News roundup

Antismoking groups lobby against Lords report

London Lynn Eaton

Antismoking groups have hit back at a report by the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords, published last week (BMJ 2006;332:1349, 10 Jun), which slated bans on smoking in public places as an “over-reaction to the scientific evidence on passive smoking.”

The committee, which was looking into threats to personal liberty and the management of risk, said that compared with the risks associated with passive smoking in the home those associated with smoking in public places was minor.

But the lobby group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) described the report as “grossly misleading.” And the BMA, along with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the Royal College of Nursing, has written to members of the House of Lords to clarify the situation.

The letter, from James Johnson, chairman of the BMA council, Alan Craft, chairman of the academy, and Beverly Malone, general secretary of the college, cites research published in the BMJ (2005;330:812-5) showing that secondhand smoke at work was likely to be responsible for the deaths of more than two employed people every working day in the United Kingdom (617 deaths a year.)

“To the medical and nursing professions the evidence is clear, overwhelming and unequivocal,” says the letter. “There is no safe level of exposure. Every day, as doctors and nurses, we see the devastating effects caused by second-hand smoke.

“Comprehensive smokefree action is right on the grounds of health and safety as well as the resulting public health benefits,” it adds.

Meanwhile Deborah Arnott, director of ASH, said the evidence of the harmful nature of secondhand smoke was overwhelming. “The government’s own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health has twice received the evidence and found secondhand smoke to be a cause of lung cancer and heart disease,” she said.

She added that the aim of current legislation to introduce smokefree public places in England was to improve public health by minimising people’s exposure to a major carcinogen.

She said, “The fact that more people may be exposed to smoke in the home than in public places does not mean that no action should be taken to protect people from exposure to smoke in the workplace and public places. The evidence is that legislation to control smoke in the workplaces helps to reduce smoking in the home.”

All the organisations are concerned that the committee’s report may affect the report stage of the Health Bill, which contains clauses on smoke-free measures. This is due to be heard in the House of Lords next week and is one of the final hurdles before the bill returns to the House of Commons and is given royal assent.

If the bill is passed all workplaces in England and Wales, including restaurants and pubs selling food, would have to have a ban in place by summer 2007.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Ban on smoking in public places "disproportionate to the problem"

Zosia Kmietowicz
BMJ 2006 332: 1349. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis

Konrad Jamrozik
BMJ 2005 330: 812. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]