http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/org/epa.rss Latest top tobacco news headlines en-us http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/08/10/article/retired_judge_osteen_has_died http://tobacco.org/news/289924.html Retired federal Judge William Osteen Sr. died Sunday. For nearly 16 years, Osteen served as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, which is based in Greensboro. Osteen's family declined to provide any further details about his death on Sunday evening. Osteen was born in 1930 in Greensboro, according to the federal judiciary Web site. He served in the U.S. Army Reserve before graduating from Guilford College in 1953. Greensboro News & Record Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT http://www.junkscience.com/news2/zion.html http://tobacco.org/news/288419.html And now we have the truth about the anti-smoke fascists. Last week, a federal judge wiped out the entire basis of all this business about the danger of secondhand smoke, a lie that has transformed our culture, from saloons to our homes. In a devastating 94-page opinion, Judge William Osteen put the cat to the Environmental Protection Agency. These ideological hustlers are responsible for all the madness we've experienced since 1993, when, without a scintilla of evidence, they declared that secondhand smoke causes cancer. This "finding" created civil war in America. . . . The EPA was at the ready, helped by Hillary Clinton, whose first edict as First Lady was a no-smoking rule in the White House. The EPA announced that 3,000 people died every year from secondhand smoke. More people by far die from milk, not to mention bird droppings in national forests. But the yuppie audience was ready to buy, and the market went through the roof. In New York, Peter Vallone and Rudy Giuliani banned smoking everywhere but in bars. . . . In March, the World Health Organization was caught with the lie. It is the SS of the Nicotine Nazis. The WHO ran a multi-million-dollar study dedicated to proving that passive smoke causes cancer. It came up empty. The media censored that story. If you didn't read it in my column, you don't know it. And now the media do virtually the same with Judge Osteen's opinion. junkscience.com milloy@cais.com (Sidney Zion) Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:00:00 GMT http://www.villagevoice.com/1998-12-15/news/tobacco-row http://tobacco.org/news/278864.html Is there any connection between $60,000 worth of tobacco ads in the December issue of Brill's Content and a six-page article in the same issue that bashes the media for overstating the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer? Absolutely not, says Steve Brill, editor of Brill's Content, who claims the infusion of tobacco money and his publication of a protobacco article are "a total coincidence." . . . The $60,000 December bonus came in the form of four pages from Philip Morris (two pages for Marlboro cigarettes and two pages describing Philip Morris's charitable activities), plus two more from R.J. Reynolds. The ads were placed in September, when a full-page color ad cost $10,000. At the time, Brill says, "There is no way [the advertisers] would have known that story was appearing." Brill has not had an easy time attracting advertisers, in part because of his commitment to hard-hitting stories, and tobacco ads in particular have been sparse. The December issue not only represents a doubling of tobacco ads, it introduces the first Marlboro ad--suggesting increased interest from Philip Morris. . . . Varchaver denies treating Sullum or Schwartz unfairly, given the volume of coverage he was assessing. He admits he downplayed Sullum, in part, because taking money from the tobacco industry detracts from one's credibility. If that's so, then it puts Brill in the same tank with Sullum--except that Brill got paid 12 times as much. Village Voice Tue, 15 Dec 1998 05:00:00 GMT http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=4AF44D5BEAB6F9F8448730C1992FFA92?tid=gin58e00 http://tobacco.org/news/278661.html OBJECTIVES o IN THE FACE OF NEW REPORT, PM HAS STATED TWO CORPORATE OBJECTIVES: 1. "FORESTALL FURTHER PUBLIC SMOKING RESTRICTIONS/BANS." 2. "CREATE A DECIDED CHANGE IN PUBLIC OPINION. DEVELOP AN ATMOSPHERE MORE CONDUCIVE TO SMOKERS WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND FOR SMOKERS THEMSELVES." . . . O FIRST, SEGMENT POTENTIAL AUDIENCES BY: - BELIEFS - PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES - POSSIBLE CALLS TO ACTION . . . AUDIENCE BUSINESS OWNERS OF PUBLIC PLACES - RESTAURANTS, HOTELS, ENTERTAINMENT VENUES - THEIR ASSOCIATIONS (NRA, ETC.) DEMOGRAPHICS/PSYCHOGRAPHICS o "ENTREPRENEURIAL" O DISLIKE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, REGULATION BELIEFS/ATTITUDES O BASED ON THE EPA REPORT, ETS SEEMS BAD O THIS SMOKING ISSUE IS A BIG HASSLE