Tobacco Documents Online

i . United Srates of America Vol. 119 . _ ~njrcsMonat PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 9?,d CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1973 No. 22 Senate I intend to throw light on their dark THE CIGARETTE CONTROVERSY Mr. COOS. Mr. President, the war against tobacco has been as protracted as was the fighting in Vietnam. Both have beeii waged for more than a decade. Both have gone on far too long. Both are harder to end than they were to begin. Both were probably avoidable, at least on the basis of hindsight. And both have demonstrated at great cost that there must be a better way to resolve differences. Hopefully, the combat in Southeast Asia Ha.4-been brought to an end. But sadly, no cease-fire, no armistice, no peace, no light at the end of the tunnel is in sight for the conflict that rages around smoking. Mr. President, I come from a State that produces more burley tobacco than any other State in the United States. Once again, as In the past. January has brought with it the opening of the an- nual winter offensive against 50 million adult Americans who choose to smoke cigarettes. Once again, as in the past, the campaign has been preceded by a massive bombardment of charges that masquerade as "overwhelming scientific evidence." The campaign against smoking looks like science; It Is packaged like science; it is promoted as science. But it sure Is not science. It is a whole 'nother smoke- screen. It is, in fact, a dangerously deceptive exercise In behavioral modification through manipulating and controlling the information on which decisions are based. Mr. President, I refer to the recent re- port to Congress from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on the health consequences of smoking, the seventh in a series of documents required by law to inform Congress on the cur- rent state of scientific knowledge in this area. In former years, these reports were named after the Surgeon General. This year, the gentleman was among a rather large group whose resignations were ac- cepted by the President, which met with my blessings. Since he had departed be- fore the christening, the only high HEW official who could be mustered to give the creature some sort of official send- off was Dr. Merlin S. Duval. Assistant Secretary for Health. He signed the pref- ace 2 days before he resigned. And Sec- retary Richardson, preoccupied with his passage across the Potomac to the Pen- tagon, perfunctorily signed the trans- mittal letter. Once again, as in the past, no one in charge at HEW had taken the time to read the contents. Presidents come and go. So do Cabinet secretaries. But the HEW staff stays on-secure in its ano- nymity-and continues to turn out its antismoking reports. These old and prac- ticed hands continue to promote their report to Congress, the medical com- munity, and to the press as objective and complete scientific evidence, when, in fact, a more accurate label would be a one-sided propaganda tract. And once again, as in the past, they have managed to carry off the same old false, misleading, and deceptive practice. The FTC demands that business sub- stantiate its advertising claims, but raises no complaint against false, mis- leading, or deceptive practices of Govern- ment officials. "Women Smokers Warned of Fetal and Infant Risks," said the New York Times headline, as if receiving the news from the Almighty, or Walter Cronkite. "United States Links Smoking to Infant Deaths; " was the Washington Star head- line, as if they were reporting some kind of national referendum. And that is the way it went across the country from front page to front page, from tube to tube. Mr. President, I do not blame the headline writers, the newspaper report- ers, or the television commentators. They lack the time to check details or to look behind the handouts. After all, why should they mistrust their Government on health matters? Perhaps they will in the future bring to health and science issues the same questioning attitude that they manifest in other areas of Govern- ment operations, such as the conduct of war and foreign affairs. For to extend the analogy between Vietnam and tobacco, I believe it is per- fectly proper to question the source of information given out about smoking and health. As an expert pointed out In a masterpiece on military strategy: A great part of th. infoemation in war is contradictorJ, a still greater part Is faU.,, and by far the greate.t part Is subject to consid- erable uncertaiaty. In the cigarette controversy, it is also true that Congress, the press, the public, and even the White House, operate under a serious Information disa4vantage. They are all' dependent on information col- lected and controlled by entrenched Fed- eral bureaucrats who operate anony- mously in the dark nooks and crannies of the Federal Establishment. terrain, to turn over the rocks that shel- ter them, and to let everyone see just what and who emerges. Title 42, section 241 of the United States Code establishes the "general powers and duties" of the Public Health Service. That section reads in part: Promote the coordination of, research, in- vestigation, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control and prevention of physical and mental diseases and