Tobacco Documents Online

I I I I Philip Morris Statement on the Congressional Research Service report on "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk" , The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, based on a review of much of the same data examined by the Environmental Protection Agency plus four major , new studies, has concluded that "it is likely that many workers would not be exposed to sufficient ETS to be at increased risk of lung cancer. More extensive workplace exposure data are required before this issue is resolved." (p. 4) ~ This latest report by the CRS raises serious questions about the validity of the EPA's classification of environmental tobacco smoke as a "Group A" carcinogen. ' Consequently, draconian restrictions on smoking currently being considered need to be reconsidered and opportunities encouraged to accommodate the preferences of both smokers and nonsmokers. ' The CRS reviewed both the EPA's 1993 ETS risk assessment as well as a number of more recent studies. The report identified significant weaknesses in the EPA's ' overall methodology and emphasized the lack of consistency in the underlying scientific studies on which the EPA based its evaluation. I I I I I I The new findings call into question the purported scientific basis of the (U.S.) Occupational Safety and Health Administration's proposed rule-making that would effectively ban smoking in the workplace. Again casting doubt as to the applicability of the EPA report as the basis for workplace regulation, the CRS has noted that: '"The EPA made no attempt to assess the lung cancer risk from occupational (i.e. workplace) exposure to ETS, arguing there were too few workplace ETS studies to conduct a meta-analysis, and that it is difficult to obtain dependable assessments of workplace ETS exposure." (p. 59) Instead, the EPA based its conclusions about ETS in the workplace on information on ETS exposures in the home. This new CRS analysis reinforces key testimony by CRS last year to Congress that concluded "the statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking." I