Tobacco Documents Online

SEPTEMBER 10; 1993 improper because plaintiffs"causes of action did not accrue there; that the claims asserted on behalf of the various plaintiffs did not arise out of the same transac- tions or occurrences; that plaintiffs did not seek leave of the court before filing,their supplemental and amend'ed petitions, whiclih added new parties to the case; and that the petitions are improper attempts at forum-shopping. Three of the 14 plaintiffs in this case presently, allege injury from exposure to ETS. Raye Blanchard and Tamara Reed, mother andldaughter, both claim damages for unspecified "illness and disease" allegedly resulting from exposure to the ETS from cigarettes smoked by Raye's d'eceased husband; Thomas, and by Raye herself, who claims she smoked °for about ten years." The third ETS plaintiff, Pamela Kastrin Stephens, claims unspecified "lung andl respiratory diseases" allegedly caused by exposure t&the ETS from the cigarettes smoked by her deceased father. The named defendants are purported to be the six major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, The Tobacco Institute, the Council for Tobacco Research, and a number of wholesalers and retailers. Blancbard, etal, v. R:f. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al (District Court, Galveston County, Texas) (filed July 31, 1992). [10] Bluitt. Case Filed in Tyler, Texas On August 30„ 1993, Alfred Bluitt filed suit individu- ally, as representative of the estate of his late wife, and as next friend of his minor childrzm in the UIS. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tvler Division. Mr. B'luitt alleges that his late wife, Willie Ruth~ B1'uiit, was a nonsmoker who died'.on July 1, 1993, of lung cancer that was purportedly caused by her exposure to "substantial" environmental tobacco smoke ` during her employment with Texas Instruments, Inc., and elsewhere d'uring her short lifetime." Neither the decedent''s age nor the length of time she was employed at Texas Instruments is specified in the complaint. Texas Instruments is not named as a defendant in the action. Defendants named in the complaint are R.J. Reynolds; Brown & Williamson;, Philip Morris; Liggett Group; Liggett & Myers; American Brands; American Tobacco; Loews Corp. and Lorillard. Plaintiffs seek $25,000,000 in actual damages and $500,000,000 in punitive damages. They are repre- 5 sented by two attorneys from the Mesquite, Texas, firm of Ted B. Lyon & Associates, P.C., Ted B. Lyon, Jr., and Bill Zook. Neither have been involved in prior tobacco litigation. Blui'tt v. R.J Reynolds Tobacco Company; et al, (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division) (filed August 30; 1993). [11] Butlen Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Scheduled to be Held on September 10, 1993 As of this writing, Judge Gibbs was scheduled to hear oral argument om September 10, 1993, on plaintiffs" motion~ for protective order~ regarding defendants' deposition nooice for plaintiff Ava! Dean~ Butler. In this ease plaintiffs contend that Burl Butler, a Laurel, N4ississippi~ barber, developed lung cancer as a result of his exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The defendants in this ease consist of the six major U.S. cigarette manufacturers and several local retailers. Butler v. RJ Reyrrolds Tobacco Compan}; et al.' (Circuit Court, Hinds Counov; 1lississippi) (filed October 21, 1'992). [12] Cliustz: Case Filed in Louisiana R.J. Reynolds and American Tobacco are the onh• defendants namedl in a case filed by attorney George Covert on August 13, 1993, in the U.S. District Court in Louisiana. Plaintiffs are the sun•iving spouse and heirs of Charles Chustz, a smoker who allegedlk• died of Iung cancer on Januarv 24, 1993. Plaintiffs contend that during ohe time period of 1'1942-1991, Mr. Chustz "smoked and %vas exposed to environmental tobacco smoke from cigarettes manufac- tured by defend'ants." Plaintiffs seek unspecified dollar amounts,inactual damages„damages for wrongfulldeath and for loss of consortiums and $75,000 in special damages. Mr. Covert is being assisted in the case by Baton Rouge attorney James Piker. Cbustz v. R:J Reyno111s Tobacco Company; et aL (Ui.S: District Court, Middle District, Louisiana) (filed August 13, 1993)', [13) MrKrnney. Nevada Supreme Court Dismisses PlaintiEfs Appeal, On August 26, 1993, the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed plaintiffs appeal, holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim for relief under, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that plaintiff had no private cause

