NYSA TI Single-Page 1
United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration Public Hearing
Fields
- Named Organization
- American College of Cardiology
- American Heart Association (Voluntary health organization that focuses on cardiac health)
Voluntary health organization that focuses on cardiac health and stroke. AHA occasionally teams with tobacco retailers to engage in promotions/fund-raisers (see http://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247136.html and http://www.rawbw.com/~jpk/stand/Pictures.html).- American Journal of Public Health (periodical)
- ASH (Action on Smoking and Health)
Action on Smoking and Health- Beverly Hills Restaurant Association (Industry front group)
Set up c. 1988 by the Tobacco Institute to clandestinely fight a local smoking restriction (TI00380927-0949, Pag. -0946).- Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)
- *Center for Disease Control (Use United States Centers for Disease Control and P
Now Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Formerly Communicable Disease Center- Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) (Industry formed/funded air research organization)
Nonprofit organization funded by the tobacco industry. CIAR was formed in March 1988 by tobacco companies "to sponsor "high-quality research on indoor air issues and to facilitate communication of research findings to the broad scientific community."- Consumer Reports (magazine that tested tar content in 50s)
- *Department of Labor (use United States Department of Labor)
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- EPA Science Advisory Board (unit of EPA)
- Federal Register (publication)
- Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for laws against deceptive advertising)
Enforces laws against false and deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising, sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of cigarettes.- Health and Welfare Canada
- Healthy Buildings International (industry-funded ventillation experts)
Worked closely with the industry to encourage corporations not to ban smoking but to look for other causes of air pollutions. Used the term "Sick Building Syndrome". Founder: @robertson_gray- Honeywell
- McGill University (Prestigious Montreal university which cooperated with the in)
Helped the tobacco industry obscure the link between secondhand smoke exposure and illness- National Restaurant Association
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Held hearings in 1994 to ban smoking in workplaces)
OSHA opened hearings in September 1994 on a proposal that amounts to a virtual ban on smoking in every workplace in the nation- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
- Philip Morris & Co. Ltd. (Cigarette manufacturer, incorporated in U.S. in 1902)
Philip Morris & Co. Ltd.., was incorporated in New York in April of 1902; half the shares were held by the parent company in London, and the balance by its U.S. distributor and his American associate. Its overall sales in 1903, its first full year of U.S. operation, were a modest seven million cigarettes. Among the brand offered, besides Philip Morris, were Blues, Cambridge, Derby, and a ladies favorite name for the London street where the home companies factory was located - Marlborough.- R.J. Reynolds Corporation (second tier subsidiary of RJR Industries)
- Roper Organization (Consumer Research/Public Relations Org.)
Interested in finding out what drives consumer behavior; surveys consumers on their prime areas of concern; assists corporations with reputation-building and public image based on its findings.- Stanford University
- Tobacco Institute (Industry Trade Association)
The purpose of the Institute was to defeat legislation unfavorable to the industry, put a positive spin on the tobacco industry, bolster the industry's credibility with legislators and the public, and help maintain the controversy over "the primary issue" (the health issue).- United States Department of Labor
- *University of California (use specific branch)
- University of California San Francisco
- University of Utah
- World Health Organization (Concerned with global public health)
International organization concered with public health worldwide - American Heart Association (Voluntary health organization that focuses on cardiac health)
- Named Person
- Axelrad, Bob
- Enstrom, James
- Feinstein, Alan
- Foote, Emerson (Ad exec.; Promoted Lucky Strikes in 1930s)
- Glantz, Stan
- Glantz, Stanton
- Glantz, Stanton A.
- Grossman, Bill
- Grossman, Ted
- Hammond, Kathy
- Harrington, Bob
- Harrington, Robert
- Hedge, Alan (industry consultant)
1994 Used by industry to discuss the irritation issus - i.e. dose response. Proposed consultant to comment on Federal OSHA proposal on workplace smoking.- Hills, Sierra Foot
- Lowe, Michael
- Mellon, Andrew W.