impairments of man... Certainly, such a broad and general function would include the coordination of all activities relating to diseases, and not just those activities which tend to support the theories of certain individ- uals. To the contrary, unfortunately, the activities of Dr. Daniel Horn and his staff have failed to disclose any unbiased, scientific research. Horn and company were set up by Surgeon General Luther Terry, who leaped into prominence with the 1964 report on smoking and health. By 1967, he had established his clearing- house in the Public Health Service with staff, funds, and mission. From the start, Dr. Horn's mission has been, on the one hand, to reduce the number of cigarette smokers and, on the other, to serve as a central source of scientific information on smoking and health. And be responsible for HEW to Congress on this subject. To his credit, our last Surgeon General, Dr. Steinfleld, agreed that these functions should be separated, because criticism of the ap- parent conflict was an "excellent point " I digress slightly at this point to say that Dr. Steinfleld was the gentleman, apparently on the advice of Dr. Horn, who said in Chicago at one time that you should not worry about some of these things, that marihuana probably was not any worse than cigarette smoking be- cause five or six former Presidents had smoked marihuana quite a bit during their lifetime. Incredibly, the first revelation is the shocking fact that the same individual who is charged with collecting and dis- tributing all available material on the subject of smoking and health and report it to the Congress is the very same per- son who is responsible for conducting the Government's anti-smoking activities. That is rather strange. One and the same individual is iudge, iury, prosecuting at- torney, and chief investigator. This state of affairs has persisted since 1966. The fox guarding the chicken house Is Daniel Horn, Ph. D., a psychologist who came to Government in 1963 from the American Cancer Society, an orga- `--- •~ CT oo~i;os I TIMN 0078400 /

, , « r nization which is frankly and honestly dedicated to the elimination of cigarette smoking in the United States. So let us give credit where it is due. The proper name is not the Surgeon Gen- eral's report, but Is the "Horn Report " and that is what I shall call it during the remainder of my remarks. Make no mistake, I am not critical of Dr. Horn's role as a zealous anti-smoking crusader, as an advocate of zero-level consumption of cigarettes, or a skilled propagandist, as an qFpert in the psy- chology of behavior modification. I just do not believe, and one may agree, that such a commitment to a cause can work for fairness, objectivity, or equity. I just do not expect the prosecutor to be sitting on the judge's bench and in the jury box, and then, call the result a fair trial. This is the crux of the issue. However, as a Senator I am also con- cerned by the excesses of Dr. Horn's zeal especially when I read in the Washing- ton Star: The Nixon administratlon's anti-smoking expert says there is enough evidence that smoking Is so harmful to pregnant women that the federal government is beginning a national crusade to "give babies a fair chance." The United Press International reports Dr. Horn "the chief statistical crusader against smoking" as saying: A rapidly increasing proportion of the United States population favors an absolute prohibition on the sale of cigarettes. You, too, may share my concern when the National Tatler, a sensational weekly, reports that "he's out to wipe non-fil- tered cigarettes off the face of the Na- tion," and that- His otilce, a subdivision of HEW, will have to go to Congress to get a law forcing the tobacco industry to conform to the low-haz- ard smokes. Interestingly, this story ran 2 months after my distinguished colleague Senator Moss held hearings on his bill to limit and progressively lower the tar and nico- tine content of cigarettes. True to form, Dr. Horn favored a rapid reduction to the zero level. By strange coincidence, one day after the 1973 Horn report hit the front pages, Senator Moss was announc- ing a new bill to lower tar content of cigarettes through repressive taxation. You may become alarmed by Dr. Horn's back-of-the-hand attitude to- ward such a basic American concept as freedom of choice, especially as it applies to smoking: I think you can develop a holier-tban-thou attitude in this area by saying that people have a freedom of choice and that we should provide them with the information and let them choose. You may even grow agitated to dis- cover that he Is planning to conquer new worlds. "Everything we learn about how to deal with the smoking problem" he has said, "wili serve in dealing with other problems in the control of gratification behavior." What does he have In mind: Eating? Drinking? Birth control? Sex education? I certainly hope Casper Weinberger gets better acquainted with his adminis-, tration's No. 1 smoke fighter than Elliot Richardson did. But, Mr. President, what really and truly coincerns me-and should concern every fairminded Senator regardless of where he stands on the cigarette issue- is the amazing fact that Dr. Horn is not concerned. He sees absolutely no conflict of interest, no inconsistency, no