Abstract
This 1993 Tobacco Institute (TI) memo outlines sample tactics and strategies the industry could use to fight legislated and voluntary smoking bans in restaurants. It was written by Joanna Hamilton and Peter Sparber of the TI's consulting firm Sparber & Associates.
In order to prevent the public from becoming sympathetic towards restaurant workers who are exposed to secondhand smoke on their jobs, the authors recommend raising public antipathy towards restaurant workers (particularly immigrant workers from South America, it seems) by portraying them as spreaders, rather than victims, of disease:
"Since restaurant workers are largely incapable of speaking out for themselves, we believe the only way that the 'restaurant workers as victims of ETS' issue can grow is if the anti-smokers can generate sympathy for them. But, given the public health problems reportedly caused by restaurant workers, it is ironic that restaurant workers could ever be seen as victims of any sort. The best way of countering the antis, is to encourage third parties to increase public awareness of the public health threat posed by restaurant workers. It may be hard to generate public concern over restaurant worker exposure to ETS, when the public is more concerned about contracting rare, Central American strains of tuberculosis from restaurant workers."
Although this document was written ten years ago, many of the strategies it describes are currently in use in communities throughout the country that are trying to go smoke-free. One example is the strategy of portraying smoking bans as an attack on low-income workers and small businesses:
"IV. Portray restaurant smoking bans as hitting the 'little guy' by focusing the issue on down-scale restaurants.
COMMENT: Banning smoking to protect public health is a less attractive issue when it becomes a case of upper middle class political activists telling blue-collar workers whether they can smoke a cigarette with their beer and hamburger platter."
There is also almost constant mention throughout the document of the need to deploy these strategies using third parties, like state and national restaurant associations. Such use of third parties helps keep the tobacco industry's involvement invisible.
Fields
- Notes
Thank you to Bronson Frick of ANR for finding this document.
- Quotes
[From the last page of the document, which appears to be the cover letter for the first 7 pages].
As requested, we have given thought to the challenge of renewed anti-smoker interest in restaurant smoking bans...Overall, we believe that restaurant smoking bans may be the next major anti-smoker theme...The Institute response should be agressive and, almost certainly, we will have to be creative to overcome the anti's natural political and social advantages...
Strategies
Increase restaurant owners' awareness of smokers as an important market segment; and of smokers' preferences towards restaurants...
COMMENT
...Particularly with restaurant income down, smokers should be positionsed as a seriously "underestimated" and somewhat annoyed segment, ripe for the picking...
SAMPLE TACTICS:
...II. Demonstrate that far from being victime, restaurant workers pose a serious public health problem.
COMMENT: Since restaurant workers are largely incapable of speaking out for themselves, we believe the only way that the "restaurant workers as victims of ETS" issue can grow is if the anti-smokers can generate sympathy for them. But, given the public health problems reportedly caused by restaurant workers, it is ironic that restaurant workers could ever be seen as victims of any sort.
The best way of countering the antis, is to encourage third parties to increase public awareness of the public health threat posed by restaurant workers. It may be hard to generate public concern over restaurant worker exposure to ETS, when the public is more concerned about contracting rare, Central American strains of tuberculosis from restaurant workers.
SAMPLE TACTICS:
A. Identify and establish ties to consumer group concerned with food safety. Encourage a review of the public health literature and summarize all findings related to food service workers.
B. Through third parties, raise food safety/restaurant employee issue--leiglstively and otherwise--in cities likely to consider smoking bans in restaurants...
III. Strengthen ties to state and national restaurant associations; advise association staff on proper management of this issue...
IV. Portray restaurant smoking bans as hitting the "little guy" by focusing the issue on down-scale restaurants.
COMMENT: Banning smoking to protect public health is a less attractive issue when it becomes a case of upper middle class political activists telling blue-collar workers whether they can smoke a cigarette with their beer and hamburger platter. These downscale restaurants will probably also have the biggest problem with ETS and other airborne contaminants because they will have old, unsophisticated ventilation systems.
- Company
- Tobacco Institute
- Author
- Hamilton, Joanna 1 (Sparber & Associates)
Helped organize and operate BCIA, Business Council on Indoor Air (a tobacco industry front group)
- Sparber, Peter G. 2 (TI Vice President)
Worked on combatting legislated and voluntary workplace smoking restrictions, a Tobacco Institute program to attack the insurance industry and undermine non-smoker discounts on insurance premiums, and and a program to form a coalition to publicly portray public health adovcates as intolerant, anti-social and in need of help.