AND FRANKLY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT O MY BUSINESS DEPENDS ON SATISFYING THE CUSTOMER AND I DON'T WANT TO LOSE ANY POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS. O I CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE GOVERNMENT IMPOSE ANY MORE REGULATIONS ON MY BUSINESS DESIRED BELIEFS/ATTITUDES O I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT ETS SMOKE IS SUCH A SMALL PART OF THE AIR QUALITY ISSUE O I WANT TO WORK OUT THE ISSUE ON MY OWN TERMS CONSIDERING WHAT IS BEST FOR MY CUSTOMERS AND BUSINESS O THE "ACCOMMODATION" PROGRAM SEEMS TO BE A SENSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE SMOKING ISSUES DESIRED ACTION O CREATE AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES WHICH "ACCOMMODATE" BOTH SMOKERS/NON-SMOKERS IN THE WORKPLACE - "COURTESY" POS O ASSOCIATIONS JOIN COALITION O WRITE A LETTER VOICING THEIR CONCERNS/OPINIONS . . . AUDIENCE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, ACADEMIC/RESEARCH M.D.'s . . . DESIRED BELIEFS/ATTITUDES O THE EPA HAS MISUSED SCIENCE TO FORCE A CONCLUSION O THIS "BAD SCIENCE" SHOULD BE REFUTED TO PROTECT ACCEPTED METHODS AND REPUTATION OF COMMUNITY O WE SHOULD REALLY ADDRESS THE BIGGER ISSUE OF AIR QUALITY AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT DESIRED ACTION O REBUT THE EPA SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, METHODS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY o FRAME THE ISSUE AS A BIGGER ONE THAN JUST ETS - PROVIDE A CREDIBLE SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE AND PRIORITIES Legacy Tobacco Documents Library Tue, 23 Mar 1993 05:00:00 GMT http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FDA_TRANSITION?SITE=CAWOO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT http://tobacco.org/news/274121.html The Food and Drug Administration, bedeviled by a salmonella outbreak and tainted medicine from China, is likely to monitor imports and fresh produce more closely under an Obama administration. With President Bush no longer a roadblock, health officials also can expect new powers to control tobacco, from cigarettes to the recently introduced smokeless products called snus. President-elect Obama, a former smoker struggling to avoid relapse, is a sponsor of legislation giving the FDA authority to control, but not ban, tobacco and nicotine. . . . Obama is being urged to move quickly to appoint an FDA commissioner. Already more than a half-dozen names are in circulation: outside critics such as Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Dr. Steven Nissen; insiders such as Susan Wood, a former director of the FDA's women's health office; and public health advocates such as Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Baltimore's health chief. . . . Under the tobacco proposal, the agency would be able to order changes in tobacco products to make them less toxic and addictive, but could not ban tobacco or nicotine. The bill passed the House and Senate with bipartisan support, but a veto threat from Bush kept it from getting out of Congress. Aides to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., co-author of the tobacco bill, say there is strong interest in getting the legislation passed soon after the new Congress convenes in January. Obama is a co-sponsor. AP Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:00:00 GMT http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20080930_Federal_agency_fines_Kauai_tobacco_company.html http://tobacco.org/news/271793.html The federal Environmental Protection Agency fined Vector Tobacco Inc. $65,040 for allegedly misusing six pesticides and then failing to keep workers from getting sick, the EPA announced yesterday. Vector Tobacco, a subsidiary of Vector Tobacco Group of Durham, N.C., has since moved out of the state, agricultural officials added. The company allegedly misused pesticides 93 times by failing to follow label directions at its research facility in Kekaha in 2005 and 2006, according to the EPA. However, "Vector Tobacco cooperated and received a settlement with the EPA without admitting the EPA's allegations," said company spokesman Jonathan Doorley. Honolulu Star-Bulletin tfinnegan@starbulletin.com (Tom Finnegan ) Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2008/09/29/daily2.html http://tobacco.org/news/271759.html The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has fined a North Carolina company for violations at a Kauai facility. Vector Tobacco, a subsidiary of Vector Tobacco Group of Durham, N.C., was fined $65,040 for allegedly misusing pesticides during application at its agricultural research facility in Kekaha on Kauai in 2005 and 2006, according to the EPA. On 93 occasions, the company failed to follow label directions intended to protect workers from exposure to pesticides. "Employers of agricultural workers must ensure their employees are provided with information and protections that minimize the risk of potential exposure to pesticides . . . The company also failed to prevent workers from entering areas where pesticides had recently been applied and then denied them prompt transportation to a medical facility after the workers reported adverse health effects due to the pesticide exposure, the EPA said. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture discovered the violations during inspections in 2006 and began an investigation. The EPA said Vector Tobacco has shut down the Kekaha facility since the inspections. Pacific Business News - Honolulu Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.ashevilletribune.com/MainPage/SecondhandSmoke.html http://tobacco.org/news/268738.html In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon). The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places. Flawed Assumptions EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge. Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS. . . . -- Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr. (jerry.arnett@gmail.com) is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia. Asheville Tribune jerry.arnett@gmail.com ([item undated] Jereome Arnett, Jr., M.D / The Heartland Institute ) Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.newrichmond-news.com/articles/index.cfm?id=21459&section=Opinion&freebie_check&CFID=43406924&CFTOKEN=39066750&jsessionid=8830a76250b261395e54 http://tobacco.org/news/266513.html Governor Jim Doyle’s promotion of Senator Breske is an insult to the people of Wisconsin. It is a veiled attempt of “If you can’t beat them promote them.” Of course I am referring to the smoking ban. As everyone knows Senator Breske and the Tavern League have been major obstacles in getting the ban passed. The Tobacco Control groups have been using fear and out and out lies to push their agenda through. They claim that repeating the studies verifies that the low statistical risk is conclusive proof yet they cannot show any other causes of diseases with equally low risk ratios that have been proven conclusively. . . . An award-winning article in Science Epidemiology faces its limits bares this out there is no consensus on any low risk ratio study as being fact. They believe that a lie repeated often enough becomes fact. OSHA looked at all of the studies and found that the levels in ETS would not exceed Permissible Exposure Levels. If the evidence is so overwhelming how come they haven’t successfully sued the tobacco companies for ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) exposure? To answer this you have to go back to 1992 when the EPA first came out with their infamous report declaring ETS a carcinogen. The problem is that they faked the study. The study was thrown out in court by Judge Osteen, it was also examined by the Congressional Research Service and found inconclusive. Now let’s jump ahead to the 2006 Surgeon Generals report. Not only does it contain mostly the same studies as the faked EPA report but the same activist players. . . . should we be passing laws on wishcraft science that couldn’t hold up in a court of law? Why haven’t these activists successfully sued the tobacco companies? Could it be the proof just isn’t there? New Richmond News Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882121714933013.html http://tobacco.org/news/263881.html handing off tobacco to the EPA makes about as much sense as its nearly completed pass to the Food and Drug Administration. A bill expected to be voted on soon would impose new restrictions on marketing, raise cigarette taxes, and police the ingredients in tobacco products, including nicotine levels. Any reckless FDA policy is bound to be popular . . . it contradicts the premise of the federal government's case against Big Tobacco. Initiated by Janet Reno and continued by the Bush Administration, the federal suit argued that the industry committed fraud by falsely implying that light or low-tar cigarettes were healthier than standard smokes. Now Congress wants the FDA to mandate less nicotine and tar - the very practices it once claimed to find so odious. In a final irony, the politicians backing this bill, especially sponsors Ted Kennedy and Henry Waxman, are the same ones demanding that the FDA crack down on "Big Pharma." They say it isn't doing enough to protect the public from risky but possibly beneficial new drugs. So: Lend the FDA imprimatur to an inherently dangerous product to fatten it up for taxation, while at the same time slow down or block the approval of life-saving therapies that treat disease instead of cause it. Congressional priorities are rarely so grotesque. The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08092/869431-35.stm http://tobacco.org/news/262401.html The March 13 story "EPA