G of action under the Nevada Constitution against the d'efendants. The order was issued before the defendants submitted their brief in opposition to plaintiffs brief. Plaintiff William McKinney, who is incarcerated in a Nevada jail, contended R.J. Reynolds andl Brown & Williamson failedl to warm of the health effects of ETS exposure. He alleged he has fai'rly general health problems caused by his exposure to ETS, (emotional paim severe headaches, itchy and watery eyes, recurring chest pains), 11-1cftiinney v: C.1lI. Products, Inc., eral. (~District Court, White Pine County, Nevada)' (filed ti4archJ, 1993). tiicKinney also is the plaintiff in a civil! rights case against Nevada prison officials regarding his exposure to ETS while incarcerated. On June 18, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case toi the triallcourt to give McKinney an opportunirv to tn, to prove his case. See issue 50 of this Report, June 25,, 1993. [ 14] i%tlr. Second Amended' Complaint Filed On Auguso 1i0„ 1993, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, purporting,to add products liability claims to his previously-filed civil rights action. Plaiittiffs original'complaint was filed against Forsvth Tobacco. Prodkrcts, R.J. Reynolds andl Browni & Williamson. The amended complaint names two: addioionall rette manufacturers, Philip Morris and Plmerican, as defendants. Plaintiff seeks 5 12 million in actual damages, S500,000 in nonreconornic d'amages, and 530 million in punitive damages in the amended complaint. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction to bani the sale of cigarettes in OregonL Frank Voth, who: is incarcerated in the Oregon State Penitentiiary„alleges that his civil rights have been violated as a result of his exposure to ETS. He claims that he has "incurred permanent health d'amage and is at risk of death" as a result of ETS exposure. Defen, danos in~ Voth are Forsyth Tobacco Products, R.J.. Reynolds, Brown &Williamsom Philip Morris and American. uoth v. Forsytli Tobacco Products, et aL (U.S. District Court, Oregon) (filed April 27, 1993). ETS/IAQ REPORT, ISSUE 55 ETSLIAQ LDTIGATION NOT INVOLVING CIGARETTE MANUFACTURERS ELECTION HE-\DQUARTERS:' DISABIiLIT1` DISCRliI`tINATION [i15] Young v. Democratic National Committee (Federal Elections Commission) (filed August 1993). Airline flight attendant Patricia Young, who is one of the named plaintiffs in the Broin litigaaion, has report- edlyfiled a! complaint with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) alleging thatshe was denied'1 her right to volunteer for President Clinton's presidentiall campaign because lbcal campaign officials refused to prohibit smoking in, the Dallas campaign headquarters. Claiming that she is handicapped under federal law due tolher hypersensitivit}~~ to ETS, Young is asking the FEC to deny federal campaign funds to the Demo- craoic National Committee and the Clinton campaign °unless thev aoree not to discriminate against the handicapped in future elections." Young,apparently did not file the complaint earl~ierasshe did not want to jeopardize Clinton's prospects in ohe election„but she claims that she began complainin~ to Democratic campaign officials in September 1'~99'', when she asked that smokers, be required to go outside. Officials with the Democratic parn• reporredlh, do not recallspeaking, with Young abour the issue. SeeAssocr- atedP'ress, August 25„ 1993. G(_)`TRNM,LtiT BUILD[`'C~ E\[PoSL-RE [ 16] Crump v. Department of Healtl> and Human Services, No. 93-265 (U.S. Supreme Court) (petition for review filed May 17, 1993) PlainniffThomasA. Crump has filed prose, a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge lower court decisions dismissing his actionito ban, smoking in state andl local government buildings. Crump's claims allegedly arose out of an incident occurring in ohe H'enrico County Courts Buil'ding„Virginia, in November 1991„when he observed someone smoking in a posted nonsmoking area. He allegedly asserted his righo 0o redress violations of"natural and civil'rights"'under the Preamble and the Firso, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to, the U.S: Constitution, and!he claimed that his rights had

SEPTE!s-IBER! 10, 19933 been violated by the defendants' failure to protect him fromi ETS. In his complaint, Crump ('i) sought to ban smoking in the county courts building and! in allistate buildings; (ii): requested that the court close all cigarette manufac- turing plants in Virginia and the Ui.S.; and (iii) re- quested''that the court provide a smoke-free environ- ment for all people. Defendants in the case are the Department of Health and Human! Services, EPA, OSHA, FDA, U.S. Congress, the President of the U.S., the Virginia GenerallAssembly, and the Governor, of Virginia. The district court, in a memorandum opinion, determined that the federalldefendanos were immune from suit and that the complaint stated no cause of action against them; inasmuch as the alleged violation of a state smoking law does not constitute a violation of federal law and cannot be redressed by the federal government. The court observed that it could not enjoin lawful activity and thus determined that it could not enjoin the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. Crump was advised to address his concerns "through political means, such, as by educating and.enlightening, the voting public and their elected representatives." In a separate opinion„the district court also dismissed the state defendants on, the basis of sovereign immu- nity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Crump v. U.S. Dept: of Healih and Human Services, 1993 U.S, App.,LEXIS 