Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Lifting the smokescreen

J. Britton, F. Godfrey
European Respiratory Journal 2006 27: 871-873; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00037706
J. Britton
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. Godfrey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Evidence on the health effects of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke was first published in 1974 1. Since then, over 20 independent reports published by a range of organisations, ranging from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 3 and the German Maximale Arbeitsplatz Konzentration (MAK) Commission 4, have confirmed that exposure to second-hand smoke causes a range of chronic and fatal conditions, including ischaemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Whilst the magnitude of risk is small, the exposure of nonsmokers to second-hand smoke in Europe is widespread and, therefore, the potential harm is considerable.

In recent years, this growing level of irrefutable evidence has prompted health organisations to call for ever greater restrictions on smoking in work and public places. Legislation restricting smoking was introduced in several European countries in the early 1980s and 1990s, but European governments have been slow to recognise the full extent of the health problems caused by second-hand smoke. It was not until the state of California (USA), and then New York, moved towards the introduction of comprehensive legislation banning smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants in 1998 and 2003, respectively, that Europe took real notice.

The first European country to do so was Ireland. The impetus for the law came from the committed political leadership shown by the then Health Minister, Micheal Martin, who commissioned a report into the health effects of passive smoking in Ireland. The Allwright report 5 once again highlighted the dangers to health from passive smoking, and found that workers in the Irish hospitality sector were most at risk from exposure to second-hand smoke. The authors of the report called upon Mr Martin to take steps to protect all workers from exposure by introducing a comprehensive ban on smoking in all enclosed workplaces, and he took immediate steps to implement the report's recommendations 6. The law came into force on March 29, 2004.

Scientific research organisations working on tobacco-control policy at the European level recognised the need to identify the scale of the public health problem caused by passive smoking in the European Union (EU), and commissioned their own report in October 2004. On March 21, 2006, the European Respiratory Society (ERS), along with its partners in tobacco control at the European level (Cancer Research UK, the European Heart Network and the Institut National du Cancer), launched this report in the European Parliament, with the support of the Members of the European Parliament, Liz Lynne and Adamos Adamou. Lifting the smokescreen: 10 reasons for a smoke free Europe (available at www.ersnet.org) is the first attempt to provide an estimate of the number of deaths caused by exposure to second-hand smoke in the EU25 broken down by country, smoking status and type of exposure (workplace or domestic). It also includes chapters on the economic costs of passive smoking, an analysis of the economic benefits of smoke free workplace legislation and an assessment of the attitudes and opinions of Europeans in selected EU member states about such laws.

The report calculates the number of deaths from heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and non-neoplastic respiratory disease caused by passive smoking. Deaths in childhood caused by passive smoking, and cases of serious morbidity, both chronic and acute, caused by passive smoking were not calculated. The figure totalled 79,459 deaths per annum in the EU. Broken down, this resulted in 72,000 deaths from domestic exposure and >7,000 deaths from workplace exposure. Of these, >19,000 deaths were in nonsmokers. A total of 7,200 people were found to die each year from second-hand smoke exposure in the workplace, including 2,800 nonsmokers 7. One employee in the EU hospitality industry dies every day from second-hand smoke exposure. Exposure to passive smoking in the home causes the deaths of 16,600 nonsmokers each year, or one death every 32 minutes 7.

The methodology used to calculate the number of deaths was the same as that used in the Royal College of Physicians report 8 on passive smoking and the published estimate of deaths from passive smoking in the UK 9. Calculations of the figures for working age and elderly populations were derived from data in the World Health Organization (WHO) database 10. For most countries, data were available for the proportion of the population aged ≥65 and ≤15 yrs. Data on smoking prevalence were also taken from the WHO database, along with data on the smoke free status of individual countries. Calculations of the employed population and hospitality industry workforce came from the Eurostat database of the EU Commission 11. The UK figure of 27.8% of the hospitality workforce employed in pubs, bars and nightclubs was applied across the EU.

Given the lack of data entry points for some countries, the most conservative figure from what appeared to be the most similar country was taken. For this reason, the number of deaths calculated is likely to be an underestimate.

The report also looked at the effects of smoking bans on quitting. A review of 26 studies in 2002 found that complete smoking bans in workplaces reduced smoking prevalence by 3.8% and smoking intensity by 3.1 cigarettes per day among continuing smokers 12. Smoke free laws have also encouraged workers to make more quit attempts and these are likely to be more successful 13.

Lifting the smokescreen also analysed the economic effects of legislation banning smoking in the workplace 14. A review of data collected in jurisdictions around the world found no reported negative economic effects arising from the introduction of smoke free laws in independent research studies. In New York, since the smoke free law came into force in March 2003, business tax receipts in restaurants and bars have increased by 8.7%, employment in bars and restaurants has increased by 10,800 jobs and 97% of bars and restaurants are now smoke free 15.

Lifting the smokescreen reviewed poll data from 2002 to 2005 to assess support for smoke free legislation in several European countries 16. International experience of successful smoke free policies suggests that there is a need for a reasonable level of public awareness of the dangers of passive smoking and a certain level of support. Recent polls across Europe have suggested that both are rapidly increasing. Based on levels of support for smoke free legislation in other jurisdictions, it is clear that support in several EU countries that have yet to go smoke free is several per cent higher than it was in other countries when they enacted laws 16. Evaluation studies assessing the impact of smoke free laws pre- and post-entry into force have also found strong and increasing support from smokers once the laws have been successfully implemented. In Ireland, support for smoke free restaurants among smokers increased from 46% pre-enactment to 77% post-ban 17.