- Recipient
- Fernicola-Suhr, Karen (TI Project Coordinator, c. 1988)
- Region
- United States
- Litigation
- DOJ Civil
- Operation/Project
- Restaurant Program (TI program to deter smoking bans in restaurants)
Sought to deter both voluntary and legislated smoking restrictions in restaurants
- Named Organization
- National Restaurant Association
- Jack in the Box (American fast food restaurant)
- *EPA ( use United States Environmental Protection Agency)
- Type
- REPORT
- MEMO
- Subject
- restaurant worker
- restaurant
- smoking restriction
- smoking section
- Front groups
Annotations
- 1. Hamilton, Joanna Author
- Affiliation:
Sparber and Associates
- 2. Sparber, Peter G. Author
- Affiliation:
Sparber and Associates
Document Images
Page 1: byr30c00
Restaurants and Smoking Restrictions
Background and Assumptions
Though eating and drinking establishments vary as much as any
kind of business, most face these challenges:
Few restaurants simply sell prepared food. They are in the
hospitality business -- making the act of "eating cut" more
desirable and convenient than eating at home. Successful
restaurants look for ways to build a loyal clientele.
The business is terribly competitive, especially in
recessions. Margins tend to be minimal, costs fluctuate and
losses -- ranging from spoiled and wasted food to theft --
can be devastating.
Restaurant owners frequently cite personnel problems as
their greatest difficulty. Theft heads the list. Owners
commonly complain of servers giving away food and beverages
to friends and in hopes of eliciting better tips, stealing
money from the till, and purposely understating bills.
Owners also complain about high rates of turnover and the
threat of food preparers and servers transmitting diseases
to patrons. The recent controversy over under-cooked
hamburgers at "Jack in the Box" outlets is, in fact, much
less of a concern than sick employees who fail to honor even
the most basic sanitation practices. Finally, owners worry
about employee mischief from minor pranks to criminal
behavior.
-1-
T101 62-1 1 60
Page 2: byr30c00
Restaurant smoking restrictions are nothing new.
Some restaurant smoking restrictions, i.e., in food
preparation areas,1 are legitimate.
Restaurant were among the first targets of anti-smokers.
Mandatory separate sections are common. Outright bans are
rare, we believe, because restaurants generally are
reluctant to voluntary forego a category of customers; and
because -- until recently -- bans were seen as too extreme
as a legislative approach.
State and local restaurant associations -- and to a lesser
extent the National Restaurant Association -- have opposed
mandatory smoking restrictions as an unfair and unnecessary
burden on management. They have done nothing to discourage
voluntary restrictions.
The vast majority of restaurants -- even most fast food
establishments -- are small businesses, controlled by an
individual or family. In the absence of laws, their whims -
- not necessarily logic or facts --are all that is necessary
to set smoking policies.
The type of restaurant is likely to dictate its voluntary
interest in restricting smoking. Neighborhood bars,
upscale restaurants and barbecue joints may differ in many
ways but all are likely to court smokers. Family-style
restaurants may see a voluntary smoking ban as an attraction
to their customers.
Some restaurants and many bars derive income from the sale
of cigarettes either over the counter or through vending
machines. In some cases, this income may be substantial.
The cigarette companies lawsuit against the US Environmental
Protection Agency's ETS risk assessment refers to the Los Angeles
restaurant bans' impact. Therefore, the visibility of the
restaurant issue" may be heightened as this case proceeds.
i Food processirp carysnies ircludinp Nsbisoo and Generel Foods presurebly follow the ssme ruLes
where
food is handled.
-2-
TI0162-1161
Page 3: byr30c00
The anti-smokers -- possibly discouraged by the relative lack of
voluntary bans -- may see restaurants as the next great
battlefield. Los Angeles may be to restaurant bans what San
Francisco was -- back in the early 1980's -- to workplace
restrictions.
The antis' traditional approach was to point to the danger
to restaurant patrons. These arguments are weak: separate
sections have made the problem "go away" in many peoples'
minds, customers can avoid restaurants they don't like, and
-- in any case -- exposure to ETS would be of limited
duration.
The new approach is to point to the dangers faced by
restaurant workers who, like flight attendants on airliners,
work two feet above the clientele and, therefore, are in the
direct line of smoke to exhaust fans. Exposure times tend
to be lengthy.
Page 4: byr30c00
Goals
I. To discourage mandatory or voluntary smoking bans in eating
and drinking establishments.
II. To reverse existing smoking bans in eating and drinking
establishments.
Sitratevies
I. Increase restaurant owners' awareness of smokers as an
important market segment; and of smokers' preferences
towards restaurants.
COMMENT: We suspect that restaurant owners do not see
people smoking and therefore suspect that there
are many fewer smokers. Therefore, as a group,
smokers may be viewed as increasingly less
important.
