TRANSLATE THIS SITE

HOME  •  ARTICLES  •  RESOURCES  •  NEWS  •  LINKS  •  SUBSCRIBE  •  ABOUT HAZARDS

PO BOX 199   SHEFFIELD   S1 4YL   ENGLAND         WWW.HAZARDS.ORG       


BACK TO SMOKING
MAIN PAGE

QUICK LINKS

Less ash, more cash

The smoking gun

Fiddling while the cigarettes burn

Aggressive lobbying on passive smoking

Making a packet

Passive smoking:
The deadly cost


Evidence suppressed on benefits of smoking ban

Information

Union resources


Hazards 82 cover image
Ned Jolliffe 

 

EXTENDED ONLINE BRIEFING, HAZARDS, MAY 2003



How the tobacco industry makes a packet
And thousands die from passive smoke at work

Smoke screen

Medical experts and workers want legal controls on passive smoking at work. The tobacco and hospitality industries do not - and are using lies, junk science and deceit to back their case. Guess who the government is listening to?

Internal tobacco industry documents show that tobacco manufacturers have deliberately conspired to prevent bars and restaurants from becoming smoke-free zones, using suspect research and underhand methods to "fool" the hospitality industry into opposing a ban.

A new analysis of 97 studies in eight countries on the impact of smoking bans on the hospitality industry showed that the most rigorous and independent studies found no negative impact on business.

Image: Ned Jolliffe

Click here for a
full-size image

The 2003 study in the journal Tobacco Control confirmed the positive impact of smoking bans on hospitality venues.

The researchers found that those studies that concluded smoking bans were bad for business were poor quality. They were four times as likely to use subjective rather than objective measures to estimate the impact and 20 times less likely to be peer reviewed.

Less ash, more cash

Anita Lal, one of the authors of the study, provided Hazards with its analysis of the five UK studies included in the research [see: The smoking gun, below].

The three independent studies, with declared funding sources and no links to the tobacco industry, found no negative impact of existing UK smoking bans in pubs and restaurants. Pub owners reported that business had either increased or remained the same.

Two of the three UK studies found the majority of pubs reported an increase in trade after bans were introduced.

The two studies with unknown funding sources found the opposite, one predicting a devastating 41 per cent drop in pub trade.

Unlike the studies that found real, operational smoking bans had a positive impact, the negative studies were based on the industry's concerns about the introduction of bans, and not on real-life experiences.

The publishers of both the studies warning of a negative impact, the Restaurant Association of Great Britain (RAGB) and The Publican Newspaper, are supporters of the voluntary self-regulation "Charter" promoted by lobbying group Atmosphere Improves Results (AIR).

AIR opposes statutory controls and smoking bans and it is reported to have received funding from the UK tobacco industry [see: Aggressive lobbying, below]. RAGB was one of the five original signatories of the AIR Charter, according to the AIR website.

And a 21 November 2001 article in The Publican Newspaper notes: "The Publican Newspaper and the Publican.com are supporting the Atmosphere Improves Results (AIR) initiative and the Charter Group in their continued efforts to encourage self-regulation within the trade."

Anita Lal and her colleagues conclude that worldwide, all the studies that found smoking bans had a negative impact were funded by sources that were in some way related to the tobacco industry.

Of the 21 quality studies, none reported a negative impact on business, and four reported that bans had a positive effect.

The smoking gun
Summary of UK studies included in the report

Study 40
Author and year published: Edwards, 2000 Reference: Edwards R. New Study: 76 per cent of the North East hospitality trade back smoke free areas & over 90 per cent of publicans recommend other pubs try one. 2000. Access date: 8 August 2001. www.ash.org.uk/html/press/000720.html
Location: North East England, UK
Type of policy examined: Smoke-free areas in pubs, restaurants, cafes, hotels, cinemas and theatres
Publisher: Report by the Newcastle University Department of Epidemiology and Public Health for North East Against Tobacco (NEAT)
Funding source indicated: NEAT
Nature of relationship with tobacco industry: Funding source other than tobacco industry Description: Proprietors opinions of impact on business
Findings: 25 per cent of businesses reported a boost in trade, majority a neutral effect. In pubs 58 per cent reported an increase in trade.