- Rupp, John P. (TI Communication Committee, Covington & Burling lawyer)
TI Communication Committee- Sherman, Susan
- Smith, Lisa
- Tyson, Pat
- Vittone, John
- Ward [Root], Mary Elizabeth, J.D. (RJR, Associate General Counsel)
Mary Ward was Associate General Counsel for R.J. Reynolds. (PMI's Introduction to Privilege Log and Glossary of Names, Estate of Burl Butler v. PMI, et al, April 19, 1996)- Weinberg, Myron
- Wells, A. Judson (physical chemist)
studied indoor air quality- Wexler, Lawrence M. (researcher, New York Medical College)
- Enstrom, James
- Master ID
- TI10111465-1821
Related Documents: - Date Loaded
- 16 Mar 2005
- Box
- 8820
Document Images
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED STANDARD FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY
PAGES: 279 through 634
PLACE: Washington, DC
DATE: September 21, 1994
BAYLEY REPORTING, INC.
OFFICIAL FEDERAL REPORTER8
Washington, DC 20009
(~0~) ~,~.77S7 (S00) 36S-S~
TI1011-1465
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED STANDARD FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY
Wednesday,
September 21, 1994
Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium
Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing,
pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.
BEFORE: HONORABLE JOHN VITTONE
Administrative Law Judge
TI1011-1466
AGENDA
Questioning by Audience:
Ted Grossman
Myron Weinberg
John Rupp
Robert Harrington
Ms. Sherman's Answer to Request
PAGE
283
320
322
372
381
OSHAWitnesses:
Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
Questioning by Audience:
Jim Dinegar
Pat Sirridge
John Rupp
Ted Grossman
Michael Lowe
Ms. Sherman
382
433
441
486
559
597
626
BAYLEY REPORTING, INC.
(202) 234-7787 (800) 368-8993
T!1011-1467
NO~-E
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
281
BAYLEY REPORTING, INC.
(202) 234-7787 (800) 368-8993
T11011-1468
EXHIBIT NO.
16
!7
18-22
A
B
F(2)
EXHIBITS
IDENTIFIED
428
488
501
516
530
538
549
551
551
RECEIVED
428
499
502
282
BAYLEY REPORTING, INC.
(202) 234-7787 (800) 368-8993
TI1011-1469
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROCEEDINGS
JUDGE VITTONE: On the record.
283
9:03 a.m.
We recessed last night, and we were having some
questioning by Mr. Grossman of the OSHA panel. We will
resume today, finish up with Mr. Grossman, and then resume
again with Mr. Rupp and Mr. Weinberg has also asked, he said
he has one additional question he would like to have asked,
and I told him I would let him do that after Mr. Rupp. So
if you're ready, Mr. Grossman, we will resume.
MR. GROSSMAN: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
When we broke off yesterday we were comin~ to the
question of the Agency's decision to use the Fontham study
as the only study in crafting a risk ratio for lung cancer
as a result of ETS exposure in the work place.
Could someone articulate to me the reasons why the
Brownson study was not used? Mr. Martonik?
MR. MARTONIK: I don't remember us saying that the
Fontham study was the only study that had information
regarding occupational exposure. I think that...
MR. GROSSMAN: That wasn't the question. The
Federal Register says that the risk ratio that was derived
is based upon the Fontham study, and the risk ratio for
heart disease is based on the Helsing study. I'm asking why
the Brownson study, rather than the Fontham study was not
BAYLEY REPORTING, INC.
(202) 234-7787 (800) 368-8993
Ti1011-1470
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
284
used as th~ basis for calculating the risk ratio.
MR. MARTONIK: Because we thought the Fontham
study provided better information regarding the exposure of
workers to ETS.
MR. GROSSMAN: On what basis?
MR. MARTONIK: On the basis of reading the
studies.
MR. GROSSMAN: On what basis in the studies? What
factual basis separated the Fontham study from the Brownson
study?
