Tobacco Documents Online

SEVT BY:THE TOBACCO 1\STITLTE : 7-18-94 : 12:37 : 1212 545 3297;m 2/ 3 A 8MO1CE-PREE SOCIETY IN A PRES SOCIETY? THE CASE AGAINST BNOxING BANS Legislation pending in Congress, such as H.R. 3434, would ban smoking in all public and most private buildings regularly entered by 10 or more persons on any given day -- even the outside entrances to those buildings. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also has proposed an indoor air quality standard that would virtually ban smoking in all workplaces, including, restaurants, bars, hotels and motels, and, in many cases, private residences. Public hearings on OSHA's proposal are scheduled to begin September 20-. In sum, current proposals would virtually prohibit the use in public of the products we make and you sell! similar proposals are being considered by state and local legislative bodies nationwide. The New York City Council, for example, is considering legislation to ban smoking in almost all public places and workplaces. This flurry of legislative and regulatory activity is largely the result of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) January 1993 report. The report classified environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a "Group A" (known human) carcinogen. Since the report was published, hundreds of proposals have been introduced at.the state and local levels around the country directly citing the EPA report as the basis for such action. In our view, the report contains more political science than sound science. The EPA report on ET5 does not justify smoking bans. The report is flawed and does not focus on workplace data. EPA based its conclusions on ETS and lung cancer on studies of spousal smoking in the home, not in the workplace or other public settings. In addition, the EPA manipulated and ignored data to achieve predetermined results. it achieved its results by lowering the statistical confidence interval, ignoring major ETS studies (including workplace smoking studies) that did not report a statistically significant overall increase in lung cancer risk, and discounting confounding factors. EPA's risk assessment of ETS is unprecedented in its approach and in its scientific deficiency. For example, EPA's own Science Advisory Board acknowledged that if ETS could not be classified as a Group A carcinogen based on the Agency's own guidelines, the guidelines should be changed. Other controversies abound. Of the 11 U.S. epidemiologic studies on which EPA's risk calculation was based, not one originally reported a statistically significant increase in overall risk. Instead of simply concluding that no risk had been demonstrated in the U.S. population, EPA changed the rules again.

SENT BY:THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE : 7-18-94 : 12:38 : ~ 1212 545 3297:m 3/ 3 , h In a March 1994 report, the Congressional Research Service (cRS) identified significant flaws in the EPA risk assessment of ETS. The report noted that EPA acted in an "unusual" fashion in modifying its conventional standards in assessing ETS. It also noted that EPA had relied on studies within the home, not in the workplace or public places. In recent testimony before a Senate committee on the subject of ETS, the CRS stated that, based on its review of the evidence, "...the statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking." Smoking bans are unreasonable and extreme. In fact, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe nonsmokers and smokers should be accommodated in workplace and public settings. According to a recent CNN/USA Today poll, two-thirds of the respondents supported designated smoking areas in the workplace, 70 percent of restaurant patrons believe that designated areas are preferable to outright smoking bans, and 78 percent opposed smoking bans in hotels and motels. Smoking policies should be individual business decisions. it is very clear that businesses are responding more than adequately to employee and customer demands. National surveys show that the majority of public and private sector employers in the United States already have workplace smoking policies. Each business selects the smoking policy that meets the needs of its employees and customers. The system is working well without the heavy hand of expensive government intervention. One in four adults in the United States are smokers. Yet, pending legislative and regulatory proposals would ban smoking in factories, office buildings and other workplaces, restaurants, hotels and virtually all public settings. The campaign against smoking and smokers has gone too far. Together, we must demand that the 50 million adults who smoke in this country receive the same rights and reasonable treatment accorded to those who do not smoke. Please join us and make your voice heard in Congress, in Albany and in the local halls of government. . $