Tobacco Documents Online

µ _ E27 P©6 JUL 22 '94 13_59 -- ETS Facta; Speaial Isstte PaEe Fotu with a smoker would, ort avenge, be e:Qcacd to semndhan.d smoke equivaient to stnoldn; appmatnate{y I Ifl dgarettes' Nev York Titncs RJ. Reyaokit Tobeccq Co. Advertixment, hfay 13,1944 F?chc 'Ihere is a fundasmetttal prubtem udth a dgarette equiva3eat ans[ya's used by RJ Rcym7dx. The results depend heavily an which of the th.ousands of compodents of cigarette smoka is anatysed. For this reaiob the US. Suramo t3ener'rl has dkmlmed thx dgareue equivatence eonmpt as 'misleading' and 'patemielly attAttiqglea~' : Ia th;r case, R7.R used expoture to nicotine, which dtsslpaus rapidly fsoot the atmocphere;e as the basis iar ealatlatutg cigarette equivalenre, As a tesult. R1.RL reported an e:tmaely Io•r eigarette;equh+aleuoo. Ott tho other ectreme, $ RJR. bad used tscpcaure to atttnonia to ealeulgta eigarette equivalence, It would 7tate reached a wmpk.reJy difFcrent rmulz •• a rdgarettc tx;uivaleace of rnere than 50 cigprettes per day. Zhe tobacco iadastry/s own Center for Indoor Air Research has rncognized that the ttso of nicottne to detotmine tdgatetta equivalencc is mislead'ing. In a 1942 publication. Tt+eQexeiitv gf F+tvetnnmenw To~ Smotte, the Centcr reported tfut "6ccaaso oiwt9ne is so rapirll•y dapietcd from the air reJative to ether BI5 eonctitttents, using nicotine ad a marker may serioutly underesumate etpatute to tltmo ottter tpecles• (2,'y~; 'The public nm+er got tho full stnry abttnt the EPA rcpott.' Isev York 1Smea, Philip Matris Inc. AduertTsetttent, July 3,1994 ; rM&- T}sIs is ao ironic critieism One of tlte most Important conclusions in the EPA report is the Fmding that E1S pre:ent% a'serioua andsubstantiat' threat to children. SpeeiGcally. EPA found that ETS produces severe rrspiratory probtetaa Car clu7dren, indvding cauring 150,00u to 300,00o casea of 6ionchitis and paewttoala each ye,ar and exaceebating usthma ia up to one rniltion children. Yet the tabaeco indu.try studiously avoids meationiag these findings. hs strategY is to partr•ry the EPA teport as eulusivciy at1dtessirtg lung cxacer -1 and then to raLve fallaaious doubts about the proven link between 83S and lung rADcet

E27 P03 SUL 22 '94 13:58 Pewpstad by sNe Ma jarJty Stag Subeoernnitten on Naakh ar+d tha F~tvLneaaeny t:ornmitpa on 6nersy and Comwratcro. CLS Flawe ofRepe+es~.trtsll.+es . ETS F^C TS Speatal usve mm Tnhaora tndustev'g.n julafottnationS'amp~pg Juiy 22,199a Qy Februasy 17., 1993, a front..page arridc in tho Wali Street Journal described the tobacco iteduwy's eY~l~ott~ar~ .t~o~ ~s.o,,.A~tt~e/~t~he~ ~advarse hcalth effects of sawYiag as 'ihe Iongest rwtning anialnformation campaign in Ywl. W/iliGl~ ~\ViJ.' • TJle iabacca industty has now adopted 41 similar taetic to counter public caacetn about the daaQers of eavironmeatal tobacco smoke (EI5), thesecmnd-hand cigaratre smotte breathed by nonaawiutta. In a secias of SrUg+w adcartrsements in the cowtay'a major eetirspapetss the two ]argest tobaem mmpaeles - Philip Marria and AJ. Raynolda - deliberatety distort the record of the serfous public haahh threats from E15. Tbe main target of the industry'r ads is the U.S. Finvtronmental Protection Agency's neport on the reapiwoaty haaith ef[eets oFpassiveamoldng. The 534page EPA report mnetudea tbat E15 caasea