Tobacco Documents Online

10 RADIO TV REPORTS, INC 4701 WILLARD AVENUE, CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND 20815 (301) 656-4068 FOR THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. CATTN: JADA SMITHJ PROGRAM Good Morning America STAnON LJJLA TV ABC Network DATE April 19, 1991 7:00 AM Smoking and the EPA C1TY Washington, DC CHARLES GIBSON: You may not have heard it yet, but there was a major blow to the tobacco industry yesterday. A panel of scientists who advise the Environmental Protection Agency, endorsed the conclusion that breathing smoke from other people's cigarettes can indeed cause lung cancer. Second-hand smoke, say the panel of scientists, can be a carci.nogen. The panel's action is going to be a major boost to anti-smoking forces in their drive to further restrict smoking in public places. The tobacco industry downplays the findings. Joining us this morning from Washington are Brennan Dawson, from the tobacco industry. She is vice president of public affairs for Tobacco Institute. And also with us is our medical editor Dr. Tim Johnson. Thank you both for being with us. Tim, let me start with you because we should be very clear about what this is and what it isn't. This is not an EPA ruling. It is an advisory panel adopting these findings. How does it fit the overall medical evidence? DOCTOR TIMOTHY JOHNSON [Medical EditorJ: Well, back in 1986 two very prestigious groups in this country, the National Research Council and the Office of the Surgeon General, concluded that second-hand smoke was causally related to lung cancer. Similarly, prestigious groups in Europe came to the same conclusion. Then the EPA came along at a later date, namely last May, and came out with a study, or at least a report saying the same thing. So we've had very -- several major groups now that have come to this conclusion. They based their conclusions largely on OFFICES IN: WASHINGTON D.C. • NEW YORK • LOS ANGELES • CHICAGO • DETROIT • AND OTHER PRINCIPAL CiTIES Mbtenol wppled bV Radio N Report; Inc. may be used fop file and re/erence pwposes oMy. If may not be reproduced. sdd or pubYcry dertqruhvied or exttibifeC.

.. -a- ?ooking at studies of spouses. women in most cases, :jho live fiith smokino husbands that have a higher rate of lung cancer than women who live with non-smoking husbands. But they cite other evidence, namely so-called biolooical plausibility, the idea that since :-ie know that regular smoking is bad for the lungs, it doesn't take a big leap of imagine to imagine that second-hand smoke in high enough does at least might be. Now, you know, I will admit right up front that the evidence for second-hand smoke is not as good as for direct smoke, but I sort of approach it in a very common sense way, Charlie. I say to myself, "Look, you look at a smoke-filled room, you have to say to yourself, that just doesn't look healthy." I think the burden of proof ought to be on the tobacco interests of this country to prove that that is safe before we are exposed to it in a public place rather than what the tobacco people seem to want, which is, you folks prove it is dangerous before we remove this ootential hazard. So scientific evidence is one thing. I think common sense is another. GIBSON: Well, let me go to Brennan Dawson then. Brennan, Tim Johnson would put the burden of proof on you. You say this study is irrational. Why? BRENNAN DAWSON [Tobacco Institute]: Well, if we look at the evidence, if we look, for example, back to 1986 when the Surgeon General reported. The Surgeon General reviewed 13 studies and in his report he admitted that less than half of those studies showed a significant increase in risk. When we go to the Environmental Protection Agency's report, the panel of experts said that the epidemiology didn't make the case and, in fact, instructed the agency to go back and add more evidence in order to support their conclusion. Now the EPA reviewed the 24 published studies at that -ime of which only five, five of twenty-four studies showed a significant increase in risk. Since that time there've been three published studies and the EPA admitted a study. Now, one of the studies that they didn't include that was published the same month that this review panel met, has the co-author who was on the panel. That study showed no increase in risk and, in fact, it's the largest study that's been done to date. GIBSON: But this panel was -- but this panel was unanimous, Brennan. It was unanimous. BRENNAN: But the fact is that they said that the EPA had not made the case based on the epidemiology. Now...

-3- GIBSON: :n fact, what they said is EPA could make a better case. They accepted the case they made but they said they could even make a better case. BRENNAN: They instructed the agency to go back and to add more. And they asked for a re-review of the documents. Now, Tim wants us to make a case. He wants us to prove a negative. Now, as he well knows, in science you can't prove a negative. That would be like trying to prove that a meteor is not going to hit this building. What you have to do... DOCTOR JOHNSON: Wait a minute. Before we introduce a new treatment, Brennan, we have to prove it's safe. Why shouldn't you? DAWSON: What you have to do in this issue is you have to look at the science. There've been more than 25 studies, and when you look at those studies of women who are married to smokers -- the Science Advisory Board said that that was an adequate measure of exposure -- you find that there is not an increased risk of lung cancer. To look at it another way, you could look at how much smoke is the non-smoker exposed to. And that is what has been called minimal and biologically insignificant by many measures that have been taken. Charlie.. DOCTOR JOHNSON: All right. I just want to add this line, GIBSON: Yeah. d DOCTOR JOHNSON: When it comes to evidence, I'11 take the word of the Surgeon General and the National Research Council over the Tobacco Institute any day. GIBSON: All right. I'm going to cut this off, Tim and Brennan, 'cause I want to turn to Arthur Miller about the legal effects of all this. Joining us from Boston is our legal editor Arthur Miller. Arthur, let me ask you how this -- it is an advisory opinion from this panel of scientists. I want to know, because the courts are beginning more and more to take up these cases of second-hand smoking, how you think this is going to affect the court? ARTHUR MILLER [Legal Editor]: I think you have to take one back, Charlie. The first point of pressure is going to be on OSHA, the

! -4- Occupational Safety and Health Admini=_tration. This F:ind of a finding will create pressure inside OSHA to issue a regulation that may ban workplace smoking entirely because of the hazard on the Aorkp lace. The second level of pressure is going to be in state legislatures where there will be more and more pressure to pass statutes and ordinances to prevent smoking in public places. The third place the pressure will be in the courts. The case for second-hand smoke as an inducer of cancer is not as strong as has been said. But this will boost the argument by lawyers representing people who believe that they have been caused to have cancer either on the workplace or in a public'accommodation spot or even in a long-term relationship. I do not believe this will cause an immediate upswing in jury verdicts for plaintiffs. Juries have been remarkably restrained in finding tobacco companies negligent here. But I do see this as causing a tremendous amount of increased legal pressure on the tobacco industry up and down the line. GIBSON: Arthur, they did say -- this panel of scientists did say occasional light exposure is not likely to cause any harm. We're not saying the risk is enormous, just that there's a believable risk. I wonder if that is going to make it very strong in the workplace, if people are going to be able to say you were three benches down smoking, therefore you gave me a health problem. MILLER: Well here's the funny thing about the workplace. You're there eight hours a day, so even though I don't think there's any basis for suing somebody who might blow some smoke in your face while walking on the street, there is the argument that when you're exposed to smoke eight hours a day, five days a week, 48 to 50 weeks a year over years, that there's a much more plausible case. I thinkk employers, out of self-restraint and concern, may just ban it on their own. And, indeed, they'll even ban it in the so-called smoking zones because most air is circulated through a plant, and a lawyer is going to say to them eliminate all the risks. GIBSON: All right. Arthur Miller, thank you for being with us. Tim Johnson, Brennan Dawson from Washington, thank you.