3002 (4th Cir. 1993). WOR1:PL\CE: COllLECTIVE BARGAINING [17] Department of the Navy; Naval Computer Telecommunications Station, East Machias, Maine and Local 2635, American Federation of GovernmentEmployees,,AFL-CIO, 1993 WL. 310383 (Federall Service Impasses Panel). (decided August 12, 1993), A federal arbitration panel has agreed with ani employer"s proposal that smoking be restricted indoors at a remote facility on the Atlantic coast of Maine. Pursuant to this proposal, smoking will be permitted onNy in family housing units, bachelor enlisted quarters and! a recreation area. The employer had cited the EPA Risk Assessment on, ETS to support its position. The panel stated, in this regard', "we favor prohibiting 7 indoor smoking, given the overwhelFning body of scientific evidence cited by the Employer conclusively establishing the health hazards associated with the passive inhalation of second-hand smoke." The employer will; however, be required'to provide outdoor smoking areas that provide a measure of protection from the elements. [18] Department of the Army; Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, Missouri and'LocaI900, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 1993 WL 317674 ' (Federal Service Impasses Panel) (decided August 19, 1993). A federal arbitration panel has agreed with an em- ployer that smoking will be banned ini three of its buildings following the completion of construction and renovation activities. The union and employer had reached'a negotiating impasse over the smoking policy, with the union proposing that limited areas in the buildings remain designated smoking areas or, in, the alternative, that the employer be required to, build an outdoor structure to protect smokers from the ele- ments. The union also requested that smoking breaks in addition to regular breaks be permitted. Stating that "the health hazards associated with the passive inhalation of second'-hand smoke" have been conclusively established bvy an, "overwhelming bodti- of scientific evidence," the panelldesi~nated several indoor smoking areas until completioni of conscructiorn and determined that the outdoor accommodations al'ready offered by the employer were sufficient to protect smokers once the buildings had been declared smoke free. These accommodat~ions consist of an overhang at the entrance to the building and:a tent-like structure with plastic walls which, could be rolled up or down according to weather conditions.,The panel refusedltoi order additionall smoking breal:s. [19] United States Marine Corps, Washington, D.G. and American Federation of Government Em- ployees, 1993 WL310441 (Federal Labor Relations Authority)' (decided August 10, 1993) A federal labor relations panel has remand'ed this case to an administrative law judge to determine whether a union, in its collective bargaining agreement, wai4-ed its right to conduct mid-term negotiations over a work- place smoking policy. The panel had previously found

that the Marine Corps hadlcommitted an unfair labor practice by implementing changes to its workplace smoking policy without bargaining with appropriate union representatives over the proposal andwhile impasse proceedings were pending. The pan4 finding that the case law upon which it had relied in finding an unfair labor practice was noo longer good law, stated, "we will no longer apply the `clear and unmistakable waiver''analysis that previously had been utilized to address such issues: Instead, we will determine the meaning of the parties' agreement in order to resolve the alleged unfair labor practice." WoRI:PL-%CE: F.mR RE['RESEtiT.-1TIO;ti [201 Jobn Deere Co., Local'125, UnitedAuto Workers, 1993 WL 321785 (Office of Generall Counsel,, National Labor Relations Board)' (decid'ed July 29, 1993): Generali Counsel of the N'ational, Labor Relations Boar& (NLRB) has advised a union that it did'i not violate its duty of fair representation in refusing to file a grievance oni behalf of employees who sought a ,~vorkplace smoking ban after allegedly experiencing difficulty breathing in spite of restrictions that had been placed on smoking in the warehouse in which they worked. The union and employer had bargained for the restrictions which prohibited smoking w.here employees work near eachi other. In February 1993„one employee set, grievanceproceed, ings in motion, alleging that the existing smoking policy was not being enforced and that this was adversely affecting,his asthmatic condition. The union, gave approval to the proposed grievance. A fellow employee decided'to change the nature of the grievance to a request for a totaU smoking ban after becoming aware of the EPA Risk.Assessment on ETS, and the union subsequently withdrew the grievance. Ivlembers of the union safety committee attempted to file several''other grievances on behalf of those with respiratory problems, and they notified the employer that several employees were disabled due to hypersensitivity to ETS: The union continued to withdraw the grievances filed by the employees„stating that the existing smoking policy was a! reasonable accommodation~ under the