Tobacco Documents Online

8_./6[ *[Z [T-zdv

I, THE ISSUE Does other people's smoke cause disoase in nonsmokers? Is the presence of tobacco smoke in the atmosphere cause for a larm ? In the continuing national dialogue on the various issues raised : cigarette s'mokin.g~ .these q'uestions have now come to the forefront~ " " • It has been called the issue of "second hand smoke', "public" or "involuntary" smoking. Unfortunately, as with most controversial scientific:issues, there hasbeen a great deal of mtslnform~tlo~ and dnsubstantla~ed allegations.m~de " about the effect of other people's smoke on nonsmokers. " Because of this misinformation, a maJorl'ty of both smokers and nonsmokers have come to believe erroneously that there is proof that second hand smoke is dangerous to the nonsmoker. This perception is apparently the underlying basis for widespread efforts to prohibit smoking in public • The fact.ls~. To date, dtl~er peopld'ssmo~e has not b~enshb~vnt~ " cause dis'ease In nonsmokers. Because we believe that public policy should be debated and det~rmined on the basis of proven facts, rather than false perceptions., we have prepared this document summarizing ~vhat Is known at thl~ tlme on the question of Second hand smoke.

II, Wi.IAT ARC T//C FACTS ? Numerous scientists, physicians, government officials and heMth expert~ have studied the effect of environmental smoke on nonsmokers. None of these studies have been able to prove that other people's smoke causes disease in nonsmokers. ...... . • A Joint stud~, conducted In 1971 by the Federal Aviation Administration. (FAA) the U.S. Depa~ment of He~lth~ ~u~tfon and Welfare (HE~ ond the National Institute of Occupational Safety a~ Heolth (NIOSH) examfn~ the health aspens of smoking on p~ssenger aircra~. The repo~ of th~s study stated: ~ ... ~it Is concluded that inhalation of the by-pr~u~s from t~acco smoke generated as ~ result of p~ssengers smoking ab~ commercial ~ircra~ d.~s not represent a significant health haza~ ~o non-smok~g passengers. "l ~ In 1977, a~er studying ~ propos~ rule on prohlbitin9 airline pilots from ~moking In the cockpit of commercial planes, the F~ stated: " .... with respect to the a~eged deleterious effe~s of ~rbon mono~de upon the pe~ormance of ~mokfng pilot, the F~ believes that the lnfo~ation presented Is too ~conclusive to warran~ the I~suance of the requested rule at this time. ~ 2 ~ The U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), In a 1971 upholding the righ~ ~o smoke on interstate buses, stated: "We agree with the exam~er~s co~clusfons that petitioner has failed adequately to den~onst~ate the .3 d~leterlous effe~s of second-hand smoke upon the health of motorbus passengers.

O Professor Doctor Schievelbeine currently Director of the Institute fcr Clinical Medicine of the German l~eart Center in Munichs concluded in 1973 in an article published in the medical Journal, Internist, that: "No proof of a th,.'eat to the health of nonsmokers through epassive smoking~ can be found in ¢~l.ziies availabte to dat,~." 4 O In 1974 ~ Dr. R. Rylandet:, the Danish medical researchet~, and other leading medical experts organized a workshop in Geneva, attended by scientists from all over the world, to consider the health consequences of atmospheria tobacco smoke° .They concluded: "For the majority of the population the average exposure burden due to environmental tobacco smoke is probab.ly' much lower than that due to industrialair pollutants and in many cases also environmental air pollution or tl-.e lung burden due to dust clouds or other' .5 it.door a~r pollutants. O ~he Bavarian Academ~, of Indh'strial and Social Medlcine sponsored a symposium on smoking lnthe workplace in 1977 in Munich, attended by eminent Get.mare scientlstss lavo, ers and government leaders. In a closing statement, the symposiurn's chairman, Professor Doctor H. Valentin of the University of Er]angen-Nurembur~, said: "In conclusion, with regard to medical and legal facts of passive smoking at the work place, the following must be considered. Under our p~esent day work place conditions, no clear and significant untoward health effects from passive smoking have been shown." 6 N3N • O

O R.S.F. Schilling and a group of co-researchers, thinking that children of smoking parents might contract disease due to their close proximity to smoking family members,, determined exactly the opposite after a study. In ]977, they reported in the American Journal of Epidemioloc~y: "We have found no significant relation ~tWeen parents~ smoking and respi~to~ symptoms or lung ' fun=ion Jn the~f ~ht]dren." They added: '~:~onclu~e tha~ exposure to 1~ " . ' -- level~ of smoke pr~uced by cigarette Smokersdoek not result In chr~i~ ". respiratow symptoms or loss of lung function among chlldmn nor Nmo~adults." 7

0 i'ro[e.~or Doctor '~;chlovuilJ~:Jn, currezztly Dlructor of the Institute for Clinico] Medicine of the German llcart Cuntur In Mmllch, concluded In 1973 in an article published in the mudica] Journal,.Intornls._~t ,'that: proof of a threat to the health of nonsmokers through 'passive smoking' can be found in studies available to date," 4 O In 1974, Dr, R. Rylunder, the Danish medical researcher, and other lea~ing medical expects organized a workshop in Geneva,.attended ~by ~c!enti.sts from all over the w.or~d, to co.nsidor ,the. health consequences of atmospheric tobacco smoke, They concluded: • "For the maJor.ity of the population the average exposure burden due to environmental tobacco smoke is probably much lower than that due to industrial air pollutants and in many cases also ereironme~zal air pollutiot~ or t},e lung burden due to dust clouds or other indoor" ~ir pollutants." 5 0 The Bavarian Academy' of Industrial and Social Medicine sponsored a symposium on smoking ln the workplace In 1977 in Munich, attended by' eminent German scientist-~, lawyers and government leaders. In a closing statement, the symposlum~s -chairman, Professor Doctor H o Valentln of the University of r.rlangen-Nuremburg, said: "In conclusion, with regard to medical and legal facts of passive smoking at the work place, the following must be considered. Under our present day work place conditions, no clear and significant untoward health effects from passive smoking have been shown." 6 --5-- U~