The importance of political leadership in building support for smoke free laws can be seen in a comparison of poll data from Scotland and England. One poll in Spring 2004 put support for smoke free pubs in Scotland at 39% and 51% in England. The Scottish First Minister subsequently announced his intention to introduce smoke free legislation, whereas the then England health minister opposed smoke free bars and restaurants. By December 2005, support for smoke free bars in Scotland had increased by 31%. In England, it had increased but only by 11% 18.

Of course, the overriding rationale of campaigns for smoke free legislation has always been to protect workers. Research studies conducted before and after the Irish and Norwegian bans show that this has happened. A study of the air quality in Dublin pubs conducted before and after the smoking ban showed a 45% reduction in carbon monoxide levels in nonsmoking bar staff and a decrease of 36% in ex-smokers 1 year after the ban was implemented. Average particulate matter of <2.5 µm (PM2.5) levels decreased by 87.6% and PM10 levels fell by 53% 19. Similar results were published by the Norwegian Institute for Drug and Alcohol Research (SIRUS) 20.

The conclusions of Lifting the smokescreen are clear: passive smoking kills, and workers and members of the population must be protected from all exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. Its recommendations are brief: the most effective way to protect workers and the public is to introduce a comprehensive smoking ban in all public and workplace enclosed spaces. If we take a baseline smoking prevalence rate of 30% across the EU and assume an average effect on smoking prevalence of only 1–2%, this would translate into somewhere between 5 and 10 million EU smokers quitting as a result of such legislation.

With public health gains of this magnitude there for the taking, and science and public support on our side, respiratory physicians and medical societies must now call upon all Europe's governments to implement comprehensive smoke free laws as soon as possible.

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Harlap S, Davies AM. Infant admissions to hospital and maternal smoking. Lancet 1974;1:529–532.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans: tobacco smoking. Vol. 38. Lyon, IARC Press, 1986
    3. ↵
      US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: lung cancers and other disorders. Washington, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992
    4. ↵
      Passive smoking. In: Occupational toxicants. Vol. 13. Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area. Greim H, Wiley-VCH, eds. Weinheim, 1999; pp. 3–39
    5. ↵
      Report on the health effects of environment tobacco smoke (ETS) in the workplace. Dublin, Office of Tobacco Control and Health and Safety Authority, 2002
    6. ↵
      Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002 (Section 47) Regulations 2003.www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI481Y2003.html. Date last accessed: March 15 2006
    7. ↵
      Jamrozik K. An estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking in Europe. In: Smoke free Partnership. Lifting the smokescreen: 10 reasons for a smoke free Europe. Brussels, ERSJ Ltd, 2006; pp. 17–41
    8. ↵
      Royal College of Physicians. Going smoke-free: the medical case for clean air in the home, at work and in public places. London, Royal College of Physicians, 2005
    9. ↵
      Jamrozik K. Estimate of deaths among smokers in the United Kingdom attributable to passive smoking, database analysis. BMJ 2005;Epub ahead of print:
    10. ↵
      World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Data and publications. http://data.euro.who.int. Date last accessed: March 15 2006
    11. ↵
      Eurostat European Commission. http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int. Date last accessed: March 15 2006
    12. ↵
      Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. BMJ 2002;325:188–191.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      Farkas A, Gilpin E, Distefan J, Pierce JP. The effects of household and workplace smoking restrictions on quitting behaviours. Tob Control 1999;8:261–265.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      Joossens L. Economic impact of a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. In: Smoke free Partnership. Lifting the smokescreen: 10 reasons for a smoke free Europe. Brussels, ERSJ Ltd, 2006; pp. 63–83
    15. ↵
      New York City. The State of Smokefree New York City. A one year review. NYC, 2004
    16. ↵
      Jones S, Muller T. Public attitudes to smoke free policies in Europe. In: Smoke free Partnership. Lifting the smokescreen: 10 reasons for a smoke free Europe. Brussels, ERSJ Ltd, 2006; pp. 85–103
    17. ↵
      Office of Tobacco Control. Smokefree at work one year review. Ireland, Office of Tobacco Control, 2005. www.otc.ie/article.asp?article = 271. Date last accessed: March 15 2006
    18. ↵
      YouGov, ASH, Cancer Research UK, 2005. Major new poll shows public support across UK for comprehensive smokefree law. www.ash.org.uk/html/press/051230.html. Date last accessed: March 15 2006
    19. ↵
      Macaffrey M, Goodman P, Clancy L. Particulate pollution and benzene levels in public houses in Dublin pre and post-ban. Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society, 2005
    20. ↵
      Lund M. Smokefree bars and restaurants in Norway. Oslo, SIRUS, 2005. www.sirus.no/cwobjekter/smokefreebarsandrestaurantsinNorway.pdf. Date last accessed: March 15 2006
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 27 Issue 5 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 27 (5)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Lifting the smokescreen
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    Lifting the smokescreen
    J. Britton, F. Godfrey
    European Respiratory Journal May 2006, 27 (5) 871-873; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00037706

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    Lifting the smokescreen
    J. Britton, F. Godfrey
    European Respiratory Journal May 2006, 27 (5) 871-873; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00037706
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Commemorating World Tuberculosis Day 2022
    • Is low level of vitamin D a marker of poor health or its cause?
    • Risky political game with climate change
    Show more Editorial

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society