Doesn't Follow Scientific Smog Advice" prompts me to write. Not only is this government as usual -- ignoring the best scientific advice -- but even at the modest ozone improvement in the ruling, an estimated "900 to 1,100 premature deaths a year" would be saved albeit at a cost of an estimated $8.8 billion a year. In the same day's paper, I read that secondhand smoke in Pennsylvania alone causes over 2,000 premature deaths a year. By strictly banning smoking in all public places, at essentially no cost, twice as many premature deaths could be prevented. . . . By banning smoking everywhere, hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved each year. Oh, but I forget. With the government and big business, it is always about the money and the mega-dollars that roll in to the political coffers as well as the billions government at many levels gets from taxing the product that would be lost if a ban were enacted. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/x375176734 http://tobacco.org/news/261982.html No wonder, then, that people are troubled by a recent Associated Press investigation that showed this and other analgesics mingling in America's water supply. The AP surveyed dozens of metropolitan areas and their watersheds and found acetaminophen and aspirin, along with amoxicillin, atorvastatin, atenolol and azithromycin. And those are just the A's. . . . On the outtake end, the EPA should mandate that wastewater plants at minimum screen for caffeine and nicotine, which indicate the presence of other drugs. Have them test wastewater sludge, too. Meanwhile, there's not much people can do about excreted medications, but the people should forget the old advice about putting unused meds down toilets and sinks. Take them back to the pharmacy. Metro West Daily News nsimmon@cnc.com Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.heraldonline.com/opinions/vop/story/352740.html http://tobacco.org/news/259657.html In a guest editorial on Jan. 26, Carson Taylor attacks "anti-smoking zealots" who rely on "junk science" to press for laws protecting the public from secondhand smoke. He doesn't identify these zealots, but I will. They include the surgeon general, EPA, Center for Disease Control, National Institute of Health, WHO and virtually every other public health organization on the planet. Even Phillip Morris USA officially admits the risk. . . . Now they indirectly fund outside groups such as "Citizens Against Government Interference" and "My Smokers' Rights," to do the dirty work for them. Internal tobacco industry documents, made public by a lawsuit, reveal the strategy. "Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report. . . . The Internet is full of sites claiming the moon landing was a hoax, Elvis is still alive and there is a conspiracy, hatched by public health officials around the world, to attack secondhand smoke with "junk science." As for me, I'm siding with the surgeon general Rock Hill Herald Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:00:00 GMT http://www.heraldonline.com/opinions/contrary/story/319535.html http://tobacco.org/news/259656.html It has been said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it. That adage has served the anti-smoking zealots well. We are told repeatedly that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke results in the annual deaths of 46,000 nonsmokers due to heart disease and 3,000 from lung cancer. The problem with these numbers is that they are not true. . . . Henry Mizgala, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, is one of many leading doctors and epidemiologists who spoke out against this study. He stated, "This is, in my opinion, gross misrepresentation designed to provide maximal public impact in furthering the biased and unscientific opinions of these authors. This so-called study does not even come close to meeting the basic criteria of a properly executed scientific study." In conclusion, it is logical to seek to ban smoking due to many factors, odor, nuisance, etc. However, justifying such bans based on junk science and fear is inexcusable. Rock Hill Herald Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:00:00 GMT http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/dow-our-unethic.html http://tobacco.org/news/250736.html A common pesticide re-approved by the EPA in 2001 sickens farm workers, say unions and activists who will file a lawsuit against the agency today, reports the Associated Press. The pesticide is chlorpyrifos . . . The EPA agreed to look at these results because they didn't have money to do the testing themselves and because, under Bush-picked agency head and former tobacco industry pet scientist Stephen Johnson, testing chemicals on humans isn't as inhumanly unethical as it used to be. Wired adam_rogers@wiredmag.com (Brandon Keim) Wed, 01 Aug 2007 04:00:00 GMT