hutg eaaeet In adulls and somm respitatary illnes4cs in chtldrea The report .ras begno by the Reagaa Administratfon, tt:leased by the 8stsh Administtation, and endotsed by the Clinton Adminfetration. As doaumented itt the F,PA report aad many other stadiss. there is exceasive scienth'io data about the hatntfid effects of Es 15. This issw: of ects oompares the tobacco iadttstry's eJaims about FIS with ihe toal adeutiFc daza. Qft 'Fhe EPA's announcemetlt in 1993 that espnsura w scwadhahd smnlre causes luny, caacor has fueJed this debate. Aftcr tcvicwina the EPA report and process tn some detaii some saientists and eommeataeets have concluded that the data do not Fustify E?A's conclusion. _ The sewndhand aanoita iuue "s aof ye.t resolved.' hte,}YY__ k Time:. R.7 Royaoldt Tabacm Ca. Advertisemeny May 26, 1994 Za * 7ho objective of the tabaceo company advertisements is to create doubt and the illusion of a sdentific wntroversy, where in fact none exists In addttiua to EPA, both tba National Aattkmy of Sd,atces and t6e LT.S. Surgeon Ci~eneral have iadeputdent7y conctuded that ETS eanua hntg eanaet: Moreover, since the release of 13PA's report, every independenr medical organization that has esantioed the t$port has agreed that ET4 eauscs lung cancer. Tits:e organi2ations inr3tadee: SQationst Canta Iastitate Amesim Medicat Aswciation Amesiwatt Luig Aaadation Aawdeats Caneer Society Aatesican Heart Associatian AmMtkan .4catLtmy of Yediatria Amezican Aeademy of Otat2tyngology Actatican Coll.ege of Chest Physiciatts American Iadustrial Fdygiette Amoeiatian Ataertcan Aesoeiation of t7avpatioaal and Lntiroataeatal Medicine Natumaa Medical Assndattun Ats'a of State and Territcrfal Health Offiriak National Awaiation of County Health OFficiats National Cancer AdvPscry Board Americ.an Public Health Assoetatiost Even the tobacco indushp's own indepeodent axparts a+tte that EYS causca lung cancer. ReeeaEly, the Health and tha Envuanment Subsmmittee polluk the members of the 3cience Advaoty Beard of ilie Ceatar for Indoor Air Reuacclt. Thic Center Lae rstsbiished io 1988 by Philip Mottia, RJ. Itepeolda, and other tobacco companies tostady issnes relating to inbwr iir quality. including EIS. Its Science Advisary

E27 P04 JUL 22 '94 13:Sc BTS Faczs,.Speda! Issue -' Page Two 8oard wstsiers of iedooe air ezparrts piclesd by the tobaaro tompanies for their "reputations for eapersiae attd scientiSc h;adetsitip." Seven of the niae-membet Scienca Advisory Board reponded to the Submtarniuee's poll. Five mambets agcted with the <tateTnvit that envirortmcntal tobxeco smolae is a human lung aswcog+ro,r compared witL only ona memba who disagreod (one member expreued no op'mion). Six mombets agreed with the statoment tbae 'fiT5 pre7eac a serious and snbstandal public Yesith threat to cbildren.' 1h6o views from the intEustty's owm adonce advisors direatly mntradict the positioa espoused in the indastry'a media Camp4m - Y'trtually the only sCieatisls who support tbe ittdusttys wotaaLiont are sdentits with ficaneial ties to the tnbauo iadushy. Alvan Feiasteia. who is tieyttently dted by the oobtrr.o iodustry, has 3asred av+cr f50p,4o0 iiotlars In grants from the tobacco faductry_ Gary Huber, another kequently cited acieatitt, hac trra a consultaet fer lawye:a repretentiag tobaem enmpaaiw siace 1988. At the time