COLUMBUS, Ohio — The passage of smoking bans in two large Minnesota cities was not associated with job losses at bars and may in fact have contributed to higher employment in restaurants, according to new research.
The study is the first to examine the economic effects of clean indoor air policies on bars and restaurants as independent types of businesses, the researchers said. Consistent with previous published studies of the economic impact of smoking bans, this analysis did not find significant economic effects on the hospitality industry as a whole.
In both Minneapolis and St. Paul, the policies were associated with an increase of at least 3 percent in employment at restaurants over a 2 ½-year span following adoption of a local clean indoor air policy. Employment in Minneapolis bars increased more than 5 percent after passage of that city’s smoking ban, while in St. Paul, bar employment had a nonsignificant decrease of 1 percent — a decrease that cannot be statistically distinguished from zero, or no change in employment.
The researchers noted that the broad look at total bar and restaurant employment at the city level over time means that this study is not able to describe potential changes at the neighborhood or individual business level. Opponents to smoking bans have argued against enactment of these policies with predictions of large revenue losses, worker layoffs and business closures in the hospitality industry, and at bars in particular because of known correlations between drinking and tobacco use.
Proponents of such policies say smoking bans promote a healthful workplace atmosphere for workers and patrons. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, exposure to secondhand smoke increases nonsmokers’ risks of developing lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory conditions and other diseases.
“These clean indoor air policies are designed to protect workers from exposure to secondhand smoke,” said Elizabeth Klein, assistant professor of health behavior and health promotion at Ohio State University and lead author of the study.
“We are evaluating business employment because employment is an objective measure of the overall economic health of these businesses. What we have found is that there isn’t a significant economic effect for bars, and in fact for restaurants, there is some positive change in employment. These findings underscore that nothing economically catastrophic happened for bars or restaurants in the Twin Cities as a result of banning smoking in these environments.”
The research is published in the July/August issue of the Journal of Public Health Management Practice.
All of this research examines employment trends before Minnesota adopted a comprehensive statewide clean indoor air policy in late 2007. A comprehensive citywide smoking ban — covering virtually all workplaces — took effect on March 31, 2005 in Minneapolis and on March 31, 2006 in St. Paul. For a year before that, St. Paul operated under a partial smoking ban that exempted bars.
Klein and colleagues used what is called an interrupted time series analysis to evaluate short- and long-term effects of these new policies. They examined a five-year period between January 2003 and December 2007 to monitor employment levels in bars and restaurants before and after enactment of the smoking bans in these two cities.
“It is difficult to find an appropriate comparison between one city with a clean indoor air policy and another city without a policy, so we used this model to look at what was going on in each community before adoption of the policies and what happened after that. This design allows for each city to serve as its own comparison group,” Klein said.
The researchers also accounted for employment in the rest of the hospitality industry — minus restaurants and bars — over the same time period as a way to account for general economic conditions that might have been an additional influence on bar and restaurant employment.
The researchers obtained employment figures from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, to which businesses are required by law to report the total number of individuals they employ each month.
In Minneapolis, the comprehensive smoking ban was associated with a 3 percent gradual permanent increase in employment at restaurants and an increase of between 5 percent and 6 percent employment in bars. The estimated change in the rest of the hospitality industry, when compared with either bars or restaurants, was a 1 percent or smaller increase in employment.
In St. Paul, the clean indoor air policy was associated with a 4 percent increase in restaurant employment. Bars, which were not subject to the smoking ban until a year later than restaurants in that city, saw a 1 percent or smaller decrease in employment after the smoking ban took effect in bars. When subject to statistical analysis, that decrease was no different from no effect at all.
For the rest of the hospitality industry in St. Paul, the partial smoking ban was associated with an almost 12 percent increase in employment. The comprehensive clean indoor air policy adopted a year later was associated with a reduction in hospitality employment of 13 percent, but this decrease was not significant by statistical standards. Klein said no clear explanation exists for this decrease, but an ongoing investigation into the economic effects of the statewide Minnesota smoking ban adopted in late 2007 can evaluate if other regions of the state experienced similar trends.
As part of monitoring other economic conditions, Klein accounted for the potential influence of a National Hockey League 2004-05 season-long strike on employment at bars and restaurants in St. Paul, home to the Minnesota Wild. The strike was associated with a nonsignificant drop in bar and restaurant employment of less than 1 percent.
The researchers did note that the employment figures act as a headcount of the total number of people employed but do not differentiate between part-time and full-time jobs held. And while revenues are another strong indicator of the economic health of businesses, reliable revenue data would not be available frequently enough to allow for a monthly analysis.
Klein said that these findings are consistent with previous research that has examined the economic effects of smoking bans on bars and restaurants in California and in cities in Canada and Australia. It also reinforces her own findings published in 2009 that suggested that exempting bars from community smoking bans made no economic difference in terms of preserving bar employment. That study examined employment trends over three years in eight Minnesota cities with different types of clean indoor air policies and two cities with no laws restricting smoking.