Study 49
Author and year published: Parry et al, 2001 Reference: Parry J, Temperton H, Flanagan T, Gerhardt L. An evaluation of the introduction of "non-smoking" areas on trade and customer satisfaction in 11 public houses in Staffordshire. Tobacco Control 2001;10; June 2001:199-200. Date policy implemented: 1999
Location: Staffordshire, UK
Type of policy examined: Smoke-free areas in pubs
Publisher: Tobacco Control
Funding source indicated: Staffordshire Smoke-free Alliance
Nature of relationship with tobacco industry: Funding source other than tobacco industry
Description: Sales at each pub and income before the intervention from landlords
Findings: Monthly sales for six pubs do not indicate adverse effects. One pub showed a 10 per cent increase on a similar period to last year.

Study 55
Author and year published: Yorkshire ASH, 2001
Reference: Yorkshire Ash. Popularity and impact on trade of smoke-free accommodation in the hospitality trade in Yorkshire; 2001.
Type of policy examined: Smoke-free restaurants and bars
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Publisher: Report by Yorkshire Ash Funding source indicated: Yorkshire Ash
Nature of relationship with tobacco industry: Funding source other than tobacco industry
Description: Proprietor estimates of effect on sales
Findings: Almost 2/3 (65 per cent) of respondents thought trade had increased as a result of the no-smoking policy, 29 per cent thought trade had increased 'a lot'. Only 5 per cent thought trade had decreased "a little", none thought it had decreased by 'a lot'. Eighteen out of 28 pubs (64 per cent) thought trade had increased as a result of providing smoke-free areas. None thought it had decreased.

Study 56
Author and year published: Economists Advisory Group Ltd, 1998
Reference: Economists Advisory Group Ltd. The potential economic impact of a smoking ban in restaurants: The Restaurant Association; September 1998.
Location: United Kingdom
Type of policy examined: Smoke-free restaurants
Publisher: Report by Economists Advisory Group Ltd for the Restaurant Association of Great Britain
Funding source indicated: No Funding Source Stated
Nature of relationship with tobacco industry: UK
Description: Proprietors estimates of effect on business and employee lay offs
Findings: 1 per cent thought turnover would increase by up to 20 per cent, 39 per cent believed there would be no change, 30 per cent thought there would be a decrease of up to 20 per cent, 24 per cent thought there would be a decrease by more than 20 per cent and 6 per cent didn't know. The questionnaire was sent to all 922 RAGB members and 351 responded, giving a response rate of 38 per cent.

Study 58
Author and year published: The Publican, 2001
Reference: The Publican Newspaper. Reading the smoke signals. Market Report 2001: Smoking 2001. 22.
Location: England
Type of policy examined: Smoke-free bars
Publisher: Media report, The Publican Newspaper, Quantum Business Media
Funding sources indicated: No Funding Source Stated
Nature of relationship with tobacco industry: UK. The Publican Newspaper supports the Atmosphere Improves Results (AIR) Initiative [The Publican Newspaper. Don't Delay - sign up today. 22 November 2001]. Market Report carries advertising. Survey questions are designed by an editorial board.
Description: Proprietor estimates of loss of trade
Findings: On average pubs would lose around 41 per cent of their custom if they were forced to ban smokers.

Summary of studies assessing the economic impact of smoke-free policies in the hospitality industry - includes studies produced to December 2002. Review of the evidence, VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control.
Full report [pdf format]VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control

 

 

Fiddling while the cigarettes burn

Big tobacco knew it couldn't counter the ban arguments itself - so it financed others to do its dirty work instead.

Researchers writing in the June 2002 issue of the medical journal Tobacco Control reveal tobacco manufacturers gave donations to hospitality groups - which the tobacco industry describes as "our greatest potential ally" - as part of an "aggressive and effective worldwide campaign to recruit hospitality associations" in the USA and Europe.

Tobacco industry targets including groups dedicated to lobbying the European Commission.

The 2002 Tobacco Control paper concludes: "Through the myth of lost profits, the tobacco industry has fooled the hospitality industry into embracing expensive ventilation equipment, while in reality 100 per cent smoke-free laws have been shown to have no effect on business revenues, or even to improve them."

This tobacco industry strategy went beyond supporting hospitality organisations. The paper points out "a programme in the UK titled, 'The Atmosphere Improves Results (AIR)' initiative, launched in 1997, received funding from the national tobacco manufacturers association."

