Statement of the Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers International Union to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources Re: S. 1929 'the Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act of 820000
Date: 24 Mar 1982
Length: 7 pages
Jump To Images
Length: 7 pages
Jump To Images
- REPT, OTHER REPORT
- LEGAL DEPT FILE ROOM
- Named Person
- Surgeon General
- Named Organization
- American Cancer Society
- Bakery Confectionery + Tobacco Work
- Fl State Univ
- Ftc, Federal Trade Commission
- Natl Wildlife Federation
- NCI, Natl Cancer Inst
- Ny Times
- Public Health Service
- Afl Cio
- Recipient (Organization)
- Senate Comm on Labor + Human Resour
- Date Loaded
- 07 Jan 1999
- Master ID
- 03607523-8364 Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act of 810000 Hearing Before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congress Second Session on S. 1929
- 03607531-7540 97th Congress 1st Session S. 1929 to Amend the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act to Increase the Availability to the American Public of Information on the Health Consequences of Smoking and Thereby Improve Informed Choice, and for Other Purposes.
- 03607587-7594 National Institute on Drug Abuse Technical Review on Cigarette Smoking As An Addiction
- 03607618-7620 Coaliion on Smoking or Health Seeks to Influence Legislators
- 03607621-7623 Coalition on Smoking or Health .. A Public Policy Project with the National Interagency Council on Smoking and Health
- 03607624-7626 Former Ftc Counsel to Staff Coalition on Smoking or Health
- 03607627-7629 Statement of the American Lung Association to the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment on H.R. 5653, the Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act
- 03607630-7636 the Importance of the Federal Government in the Prevention of Smoking Related Diseases Testimony in Support of H.R. 5653, A Revised Version of H.R. 4957 the Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act by the American Lung Association
- 03607681-7692 Lung Cancer, Coronary Heart Disease and Smoking
- 03607717-7724 Statement on S. 1929 'comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act of 810000' of Dan G. Mcnamara, M.D., F.A.C.C. President to Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Chairman Committee on Labor and Human Resources
- 03607725-7726 File No. 792-3204
- 03607727-7730 Statement of the American Medical Association to the Labor and Human Resources Committee U.S. Senate Re: S. 1929 Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act
- 03607731-7734 Statement on S. 1929 the Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act of 810000 by John R. Walton, Rrt President
- 03607735-7740 Statement of the American College of Physicians on S. 1929, the 'comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act of 810000'
- 03607741-7749 Testimony of the American College of Chest Physicians Submitted by Thomas L Petty, M.D., F.C.C.P. President Regarding S. 1929 'the Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act of 820000'
- 03607750-7751 Testimony of Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), by Its Executive Director and Chief Counsel, John F, Banzhaf III, Before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Chaired by the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, on the Comprehfnsive Smoking Prevention Education Act (S. 1929) Submitted 820402
- 03607752-7763 Federal Trade Commission Staff Report on the Cigarette Advertising Investigation
- 03607771-7790 Comments on H.R. 4957 - - Proposed 'comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act of 810000'
- 03607791-7793 Cigarette Smoking of Pregnant Women
- 03607794-7809 Peter L. Berger
- 03607810-7813 Gilgamesh on the Washington Shuttle
- 03607814-7848 Statement Rodger L. Bick, M.D.
- 03607849-7854 Statement of Theodore H. Blau Ph.D. Presented Before Subcommittee on Health and the Environment House of Representatives
- 03607855-7858 Statement of Walter M. Booker, Ph.D.
- 03607859-7864 Statment Smoking and Fetal Growth
- 03607865-7873 Curriculum Vitae Oliver Gilbert Brooke
- 03607874-7884 Statement of Barbara B. Brown, Ph.D.
- 03607885-7892 Statement of Dr. Victor Buhler
- 03607893-7896 Statement of Jack Matthews Farris, M.D.
- 03607897-7909 Statement of Sherwin J. Feinhandler, Ph.D.
- 03607910-7936 Statement of Edwin R. Fisher, M.D.
- 03607937-7945 Statement of H. Russell Fisher, M.D.
- 03607946-7979 Statement of Jean D. Gibbons
- 03607980-7983 Statement of Katherine Mcdermott Herrold, M.D.
- 03607984-7997 Statement of Arthur Furst, Ph.D.
