Tobacco Documents Online

TOEAC:CO INSTITUTE ID:2024579311 JUL 17'94 23:44 No.008 P.03 A MEE•F$E8 BOCIlTY 19 A aREE SOCIETY? Tii! CA88 71GAINST SMO]CING BANS Legislation pending in Congress, such as H.R. 3434, would ban smoking in all federal, public and private buildings -- even the outside entrances to those buildings. The federal Oeeupationai 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 OSFUA's proposal are scheduled to' begin September 20. In sum, current proposals would virtually prohibit the use in public of tha 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, isc 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. Th. report classified environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a"Group A" (known human) carcinogen. Sinc• the report was published, hundreds of proposals have bssn 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 ETS do.s 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, = in tha 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 studi.s) 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, when EPA's own Science Advisory Board acknowledged that if ETS could not be classified as a Group A carcinogen based on the Agancy0s own guidelines for assessment of carcinogens, the quidelines 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 signif icant increase in overall risk. Instead of simply concluding that no risk had been demonstrated in the U.S. population, EPA changed the rul4s again.

TODACCO INSTITUTE ID:2024579311 JUL 17'94 23:44 No.008 P.04 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 ths evidence, "...the statistical svidence doss not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking." Smoking bans are unrsasonable 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 xotelR. Smoking policies should be individual business decisions. It is very clear that businesses are responding more than adequately to smployss 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 msets 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. Yat, psndinq 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 smoks in this country reeeivs the same rights and reasonable treatment accordsd to those who do not smoke. Please join us and maks your voice heard in Congress, in Albany and in the local halls of government. (0 N O c.0 0 (.0 V1