We welcome any opportunity to debate the issue of passive smoking but would suggest that you do not print anonymous letters because there is much scope for undeclared conflicts of interest.
One anonymous correspondent in the letter headlined 'Pro-ban arguments use subjective factual research' (South China Morning Post, May 17) accuses us of disregarding facts. But the huge body of evidence on the adverse health outcomes of passive smoking include objective, validated and repeatable measures, as well as reliable records. Furthermore, the three surveys on public demand for smoke-free dining - conducted by our organisation and the Democratic Party in 1995, 1999 and this year - give entirely consistent results. The data are in the public domain and open to scrutiny; there are no grounds for suggesting that any of us have 'manipulated' results.
Carefully conducted scientific studies over nearly 50 years have produced a mountain of incontrovertible evidence that non-smokers, non-passive smokers and quitters have much lower risks of disease and premature death.
Your correspondent is obviously well connected to the British Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking and Tobacco (Forest). As the group receives 90 per cent of its funding from the tobacco industry, we might expect it to be selective about what it publishes in its magazine.
Even so, the interpretation of the Warwick University report in the British Medical Journal is nonsense. In fact, the Warwick study's interesting supposition that large numbers of unpublished reports with negative results on passive smoking exist remains unconfirmed. After exposure to second-hand smoke, non-smokers have tobacco-specific cancer-causing substances in their urine. This month, we demonstrated that non-smoking Hong Kong catering workers have large quantities of a marker for these poisons in their urine. Similar patterns can be expected in many other groups of non-smokers in Hong Kong.
Our clear principles are that no one should have to breathe air contaminated with tobacco smoke and that all workers must be protected.