- 03607998-8015 Statement of Richard J, Hickey, Ph.D.
- 03608016-8021 Statement of Duncan Hutcheon, M.D., D.Phil. Departments of Pharmacology and Medicine 820312
- 03608022-8053 Statement of Leon O. Jacobson
- 03608054-8065 State Ment of Lawrence L, Kupper, Ph.D.
- 03608066-8085 Statement of Hiram Thomas Langston M.D. Clinical Professor of Surgery (Emeritus) Northwestern University Medical School
- 03608086-8091 the Alleged Cost of Cigarette Smoke
- 03608092-8121 Statement of Eleanor J. Macdonald Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology Department of Cancer Prevention University of Texas System Cancer Center M.D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, Houston, Texas
- 03608122-8129 Statement of John E. O'toole, Chairman, Foote, Cone & Belding Communications, Inc.
- 03608130-8166 Statement by L.G.S. Rao, Ph.D. Bellshill Maternity Hospital Bellshill, Scotland, U.K. Regarding H.R. 4957 S. 1929
- 03608170-8173 Statement of Henry Rothschild, M.D., Ph.D.
- 03608177-8190 Statement of Bernice C. Sachs, M.D., Seattle, Washington
- 03608191-8195 Concerning the 'comprehensive Smoking Prevention Act of 820000'
- 03608205-8236 Statement of Sheldon C. Sommers, M.D.
- 03608237-8246 Statement Professor T.D. Sterling
- 03608247-8275 Statement of Professor Yoram J. Wind for Submission to the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment
- 03608276-8277 for Use at 10 A.M. Tuesday, 820316
- 03608278-8287 Statement of Robert Casad Hockett
- 03608288-8317 Relationships Between Family Smoking Habits, Individual Differences in Personality, and the Smoking Behavior of College Students
- 03608318-8337 Personality and Smoking Behavior
- 03608338-8364 on the Relation Between Family Smoking Habits and the Smoking Behavior of College Students
Page 1: zjv99d00
241 March 24, 1982 STATEMENT of the BAKERY, CONFECTIONERY f, TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION to the SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES Re: S. 1929, "The Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act of 1982" The Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union represents over 160,000 workers in the United States and Canada. Approximately 30,000 of our members are employed in the U.S. tobacco industry. We present this testimony on behalf of all of our members - those who are employed in that industry, as well as those employed in the various aspects of the food production industry. We also speak on behalf of the many workers in the tobacco industry who are not organized and do not, therefore, have a collective voice to represent them at the hearings. We oppose S. 1929, The Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act, for two very important reasons. First, it threatens our industry and our workers with the needless loss of shles, earnings, and ultimately, jobs. Second, it threatens a host of other workers in other indus- tries and the general public with the loss of protection against hazardous environmental and occupational exposures. To put it plainly, this legislation is not what it seems to be. It is not merely a harmless labeling bill, but rather the first step down the road to prohibition. In fact, it is not merely a tobacco and health bill, but rather a red herring that
Page 2: zjv99d00
242 -2- could be used to divert attention from efforts to undermine other health policies and programs. Mr. Chairman, this bill masquerades as labeling legislation, but there is an issue behind the issue. The hidden issue is whether national policy should shift from education to prevention, from choice to coercion. This Committee will have to decide between those two roles for the government. Should the government continue to give people information so they can make their own free choice? Or should it aggressively persuade individuals to modify their behavior until they stop? Present U.S. policy calls for the public to be informed, the measure of effectiveness being the extent of public awareness. Awareness stands at an astonishingly high level of 90 percent, verging on universal acceptance according to behavioral scientists. The neo-prohibitionist strategy of this bill calls for prevention, and is based on the theory that if people reject the government's admonitions, they cannot really be informed -- and, therefore, must be reformed. The new measure of effectiveness shifts from knowledge to conformity. Even on these terms, the present policy of education is working: The prevalence of smoking has dropped to 35 percent, the lowest ever recorded by the Gallup Poll. But apparently, it is not enough that awareness is at its highest level, and smoking, the disapproved behavior, is at its lowest point. That more prevention is nevertheless prescribed betrays the neo-prohibitionist motivation that lies just under the surface. This motivation explains why the bill loads packages and advertising with more warnings and lists than any other product 243 -3- is required to carry. It also explains door to a massive overload of litigation effects succeed in depressing sales by j verse impact would be significant. Base Wharton study of the tobacco industry's economy, we estimate that the loss for ji (California, Illinois, Kentucky, New