Tobacco Documents Online

164 Dear Senator Moee: I appreciate the opportutdty to comment on 8. 1454 and, partlcularly, on the testimony prepand by Mr. Kurnega5, prealdent of the Tobacco Inxtltute. First, let me nny that I am not surprised by anything the Tobaeco Institute de„s or ®nyn. 'Phey are very goxl at ihe quote out of context and the mlauae of facts for their own deeiree. Mr, Kornegay Laa quoted me In several places from testimony I gave In 11Nig concerning "tai" end nlcotlne levels m cigarettes. I was asked innumerable tlmea during that year whether or not I felt there ehould be a ceiling on the level of'tar' and nicotbte allowed In cigarettes. I did not feel, at the time, that there should 1w a ceiling on the levels of ^tsr" nnd nicotine allowed In cigarettes. My heals for this position was that to establish an apparent health heaurd threshold would Imidy that there was a safe cigarette. Thia, of course, ie not true. There le no euch thing ae a eafe cigarette. Exposure to cigarette amoke is more than the type of cigarette emoked. The expnsure to "tar" and nicotine Increa9ea rapidly ae the last half of the cige- rette le-emoked. Exposure obviously lncreaeee by the number of cigarettes smoked per day and by the number of yenrs of smoking. It was my position that it wan better to have the package and all advertis- ing labeled with the "tar" and nlentinn levels along with the Wzardoue prodc uct label ao that the public rould choose a cigarette with lower "tar" and nico- tlne content it they found that the pressures to smoke were such that cessation ef smoking was impoasible. I believe there 9s same evldence now ILat the public 1s, in fact, choosing more_ cigarettes with lower "tar" and nicotine content. I do not have copies of my numerous teatimonles on cigarette smoking during 1e88-e9, ao I cannot check with certainty. However. I believe it was the statements I made supporting that position that Mr. Kornegay In quoting. Of course, I was stating my position bersuee I feared that setting a thresh- old would Inll the poeple tnto the assumption that any cigarettes in any q9an- Nty that were belnw that level could be amoked with Impunity, Thnt would only serve to Increaee the health haaard to the public of cigarette amoking. Mr. Kornegay, on the other band, quotee my atatementsIn part to lmply thnt "tar" and nicnt(ne have nothing to do with theheslth hazards of dge- retie smoking. Thls, of course, hae characterleed the controversy from the beginning. I believe that S. 1454 represents a new and broader approach to the aett/ng of "mr" and nicotine limits In cfgarettee which avoid the threshold problem. S. 1454 is haaedon a public health principle which hae been used for many centurles as public health measures to avoid health hazards. A modem example would be radiation protection at Tow levels of rndiutlon expoaure. There fe substantial sclentiBc agreement that all radiation te hazard- oua and that no threshold exists. All radiation protection measures that I know of are based on that premise. Hadtaflonproteetlon measures are all aimed at allowing only that exposure that cannot absolutely be avoided or the benefits outweigh the risk Uf the hazards. I think ttieiame holds true for cigarettes. Any exposure to cigarette amoke or the contents of that emake which cen be avoided should be avoided. It the public will not acceptt prohibition of cigarettes, and i don't think they wonld, then the purdent public health postare is to do those things that decrease exposure to the maxlmum degree acceptable to the public. - This ls a workable program which wlll. In the long run, cut down on the hazard to health. There fe good evidence the public will accept cigarettes that are low In exposure to'tar' and nicotine. I believe the testimony presented to the Subcommittee by Dr. DnVat is con- sistent with what I have Juet said. I believe Chapter 