Tobacco Documents Online

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

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]

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

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

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

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.

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