funda- mental unfairness in his dual function in being a zealous inquisitor and unbiased evaluator. He does not admit the slight- est doubt about his ability to prepare un- biased,objective reports on smoking and health to the Congress. Mr. President, his reasoning is unten- able, his attitude is unconscionable, and his confiict of interest is unacceptable. It is time for all fairminded people- inside and outside the Government, and especially in the press-to become aware of and concerned about how scientific literature is handled in the Horn reports on smoking and health. There is testimony before Congress that these reports are one-sided and biased. There is evidence that they are not based on all the world literature on the subject. There is ground to believe that Dr. Horn and his staff ignore, mis- interpret, or downplay scientific articles that report findings that do not support the anti-smoking party line. The result Is a double deception. We do not know that we do not know. We are sold a half loaf which is advertised as a whole loaf. You cannot sell bread that way and, I submit, you should not be able to sell science that way either. Let me give a few examples of how Dr. Horn operates. Last year he prepared a chapter for the report entitled "Pubiic Exposure to Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke." The very words are an attempt to divert at- tention away from the real sources of air pollution. The overall effect was calculated to raise the fear that nonsmokers were being harmed by their smoking neigh- bors. We were led to believe that the chapter contained "positive" evidence of harm to nonsmokers in confined places such as airplanes. And It was successful. The now departed Surgeon General raised the battle cry: "Ban smoking in public places." We, therefore, see the speptacle of HEW enforcing segregation on its own employees who smoke. Rule- making procedures to ban or segregate smoking were started to enforce the policy on air and train travei. Even the presiding Chief Justice invoked the find- ings of the Horn report in a personal confrontation with a railroad oonductor, and later in a letter to the Secretary of Transportation. He accomplished more than half the Members of Congress could accomplish. Mayor Lindsay acted swiftly to ban smoking on the decks of the Staten Island ferry, regardless of the pollution in the air above or the water below. Now this Is something that I know about. Let me tell you the results of a joint study performed by the FAA-HEW which actually studied and measured the air in passenger aircraft. This study was started in 1969 and completed in 1970. The principal finding of the study was that smoking in passenger aircraft did not represent a hazard to the nonsmok- ing passengers. This negative finding was reported by, of all people, columnist Jack Anderson on December 20, 1970. But, it was not 2 even mentioned by Dr. Horn in his 1972 report. It was completely ignored. I had the opportunity to ask Dr. Horn about this failure during his appearance be- fore the Consumer Subcommittee last February. Dr. Horn's excuse was that the FAA-HEW study was "unavailable" to him until almost a year after the columnist had reported on it. Dr. Horn said that when he did receive the report, it was too late to include it in his chap- ter. Dr. Horn assured me that the find- ings of this Government-sponsored re- search project would be in this year's report. However, the 1973 Horn report has completely avoided the subject of "Air pollution caused by tobacco smoking." Instead, Dr. Horn buried the "unfavor- able" FAA-HEW study with a brief cita- tion in a chapter entitled "Non-neo- plastic Bronchopulmonary Diseases." True to his. technique, while he men- tioned the study, Dr. Horn refused to make public its basic finding that ciga- rette smoke does not harm nonsmokers. Why should Jack Anderson be a more reliable reporter of Government-spon- sored scientific research than Dr. Horn? Why has Dr. Horn dropped this whole matter of putilic smoking from this year's report? Could it be, as I am informed, that certain new and highly regarded research has demonstrated that the fears raised by Dr. Horn are not supportable? My concern about Dr. Horn is height- ened by other examples of his suppres- sion or omission of evidence that goes against him. During the same consumer subcommittee hearings last February, the chairman asked two witnesses before us for a list of scientific articles which were published in the last 10 years and which had not been considered and dis- cussed in the several reports on smoking and health. This list of omission was sub- mitted and made part of the record. Would you believe that the total came to approximately 2,000 articles which were neither cited nor discussed by Dr. Horn and his staff? Mr. President, although quantity does not always imply quality, the very size of this list, especially those of recent date, gives some inkling of the wide di- versity of views among scientists about the causes of various diseases linked to smoking. If nothing else, the magnitude of the omissions, strongly suggest an in- vestigation by the Senate of Dr. Daniel Horn's peculiar modus operandi. Another example of how the Horn report distorts the evidence is seen in the handling of the health effect of smoking during pregnancy. In last year's Horn report, and again In this year's, the meticulous work of Dr. Jacob Yer- ushalmy was studiously brushed off, even though it was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Health. The reason, I believe, is that Dr. Yerushalmy concluded that the findings "raise doubt and argue against" the proposition that cigarette smoking harms the unborn. On the contrary, he said, "evidence ap- pears to support the hypothesis that the higher incidence of low-birth-weight in- f'Ma^nts is due to the smoker, not the smok- ~•p TIMN 0078401 ~0 0,1 3 0 6

