Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Brewery snub for smoke ban supporter MP

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

""It wasn't my decision as a politician to introduce the smoking ban, it was the Scottish Parliament, but it was a democratic decision" Anne Moffat"
Published Date:
25 August 2006
A LOTHIANS MP who backs the ban on smoking in public places has been snubbed by a brewery in her constituency.
Anne Moffat, who represents East Lothian at Westminster, claimed she had been barred from speaking to staff at the Belhaven Brewery in Dunbar because she thought the smoking ban was a good thing.

Ms Moffat, who was first elected in 2001, had a request to meet staff on a tour of the brewery turned down by brewery chiefs.

Belhaven, which was taken over last year by Greene King in a £187 million deal, has reportedly said Labour policies are "damaging" Scottish businesses.

But the firm today said it had a policy of not allowing visits to interrupt the working day.

Ms Moffat said today: "I've been going round businesses in the constituency elsewhere and I was very disappointed at their attitude at Belhaven."

Stuart Ross Belhaven chief executive said: "It is nothing to do with her being an MP, we just do not want politicians interrupting the workforce day. There is no elections coming up and there is no requirement for it."



Page 1 of 1

 
1

claire,

25/08/2006 11:38:56

They want it all ways dont they? Do they expect the breweries to welcome them with open arms when what they have done is effectively caused a big drop in business that is being suffered by these breweries who'se next step will have to be redundancies? Ann Moffat needn't worry, before long there wont be many licensed premises left thanks to their stupid policies so she can dry her eyes and stop blubbing. She can make a point of visiting those who have lost their jobs due to her handiwork. That should keep her going for quite some time!

2

Brian1,

Dingwall 25/08/2006 11:51:36

Better to be able to visit those who have lost their jobs than those dying of lung cancer at our expense.

3

Agent 99,

25/08/2006 11:57:30

It's a bit off though, when the CEO cites a not altogether credible reason for denying the visit. If he / the company is so angry at the Executive [capitalisation not warranted] over the ban he could at least deny the visit by saying that it was "inappropriate under the circumstances", a face-saving tactful wording soundly based on the real reason.

The way it's reported makes them look like a bunch of spineless cowards.

4

sc_uk,

25/08/2006 12:00:26

Boo hoo for the breweries. If they want to balance out the negative impact the smoking ban has had on their profits they should increase their prices. This might also help reduce the affects cheap booze has on the health of many people in this country.

I find it hard to feel sorry for alcoholic smokers who blame their diseased livers and lungs on the Labour Party!

5

Chuck P,

25/08/2006 12:10:31

Here we go again. Make it so that only the rich can get drunk.

The poorer people can find other vices such as rape and mugging eh stephen?

6

Alexander,

Edinburgh 25/08/2006 12:10:37

Obviously Anne Moffat wanted a captive audience. Very few of her fellow MP's turn up to hear her speak in parliament and even fewer of those that do, listen. If the employees
spend their time listening to her pontificating who is supposed to produce the beer?

7

claire,

25/08/2006 12:25:28

What about the fatties Brian? shouldn't they be charged with child cruelty for letting their kids get obese and giving them dreadful health problems? Maybe ann could go visit kids who are contemplating stomach stapling or type 2 diabetes sufferers who are diabetic because they are fat? the list goes on........

8

Donnie,

25/08/2006 12:25:52

Why would the breweries or the staff that work there want to welcome someone that is trying to put them out of business and people out of a job. Increasing pub prices wont help the breweries, or pubs people who smoke will simply buy in from the supermarket and sit at home to drink and have a cigarette at the same time. As the winter approaches the sales will only go down further.
Lets face it if you smoke you can stay at home in the warm play bingo on line, order your meal by phone to be delivered, stack up on drink from the supermarket, have your friends round. Any kind of ban only harms the business, people always find alternative ways of enjoying themselves. I always find it hard to understand why one person wants to impose their lifestyle on another, live and let live I say.

