Tobacco Documents Online

December 3, 1991 Mr. John Stossel ABC News - 20/20 157 Columbus, 2nd Floor New York, New York 10023 Dear John: Whern Barbara Walters introduced the "20/20"' segment regarding, environmental tobacco smoke,. she promised the viewing audience "the truth about passive smoking." How can the audience learn the truth or come. to any judgment about what is true if relevant scientific information is omitted? In addressing this issue.of the scientific information.I would contrast the actual 20/20 segment. with. the material you obtained from the interview and the material otherwise available to youl. My summary of the interview is set forth below. Because ABC News has refused to, provide me with. a. full copy of your interview with. me, if you believe this summary is not correct, please.let me know. 1.. Our interview was conducted on January 16,. 1991,, more than ten months prior to the actual air date of the show.. It

Mr. John 3tossel December 3, 1991 Page 2 was conducted in the then-ongoing context of'am EPA review of the science regarding ETS. 2. As of the date of the interview, 24. epidiemioLogic studies regarding spousal smoking and lung cancer had been published; 19 of those 24 studies reported no statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer among nonsmoking women~ who were married to smokers. Why was information on the epidemiologic studies not included in your report? Did you conclude that it was not relevant?' 3. During the interview, we discussed the largest'study in the United States (from Yale University), which reported. no statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer from exposure to ETS in the workplace, in social settings or from a. spouse's smoking in the home. Why was this study not mentiioned,in the broadcast? 4. During the interview, we discussed that only one of 11 published epidemiologic studies concerning exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace reported a marginally statistically significant. increased risk of liung cancer' from exposure to ETS.. Why was information on the relative risks not provided to the viewing audience?

Mr. John Stossel December 3, 1991 Page 3 5.It is my understanding that after our interview;, you were informed that a new study (the largest in the world), co- authored by a member of the Environmental Protectiom Agency's' Science Advisory Board,. reported no increased risk from spousall smoking. Why was that material no!Gt included in the broadcast? 6.. At a press conference in April 1991,. Dr. Morton Lippmann, Chairman, of the EPA's Science Advisory Board Committee that reviewed draft dbcuments on environmental tobacco smoke, stated that he would not hesitate to (be willing to) sit in the, smoking section of'f a restaurant or an airplane. Dr. Lippmann also stated that those reporters who chose to attend his press conference probably incurred a greater risk from driving across Washington,, D.C. traffic than they would by being exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. Were you aware of those comments?If so, why were they not included or at least referredito in the broadbast? 7. In the segment, you quite correctly and' accurately identified me as a lawyer. Yet, you referred to Stanton Glantz,as a "Cardiac Specialist." Dr. Glantz is not a cardiac specialist or a cardiologist, and, indeed, is not a medical doctor, but rather has a degree in "Applied Mechanics." Isn't accurate, factual information regarding Dr. Gl.antz's credentials just as important in judging Dr. Glantz's credibility in speaking on the issues he addressed in the program as a correct recitation of my credentials?'

Mr. John Sto.ssel December 3, 1991 Page 4 8., It is my understanding that out of the 11. epidemiologic studies conducted on spousal smoking and.heart diseasee in nonsmokers, seven reported no statistically significant increased risk. Did you discuss these studies with Dr. Glantz? Did you ask. Dr. Glantz about such risk factors for heart disease as diet, genetics and exercise? If not, why were these basic areas of inquiry not addressed? 9. 1 believe that during our interview,, you or David Sloan asked for my reaction to Dr. Glantz's statement comparing exposure to ETS'with being sprayed in the face with aerosol from a can containing 4!,.0010 pollutants. Inasmuch:as you chose to air Dr. Glantz's statement, why did you choose not to air my response? If his statement was important, why wasn't my response, if indeed!the report was intended to be "balianced"? [WELAT WAS'. SCP'S RESPONS®7 Include here] 10. It is my understanding that the EPA has. not officially endorsed Dr. Gllantz:''s claims about environmental tobacco smoke causing, heart disease in nonsmokers. Did you speak with anyone at EPA concerning EPA.'s acceptance ornom,acceptance of Dr. GLantz's claims?'

Mr. John Sto,ssel December 3, 1991 Page 5 1.1.. During our interview,. I mentioned to you that we had received a letter from an individual in the Office of Technology Assessment, the organization charged, with the responsibility of' advising Congress.on scientific matters, and.that.this letter stated that even though the scientific data do not support the claim that. ETS is associated with chronic disease in nonsmokers, anything that can be done to make smokers into social pariahs is beneficial. I also provided you with a copy of the letter after my interview. Why was this information not disclosed?' Why was the viewing audiience, not shown this brief letter? Wasn't this letter from a government official admitting that the end justifies the means directly relevant to Mr. Simmons' claim: "Anything that.they can do to get people to stop smoking„ they're going to do it"? 12. During our interview, you asked me if I would ever distort the sciemtific data out of a"sense of greed." One is. prompted to inquire whether you would selectively report data or edit interviews in order to make a story more interesting or to support your preconceived notions on an issue?' When Mr.. Sloan asked me to participate in the broadcast, I was told that it was your intention to do a balanced piece and to fully investigate the story. As the foregoing indicates, I believe that.the story was neither balanced nor fully investigated. obviously,, I am disappointed. I am not as disappointed in your

Mr. John Stossel December 3,1991 Page 6 viewpoints and conclusions as I'I am in the fact that you failed to fully pursue the evidence and that you chose to not give the viewing audience a full disclosure of the relevant,data.. It is one thing for you,to let the audience hear the evidence and for you to then interpret that evidence. It is entirely different, however, for you to interpret the evidence in the.absence of a presentation of the evidence. I realize I have asked a, number of questions, but because I was willing to spend a great deal of time in my tapedinterview with you, and in view of the importance of this subject, I would appreciate your responses.as soon as possible. Thank you.for taking the time to respond. Sincerely, 10483157