Countering tobacco industry myths

According to the Department of Health Central Visayas-Health Promotions Office, based on “Smoke-free Inside” published by the World Health Organization, even though effective smoke-free laws are popular, policy-makers and the public must be prepared to respond to the many, often-used arguments aimed at stopping their passage and implementation.

“The main opposition comes from the tobacco industry, often using a third party, such as hotel and restaurant associations, to promote its arguments, while the industry itself does its best to stay out of the public debate,” the journal stated.

The report aimed at encouraging the establishment of 100-percent smoke-free environments said that the most opposition tactics and arguments are predictable and must be countered.

“The tobacco industry and its allies will challenge the science on the health effects of second-hand tobacco smoke exposure and propose that designated smoking areas and ventilation are acceptable alternatives,” this was stressed.

“They will also claim that smoke-free laws are a violation of so-called ‘smokers rights’, or are simply not necessary, not feasible, not enforceable and will have a negative impact on business (particularly restaurants, bars and casinos),” it warned.

Further, it said that “these claims are unproven and should not be factored into policy-making decisions.” 

Here are some of the most commonly used tobacco industry myths and how to counter them:

1. MYTH: Environmental tobacco smoke is just a nuisance.

WRONG! It is not a nuisance. It is a health hazard. To support their claims, the industry and its supporters will probably point at outdated or non-peer reviewed studies, many of them financed by the tobacco industry itself or affiliated organizations, concluding that there is not enough evidence to affirm that tobacco smoke is dangerous.

2. MYTH: Voluntary agreements offer “courtesy of choice”: it is possible to accommodate smokers and non-smokers.

WRONG! The “courtesy of choice” concept, where smokers and non-smokers live in harmony, ignores the serious health consequence of second-hand smoke (SHS). However, the tobacco industry has used it as one of their strongest marketing campaigns, claiming that this approach promotes tolerance and requires the accommodation of smokers and non-smokers in the same enclosed spaces.

3. MYTH: Ventilation systems protect non-smokers from exposure to SHS.

WRONG! The tobacco industry has promoted the installation and use of expensive ventilation systems and equipment, in an attempt to accommodate smokers and non-smokers in the same indoor enclosed spaces. This is a tactic to avoid the establishment of strict bans. However, ventilation is not only very expensive, it does not protect health. Only 100 percent smoke-free environments protect the public from exposure to SHS.

4. MYTH: Smoke-free environments (SFEs) will never work.

WRONG! SFEs are widely supported by smokers and non-smokers and, if rightly enforced, they work by protecting people from exposure to SHS. They also support smokers who wish to quit, making it easier for them to stop and stay stopped.

5. MYTH: SFEs result in lost business to restos and pubs.

WRONG! Even though the tobacco industry will try to convince business owners and policy-makers of the contrary, supporting their allegations with biased studies that lack rigor in their analysis, not a single independent and rigorous peer-reviewed study has proved that smoking bans result in negative results for business or the economy.

6. MYTH: Smoking bans infringe smokers’ rights and freedom of choice.

WRONG! Smoke-free laws do not infringe anyone’s rights. They are about protecting people’s health by regulating where to smoke and where not to smoke. ?