of licensing scheme is sometimes referred to as a ‘negative licensing scheme’, 4 where retailers may be prohib- ited from selling if repeatedly convicted of violating retail regulations. 5 The TRN scheme was intro- duced at the same time as a point-of-sale (POS) display ban and other in-store regulations in 2009, 6 and its stated purpose was to inform the Ministry of Health about the number and location of tobacco retailers in NSW to support enforcement of the ban and other in-store retail laws, such as the requirement to display a ‘Smoking kills’ warning sign. 7 There is no fee to be listed as a tobacco retailer in NSW, in contrast with fee-based schemes in other Australian states, New York, Indiana and Singapore. 3 In theory, the NSW scheme therefore maximises the likelihood of obtaining a complete list of tobacco retailers, facilitating inspections and enforcement. However, retailers who do not comply with one aspect of the legislation (ie, the requirement to be included on a register) may also be less likely to comply with other aspects (eg, pro- hibition of in-store display and promotion). Failure of retailers to list, as required (either due to lack of awareness of the legislation or unwillingness to comply), is likely, however, to have the paradoxical result that those who do not comply with the listing requirement will be less likely to be inspected for compliance with other aspects of tobacco retailing legislation because they will not appear on any list of retailers used for enforcement. Previous studies of compliance have found high levels of adherence to display restrictions. 8–11 However, some of those studies have been limited by not including a weighted sample by retailer type, 8 and/or by using only urban samples. 10 11 There is some evidence that breaches of a display ban are less common than breaches of other retail laws, 11 such as restrictions on price boards and requirements for warning signs. If tobacco retailer registration is useful for enforcing tobacco retail laws, as envisioned by the NSW legislation, it is important to determine what percentage of tobacco retailers comply with the requirement to list their To cite: Fry R, Burton S, Williams K, et al. Tob Control 2017;26:181–187. 1 Cancer Programs Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 2 Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 3 Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Correspondence to Rae Fry, Cancer Programs Division, Cancer Council NSW, P.O. Box 572, Kings Cross, Sydney, NSW 1340, Australia; rae.fry@gmail.com Received 14 October 2015 Revised 3 March 2016 Accepted 15 March 2016 Published Online First 8 April 2016 Research paper 181 Fry R, et al. Tob Control 2017;26:181–187. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052767 group.bmj.com on March 28, 2017 - Published by http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ Downloaded from