Tobacco Documents Online

: C' ' ' lVL`iVS RELEASE WEIVDELL H. FORD af KENTUCKY UNITED STATES SENATE 41V7INkseo Senate 0f4ce BuHdfng Washington;. D.C. - 202J224-4343 STATEMENT BY'.SENATOR WENDELL H. FOBD. SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ONiHEALTHS SCIENCERESEARCH RE:.ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION' . - MAY 25,. 19'78I , . . . . . . . -Mr. Chairman,this isn't the first time I've found myself sitting across:the aisle from you too talk about .tobacco.-- and I dare sayit won't be the last. I d'on'tt know how much enjoyment you get.out of these sessions„ but.I can guarantee you that as long.as you maintain your strong interest in this area, I'm not going, to have any troub.le.at all.convincing my constituency that idle time is non-existent in.theSenatei . . Quite frankly,. I do not expect you to be swayed by ' any arguments I'might makee this morning,, but IdoI hope that you.recognize the.Subcommittee''s responsibility to ensure thatt the.points I'.raise are carefully considered and givenn their:dueprocess as you move forward with this.legislation. - _ Let me make it clear at the verybeginningy that I have no problems withh thee intent behind.theprovisions of thiss legislation which.pertain to childrea and.smoking. I would support legislation.to:this effect -- if that were its soleintent. . - Unfortunately, that is not the case, and the legis- lation which.is now beforee this Subcommittee goes.farbeyond'those limits. . I.will be the first to admit that serious questions continue to: persist about.tobacco. But I will.also be the first to declare that the proper and logical response.to ' ..findinganswers to these questions is not through punitive legislation,, but through,acceleratedresearch~. Through research we can work.toidentify harmful '. elements, if they are found to exist in.tobacco, andithen "remove them. Through.research, we can make.important strides toward lessening any risks found tobe.associatedwith smoking,. while at the same time.maintaining theeconomic stability of this industry which is so very important to~so many states. In fact,. Ifindlit..ironic that wee haveito even consider a renewal of governmental assaults on.tobacco at. the very time the marketplace is soo rapidly dealing with.the problems that smokingiadversaries talk.so much.about.: Tar andd nicotine yields have been cut in half in recent years. The cigarette industryisy involved in the most.vigorous and expensive competition in,its historyto convert smokers to the low-tar brands.

-3- Athird and fundamentaS.issueat stake is the question ofindividuaS freedom of choice. AsPresidentialHealth~AdvisorDr. Peter Bourne pointed out last year: • . "NO matter how much,onemay favor prohibition of tobacco products, such a move is 300 years too Iate." . The choice rests -- as it should -- with , the.individuaS. Thosewho want to use tobacco~will...those who prefer not to, won't. You cannot legislate choice -- that's what living,in a democracy isalT about. There.is one final point that needs to be made, Mr. Chairman.. The sheereconomics ofthis situation:dictate finding asolution rather than aboiishingthe industry -- which, in effect, thislegislation could do. Tobacco isamuTti-billion dol7arbusiness. More than . 600.,000 farm families -- more than 90 percent of.sma1T family -farmsin my state alone -- derive much ofltheir.incomefrom tobacco. Throughoutthe years. of exhaustive debate over tobacco, no one has comeforth,with an alternative crop that these.families could grow whichwould keep them self-suffi'cient. I have nodoubt that.okra„ bibblettuce, cucumbers or hundreds of other cropswould thrive in the richfarmland of my state and eTsewhere.But the cash receipts to be derived from any of these alternatives wouldi be far.from sufficient tosupport either a family orthe farm. M'r. Chairman,I don°t want to seetheCongress,throughthi:s legislation,, be a willingaccessorg to the further demise ofthe famiPy'farm -- because unless we find a suitabDealternative,,. that"s what will happen~and these people.aregoing to be left with only two choices -- l~eavethe family farm or end up on welfare.

-2_ C The.endiresult is that we are seeing aclas..sic. - illustration of'thevalue of.freedom of'ch.oice -- the.free choice of smokerss on the onehand tosmokeo cigarettesthat cri`_ics.say are safery, and the free.choice.of the.manufacturerse on the other hand to respondicompetitively to.that.growing market.. . . .. Now.,, it appears that the federal government wants.to, recognize the industry's ini~tiatives.....to reward the industry's efforts to.produce.a safer product ... with punitive.legisIDation. . Why must this be the direction wee take? ''. Is it that unreasonable to~considersupporting,-- instead of und'erming -- what I perceive.to be a.sincere and ' intenseeffort.to save.an indrustry that provides billionss off dolLars.of income for millions of Americans? .As I have remindedd my distinguishedd colleague many times, tobaccois a..p1'iable product....a product.from which . impurities can.be removed in as short a time as two growing seasons. That flexibility facilitates research such'as the.kind which,isnowbeingh conducted.on smoking and.health,at the University of Kentucky's Tobacco Research Institute. Since the Tobacco Research,I~nstitute's creation in 1972, .moree than.$3.7milliion annuallyof. State's funds has been.directed into massive research and study.. That.research helped d~eveiopthecurrentp low tar and nicotine ciga.rettes which are now on the market., t my repeated.cal-ls for increased research initiatives at.the federal level continue.to fall..on deaf ears.Accordi~ng to Health, Education, and WelfareSecretary Califano,, the.onl'y bydget increase for research on health-related.aspects ofsmokingwill.amount.tof a mere $4'milLion in'Fiscal.Year 1979' -- an:amount just slightly more than what is now being'directed toresearch,in one state -- with non-federal dollars as well!. more rewarding andd productive than to pump millions and millions of dollars into~anti-smoking initiativesand punitive.legislatione whichh have no.guarantee off success. . . Why aren't similar efforts..being directed toward the . thousands.ofnew chemicals.which are pourediinto the environment . has been.sing7ed out.as the focal point,of this..Subcommittee's preventive health program. . . eachyear7 . Way isn"t equal enthusiasm being directed toward the .estimated!1,.50osubstances in: the.workingplacewhich HEW' suspects..to be cancer-causing;?. The dividendss to occur from this.research will be far . Another question that must be.addressed~is why tobacco. - I'm all for finding, new ways to cut dowa thee high W Q incidence of.cancer in.this~.country, but I'm not.convinced that ~ the approachyouh have proposed will prod:uceany substantive Qj resuTts ~. ~