While the Midwestern United States has been slower to adopt clean indoor air policies than have coastal states, Klein said this first detailed look at the economic effects of smoking bans on bars in the Midwest might encourage more communities and states in the region to consider adopting the policies.
“These results show there is a null or a slightly positive effect on employment with these policies,” Klein said. “In this case, it appears that the unintended consequences of local clean indoor air policies may have had a positive, albeit small, economic benefit for hospitality businesses.”
This work was supported by a grant from ClearWay Minnesota, an independent, nonprofit organization seeking to reduce Minnesota residents’ tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke through research, action and collaboration. The study findings do not necessarily represent the official views of the organization.
Co-authors on the paper were Jean Forster, Darin Erickson and Leslie Lytle of the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, and Barbara Schillo of ClearWay Minnesota.
Contact: Elizabeth Klein, (614) 292-5424; [email protected] (E-mail is the best way to initiate contact with Klein.)
Written by Emily Caldwell, (614) 292-8310; [email protected]
If our reporting has informed or inspired you, please consider making a donation. Every contribution, no matter the size, empowers us to continue delivering accurate, engaging, and trustworthy science and medical news. Independent journalism requires time, effort, and resources—your support ensures we can keep uncovering the stories that matter most to you.
Join us in making knowledge accessible and impactful. Thank you for standing with us!
Has Ms. Klein talked to the owners of these restaurant and bars owners?
Or is she afraid that she might find out the ‘real’ truth of the matter?
http://fightingback.homestead.com
Liz Klein, world renowned grant sponge of Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She is famous for producing studies which agree with the desired outcome of her grantors. When she was asked to produce the TWO DIFFERENT studies showing revenue in restuarants and small bars seperately, she refused. She is the worst kind of liar, one that lies for money. As long as she receives funding from this drug company, who sells nicotine replacement products, she will continue to lie. If someone offers her a nickel more to say smoking is good for you, she will do it in a heartbeat!
Dear fellow libertarians,
If there is one thing that we all ought to realize when talking about rights, it is this
THERE ARE OFTEN CONFLICTS BETWEEN OPPOSING RIGHTS.
For example, what would you say to smokers, who have children, smoking in their own private homes? Now that isn’t forbidden by law. And yet, one cannot help wonder how to balance the parent’s right to smoke with the child’s right to avoid second-hand smoke? Of-course, the child may not always complain and may even take to early smoking. Now, if nobody is complaining, there is no argument from rights, no question of conflict of rights but for the child’s health which could have been far better in a healthier environment – you see the point, don’t you?
We have to choose the right balance between opposing rights of different people keeping the larger picture in perspective – by trying to identify which things are gratuitous and which absolutely important (good health, for example).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3iZVPYhAGk&p=A8C7A27A6C7BF698
Recent research shows that scientific studies funded by special interest groups are not actually scientific except in the language used to express them. Sort of like an atheist quoting scripture. They say what hey want but really can’t expect any one to believe them. So in all actuallity Bob it’s just another opinion and we all know what opinions are like. You sir are rapidly approaching the epitomy of those understandings in comparison.
Moffit hopes we are all doing well……that’s priceless Bob considering your organization lobbied for smoking bans which eliminated many of our jobs, but with a $99 million grant from the Nicoderm marketing department IE. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) I’m sure you’re doing well …….good for you Bobby.BTW if you all would like to know the back story about Liz Klein’s “study” here was her email to me:The deception of ‘no significant employment change’ as explained by ‘studies’ author….they didn’t include business closings in their study, and ‘study’ took place between 2003-2006; Minnesota’s statewide smoking ban didn’t go into effect until 2007
Hey, Archie, Mark & Shawn! It’s been awhile. Hope you are doing well.
Amazing how the “FOX” is left in charge of counting the chickens.
This smoking ban has damaged and killed off more business and put people out of work than any hair brianed public funded idea “activists spending public funds could have ever come up with”
Letter like this is insulting to the victims of their fascist ideas. Shame
BTW here’s the link to the 400 closed Minnesota bars & restaurants since smoking bans were enacted here
Sorry folks here’s that $99 million grant from RWJF to American Lung Assoc.
Bob Moffitt we’ve come a long, long way. Remember 2005 when it seemed I was the only “conspiracy theorist” who knew about the $99 million grant you folks received from your Nicoderm, Nicorette, friends RWJF? http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=14912Now it seems thousands of people know about your special interest, for profit motive for pushing the smoking ban agenda. Nice to see the internet is the great equalizer to get the truth out there Smoking bans: good public policy? Or simply a Nicoderm funded marketing scamHere’s a trip down memory lane for you: British Medical Journal air testing American Cancer Society tests Health dept testing Johns Hopkins testing of secondhand smoke
Mr. Moffitt – tell the readers about the $99,000,000 your Lung Association shared with the ACS and AHA from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for smoking bans. RWJF was created by the founder of Johnson & Johnson; they own 42,343,491 shares of J&J stock. Johnson & Johnson sells the patches and gum.