be wrote the arficle reprinted in the Philip Morris ads, Jacob Sullunt was the managing editor of Reason Magazine, which r¢oeivea major donations fconi .''higp Morrit and its sttLnidiary Ktatt tieneral Foods. ~+i "Out of 30 studea used by thc EPA, not onc showed a strong statistical link bet.m;ea seeondhand amolm and lung caucor In no n-=wlcers.' Un Yo rk Tfrnes. Phitip Morria tna Advertiaement, June 28,1994 Vkft Tha robacco industry uses a divide•antLrAnqusu tautc to attaac the epidemiotagical avidcnce relied ~ upon by EPA, foeussiag on perceived flaws in iadividual studies while ignoring the tsefight of the Uudies takea together. But it is the combined eridcnea that is most important - and th'ts evidenea is raty atrnng. Of the 30 epiderttiologle studies Erom g countries analyzed in the EPA rcport, 24 (80We) show a posidve association betwoen 89S and lung caiteer. As EPA calculated, the possibii9ty rhat chance onuld esplain this rault is ftu'eately low - leaa ti+an S in 1,000. Thc liak batwrett E TS ez,pcxute tutd lung cancer becnmss a.ittual ceztainty whea otut ammittes ft rrsults of tbe 17 atast detaaed ytudle5. Yfsese nudtes correlated lung cancer risks with ft netual level of expotum tn ETS eapetienced by the women evatuatai in the studL-L Atl 17 o€ these studies show inetaaxd cancec Yisla in the highest czpasuro group. with 9 being statistirally signil'icaas. 7bo probability of these reaalra aautrinY by ehance Is less than 1 in 10 mt11'son. Qj&- "Of 11 LT.Sa studies used by the EPA, aot a single uots aonciuded that there 's a statlstially stgu76qatovarallassedadonhetweensnanndhandsmokeaadlungcancer.' TGrcvYarkl;enes.PfipipMorria lae. Advert@amenf, Jnae 29. 1994 M!Eft- 27ns atatemens wrongly implies that the U.S. studies do Ret support HPA's mndusioa, when in fact ^ they ptrnide stcong support. it is not aut'prisb+g that manq of the US& studies -viaved individually .- did aot fiad statistically si •~t nsults in what the oobac;,n industry ntisleadiagty calls the •averall' anaiyats. In the first piaw, matty of the U.S studies were small. Sevea of the U.S. studies aeatyaed te+mr ttsen 45 lung eances caws, giving them i3mitad 'powet" to idcatliy true inatea9es in titk with 95% certaint}, the raeatttas of atatiatlaal aigpi5sanum. - , A tntua futsdatnental problem with the inttustry's daim is Its €ocus ea she soealled'ovcaiC assodadonn tn this anal,pais, the 11 U.S. sttuiies compared lung caacccrues amoa; women elaasiSed either aa (1)'we{ expcued to SJS from a husband who smotced or as (2) 'aeve{' espased to ETS frem a hwbmd dho smoked. This ever-vatsut-never analysis is a.relatively iaaceurate nteastxo of actual ezposaua to E19. Foc ea=ple, a woman who tived with a smoking husbaad for a short period but who had no workplsao

627 P05 JUL 22 '94 13:59 Ei5 Facm. Spxial Issue Page 17tteo t5tpatute to BI5 would be dassi8sd as 'cver• exposed, whtle a woman who did ttot (ive with a emnidag httebaod but who had intensive tvodiplacc eapostue to 8'I'S for a lotig pariod would be elasvfied as'nevet` cqq" TAb clsificadno of ft ininimally csposed woman as'e%w" eaposed and the heapily apoted woman as "ne+rer" exposed would have the oHect of masking the true dangers of Ei5 in the eser-vetsvs- ncser 111241315. To oseteotsta thit tlafett in the ever-wtsus-never analysis and pmvide a truer