Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including cancer, are responsible for almost 70% of all deaths worldwide. Tobacco use is a risk factor common to most NCDs. This article discusses tobacco control policies and highlights major achievements and open challenges to reduce smoking prevalence and attributable morbidity and mortality in the 21st century. The introduction of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2005 has been a key achievement in the field and has already facilitated a drop in both smoking prevalence and exposure to secondhand smoke. Indicatively, the size of the worldwide population benefiting from at least one cost‐effective tobacco control policy has quadrupled since 2007. In addition, plain cigarette packaging has been successfully introduced as a tobacco control policy, surmounting efforts of the tobacco industry to challenge this based on trade and investment law. Nevertheless, tobacco control still faces major challenges. Smoking prevalence needs to be further reduced in a rather expedited manner. Smoke‐free environments should be extended, and the use of plain tobacco packaging with large pictorial health warnings for all tobacco products should be further promoted in some parts of the world. Some of these measures will require prompt determination and diligence. For example, bold political decisions are needed to significantly increase real prices of tobacco products through excise taxes, ban added ingredients that are currently used to increase the attractiveness of tobacco products and ban the tobacco industry's corporate social responsibility initiatives. Finally, the debate on harm reduction strategies for tobacco control still needs to be resolved.

Introduction: Using data from the TackSHS survey, we aim to provide updated estimates on the prevalence and determinants of overweight and obesity in Europe. Methods: A face-to-face survey was conducted in 2017–2018 in 12 European countries (Bulgaria, England, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Spain). Overall, 10,810 participants, representative in each country of the general adult population, provided information on self-reported height and weight. Results: Almost half of participants (48.1%; 95% confidence interval, CI: 47.2–49.1) reported to be overweight or obese (54.1% in men and 42.5% in women) and 12.6% (95% CI: 12.0–13.2) obese (11.3% in men and 13.8% in women). Obesity prevalence was lowest in Italy (7.5%) and France (8.8%) and highest in Greece (19.7%) and Romania (21.1%). Multilevel logistic random-effects analyses showed that prevalence of obesity was related with higher age and lower level of education and socioeconomic status. As compared to northern European countries, Western and Southern European ones showed a significantly lower obesity prevalence. When compared to a companion study conducted in 2010, Eastern and Northern European countries showed an increased trend in obesity prevalence. Conversely, countries with the lowest obesity prevalence (less than 10%), such as Italy and France, showed a decreased trend. Conclusions: Despite a large heterogeneity across countries, overweight and obesity prevalence estimates in Europe are alarming, with most of the countries reporting obesity prevalence approaching 20% or more, particularly in Eastern and Northern Europe. Since 2010, obesity prevalence increased in most of these countries.

A peer-reviewed open access journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

A smoke-free law came into effect in Spain on 1st January 2006, affecting all enclosed workplaces except hospitality venues, whose proprietors can choose among totally a smoke-free policy, a partial restriction with designated smoking areas, or no restriction on smoking on the premises. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the law among hospitality workers by assessing second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure and the frequency of respiratory symptoms before and one year after the ban. We formed a baseline cohort of 431 hospitality workers in Spain and 45 workers in Portugal and Andorra. Of them, 318 (66.8%) were successfully followed up 12 months after the ban, and 137 nonsmokers were included in this analysis. We obtained self-reported exposure to SHS and the presence of respiratory symptoms, and collected saliva samples for cotinine measurement. Salivary cotinine decreased by 55.6% after the ban among nonsmoker workers in venues where smoking was totally prohibited (from median of 1.6 ng/ml before to 0.5 ng/ml, p<0.01). Cotinine concentration decreased by 27.6% (p = 0.068) among workers in venues with designated smoking areas, and by 10.7% (p = 0.475) among workers in venues where smoking was allowed. In Portugal and Andorra, no differences between cotinine concentration were found before (1.2 ng/ml) and after the ban (1.2 ng/ml). In Spain, reported respiratory symptom declined significantly (by 71.9%; p<0.05) among workers in venues that became smoke-free. After adjustment for potential confounders, salivary cotinine and respiratory symptoms decreased significantly among workers in Spanish hospitality venues where smoking was totally banned. Among nonsmoker hospitality workers in bars and restaurants where smoking was allowed, exposure to SHS after the ban remained similar to pre-law levels. The partial restrictions on smoking in Spanish hospitality venues do not sufficiently protect hospitality workers against SHS or its consequences for respiratory health.

A peer-reviewed open access journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Background/Objectives To describe secondhand smoke (SHS) levels in halls and main entrances (outdoors) in different buildings by measurement of PM_2.5 and airborne nicotine. Methods Cross-sectional study in a sample of 47 public buildings. The authors studied SHS levels derived from PM_2.5 (micrograms per cubic metre) using TSI SidePak Personal Aerosol Monitors. The authors tested four locations within buildings: hall, main entrance (outdoor), control (indoor) and control (outdoor). The authors also measured airborne nicotine concentration (micrograms per cubic metre) in main entrances (outdoor). The authors computed medians and IQRs to describe the data. Spearman correlation coefficient (rsp) was used to explore the association between PM_2.5 concentrations simultaneously measured in halls and main entrances as well as between PM_2.5 and nicotine concentrations. Results The authors obtained an overall median PM_2.5 concentration of hall 18.20 μg/m³ (IQR: 10.92–23.92 μg/m³), main entrance (outdoor) 17.16 μg/m³ (IQR: 10.92–24.96 μg/m³), control (indoor) 10.40 μg/m³ (IQR: 6.76–15.60 μg/m³) and control (outdoor) 13.00 μg/m³ (IQR: 8.32–18.72 μg/m³). The PM_2.5 concentration in halls was more correlated with concentration in the main entrances (outdoors) (rsp=0.518, 95% CI 0.271 to 0.701) than with the control indoor (rsp=0.316, 95% CI 0.032 to 0.553). The Spearman correlation coefficient between nicotine and PM_2.5 concentration was 0.365 (95% CI −0.009 to 0.650). Conclusions Indoor locations where smoking is banned are not completely free from SHS with levels similar to those obtained in the immediate entrances (outdoors) where smoking is allowed, indicating that SHS from outdoors settings drifts to adjacent indoors. These results warrant a revision of current smoke-free policies in particular outdoor settings.