Tobacco Documents Online

ETS IN PERSPECTIVE The claim of increased risk of disease from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has not been scientifically established. Despite the fact that ETS science, considered as a whole, is inconclusive, proponents of smoking bans claim that such extreme measures are required by health considerations. On occasion, the proponents of smoking bans have acknowledged the scientific deficiencies of the "case" against ETS. For example, after having reviewed the pertinent science, and found it to be deficient in a number of important respects, one prominent researcher noted that "it would be unfortunate if potentially irresolvable scientific uncertainties thwarted control. " How should one interpret claims such as those made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the relative risk of lung cancer for non-smokers exposed to ETS is 1.19? What does that suggestion really mean? When asked by reporters about the magnitude of the lung cancer risk that EPA was claiming for ETS, Dr. Morton Lippman -- chairman of the EPA Science Advisory Board panel that reviewed the Agency's ETS report -- described the purported risk as "probably less than you took to get here through Washington traffic. " Another way to put EPA's claimed risk of 1.19 into perspective is to consider some of the other substances and activities that have been linked through epidemiologic studies with risk of disease. A few of the literally thousands of examples that could be given are illustrated on the chart below. As demonstrated by the chart, many common substances and activities have been associated with diseases or health problems of one sort or another using epidemiologic methods. Because of the imprecision of the methodology, most scientists and reviewing bodies, such as the US National Cancer Institute and the WHO, have emphasized that relative risks below 2.0 or 3.0 are generally considered to be weak. Unfortunately, that sensible caution tends to be ignored when the subject is ETS. In fact, the "logic" or "illogic" of the health claims that have been made concerning ETS and lung cancer have some rather curious implications. If those calling for smoking bans based on the claimed relative risk of 1.19 for ETS and lung cancer were required to be consistent, they also would have to be prepared to support a number of other campaigns, including campaigns against • consumption of foods, including pizza, containing olive oil • vasectomies as a means of birth control • acceptance of an office or desk job • consumption of more than one cup of coffee every other day • daily eating of foods utilizing margarine • drinking of chlorinated tap water • use of mouthwash • drinking whole milk • eating yogurt ETS in Perspecti-ve March. 96 Page 1

Fortunately, a number of articles and monographs have begun to appear helping people put into perspective relative risk claims such as those that have been made concerning ETS. Steven Milloy has noted, for example, that -- "[a]s a matter of science, we really don't know whether the statistical associations identified through epidemiology are real or not. After all, we've only identified them through statistics, and statistics are not science. ... In fact, all sorts of wacky associations can be identified 0 0 The points made by Milloy are as pertinent to ETS, of course, as they are to olive oil, milk or yogurt. Indeed, they provide the perspective that the proponents of smoking bans so often ignore. through statistics. " SAMPLE STATISTICAL ASSOCIATIONS Exposure and disease Reported relative risk b size Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer 1.19 Consuming olive oil and breast cancer 1.25 Vasectomy and prostate cancer 1.3 Obesity in women and premature death 1.3 Sedentary job and colon cancer 1.3 3 cups of coffee per week and premature death 1.3 Baldness in men under 55 and heart attack 1.4 Eating margarine everyday and heart disease 1.5 Regular use of mouthwash and mouth cancer 1.5 Abortion and breast cancer 1.5 Eating yogurt and ovarian cancer 2 Drinking whole milk and lung cancer 2.14 Eating red meat and advanced prostate cancer 2.6 Chlorinated drinking water and bladder cancer 2 to 4 Douching and cervical cancer 4 Workplace stress and colorectal cancer 5.5 0 Source: Extracts from sample statistical association chart in "Science r.P. without sense - the risky business of public health research", page by Steve Milloy - 1995 14 ~ , ~ ~ ### 00 E'I S in Perspective March. 96 Page 2 F-41-