Jer: Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas) wou: jobs and more than $170 million in wages. would come from tobacco farming, nanufact suppliers; the remainder would result frc the rest of the economy. ,.,. Further economic hardship would resu markets and of American jobs that depend goes far beyond existing legislation by r on cigarettes produced in this country fo cigarettes carrying a health warning labe which bear none? Can there be any doubt and on American jobs? The American Cancer Society, a major legislation, wants to cause more than a o. Several years ago, they launched their.Ta: at a 25% decrease in smoking in five year: nized that in Sweden, the source of this 1 stated goal is to achieve a smoke-free na? We seriously question the wisdom of 1 for Americans. We seriously question the a health industry and creating more unemp]
Page 3: zjv99d00
243 -3- is required to carry. It also explains why the bill opens the door to a massive overload of litigation. If these prohibitionist effects succeed in depressing sales by just one percent, the ad- verse impact would be significant. Based on data from a recent Wharton study of the tobacco industry's contribution to the U.S. economy, we estimate that the loss for just nine of the states (California, Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas) would be more than 10,000 jobs and more than $170 million in wages. One-fifth of this loss would come from tobacco farming, manufacturing, retail sales, and suppliers; the remainder would result from the ripple effect on the rest of the economy. - Further economic hardship would result from the loss of export markets and of American jobs that depend on exports. This bill goes far beyond existing legislation by requiring warning labels on cigarettes produced in this country for export. Could American cigarettes carrying a health warning label compete with cigarettes which bear none? Can there be any doubt of the result on sales and on American jobs? The American Cancer Society, a major lobbying force for this legislation, wants to cause more than a one percent drop in smoking. Several years ago, they launched their Target Five campaign, aimed at a 25% decrease in smoking in five years. And, it must be recog- nized that in Sweden, the source of this bill, the government's stated goal is to achieve a smoke-free nation by the year 2000. . We seriously question the wisdom of buying the Swedish import for Americans. We seriously question the wisdom of disrupting a health industry and creating more unemployment in a recession. n d I p r
Page 4: zjv99d00
244 -4- We question the wisdom of setting up a new anti-smoking bureaucracy with unspecified spending authority when other essential health and social programs are being slashed. Mr. Chairman, we do more than "seriously question the wisdom" of this bill -- we reject its folly. Now, let us turn to the second major ground for our opposition. Section 3 deals with so-called findings. These blame every major chronic disease on smoking, and thereby create a smoke-screen for the occupational and environmental factors involved. The very first one states that "the Congress finds that cigarette smoking is the largest preventable cause of illness and premature death in the United States and is associated with the unnecessary deaths of over three hundred thousand Americans annually." At first glance, it is difficult to conceive of a statement more alarming, more compelling, more demanding of remedial action. It calls for nothing short of outlawing tobacco. But on reflection, this finding is curiously phrased; the words have an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. Their meaning is hard to pin down. For example, if cigarette smoking is the "largest preventable cause of illness," what are the second and third largest preventable causes? What are the "non-preventable" causes? Is smoking "preventable" while environmental pollution is not? If these statements of findings had to be substantiated, as the FTC requires advertising statements to be, I doubt they would sur- vive. The bill says flatly that smoking "is associated with" over 300,000 deaths a year. Yet, the first Surgeon General's Report in 1964 stated that: The total number of excess deaths causally related to cigarette smoking in the U.S. population cannot be accurately estimated. 245 -s- The Committee which wrote the repor of trying to make such calculations, but "it involves making so many assumptions i that it should not attempt this..." That restraint is as needed now as i We believe the findings in this bill will be misused to the detriment of milli to occupational hazards. We oppose this ' show our solidarity with: o Coal miners whose black lung diset blamed on smoking. o Textile workers whose brown lung d been blamed on smoking. o Asbestos workers whose lung diseas blamed on smoking. And the list includes uranium workers workers, shipyard workers, and many others and the voluntary health organizations sho blame-the-victim approach and get at the ti disease. Earlier this year, the Congress heard scientists who reported that "at least 11 p 21 percent" of lung cancer in the U.S. can pollution. They noted that the proportion decreased and that cigarettes now contain h: 20 years ago, yet lung cancer rates continu~ indicates that something else is at work," i But to the supporters of this bill, it' Recently, the National Wildlife Federat "responsible scientists believe air pollutio