9 of the 1972 8Surgeon (Ieneral'e report supports It. I would agree with Dr. DuVal that the blll should be amended so that euc- ceaslve redurtionn In the permissible levels should not be made solely depend- ent-upon the avoidance of'nnreasnnable' health hazards. I would like to congratulate you on all of your efforts towards aelving this health problem and I hope you are successful ln securing Senate approval of your bill. Signed William 8. Stewart, M.D., Chaneellor, Loulelana State Unlverslty Medical Center. - 165 (The following information was subgeqttently received for the record:) Hon. Bgsaa ID. Moee, U.S. Henate, Nem 9enoto Optoe Batld4aD, iVaeainDtoq D-0. WaM{Lf~oo ~artruTg, Isu-, D n, 0. Haroh 3, 187g. Dasa gcaw:oa Moee: Bincloaed berewith whlch I have wrltten-to Dr. William H. you ~ 11nd a copy of a letter me In reeponae to Dr. 9tewart'a letter to you whichrowealetler was wrltten by ot the hearings on Thuraday, y'eb . placed In the reeotd Csneumetre. ruury 10, 1972 before your 6ubcommlthx for I reepecttully requeat that my letter to Dr, the record elso. Stewart and this letter be placed !n - With kindest regarda and beet wLhes, I am 6lncerely youn; .. Hoaacs It HalaaaaZ, Preaideat aad SmeoaHoe Dfreator, Dr. Wrnryn H, ilTSW"T, . Ohancellnr, LoaiNaea 6tate Uatooratty Xedbof Oenter, Ncw Orfeone, Lu, Taa ToaACeo IAartRpra, Ina., WaaA4nDton, D.t7„ HoroAS, lg7A, ' Drrn Da. BTaw.ar: At the opening of the third Senate 8nbcommittee for Coneumera, Committee on l7o®me h«~ hetora the poaed legielatlon B. 1464, the Cha/rman, 8enator M~ ~' considering pra Ietler that you hnd sent to him commentin on m~d mto ~~oM a befare the Subcommittee on F`ebruary 3. g y~~ p?'eriouely elveu In your letter you made a general charge against The Tobacro lnebtnte and epe¢l8eally accused me of miarepretenting you by quoting you "ont oicontelt" Your statement wee ", - I am not aorprleed p tnte does or eaya. They are ve y~~~ the Tobacco Ineti- mteuse af facts for their own dalra~e." Thepe eka ~ out of eontert and the ineulting- Furthermore, they are demonatrably Iaaecu~ are not true and are During the time yon served as Surgeon qenerpl, the President of The maloGltned3btweca Inathetttete wae Haele Clementq a man of unqapatloaed IntegN4y. The Inatitute baa, under the leadership of 6enator Clamants and his preaeceaao pigha6t ettilcal afinderda In conducting ita activitlea onbeha~ of various U-8. tobacco product manufacturers. When Senator Clements retired in 1870, 1 became the President of The Tobacco Iaatltute. I firmly believe that the Inutitute hea continued tomalntain tte high atandarda. In your letter yo t , u s ated that I h 1 i fld quo[ed you out of coatesk N . a, you admltted that - evertho• timony that I quoted yo~ ~ not~ ve copfee of your 188g Congresaional t m a that you cannot "eheck with certafnty' 9o1tAthusuct yan ou may oLviouahayhaadirae sa opportanltyle been quo ~ mmittee thetl out af contexk -- p d~~~ ~t you woald claim to bave /t to correct your earlier letter to 8ena. R'the Co onc~ aing a copy of Part g, Henringa Before a Subcommittee of a eopy of pproprlattona, House of Repreaenmtlvea. March, 19~, and my testimony before the (dubcommittee for Coaeamera- FtomtGeea you will readily obaerve that you were neither "quoted out of oontext" nor was there any "meuse of factis.^ Your letter eeaerta that I was attributing to you a position that "tar" and nicotine have nothing to do with the health haaards of emaking guch-waa not the coae- Your opinions In regard to the poqelble e1ga18cnnee of "tar" and nloo- tlne are well known. The pofnt I was making in my presentation In referring to your 1969 testl- mony (aee page 18 of my atatement) was that the AmerlcJn amuker le betag advised of the "tar" and nicotine coatent of the various brands of clSarettea offered for eale, and that he can and should be allowed to make a free choice. i I sss?t,s97oo1