Don’t the studies AND a publication by the ACS show the best way to quit smoking is cold turkey? Then why do you push big pHARMa’s addictive nicotine? Oh…that’s right. RWJF gave you tax free grant money. I’ve even got a copy of a RWJF funded publication put out by the Lung Association listing their products BY NAME under over-the-counter NRT. The patches have a 98.4% failure rate (just ask Dr. Michael Siegel) and the gum YOU RECOMMEND is more addictive than cigarettes (go to AskAPatient dot com and look up “Nicorette” to see the harm it’s had on the users). Go to the Huffington Post and search for the video of Jessica Simpson on Jay Leno. SHE’S addicted to Nicorette and she’s never smoked!!!
Careful. Your funding is exposed.
My post evidently was not approved. Let’s try this again.
Ms. Klein’s study has already been debunked. She uses employment data on restaurants using NAICS 722110 and bars, NAICS 722410 and COMBINES them, knowing full well that bars and restaurants are different business models AND that restaurants outnumber bars 5:1 while restaurant employees outnumber bar employees 10:1. We exposed Ms. Klein’s study LAST year in a press release. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS143891+29-May-2009+PRN20090529
Senator Bill Seitz sent Ms. Klein a letter demanding she either separate bars from restaurants (she RECEIVED the data separately, it shouldn’t be a problem) or give the data to him so he could do it. She REFUSED. http://opponentsofohiobans.com/Documents/Seitz%20Lttr%20to%20Klein%20-%20study%20on%20indoor%20air%20act%20laws%205%2029%2009.pdf
Ms. Klein – I wonder if you did a study using employment data on Wal-mart if you would declare all retail as “doing well” ? I mean, retail is retail, isn’t it? If you’re going to use employment data for all hospitality industry jobs and lump them together, what’s the difference? Wouldn’t Victoria Secret or NAPA be doing well if Wal-mart is?
Bob Moffit, & Liz Klein claiming “no significant employment change under smoking bans” shows how delusional, and /or bold faced liars the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Nicoderm) funded activists have become. Smoking bans in MN have closed 400 bars and restaurants, that’s approximately 1/3 to total liquor licensed establishments in Mpls. & St. Paul. (there were approx. 1200 establishments in the Twin Cities prior to the bans)List of closures is online here:http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
Moffitt – I think you should back that up with putting money into escrow to help the BARS that lose money.
Klein has already been severely chastised for this study. We issued a press release about it. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS143891+29-May-2009+PRN20090529
Tobacco Control is PAID by the non-profit foundation of the pharmaceutical company that sells the patches and gum. Klein INTENTIONALLY took employment data on restaurant employment (NAICS 722110) and bar employment (NAICS 722410) and COMBINED the data to do her study. Even though restaurants outnumber bars 5:1 and restaurant employees outnumber bar employees 10:1. One laid off bar employee is statistically insignificant compared to 50 restaurant employees. Senator Bill Seitz, Ohio, SENT Ms. Klein a letter demanding she separate bars from restaurants OR send the data to him so he could. SHE REFUSED. http://opponentsofohiobans.com/Documents/Seitz%20Lttr%20to%20Klein%20-%20study%20on%20indoor%20air%20act%20laws%205%2029%2009.pdf
This is a big trick of Tobacco Control. Bars are completely different models than restaurants and Ms. Klein FULL WELL knew combining the data was the only way to declare that the entire industry was doing well after a smoking ban. It is NOT doing well for bars! I know! My husband and I OWN ONE!!
To continue to pass this research off as valid is nothing short of unethical. We demand, as Senator Seitz did, that Ms. Klein SEPARATE BARS FROM RESTAURANTS and report the employment data SEPARATELY.
Elizabeth Klein is a shill for Clearway Minnesota, who helped fund this study. She twisted facts and figures in a way that made Clearway look like the star of the day in a previous study, and she certainly has done it again. Why? So Clearway can continue to steal money from the hardworking citizens of Minnesota.Ask yourself this: if a study was published that stated that businesses were negatively impacted by the Minnesota Smoking Ban (which many were), and it became public that Altria (the parent company of Philip Morris USA) had funded said study, wouldn’t you be a little skeptical of the finding of that study?
Elizabeth Klein is a stooge for big pharma. Please read here how she has twisted data to obtain the outcome she prefers. Also read the after comments.
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html
As I told Jeff Petterson at WIXK-AM (New Richmond, WI) yesterday, Wisconsin has nothing to fear when it goes smokefree on July 5th.
Robert Moffitt
Communications Director
American Lung Association in Minnesota
Here in Chicago, many small neighborhood bars have to ignore the ban to stay in business.
Take that Jax Cafe! They were one of the restaurants that were vehemently opposed to the smoking ban. I doubt they lost a dime after it was enacted. It’s been so nice to enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere while out on the town.