0 I ask unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD a copy of Dr. Yerushalmy's correspondence regarding the criticism of his work by Horn and company. This letter should have been in the record of the February 1972 hearings of the Con- sulner Subcommittee but, although given to the staff for this purpose, for some reason it was omitted, as so often hap- pens with evidence that goes against the antismoking view. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: F€BSVAaT 9, 1972. Prof. JACOD Y£RIISRALMY, Professor of Biostatistics School of Public Health, Urtiuers{ty of California, Berkeley, Calif. DaAa Paorzssoa YaevsnALMT: During the hearings on 8. 1454, a bill to require man- datory levels of "tar" and nicotine content of cigarettes, there was a reference to your studies on smoking and pregnancy. Doctor Daniel Horn stated that your studies had been, "criticized" and he was asked to supply copies of the "criticisms" for our record. I have been much impressed by your studies and would appreciate your providing any observations you may have, also for our record. We would be particularly interested in your views on the statements made con- cerning your work in the 1972 Report to Congress, as expressed in Chapter 5, and your views as to whether the 1971 and 1972 Reports fairly cover the pertinent litera- ture on smoking and pregnancy. Your recent article in the American Jour- nal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, January 15, 1972, is extremely interesting. Any com- ment you might have with respect to this uticle and what it adds to our understand- ng of the subject would be greatly appre- ciated. I do not believe it was mentioned either ln the 1972 Report, or by Doctor Hora when he appeared before our Committee, and wondered If he had received a copy. Our record will remain open for approxi- mately 30 days and I hope you will be able to respond to my inquiries within that time. I am sure that the Commitee will welcome any light that you can shed to help guide its deliberations. Sincerely yours. MASLOw W. Coos:, U.S. Senator. *TN1v€asrrT or CALaoaxrA, Baaxx- LST, Berkeley, Calif., February 23,1972. Senator MASLOw W. Coos„ U.S. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Wash- ington, D.C. Dr.Aa SLNATOa COOS: This is In response to your lettersof February 9 inviting me to comment on the criticisms of my studies on cigarette smoking and pregnancy contained in the 1971 and 1972 Public Health Service Reports to Congress. Since the reports singled out my studies for criticism. I am glad to comply with your request. Although most of the arguments in the reports hardly call for extensive rebuttal. I will comment on each point In the order in which it appears in the reports. The 1971 report raises the following objec- tions: (a) Criticism: "He referred to the small Lnfants of smok- ing mothers aa being 'apparently healthier' than those infants weighing less than 2500 grams who were born to nonsmoking moth- ers ... but neither group can be considered 'healthy' having sharply elevated death rates." (P-404) Comment: I did not state that low birthweight babies of smokers were "healthy". I said thst they were "healthier" than low birthweigh bnbies of non-smoking mothers. No one can argue with this statement, for low blrthweight in- fants of smokers who died at a rate of 138 per 1,000-while certainly not healthy-are nevertheless much healthier than low birth- weight infants of non-smokers who died at a rate of 232 per 1,000. (b) Criticism: That the excess of neonatal mortality for smoking mothers in my study "is not slg- niflcantly different from the 31 % excess mortality reported by Butler et ai which is statistically significant". (P-404) Comment: I suppose the least said about this strange argument the better. Who ever heard of using findings from one study (and a retrospective one at that) as a standard by which to meas- ure another one. In any casa, even this weak argument Ss lost completely in view of my 1971 study which shows almost identical neonatal mortality rates for infants of smok- ers and non-smokers. (11.3 vs. 11.0) (c) Critictsm: "That the interpretation of the neonatal mortality among the infants weighing less than 2500 grams ts dimcult, because I con- sidered only live births . . ." (P-404) Comment: If the authors of the report would have consulted any obstetriciam, they would have found that in testing for relationships with birthweight (which after all is the major topic under discussion) one must limit cort- sideration to live births, because birthweight of stillbirths are of questionable value sinca a number of them remain dead In utero foe varying periods of time and their