Tobacco Documents Online

RECEIVED ~APR -21982 -X J. STEVENS . }'TI7C1.

1 0;,4 O 1 C O N N E C TI 1 C U T A V E N UIE' , K' E N 5' I N, G' T O N' ,. FOR IMMEDIATE RELr^.ASE' March 29, 1982' F,/" eA41 Contact: Carolyn Ji. Jacobson Director of'P'ublic Relations 10401 Connecticut Avenue' Kensington, MD 20895 ('301) 933-8600 Ext. 25 BC&T S1Ybmits Testimony in Oppositionn to Cigarette Package hahc'ling, Bill "The Comprehensive Smoking Preventi,on Education'Act (H.R. 5653', S. 192'9)..s is not what it seems to be'. it is not merely' a harmless labeling, bill, but rather the first step downithe road to prohibition. In'fact, it is not merely a tobacco and health bill, but rather a red herring that could be used to divert attention from efforts to'undermine other health policies and programs."' ~ These words are part of the written~testimony the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union (BC&T), submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives' Health and Environment Subcommittee, and' the Senate's Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Labor and Human Resources. The BC&T represents over 160,000 workers in the United States andlCanada, approximately 30,000 of'whom are employed in the U.S. tobacco industry. The BC&T testimony cited two reasons for objecting to the Act -- "first, it threatens our industry and'our workers with the needless loss of sales, 0 earnings and ultimately, jobs. Second, it threatens a host of other workers in ~ C75 other industries and the general public with the loss of protection against ~ W hazardous environmental and occupational exposures."' IDA In regard to its argument concerning the Act's threat to the industry, the testimony notes the difference between "giving people information so they can make their own free choice. .. and aggressively persuad (ing,), people to modify their behavi:or... "Present U.S. poLicy, calls for the public to be informed, the measure of effectiveness being the extent of public awareness."

~ -2!- The statement goes on to point out that "awareness stands at an astonishingg high level of 90 percent, verging,on universal acceptance according to behavioral scientists." They note that "if these prohibitionist effects succeed in depressing sales by' just one percent, the adverse impact would be significant. Based on data from a recent Wharton (University of Pennsylvania) study of the tobacco industry's contribution to the U.S. economy, we estimate that the loss for just nine states (California, Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, C}hio,, Pennsylvania and Texas'Ji would be more than 10,000 j'obs and more than $170 ' million in wages." In regard to the obj'ection based'on "loss of protection~against hazardous environmental and occupational exposure," the testimony questions the findings on which~ these bills are predicated, which the union believes "will be misused to~ the detriment of millions of workers exposed to occupational hazards." "'we oppose (thesO bill (s)~ and (their) findings to also show our' solidarity with coal miners whose black lung disease has been blamed on smoking, textile workers whose brown lungidisease has been blamed on smoking, asbestos workers whose lung diseases have been blamed onismoking...''' ' Toisum up the reason for opposing the Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Educa- tion Act, the BC&T quoted'the 1980 AFL-CIO' Executive Council Resolution on smoking: Some-employers have exploited'scientific studies of the combined'effects of smoking with occupational exposure to toxic substances and conclude that it would!be un- necessary to control exposure of these substances, if workers stoppedismoking. The AFL-CIO' is opposed to any coercive efforts to infringe on individual rights of individh,ials who smoke or: of those who don't. We also oppose misuse of scientific data con- cerning smoking and'exposure to toxic substances in the workplace,, which are shown toladversely, affect their health. ###'#####'#r#