HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Simpson, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Simpson, D. Related Collections News analysis

UK: smoke-free effect on pension funds

d.simpson@iath.org

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In the run-up to the recent vote to make all public places in England smoke-free, there were frequent, often strident assertions from those who were fighting for tobacco rather than health, that the move would have no effect on consumption. But as health campaigners were celebrating the victorious parliamentary vote, commercial institutions were busy assessing the likely long term effects on the economy. Research by human resources firm Hewitt Associates estimated that the ban could add up to £20 billion (US$35 billion) to UK pension deficits, as well as increasing the annual cost to companies providing defined benefit schemes.

No doubt the tobacco industry will continue to plead no effect in other countries contemplating a total ban, and health ministers and other prime movers would be well advised to consult their financial institutions, as well as their medical and health experts, to at least cut down the time wasted by . . . [Full text of this article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. A. Walsh, F. Tzelepis, and E. Stojanovski Australian pension funds and tobacco investments: promoting ill health and out-of-step with their members Health Promot. Int., March 1, 2008; 23(1): 35 - 41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]