• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Regression of smoking bans: The case of the netherlands
 

Regression of smoking bans: The case of the netherlands

on

  • 313 views

Lies van Gennip

Lies van Gennip
director STIVORO
Dutch Expert Centre on Tobacco Control
ICO-WHO Symposium 2012

Statistics

Views

Total Views
313
Views on SlideShare
313
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Regression of smoking bans: The case of the netherlands Regression of smoking bans: The case of the netherlands Presentation Transcript

    • Regression of smoking bansThe case of the Netherlands Dr. Lies van Gennip, director STIVORO, Dutch Expert Centre on Tobacco Control
    • Tobacco act 1990- Public places and government buildings: smoking ban- Private sector: self-regulation“Employees have the principal right to work in a 100%smoke-free environment. No safe threshold. A smokingban (granting separately ventilated smoking rooms) isrequired.” Court decision (Breda, 25 April 2000)
    • Amendment to Tobacco Act 2002“Employers are required to take measures to ensure thatemployees can do their work without being exposed totobacco smoke” Tobacco Act 2002, Article 11aAll workplaces smoke-free from 1/1/2004, hospitalitysector exempted.
    • GideonNov 2004:BAT, Imperial Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International andGallaher started ‘Gideon’ to challenge smoke-freeGideon (Hebrew:) means"Destroyer," "Mighty warrior,“or "Feller of trees“
    • GideonGideon used the ‘Tobacco Industry Playbook’- Ventilation- Lobby for exemptions- Postpone ban, self-regulation- Economic loss argument- Legal challenges- Litigation- Internet campaigns- Moral arguments (freedom, nanny-state)Gonzalez & Glantz. Failure of policy regarding smoke-free bars in the Netherlands. Eur J Public Health, 2011, Dec5 [Epub ahead of print]
    • Hospitality industry self-regulationPolicy Hospitality Venue 2005 target 2005 results (%) (%)Notice at front 50 28Smoke-free area Bars 25 11 Restaurants 25 20 Disco’s 25 9 Hotels smoke-free rooms 40 84 Hotels Smoke-free breakfast 20 78 Fast-food 25 21Smoke-free Fast-food 20 5 Ice-cream parlors 40 33
    • Hospitality industry self-regulationPolicy Hospitality Venue 2006 target 2006 results (%) (%)Notice at front 85 59Smoke-free area Bars 40 47 Restaurants 50 58 Disco’s 40 21 Hotels smoke-free rooms 75 97 Hotels Smoke-free breakfast 40 87 Fast-food 50 67Smoke-free Fast-food 30 14 Ice-cream parlors 70 55
    • Tobacco control lobby2006-2010: “National Tobacco Control Program ”:Coalition of Ministry of Health, Heart Foundation, CancerSociety and Astma Foundation. Argued against economic loss argument and tried toend self-regulation period.Clean Air Netherlands (CAN): 65,000 signatures toParlement to request smoke-free hospitality sector (May2006).
    • New government 2007Minister of Health (Ab Klink): “Hospitality sector must be100% smoke-free a.s.a.p.”
    • Partial smoke-free legislationJuly 2008. Smoke-free legislation extended to all barsand restaurants, but smoking rooms allowed.However:ban in small venues not supported by most politicalparties and challenged by politicians and hospitalitysector.
    • Implementation campaign
    • Foundation ‘Save the Small Bars’
    • Demonstrations small bar owners
    • Newspaper coverage smoke-free80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0% Nov Jun Jan Jul Mar Apr Sep Apr Mar Aug Feb May Oct Dec 2008 2009 Economy Resistance Health Nagelhout, G. E., Van den Putte, B., De Vries, H., & Willemsen, M. C. (2011). Krantenberichtgeving over het rookverbod in de horeca: Een inhoudsanalyse [Newspaper coverage about the smoking ban in the hospitality industry: A content analysis]. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap, 39, 4-16.
    • Court cases of revolting bars
    • New government 2010The first deed of Edith Schippers as Minister of Health isthe reversal of smoke-free legislation for small barswithout employeesDutch television documentaryrevealed contacts betweenMinister of Health and tobaccoindustry
    • ITC data smoke-free bars
    • ITC data smoke-free restaurants
    • 0 10 20 30 40 50 6020 08 /2 00 9 20 09 -1 20 09 -2 20 09 -320 09 -2 01 0 20 10 -1 20 10 -2 20 10 -320 10 /2 01 1 20 11 -1 20 11 -2 20 11 -3 20 11 -4 20 12 -1 Violations of smoke-free bars and nightclubs
    • Conclusions- Self-regulation not effective- Partial bans recipe for disaster- Smoke-free must be well implemented and strictlyenforced (from the start)- Education about harm from tobacco smoke is crucial- Prepare for the full Tobacco Industry ‘playbook’
    • Invitation: International SymposiumSmoke-free legislation: international researchfindings and lessons for the NetherlandsMaastricht, the Netherlands, October 10th 2012Speakers: Esteve Fernández (Spain), Ute Mons(Germany), and Geoffrey Fong (Canada)The symposium is organised in conjuction with thepublic PhD defence of Gera Nagelhout about theimpact of smoke-free legislation on smoking.More information gnagelhout@stivoro.nl