birth- weights are reduced, not to mention the rel- atively large number of macerated fetuses. In any case, since our 1964 paper, Dr. W. 1! Taylor analyzed the fetal deaths in our study and found • no difference between smokers and non-smokers from the very beginning of pregnancy (abortions) and throughout the pregnancy (stillbirths). In fact the 1972 report quotes Taylor's findings (P-129). In- cidentaily, Taylor analyzed our fetal death data correctly by the use of the life table method. None of the other studies which show increases in abortion rates used this method. In fact, the one study on which the supplement leans heavily in their at- tempt to justify their statement that "wom- en who smoke during pregnancy have a significantly greater risk of unsuccessful pregnancy than those who do not"-that of Russell, et al-lumps abortions, stilIbirths and neonatal deaths in one almost meaning- less index. The 1972 report states the following criticisms: (d) Criticism: "That some of (my) findings are different from those reported in other recent large- soale prospective studies (5, 13, 17, 19), and some of the differences may be a consequence of the definition of 'smokeY used." (P-129) Comment: Again, a strange statement: "other recent large-scale prospective studies". These are as follows: Butler et ai study (5) which is not a prospective but a retrospective study. The reports refer to this study several times as a "prospective" study (Pages 390 and 415 and in the table on Page 395 of the 1971 repOrt and Page 129 of the 1972 report ), and yet they state and quote from the study that "the smoking history was obtained shortly after delivery of the infant" which obviously shows that it was a retrospective study. (One may question the propriety of a government- al publication to make such a serious mis- statement In a report to the Congress). The other three studies are based on 6,376; 4,312; and 2,200 respectively (gullander and Sa1len (13): Palmgren and Wallsade (17), and Russell et al (19)). It would therefore be more correct to say that the findings from these studies are different from the really 3 large-scale prospective studies: Underwood's based on 48.000. Ratakallio's on 12,000 and Yem„at.,.y's on 13,000 pregnancies. Moreover, In my 1972 paper I reviewed the entire literature consisting of 33 studies. I marked the discussion on Pages 277-278 in the enclosed paper. I have no doubt that any unbiased critical review of all the evi- dence must come to the same conclusion that I have underscored on the bottom of Page 278 and top of Page 279. As to their speculation on the effect of the definition of "smoker;" I wonder why they overlooked my extensive discussion of the problem In my 1964 paper. See table on Page 517 and the discussion of it beginning with the last paragraph on Page 515 to top of right hand column of Page 516. I wonder also why the reports did not raise the same ques- tion of definition when they discussed the study of Russell et al which they quoted so extensively to show the excess of unsuc- cessful pregnancies among smokers. Rus- sell's definition was stated as follows: -'The smoking habits of women are recorded at the tim,e they are chosen for the survey." In any case, to keep the record straight, women were defined as "smokers" in our studies if they smoked throughout the pregnancy. (e) Crtttcism: They quote a comment from McMahon et al that there are factors that effect birth weight without Influencing mortality. The example cited by McMahon is that of the sex of the infant. (Page 130) Comment: It is Interesting that they found it neces- sary to dig up an old paper (1965) which comments on my 1964 paper, especially since I commented in that paper as follows: "Al- ways present 1s the possibility that smoking during pregnancy indeed causes a reduction ia the size of the Infant without any increase in neonatal mortality." The example of the sex of the infants which McMahon uses flts well with my con- tention in the 1971 and 1972 papers that the effect of smoking appears to be much like that of a biologic variable. I show that the differences in reproductive performance of smokers and non-smokera are very much like those of the biologic characteristics of short and tall women. Sex of the infant ob- viously Is aiso a biologic and not an exoge- nous variable. Thus McMahon's comment strengthens rather than weakens my con- tentioa. You asked me also to comment on what I think my recent article (January, 1972) adds to the problem of smoking and health. Pri- marily it is a contribution to the question of causation. As you know, our knowledge on casual factors !n conditions and disease in humans is derived from uncontrolled or poorly controlled observational studies. The diiCculty Is that the groups being compared are generally not alike in many pertinent characteristics. Consequently, there is the uncertainty whether any differences observed are due to the factor studied or to the char- acteriatics by which the groups are differen- tiated. Th1s is especfilly disturbing when tpe findings do not fit wen together as for ex- ample in the case of smoking and low birth- weight, where smokers have more low birth- weight infants and their infants shou;d therefore have higher perinatal death rates, but such excess mortality is not found. We therefore continued to investigate the prob- lem and the latest results almost clinch the. argument against causation. This conclusion follows from the finding that women who ~ eventually became smokers, produced a large proportion of low birthweight Infants even before they started to amoke; although these infaata were born under non-smoking condi- tions. Also striking is the fact that women ~ who quit smoking produced a low propor- tion of low blrthweight Infants even during the period when they smoked, indicati:ng, peathaps, that people who stop smoking are TIMN 0078402

