Tobacco Documents Online

Michael Schildberger Show Radio 310 Melbourne Australia Ftiday, July 26, 1955' 9:10 a.m. Commentator (Schi1dberger): First we had a ca3l from a gentleman yesterday who had this complaint about smoking: "I would like some stickers printed so I can put them in the car, they go into Medicare branches and you see signs saying 'Thank you for not smoking'. If'people coul& buy these, they can have them in their house so when people come in with their stinkin' cigarettes andistink the place out." Commentator:~ Well, he had his problem finding stickers but obviously, there are plenty of'stickers around. We contacted the Heart Foundation to see what their response.wa&to the complaint and'whether they would have stickers available for the gentleman. Not only do they have stickers, they have a vis3ting speaker here at the moment, from the Department of Medicine at the University of' California, Profiessor Stan Glantz and he is in the studio with me. Welcome. Gl~antz: Thank you. Commentator: We have also contacted the Anti-Cancer Council who told!us that "Please don't smoke here" stickers are available from their organization while the calling,into their office or sending in a self- addressed stamped! enveTope! to "Stickers, The Anti-Cancer Council, 1 Rathdovne Street, Carlton South 3053'"'. The Anti-Cancer Council also told us that the stickers are available commercially from S.M. Harrison Sales, (phone - 434-5096). They also, apparently, do a very nice line in "Please don't smoke" stickers wilthl metallic black and gold which retail for about $2.40. So to the gentleman vho:is concerned, you should have no problem,i you can deck your house out with lots of' stickers.. Six-and-a-half' past nine. Professor Glantz, youlare particularly interested in passive~smoki'ng? Glantz: That''s right. Passive smoking is! what the nonsmoker does when he is in alroom where someone.else is smoking a cigarette. To sum up the 600 or so scientific papers that have~been written on the sub3iect,, if someone ils smoking aroundlyou, you are smoking and you are inhaling the same 4000 or so toxic chemicals that the smoker i~s and sometimes in higher concentrax1ons and'it is having measureable harmful effects. So, basically, what I have been telling people, if you think about cigarette smoke the way you think about air pollution, which! is what it is, it is a, very serious problem. Commentator: Well, as you know, there are those who will lag you! in t'erms of the research figures. We have on, the line now, John, Dollison, the Chief ExecutiVe of the Tobacco Institute of' A'ustrali'a. PP'-1

f Glantz: I wouldilike to say before Mr. Dollison comes on, that of course the TobaccoInsti!tute is going , to deny the sci'entific evidence because they know that as nonsmokers speak up and say they would like too breathe clean air, people are gwing to smoke less,i and it, is going to cost, them a;lot of money. So, no matter how good or bad!the evidence is, they are going to deny it. Commentator: John Dollison, good morning. Your reaction? Dollison: Just a quick response to Stanton. It is not, the Tobacco Industry that is speaking up, it is various medical workshops around the world who continue to reassess the.6Wor so papers thav Stanton refers to and continually conclude that passive smoking is not an issue. It is not an issue for the healthy nonsmoker andlit is all very well for the Professor to talk about so-called chemicals in cigarettes but I think he has got'to real!ize~that tobacco is a vegetable and like all vegetables it is grown in the soil, and'like a1l" vegetables that aren grown in the soil,, they do absoirb~maCerials from the soil and I am sure if he were to sit down and do:an analysis of a potato or &lima bean, he wouldifind very similar substances. Glantz: That,is just a bunch of garbage. First of all, these workshops the Tobacco Institutes love talking about were in fact sponsored by the cigarette companies because every organized!scientiftc body in the world, including the Vorld HealthiOrganization, the American National Academy of Sciences, the Surgeon General, the Australian Medical Research Council have said that exposure to secondhand smoke is aa health hazard. Dollison: Well, that's not true. Glantz: Now please Mr. Dollilson,, be polite. If you were to take a cigarette and dissolve ilt in alglass of water and drink it, it would kill you. The nicotine,in that, cigaxette,is so toxic, that one cigarette injested by drinki'ng ft, the dissolved water would be poisonous. If you dissolve a potato in &glass of water it simply is not going to kill you. Doilison: What about people who chew tobacco, they do not suffer that problem,. Glantz: No, they get mouth cancer. Do11i!son: Tobacco is a totally biodegradable product. It consists of a natural vegetable that is wrapped in paper which is glued Uogether wilh glucose glue and' consists of' a filter which is a particle of a tree. It is not as.harmful as you suggest. I think you have got to put this whole matter in a perspective. I think it is important, to put this whole matter into perspective without talking about chemicals such as carbon monoxide and all sorts of other things. The most important i~ssue is if those chemicals, if they do exist in cigare:Rite smoke, are they existing,at a toxic level? If they are not existing at a toxic level,, then they are not a problem. We all knov that lima beanss consist of one.of'the substance called hydrogen cyanide which is a very well known suicide drug. But the level at which;they exist in lima PP-2

r beans is:not toxic and it is very much the same with the substance that exists inimost vegRtables.. Gliantz: Mr. Do1ilison, we are not here to discuss;salads. The National; Academy of Sciences, the Australian Medical Research Council andiall of these other groups have not said that eatiing,lima beans killing people. Do1'lison: (Attempts to Interrupt) Commentator: Hold on John Dollisoni. Glantz: Pardon me, now Mr. Doilison,,I'have listened to all of'the jibberish that you have been putting forth, let me talk about what the evidence.is. The United State&Envi'ronmental Protection Agency, thee group the United States is concerned with air polluti'on, has:looked at secondhand smoke, smoke that nonsmokers breathe i'n and they have said that 500 to 5,000 Americans every year are getting lung cancer because they are breathing. Dollison: (Attempts to Interrupt) Commentator: Hold on John Dollison„ let the Professor finish. Glantz: Mr. Dollison, nov I have listened to your discussion of salads now please be polite. Dollisonz That goes both ways. Commentator: Nov Mr. Dollison, let Professor Glantz finish. Glantz: Will you let me finish. What they found that, somewhere between 500 and15,000 people in the United States are,contracting,lung cancer froml breathing in secondhand smoke. When you breathe in someone else's cigarettes, you are breathing,in carbon monoxide, you are breathing in, cyanide, you are breathing in benzine, you are breathing in tol'vene, you are breathiing;i~n a virtual witches brew of poisonous chemicals. Dollison: (Attempts to Interrupt)i Glantz: Mr. Dollison, please. Nov if someone valks into a room and then, lights up a cigarette, people get headachesifromlit. Nov they don't get, headaches from it because of some aesthetics. They get headhches from it because the poisonous chemicals that the cigarette smoke is putting iinto the air is being taken into their bodies and causing a reaction6 If someone.wa1'ked into this room right now,, and we were alll blind-folded, with a lit cigarette, we vould!all know it and we vould' know it because you could smell it, you could taste it, you'distart getting physiological reactions to it. If you valkedioutdoors~and;thee air was that polluted!, you would be outraged. Dollison: (Attempts to interrupt) Glantz: Mr. Doil'iscn, please be polite now. I would like to finish up my thoughti. If you waTked oLtdoors and the air was as polluted as it is indoors when people are smoking,, you would be outraged and all that we PP-3

are saying is that youlwould be correct in being outraged. Because cigarette smoke viewed as air pollution is the most serious form of indoor air pollution that exists and it is a leading source of toxic chemical exposure to most people. Dollison: Now if I can just put that into prospective. Firstly, the EPA' study that was mentioned by Stantonivas not, put, together by the Environmental Protection Authority, but in fact an employee called Mr. Repace. That same stvdy has been removed and pulled avay from by the EPA, it has beenirefnted around the world. The most authoritative source inithis particular area is the United States National Institutss of Health which is no friend to the Tobacco Industry, certainly receives no funds from the Tobacco Industry, andliln 1981, , they brought the vorld"s finest epidemiologists together and they concluded that the effects from passive smoking on the respiratory system suggests that the effect varies from neglegible to quite small. I think we have to put, this whole matter in prospective. In Vienna, i'n Geneva, where International Workshops are being brought together sponsored by the cigarette companies. Glantz: (Attempts to Interrupt) Dollison: Would'you mind not interrupting me for a second...in tihis case and in the case of the Vienna Workshop, Dr. 8iriyama was brought along and Dr. Biriyama agzeed'with the eonclusi!ons of the inner workshop that passive smoking is not a heal'th hazard to healthy nonsmokers. ' Yes, there are annoyance factors involved andlthat is the case with people mowing lawns, with people chewing garliic, but we don't need people coming,out here from the United States suggesting,regulati'ons, suggesting new laws to help try to eliminate smoking. Commentator: Let me just try to wind this up. Can I ask a question of you. Professor Glantz?' Why should'we believe you and your figures and1not those of John Dolli'son's from the Tobacco Institute?. Glantz: Well, because, frankly, he is fabricating them. Inifact, the Environmental Protection Agency''s Cancer Risk Assessment' Panel evaluated the Repace-Lowry study and they have stood behi'nd'it despite of intense pressures from the cigarette companies. He is simply lying, or he doesn't know what he is talking about. The National Institutes of Health have never sponsored a formal meeting or issued any official government findings like the National Academy of Sciences or the Surgeon General on secondhand smoke. There was a meeting,held underr very strange circumstances which was not opened to the public where one of the participants made the statemenR, that Mr. Dollison quotes. Ilt was not, a finding of the United States Federal Government. Commentator: Are you saying there haven't been studies which support what John Dolilison is saying? Glantz: No I am not saying that. There are about 600 studies and there is never total agreement about anything in the scientific community. But vhat I am saying is that here is inifact.... Commentator: Why are you!rigknt and he is wrong?' 4' C PP-4'

0 Glantz: The reason that I am right' and he is wrong is because,you have to stand back and look at all! of the studies,, not just one or two or three, but you have to look at all 600 of them and if'youi do that+ it shows quite clearliy that involuntary exposure~to cigarette smoke is aa healthihazard and in fact, if you go read the~proceedi'ngs~of one of those conferences which the cigarette companies sponsored, which were actually published, it doesn't say what the cigarette company say it says. It says that there is good evidence that ci'garette.smoke is harmful. t,et, me give you one quick example. I was on "Good!Morning, Austral!ia" two days ago and t~he Tobacco Institute provided a, quote attributed to Nigel Gray of the Anti-Cancer Council saying that t~here is no p,roblemiw3th cigarette smoke. Dr. Gray then sent them a telex saying that they were misrepresenting his position (I have it here if you would like me toiread it to you.) asking them to please not do it again. This is typically what they do. They take people out of'f context, they quote selectively, and they are just are basically there trying to confuse the public. Commentator: John Dolilison, why should we beli'eve your figures and not those ofl Professor Glantz? Dollison: Hell fi~rsvly Michael, they are not my figures and I am happy to make available a summary of the three workshops that I refer to anyone of,you readers, to anyone of you~listeners... Glantz: Give them the whole thing, not just the summary. Dollison: They can see and read!andichoose. In the case of the comment~ that was!referred to by Dr. Nigel Gray, it was made on radio 2GB on the John Tingle Show, and that is also available in transcript for anyone who wants to hear it. I think the professor here is taking things out of prospective. He obviously has albarrow to push for the Californian Nonsmokers' Movement. I think what we have got to do is assess the facts and figures on both sides and'put Lhis.whole question into prospective. We need to remember, that when an airplane takes off' at our airport, it generates the equivalent carbon monoxide of 1.3 million cigarettes. I don't see Stanton Glantz out at the airport dlemanding,a carbon monoxide free zone. I don't think he reali'.zes!that for one person to Inhale the equivalent of one ci'ga!rette they have got to sit fn a smoke-filled bar unveualilated for the equivalent of1100 hours. That is the the prospective that this thing needs to be viewed In and we don't need that the American.academics coming out here trying to drum up an issue when an issue really dioesn't' exist. Commentator: I want to wind this up~. Professor Glantz, the final word. Glantz: Well, could'I just read the telex that Nigel Gray sent to Mr.. Dollilson» It says that.... Dollison: Wait a mirnute, I haven't recei'vied' ilt. Gliantz: Well, complain to the telex authoritliles. Commentator: Well, you are going to:get it now. PP -5

G1'ant'z: "On this morning's program,i Gordon Ellilott interviewed Stanton Glantz. Mr. Elliott quoted me in saying that passive;smoking was not.aa problem. There could!be no doubt whatsoever that passive smoking is harmful to heal'th. Passive smoking includes mainstream smoke, sid'estream smoke, andithe exhalied and filieredimainstream!smoke blown out by the smoker. This combination is at least as and probably more toxic than regular cigarette smoke. There can be no douibt that it makes a contribution to cancer, particularly among actlive, but allsoo nonsmokers exposed to cigarette smoke for a long period. The only question remaining,concerns the size and contribution made by passive smoke. The Tobacco Industry's habit of quoting,out-of-date evidence andlout-of-date opinion is not surprising. No one coulid read the literature in 1'984 andl 1i9'85 vithout believing that passive smoking is harmful to humans." Now Mr. Dollison, I would urge that what you dio, if you are really interested in having an hbnes and open debate about this is that you don't just quote out-of-date evidence or put up workshops sponsored by the Industry. I would suggest... Dolilison: (Attempts to Interrupt) Glantz: Mr. Dollison, pi!ease be polit'e....I'11 even give you the last word...just let me f'in:ish my sentence and then you can have the last wordl, as youilike to have. Don'ti give people the summaries of'those workshops that the cigarette companies prepare. Give them the whole transcript. Because if people read them, they will see that your summaries dion't even,represent your own put-up, workshops. If people breathe second hand'smoke, it is hurting them and every nonsmoker in Australia deserves to know that. Commentator: To the extent of'smoking,the cigarette itself? Glantz: Oh no, it is much worse to be a primary smoker than a passive smoker. There is no question about that. But the point is that, if' someone chooses to smoke cigarettes and rot their lungs, that is thei'rr business. But they have not right to rot everyone else's lungs in the process. Dolli'son: Stanton, as I have said, the summary of those workshops are available from, the Tobacco Ins!tiltuUe and if anyone of the listeners would like a copy'of those we are happy to make them available and I noted duly that Michael was talking about some stickers, if' they are in fact interested in stickers and puttl1ng,forth a different prospective, I can contact a freedom movement in Melbourne caliled Forest and I have a new srcicker out called "Don't Give Me the Quits", I think that Uhatt is quite appropriate to the work that Stanton Glantz has been doing for the 1iasU week in Australia. Commentator: O.K. On that note, John Dollison, thank you for joini'ng me this morning,. Dollison: Thank youivery much. Commentator: John Dollison in Sydney for the Tobacco Institute and Professor Stan Glantz, thank you for joining me. 6 PP-6

Y Glantz: Thank you. Commentator: Professor Glantz is from the Department of Medicine at the University of California. 7 PP -7'