Exposición involuntaria al humo de tabaco en lugares públicos de la Ciudad de México

Barrientos‐Gutiérrez, Tonatiuh; Valdés-Salgado, Raydel; Reynales-Shigematsu, Luz Myriam; Navas‐Acien, Ana; Lazcano‐Ponce, Eduardo

doi:10.1590/s0036-36342007000800010

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They documented widespread SHS exposure and unchanged smoking rates in Mexico between 2003 and 2006, proving the 2004 City law ineffective 66 67. Advocates used this evidence to lobby legislators, arguing for 100% smokefree environments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As in other parts of the world,10 12 13 15 16 24 84 pro-tobacco forces in the hospitality sector opposed smokefree legislation. The industry once again promoted its ‘accommodation’ program, despite the scientific evidence rejecting ventilation systems,116 and widespread SHS exposure in Mexico 66 67. As elsewhere,15 117 118 a smokers' rights group appeared to fight smokefree legislation, and, as in the US, unsuccessful attempts were made to legalise smokers clubs 14 119.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strong advocacy led to successful implementation of smokefree Mexico City

Crosbie

Sebrié

Glantz³

2010

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To describe the approval process and implementation of the 100% smokefree law in Mexico City and a competing federal law between 2007 and 2010. Methods Reviewed smokefree legislation, published newspaper articles and interviewed key informants. Results Strong efforts by tobacco control advocacy groups and key policymakers in Mexico City in 2008 prompted the approval of a 100% smokefree law following the WHO FCTC. As elsewhere, the tobacco industry utilised the hospitality sector to block smokefree legislation, challenged the City law before the Supreme Court and promoted the passage of a federal law that required designated smoking areas. These tactics disrupted implementation of the City law by causing confusion over which law applied in Mexico City. Despite interference, the City law increased public support for 100% smokefree policies and decreased the social acceptability of smoking. In September 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the City law, giving it the authority to go beyond the federal law to protect the fundamental right of health for all citizens. Conclusions Early education and enforcement efforts by tobacco control advocates promoted the City law in 2008 but advocates should still anticipate continuing opposition from the tobacco industry, which will require continued pressure on the government. Advocates should utilise the Supreme Court’s ruling to promote 100% smokefree policies outside Mexico City. Strong advocacy for the City law could be used as a model of success throughout Mexico and other Latin American countries.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strong advocacy led to successful implementation of smokefree Mexico City

Crosbie

Sebrié

Glantz³

2010

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A pioneering study that measured airborne nicotine concentrations in 22 hospitals in seven European cities (Vienna (Austria), Paris (France), Athens (Greece), Florence (Italy), Porto (Portugal), Barcelona (Spain) and Ö rebro (Sweden)) during 2001-2002 showed low but detectable SHS exposure in hospitals [5,18,19]. Similar surveys conducted in 11 Latin American countries and China, including one hospital in each country between 2002 and 2006, also showed low but quantifiable nicotine concentrations [20][21][22][23]. In a previous study in Catalonia, Spain, low levels of airborne nicotine were found in 44 public hospitals before the new Spanish tobacco control law came into force in 2006, which subsequently mostly decreased to unquantifiable concentrations after the ban [6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Second-hand smoke exposure in a sample of European hospitals

Fernández¹,

Martı́nez²,

Fu³

et al. 2009

Eur Respir J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smoking in hospitals is banned in many European countries; nevertheless, the level of compliance is diverse, and, in some cases, smoking areas remain. The present study describes the levels of second-hand smoke, as derived from respirable suspended particle measurements, in a sample of European hospitals during the year 2007.The present study was a multicentric descriptive cross-sectional study carried out in 30 hospitals in seven European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Romania and Spain). Particulate matter with a 50% cut-off aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 mm (PM2.5) concentration was measured by means of a hand-held laser-operated monitor of particle size and mass concentration in six selected indoor locations. Medians and interquartile ranges of PM2.5 concentration were computed in order to describe the data by country and location of measurement.The median PM2.5 concentration in all countries and locations was 3.0 mg?m -3 , with half of the measurements ranging 2.0-7.0 mg?m -3 . PM2.5 levels were similar across countries. Eleven (5.5%) measurements were .25.0 mg?m -3 , which is the 24-h mean limit recommended by the World Health Organization outdoor air quality guideline.The present results show that exposure to second-hand smoke in this sample of European hospitals is very low, and can be easily monitored in order to ensure smoke-free legislation compliance.

show abstract

“…Measurements were obtained during the highest occupancy shift, representing a worst-case exposure scenario. We chose this monitoring approach rather than week monitoring to avoid the dilution effect previously observed in studies using weeklong SHS exposure (Barrientos-Gutierrez et al, 2007;Navas-Acien et al, 2004). Highest occupancy shift measures provide a good estimation of what restaurant and bar workers experience 2-3 days out of their workweek, representing a fairly frequent degree of exposure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%