Rehabilita- tion Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ETS/IAQ REPORT, ISSUE 55 In the meantime, the union and employer negotiated a complete workplace smoking ban to become effective in 1994. In separate discussions with the employer, the employees who claimed they were di'sabled contended that a"'reasonable accommodatiod" analysis was inappli- cable because there was no business necessity for permit- ting smoking in the workplace. The employees filed a Rehabilitation Act complaint against the employer and filed charges against the union alleging failure to fairly represent employees and against the employer alleging unlawful acquiescence in the union conduct. The NLRB'General Counselldetermined that the union adhered to the negotiated smoking policv and did not discriminate against the employees who were seeking a workplace smoking ban. In this regard, General Counsel. states„"Thenegotiated policti~is not discriminaroryon itsface, and does not clearly violate the ADA." The General Counsel also determined that the employer did not unlawfully acquiesce in the union's failure to represent disabled employees without di'scrimination. WORKPLACE: PERSONAL ItilUfZl' [21 ] Roos v. Ally and Gargano„ Inc., 1993 ConnL Super. LEXIS 2142 (Superior Court, Stamford, Connecticut) (decided August 19, 1993) A Connecticut Superior Court judge has granted an~ employen's motion for summarv jud'gment in a case involving claims for personal injun and loss of income filedby a former employee w,ho alleged thar she was an asthmatic ,vho~,~vas made ill an6for~ced to resign due to. ETS exposure in the workplace. I'n so ruling, the court held'that an alleged violation of a svorkplace smoking statute does not constitute an exception to the exclusiv- ity provision of the ViJorkers''Compensation Act where the complaining employee is seeking,compensation for work related injjuries. The plaintiff in this case, Patricia S. Roos, attempted to avoid the application of the exclusivii-y provision bv relying upon an intentional misconduct exception, but the court foundl that she had not alleged intentional misconduct in her complaint. The court also noted than the state''s workplace smoking law contains a remedial provision for employees who believe a violation of the statute has occurred.Such employees are authorized to file a written complaint with the labor commissioner who may hold hearings if necessary.

SEPTEMBER 10, 1993 WORKPLACE: UNION REPRESENTATION [22] AP Green Industries, 1993 WL 321784 (Office of General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board) (decided July 30, 1993) In deciding that an employer did not bypass the union and unlawfully deal'directly with its employees during "communications ltrncheons," General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board acknowledged that a workplace smoking policy is a term and condition of employment. The employer in this case conducted regular luncheon meetings with employees who were permitted to make suggestions and ask questions regard- ing the company. Individual employees occasionally discussed subjects such as the workplace smoking policy, but the employer would'state, when such matters arose, that the issue was contractual and would have to be discussed with the union. General'Counsel determined that this response indicated that theemplbyer was not undermining the union's rcpresentational status. PRISONER CASE [23] Gaater v. Campbell' 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 22433 (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit) (decided September 2, 1993) Citing Htlling v. McKinney, 61 U.S.L.W. 4648 (U.S. 1993), the Fourth~ Circuit Coun of Appeals has determined chat a prisoner should be given~ the oppor- cunit}' to licigate his pro se claim of cruel and unusual punishment due to ETS exposure. "Although it remains to be seen whether Gaster will be able to meet the subjective and objective elements of McKnnry,"' the appellate court states, "his complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim," WORKPLACE: IAQ/SICK BUILDING SYNDROME [24]I Elliot v. San Joaquin County Public Facilities Financing Corp., No. 244 601 (Superior Court, San Joaquin County, California) (filed 1991; complaint amended June 1993) According to a press report, a trial court hearing was sched'uled for September 7, 1993, to consider a defendant's demurrer to the amended complaint filed 99 by employees of the San Joaquin District Attorney's Office. The employees allege injuries caused by poor workplace IAQ. Defendants in the lawsuit include the building owner, manufacturers and suppliers of products used in remodeling, a pest control firm and unknown Doe defendants. The employees allege that they are suffering from respiratory ailments, permanent allergies, "chemical low tolerance levels" and emotional distress. Liabilitv is asserted on the basis of negligence, strict llability,, implied warranties of fitness and merchancabiliry, express warranty, fraud'and negligent misrepresenta- tion. The claim of negligence is reportedly based, among other matters, upon defendants' failure to properly evaluate, test and investigate for toxic sub- stances; provision of inadequate ventilation during remodeling; utilization of materials chat were capable of off-gassing formaldehyde and other noxious sub- stances; and failure to warn. According to liaison counsel for the defendants, a case management order was entered in the case, requiring the plaintiffs to identify the chemicals or components alleged to have caused their injuries. When those substances are identified, the defendants will have the opportunity to respondland~produce information pursuant to the order. Discovery as to all issues exc causation has apparently been~ stayed. See Indoor ~ Pollution Law Report, August 1993. /n a Jl:m LEGAL ISSUES AND DEVELOP.