Page 5: zjv99d00
245 -s- The Committee which wrote the report considered the possibility of trying to make such calculations, but rejected the idea because "it involves making so many assumptions that the Committee felt that it should not attempt this..." That restraint is as needed now as it was then. We believe the findings in this bill are unsubstantiated and will be misused to the detriment of millions of workers exposed to occupational hazards. We oppose this bill and its findings to show our solidarity with: o Coal miners whose black lung disease has been blamed on smoking. o Textile workers whose brown lung disease has been blamed on smoking. o Asbestos workers whose lung diseases have been blamed on smoking. And the list includes uranium workers, chemical workers, metal workers, shipyard workers, and many others. Public Health Service and the voluntary health organizations should honestly abandon the blame-the-victim approach and get at the truths of what is causing disease. Earlier this year, the Congress heard testimony from two scientists who reported that "at least 11 percent and more likely 21 percent" of lung cancer in the U.S. can be attributed to air pollution. They noted that the proportion of adult smokers has decreased and that cigarettes now contain half the tar content of 20 years ago, yet lung cancer rates continue to climb. "To us this indicates that something else is at work," the scientists said. But to the supporters of this bill, it's all cigarette smoking. Recently, the National Wildlife Federation reported that "responsible scientists believe air pollution is responsible for m
Page 6: zjv99d00
246 -6- about 50,000 excess deaths, seven million sick days, and 15 million days of restricted activity per year." But to supporters of this bill, it's all cigarette smoking. The lung cancer rate for white men along the coastal sections of Northern Florida, South Carolina and Georgia are among the high- est in the nation. The National Cancer Institute says it may be the result of exposure in the booming shipbuilding industry during World War II. A Florida State University study attributes it to ~i airborne chemical pollutants from industrial plants in New York and Illinois. But to the supporters of this bill, it's all cigarette smoking. The New York Times has recently looked at the growing contro- versy over whether environmental or lifestyle factors cause cancer. The former chief epidemiologist of the American Cancer Society, and others associated with the industrial establishment, believe that cancer-causing pollutants are relatively minor factors compared to factors such as smoking, diet, alcohol, and even sexual and reproductive behavior, a view that is consistent with the bill's "f ind ing s" . But the New York Times also reported that other scientists believe that factors other than smoking are involved; they are worried about "poisons escaping from smokestacks, toxic waste dumps, . -.~ nuclear reactors." They are worried that "black men smoke less than whites, yet have higher lung cancer have...more hazardous jobs." But the supporters of the bill have it's all due to smoking. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Act has been introduced by a member with - ,h rates, perhaps because they no similar worries; to them, The House version of this a 100% AFL-CIO voting record; 247 -7- S. 1929 has been introduced by a man we can't split the difference. We tc And in doing so, I would like to by the AFL-CIO Executive Council in 1 Some employers have exploit of the combined effects of smoki exposure to toxic substances and would be unnecessary to control substances, if workers stopped s The AFL-CIO is opposed to a to infringe on individual rights smoke or of those who don't. We of scientific data concerning smr toxic substances to serve as a r: to take necessary steps to preve: toxic substances in the workplac( adversely affect their health. We are impressed by the foresigh' stating two years ago the fundamental legislation today.
Page 7: zjv99d00
247 -7- S. 1929 has been introduced by a man with a zero AFL-CIO rating. We can't split the difference. We totally oppose both bills. And in doing so, I would like to point to a report adopted by the AFL-CIO Executive Council in 1980: Some employers have exploited scientific studies of the combined effects of smoking with occupational exposure to toxic substances and conclude that it would be unnecessary to control exposure of these substances, if workers stopped smoking. The AFL-CIO is opposed to any coercive efforts to infringe on individual rights of individuals who smoke or of those who don't. We also oppose misuse of scientific data concerning smoking and exposure to toxic substances to serve as a rationale for failure to take necessary steps to prevent worker exposure to toxic substances in the workplace, which are shown to adversely affect their health. We are impressed by the foresight of the Executive Council in stating two years ago the fundamental basis for rejecting this legislation today. I 0