eMJA     The Medical Journal of Australia

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search | Login | Buy full access   

Abstract

Advocates of smoke-free restaurants have argued that bans not only bring public and occupational health benefit, but are very popular with diners⁴ and do not reduce trade.^5-8

In June 2000, the New South Wales government introduced legislation to ban smoking inside all restaurants, cafes and other places where food is purchased and consumed indoors.⁹ The law took effect in September 2000, 10 days before the commencement of the Sydney Olympic Games. Smoking was still permitted in outdoor eating areas and in bar areas inside those restaurants that had a "reception" licence (ie, typically, a bar area where patrons are served drinks before a meal).

The Victorian State government announced in May 2000 that a smoking ban, identical in most respects to that operating in New South Wales, would be introduced to take effect from 1 July 2001.¹⁰ Prior to the ban on indoor smoking in NSW restaurants, an increasing number of restaurants in both States had voluntarily introduced totally smoke-free dining, designated smoking areas or time restrictions (eg, smoking permitted only after 10 pm). The introduction of anti-smoking legislation in NSW prior to its introduction in Victoria afforded a unique window of opportunity to evaluate its implementation by comparing amount of smoking, staff acceptance of bans and customer numbers in restaurants in jurisdictions with and without a ban.

The restaurants selected in both Sydney and Melbourne were spread over a fairly broad geographical area. No restaurant was observed more than once.

Observers, after familiarising themselves with a standard observer's protocol, were asked to go their allocated restaurant in the evening, request a table inside the restaurant, order a meal and eat at their leisure. During the evening they tallied the number of diners and patrons waiting to collect take-away meals in the same room as themselves; recorded any indoor smoking incidents and whether smoking occurred in any bar areas; noted whether ashtrays were present; and, before leaving, administered to their table waiter a brief eight-item questionnaire (designed by us) on experiences with the new law and attitudes toward smoking in restaurants.

In Melbourne there were two different versions of the questionnaire, depending on whether a ban had already been implemented or whether staff were expressing expectations relating to a future ban. Any comments made by restaurant staff were also noted.

Observation

In Melbourne, 81 restaurants were observed for a mean time of 114 minutes (range, 60-235 minutes). The mean number of diners per restaurant was 37 (range, 5-198). Of the 3014 patrons, 176 diners (6%) smoked in indoor eating areas during the observation period. Overall, 15% (12/81) of restaurants had voluntarily introduced total bans on smoking indoors, with another 7% (6/81) banning smoking in all eating areas, giving 22% (18/81) having management-initiated bans comparable to those in law in NSW. A further 30% (24/81) had bans in some areas or at certain times, leaving 48% (39/81) that did not provide some notionally smoke-free dining.

Smoking practices were observed for compliance with individual restaurant policies on smoking (Box 1). It was noted that intrusion of smoke into smoke-free areas could be a problem, but there was no evidence of violation of management bans. Moreover, in areas where smoking was allowed, there were a considerable number of instances in which no smoking was actually observed. The presence of ashtrays in areas where smoking was allowed was associated with marginally more smoking -- smoking was observed in 20% (16/81) of restaurants with ashtrays versus 14% (11/81) of restaurants with no ashtrays.

Staff interviews

In contrast to the one-third of restaurants receiving complaints, 79% (62/78) of Sydney restaurants had received favourable comments from patrons about the ban, with over half receiving several or many comments since its implementation. Of restaurant staff who were questioned, 81% (63/78) supported the ban. Several of those who were against the ban commented that they were smokers themselves and resented being no longer able to smoke while working. While most businesses (76%) reported patronage in the current week to be normal, 14% of restaurants reported being busier than normal and 9% said business was slower.

In Melbourne, in the 18 restaurants with eating area bans and seven of the restaurants with partial bans (25/81), staff were asked questions about implementation of bans. In restaurants with no bans, staff were asked about what they would expect to happen if bans were introduced (Box 2).

In Melbourne restaurants, expectations and experiences of staff were generally similar, but staff in Melbourne observed or expected patrons to be more resistant to smoking bans than did staff in Sydney. It is notable that reports of patrons leaving without eating or saying they "won't be back" appear to be less frequent where bans are mandated. It is also notable that levels of positive comments were at least as high in Melbourne as Sydney. However, the small numbers preclude meaningful statistical analyses of differences.

Discussion

In Melbourne, while an encouraging number of restaurants have voluntarily introduced smoking bans, staff experience of people complaining, going elsewhere or generally "making a scene" appears to be more common than in Sydney, where the ban may have introduced a "level playing-field", whereby patrons threatening to "go elsewhere" find that all restaurants now have the same non-smoking conditions.

Increasingly, Australian studies have demonstrated that a majority of restaurant patrons prefer to eat in situations where smoking is banned or meaningfully restricted,¹² and that restaurateurs have for years severely underestimated the demand for smoke-free dining.^13-16 Economic game theory¹⁷ predicts that restaurant owners trying to introduce voluntary bans could be caught in a dilemma between complying with occupational health and safety laws and yielding to perceived competitive pressures to allow smoking. Under these circumstances, many would continue to put their (often erroneously) perceived economic interests first.