%IE'.tiTS [25] ASH Sends Letter to 50 Largest Corporations Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) claims to have sent certified! letters to America's 50 largest corpora- tions, warning them chat continuing to permit smok- ing in their workplaces can be "harmful to corporate health" and reportedly results in lawsuics. ASH refers to the brochure discributed by the EPA in July 1993 as "official U.S. Agency guidelines for regulating work- place smoking." The letter rold the companies char while there are no penalties For not following the "guidelines," the courts are likely to look at them as authoritative when consid: ering claims for workers' compensation, unemplby- ment compensation, disability benefits, handicap 'rl

10 discrimination and other le,-al actions. Also enclosed with the letters was al summary of the EPA Risk Assessment on ETS. According to ASH, it hopes the mailing "will helbpersuade many of these trend-setting businesses too move from systems of separate sections to complete smoking bans." See ASH Smoking and Health Review,. July-August 1993. [26] "Passive Smoking Ignites Active Legal Debate,"' R. Barton Conlin, JournaCof the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, July 1993 Author Roxanne Barton Conlin, former presid'ent of ATLA, begins this article by obsen-ino that the EPA Risk Assessment on ETS °ignited a series of reports predicting increase& litigation." She argues that lastiyers should not be responsible for protecting workers from exposure to ETS by bringing, lawsuits that will get the attention of their employers. Barton Conlini notes, however, that the leaal system mav be "our most effective regulator" and reports that, litigation, has prompted recalls of or irnprovements to many unsafe products. The article concludes, "For employers and regulators to default on health and safetv, leav.irto only lassvers too stand with the passive smoking~~ictim~s and their familiesagainstthe powerfulltobacco: industry, would be an outrageous abrogation of - , responsibilitv tihat musti not be allowed." [27] Lawyer Found Guilty of Assaulting Smoker M Restaurant Maryland attorney Abraham Korotki was reportedly convicted of criminal assault following an attack upon a smoker in~ a restaurant on Ma`-; 15, 11993. Korotki struck the woman on~ the head when she refused to put out a cigarette at his request and told her tolquit smoking,while his son tied her belt loop to a chair with kite string: Korotki apparently testified during trial in Dundalk District Court that the incident was merely a friendly prank. The judge, before pronouncing the guilty verdict, reportedly accused Korotkilof "indefensible, crass and' offensive" behavior, and he asked, "What gives you the right to invade someone's space without their permis- sion?" Korotki was given one year of probation before ETS/IAQ, REPORT, ISSUE 55 judgment andlwas fined $250. The fine was suspended and Korotki was ord'ered to perform 50 hours of community service.. The woman who was assaulted, Debra Jane Lowenstein, has reportedly filed a $7 million civil action against Korotki and his son. Ilt is unknown whether the Attorney Grievance Commission~ of the Maryland Bar Association will take actioni against Korotki; his license to practice law was suspend'edi for 18 months in 1990 for fee gouging. SeeAssoc:ated' Press„Augusr 26, 11993. [2$]I "Employers' Screening Procedures Under the Americans with Disabilities Act: What's Legal? What's Illegal? What's Debatable," R.B. Fitzpatrick, ALI-ABA Course of Study;, Employ- ment Discrimination and Civil Rights Actions in Federal and'State Courts, June 3, 1993 The author of this article, an attornev with Fitzpatrick & Versteoen in Washington, D.C., discusses issues arising,under the Americans with Disabilities Act (;-%DA); including whether the Act prohibits discriminacion against smokers. According to the author, the provision in the ADA which states that it d'oes not preclude an employer from restricting or prohibiting workplace smoking has been interpreted by one commentator as imply.ing that tobacco addic- tion is a disabiliny under the Act. In, this regardl, the author observes that state laws prohibiting discrimi'na- tion in emploxment against smokers should be consulted by an emplo~~~er beforeimplementing restrictions on smoking in the workplace. OTHER D~~EV'E11.O~P:A1ENTS [29] Burger King Franchisee Bans Smoking Jan Companies (Janco)„which holds franchises on 55 Burger Kings in New Engll;ndl, has reportedly banned smoking in all its restaurants effective on~ September 1, 1993. Citing,the EPA Risk Assessment on ETS in support~ of the decision, the marketing director was quoted to say, "As the report indicated'4 children are especially vulnerable to ETS so we decided to ... eliminate ETS from all our restaur rants." The company had already^removed cigarette

