International Journal of Public Health

, Volume 57, Issue 6, pp 861–866 | Cite as

Effect of smoke-free legislation on Ticino gastronomy revenue

  • Peter J. Schulz
  • Uwe Hartung
  • Maddalena Fiordelli
Original Article



To provide evidence on the effects of smoke-free laws on gastronomy revenue in a European setting based on objective data. Damage to gastronomy revenue is a widely used argument against smoke-free legislation.


Gastronomy revenue in Ticino is compared with the rest of Switzerland before and after Ticino banned smoking from gastronomy in April 2007, being the first (and at the time of the study only) Swiss canton to do that. The study uses breakdowns by cantons of taxable revenue of gastronomy branches and retailers (for comparison) provided by the Swiss tax authorities for the years 2005–2008.


Revenues of restaurants and bars were not damaged by the Ticino smoke-free law. Decreases in Ticino happened before the smoke-free law came into effect. Evidence for night clubs is inconclusive.


The absence of detrimental effects on restaurant and bar revenue corroborates the gist of research on the subject from other countries. The argument that the decline of bar and restaurant sales prior to the implementation of the ban might have occurred in anticipation of the new regulation is not considered tenable.


Tobacco control Smoking ban Smoke-free legislation Gastronomy revenue Switzerland 



The authors wish to thank Bruno Jeitziner, Mario Morger and Jean-Louis Rochat of the Eidgenössische Steuerverwaltung for making their data available, and to Michel Schneider for doing early research into the tax data availability.

The study was funded by the Swiss Tobacco Prevention Fund.


  1. Alamar B, Glantz SA (2007) Effect of smoke-free laws on bar values and profits. Am J Public Health 97:1400–1402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartosch WJ, Pope GC (1999) The economic effect of smoke-free restaurant policies on restaurant business in Massachusetts. J Public Health Manag Pract 5(1):53–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartosch WJ, Pope GC (2002) Economic effect of restaurant smoking restrictions on restaurant business in Massachusetts 1992 to 1998. Tob Control 11:ii38–ii42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boneschi M, Antonietti A, Tomada A, Schulz PJ, Ehmig S (2008) Rapporto: ICH—progetto ESAGONO. Research report. Lugano: Università della Svizzera italiana, Institute of Communication and Health, Center for Applied Research in Communication and Health, ARCHEGoogle Scholar
  5. Bundesamt für Gesundheit (2012a) Schutz vor Passivrauchen in den Kantonen (Gastronomie). Stand 1.7.2012. Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, Departement des Inneren: Accessed 6 Aug 2012
  6. Bundesamt für Gesundheit (2012b) Stand der Tabakprävention in den Kantonen, Stand 05.07.2012. Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, Departement des Inneren: Accessed 6 Aug 2012
  7. Bundesamt für Statistik (2009) Ständige Wohnbevölkerung nach Staatsangehörigkeit, Geschlecht und Kantonen, 2009. Tabelle su-d- Accessed 1 Dec 2011
  8. Cowling D, Bond P (2005) Smoke-free laws and bar revenues in California: the last call. Health Econ 14:1273–1281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eidgenössische Steuerverwaltung (2001). Detaillierte Branchentabellen 2001–2008 gemäss NOGA 2002. Accessed 1 Dec 2011
  10. Eidgenössische Steuerverwaltung (2010). Die Mehrwertsteuer in der Schweiz 2006-2007: Resultate und Kommentare. Neuchâtel: Office fédérale de la statistique, 2010. Accessed 1 Dec 2011
  11. Eriksen M, Chaloupka F (2007) The economic impact of clean indoor air laws. CA Cancer J Clin 57:367–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glantz SA (2000) Effect of smokefree bar law on bar revenues in California. Tob Control 9:111–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glantz SA, Smith LR (1994) The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants on restaurant sales. Am J Public Health 84:1081–1085PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glantz SA, Smith LR (1997) The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants and bars on revenues: a follow-up. Am J Public Health 87:1687–1693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodman PG, Haw S, Kabir Z, Clancy L (2009) Are there health benefits associated with comprehensive smoke-free laws. Int J Public Health 54:367–378. doi: 10.1007/s00038-009-0089-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howell F (2005) Smoke-free bars in Ireland: a runaway success. Tob Control 14:73–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang P, Tobias S, Kohout S et al (1995) Assessment of the impact of a 100 percent smoke-free ordinance on restaurant sales West Lake Hills Texas 1992–1994. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkl Rep 44:370–372Google Scholar
  18. Hyland AK, Cummings M, Nauenberg E (1999) Analysis of taxable sales receipts: was New York City’s smoke-free air act bad for business. J Public Health Manag Pract 5(1):14–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lal A, Siahpush M (2009) The effect of smoke-free policies on revenue in bars in Tasmania Australia. Tob Control 18:405–408. doi: 10.1136/tc.2008.028589 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lotrean LM (2008) Effects of comprehensive smoke-free legislation in Europe. Salud Publica Mex 50(suppl 3):S292–S298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schulz P, Hartung U, Fiordelli M (2012) Assessing the rationality of argumentation in media discourse and public opinion: an exploratory study of the conflict over a smoke-free law in Ticino. Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication 3(1):83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scollo M, Lal A (2008) Summary of studies assessing the economic impact of smoke-free policies in the hospitality industry includes studies produced to 31 January 2008. Accessed 6 April 2011
  23. Scollo M, Lal A, Hyland A, Glantz S (2003) Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smokefree policies on the hospitality industry. Tob Control 12:13–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Siegel M. (1992). Economic impact of 100 % smoke-free restaurant ordinances. In: Smoking and restaurants: a guide for policy makers. UC Berkeley/UCSF Preventative Medicine Residency Program; American Heart Association, California Affiliate; Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, Tobacco Control Program, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss School of Public Health 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Schulz
    • 1
  • Uwe Hartung
    • 1
  • Maddalena Fiordelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Communication and HealthUniversità della Svizzera italianaLuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations