EPA 2: Washington Post: Secondhand Smoke Finding Struck Down

By John Schwartz Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, July 19, 1998; Page A1

A federal judge has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency wrongly declared secondhand tobacco smoke a dangerous carcinogen in a landmark 1993 report, a decision that could imperil hundreds of local and regional ordinances banning indoor smoking.

The controversial 1993 report concluded environmental tobacco smoke is a Class A carcinogen, as hazardous as radon and responsible for some 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year. It was strongly attacked as “junk science” by the tobacco industry, which sued in federal court to force the study to be withdrawn.

After five years of court pleadings and deliberation, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Osteen, of the Middle District of North Carolina, finally ruled late Friday that the EPA report was biased and did not follow the proper legal or scientific procedures for reaching its findings.

EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner, said in a telephone interview last night the opinion is “disturbing” because “it’s so widely accepted that secondhand smoke causes very real problems for kids and adults. Protecting people from the health hazards of secondhand smoke should be a national imperative.”

Browner said the administration would almost certainly appeal the decision.

Michael York, an attorney for cigarette giant Philip Morris Cos., called Osteen’s decision “a very important ruling” that could force the EPA to reverse its stand on secondhand smoke. “Now it will be up to the agency to reexamine all of the relevant studies and make the honest determination that the statistical correlations are extremely weak – – certainly below that necessary to justify their classification of [environmental tobacco smoke] as a Class A human carcinogen.”

The effects of secondhand smoke have long been controversial. While all credible scientific authorities say that cigarette smoking causes cancer, secondhand smoke involves such a low concentration of carcinogens that a strong cancer connection is hard to establish.

A number of studies have found secondhand smoke to raise the risk of cancer about 20 percent – an increase many epidemiologists say is too low to constitute convincing proof. Other epidemiologists, however, argue that the exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is so widespread that even small increases translate into large numbers of sick people.

Reports continue to emerge with findings that both support and undercut the EPA thesis. A 1998 report by California’s environmental protection agency found that secondhand smoke is a potent carcinogen.

In more recent months, controversy has erupted over a new study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which found no statistically significant risk to secondhand smoke. That research has been hailed by the tobacco industry, which accuses the study’s sponsors, the World Health Organization, of trying to suppress the findings. WHO accused the companies of having “completely misrepresented” the findings and has said the study will be released after the customary review process.

In his 93-page opinion, Osteen said the EPA had wrongly used provisions of the 1986 Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act in determining that secondhand smoke is hazardous. That act required a broad-based panel to be convened for such findings, including representatives of affected industries, but the agency excluded industry voices, the judge ruled.

“EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs’ products and to influence public opinion,” Osteen wrote.

An EPA official who asked not to be named said the agency’s process included peer review and provided the “functional equivalent” of the requirements of the Radon act; the official also said that the judge did not have standing to rule on the EPA report because it was not a formal rule-making or final agency action. Both of those issues were argued before the judge, and would be part of any appeal, the official said.

The blow to the EPA report could give new energy to opponents of indoor smoking bans, since “the release of the original risk assessment gave an enormous boost to efforts to restrict smoking at the state and local levels,” said Matthew L. Myers, a spokesman for the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids.

In addition, a number of lawsuits filed against tobacco companies over claims of injury from secondhand smoke still lie in the balance. The most famous of those cases, a class-action suit brought by airline flight attendants, was settled recently for $300 million. But under the terms of the settlement, individual flight attendants still have to sue the industry and prove that secondhand smoke harmed them – which could be more difficult without the support of the EPA.

He said, however, that the ruling of one judge in North Carolina could not blunt the national trend -especially given that so many reports have found secondhand smoke dangerous. “While the move to restrict smoking indoors could be temporarily set back by this decision,” Myers said, “it won’t be stopped.”

Suddenly, there is an opportunity for science, reason and truth to prevail in New York against the forces that will never be satisfied until government becomes the last ash tray against smoking in public and private places.

On Feb. 23, the City Council’s Health Committee will conduct what it calls an “analysis of New York City’s smoke-free era.”

This era began in 1995, when Council Speaker Peter Vallone and Mayor Giuliani banned smoking in all but bar areas of restaurants.

When they did this, they were following the lead of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which in 1993 decreed that secondhand smoke killed 3,000 people a year in America. I went after Peter and Rudy pretty good – and then some – because it was clear to me that the EPA was nothing but a bunch of ideological hustlers out to destroy smoking without a scintilla of proof that passive smoke caused cancer or heart disease or anything.

Looking back on it, maybe I was too rough on them. Not because I was wrong, only that it was too much to expect politicians to go against the most extraordinary attack of political correctness since Prohibition.

The attack began before the EPA report. This whole madness started the day Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the White House and decreed that smoking was out. The Republicans who demanded the impeachment of President Clinton for using the White House for yakahoola never asked why Hillary had the right to consider it her house as a nonsmoking area.

All that was then. But as they say, this is now. And now, the Council has the chance to consider the evidence that’s surfaced since it bought the story that passive smoking kills.

And all the evidence proves that secondary smoke is a sick joke, there’s nothing to it.

The EPA study, upon which everything was based, was destroyed two years ago by Federal Judge William Osteen, a jurist whose record showed him to be an enemy of the tobacco lobby. But on this, Osteen held that the EPA was guilty of deliberate fraud, that it fixed its numbers to achieve a result it had determined and announced in advance.

Around the same time, the World Health Organization, the bastion of the anti-smoking movement, released a report in Vienna, based on a study that covered 21 countries over 10 years, costing millions of dollars. The result: No link found between secondary smoke and cancer or heart disease or anything.

This report was censored by the American media, except for the Daily News, which published my column, and The Wall Street Journal. Otherwise, nothing. A series of similar scientific studies has followed, all to the effect that passive smoke has no more impact than two cigarettes a week would have on a smoker.

But the City Council did not have this evidence in 1995, nor did Giuliani. And, of course, neither did Hillary Clinton, who had to believe her own Environmental Protection Agency, particularly after she banned smoking in the White House.

Now that all of them know the facts, I would like to believe that New York will roll back its rules and allow smokers freedom everywhere, including Yankee and Shea stadiums and the race tracks. Plus city rooms in newspapers.

But of course, I’ll settle for the status quo, on the hope that reason will survive passion, even against Damon Runyon’s truth that life is 6-5 against.

Original Publication Date: 02/15/2000

Geef een reactie

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *

Download poster


  • "Es ist schwieriger, eine vorgefaßte Meinung zu zertrümmern als ein Atom."
    (Het is moeilijker een vooroordeel aan flarden te schieten dan een atoom.)
    Albert Einstein

  • "Als je alles zou laten dat slecht is voor je gezondheid, dan ging je kapot"
    Anonieme arts

  • "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
    Sir Richard Doll, 2001

  • "Een leugen wordt de waarheid als hij maar vaak genoeg wordt herhaald"
    Joseph Goebbels, Minister van Propaganda, Nazi Duitsland

  • "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
    Mahatma Gandhi

  • "There''s no such thing as perfect air. If there was, God wouldn''t have put bristles in our noses"
    Coun. Bill Clement

  • "Better a smoking freedom than a non-smoking tyranny"
    Antonio Martino, Italiaanse Minister van Defensie

  • "If smoking cigars is not permitted in heaven, I won't go."
    Mark Twain

  • I've alllllllways said that asking smokers "do you want to quit?" and reporting the results of that question, as is, is horribly misleading. It's a TWO part question. After asking if one wants to quit it must be followed up with "Why?" Ask why and the majority of the answers will be "because I'm supposed to" (victims of guilt and propaganda), not "because I want to."
    Audrey Silk, NYCCLASH