SEPTEMBER 10;, 1993 vending machines from its Burger~ Kings and banned smoking in the restaurants' kitchens. The Jlan franchise operates in Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut. The 700 U.S. restaurants company-owned:by Burger King Corp provide desig- nated smoking areas. See TheAssociated'Prels, August 31,, 1993, and PR 1J'ewswire, August 30, 1'993: [30] Smoking Ban for Staff at Illinois Centers for Disabled As of October 1, 1993, the approximately 2,700 employees of Illinois' three state centers for the develbp- mentally disabled will'be prohibited from smoking. The ban will not apply to the 1,450 resid'ents of the centers. The centers are operated by the U.S. Department of Health and'SociallServices: According to a spokesperson,, residents are exempted from the ban because cigarettes are incorporated into training programs as rewards to encourage desirable behavior in some residents who: smoke. See Tlie Chicago Tribune, August 31, 1993. [31] Consumer Group Terms Secondhand Tobacco Smoke a "Hidden Hazard" On September 1, 1993, the Coalition for Consumer Health and Safety,reportedly released apamphletiwhich includes environmental tobacco smoke as one of 10 alleged hidden hazards. No attempt was made to rank each~ item. In ad'dition to ETS, other alleged'' hazards cited bv the group include alcoholl and babywalkers. The coalition is made up of national consumer, healEh and insurer groups involvedl in public education and influencing federal policy. The public is invited to:wriie for a free copy of the pamphlet. See The Associated Press, September 2, 1993. MEDIA COVERAGE [32] "Rental Providers Seek to Limit Smoking Through Incentives," Star Tribune, August 21, 1993 Warner Properties, which reportedPy has given monthly rental discounts to nonsmokers since 1978, claims cost and time savings when the units occupied by nonsmok- ers are prepared for the next tenant. According to the Minnesota Multi Housing Association, "[s]uch cost reductions have prompted a growing number ofTwin~ Cities property owners and managers to limit smoking in their buildings through similar incentives." Nevertheless,. Warner reports that when nonsmoking tenants were asked, they said they were not interested in, eliminating smoking from their buildings, preferring instead! to alloww their guests the choice of whether to smoke. SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL ITEMS U~PCO~dvPING MEETINGS [331 "Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Work- shop," Research Triangle Park, Raleigh, North Carolina, September 14-1i6, 1993 This upcoming workshop~is coordinated by the U.S. EPA's Air andEnergy Engineering Research Laboratory and theUniiversityof Illinois' Bioenvironmenral Engi- neering,Research Laboratory. According,to a letter sent to workshop participants, the purpose of the workshop: is to: "1)'define the state of the art in ventilation technology and its irnpact on IAQ, 2) assess emerging trends in ventilation systems„and13) identify and prioritize related resear&needs."'The 1'etter also states that conference participants °[clollectivel}- ... will write the consensus report during the meeting that will guide the research, policy and educational activities for the Environmental Protection Agency and cooperating agencies, institutions and industry." Among the more than 70 persons listed as partici- pants is John Girman of EPA's Indoor Air Divisiom 11 [34] "The National Environmental Tobacco Smoke Conference: Public Battles, Private Choices," The Hyatt Regeneyy on Capitol Hill~ Washing- ton, D.C., December 16-17, 1993 According,to promotional materials, this conference plans to bring together professionals from law„govern- ment, occupational safety and health, building man- ~ ~ agement, agement, and publii interests who are spearheading the ~. "national response" to ETS, Representatives will ~ discuss "the legislative, policy, and legal issues critical ~ to:the appropriate management of environmental ~ tobacco smoke." The conference is sponsored by IAQ ~ Publications, Inc., publishers of lndoor A'ir Review, a

12 monthh' . publication and host of several annual conferences on indoor envitonmentall issues. LUNG CANCER [35] Editorial Regarding "Involuntary Smoking in the Restaurant Workplace: A Review of Em- ployee Exposure and Health Effects," M. Siegel, Journal of the American Medical Association 270(4): 490-493, 1993 An editorial comment bv William S, Simmons, Direc- tor, Smoking and Health, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, addressing rhe recenth'-published Siegel article, was published in the Washingron TirnesAugust 26, 1993. In his publication, Siegel had proposed that ETSS exposures were higher in restaurants and bars than in other workplaces, and attributed some of the elevated lung cancer risk reporr~d for food service workers to ETS exposures, calling for a ban on,smoking. In his commentary•, entitled, "Smoking Doesn't Pose a Threat to Restaurant Workers," Simmons states that SiegelPs conclusion "is unsupported by the studies he cites," noting that the authors of those studies sug, gested that the teportedlv elevated lung cancer, ri'sks for food sen•ice workers could' be related to such factors as stress, diet, alcohol consumption, active smokino, air~ polllution„ radon, asbestos, and other factors. ~ Simmons also suggests that Siegel's conclusions °vio- lated the limits of' the studies referenced bySiegell He writes: "Dr. Siegel misused and misrepresented their data to draw concl'usions that far exceeded the conclhsions that were reached, or were considered reachable, by those scientists." RESPIRATORYDISEASES AND CONDITIONS -- ADULTS [36] "Respiratory Symptoms i~n Young Adults Should Not Be Overlooked," M.S. Jaakkola, J.J.K. Jaakkola, P. Ernst, and M.R. Becklake, American Review ofRespiratory Disease 147: 359-366, 1993 [See Appendix A] This study investigates the relation between develbp- rnent of respiratory symptoms and the rate of change ETS/IAQ REPORT, ISSUE 55 of ventilatory lung function in young adullts. The authors conclude that the development of symptoms "seems to indicate the evolution of ventilfatory impairmenr."'They. report no effect of ETS exposure on the reported relation- ship: RESPIILATORY DISEASES AND CONDITIONS -- CHILDREN [37] "Infant Feeding, Wheezing, and'Allergy: A Pro- spective Study," M.L. Burr, E.S. Limb, M.J. Maguire, L. Amarahs B.A. Eldridge, J.C.M. Layzell, and' T.G. Merrett, Archives of Disease in Clirldliood 68': 724-728, 1993 [See Appendix A] A cohort of approximately 450 children was follo~.ved in this Welsh study of possible risk factors for childhood w-heeze. The authors report thao "passive smoking" .vas statistirally, signiEcandy associated wirh wheeze in~ the first year of Iife,, but not: at age seven; the relationship was reported for non-atopic children only,. Reported risk factors for ~xheeze included having unemployed parents. and having never been breast fed. OTHER HIG-~LTH ISSL;ES [38] "Predictors of Early School Failure Among Chil- dren in the United States,"' R.S. Byrd, K.JI. Roghmann, and M. Weitzman, Amerrcan Jeurnal' of Diseases of Children 147(4): 459, 1993 [See Appendix A] In this abstract, the authors report that, of children repeating kiitdergarten~or first grade,,behavior problems, male gender, poverty, low birth, weight, low- maternal education, household smoking, residence with~one or no biological parenr, and recurrent otitis media were each statistically significantlv associiated! with an increasedl riskk of school Failure. [39] "The Influence of Passive Smoking on rhe Fetus, During Pregnancy [translation]," M. Pan, Z. Zhang, C. Wang, X. He, Z. Meng, G. Zhou, and H. Mao, China Obstetrics and Gynecology Maga- zine 27(6)', 1992 [See Appendix A]'i The authors of this study report that pregnant women exposed to ETS had increased risks of having small for

SEPTEMBER 1Oi 1993 gescational age babies, of premature labor, and of neonatal asphyxia. They also state that carbon monox- ide from the burning of coal poses a risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. ETS EXPOSURE AND MONITORING [40] "Cigarette Smoke Exposure of School Children: Effect of Passive Smoking and Vitamin E. Supplementation on Blood Antioxidant Status," A. Jendryczko, G. Szpyrka, J. Gruszczynski, and M. Kozowicz, lVeoplasma 40(3): 199-203, 1993 [See Appendix A] The authors of this paper claim chat cigarette smoke contains large numbers of free radicals, chemical species believed to induce lipid peroxidation, a process which darnages cell membranes. Both free radicals and some byproducts of lipid peroxidation have been hypothesized'to have a role in carcinogenesis. The authors use markers of oxid'ative stress to determine the extent of lipid peroxidation, reporting significantly elev.ated levels in children of smoking parents com, pared to children of nonsmoking parents. [411 "Biological Markers of Intrauterine Exposure to Cocaine and Cigarette Smoking," G. Koren, J. Klein, R. Forman, K. Graham, and M.-K. Phany Developmental Pharmacology and' Therapeutics 18' 228-236,,1992 [See Appendix A] This article focuses on the analysis of feoalihair for traces of cocaine and nicotine associated with the mocher's intake of those substances. The authors report, however, that in a small sample of babies of nonsrnoking women who: reported ETS exposure, hair cotinine levels were higher than in babies of women who~reported no ETS exposure. See issue 53 of this R'eport, August 6, 1993, for a recent letter t&the editor by this research group. [42]I "Cadmium and Lead Levels in House Dust from Smokers' and' Non-Smokers' Homes Related to Nicotine Levels," S. Willers, H.O. Hein, A. Schutz, P. Suadicatti, and F: Gyntelberg, Indoor Environment 2: 14-18, 1993 [See Appendix A] The authors of this study have reported elsewhere that children~of smokers have higher blood lead levels 13 than do children of nonsmokers. In this paper, they investigate whether smoking is associated with the levels of lead and cadmium in house dust; they report no such relationship. Ilrl DOOR AIiR QUALITY' [43] "Resolving IAQ Complaints witL Ventilation System Operations and Maintenance (O&M)," J.A. Ventresca and J.S. Shrack,, Proceedings of Indoor Air '93 6: 349-3 54, 1993 [See Appendix A] These authors report that IAQcomplaints can be resolved by properly operating and maintaining the ventilation system. Specifically, they list the following O&M problems that need to be considered: negative building pressure, outsid'e air d'amper closing, inoper- able chillers in the winter, improper tracking of fans„ return air damper malfunction, and HVAC control problems. SMOKING POLICIES AND REL-%TED~ ISSUES [44] °Effects of a City Ordinance Regulating Smok- ing in Restaurants and Retail Stores," J. Sciacca and M. Eckrem, Journal ofCommunityHealtli 18(3)t 175-ll82, 1993 [See Appendix A]', The authors of this study reporton, a survey of businesses in, Flagstaff, Arizona, following the imple- mentation~ of an ordinance vvhich prohibicedi smoking in retail businesses and allowed restaurants to choose to permit smoking, ban srnoking, or permit smoking in designated areas. According,ro the survey, 82' percent of restaurants opted to allow smoking in at least some areas. Only three of 61 businesses reported a detrimen- tal effect on businessfollowing implementation of'.the policy: 20247024S'7

]=+ IN EUROPE & AROUND~ THE WORLD REGLTLATORY AND LEGISLMVE MATTERS AuSTRALIA [4>]I Bundaberg City Council Increases Smoking Restrictions The Bundaberg City Council has reportedlN• added mobile shed's to the list of buildings in the city in which~ smoking will be banned. The decision to ban smoking in these locations was apparenth~ prompted by complaints by workmen and a fear of litigation by nonsmokers for injuries allegedly caused by ETS exposure. See ~Vews-Mai4 August 25, 1993: [46] Community Group Lauds City Council for Banning Smoking According,to a press report, the community consulta- tive committee on tobacco, alcohol and other drugs has presented the Wagga City Council with a!certificate in recognition of CounciUs decision to ban smoking in its public building. See DDail}^AdL~ertiser, August 25, 1993. [47] Designated Smoking Areas Nixed by Ulmarra Health Committee Ulmarrai Council9ors reportedly suggested that a speciall smoking zone be designated in Ulmarra Coun- cil offices. A council health and safety committee apparently turned down the proposallout of concern the empl'byees would File lawsuits over ETS exposure. See Daily Examiner, August~ 23, 1993. AUSTRTA [48] Tobacco Law Stalled' by Objections of Econom- ics Minister According to a press report, the economics minister has expressed' his opposition to the draft tobacco law which provides, among other matters, for the compul- sory establishment of nonsmoking sections in restau- rants. The draft was reportedly dropped from the agenda of a recent session~of the Mini'sterrat following a: meeting between the economics minister and health minister. See Die Tabak Zeitung;,August 27, 1993. ETS/IAQ REPORT, ISSUE 55: CANADA [49] Ottawa Council Votes on Smoking Regulations As yet unspecified~ smoking restrictions reportedly will be imposed in Ottawais outdoor stadiums beginning,in 1994. However, on September 1, 1993, the Ottawa Council voted that the public should be consulted before deciding on specific measures, which could range from a complete smoking ban to a requirement for areas of smoke-free seating. See issue 54 of this Report, August 27, 1993. Also on September 1, Ottawa's bylaw on smoking in; public was amended to: require bowling alleys, bingo halls and billiard halls to provide half of their space ass smoke-free, although bingo halls are being,given until January 1, 1'996, to reach the 50 percent mark. The bvlaw was also=ended to include any indoor area with public access, regardless of whether paymeno is required to enter. The new smoking provisions report,- edhy will take effect at the next council meeting, set for September 15. The Council defeated a proposal that would have gradually required that bingo halls become smoke free by the year 2000. See The Ottawa Citizen. September 2, 1993: IS IZ~fiL [50] Tennis Centers Declared "No-Smoking Zones" Ihan acdonapproved by the Health Ministry, the 1 1 Israel Tennis Centers,suere declared smoke free on; September 2, 1993. The ministry cited the require- ments of physical exertion as the reason for the smok- ing bans. In other public facilities, such as cinemas, theaters, health clinics, hospitals and schools, smoking is currently restricted to limited areas. The Health Ministry has nor been successful', in getting an amend- ment to ban workplace smoking through the Knesset labor and'social affairs committee. See TheJerusalem Post, September 2', 1993: SWITZERLNPVD [51]I Labor Legislation for "Protection" of Nbnsmokers According to a press report, an amendment to curreno labor legislation will take effect on October 1, 1993'. The amend'ment includes a provision for better