Jump to:

Philip Morris

Ets and Smoking Restrictions Messages and References

Date: 1993 (est.)
Length: 14 pages
2054399542-2054399555
Jump To Images
snapshot_pm 2054399542-2054399555

Fields

Area
MORRIS,BETH/OUTSIDE CUBE
Document File
2054399541/2054399556/E.T.S. Facts
Type
REPT, REPORT, OTHER
Litigation
Stmn/Produced
Named Organization
Alexis De Tocqueville Institution
American Cancer Society
American Journal of Public Health
Cdit
Central Union Swiss Employer Assn
Cnn
Comm on Env + Public Works
Congressional Office of Technology Asses
Congressional Research Services
Env Health Resources
Epa, Environmental Protection Agency
Expert Panel
FDA, Food and Drug Administration
Federal Court
Forbes Media Critic
George C Marshall Inst
Hbi, Healthy Buildings Intl
Health Policy Center
Iarc
Independent Scientific Comm on Smoking O
Inst of Cancer Research
Journal Clinical Epidemiology
Link Inst
Los Angeles Times
Nas, Natl Academy of Sciences
Natl Restaurant Assn
Natl Review
NCI, Natl Cancer Inst
Office of Toxicological Sciences
OSHA, Occupational Safety & Health Administration
Rockefeller Univ
Science Regulatory Services Intl
Subcomm on Clean Air + Nuclear Regulatio
Swedish Assn of Wholesalers
Univ of Amsterdam
Univ Tx Health Center
US Natl Research Council
US Senate
Wa Post
Who, World Health Org
Site
M647
Named Person
Beaglehole
Bonita
Brownson, R.C.
Calle, E.
Dewolff, F.A.
Flamm, G.W.
Fry, J.
Gori, G.B.
Gough, M.
Gravelle, J.
Huber, G.L.
Kjellstrom
Lee, P.
Levois, M.E.
Peto, J.
Robertson, G.
Seitz, F.
Shaw, D.
Sullum, J.
Thornton, A.
Request
Stmn/R1-041
Stmn/R1-042
Stmn/R1-048
Attachment
2054399542/2054399555
Date Loaded
05 Jun 1998
UCSF Legacy ID
fec86e00

