Risks for heart disease and lung cancer from passive smoking by workers in the catering industry

Workers in the catering industry are at greater risk of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) when smoke-free workplace policies are not in force. We determined the exposure of catering workers to SHS in Hong Kong and their risk of death from heart disease and lung cancer. Nonsmoking catering workers were provided with screening at their workplaces and at a central clinic. Participants reported workplace, home, and leisure time exposure to SHS. Urinary cotinine was estimated by enzyme immunoassay. Catering facilities were classified into three types: nonsmoking, partially restricted smoking (with nonsmoking areas), and unrestricted smoking. Mean urinary cotinine levels ranged from 3.3 ng/ml in a control group of 16 university staff through 6.4 ng/ml (nonsmoking), 6.1 ng/ml (partially restricted), and 15.9 ng/ml (unrestricted smoking) in 104 workers who had no exposures outside of work. Workers in nonsmoking facilities had exposures to other smoking staff. We modeled workers' mortality risks using average cotinine levels, estimates of workplace respirable particulates, risk data for cancer and heart disease from cohort studies, and national (US) and regional (Hong Kong) mortality for heart disease and lung cancer. We estimated that deaths in the Hong Kong catering workforce of 200,000 occur at the rate of 150 per year for a 40-year working-lifetime exposure to SHS. When compared with the current outdoor air quality standards for particulates in Hong Kong, 30% of workers exceeded the 24-h and 98% exceeded the annual air quality objectives due to workplace SHS exposures. © 2006 Oxford University Press.postprin

Differential Impacts of Smoke-Free Laws on Indoor Air Quality

The authors assessed the impacts of two different smoke-free laws on indoor air quality. They compared the indoor air quality of 10 hospitality venues in Lexington and Louisville, Kentucky, before and after the smoke-free laws went into effect. Real-time measurements of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 µm or smaller (PM2.5) were made. One Lexington establishment was excluded from the analysis of results because of apparent smoking violation after the law went into effect. The average indoor PM2.5 concentrations in the nine Lexington venues decreased 91 percent, from 199 to 18 µg/m3. The average indoor PM2.5 concentrations in the 10 Louisville venues, however, increased slightly, from 304 to 338 µg/m3. PM2.5 levels in the establishments decreased as numbers of burning cigarettes decreased. While the Louisville partial smoke-free law with exemptions did not reduce indoor air pollution in the selected venues, comprehensive and properly enforced smoke-free laws can be an effective means of reducing indoor air pollution

Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposures: Workplace exposures, related perceptions of SHS risk, and reactions to smoking in catering workers in smoking and nonsmoking premises

Introduction: Smoke-free workplace legislation often exempts certain venues. Do smoking (exempted) and nonsmoking (nonexempted) catering premises' workers in Hong Kong report different perceptions of risk from and reactions to nearby smoking as well as actual exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS)? Methods: In a cross-sectional survey of 204 nonsmoking catering workers, those from 67 premises where smoking is allowed were compared with workers from 36 nonsmoking premises in Hong Kong on measures of perceptions of risk and behavioral responses to self-reported SHS exposure, plus independent exposure assessment using urinary cotinine. Results: Self-reported workplace SHS exposure prevalence was 57% (95% CI = 49%-65%) in premises prohibiting and 100% (95% CI = 92%-100%) in premises permitting smoking (p < .001). Workers in smoking-permitted premises perceived workplace air quality as poorer (odds ratio [OR] = 9.3, 95% CI = 4.2-20.9) with higher associated risks (OR = 3.7, 95% CI = 1.6-8.6) than workers in smoking-prohibited premises. Workers in smoking-prohibited premises were more bothered by (OR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.1-0.5) and took more protective action to avoid SHS (OR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.1-0.4) than workers in smoking-permitted premises. Nonwork exposure was negatively associated with being always bothered by nearby smoking (OR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.1-0.9), discouraging nearby smoking (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.2-1.1), and discouraging home smoking (OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.9). Urinary cotinine levels were inversely related to workers' avoidance behavior but positively related to their perceived exposure-related risks. Conclusions: Different workplace smoking restrictions predicted actual SHS exposure, exposure-related risk perception, and protective behaviors. Workers from smoking-permitted premises perceived greater SHS exposure-related risks but were more tolerant of these than workers in smoking-prohibited premises. This tolerance might indirectly increase both work and nonwork exposures. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved.postprin

Recent Contributions of Air- and Biomarkers to the Control of Secondhand Smoke (SHS): A Review