9

Mr C Darwin,

The Beagle 25/08/2006 12:33:20

"Lets face it if you smoke you can stay at home in the warm play bingo on line, order your meal by phone to be delivered, stack up on drink from the supermarket, have your friends round."

I'm not an anthropologist but I'd imagine this is similar to how public houses started Donnie.

10

A Jameson,

25/08/2006 12:34:49

In response to Claire #7, the answer is yes.

11

__-Steve-__,

25/08/2006 12:47:52

The anti-drinkers have turned up to support the anti-smokers I see.

Well instead of waving the fictitious human right to entertainment and advising smokers, and presumably drinkers now, to stop at home, perhaps you would like to spend some time in the non-smoking and alcohol free library where you will be able to find out that passive smoking doesn't cause cancer, or anything else for that matter.

Good luck in your drive to get rid of drinkers too. (don't forget to read about prohibition though)

12

Gordon Zola,

Dunoon 25/08/2006 12:50:39

Gies a chance. Ah'm tryin ma best tae down mair pints, but ah huvtae keep gaun a' the way ootside fer a fag inbetweens.

13

BeeGee,

Lockerbie 25/08/2006 12:52:35

Odd are that she voted in favour of the ban in Westminster, my local MP, David Mundell declined to vote on a matter that was an English issue. He had already voted against the ban in Scotland while a serving member of the Scottish Parliament.

To Brian, OUR EXPENSE? a fair contribution from the 9.7 billion taxes collected from smokers goes directly to the NHS and these comments are from a non-smoker

14

Dave Hedghog,

25/08/2006 12:52:54

If it's anything like it was in Bugsy Malone, I for one cannot wait for prohibition.

15

sc_uk,

25/08/2006 12:53:03

Chuck P #5 - obviously, that is indeed what I meant. Because committing violent crime would be the logical way for the typical Scottish person to spend their time when alcohol prices rise enough to prohibit them from getting drunk.

16

Chuck P,

25/08/2006 13:00:23

Our whole society revolves around alcohol. Every one of the seven sacrements ends in a booze up, most relationships start / end because of it, most people are concieved due to it.

As a great philosopher once said "Alcohol, the cause and solution to all life's problems"

I'm sure the fabric of society would be threadbare without the stitching of alcohol to hold it together.

So i say to the anti-drinkers, 'bring it on'. We're not as week as the yellow haired, pasty smokers.

17

sc_uk,

25/08/2006 13:00:42

__-Steve-__ #11: have you tried searching 'passive smoking cancer' on Google?

If not, read this: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

It doesn't get more direct or unambiguous that this.

18

paul the binman,

25/08/2006 13:00:47

Nope,sorry I thought the smoking ban was about the protection of the majority of people in the country who dont smoke,and also to try and prolong the life of those that do smoke whilst trying to save money in the NHS so that it can be spent on people who,through no fault of their own find them selves ill.I guess I was wrong huh,all this time it was about putting pubs and brewerys out of busness whilst also introducing fasism in to our way of life.......is it me or is it still 1st of April ?

19

Chip Stencil,

Edinburgh 25/08/2006 13:08:43

That's just racist stephen. I hope a parliament of owls sh*ts on your car.

Also, the breweries haven't lost money. The "survey" was of a few pubs who have lost money since the smoking ban came in. It can hardly be extrapolated accross the entire industry.

All the comments so far are really stupid. You're all cretins.

20

paul the binman,

25/08/2006 13:15:25

Im not Im C of E

21

Dave1956,

Beastly Eastleigh 25/08/2006 13:17:42

The thing is, all these anti-smoking, anti-drinking calvinist's should realise is that if everyone stopped drinkin and smokin there income tax would go through the roof!

The difference between what the exchequer recieves
in tax on these items far outweighs what is spent by the NHS by many billions.

But know doubt the will come up with some snivelling excuse to find other ways to defend the indefensable.

A bit like these ar*eholes who still defend fox hunting

22

Chuck P,

25/08/2006 13:19:25

Stephen #15 - I know, at least we agree on something.

23

Chip Stencil,

Edinburgh 25/08/2006 13:20:58

Chuck's right. I'm drunk right now.

