Tobacco Documents Online

. T~ ~atio,nal~-nQart Founaarian 01 AL;tra :'a p- A i 7 _^ v:JCB '_5G 2" 5eptenber' 1985 !jr CLaude Len."ant D'ir e zt or ::ationali Institutes of Iiealth 1:ational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Biethesda. WYLAaD~ USA 20205'. .r I Dear Dr Lenfant Our Director, Dr Robert Hodge, suggested I vrite._directly to You.for help in clarifying an issue arising,from recent statements by the Australian Tobacco Institute. In July this year, the National Heart Foundation of Australia ran: campaign on the health effects of passive smoking, entitled "So You Th1nk You"re a Nca=.Suoker'. • In response the tobacco imdustry i'n! Australia madie grea t pl'ay of "'three ma jor iateraational workshops' oa passive smoking, during 1983 and 1984 which 'concluded that the health effects of other people's smoke vary from negligible to quite small, that healt hy non-smokers have li'ttle or no physiolbgi'aal response to envjronaaental tobacco smoke, and that lawmakers should not base: their efforts: on, a demonstrated health hazard from 'passlAe smoking'". In particular, the industry hsa referred repeatedly to what it claims i'ss the position of the HI}i. In a letter to the Brisbane Courier-Mai1 published' on 9 August, 1985, David Baconi, the Australian Tobacco Inst!itute' s Ezecutive Officer saLd' 'The US Nat iiomal Institute of Healthr..bas stated quite categorically that possible respiratory effects of environmental tobacco smoke, if aasy, varied from 'negligible to quite . smal'l' •'. It would help the Foundatibn a great deal if youl could clarify, the matter by answering the following questions (please f'oraive me for this tecbni'que, but it helps easure that my understanding is specific and accurate)c- * Is the statement mentioned' the off icial' policy of' the NIH as a * vhole?' I unde In other, vwords, is the Tobacco Institute's.cl'aim true? I RO tand the statemeat was in fact written by the c3airman of' a May 1-31 vorkshop, sponsored by the NHLBI''s Division of Lung, Diseases. Is it in fact the verifi'ed! "conclusion' of the vorkshop as a_vholea Was the document concerned! first ci'rculatedto all the participants for their agreement or submitted to peer review? Has the document been published? C= R_1

.:as ti~ :oaacco Ins_it,ae c:ai=s? . Did the ::Z'R' see:: tc, publicire- _: :deli'cera:ions - aitervards? Ihav= been toLd .:-& :i'rst -public reference to it came fro= the tobacco indus_ry. Does tre SIii as su.'r. a: --=--:=: -.o:Y;r on•passive snoki!ng, in fact? If so, :wo_:c _=opr of the s:atez`_nt. * Do you have any co :=:ents aba-;c _ r& use of t ir :'IR„ and has the ::Ih aade any co:~n_s zaouc :rez in the pasV. Your help and cooperation on this matter vould' be much appreciated. We have found over the years that the tobacco industry has repeatedly misrepresentedi health bodies and others by zaltazg unsupportable cl'a3'ms by ' misquotes, or by out-of-context or out-of-date quotes. It is our policy to disclose this deception vtr,.rever necessary, so that the public can be correctly infbrmed. To that end. I'vould'also appreciate a:ycommeats about this matter that Imy use publicly when amd' if ' we need to refute the tobacco tindustry on this issue once again. Thank you in advance. Yours siacerely . Dr Paul ?iagtsus Hedical Associate tp the Director bcc Stanton Glantx R-2