1995 CRS/EPA War


The EPA War

Resources


  • <1/13/00> Environmental Tobacco Smoke Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
      Stan Shatenstein: This extensive review, by Jonathan M. Samet and Sophia S. Wang, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, provides a helpful complement to the CALEPA and SCOTH reports. The study's 269 references are an excellent resource unto themselves. As additional references, links to the three most recent meta-analyses (SCOTH, CALEPA and Australia) are included here.

  • 00/06/27 Environmental Tobacco Smoke NCI/WebMD 2/8/95
  • 00/07/20 Smoke-Free Environments Law Project From the Center for Social Gerontology
        The Smoke-Free Environments Law Project (SFELP) is a statewide project which provides information, consultation and advice for businesses, local units of government, and individuals in Michigan on policies and practices to protect employees and the general public from the harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and to address the legal requirements and liability issues related to ETS.

  • Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health SCOTH (UK) [LINK DEAD]
  • Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke CALEPA (OEHHA) [LINK DEAD]
  • The Health Effects Of Passive Smoking National Health and Medical Research Does environmental tobacco smoke cause cancer? Fred Grannis short-n-sweet compilation of studies/links. A nice basic precis of the data.

  • 07/17/98 THE OSTEEN DECISION Tobacco BBS
  • MISTAKEN RULING, UNMISTAKABLE FACTS How Judge Osteen Got It Wrong When He Vacated The EPA's Finding That Secondhand Smoke Is A Known Carcinogen and Why His Ruling May Not Matter
  • 01/02/01 SecondHand Smoke, EPA, AND THE COURTS Cigarette Company Lawsuits Cannot Change The Facts: Secondhand Smoke is Deadly. From the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

  • 07/21/98 RESPIRATORY HEALTH EFFECTS OF PASSIVE SMOKING - THE RISK ASSESSMENT Plus other docs, from the EPA
  • 07/20/98 ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE (ETS) A.K.A. "SECONDHAND SMOKE" EPA
  • 07/19/98 Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Industry's Suit Studies Focus On Epidemiological Studies Steven Bayard and Jennifer Jinot, authors of the EPA report, briefly rebut the industry's suit (1993)

  • 07/20/98 Why Review Articles on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking Reach Different Conclusions May 20, 1998 JAMA
      A total of 106 reviews were identified. Overall, 37% (39/106) of reviews concluded that passive smoking is not harmful to health; 74% (29/39) of these were written by authors with tobacco industry affiliations. In multiple logistic regression analyses contr olling for article quality, peer review status, article topic, and year of publication, the only factor associated with concluding that passive smoking is not harmful was whether an author was affiliated with the tobacco industry.


    The CRS Report Nov. 14, 1995
    (75 pp--make sure your browser has lots of memory)

  • Stanton Glantz on CRS Report
  • ASH's selections from EPA Report
  • ASH's appraisal of CRS Report
  •   CRS EXERPTS debunking 1992 EPA study FORCES (undated)
  • CRS Report Rejoinder from a pro-tobacco view. Martha Perske, FORCES. (Dec., 1995)
  • 03/31/97 California Center for Health Improvement on CRS/EPA War
  • Setting the Record Straight:Secondhand Smoke is A Preventable Health Risk The EPA's June, 1994, rejoinder to critics, esp. the first (Gravelle/Zimmerman) CRS report.
  • OSHA Post Stan Glantz' rebuttal of the Gravelle/Zimmerman report
  • Guidance Note on Passive Smoking in the Workplace From the Australian National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, 1994
  • 03/01/97 Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke - Final Draft for Scientific, Public, and SRP ReviewCalEPA
      Executive summary of the 6-year report from the Californaia environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. You can download the entire document here.

  • 1/27/99 Direct Evidence FORCES' extensive compilation of articles "debunking" reports of negative health effects of smoking. Apparently science has shown that smoking has little to do with cardiovascular disease, mortality rates, SIDS, problems in pregnancy, etc., but is great for colitis and Alzheimer's.
  • 05/20/98 Why Review Articles on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking Reach Different Conclusions JAMA abstract
      Conclusions.‹The conclusions of review articles are strongly associated with the affiliations of their authors. Authors of review articles should disclose potential financial conflicts of interest, and readers of review articles should consider authors' affiliations when deciding how to judge an article's conclusions.

