Tobacco.org

University of Minnesota/OSU Tobacco Control Study Flawed; Combining Data on Bars and Restaurants Skewed Results 

Ohio newspapers, radio and TV news recently broadcast the results of a study performed at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health with Elizabeth Klein, Assistant Professor, Health Behavior and Health Promotion, Ohio State University as lead researcher. This study was funded by ClearWay Minnesota, a non-profit organization that funds Minnesota tobacco control, and used employment data as its sole economic indicator. This study gained headlines in the media as "Ban hurting business? No, study says." (Columbus Dispatch, May 19, 2009, front page). All Headline News opened with "New research suggests that smoking bans in bars meant to improve the environmental quality of indoor air doesn't cause job losses." (Note: No reference to restaurants).

What is not mentioned is the reason that this study was conducted. According to the Abstract from Ms. Klein's study, "due to the perception of negative economic effects on alcohol-licensed hospitality businesses, partial CIA policies (those that provide an exemption for freestanding bars) have been proposed as a means to reduce the risk of economic effects of comprehensive CIA policies applied to all worksites."). UWeekly, an OSU student run publication, quotes Klein as saying "the places that made exemptions for bars they weren't significantly different from the places that provided no exemptions for bars."

Glaringly obvious even to a novice is that freestanding bars were supposed to be the target of the study. Even more obvious are these facts. . . .

Tobacco Control is well aware smoking bans have little effect on restaurants while bars are negatively impacted. So why were restaurants included in Klein's study? According to Pat Carroll, President of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, "It's obvious why it was done this way. It's to distort the truth. You can't lump bars and restaurants together. We have entirely different customers and provide different atmospheres. We demand this study be done again without restaurant data." Pam Parker, BLPHA Board Member and co-founder of Opponents of Ohio Bans asks "The problem is that this study, timed quite nicely to be released just as we have SB 120 introduced to exempt family owned bars in Ohio, has been widely distributed. If the data from this study is reexamined and finds that bars are hurt from smoking bans, will the researchers go to similar lengths to see that proper retractions are printed and headlined?"

Jump to full article »