not smokers in the real sense of the word. These ilndings suggest that the relationship to low birthweight Is due to the smoker not the smoking. I would be less than candid if I did not add, as I did in the paper, that these find- ings must be considered tentative until con- tirmed or denied by many more studies on larger numbers with the inclusion of many more variables. I believe also that the paper f.s making a contribution in its review of all the evidence on the question of smoking and outcome of pregnancy available in the literature. The papers discussed in the reports to Congress represent only a part of the available evi- dence. May I also add that I presented the data from the 1971 and 1972 papers when I was invited to give the annual invited address before the Society for Epidemiologic Re- search in May, 1971. The official discussant was Dr. George B. Hutchinson. Professor of Epidemiology. School of Public Health, Har- vard University. Dr. Hutchinson is on record aa accepting the antiamoking hypothesis. In hia discussion he said in part: "The piece of evidence that I cannot dis- card is the new observation on pregnancies of smoking mothers in which the pregnancy preceded the onset of smoking ... This ob- servation rests on 90 cases of low birth- weight of future smokers. It requires repeat demonstration in a different population and with large numbers. For the present, how- ever, I would accept the new evidence and tentatively reject the casual hypothesis. It no longer seems tenable to suppose that anti- smoking efforts can cause a rise in birth- weight ... ' You inqulred also whether Dr. Horn re- oeived a copy of this paper. I do not know if he reeclved one but last October, in response to a form letter inquiring about studies in the field of smoking, I sent him a reprint of my 1971 paper and two manuscripts with the notation that one of them was accepted for publication in the American Journal of Ob- stetrias and Gynecology (since published in the January, 1972 issue) and the other sa- oepted for publication in the proceedings of the Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, to be published later this year. May I close this letter with a quotation of a paragraph from a letter that I wrote to Dr. Charles ]li. Fletcher of London who was the chairman of the committee and editor of the Royal College of Physicians' report on smoking and health, and who wrote a joint report on the same subject with Dr. Daniel Horn in the W.H.O. Chronicle in October 1970. They dealt with the evidence on smok- ing and pregnancy in much the same uncri- ticai approach as that of the Public Health Service reports. Since Dr. Fletcher is a friend. I could be frank with him to write as follows: "It seems to me that by adopting the policy of quoting only evidence which sup- ports one's hypothesis and neglecting all other in the long run, defeats its purpose. For example, I was able to aee in the area of pregnancy, with which I am famIIiar, that your review is not as objective as one would desire. I am therefore forced to the conclu- sion that I could not accept as unbiased the evidence in the other subjects in your re- view with which I am less famiilar." In my view, a similar at}tement may be made with respect to the data in the Sur- geon General's Reports to Congress. Sincerely yours, J. YrzvaHALnsT, Professor of Biostatisttos Director, Child Health and Development Stud- des. Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I could go on like this all day. Rather than take up additional time I will supply more In- formation on this matter at a later date. But I must make one final point loud and clear to disabuse any mistaken notion that these are the rantings of a Senator whose constituents' ox is being gored. The Issue here is the abuse and misuse of science. The examples happen to deal with tobacco, but the impact is far wider. Indeed it undermines intelligent deci- sionmaking for sound policy on a dozen fronts. Are you concerned about exposure of industrial workers to dangerous sub- stances on the job? Do not bother to struggle for improved occupational health; just put up a no smoking sign. Are you concerned about increased in- fant mortality, premature births, and deaths of newborn babies in our urban ghettos? Do not wrestle with the difficul- ties of improving medical care delivery in the slums; just put up a no smoking sign. Are you concerned about cleaning up the environment? Do not campaign to reduce air pollution; just put a no smok- ing sign up because "personal pollution;" according to Dr. Horn, is more serious. The crucial danger in all of these ma- jor issues on the national agenda is that science will follow some