A May 2003 ASH report, The tobacco industry, ETS and the hospitality trade, notes: "Internal tobacco industry documents show that the tobacco industry has mounted a major campaign to question the scientific evidence on the health impacts of second-hand smoke and to undermine legislative measures to curb smoking in public places.

"To assist in its campaign, the tobacco industry enlisted the support of the hospitality trade and helped to fund industry-friendly initiatives focusing on 'accommodating' both smokers and non-smokers. In the UK, this is shown most clearly through the example of the tobacco-industry sponsored AIR initiative, which stresses ventilation as a means of dealing with second hand smoke."

AIR's www.airinitiative.com webpage reveals little about its funding sources.

Its "avoid legislation" webpage, however, steers very close to the tobacco industry line. It says: "In other parts of the world where tough legislation has been imposed the hospitality industry has been hit hard. Restaurants, bars and pubs have experienced falling turnover and have had to make staff cuts. Some have even been forced to close."

AIR says its preferred strategy "encourages venue operators to improve staff and customer comfort through improved air quality by upgrading ventilation facilities and/or introducing non-smoking areas."

AIR website



Aggressive lobbying on passive smoking

London-based AIR is among the most vocal opponents of passive smoking legislation, and is the champion of the hospitality industry's "Charter" campaign for voluntary controls.

When evidence showing that each year 1,200 people in the UK die due to passive smoking at work was released at a TUC conference 9 April 2003, accompanied by a call for a legally-binding Approved Code of Practice on passive smoking at work, AIR was quick to respond.

AIR said the report did not paint a true picture of the effects of passive smoking and said independent studies showed "ventilation to be highly effective."

AIR spokesperson Oliver Griffiths said: "There is a real momentum for change, with hundreds of pub companies involved in the process."

The pro-Charter The Publican Newspaper reported: "The voluntary Charter, agreed with the government, set the target of 50 per cent in the industry," adding Mr Griffiths' comment: "We're confident the trade will achieve this."

Except the Charter Group - in a November 2001 deal with the government intended to head off pressure for a passive smoking law - was supposed to have reached the 50 per cent target by the end of 2002.

After presenting a report to the Department of Health on 16 November 2001, Nick Bish, chair of the Charter Group, said: "We agreed to set a target of 50 per cent of all pubs to be Charter compliant by the end 2002. Our report shows that we already have 27 per cent signed-up and we project that we should exceed 60 per cent by the end of next year."

He added: "The report shows that the hospitality industry can self-regulate effectively in this difficult area and that we are in tune with the needs of our staff and the choice of our customers."

And the Charter does not include any requirement to go smoke free. It does not even compel signatories to have smoke-free areas.

Anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) told Health Minister Alan Milburn on 2 May 2003 that the government's hope that it can still make "fast and substantial progress in partnership with the industry" on smoking bans is misguided.

Amanda Sandford, research manager at ASH, said: "The hospitality sector have had more than enough time to comply with the Public Places Charter and most have chosen to ignore it. The only effective method of protecting the health of workers is to eliminate the tobacco smoke."

Making a packet

The tobacco industry and its friends are playing for time - once bans are implemented, hospitality employers quickly come to appreciate them. And their customers like them too.

The April 2003 edition of the American Journal of Public Health reports a study in California, which has had workplace no smoking rules for eight years, which found most bar-goers said they supported and complied with a similar law two years after it went into effect. While 60 per cent approved of the law three months after it went into effect, that number reached 73 per cent about 2.5 years after the law was in place.

Brendan Barber, who steps up from the post of deputy to general secretary of the TUC in June, said: "Ministers should stop defending the fug-filled snugs of Britain's pubs, which are proving fatal for bar staff and putting off possible customers.

"The Code of Practice is sensible and pragmatic, and it's backed by unions and employers. It will protect the rights of non-smokers and smokers alike, and will end the uncertainty about where employers stand."

CIEH president Brian Hanna, who represents the health inspectors who would enforce the code in service sector workplaces - such as offices, hotels, pubs and clubs - said inspectors "need the government to provide them with the right tools to do the job. Relying on weak voluntary arrangements will simply not have the desired effect."