  • The Accumulated Evidence On Lung Cancer And Environmental Tobacco Smoke British Medical Journal, Oct. 1997

  • 10/12/97 Web Resources on Passive Smoking MSNBC

  • 9/17/97 CalEPA Report on ETS the first comprehensive governmental analysis in the US since the 1986 Surgeon General's Report. This if the final version.
  • 5/6/99 Secondhand Smoke: Clearing the Air in Enclosed Public and Workplaces ­ A Presentation Manual Americans for Non-smokers' Rights page also has documents on secondhand smoke.
      The ANR Foundation has developed a new educational tool . . . The manual is an excellent tool for preparing and presenting talks about secondhand smoke and clean indoor air to community organizations, business groups, public officials, media representatives, and professional associations.

    Latest News

      "In all of these countries Philip Morris have already begun to identify and talk to suitable scientists. . . The consultants should, ideally, according to Philip Morris, be European scientists who have had no previous association with tobacco companies and who have no previous record on the primary issue which might, according to Remes, lead to problems of attribution. The mechanism by which they identify their consultants is as follows: - they ask a couple of scientists in each country . . . to produce a list of potential consultants. The scientists are then contacted by these coordinators or by the lawyers and asked if they are interested in problems of Indoor Air Quality: tobacco is not mentioned at this stage. CVs are obtained and obvious 'anti-smokers' or those with 'unsuitable backgrounds' are filtered out. The remaining scientists are sent a literature pack containing approximately 10 hours reading matter and including 'anti-ETS' articles. They are asked for a genuine opinion as independent consultants, and if they indicate an interest in proceeding further a Philip Morris scientist makes contact"
      February 17th, 1988 note by Dr Sharon Boyse of British American Tobacco on a special meeting of the UK Industry on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, London This is the note and this is the May 31, 1997 British Medical Journal article