crusader's flag. It is a danger of great seriousness, as Justice Brandeis observed when he said: Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zest, well-meaning but without understanding. Ironically, I borrowed this wise quota- tion from a report issued last week by the departing Secretary of Health. Edu- cation, and Welfare. I commend it to his successor. Mr. President, the time is growing short to end the unscientific, unobjec- tive, immoral, and In all honesty what I must call, the disgusting war against tobacco farmers. Even as I speak, Dr. Horn and his band of closed-minded, antismoking crusaders are busily plot- ting a sneak attack against smoking. They are doing their work under the cover of the bipartisan national cancer attack program, and under the guise of scientific advice to Congress and the Presidency. Wittingly or unwittingly, the National Institutes are being Involved. Dr. Horn and his band have prevailed on NIH to set up an ad hoc advisory committee on smoking and health. He prevailed on NIH to approve of a secret meeting to be held last month in, of all places, the American Cancer Society office on 52d Street in New York City. They prevailed on these duly constituted Federal officials to flout the spirit and letter of Public Law 92-4t?3, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and fail to list the meeting in the Federal Register. Fortunately Senator Eavix caught them in the act. But nevertheless they prevailed on the NIH to reschedule the meeting for February 14~3t. Valentine Day, perhaps with Al Capone's massacre in mind, and they further fiouted the law by listing the announcement of the meet- ing, not in the Federal Register, but In the classified advertising columns of the Washington Post amid the lost-and- found items, puppies-for-sale, and my- wife-having-left-my-bed-and-board ads. Flnally, when they were forced to use 4 the Federal Register, they prevailed on F1EW to hold out to the bitter end, and list the meeting as pursuant to an Execu- tive order rather than the congres- sionally enacted Public Law 92-543. Mr. President, I now have• in my pos- session the agenda of this hanging jury and would like to read it into the record at this point: AD Hoc COE[D2rrT&L ON S9[OKING AND HSALTH, NATIONAL CANCER ADVISOBT BOARD NATIONAL INaTITIIT€s Or HSALTH, February 14,1973. 1. Charge to the Committee-Recommen- dations on setting of levels of tar and nico- tine through legislative means. 2. Analysis of current legislation that may be used to establish maximum levels of tar and nicotine. 3. Legislative recommendations for estab- lishment and enforcement of maximum levels of tar and nicotine. 4. Review of current NCI-NHLI efforts In smoking and <health, and reoommendations for their better organizations and funding. 5. Establishment of epidemiological mon- itoring studies that may determine the ef- fectivneas of legislation. LIST Os PROPOSED E[EE[SEaSHIP• Ad Hoc Committee on Smoking and Health Dr. Philippe Shublk (Chairman), Eppley Institute. Dr. Theodore Cooper, NELL DLr. Emerson Foote, ACS. Mr. James S. Gilmore, Gilmore Broadcast- in& Dr. Gio Gori (Executive Secretary), NCL Dr. Daniel Horn, National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health. Dr. Charles gensler, Arthur D. Little, Inc. Dr. Kenneth Srabbeahoft, Wayne State University. . Mrs. Mary Laeker, Lasker Foundation. Dr. Jonathan Rhoads, Univ. of Pennsyl- vania. Dr. Robert Ringier. NHLi. Mr. Lauranee Rockefeller, Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Dr. Umberto SaIDotti, NCL Mr. Benno Schmidt, J. H. Whitney & Co. Dr. Frederick Seita, Rockefeller University. Dr. Luther Terry, University Aseociatea, Ine. Dr. Ernest Wynder, American Health Foun- dation. Three of the five items are legislative recommendations dealing with allegedly Impartial advice to Congress. But which are in fact propaganda support for bills introduced by m1 distinguished colleague from Utah (Mr. 112oss). Another item- the fourth-is Dr. Horn's effort to re- build his empire within NIH, when he has failed to control behavior of Ameri- cans in regard to smoking elsewhere in HEW. Now, finally, Mr. President, let me run down the list of a few of the names of this stacked Jury upon whose advice the Congress and the presidency is depend- ent. First, there is Dr. Horn, whose name after this speech should be a household word. He was a former employee of the American Cancer Society. Second, there is Mary Lasker. She is a health lobbyist second to none, and a power behind the scenes at NI8 under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and now, I am afraid, my President. She is a member of the board of the American Cancer Society. Third, there is Emerson Foote. He is a retired advertising agency man who fattened on 'Newly e*tablfahed C4mmittae. -r 00212108 TIMN 0078403