Since the publication of the US Surgeon General Reports in 1996 and 2006 and the report of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1999, many reports have appeared on the contribution of air and biomarkers to different facets of the secondhand smoke (SHS) issue, which are the targets of this review. These recent studies have allowed earlier epidemiological surveys to be biologically validated, and their plausibility demonstrated, quantified the levels of exposure to SHS before the bans in various environments, showed the deficiencies of mechanical control methods and of partial bans and the frequently correct implementation of the efficient total bans. More stringent regulation remains necessary in the public domain (workplaces, hospitality venues, transport sector, etc.) in many countries. Personal voluntary protection efforts against SHS are also needed in the private domain (homes, private cars). The effects of SHS on the cardiovascular, respiratory and neuropsychic systems, on pregnancy and fertility, on cancers and on SHS genotoxicity are confirmed through experimental human studies and through the relationship between markers and prevalence of disease or of markers of disease risk

Quantification of ETS exposure in hospitality workers who have never smoked

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) was classified as human carcinogen (K1) by the German Research Council in 1998. According to epidemiological studies, the relative risk especially for lung cancer might be twice as high in persons who have never smoked but who are in the highest exposure category, for example hospitality workers. In order to implement these results in the German regulations on occupational illnesses, a valid method is needed to retrospectively assess the cumulative ETS exposure in the hospitality environment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A literature-based review was carried out to locate a method that can be used for the German hospitality sector. Studies assessing ETS exposure using biological markers (for example urinary cotinine, DNA adducts) or questionnaires were excluded. Biological markers are not considered relevant as they assess exposure only over the last hours, weeks or months. Self-reported exposure based on questionnaires also does not seem adequate for medico-legal purposes. Therefore, retrospective exposure assessment should be based on mathematical models to approximate past exposure.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For this purpose a validated model developed by Repace and Lowrey was considered appropriate. It offers the possibility of retrospectively assessing exposure with existing parameters (such as environmental dimensions, average number of smokers, ventilation characteristics and duration of exposure). The relative risk of lung cancer can then be estimated based on the individual cumulative exposure of the worker.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In conclusion, having adapted it to the German hospitality sector, an existing mathematical model appears to be capable of approximating the cumulative exposure. However, the level of uncertainty of these approximations has to be taken into account, especially for diseases with a long latency period such as lung cancer.</p

Environmental Health Organisations against Tobacco

Implementing the World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) relies heavily on enforcement. Little is known of the way different enforcement agencies operate, prioritise or network. A questionnaire was sent to representatives of the International Federation of Environmental Health (IFEH) in 36 countries. Tobacco control was given low priority. Almost two thirds did not have any tobacco control policy. A third reported their organisation had worked with other agencies on tobacco control. Obstacles to addressing tobacco control included a lack of resources (61%) and absence of a coherent strategy (39%)

National smokefree law in New Zealand improves air quality inside bars, pubs and restaurants

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background:</p> <p>We aimed to: (i) assess compliance with a new smokefree law in a range of hospitality settings; and (ii) to assess the impact of the new law by measuring air quality and making comparisons with air quality in outdoor smoking areas and with international data from hospitality settings.</p> <p>Methods:</p> <p>We included 34 pubs, restaurants and bars, 10 transportation settings, nine other indoor settings, six outdoor smoking areas of bars and restaurants, and six other outdoor settings. These were selected using a mix of random, convenience and purposeful sampling. The number of lit cigarettes among occupants at defined time points in each venue was observed and a portable real-time aerosol monitor was used to measure fine particulate levels (PM_2.5).</p> <p>Results:</p> <p>No smoking was observed during the data collection periods among over 3785 people present in the indoor venues, nor in any of the transportation settings. The levels of fine particulates were relatively low inside the bars, pubs and restaurants in the urban and rural settings (mean 30-minute level = 16 μg/m³for 34 venues; range of mean levels for each category: 13 μg/m³to 22 μg/m³). The results for other smokefree indoor settings (shops, offices etc) and for smokefree transportation settings (eg, buses, trains, etc) were even lower. However, some "outdoor" smoking areas attached to bars/restaurants had high levels of fine particulates, especially those that were partly enclosed (eg, up to a 30-minute mean value of 182 μg/m³and a peak of maximum value of 284 μg/m³). The latter are far above WHO guideline levels for 24-hour exposure (ie, 25μg/m³).</p> <p>Conclusion:</p> <p>There was very high compliance with the new national smokefree law and this was also reflected by the relatively good indoor air quality in hospitality settings (compared to the "outdoor" smoking areas and the comparable settings in countries that permit indoor smoking). Nevertheless, adopting enhanced regulations (as used in various US and Canadian jurisdictions) may be needed to address hazardous air quality in relatively enclosed "outdoor" smoking areas.</p