The tobacco industry will not give up easily however. Recent studies suggest that smoking bans at work also encourage smokers to cut down or give up. Giving up smoking at work could really hurt profits.

The same cannot be said for the public purse. The total savings to government and business, including the National Health Service, could be 21bn, according to an unpublished Health and Safety Commission study [see: Evidence suppressed on benefits of smoking ban, below].

But there is a much higher price to be paid. For every day tobacco interests win a reprieve from government, passive smoking at work will add a further three lives to its tally.

 

Passive smoking: The deadly cost

Every year 1,200 people in the UK - three a day - die due to passive smoking at work, according to new research by second-hand smoke expert James Repace.

A killer on the loose reveals that in the UK around 900 office workers, 165 bar workers and 145 manufacturing workers die each year as a direct result of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke at work.

The figures show that there are three times as many deaths a year from passive smoking at work as from workplace injuries. ASH research suggests three million people in the UK are exposed to second-hand smoke while at work.

James Repace said: "This study shows that previous research has seriously underestimated the number of people killed by second-hand smoke at work."

The TUC, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH), who teamed up for a 9 April "Don't choke on the smoke conference", say the research demonstrates the need for a legally binding Code of Practice for workplace smoking, proposed over two years ago by the Health and Safety Commission.

Amanda Sandford of the anti-tobacco campaigning group ASH said: "One death caused by passive smoking is unacceptable but more than 1,000 a year is a disgrace and for every day's delay the government has deaths on its conscience." More

 


Evidence suppressed on benefits of smoking ban

Evidence that thousands of lives could be saved each year by outlawing smoking at work has been suppressed by the government because it is listening too closely to hospitality industry lobbyists, who claim it would be too expensive.

Yet an unpublished HSC study says up to 2,340 lives a year could be saved by outlawing workplace smoking.

The total savings to government and business, including the National Health Service, could be 21bn, the study says. TUC, unions, medical, public health and campaign organisations have been urging HSC and the government to quit stalling on an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) on passive smoking, which has already been under consultation for five years.

They say hospitality industry claims of prohibitive costs are in fact unfounded and based on a tobacco industry 'smoke screen' calculation.

Marsha Williams, of Action on Smoking on Health, accused the government of 'putting the inflated concerns of the hospitality trade and small businesses ahead of the very real health impact of passive smoking.' Health minister Blears was quoted this week as saying the government did not support a legal ban on smoking at work.

Risks 98, 22 March 2003

 

Information

A killer on the loose, the ASH investigation into the threat of passive smoking to the UK workforce, April 2003. [pdf]

Passive smoking: all around the world, Rory O'Neill and Owen Tudor, TUC, April 2003.

S Glantz and others. Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places, Tobacco Control, vol.11. pages 94-104, June 2002. [pdf format]

M Scollo, A Lal, A Hyland, S Glantz. Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry, Tobacco Control, vol.12, pages 13-20, March 2003.

Summary of studies assessing the economic impact of smoke-free policies in the hospitality industry - includes studies produced to December 2002. Review of the evidence, produced by Michelle Scollo and Anita Lal, VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, Melbourne, Australia.
VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, The Cancer Council Victoria, 100 Drummond St, Carlton, Vic, Australia.

Hao Tang and others. Changes of attitudes and patronage behaviors in response to a smoke-free bar law, American Journal of Public Health, vol.93, pages 611-617, 2003.

Industry on track to stub out smoky pubs. thepublican.com, 19 November 2001.

ASH urges Government to eliminate tobacco smoke from workplaces, ASH news release, 2 May 2003

The tobacco Industry, ETS and the hospitality trade, Action on Smoking and Health, May 2003. [pdf]

Union resources

Hazards Smoking at Work webpages - the international union source on workplace passive smoking news and policy.

Europe: SmokeAtWork - pan-European project on passive smoking at work.

Australia: SmokeFree '03 - alliance of employee and health groups aiming to make all Australian workplaces safe and clean (smoke-free) by the end of 2003.

USA: Organized Labor and Tobacco Control Network - network of union and tobacco control movements, c/o Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney Street, Smith 2, Boston MA 02115, USA. Email: oltcn@dfci.Harvard.edu


HAZARDS MAGAZINE   •  WORKERS' HEALTH INTERNATIONAL NEWS