test of the efYeets of SI5, seuea of the U.S. studies eorralated lung caacvr ritYs with the level of the woman's a:pmure. All savem of thce stttdia: fauad ioaesced ris7ts of lung eanccr fnr the most hean'ly exposed women, inalutting t+w that.ass stattsticapy siguiGwat (1.e, 959i a.ztain). These consisfaat, aWtistiwUy~gni8eaa! sesults in the esposisto-kvel analysis provide c+^si^s-g coafirmatioa of 8PA's t'utdingc. QgiW 'A large U.Sa study, published ia the Amerlcatt Journal of Public Health, f4und no ovuall amdatimIly aignificant link between se:wndhand smoke and lung cancer. Why did the EPA not iualude this sritdy'P New York T'itnes- Philip MettiS Ine AdvcrtLscutettt. July 3. 1@44 EqM The study tefuted to by the tobacco iedustry (Brownsoa a al, 'Passive Satnkiag and Latng Cancer ln 1Voaatnoldng Womea: Am. J- of Public Hcaltb, Nov. iB9Z) supports F3A's 6nding, but vras~got ineluded in ebe EPA rnpart bemuse it was pubtished after the autofE detc ror firerauue ruviar. In t{ie Imparhsot aoalysis based on esposurc levels, the $rowtssan study found a statistirally signfflcaat poaitive asttoeiatiom betweea hiyJtdcvel expoutte to EI5 aud tang carner. As a result of these fio,diap, the SrowVwem study waoUtdod at follows (emphasis added)o In summary, our study aad other.t eonnducutd duting the past decade suggat a small but consi9tettt elevation in the risk of lung caaocr in aoasnokms due to passive smo(titty ng o ti tion of federaL state, t leral regulat n s eAat nestriet seokin,g jayuh t plae!e and vmtit sites -Lae t founded. 4 Tim other U.5- studles Cunded by the Nadanal Canear instltute have afso bcea aantptated satra the put*t+caaon of the EPA report (the Stockwell study and the Fansltam sway). Holh of these studiei aLo Hnd statisBrally s'tgpiGcaot talarianahipa baween E'E'S and lung caneer. ihe Foaehaassettdy, tha largrstaad best- desigoed study to date, foued statistically signifiesat tiskt not oniy for spouses tacpmed at home but siio iar womctt exposed to ETS in tme workplace and in social saettittg. The study also found tlipt ch4dhood mtposulo8 to ET8 itt4eased lung caocer rislts. :; :_s 'Lhe EPhAUaipulaoed science to serve a political eause.... The EPA abandoned gettenlly oCCapted _ CLm se6ettda'c medtada.' NeaYnrk_'t9mes. Phisip Morris Inr- Adversitcttteot. June 29, 1993 hM Tite tobaeta lMustty claims that EPA manipulatod soiartee because the ageney used'a ooertailed tLst of sigttificartce instead of a"ewo-tailed Lest of significance" in setting the 'eott#Sdeaea iatetsai' ia a 'meta-aealys's` used i¢ datermtrtng the extent of the lung cancer risk This is a virtually maaaingEess txhakat debate that has no bearing on the ctawiGaatioo of ETS as a htmtan lung care'Joogea Motcaver. thfa objection (and the othas raised by thr: wbaa.ro ttadustry) wms :a+eawed and reJeetad by a p.aei of 18 indepeadeat espets asaigned to peer-review the EPA tepun. 2tuse independeat eaperts approved tho EPA toethoddegy and unan:Tausiy endotaed the wraauslon that E15 c a human luog caralaogen. &W& 'Mit(i alt the dir:.usdon today about secondharai amoke, you may be interested in boai much you ata et:posed to. 'ihe answer, in our opleion it very little. FYpttftviag esposute to aomndhi,nd smoke in terma of eigarette equivale¢ts L4 on.e way to gain penpective For examplo, in a month, a aon-stnoFer Tsvirtg