Tobacco Documents Online

I I November 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -ST?NATE I I r EPNCSI•IA FTNT3INCS ON PASSIVE SMOKING Mr. rO12D. Mr. Pr4atdurtc. r.lre Curn- aresslonal Research Service (CRSI re- leased a long awaited report today that calls Into question the validir.v of claims thart passiver srnoking presents a risk to rtnnsrnnkrArs, It also highlights questions on the valldity of rho science behind the Gnv(rommants,l Proeoctinrt Agency's (EPAJ and subsequently the Qccupacional Safety and Healr.h Ad- mrniscration (OSHA( findtngy on the ef- frir.rs of secondhand smoke, In 1903, tthe EPA c'oleaved a report classifyulg pas- sive smoke a "class A carcinogen." This EPA report hns been the basia for numerous actions taken to limic smok- InQ ln public places with the most dra- matie example heing rho OSHA pro- posed smoking ban in all workpiaces across thcr United States. Howevet•. this CRS report, indieatos well placai skepttcism on the m.thoda used by OSHA to justify the noL~d for such draconian and invasive policies as rho one aspouscad by this agency. CId5 also questions trio very narm ot seconct hand smoke. Ic found fault with the EPA's promise that there is no safe lwvnl nP a,cpnr:nrn r.n ra.civa cmnkn. And the conciustins that OSHA drew froin a limited nurttbar of studies, a practice which clearly undQreuts the validity of chu OSI-IA 1'indlrtgs. The report released today is but the latest in a series by different high level specialists at. C'RS. F.vrry report. has led to rho same conclusion. There is no scientific Justification for srnoking bans or cie facto bans like the one is- .ur.,l by OSHA -wrtiv tnurrUra ngu. Irr previous rAporrs CRS sT.9red unuauivo- cally chac, "the epiderninloRical evi- denco for Ira~r iv~~-~rnnkirtg-rulatud dis- ease Is weak." It has follnwud rhis statemenc up with today's reFxut which represents a cornprehensive look at this rrubjara rls wr`Il ns .ln examina- tion of purpnr-.:d risks for huart dis- easc,. While many aKenda driven t'esearch ers have picked and clursen front only the studies that suppnrr. their vtr.ws. CRS; an agency whir.h is unquestioned In !tr objactlvicy. har.. J.,rrnij u lr:rrrchy 20 rnonth revir:w, rigorously examined all of the data on chis concrovorsial topic, Its cuncluxion Is t.hat the OSHA risk assessment as staced in its pro- posed rule is incorrect. White CRS is prohibited under its rules frorn issuing cpecific policy rul:nrnmHndatinrr+m rhr+ evidence of the study Is clear and bears ropea.cing! Tlrere is no ycirentific jus- tification for the current regulatory action being snu ht by OStiA. The CI2S stuTy calls Into question the very underpinnings that form the basis of Environrnental l'rrotuction Agency (GPA( and OSHA claims re garding the dangrrs ol' second hand smoke. E-PA has claimed since the re- lcaac of its much criticizod rwpurt bnc[c in January 1993, that chere is rro safu level oC expoeure r.n ETS. HowHver, CRS directly refutes Cttis axtertion. 1~'urthersnore. it linds that r.he only reasonable chanco of risk c:onies in ex- crurne situations and crvt:rr in r.hosu care-; r.h.• findingv arN ttncPrr xin 'trtri +n need of further research. Thls, ln my view, is the +c:ienr,ific e.Rrtivatenc of the townspeople screaming out "The -.m• pernr has no <-lor.hes." Trt light of the seriousness of the find- ings of this study and clte reputation of the orqaniztltion that is so questioning OSHA actions. I am calling on i7SHA to reopen its hearings on the proposed rule and to re-evaluate the ,justifica- tion for the rule in the first plaae. I re- spectfully suijgest to my colleagues that this historic study underrnines the pr.miee for all government coercud smoking bans. I I I I I I I I I I I I I