    • 04/03/98 ISSUE OF THE WEEK: The Tobacco War Less Traveled Intellectual Capital (Note: James Repace says that he was misquoted by the Ottawa Citizen, and the gross misquote migrated to the "Intellectual Capital" piece:
        "Mr. Glover cites an unpublished World Health Organization (WHO) study of passive smoking and lung cancer, whose results are mischaracterized as finding no meaningful increase. Also, I am misquoted as saying the study was "garbage science." A spurious interpretation of this WHO study was uncritically adopted by a London newspaper and by the Ottawa Citizen. The Ottawa citizen article misinterpreted my criticism of the tobacco industry as criticism of the study, which I had not seen.)
    • 03/12/98 Passive Smoking Puts Lung Cancer Risk Up By 26%, New Report Finds Times of London (LINK DEAD)
    • 03/12/98 Public Ban On Cigs The Daily Record
        SMOKING is set to be outlawed in thousands of public places by the Government. They are also being urged to make expensive nicotine patches available on the NHS and slap a total ban on tobacco ads.
    • 03/12/98 Living with a Smoker Can Kill You The Independent
        Pressure on the Government to introduce curbs on smoking in public places increased last night after a major British report confirmed passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease. As the tobacco industry continued to claim there was no risk to passive smokers, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health said the "enormous damage" smoking caused "should no longer be accepted".
    • 03/11/98 Maternal smoking causes infant death --U.K. report Reuters
    • 03/12/98 Smoking In The Home 'Kills Babies' Electronic Telegraph
    • 3-11/98 ASH's challenge to the Sunday Telegraph's reporting on passive smoking at the Press Complaints Commission (1998) Full links to the Telegraph's stories, rebuttals, the original WHO / IARC study, the Press Complaints Commission Adjudication, more. The whole sorry saga.
        On March 8th 1998 the Sunday Telegraph published a front-page headline report accusing the World Health Organisation of suppressing a study that the newspaper claimed showed there was no link between passive smoking and lung cancer.  The Sunday Telegraph headline was: "Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official".  ASH immediately recognised this as statistical nonsense and tobacco industry propaganda and contacted the Sunday Telegraph requesting a withdrawal and correction.  When it refused, and published more of the same, ASH concluded there was no alternative bur to make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. The key correspondence is set out below.
      [The editor of the Sunday Telegraph joined the PCC half way through its deliberations. The PCC rejected ASH's complaint. ]
    • 03/12/98 OPINION: Smoking Out Bad ScienceLorraine Mooney, The Wall Street Journal (pay registration)
        Last week the science fell off the campaign wagon when the definitive study on passive smoking , sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. . . The U.K. Scientific Committee on Tobacco or Health (SCOTH) report on passive smoking, due out Thursday, is headed by a known anti-tobacco crusader, Professor Nicholas Wald of the Royal London School of Medicine . . The Wald report has been dismissed as a "statistical trick" by Robert Nilsson, a senior toxicologist at the Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate and a professor of toxicology at Stockholm University
    • 03/11/98 Report Links Passive Smoking To Cot Deaths BBC
        Passive smoking is responsible for 80 cot deaths a year, the report says Passive smoking does cause lung cancer and heart disease, according to a new report. The study also found that children whose parents smoke were twice as likely to be the victims of sudden infant death syndrome. Experts on the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, which carried out the study, called on ministers to curb smoking in thousands of public places.
    • 03/11/98 BMA Response To Damning New Evidence Of The Effects Of Passive Smoking On Children's Health British Medical Assn
        Responding to a series of papers in the Journal Thorax, which shows that passive smoking is linked to respiratory illness, sudden infant death syndrome, asthma and middle ear disease in children, the BMA today renewed its attack on the tobacco industry for attempting to deny and downplay the health damage caused by environmental tobacco smoke. Dr Bill O'Neill, Science Adviser to the BMA says: "Today's evidence clearly explains why the tobacco industry has been engaged in a desperate disinformation campaign. They do not want to be linked to death and illness in children. But they cannot escape that link. They spend millions recruiting new young smokers who will be the parents of tomorrow's sick children."
    • 03/12/98 UK: Tobacco Barons Refuse To Back Down In Passive Smoking Battle The Independent
        The health lobby was delighted by the report linking passive smoking and lung cancer; the tobacco industry stuck to its guns that there was no link established. Who is right? . . . The Tobacco Manufactures' Association claimed yesterday that of 60 studies they had looked at 80 per cent showed no significantly statistical increase.
    • 03/10/98 Major Environmental Tobacco Smoke Study Finds No Risk B&W PR Newswire
        "This is good news for smokers and non-smokers," said Dr. Sharon Boyse, director of scientific communications at Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. "We welcome this new study which confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoke in the air may annoy some non-smokers, the science overall does not show that being around a smoker is a lung cancer risk," she said.
    • 03/10/98 Anti-smokers Blown Away By Study The Australian
        THE World Health Organisation was trying last night to investigate reports that a study it commissioned from a leading cancer research group had found no link between passive smoking and cancer. . . The report prompted the Australian Hotels Association to call on WA Labor Relations Minister Graham Kierath to shelve his anti-smoking legislation, due to come into effect in August. . . "Until the merits of this study are established the laws as they are being proposed in Western Australia should be put on hold," Mr Woods said.
    • 03/09/98 No Link Between Passive Smoking And Lung Cancer Times of London
        A TEN-YEAR study carried out for the World Health Organisation has failed to find a clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer. The results of the study, the largest in Europe, hint that those who live or work with smokers have slightly elevated risks. But the margins of error are so wide that no clear conclusion can be drawn.
    • 03/09/98 Anger Over Passive Smoking Claims BBC
        The widow of TV presenter Roy Castle, who died of lung cancer, told the BBC she was "surprised and confused" by conclusions drawn by the industry from a World Health Organisation study. She was supported by cancer experts, who allege the tobacco group BAT is trying to divert attention from the publication of a new government report into passive smoking. BAT says that a confidential WHO report studying cancer in seven countries failed to establish a meaningful increase in lung cancer risk to non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.
    • 03/09/98 UN Agency Insists Passive Smoking Causes Lung Cancer Business Day (Johannesburg, SA)
    • 03/09/98 UN Defends Dangers of Passive Smoke AP Washington Post
        The World Health Organization has angrily denied reports in the British press that it had suppressed a study showing that secondhand smoke doesn't cause lung cancer. Articles in the London's Sunday Telegraph and Monday's Times of London said the seven-year study was an embarrassment to the agency. Industry giant British-American Tobacco Co. said the study casts "further doubt" on the health effects of passive smoking. WHO countered in a statement Monday, saying the study had not been withheld and that its design was the reason it could not conclusively link cancer with secondhand smoke. "Passive smoking does cause cancer. Do not let them fool you," WHO said.
    • 03/09/98 Second-hand Smoke Study 'Garbage Science'; Activists, Scientists United In Opposition To Controversial Report Ottawa Citizen
        "This is simply not sound science," said David Sweanor, the Ottawa-based lawyer for the Non-Smokers' Rights Association. "The only place we have seen this kind of garbage is from the tobacco industry." . . The study was said to have been commissioned by the World Health Organization, long known for its belief second-hand smoke causes cancer. The seven-country European study was co-ordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. It was described as "one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking and lung cancer, and eagerly awaited by medical experts and anti-tobacco groups."
    • 03/08/98 Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official Electronic Telegraph
        THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. . . At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set. . . The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