Internal tobacco industry documents affirm that the industry has long been intensely concerned about the impact of smoking restrictions on tobacco sales.¹⁸ Just as smoke-free workplaces have dramatically reduced smoking frequency among continuing smokers,¹⁹ smoke-free dining also reduces smoking opportunities and so is likely to further reduce net tobacco consumption. The most immediate effect of such bans is to reduce the occupational exposure of restaurant staff to environmental tobacco smoke.²⁰

Internal industry documents also reveal that the tobacco industry was aware that its public campaigns predicting dire economic consequences for restaurants were disingenuous. A 1994 Philip Morris internal document stated that "the economic arguments often used by the industry to scare off smoking ban activity were no longer working, if indeed they ever did. These arguments simply had no credibility with the public, which isn't surprising when you consider that our dire predictions in the past rarely came true."²¹

Our findings suggest that the Sydney restaurant trade has not declined, despite smoking bans — if anything, it may have increased slightly. However, our study had a number of limitations.

Firstly, it was conducted over a very short period, during weather conditions that were warm and well suited to outdoor dining. About one-third of the restaurants observed had outdoor areas where smokers could eat and smoke. It will be important to reassess compliance with the legislation in the longer term and during colder months.

Secondly, the selection of restaurants was not strictly random, but related to proximity to the homes of the volunteer observers. Selection from restaurant guides also meant that very low price cafes were not included, so our results can not be generalised to all commercial indoor eating venues.

Thirdly, the reported perceptions of table waiters about customer reaction to smoke-free dining, although consistent with population-based surveys of dining preference,^3,11-14 are unvalidated, as are their estimates of the volume of patronage. Proper validation of the impact of smoke-free legislation on restaurant and hotel trade would require the collection of longitudinal tax receipt data. In the United States, when tax receipts have been used as outcome measures, smoke-free laws have been shown to either have no effect on sales or to generate slightly increased patronage.^5-8

Acknowledgements

References

1. Egan C. Where there's smoke, there's ire. The Australian 2000; 20 Dec.
2. Rowbotham J. Restaurant, pub smoking ban stalled. Sydney Morning Herald 1999; 4 Feb: 6.
3. Stevenson S. AHA to oppose new smoking ban moves. The Mercury (Hobart) 2000; 29 July: 9.
4. Walsh RA, Paul CL, Tzelepis F. Overwhelming support for smoking bans. Aust N Z J Public Health 2000; 24: 640-641.
5. Glantz SA. Effect of smoke-free bar law on bar revenues in California. Tob Control 2000; 9: 111-112.
6. Glantz SA, Smith LRA. The effect of ordinances requiring smokefree restaurants on restaurant sales. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 1081-1085.
7. Chapman S, Lee NM, Monaem A. Smoking in restaurants [letter]. Med J Aust 1998; 168: 637.
8. Glantz S, Charlesworth A. Tourism and hotel revenues before and after passage of smoke-free restaurant ordinances. JAMA 1999; 281: 1911-1918.
9. Parliament of New South Wales. 52nd Parliament. Smoke-Free Environment Bill (Legislative Council). Hansard, 29 June 2000, p 7809.
10. Government of Victoria. Department of Human Services, Public Health Division. Smoke free dining legislation — what does this mean for restaurants and cafes? Information Bulletin 1, May 2000. Available at <http://www.tobaccoreforms.vic.gov.au/cafes1.htm>.
11. Jones A. Radio 2UE (Sydney) 30 Aug 2000; 06:41 am.
12. Trotter L. Environmental tobacco smoke: surveys of restaurant patrons and hospitality industry personnel. Quit Evaluation Studies Vol. 9, Chapter 3. Available at: <http://www.quit.org.au/QE9/QE9Home.html>. Accessed 4 April 2001.
13. Schofield MJ, Considine R, Boyle CA, Sanson-Fisher R. Smoking control in restaurants — the effectiveness of self-regulation in Australia. Am J Public Health 1993; 83: 1284-1288.
14. Borland R, Hill D. Public attitudes to smoke-free zones in restaurants: an update [letter]. Med J Aust 1991; 154: 292-293.
15. Mullins R. A survey of patrons of Melbourne restaurants on the provision of smokefree dining. Melbourne: Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, May 1991.
16. Roberts C, Algert C, Chey T, Capon A. Community attitudes to smoking in restaurants [letter]. Med J Aust 1992; 157: 210.
17. Shiel A, Chapman S. The inertia of self-regulation: a game-theoretic approach to reducing passive smoking in restaurants. Soc Sci Med 2000; 51: 1111-1119.
18. Public smoking: the problem. Available at: <http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=TIMN0014554/4565>. Accessed 4 April 2001.
19. Chapman S, Borland R, Brownson R, et al. The impact of workplace smoking bans on declining cigarette consumption in Australia and the USA. Am J Public Health 1999; 89: 1018-1023.
20. Jarvis MJ, Foulds J, Feyerabend C. Exposure to passive smoking among bar staff. Br J Addict 1992; 87: 111-113.
21. Laufer D. (Philip Morris USA) Presentation transcript. Available at: <http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg. asp?DOCID=2041183751/3790>, p 28. Accessed 4 April 2001.

Authors' details

VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, Carlton, VIC.
Ron Borland, PhD, Director;
Anita Lal, BEc, GradDipPsych, Research Officer.

Reprints will not be available from the authors.
Correspondence: Professor S Chapman, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006.
simoncAThealth.usyd.edu.au

©MJA 2001
Make a comment