Tobacco Documents Online

STATEMENT OF HORACE R. KORNEGAY 'PRESIDENT, THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. Before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce February 15, 1978 My name is Horace R. Kornegay. Since June 1970, I have served as President of The Tobacco Institute, an association of tobacco manufacturers in the United~ States . I appreciate your invitation, Mr. Chairman, to testify at this hearing to review the "Anti-Smoking Initiative" proposed by Secretary Califano. I thank you for this opportunity to express views on behalf of The Tobacco Institute. However, I regret that I did not have adequate time to prepare for this hearing. A call to my staff about this hearing.was made last Wednesday afternoon. But it was only this Monday morning at 11:25 a.m. that I received a letter from you, Mr. Chairman, officially advising me of these hearings and of the details of the matters to be considered. With the time constraints under which I was working, it was not possible to prepare a comprehensive presentation of our concerns as to "the general issues:surrounding" the extremely broad Anti-__ Smoking Initiative proposed by Secretary Califano. _Let me assure - you, Mr. Chairman; The Tobacco Institute is deeply concerned by Secretary Califano's proposed Initiative, and believes that his 03'745429 program is unjustifie d both scientifically and as a matter of public policy.'

-'2- At the outset, let me further assure you that the tobacco industry has been and remains concerned about the critical questions relating to smoking and health. During .the past quarter century, the industry has supported inde- pendent scientific research with completely non-restrictive funding. The total has now reached more than 65 million dollars, including 619 granis and~contracts in 243 medical schools, hospitals and institutions. The industry has funded multi-million dollar projects at Washington University in St. Louis, the Harvard Medical School and the UCLA School of Medicine. To turn to Secretary Califano's Initiative, I must first emphasize that it is based on a series of factual in- accuracies and scientifically unsupportable figures and estimates. Let me illustrate: Secretary Califano in his January llth speech said that virtually all physicians accept the evidence that smoking is harmful to health. On. this basic issue of smoking and health,.Congressional hearings were:held in the House Commerce Committee in 1964, 1965 and 1969, in the Senate Commerce Committee in 1965, 1969 and 1972, and in the Senate Subcommittee on Health as late as 1976. Indeed, some members of this Subcommittee were present and participated -in several of those hearings. At those hearings, many eminent scientists stated'that, in their opinions, smoking had not been scientifically establi:shed as a cause of human disease. These 03745430 statements demonstrate the inaccuracy of Secretary Califano's -

- 3- assertion that the people who don't accept his view on smok- ing and health are "a self-interested minority" of people "mostly in the cigarette industry." I would next like to discuss Secretary Califano's unfounded claim that last year smoking was a "major factor" in more than 300,000 deaths from diseases ranging from heart ~ disease to cancer of the bladder. This 300,000 figure has been used so often during the last dozen years that few people remember that it had no scientific basis when first made in 1965 and still has no basis today. The first person to use the 300,000 figure was an advertising man, Mr. Emerson Foote, in 1965. -He mentioned this figure at hearings held by the Senate Commerce Committee in that year. Government officials relied on his statement as their authority, even though he said he was relying on them. Thereafter, at successive Congressional hearings and elsewhere, the 300,000 figure has been repeatedly used. Now.Secretary Califano has perpe tuated this myth of more than 300,000 deaths for which neither he nor anyone in his Department has scientific basis. We believe that responsible scientific debate on the smoking and health issue is not served by this careless misuse of unfounded and unsupportable scare figures. Let us look more closely at other examples of the . Secretary's inaccurate claims.

-4 - As to heart disease, where Secretary Califano claim s smoking as a~major factor in 220,000 deaths last year, a rele- vant and revealing exchange took place on February 19, 1976 between Senator Gary Hart and the then Assistant Secretary for Health, Dr. Theodore Cooper, a cardiologist and previous head of'the National Heart Institute. At hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on Health, the following colloquy occurred: - Sen. Hart: "...I would merely ask if cigarette smoking causes heart disease?" Dr. Cooper: "No." Sen. Hart: "It does not?" Dr. Cooper: "No. I think to be absolutely candid with you, the risk factor does not mean cause;...° Likewise, Secretary Califano is throwing bladder irto the broad category of diseases supposedly caused by smoking. However, Dr. Marvin Schneiderman of the National Cancer Institute has recently admitted that he may have been wrong about ciga- rettes causing bladder cancer. He now believes it may be caused by saccharin. The above are some examples of the factual errors on which Secretary Califano `~s anti;-smoking program is based. , But I must emphasize that the basic flaw in his program goes

-5- beyond factual inaccuracies. It is based on a fundamental misconception of the role of government in a free society. Despite the Secretary's references to the importance of "freedom, free will, and free choice," the program he has proposed depends chiefly on government coercion. He recom- mends such things as heavy-handed anti-smoking propaganda, regulations to prohibit smoking in public places and re- gressive tax measures. Of the many proposals he has made, at least half represent the intrusion of government into individual freed= of choice. Secretary Califano's views should be contrasted with the more measured approach of Dr. Peter Bourne, the President's health* advisor, who warns against government interference. He notes with regard to issuing orders to smokers, that "...The socia7l disruption and discord engendered by this struggle exacerbates tensions and problems..... The reaction of those who compulsively overeat, overdrink, or overwork may be precisely the opposite of what we intended. Obligatory measures to reduce cigarette use should clearly be pursued cautiously, being sure that we know what the impact is that we are having . " The Tobacco Institute believes that the American __ public should be given information about.smoking and health. _ -We also believe.that this informtation should be complete and accurate so that adults may make their own decisions about whether to smoke or not to smoke, G,: Cv

