Tobacco Documents Online

And in d'oing r ~, P would like to.point Ir a report adopted the AFL-CIO ExeLcutive Council in 198'0 ~: Some empSoyerss 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-CI0 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 tak,e 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 our Executive Council in staiting two.years ago the fundamental basis for rejecting,this legislation.today. ~.

This Committe(.;i11l have to decide betw~.L,.i those two roles for the government. Should the government colntinue to give peo,ple: information so they can make their own free choice? Or should it aggressively persuade people 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 go. vernment's admonitions,, they cannot really be informed -- and, therefore,. must be reformed. The new measure of effectiveness shifts from knowledge to conformdty. T Even on.these terms, the present policy of ed'ucation is- wa:rking; The':prevalence of smoking has dropped to 35 percent, the lowest ever recorded by the Gallup Pbll.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 jus:t under the surface. This motivation explains why the bill loads packages and." advertising with more warnings and lists than any other product 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.

March 24, 1S( STATEMENT of the BAKERY, CONFECTIONERY & ' TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNIQhto the HOUSE SUB'COMEfITTEE ON HEALTH AND THE, EAVIRQNMENT ~.., Committee on Energy and Commerce Re: H.R. 56'53, "The Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act of 1982" The Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco R'orkers International Union represents over I60',OOA workers in the United.States:and Canada.. Approximately 30',0A!0,of our members are, employed in the U.S. tobacco indu,stry.. We present this_ testimony on behalf of all of our members - thos'e who are employed in that industry, as w,ell as those employed in the various asp:ects:of the food production industry. We also speak on behalf'of the many workers in.the tobacco industry who are not organized and d'o not, therefore:, have a collective voice to represent them at the hearings. We also represent many organized workers who are concerned with the impact of this bill, who weree not provided time to testify, includ'ing machinists, electricians, carpenters, farm workers, distributive workers and retail workers, and others. We oppose H.R. 5653, The Comprehensive Smoki:ng, Prevention Education Act, for two very_important reasons. First, it threatens our industry and our workers with the needless loss of sales„ earnings, and ultimately, jobs. O. W. N W. C~..~ W

economy, we estimdC that.the loss fo.r just Cne of the states. (California, Illinois, Kentucky„ New Jersey,'New York,.North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas) would'.be more than 10',000'0 j,ob:s and more than $170 million in wages. One-fifth,of this.Ioss would.Fome 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? T The American Cancer Society, a major lobbying force for this Ilegisl,ation, 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 20'0:0. titi'e seriously question the wisdomof buying,the Swedish import for Americans. We seriously question the wisdom of disrupting a health industry and creating more unemployment in a recession. We question the wisdom of setting up a new anti-smoking, bureaucracy with unspecified spending authority when.other essential health. ~ W and social programs are being slashed. Mr. Chairman, we do more µ than."seriously question the wisd'om'" of this bill -- we reject its~ folly.

Tihe lung cane C.rate for white men alonf-che coastal sections ~ of Northern FIlorida,, 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 shipbuildingy industry during, World War I.I. A FloridaState University study attributes it to ., . 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 other associated with the industrial establishment, believe that cancer-causing pollutants are relatively minor factors compared- to fa~ctors such as smoking, diet, alcohol, and, even sexual and reproductive behavior, a view that is consistent.with the bill's "findings"'. But the New York Times also reported that other scientists believe that factors other than smoking are,involved;e 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 rates, perhaps because they have...more hazardous jobs."' But the supporters of the bill have no similar worries; to them, it's:all due to smoking. Politics makes strange bedfellows. H.R,. 5653 has been intro- duced by a Member with a 100% AFL-CIO voting,record;; its Senate W (M version has been introduced by a man with a zero AFL-CIO'rating. ~ {Ve.can't split the difference. We totally oppose both bills. ~I 0

That restrair.C is as,needed now as it X 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 rrith: o~ Coal miners whose black lung disease has been _- blamed on smok:ing,. o Textile workers whose brown lung,disease has been buamed 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 honestl'y abandon the blame-the-victim approach and get att:the.truths of:what is causing. disease. Earlier•this year,this Committee heard testimony from two seientists who Feportedthat "'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 bilIl,, it's all cigarette smoking. Recently, the National Nildlife:Sederaltion reported that "responsible,scientists believe: air pollution is responsible for about 5.0,000 excess deaths, seven million sick d'ays, and 15 million days of'restricted activity per year."' But to supporters of this: bill., it's all cigarette smoking,.

~ Second, it th( 3tens a host of other wol(ars in other industries and the general public with the loss of protection against hazardous environmental and, occupational expo:sures,. To put.it plainly, this legislation is not what it seems to be.. I!t 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 redherring that could be used to di- vert attention from efforts to undermine other health policies and programs. - The stakes are very high and time for consideration of the full implication of'thisbill has been severely restricted. Frankly,we have been concerned about the imbalance in the time allotted for testimony in support of this legislatiion versus the time for opposition views._ Three television performers were alTowedYto launch.the hearings with personal statements in supp.ort of the bill, while only one labor union was permitted to testify, and then only as p:artof an industry panel which was itself denied the time it had requested for scientific witnesses. We believe it to: be more important for the committee to hear the statements of those people whose liveli- hoods are directly affected.by the proposed legislation. The rush~to judgment before all the facts are in will only doo grave damage to the public interest and the credibility.of the W tT~ legislative process. w Mr.Chairman, this bill masquerad'es.as labeling legislation, W A 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.

Now, let us.tl,s to the second major grr.id.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. .,T~e 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 giance, 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 andthird largest preventable causes? What are the "non-preventable" causes? Is smoking "preventable" whilie environmental pollution is not?' If these statements of findings had' to be substantiated, as the FTC req;uires advertising,statements to b.e, I doubt they would' sur- vive. The 'bill says flatly that smoking "is associated with"' over 3'AD,00'0'.deaths a year. Yet, the first Surgeon Ceneral"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. The C'ommittee which wrote the report considered the possibility oftrying to make such calculations, but rejected the idea becausep C.1 "'it involves making so many assumptions that the Committee felt M i-A W' h h' d t t th s "' '4 m i t t t l p .... w e it.s ou no a t a