Particularly with restaurant income down, smokers
should be positioned as a seriously
"underestimated° and somewhat annoyed segment --
ripe for the picking.
Also, see Strategy III.
SAMPLE TACTICS:
A. Encourage a restaurant management consultant to
reassess the smoker segment and publish findings in
major trade publications.
B. Survey smokers about what qualities they seek in a
restaurant, how often they eat out, where they eat and
how much they tend to spend.
C. survey non-smokers patronizing restaurants with
separate sections. Demonstrate that they are satisfied
with separate sections.
-4-
T10162-1163
Page 5: byr30c00
II. Demonstrate that far from being victims, restaurant workers
pose a serious public health problem.
COMMENT: Since restaurant workers are largely incapable of
speaking out for themselves, we believe the only
way that the "restaurant workers as victims of
ETS" issue can grow is if the anti-smokers can
generate sympathy for them. But, given the public
health problems reportedly caused by restaurant
workers, it is ironic that restaurant workers
could ever be seen as victims of any sort.
The best way of countering the antis, is to
encourage third parties to increase public
awareness of the public health threat posed by
restaurant workers. It may be hard to generate
public concern over restaurant worker exposure to
ETS, when the public is more concerned about
contracting rare, Central American strains of
tuberculosis from restaurant workers.
SANIPLE TACTICS c
A. Identify and establish ties to consumer group concerned
with food safety. Encourage a review of the public
health literature and summarize all findings related to
food service workers.
B. Through third parties, raise food safety/restaurant
employee issue -- legislatively and otherwise -- in
cities likely to consider smoking bans in restaurants.
C. Obtain public health department reports (generally run
in newspapers) of restaurants cited with sanitation
violations. Summarize and use violations related to
employee health.
-5-
T101 6 2-1 1 64
Page 6: byr30c00
III. Strengthen ties to state and national restaurant
associations; advise association staff on proper management
of this issue.
COMMENT: When airlines realized that a smoking ban would
leave a level playing field as they competed for
smokers, airlines put up little resistance when
the ban was proposed.
This situation is somewhat different --
restaurants in adjoining communities would be able
to attract smokers away from restaurants required
to ban smoking. Nevertheless, our first priority
should be to discourage restaurant associations
from "going south" on tobacco.
Our second priority should be to increase the
importance of smoking bans among all issues faced
by restaurants. If that can be done, association
staff will be eager to understand the best ways of
opposing legislation.
One final note here: we should demonstrate that
voluntary smoking bans pave the way to mandatory
bans since they help antis promote the feasibility
of the bans.
SAMPLE TACTICS:
A. Identify Institute state and local lobbyists who also
represent restaurant chains and associations. Seek
their help in identifying themes and means of reaching
restaurant executives.
B. Update restaurant ventilation information.
C. Share data generated under Strategy i.
D. Produce a Los Angeles "case study" to document losses
of restaurants there.
Iv. Portray restaurant smoking bans as hitting the "little guy"
by focusing the issue on down-scale restaurants.
COMMENT: Banning smoking to protect public health is a less
attractive issue when it becomes a case of upper
middle class political activists telling blue-
collar workers whether they can smoke a cigarette
with their beer and hamburger platter.
-6-
T101 6 2-1 1 65
Page 7: byr30c00
These down-scale restaurants will probably also
have the biggest problem with ETS and other air-
born contaminants because they will have old,
unsophisticated ventilations systems.
SAMPLE TACTICS:
A. sponsor a survey of restaurant smokers drawing from
patrons of local blue-collar establishments. Highlight
any sentiment that legislatures are overstepping their
mark in imposing smoking bans in restaurants.
restaura.l
Page 8: byr30c00
AUG 181993
5parber
and
Associates, Inc.
(20J; 393 _=:'~~i;
August 17, 1993
MEMORANDUN
TO: Karen Fernicola 8uhr
FROM: Joanna 8a:¢~lton, Peter G. Spa~Da
RE: Restaurant Progr r
am
Observations and Recommendations
As requested, we have given thought to the challenge of renewed
anti-smoker interest in restaurant smoking bans. our
observations and recommendations are attached.
To compile this document, we spoke with several restaurant owners
and a restaurant management consultant who shared with us a
rather consistent view of the restaurant business.
Overall, we believe that restaurant smoking bans may be the next
major anti-smoker theme, especially given the antis success in
Los Angeles and the help they have received from the EPA. The
Institute response should be aggressive and, almost certainly,
will have to be creative to overcome antis' natural political and
social advantages.
attachment
T10162-1167
