Tobacco Documents Online

0..~,....I~ 'Mammograms ue eHecav., safe and ucurate,' Dr. Franck said. 'By bringing the ~ R mobile tenin= unit to employee work locations, we're ilso making the procedure quick and convenient. We hope that ui women wao are eligible will take advanuge of this oppcetunity' . 0 Wuhinaton. D.C. EXPERTS QUESTION SCIENCE BEHIND HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS Govesrunent regulatory poliry and scientific research on many health and safety questions seem to be bedin= in opposite directions, according to a panel of experts at a Conaumas' Research conference held in Washington D.C. Scientists speaking at the conference included experts in the fields of atmospheric pollution, eevi,ronmennl lnbac:co smoke, pesticides and automotive safery. The common rheme emerging was that official regulations frequently have linls baiis in scientific fact, being driven instead by political/social hcrors. Aeearding to Dr. S. Fred Singer, aa umospheric sciontist and professor u the University of Virginia, 'the tendency not only to misase science but to ignore it is very stron=' in policy decisions concerning global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain. Singer, who served in key scientific posts et the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said computer models thu predict huge inersass in global temperatures 'uv not validated by the actual observations' of the temperature record. He addd that the theory's predictioas 'should not be ralied on for major policy decisions.' Conearnin5 tLs oaane layv. Singer said 'you cannot conclude that there is a downward tread' based on current scientific evidence. He also said policy makers had ignored a SS00 million, l0•yar U.S. government study showing damage from acid rain to be relatively minor, foryiag ahead with stringent regulations. In like fashion, Dr. Gary Huber, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Ctater. said the 'social movement' to ban environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) as an all" hraard to non-smokers is Iarieiy unsupported by scientific data. Hufaa•, a specialist on respiratory diseases and author of numerous studies on the health r'W of smoking, said that of the 30 studies conducted to measure lung cancer ratet from parzive smoking, only six showed any relationship. Of those, the link was in the lowest category of measurable risk. 'No matter how you adjust the dua,' Huba said, 'the risk relationship for ETS and lung tanoa remains very weak.' '1 am a non-smoker,' Huber added, 'and I sometlmsc find the smoke of others annoying. But that is di!lereot from saying it is a health huard to non-smokers.' According to Dr. Lestar Lave, an authority on automobile regulation, attempts to force corparaos awrap 14e1 economy (CAFE) standards m 10 miles per gallon, in the absence of petrolsum price hikes, wouW be 'an absolute disastar.' Lave, professor of seoaomies and en=Gsesrin= at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon University end former senior fellow at the Brookings institutba, said them is an engineering tradeoff between siss and satsry: et any given Iwd of technolofy, a small car will be more thel efftciam but less safe than a latp one. Hs added that increased pricei of new an stemming hom torced technobgy dtanga also cause consumen to keep their old wts loag.r, comributin= to emission and safety problems. If higher CAFE saadatds us mforesd, Lavs said, 'It's not clear that you will decrease fuet consumption; it is clear that consumers won't like what they'rs gecting, there wiU be las sataty and grsaar emissions.' In ths area of food satsty, Dr. Robsrt Scheuplein, head of ths Food and Drug Administration's Office of foxicolofy, noted that despite popular and media coacern about paticide reeidues on Qood, they pose an extnmely, small risk to food consumen. Of the tonl lbod-borne risk for diseas.. Sehouplein said, pesticides and additives fall u the bottom.

• A6 MONDAY, JA.YG;4RY 11. 199J RICHMOND Tl3tES-DlSPATC'H EDITORIAL PAGE EPAs Smokescreen • Last year a blue-ribbon scientific panel warned EPA Administrator tV'illiam Reilly that much of the agency's science was "unsound" because the EPA lacked adequate safeguards to prevent its scientific fmdingrfrom being "adjusted to frt policy-" The EPA's report on passive tobacco smoke - bureaucratically known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - is a case of fudgiag science to fit a politically correct, pre-detennined policy result Since the Iinlc between smoking and lung cancer is well-known, many people naturaAy believe that ETS also must be linked to cancer. But the scientifk evidence does not support that view. Some may dislt7cethe sight and staell of tobacco smoke, but offensive does not necessarily equal hazardous. A recent study by the National Cancer Ltsttute-no tobacco industry lackey - reluctantly concluded there is "no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the warkplace." "no increased risk" from childhood exposure, and no itureased risk among most non-smoking spouses of smoken. Spouses exposed to more thaa 40 pack-yeIIS (f.., a pack per day for a year) of passive smoke showed a statistically iasignifinet 30 percent relative risic of lung pncer. That is less than the risk of miscarriage or cancer associated with drinking ordinary tap water. Epidemiologists generally do not worry about relative risks until they double or triple. In pursuit of greater regulatory authority over indoa air quality, the EPA skewed its assessment of E?S. F'uu, it induded nteer anti-smoiting activiets on its ETS pand. while excluding some scientists who had published research question- ing the risk of ETS. Then the agency started fudging. When it.ves discovered that ETS could not be classified as a arcinogen under loag-}tanding scientific accuracy guidelines, the guidelines .ere changed. Bothezsame data were averaged sway through a questionable statistiol averaging technique - employed by the EPA for the Brst time ora ETS. The National Cancer Institute study simply was ignored altogether. Even with all this fudging, the EPA caoaot explain why its claim that ETS causes as many as 3.gOf1 lungsancer deatbs per yea - which would be a large percentage of lung cancers among non-smokers - is not supported by reol aae histories. Such shoddy science raised eyebrows on Capitol Htll. When Congressman John Dinge3l. a Detroit Democrat known for his taltt-no-p:isoners investigations, challenged EPA officials, they essentially answered that the agency ruedn't be sctentifinlly nreful because the subject is tobaxo The implications of the EPA's ruling go far beyond tobaceo. If it can skew science on ETS and get away with it, then what happens when another substance is deemed Folitieal(q incorze_cf,?

F O v S -G -.C ~