Tobacco Documents Online

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WENOELL H. FORO cINTUdcY WASHINGTON. DC 20510-1701 Dear Joe: November 14, 1995 to...~~r.EtE; CCMMtHCB. SCIENCZ. AND TRANSPCRTAT CN fiNERGY AND vATURAL RESnI iRr.E$ HULES AND AOMINtSTRA[ICN Attached is the most recent Congressiondl Resenrch scrvice (CRS) Report on the plausibility of health risks stemming from e:cposure to what is commonly referred to as "Passive Smoke, Second riar-d Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) ." Tftis -,s the latest irn a series of reports by several different high level specialists at CRS which have all led to the :zame conclusion: t:-`ere is no scientific justification for smoking bans or defacto banc like the proposed rule issued by your agency some mor,ths ago. This report is titled Environmeztal Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk, and it represents a comprehensive look at this subjecrt as well as an examination of purported risks for i:ear~ d=sease. While many agenda driven researchers have picked und chosen from cnly the studies that support their v:,ews, CRS, an agency whic`^ is unquestioned in its objPctivity, has, dur:.ng a lengthy 20 month review, rigorously examined all of the data on this controversial topic. lts conclusion is that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) risk assessment as stated in its proposed rule is inco_rrect. While CRS is prohibited under its rules from issuinq specific noiicy recommendations, the evidence of the study is clear and is wortr: restating: there is no scientific justification for the current regul.atory action being sought by oSK.A. The CRS study calls into question the very underpinnings z:hat form the basis of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and OSHA claims regarding the dangers of second hand smoke. EPA has claimed since the release of its much criticized raport back in January of 1993, that there is no safe level of exposure to ETS. However, CRS directly refutes this assertion. Furthermore, it finds that s ituations .Ln need of equivalent c1othes." the only reasonable chance of risk comes in extreme and even in those cases the findings are uncertain and further research. This, in my view, is the scientific of the townspeople screaming out "The emperor has no D1aTnier efclcES: ~I 30b FEOen.~ 9uipD~~~ C ~dU.3.o•»TO••ec.-•.aCu~.+sro••+• ~ .1.. ]U WeLLEn AVtNV! ~ 1R7Z NEN Fnof~« duu,puq O'wENiu•1nU ICr dZ7O CUw+OTt7N, V 410 1 L{YIN<iTnN. RY 40504 Lou-fvK,a, tY 4.0201 ISOh RHGi-575tl ;60M CO1-791a l!SCl) 683-1261

I Jcseph A. Dear November 14, 1995 Page 2 In light of the seriousness of the findings of this study and the reputation of the organization t.har_ is so questioning OSHA actions, I am calling on you to publicly call for a reopening of your hearings on the proposed OSHA rule. I would be most interested in your views on this histori(: sU:Ldy and its implications for all government coerced smoking bans. Sincerely, J<oseoh A. Dear Amsistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Department of Labor 200 CornetAtution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210 En-losure cc: Leon E. Panetta, Chief of Staff . Robert S. Reich, Secretary of Labor I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I