    • 10/17/97 Why Secondhand Smoke May be Bad for Your Heart ScienceNOW
        Scientists say they have confirmed a link between secondhand tobacco smoke and an increased risk of heart disease. The findings, reported in tomorrow's issue of the British Medical Journal, also may clear up a mystery about why secondhand smoke appears to be such a potent risk factor for the condition.
    • 10/20/97 Greater Risks of Secondhand Smoke Reuters
    • 10/17/97 Secondhand Smoke-Cancer Link Eyed AP Washington Post
    • 10/17/97 Thousands "Die Every Year from Passive Smoking" Times of London
        This means that passive smoking is about half as risky in terms of developing heart disease as smoking 20 cigarettes a day, in spite of the fact that the actual amount of smoke inhaled by a passive smoker is about one hundredth that of a smoker. "Our result confirms the high risk of a heart attack arising from breathing other people's smoke and shows that it is likely to be due to the blood clotting system being very sensitive to small amounts of tobacco smoke," Dr Law says.
    • 10/16/97 Studies Blow Away Doubts about Passive Smoking Reuters
        Dr. Malcolm Law of the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine in London analysed 19 published studies involving 6,600 people about the risk of heart disease for a non-smoker living with a smoker. He found that people who have never smoked have an estimated 30 percent greater chance of developing heart disease if they live with a smoker. . . In a separate study also from the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Allan Hackshaw said 37 studies showed that passive smoking raised a non-smoker's chance of getting lung cancer by 26 percent. The risk for the non-smoker rose with the number of cigarettes their partner smoked and the number of years they lived together.
    • 10/18/97 IRELAND: Employers Criticised for not Protecting Non-smokers Irish Times
        Dr Fenton Howell, a board member of ASH, said that "a lot of the big players are staying surprisingly silent". The employers' organisation IBEC and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) had a duty to "look after the interests of the majority of their workers. Seventy per cent of people do not smoke, and passive smoking is a known health hazard," he said.
    • 10/19/97 Cancer Alert on Passive Smoking "is False Alarm" Electronic Telegraph
        Dr Law and his colleagues might have overlooked studies showing little or no effect of passive smoking. According to Dr Geof Givens and colleagues at Colorado State University, such studies tend to gain little exposure because scientists think that the results are not worthwhile, or they are rejected by scientific journals. Dr Givens and his colleagues have re-analysed 35 studies linking passive smoking and lung cancer among non-smoking women married to smokers, taking into account the likely impact of the missing studies. They found that the effect is far from negligible. "Failing to allow for these would mean the estimated excess risk may be overstated by around 30 per cent, both in US studies and in the global collection of studies." The Colorado team has also re-analysed one of the most influential studies of passive smoking, published by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1992.

    • 10/28/97 Scientific Evidence on Secondhand Smoke from Philip Morris

    • 05/29/97 EPA: What Was Said vs. What Is True A compilation of 3 articles from 1995, 1996 editions of "Pipe Friendly" magazine. Probably the fullest, cleanest and clearest example of unexamined smokers' rights arguments. A classic.

    • Glantz ad text
      • New York Times, Oct. 16, 1995

    • OSHA Q&A Tobacco industry scientists answer questions on the relationship between Primary Smoking & Lung Cancer
    • Stanton Glantz's Post-OSHA Hearing Comment, concerning tobacco industry scientists' OSHA testimony, and his Post Post-OSHA Hearing Comment, a scientist-by-scientist rebuttal.
      These two papers encapsulate almost every ETS issue.

    • The AFCO Case Australian Federal Court's appraisal of ETS data extant in 1986: Active smokers are likely to be misled or deceived . . . into believing that their smoking does not prejudice the health of non-smokers, particularly children.

    ***********************

    This document's URL is: http://www.tobacco.org/News/crsepawar.html

    ***********************
  • ©1998 Gene Borio, Tobacco BBS (212-982-4645). WebPage: http://www.tobacco.org).Original Tobacco BBS material may be reprinted in any non-commercial venue if accompanied by this credit

    • ***********************
    Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage / Resources Page / Health Page / Documents Page / Culture Page / Activism Page
    ***********************

    END OF DOCUMENT