Updated on Dec 18, 2008
Lam Kwok-tung’s claim (Talkback, December 13) that the University of Hong Kong’s study of second-hand smoke lacks validity is classic tobacco-industry-style misinformation.
Our full report, to be published in a peer-reviewed international scientific journal, does demonstrate clear evidence for a causal relationship between workplace air quality and respiratory health (“Stick by full smoke ban, urge academics”, December 10).
Higher levels of particulates, wherever they occurred, were associated with greater reductions in lung function.
Your correspondent’s implausible explanation for this is that the most vulnerable workers, with previous respiratory problems, somehow selectively occupied jobs in the most polluted workplaces during the two years since the smoking ban legislation.
His shroud waving is baseless. For example, why does he claim that “thousands are no longer employed” given that government statistics since 2006 show the catering business has increased by 30 per cent and bars were exempted from the ban?
The only “competing interest” in this issue is the tobacco industry and a small section of the hospitality trade which says it cannot make a profit in Hong Kong without serving food and drink in filthy air.
Independent economic analyses in other jurisdictions show no negative impact of smoke-free policies, except on tobacco sales.
Despite Mr Lam’s denial, your readers can be sure that smoke-free legislation has led to dramatic improvements in the health of bar workers and the general population, measured as inflammation, respiratory symptoms, lung function or hospital admissions for heart disease. That includes the Scottish workers study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and reports from New York, Montana, Ohio, Colorado, and two from Italy.
Mr Lam accuses us of prejudice, but our only bias is the identification of serious occupational health risks. He admits that Hong Kong’s outdoor pollution is a major problem, but wants to create workplace contamination four times this level.
This cynical trade-off does not “pale into insignificance”, and the increased risks of heart attack, stroke and cancer will be unacceptable to anyone who is properly informed.
The suggestion that our catering industry is either willing or able to advise on these hazards is ludicrous.
Anthony J. Hedley, school of public health, University of Hong Kong