24

Monkey shines!,

Edinburgh 25/08/2006 13:21:20

Is that Brian Damage the comedian. If so good day to you and your lovely assistant!
A.Fan

25

Boab,

25/08/2006 13:22:16

Don't you start with Fox Hunting. You town foak don't understand our country ways.

We don't kill foxes for culling purposes, we do it for the thrill of the chase.

I hope a quiz of bears sh1ts in your garden.

26

Chip Stencil,

Oxford 25/08/2006 13:24:23

What's wrong with fox hunting? People need scarves - what's the problem?

27

Monkey shines!,

Edinburgh 25/08/2006 13:26:42

this is the most post I've ever seen on this website :-)

28

Gordon Zola,

Leith 25/08/2006 13:29:12

Maybe not "culling", Boab, but quite possibly "culinary". I know what you teuchters are like.

29

Chip Stencil,

Oxford 25/08/2006 13:36:14

A skulk of foxes ran infront of my Lexus 4x4 the other day. Don't worry though - I got 'em all.

30

Chip Stencil,

Hungerford 25/08/2006 13:39:32

Fox meat tends to be rather tough. It's a cross between baby seal and puppy meat - although, if you grate some puffin beak over the top, you won't tell the difference.

31

Gordon Zola,

Leith 25/08/2006 13:40:02

Those will have been urban foxes then Fliss. Can't see you taking your pretty new 4x4 off-road and getting it dirty!

32

Gordon Zola,

Paisley 25/08/2006 13:49:50

Pub takings have dropped because you can't get into the place for the crowd of smokers blocking the door.

33

Foxy Lady,

25/08/2006 13:56:47

Ah yes, theres nothing us foxes enjoy more than the thrill of the chase and putting one over on those high faluting wallies on horseback!! Apart that is from a drink and a smoke at the end of a hard day running round the country.

34

Gordon Zola,

Arizona 25/08/2006 14:07:13

Roadrunners are much tastier, when you can catch one, that is :o(

35

Gordon Zola,

The Hencoop 25/08/2006 14:09:18

I wish they'd bring back fox hunting.

36

claire,

25/08/2006 14:14:20

Im sorry but I find they all taste like chicken!

37

Gordon Zola,

Abell Supercluster 25/08/2006 14:17:28

You humans all taste like wet cardboard.

38

__-Steve-__,

25/08/2006 14:42:17

Sheila Blige (17)

Yes, I've read the WHO study, it didn't take into account many known confounders and it makes this claim of cause based on a risk ratio of 1.16 with a width containing 1.

It's not even a statistically significant figure let alone proof of cause. In the scientific sense it is laughable.

Now, do you have another anti-smoking study you would like me to explain for you?

39

sc_uk,

25/08/2006 15:20:15

Get you Steve!

40

Popper,

25/08/2006 15:47:40

Steve is absolutely correct - the WHO study failed to reject the hypothesis that passive smoking doesn't cause cancer -and they didn't like that so they ignored the rules of scientific investigation for propaganda purposes. Other anti-smoking propaganda related to passive smoking is heavily subsidised by the pharma industry which surpise surprise sells nicotine replacment therapy.

41

__-Steve-__,

25/08/2006 16:00:48

Shelia (39)

Fact is that all 150 or so of the passive smoke studies are like that.

It's like asking 100 cancer patients if they ever drank coffee, then declaring 'coffee causes cancer'.

You seem like an intelligent person Shelia; if you read some of those studies you will be truly amazed.

42

walter,

25/08/2006 16:58:06

Steve you are waisting your time, the fact that most of these studies world wide have been rubbished by scientific societies and in courts of law that the studies were predetermined and any evidence to the contrary was discarded in 2000/01 & 02 does not matter to anti smokers.
They will still produce the lies resulting from those studies in the 90s to try back up their view.