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: fec86e00
ETS AND SMOKING RESTRICTIONS Messages and References 1
Page 2: fec86e00
CONTENTS 1. Company postions on the science 2. What others are saying 3. What the public is saying 2
Page 3: fec86e00
COMPANY POSITIONS ON THE SCIENCE On Lung Cancer 0 0 0 0 0 Scientific studies on the possible association between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer in non-smokers are inconclusive. Of the 35 studies that have examined the potential relationship between ETS exposure and lung cancer, 28 reported no overall statistically significant association. ETS is not the same as the "mainstream" smoke inhaled by the smoker. It is highly diluted and chemically distinct. The assumption that all types of tobacco smoke, i.e., mainstream, side-stream and ETS, are the same is not supported by the available scientific data. It is inappropriate to use studies of reported spousal smoking in the home as a justification for banning smoking in the workplace and other public places. Not only are the environments different, but the levels of exposure are most likely different as well. According to the (U.K) Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health, most scientific groups who have scrutinized the published studies on ETS and lung cancer conclude that none of the studies can, on its own, be accepted as unequivocal. On Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) 0 0 0 0 Most studies (8 out of 14) examining the potential relationship between ETS and cardiovascular disease (CVD) do not report an overall statistically significant association. There are over 300 different risk factors that have now been reported for heart disease. Many of the studies on ETS and cardiovascular disease have not controlled for different risk factors that may also be associated with living in a smoking household, such as dietary habits. For example, it has been reported that non-smokers living with smokers tend to have diets that are high in fat and low in fresh fruits and vegetables. 3
Page 4: fec86e00
On ETS and Children • The scientific studies that have been published on parental smoking and childhood respiratory disease have not controlled adequately for potential confounding factors, and, therefore, they have not conclusively shown that ETS, as opposed to other factors, is responsible for respiratory diseases in children. • Other factors, such as socioeconomic status, exposure to infectious agents and indoor air pollutants have all been associated with respiratory illness in children. • A growing number of complaints of childhood respiratory problems are associated with poor indoor air quality in schools and day-care centers where ETS is not a possible factor because smoking usually is not permitted. • At least 25 studies done on ETS and respiratory disease in children report no statistically significant association. On the EPA • The risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1993 is based on flawed science influenced by a political agenda. • Twenty-four of the 30 studies initially reviewed by the EPA reported no overall statistically significant association between marriage to a smoker and lung cancer in non-smokers. • Not one of the 11 U.S. studies selected by the EPA as a basis for its risk assessment reported an overall statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer for non-smoking women married to smokers. • The EPA lowered the confidence level on the 11 U.S. studies from 95 percent -- the standard used originally by the reports' authors -- to 90 percent, doubling the allowance for error, in what appears to be an attempt to justify a claim of statistically significant increased risk. • The EPA failed to include the data from one of the largest and most recent studies on ETS which was funded, in part, by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This study reported no overall statistically significant increased risk from spousal smoking. Had the data from the NCI study been included in the EPA report, it is unlikely that the Agency would have been able to claim any overall statistically significant increased risk. 4
Page 5: fec86e00
In conjunction with other members of the tobacco community, Philip Morris has filed suit against the EPA in federal court. The suit charges that the Agency did no original research of its own, used inappropriate techniques of statistical analysis and failed to include data from relevant studies in its risk assessment. The Court has denied the Agency's motion to dismiss the suit, and the case is proceeding. Practical alternatives and solutions 0 0 The preferences of smokers and non-smokers alike can be accommodated. Simple separation of smokers and non-smokers is most likely sufficient to minimize the exposure of non-smokers who claim to be annoyed by tobacco smoke. Studies have indicated that a non-smoker would have to spend hundreds of hours in the non-smoking section of a restaurant to be exposed to the nicotine equivalent of one cigarette. Poor indoor air quality can most often be traced to an inadequate or poorly maintained heating ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Banning smoking is often a cosmetic solution. It may remove tobacco smoke from the scene, but it does nothing to address the unseen pollutants that can be the actual cause of the problem. 5
Page 6: fec86e00
WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING On the EPA Risk Assessment: "In its report on ETS, the EPA did not comply with accepted principles of toxicology, chemistry and epidemiology, nor with its own guidelines for undertaking cancer risk assessment. In fact, the conclusions drawn by the EPA are not even supported by the EPA's own statements." Dr. Gary L. Huber, et. al. Professor of Medicine at University of Texas Health Center "Smoke and Mirrors: The EPA's Flawed Study of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer" in Regulation. The Cato Review of Business & Government, 1993 Number 3, p. 45 "Our assessment of the existing evidence on passive smoking was made as a basis for drawing conclusions about the efficiency justifications for an increase in the cigarette tax. Based on that evidence, as indicated in this testimony, our evaluation was that the statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking." Dr. Jane Gravelle, et. al. Senior specialist in Economic Policy, Congressional Research Services, in testimony before The Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate May 11, 1994 "[T]he totality of data on ETS and lung cancer does not support the claim made in the draft EPA report that ETS is responsible for an increased incidence of lung cancer in the United States... There is no scientifically valid basis for conducting a risk assessment on ETS or classifying ETS as a known carcinogen or even probable human carcinogen." Dr. W. Gary Flamm Science Regulatory Services International Former Director of the Office of Toxicological Sciences The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 6 -~
Page 7: fec86e00