r s cigarette accounts, and who now pro- duces the Madison Avenue flourish to the antismoking and birth control cam- paigns. He is the author of full page ads headlined, "The Population Bomb Is Ticking." He is a member of the board of the American Cancer Society. Fourth, there is Luther Terry, the surgeon gen- eral who in 1964 was propelled from bu- reaucratic anonymity to media celebrity through antismoking campaigns. He is working for the American Cancer Society. Fifth, there is Jonathan Rhoads, who is a former president of the American Can- cer Society. Sixth, there is Ernest Wyn- der, a tireless worker, who has built his career literally on the backs of the white mice he has painted with smoke con- densate. Last year his HEW grants totalled nearly a million doliars and he has received two million dollars this year. Another on the panel is James Gil- more. I do not know him and do not im- pugn in any way his ability. But I must wonder at his expertise. He owns an ad- vertising agency, a broadcasting station, and an automobile dealership in Kala- mazoo. He is also heir to the Upjohn drug fortune. I do not question the intentions or motivations of any of these men and women. I ask only this, Mr. President: How long will the Congress permit scien- tific policy to be based on prejudice, no matter how well intentioned, rather than truth, no matter how painful? How long will this body suffer from practices it has suffered for far to long? The history of progress in America has been built on the surrender of fictions to fact, myths to realities, falsehoods to truth. It is time for this body to help America shake off the chains of a prejudiced past, and to begin right now. What, then, should be done? First and foremost, Mr. President, the Congress should be innoculated against the possi- bility of tainted Information caused by a conflict of interest. Clearly, the Horn report should cease publication. The ,acticity should be removed from h* hands entiiely, and perhaps, removed to a safe position entirely beyond the De- partment of Health, Education, and Wel- fare. The National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Science or the American Association for the Advance- ment of Science are possibilities to be explored. Perhaps the Congress should develop its own capability by enhancing the role of the newly established OfIIce of Technological Assessment with this and similar missions. Let us frankly face the monumental task before us. The health effects of en- vironmental pollution, occupational hazards, poverty, and cigarette smoking are almost entirely unsolved problems, as Is the nature and causation of the dis- eases they have been associated with. The present tendency, fostered by zealous persons and crusading groups, is to un- derplay the results of industrial air pollution, occupational exposure, and low-income living conditions while over- estimating the effects of smoking. No greater obstacle to progress exists than the tendency to substitute guessing for knowing and to fail to clearly and openly distinguish one from the other. If % we cannot know the health effects of air pollution because of the confounding effect of cigarette smoking, then we also cannot know the health effect of cigarette smoking because of the con- founding effect of air pollution. Let the Congresss demand that HEW say so, and end the separate-and-unequal. practice of scapegoating tobacco. Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly in response to the remarks of my senior colleague from Kentucky. I would like to emphasize the necessity for the Government to be very careful in taking any actions that would have an adverse economic impact, not only upon the farmers in my State of Kentucky and in other tobacco grow- ing States, but also upon this entire Na- tion, by precipitously pursuing policies that may be based upon inadequate re- search and inadequate scientific know- ledge in relation to smoking and the use of tobacco in this country. There are some 56,000 tobacco farmers in my State. Most of them are small farmers, which is typical throughout the Nation in tobacco growing States. These small Farmers could be seriously and ad- versely affected by a number of recently mentioned antitobacco proposals, which may have little scientific backing. It is important that we have a com- plete scientific picture so that we know what the health/smoking relationship is and what various courses of action are open and advisable before we take ad- verse action at the tobacco production and processing level. Our State of Kentucky has tried to do something along this line. We have im- posed additional taxes on cigarette sales for the purpose of research Into the prob- lem. These tax revenues have been al- lotted to the University of Kentucky, which currently has some $4 million for research and which anticipates receiving some $3 million this year from the tax. Those funds will be used to try to $nd out what, if any, are the harmful effects of tobacco and, whatever they are, how they might be eliminated, so that this crop may continue, and that those who benefit from it can continue to receive the economic advantages that result from it. Since tobacco is closely involved in our export trade, it could be very detrimen- tal to our balance of payments to act in a manner that would seriously affect the economic situation as it relates to tobac- co, especially in light of current research deficiencies. Therefore I would urge that the Government be more concerned about intensifying the effort that has begun in our State of Kentucky to deter- mine precisely what, if any, the harm- ful effects are and how they might be eliminated, rather than just trying to eliminate this cash crop grown by thou- TIMN 0078404 5