43

Someone who should have gone to bed hours ago,

25/08/2006 21:44:01

Steve
I notice that the last editions of both the British Medical Journal and the Lancet both carried the results of different studies, both of which showed a link between tobacco use/passive smoking and disease (BMJ: "In non-smoking Chinese women exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is related to moderately increased mortality from all causes, from lung cancer, and from cardiovascular disease." Lancet: "Tobacco use is one of the most important causes of AMI (Acute Myocardial Infarction) globally, especially in men. All forms of tobacco use... should be discouraged to prevent cardiovascular diseases."). Care to comment on specifically where these results are flawed?

44

Jamie Dunne,

Edinburgh 25/08/2006 23:11:25

Smokers have to be protected from their own stupidity somehow.

45

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2006 07:54:20

Hi Izzy (43)

These were the questions that the study you refer to asked;

"Were you regularly (one cigarette per day and over six months) exposed to smoke due to smoking of other people at work and how many years did that occur?" "Were you regularly (one cigarette per day and over six months) exposed to smoke due to smoking of family members before you were 20 years old and how many years did that occur?"

The BMJ also states;

"Although the authors of that study pointed out the limitations of previous epidemiological studies, such as misclassifying exposure by using the smoking status of spouses as a proxy and inadequate control of potential confounders, those problems existed in their own study and were criticised by many readers."

The risk ratio's from the study range from 1.15 to 1.79 and the width ranges from 0.94/1.69 to 1.09/2.93 with a 95% confidence interval.


To answer your question on the flaws of the study;

None of the above data is statistically significant, the interval is very wide for such a large study and known confounders were ignored. The widths contain very low figures (max 1.09) and even negative numbers (0.94). This suggests with the 95% CI that there is a 1 in 10 chance that passive smoke actually improves health.

In addition to the results the questions asked in the study are, in my opinion, very suspect. How accurate can a persons recollection of how much passive smoke they have inhaled be?

Can you possibly estimate how much smoke you inhaled before you were 20?

The researcher Wanqing Wen also conducted an epidemiology study that concluded coffee causes spontaneous abortion. I think the word science needs to be dropped from the phrase junk-science.

To answer your other questions Izzy, I don't disagree that direct smoking is harmful; overdose of any substance is. However even the studies of direct smoking are highly exagerated and mis-inte

46

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2006 08:28:11

Izzy,

There is another obvious flaw I didn't point out with the questions asked in the study;

Smoking in China is much higher than in the western world with figures quoted over 50% of the population and up to 80% of males. Smoking is widespread and allowed in work places and public places. How many of those asked could therefore say they hadn't been exposed to one person a day smoking? This obviously leads to almost all of them giving a positive answer; a clear statistical bias.

I would imagine that over 80% have also been exposed to coffee and changing the question from smoke to coffee would lead to exactly the same result. They would then be able to jump to the conclusion 'coffee causes cancer'.

Just to correct my above post on the 95% CI, the chance would be 1 in 20, not 1 in 10 as posted.

47

paul the binman,

26/08/2006 08:48:26

What was the story about again ?

48

Someone who should have gone to bed hours ago,

26/08/2006 09:44:26

Steve

I appreciate your comments on this one. I found some of the generalised conclusions in the BMJ article surprising. But there were conclusions that stood out and which should be taken seriously - e.g. exposure to tobacco smoke at work was associated with a significant increase in mortality due to lung cancer (1.79, 1.09 to 2.93); so too the link between exposure in early life and increased mortality due to cardiovascular disease (1.26, 0.94 to 1.69).

The Lancet article involved a worldwide study and a large sample (27k participants), over half of whom were a control group (addressing your coffee argument). They suggested a 24% increase in risk of (non-fatal - but still nasty) acute myocardial infarction from exposure to second hand smoke of just 1-7 hours per week - the sort of exposure that non-smokers could get from a pub. It also appears to have been the Lancet's lead article - not something they would have done had the editors strongly questioned the researchers' methodology.

The more general point I am making is there is a weight of research out there about the risks of passive smoking. I've seen messages here over the last couple of days from the pro-smoking/pro-choice brigade, claiming such research is simply the product of a biased anti-smoking lobby and nothing short of total 100% proof of a link between second hand smoke and disease is enough to warrant a change in the law. Well, there will virtually never be that proof for anything - the same claims were probably made about the evidence of asbestosis in the 1960s and 70s. But there is a strong and consistent association from credible research.

49

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2006 10:37:23

Thanks Izzy,

It is good to see someone willing to debate the studies.

The lung cancer risk ratio of 1.79 is classed as sceintifically insignificant. RR's of over 2 carry weak significance and RR's over 3 are generally required to warrant scientific research. These are not only a scientific model but are also backed up by the American Cancer Society. In addition to that you have to question the accuracy of the 1.79 as the researchers ignored known confounders and relied on the data from two questions based on recollection of an unquantifiable amount.

I'm not sure of the study you refer to from the Lancet. Do you have a title for it?

I can't therefore comment on the methology but I can comment on the figures you provide. A Risk Ratio 1.24 is certainly not significant (even without knowledge of the width or the CI) and there is absolutely no scientific way they could jump from that to the suggestion that 7 hours exposure causes disease. This statement alone should set alarm bells ringing as to the integrity of the study.

The fact that half the participants were in a control group tells us little unless we know what that (or hopefully those) control groups were. Most of the 150 or so studies on this subject use a control group that contains non-smoking spouses to control the study of smoking spouses. This is ok but of course doesn't control other known confounders such as diet, exercise, profession and age etc.

I am pro choice. There can never be any level of proof from epidemiology let alone 100%, by definition it is merely a statistical analysis; the passive smoke studies have been widely mis-represented by the anti-smoking movement. Scientific research is required to establish a link, epidemiology is only capable of pointing scientists in the 'right direction' when studies are completed correctly. The 'health scare' society arises from these studies and is abused by pharmaceutical companies, anti-smoking/drinking movements and a

50

Someone who should have gone to bed hours ago,

26/08/2006 11:18:30

Hi Steve

Love to debate this more, but I'm having to work!

The Lancet study is from the 19 August issue. It's called: "Tobacco use and risk of myocardial infarction in 52 countries in the INTERHEART study: a case-control study".

51

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2006 11:24:11

Thanks Izzy,

I will look for the study document, if this board closes in the meantime you can find me at The Big Debate. http://www.thebigdebate.org

Have fun at work.

52

Someone who should have gone to bed hours ago,

26/08/2006 11:40:43

Thanks Steve. You shouldn't do this - I've other things I ought to be concentrating on!

53

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2006 13:01:10

Izzy,

Iv'e read the study a couple of times now and a few things 'spring out'.

The background of the study is a page giving details of how terrible smoking is. This can at least suggest unintentional bias to a positve result.

The study is critical of previous studies due to ignoring confounders (this seems to be a pattern). This study did control age, diet, exercise, alcohol, genetics and social factors although no details of the control are disclosed other than the fact that 44% of the controls had never been exposed to smoke. Unless this study managed to find 8000 people who had lived on the Antarctic all their lives this is highly suspect and makes you wonder about the undisclosed aspects of the control.

The results found an RR of 1.28 CI of 95% and the width of the interval was 1.12 to 1.47 for SHS to AMI. This is completely insignificant

Compare this to the result for direct smoking which gives an RR of 58.3 in one case. That is a significant Risk Ratio and highlights the problem of the claim from the study...... According to all that is known about dose/response relationship, if 7 minutes of exposure to a substance is enough to cause disease then 50 times greater exposure would, in all probability, be enough to kill instantly.

The participants were asked the following questions;

"participants were asked about smoking habits of family members, friends or co-workers, whether these individuals smoked regularly in the participants presence, the number of times per day that exposure exceeded 5 consecutive minutes the average number of hours per week of exposure over the last twelve months and smoking habits of the spouse."

Again, how can this be quantified to any level of accuracy and how can recall bias be objectively accounted for? These are the very reasons that RR's of less than 3 are useless.

Finally and to answer another of your points. The researcher on this study is also a member of the re

54

Someone who should have gone to bed hours ago,

26/08/2006 15:45:58

Hi Steve

Thanks for your comments. I recognise the specific points you make. But I'm far from convinced on your broader messages!

I'm not a statistician but I wouldn't use the risk ratios you use in such black and white terms. I would have thought they'd vary according to the sample size. Moreover, studies showing lower ratios could be externally verified if broadly consistent results came from separate studies.

Using the standards you are setting, I am not sure how it would ever be possible to either prove or disprove the effects of second hand smoke. Researchers can hardly follow a statistically valid number of people for a number of years and quantify the extent of their exposure to tobacco smoke at each and every point. In the absence of such definitive evidence, we have to accept indicative evidence - subject to appropriate qualifications - which can be considered as part of a larger body of evidence.

I note your point about the researcher being a member of the Lancet's review group. Conjecture can apply both ways. You've applied it one way. But it could equally be said that members of the review group would be more careful than most about what findings they would associate themselves with, because of the amplified degree of peer review to which they are subject and the need t protect the reputation of the Lancet.

I think your last 2 paras set out most starkly the differences between us. You talk about giving people the right to take informed decisons about their own health. I agree, and I will stand up for a person's right to choose their own lifestyle in an informed way. But this issue is about whether people have the right to force their lifestyle on others - i.e. smoking in the presence of people who object to the smoke for health and social reasons. That, in my view, is unacceptable. Unfortunately, it appears that those whose messages I have read on thebigdebate.org take a very narrow and selfish perspectiv

55

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2006 16:42:14

Hi Lizzy,

Risk Ratio's don't vary according to sample size (unless very small samples are used). Using a larger sample will only alter the degree of accuracy ie. the width of the interval. By broader samples from all the studies I take it you mean a meta analysis and yes a meta analysis can be a good tool but you have to remember it is only as good as the data that goes in.

An analysis of all 150 studies gives us a bigger study group with many different methods employed but they still all suffer from bad data and would still give an overall RR of less than 2. In fact the EPA did such an analysis and even after 'cherry picking' the studies to use only came up with an RR of 1.19.

They are not 'my standards' and it is true that epidemiology cannot prove or disprove anything for the reasons I explained before. What you would hope to see from such a study is a risk ratio of 3 or more with comprehensive data. This would then allow you to say that X is a likely risk factor of Y.

Instead we get claims of causation on an RR of 1.23 and silly 7 minutes equals disease statements.

You correctly point out that exposure to smoke is not quantifiable and this is why low RR's are meaningless, however if that RR had turned out to be say 14 then scientific research and animal testing would have been the way forward. That scientific research and animal testing has of course already been done and found no link between passive smoke and disease.

You must also remember the studies that have shown a protective effect from passive smoke. One of them did in fact follow the passive smoking habits of 30 000 people over a period of 30 years.

I'm glad we can both agree on freedom to choose and I think most at the big debate are happy with a choice. The problem is that smokers will have no choice from the ban and I think that inflames tempers.

If you still doubt the fact that passive smoke is for all intents and purposes harmless please ask your

56

Joe M.,

Midlothian 29/08/2006 12:01:11

The smoking ban was introduced by people who have way too much time on their hands. Their own polling showed that the majority opposed it! They held a fixed consultation exercise and have now turned their attention to people buying a round!

There should have been a compromise with some pubs smoking and some pubs non-smoking however sadly our little buerocrats including ex smoking hypocrite Jack McConnell were desperate to 'make their mark'.

Please, please lets have an independent parliament with some grown up politicians who have an interest in something bigger than removing people's freedom of choice and scaremongering propoganda adverts about 'health'.

Stop PFI, that might improve people's health long term, the Labour party are a disgrace, their founders must be birling in their graves.

57

Soren,

31/08/2006 19:28:01

Perhaps MP Anne Moffat was declined the opportunity to speak to brewery staff for her own safety. If the sales of kegs are down 10 % due to the wonderful smoking ban, then MP Moffat would likely have been lynched for her ridiculous claims that smoking bans are good for pub business. The brewery chiefs did her a life saving favor by keeping her away.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.