[NOTE from junkscience.com: This is the article as it existed before being modified by ANR.]THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF SECONDHAND SMOKE AS A HEALTH HAZARD
Contrary to what many people believe, and to what the tobacco industry would like people to believe, the scientific evidence regarding the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) did not begin with the release of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report in 1992. As early as 1975, there was evidence in the scientific literature that ETS was a cause of cardiac and respiratory disease. As early as 1986, the Surgeon General and the National Academy of Sciences concluded that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. In fact, the entire 1986 Surgeon General's report was devoted to the harmful health effects of secondhand smoke. Thus, secondhand smoke has been known to be a health hazard for at least 24 years, and has been recognized as a carcinogen for at least 13 years. Based on recently uncovered industry documents, the tobacco industry had solid evidence of the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoke as early as 1953, but failed to share this evidence with the scientific community or its customers.
The EPA is not the only government body to declare secondhand smoke as a toxic and carcinogenic health hazard. Many other government agencies have concluded that secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard. These agencies include the Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), National Academy of Sciences, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the National Toxicology Program.
Thus, even if the EPA report had never been written, the scientific evidence that secondhand smoke is a deadly toxin and carcinogen would still have been overwhelming. In fact, the EPA report is basically inconsequential from a scientific standpoint. Without it, the scientific evidence for ETS being a deadly chemical is overwhelming. The report itself should have made little difference. It was clear in the scientific literature at least six years earlier that ETS caused lung cancer and 18 years earlier that ETS was a health hazard.
The adverse health effects of ETS are not limited to lung cancer. It also causes asthma, respiratory infections, and heart disease. In fact, the annual number of lung cancer deaths caused by ETS is only 3,000, while the number of heart disease deaths each year in the U.S. is about 40,000 and the number of asthma attacks caused by ETS is between 200,000 and 1 million. Thus, in terms of the number of people affected, heart disease and asthma are more important consequences of ETS exposure than lung cancer.
In summary, there are three things that must be understood about the science of the health effects of ETS:
- We have known for at least 24 years that secondhand smoke is harmful. The evidence for secondhand smoke being a severe health hazard goes back to the 1970s, and secondhand smoke was implicated as a cause of lung cancer as early as 1986 by both the National Academy of Sciences and the Surgeon General.
- At least eight reputable government bodies, outside of the EPA, have concluded that secondhand smoke is a severe health hazard.
- The health effects of secondhand smoke are not limited to lung cancer, but also include heart disease, nasal sinus cancer, asthma, and respiratory infections.
THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY'S APPROACH TO ATTACKING THE SCIENCE
In general, the tobacco industry's approach has been similar to the approach of a defense team in a criminal trial. With overwhelming scientific evidence against their client, the defense attorneys try to cast doubt in the minds of the jury by concocting all sorts of conspiracy theories to explain the evidence. Oftentimes, such attorneys are successful in putting enough doubt in the minds of the jurors to gain an acquittal. The tobacco industry has taken a similar approach. Its goal has been to pick out little pieces of the scientific evidence and attack them, trying to invoke some sort of conspiracy theory to put doubt in the minds of policy makers and the public. Most recently, the industry has focused on the EPA report, attacking it for being an example of corrupt science. In some cases, the industry's approach has been successful.
Specific examples of the tobacco industry's approach include:
- Filing a lawsuit against the EPA in the most favorable court it could find (in North Carolina) and convincing a judge (William Osteen) to rule that the EPA's finding that ETS causes lung cancer was invalid.
- Supporting the work of scientists who receive tobacco industry funding in return for writing critiques of the EPA and other scientific bodies that have found ETS to be harmful. Recently, Gio Gori and John Luik released a report (issued by the Fraser Institute in British Columbia) attacking the EPA and its report on ETS. Robert Levy and Rosalind Marimont released a report (issued by the CATO Institute) attacking the CDC and its estimate that smoking causes 400,000 deaths each year. All of these authors have strong connections to the tobacco industry. Gio Gori was paid more than $20,000 for writing letters to scientific journals and newspapers criticizing the EPA report. John Luik corresponded closely with the Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers in writing his critiques of the EPA, and went so far as to ask the industry for its advice as to how to properly frame his articles so as to best advance the tobacco industry's interests. Robert Levy works for the Cato Institute, which receives financial support from the tobacco industry and Rosalind Marimont is with the National Smokers Alliance which also receives tobacco industry financial support. (Note: Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights can provide copies of tobacco industry documents which reveal the details of these authors' ties to the tobacco industry.)
EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY'S ATTACKS
First, it is most important to know how not to respond. Do not get into arguments with the industry about the scientific evidence. This is exactly what the industry wants. It wants to draw public health practitioners into a debate. The industry does not have to win the debate; in fact, it knows it cannot win. But all the industry needs to do to succeed is to create a debate. This will cast doubt in people's minds and convince the public and policy makers that there is some sort of controversy or debate out there over the health effects of secondhand smoke. This is, of course, not at all true. There is no debate in the scientific community. But the perception of a debate or controversy may be all that is needed to sway policy makers against voting for clean indoor air legislation.
Instead, the best approach is to expose the tobacco industry ties of the so-called scientists making the arguments. In almost every case, scientists who have challenged the finding that ETS is a significant health hazard have turned out to be allied with the tobacco industry. Most have received direct funding from the industry. With the help of the tobacco industry documents, databases like ANR's Tobacco Industry Tracking Database, and other sources, document and expose the connections between these "scientists" and the tobacco industry.
Then go on the offensive. Point out how inappropriate it is to accept tobacco industry money for writing articles attacking the EPA. Point out how inappropriate it is for a scientist to ask the tobacco industry to help him write his scientific research to be sure that it properly promotes the industry's position. Point out how inappropriate it is for an industry to mislead and deceive the American public about the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke.
In other words, re-frame the issue. Instead of this being an attack on "corrupt science" by the EPA, turn the issue around into what it is really about: "corrupt science" by persons who have been paid to write articles attacking the EPA by an industry trying desperately to protect its deadly profits.