Tobacco Documents Online

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .~~ '1995 - . .."~ ., - • . . -i Smister ~ s~noke : 'r ove it : Aldt much has been made of it, but the Congressional Research ~ ! Seivice recently issued the most ; serio.us,challenge yet to the con- ~ ; troversial Environmental Protec- ; ! tionAgency report labeling sec- ondhand tobacco smoke a car- ~ cinogenic killer. It's unfor- ~ tunate the media , haven't done : more with this latest de- velopment in ! the smoking battle be- causethe dispute goes well beyond individual ~ biases concerning tobacco use. The issue of so-called environ- i mental tobacco smoke should be; i considered as much an economic ! issue as a health issue until the + EPA can offer convincing sub- ~ stantiation of its claim that sec- ' ~ ondhand smoke causes thou- ! sands of lung cancer deaths a year among nonsmokers. The Congressional Research Service will render the EPA re- port's port's credibility even more frag- , ile than it already is if its fmd- s ings ever get a widespread public i airing. So far, though, it has I k been largely ignored by everyone i ezCept those with a substantial , ~ economic stake in less govern- ~ metlt intrusion. ~ ! -Onejuch aspect involves the ` ; regedatory response that fol 1- lowed-the EPA report. The Oc- i I cu •pati~pal Safety and Health Ada" u'n"~stration proposed more I ' st~'grentiindoor workplace air - I ` qt~ty standards, based signifi- 1` c~t3,y.on the EPA's claims . A those regulatory initia- e predicted to cost the ssts involved billions of dollar~ critics say the EPA's qiieftibnable methodology fails to,rus~fy imposing this massive ; cost-on society. ,While the congressional re- i se4eh arm doesn't recommend policy,responses as part of its wo k;ifs critique should be a se- rious problem for anti-smoking forces because it's from a govern- meht source perceived as neutral. ; Past criticisms'of the EPA report h2ive.usually been dismissed as work done either directly or indi- rectly under the auspices of the tobacco industry. Tbiaresearch service's most 1 damaging contention is that ;"very few or even no deaths" can ~ be`attributed to secondhand ! smo]E It also faulted OSHA for bEi`a$lOo selective in the studies ~ it iiid in assessing workplace ; risk: If OSHA had taken into ac- : caumnll the studies available, it it couldn't have justified its sals based on increased risk o -lung cancer. Similar criti- ; cisai3'have been made of the : EPA study, which critics say was : rigg.d 'to support the agenda of `anTri~okers. Shfie the Congressional Re- ; seaiclt Service completed its 20= mouth'review and made it pub- : licrqtgariizations as varied as the t.T.S.'Ch.amber of Commerce; the ; National Restaurant Associa- ; tion; and the Bakery, Confec- : tionery and Tobacco Workers i International Union have tried 1 to'geiierate interest in revisiting ' regtilatory initiatives based on whtit they contend are the highly ~ det}CitfLl dangers of passive snoking. . -~n. )Wendell Ford of Ken rsqlcy:has asked OSHA to re- open hearings on proposed ,viirkplace rules involving sec- ondhand smoke. Rep. Scotty ; Baesler. of Kentucky has gone fi:rther• by urging that proposals ; :o~ian smoking in the workplace ; be,~=opped altogether. J'hus.fat however, the move- ment to discredit the EPA report : aniVdefuse the issue has failed to gaiii•any traction. And given to- baoc~~'s.growing role as a pariah in=~iociety, advocates for a fairshearing on this issue proba- bI'y,Rfighting a losing battle. I This also is an economics-driven prospect, because the ultimate ~ i aim bf many is a litigation bo- ~ nanza from health-based dam- age claims against the industry. Jerry Heaster's column ap- pears• Wednesday, Friday, Satur- day,and Sunday. To share a com- ment, call 818/889-7827 and enter 2301. Send e-mail, includ- k ing 'a Ielephone number, to !I _ I