III. SUPPORTING OPINIONS j' Others who have studied the effects of smoking on nonsmokers have confirmed these [tndings. <) Dr. D .M. Avlado, Professor of Pharmacology for the University - of Pennsylvania said, in a statement before the Council of the District of Co]umbia Committee on Transportation and Environmental Affairsi~1976: "On the basis of existing scientific evidence, tobacco smoke constitutes no health hazard to nonsmokers in.public places." 8 ... O In a statement In 1977 before the New Iersey Public Health Council, Dr. Walter M. Booker, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology of Howard University, . said: "As a scientist, I am interested In actual data which demonstrate whether a nonsmoker absorbs tobacco sm'oke and, if so, whether the amount Is sufficient to cause adverse physJologJca] eHects. Theliterature sJmply does not support the theory that a non~moker absorbs amounts which can cause harm."9 " I~ Pathology l~rofess~r Dr. Edwin R. l~isher of the University of Pittsburgh, appearing before the same New 1ersey ~roup Jn 1977 said; "My careful review of the literature, confirming the conclusions based upon my own ex'per'.mental data and the related work discussed above, reveals a lack of . scientific information which would allow me to. conclude that atmosPheric.tobacco" smoke or its constituents represent a health hazard tn nonsmokers." 10 -6-

(~ Writing In the San Francisco Examiner In I977, medical researcher Dr. C.H. lithe said'. "The medical literature to date does not Indicate any significant health risk to the nonsmoker from environmental tobacco smoke normally encountered In day-to-day situations. ,,!! (~ Appearing before the New 1ersey Public Health Council in 1977, Dr. Charles L.. WaRe, Retired Rear Admiral of tl~e U.S. NavF Medical Service, • Medlca! Director of the Tobacco Institute, and Fellow of the American College of Physicians, made the fol~ow~.ng statem.ent: "Zn r~,F opinion, there Is no convincing evidence to support the hazards claimed by some to the effect tl~t cigarette smoke threatens the health of the average wel! nonsmoker. On the basis of existing scientific evidence, ! can only conclude that tobacco smoke constitutes no health hazard to nonsmokers In public places."12 O And0 in a 1976 German medical Journal (Zbl. Bakt. Hyg., Io .Abt. Orig. 162:51 2-69) Dr. W. Klosterkotter and Dr. E. Gono, of the Hospital of the Unlversity of Essen, W. Germany, and two fellow Wes~ German doctors said, fo]lowlng their research: "So far passive smoking has not proven to ba health- hazardous in healthy adults. Thus an Important condition for a legal smoking ban, e.go at places of work, remains unfilled. "13 . OPPONENTS OF SMOKING AGREE Even the most avowed critics of smoking acknowledge that smokln~ has not been establlsh.ed as a cause of disease tn nonsmokerso Some of them include." O The then U.S. Surgeon General, Jesse Stelnfeld, who stated after issuing the 1972 Public Health Service Report on Smoking: "(I cannot) say with

certainty that exposure to tobacco smo|:t; can cause serious illness in ,, 14 nonsmokers. O Dr. ~onathon Rhoades, Chairman of the National Cancer Advisory Boards said In 1975 that to his knowledg~ "It is not, in feats actually harmful." 15 ~ Dr. E. Cuy]er Hammond of the American Cancer Society said In 1975 that there "was no shred of evidence" that a nonsmoker can get cancer from "second hand" smoke~ He added it=at to suggest second hand smoking cot~ld cause cancer Is dishonest, and that he would be prepared to testify, to that in court. 16 O The "Expert Group" appointed by' the British organization, Action on Smoking and. Health (ASII), headed b~, Dr. Charles Fletcher of the British Royal College of Physlcian!~, concluded In 1973 that: "There Is no evidence, that other ~eop]e's smoke ts dangerous to healthy nonsmokers ..... = ]7 (~ American Cancer Society official Lawrence Garflnkel said In 1976: " ..... (T)here is no evidence, however, that nonsmokers who are constantly exposed to cigarette smoke have a higher Incidence of bronchial carcinoma o" 18 1t~ Great Britain% Foreign Minister Dr. David Owen, while serving as Minister of Health In 1975 said: "No clear evidence has yet been published to show that tobacco smoke Is harmful to rtormally healthy nonsmokers or that a. heavily tobacco-smoke laden atmosphere has other than a transient e£fect.." ]9 O In a 1977 television appearance In V~rashlngton, D.C. on W3~OP-3~/ (CB9) Dr. Gto Gorl state~: "I would say that the evidence that we h~ve today,

scientific evidence, sornothlng that we can prove, or normal ~moklng conditions that you may have a couple of people smoking in a regular size room, the health effects connected with thai ore probably going to be minimal.''20 (~ Three spokesmen for the Naylor Dana Institute for Disease " Prevention of the~mer~can Health Foundation, including Dr. ErnestLo Wynder, ~...; concluded that: "Specifically, we know of no data :suggestihg : ~~: ~- .... :~~; ~ " that passive lnhalattOn.og cigarette smoke increaseg:ih~"rlsk oi:de~loping lung'cancer:" In addition, they" reported: "On the basis of available ~pideml¢~l¢~lc~l evidence, it appears that passive inhalation of tobacco smokeby nonsmokers"or ~oket:s .... does not increase their risk for chronic illnesses-such as cancerof the .... respiratory ira bt, emphysema, or cardiovascular disease