Tobacco Documents Online

Ju1. 2.90 17:11 P.02 .Kwhere there's 'smoke, there's politics - - -Qnee again a study purporting to link ~ "verificatSon of the possible association of. J f odntroversial product to cancer has received (second•hutd smoke) and lung cancer rep- '~ a prime-time attention and headlinea and once resents an importattt cha:lenge to epidemi- again, agaitt, the study turns out to have more holes . ologists, laboratory scientists and public ~~ than the Capital Beltway. Remember AlarT health authorities." 1te question now is whether cigarettes w~l Mr. Bayard says the report went public i " get the Alar treatment. without scientific review In order to fulfill • The Environmental Protection Agency re- legal requirements for public comment con-,:. . leased reports last week linking cancer to oerning proposed reports and regulations: : , Uoond•hand cigarette smoke, smoke thft But since when Is the EPA supposed to draft drifts from the cigarettes of smokers into the regulations in advance of scientific re- - lunis of non-smokers. The EPA estiraatos search? Furthermore, private scientists seek •. this smoke gives fatal lung cancer to 3,800. public comment on research all the time, • nonsmokers each year. It also argues that the through a process called peer review. They best way to reduce exposure to second•ha dd send work to professional journals, which ' smoke is to outlaw all iadoor smoking ~r, . send it out to qualified peers for scrutiny. ' tailin~ that, to create special smoking araes with their own seDarate ventilation systenis. Less publicized than EPA's findings Is tre taat tAat iu claimsavent been reviewed h' •'!ts Science Advisory Board, a panel of dependent reviewers that junked EPA c9tt- •: cerns about Atar a few years ago. The S :' whicb Is charged with separating scies~ce ' from pseudo•sclentific political pap, ootlld challenge these latest findings, as the author of the agency's risk-assessment analysis isc- knowledYes. "lt's a scientifically detensible dozument;' says EPA bio-sLtistician Steven ' Bayard in an interview. "I don't thinlS it' a ,, perfect document" Cansider: We11-known anti-smoking ac iv- `i istf such as Stanton Glantz, founder of Ce1i- ' lrorntans for Non-Smokers Riahts, prepated pans of the report. Their role may explssin why the EPA report differs from another:re- eent Rovernment study, which concluded t`tat Studies rejec by these peers don't appear in the journals and don't scare Innocent civil- .'~ iats. Outspoken tobacco critic EliLbetb Whelan of the American Council on Scienoe ~ and Health s.ys she hasnt seen the EPA ~ study and adds that because the SAB bad not ; reviewad tt, "I dont know if I can trust it." EPA seems to have been caught pulling a r fast one, trying to stir up public passions in 'f support of regulations that are premature at best and possibly Insupportable. The Bush 't administration, which evidently lacks the po- ': litiul courage to attack tabaooo subsidies, ,. has decided to attack smoking by harrassing - smokers and resorting to pseudoscience. ~ Few people doubt that cigarettes can kill you, •. but recent campaigns by the EPA and by tAs '~ Department of Health and Human Servlces = ought to raise questions about whether this '~ administration's policy arises from real sci• ~ ence or just political science. ,.