MR. MARTONIK: Dr. Silverstein will answer that.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: I actually want to clarify
something in response to the first part of your questioning,
which is that while we chose to use the Fontham study for
particular calculations, it's not by any means the only
study that has risk ratios of the same order of magnitude
that we think are important and informative and are useful
in our determination. Which...
MR. GROSSMAN:
occupational study...
07JDGE VITTONE:
the answer get completed.
Are you familiar with any other
Gentlemen, gentlemen. Let's let
Let's let the question get
completed. Then we'll deal with it.
Are you finished with your answer, Mr.
Silverstein?
BAYLEY REPORTING, INC.
(202) 234-7787 (800) 368-8993
Tl1011-1471
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
285
DR. SILVERSTEIN: Just about. I was going to say
that this was a particularly useful study, but by no means
the only useful study.
evidence.
MR. GROSSMAN:
It's part of a larger body of
Could you explain to me why the
Brownson study was not used as the principal basis for
determining a risk ratio?
MR. MARTONIK: Mrs. Janes will answer that.
MS. JANES: The Fontham study was by far a
superior study to the Brownson study. Not only did she
validate current tobacco use through cotinine measures, they
also looked at dħet factors, and they also looked at other
potential confounding factors and tried to control for them
in both the design of the study and the analysis of the
study. It was a multi-center study. Cases from different
parts of the country, where Brownson was based in Missouri.
Anyway, we went through our analysis and
determined that for risk assessment purposes the Fontham
study was by far better.
In the weight of evidence analysis that we used,
both the Brownson and the Fontham study both played a part
in that, but for the risk assessment, which is what your
question relies upon, that is why we chose the...
MR. GROSSMAN: Let's break that down into several
parts. You referred to cotinine measurements.
BAYLEY REPORTING, INC.
(202) 234-7787 (800) 368-8993
TII011-1472
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
286
MS. JANES: Yes, sir.
MR. GROSSMAN: That was an alleged test to
determine whether there was bias in the determination of who
was and who was not a smoker, is that correct?
MS. JANES: Yes, sir. It was...
MR. GROSSMAN: The purpose was to screen out
people who were actually smokers as opposed to people who
might have been exposed to passive smoke.
MS. JANES: Yes.
MR. GROSSMAN: The cotinine measurements were made
on people who had already been determined to have lung
cancer, is that correct?
MS. JANES: And on their controls.
MR. GROSSMAN: But as far as people with lung
cancer were concerned, the cotinine measurements were made
on people who already had lung cancer, is that correct?
MS. JANES: Yes, it is. But it was also...
MR. GROSSMAN: And is it also correct...
JUDGE VITTONE: She was still giving her answer.
MS. JANES: But Fontham looked at both cotinine
measures in both their cases and their control group.
MR. GROSSMAN: I'm talking now only about the
cases, and you can understand that the questions relate only
to the cases.
The cotinine tests were on people who already had
BAYLEY REPORTING, INC.
(202) 234-7787 (800) 368-8993
TI1011-1473
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
iI
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
287
lung cancer, and the cotinine tests measure, at best, the
last 72 hours of use of cigarettes, is that correct?
MS. JANES: Yes, it is.
MR. GROSSMAN: Could you explain to me and for the
record how a test that determines whether people may have
smoked cigarettes within~the last 72 hours, involving people
who are already hospitalized for lung cancer, can determine
whether those people have, during the history of their
lives, been smokers at any time?
MS. JANES: As you are well aware, most of the epi
studies did both, prospective and case control studies, did
not even take any kind of [bio] monitoring data and this is
the only study on lung cancer.
MR. GROSSMAN: That wasn't my question.
Could you explain for the record how a test that
measures cotinine which may measure the use of cigarettes
within the last 72 hours, could determine or check whether a
person at any time during his or her life time was an active
smoker?
MR. MA~TONIK: I believe she answered your
question. She gave you information that cotinine levels
result from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke...
MR. GROSSMAN: You're saying that the answer to
the question is it is impossible based upon cotinine tests
to make that determination. Is that right?
BAYLEY REPORTING, INC.
(202) 234-7787 (800) 368-8993
Tl1011-1474