-6- We believe that the American public has been and continues to`be adequately warned about the claimed health risks associated with smoking. As.President Carter said in May 1976 at a press conference -- and I quote: "I think that the American people have -been adequately warned. You know we've had a constant series of warnings both in television, radio, newspaper advertisements. We've got strict limitations on the kind of advertisement that cigarettes can present to the public; we've got a printed warning on every package of cigarettes about the danger to one's health and I personally believe that that is an adequate degree of warning to be instituted"by the government." indeed, even the non-smoking youth,of our nation are aware, as demonstrated by the fact that Secretary Califano's own decision to quit smoking was made at the insistence of his then eZeven-year-old son. Yet, many Americans have chosen to continue to smoke. We believe their choice should be respected. So does President Carter. When he was asked at a news conference on January_12th of this year what he intended to do about White House _ staff _ .,..,. member s who smoke, he said it was not the responsibility of O- _ . t government to "tell a particular American citizen whether they ~ A,_ _ can or cannot smoke.a CJt,, 1

-7- We have serious reservations about Secretary Califano's so-called education effort. First, we question the need to spend Federal funds and involve the Federal bureaucracy in an increased public education program, since the American public has been adequately warned on the smoking and health issue. In addition, we question the Secretary's priorities. We are concerned that the Secretary's excessive zeal regarding smoking education will distort and deemphasize the information provided to the American public and•to school children in such areas as drug and alcohol abuse, proper nutrition and the like. Finally, it is unclear how the Secretary proposes to assure the effectiveness of his pro- posed education program. Are Federal officials going to withhold Federal funds from a school district because they think its smoking education efforts fail to conform to federal guidelines? The Washington Star commented in an editorial, "What Mr. Califano is doing with his anti-smoking.hoohah is illustrating further the tilted concept of the feds as parents and the citizenry as recalicitrant and contrary .children, to'be coerced if they will not heed." Secretary Califano's coercive program, which pur-- portedly protects non-smokers from exposure-to tobacco smoke, cannot be justified on the premise that smoking is hazardous to non-smokers. It has not been scientif ically established

s .4~& -8- that that smoking causes disease in non-smokers. Again, Mr. Chairman,in discussing this subject, I can only illustrate the scope of the issues involved. For example, even some of the most outspoken opponents of smoking have said that smoking has not been shown to be a hazard to non-smokers. Thtis, Dr. Jonathan Rhoads, Chairman of the National Cancer Advisory Board, has noted that to his knowledge public smoking is °not, in fact, actually harmful' to non-smokers. Among many others who have taken a similar position are Dr. Ernest L. Wynder of the American Health Foundation and Dr. Gio Gori of the National Cancer Institute. And, in 1971, Secretary Califano's own Department . of Heal.th, Education and Welfare,. in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration and.the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, examined the health aspects of smoking on aircraft. This study concluded that _esmoking .aboard commercial aircraft does not represent a significant health hazard to non-smoking passengers." secretary Califano is seeking antismoking guide- _ lines in 10,000 government buildings in order to protect the heal.th of • federal employees.. However, .it has not been shor,vn that the health of federal employees, or for that matter any other workers, is being- harmed by smoking. -Indeed, a recent symposium: on the topic of smoking in _the workplace

-9- concluded that no health hazard to workers from second-hand smoke had been shown. Those campaigning against smoking in the workplace often refer to carbon monoxide exposure as their concern. - But one recent study showed that the blood levels measuring carbon monox ide exposure of off ice worker s were higher when . they came to work than when~they left at the end of the day, even though they were exposed to tobacco smoke throughout the day. This means that the exposure to carbon monoxide was greater coming to work than in the off ice where people were smoking. Secretary Califano perhaps ought to be more concerned about / the outdoor levels of carbon monoxide from varying mobile and stationary sources than about tobacco smoke in the off ice. It bears noting that this ill-conceived notion to segregate smokers and non-smokers will mean the expenditure of substantial amounts of Federal and private funds, a cost to be borne by the taxpayer and consumer. We-wonder whether the Secretary has considered the full cost of his proposal2- Tf the true objective of Secretary Califano' s pro- posed restrictions on public smoking is to protect the smoker from himself under the guise of protecting the non-smoker, - it is an inappropriate purpose for.government regulation. The . •~ program seeks to make smoking socially unacceptable and smokers ~- W social outcasts. As Dr. Peter Bourne recently stated, such Q- program s are'"doomed to failure.° G . ~

-10- '. And certainly the kinds of intrusive restrictions the Secretary is proposing cannot be justif ied by the occasional ~ annoyance that smoking causes to non-smokers. Indeed, while Secretary Califano is calling for prohibition of smoking on aircraft, a recent survey found that most passengers believed that the current smoking regulations are adequate and that the overwhelming majority are more bothered by crying babies than by smoke in the cabin. Another recent survey found that when people were asked about the kinds of things that annoyed or irr itated them in their everyday lives, less than 3% of the annoyances mentioned were related to smoking. In fact, about 90% of the people surveyed didn't even mention smoking. Education and regula.tion are not the only things Secretary Califano's initiative covers. 'He also provides for what he calls "powerful incentives" to protect health. These are nothing more than regressive excise taxes. They make poor people pay a higher price for their freedom to choose a form of behavior of which Secretary Califano does not approve. We have not today presented the economic and many other concerns of the tobacco industry -- manufacturers, = distributors, suppliers, workers and farmers, in _fact millions -of people in this country. Mr. Chairman, these concerns are considerable.