"Since probable effects of bias and confounding have not been adequately accounted for in the spousal smoking-lung cancer epidemiologic studies, the EPA's conclusion that these studies support a causal inference is not justified. The aggregated workplace data indicate no ETS-lung cancer risk evaluation, further undermining both a causal inference based on spousal smoking studies and the EPA's conclusion that ETS is a Group A carcinogen. The ETS-lung cancer epidemologic data provide no scientific basis for government regulation of smoking in the workplace." LeVois, M.E. et al. Environmental Health Resources, Tiburon, California "Inconsistency between Workplace and Spousal Studies of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer" Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 19:309-316 (1994) "Among other unjustifiable gambits, this EPA report stands out for its unorthodox insistence on one-tailed statistics and 90% confidence intervals, for arbitrary and unproven adjustment procedures, and for its selective use of epidemiologic evidence." Gori, G.B. The Health Policy Center, Bathesda, MD "Science, Policy, and Ethics: The Case of Environmental Tobacco Smoke" Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 47 (4):325-334 (1994) "The reader of the EPA report gets the uneasy feeling that a certain selectivity cannot be excluded.... this is a dangerous development against which the scientific community must actively defend itself." Dr. F.A. de Wolff Faculty of Medicine, University of Amsterdam Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde March 5, 1994 "Despite serious questions about the report's assertion that ETS causes lung cancer and the process by which the EPA reached that conclusion, leading U.S. newspapers have treated this assertion as scientific fact. In so doing, not only have they exaggerated what is known about the effects of ETS, but they have missed an important story about the corruption of science by the political crusade against smoking." Jacob Sullum Forbes MediaCritic Summer 1994 ~ G ~ ~ w ~ co ~ ~ 7 ~
Page 8: fec86e00
"[A] closer look [at the EPA ETS risk assessment] shows that the EPA manipulated data and finessed important points to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. The agency compromised science to support the political crusade against smoking." National Review May 16, 1994 "Critics in science, medicine and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service say the EPA ignored contrary studies, used unreliable methodology, failed to consider such 'confounding factors' as diet, health care, poverty, heredity and consumption of alcohol and caffeine and changed its statistical standards midstream to produce the politically desired result." David Shaw "Living Scared: Why Do the Media Make Life Seem So Risky?" Los Anaeles Times September 11, 1994 "The EPA is attempting to prove that serious medical risks are created by even casual exposure to secondhand smoke. In its effort to do so, the EPA has manipulated selected portions of the existing literature until it produced the desired result." Science. Economics and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination A Research Report by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution August 11, 1994 "I am adamantly opposed to smoking; I completely agree about the magnitude of this health threat for people who smoke. But I think that the EPA played very fast and loose with its own rules in order to come to the conclusion that (secondhand) smoke is a carcinogen." Michael Gough, Senior Associate Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, quoted in "Living Scared: Why Do the Media Make Life Seem So Risky?" Los Anaeles Times September 11, 1994 8 ,~. ~
Page 9: fec86e00
On the EPA in General: "EPA has not clearly conveyed to those outside or even inside the Agency its desire and commitment to make high-quality science a priority." Saf.e ,ar ing the Future: Credible Science. Credible Decisions, The Report of the (internal) Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA March 1992 "The science advice function -- that is, the process of ensuring that policy decisions are informed by a clear understanding of the relevant science -- is not well defined or coherently organized within EPA." Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science Credible Decisions, The Report of the (internal) Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA March 1992 "In many cases, appropriate science advice and information is not considered early or often enough in the decisionmaking process." feauar in he Futur edible r ience-yr edible D i I n The Report of the (internal) Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA March 1992 On ETS : "[I]n general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace." Dr. Ross C. Brownson American Journal of Public Health "There is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation is truly dangerous under normal circumstances." Dr. Frederick Seitz President Emeritus of Rockefeller University Past President of the National Academy of Sciences "Global Warming and Ozone Hole Controversies: A Challenge to Scientific Judgment" George C. Marshall Institute April 1994 9
Page 10: fec86e00
On Weak Association: "Epidemiological studies in general are probably not able, realistically, to identify with any confidence any relative risks lower than 1.3 (that is a 30 percent increase in risk.) In that context, the 1.5 is modest elevation compared to some other risk factors that we know cause disease." Dr. Eugenia Calle Director of Analytic Epidemiology American Cancer Society Washinaton Post October 27, 1994 "A strong association between possible cause and effect, as measured by the size of the risk ratio, is more likely to be causal than is a weak association, which could be influenced by confounding or bias. Relative risks greater than 2 can be considered strong." Beaglehole, Bonita and Kjellstrom Basic Epidemiology World Health Organization Geneva, 1993 "Until the 1980s, epidemiologists were concerned mainly with relative risks that exceeded about 1.5 and were often much higher. Many controversies now centre on much lower risks, a notable example being the effect of 'passive smoking' on lung cancer risk. The pooled data show a statistically significant effect, and all studies are consistent with a relative risk of about 1.3 (US National Research Council, 1986). In view of the many difficulties discussed above, however, it can plausibly be argued that such small effects are beyond the limits of reliable epidemiological inference (particularly for lung cancer, in which the major cause produces large relative risks), as smoking habits may be inaccurately recorded and are correlated with many other social and occupational factors, including the smoking habits of spouses. A number of spurious associations with relative risks for lung cancer of this order might thus be found in a large enough sample." (emphasis added) Julian Peto, Institute of Cancer Research, U.K. "Meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of carcinogenesis," Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis in Risk Identification, IARC, 1992, p. 573. 10

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: