In 1993, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report
estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the U.S.
were caused by passive smoking annually. Philip Morris, R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company, and groups representing growers,
distributors and marketers of tobacco took legal action,
claiming that the EPA had manipulated this study and ignored
accepted scientific and statistical practices.
A United States District Court ruled in favor of the tobacco
industry in 1998, finding that the EPA had failed to follow
proper scientific and epidemiologic practices and had "cherry
picked" evidence to support conclusions which they had committed
to in advance. The court stated in part, "“EPA publicly
committed to a conclusion before research had begun…adjusted
established procedure and scientific norms to validate the
Agency's public conclusion... In conducting the ETS Risk
Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on
selective information; did not disseminate significant
epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment
Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and
reasoning…".
In 2002, the EPA successfully appealed this decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The EPA's
appeal was upheld on the preliminary grounds that their report
had no regulatory weight, and the earlier finding was vacated.
The EPA assessment has been confirmed and validated in 1998 by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the
publication by its National Toxicology Program of the 9th Report
on Carcinogens, which listed environmental tobacco smoke among
the known carcinogens, observing of the EPA assessment that "The
individual studies were carefully summarized and evaluated.
Controversy over harms of passive smoking Tobacco-industry
funding of research >>
|
Second Hand Smoke Passive smoking
Long-term
effects
Short-term
effects
Causal
mechanisms
Epidemiological studies of passive smoking
1. Studies of passive smoking in animals
2.
Risk level of passive smoking
Current state of scientific opinion
1. Public
opinion
Controversy over harms of passive smoking
1. Critique of individual studies and epidemiology
2. World Health Organization controversy
3. EPA lawsuit
4. Tobacco-industry funding of research
Tobacco industry response
1. Position of major tobacco companies
|
