By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
Posted: Thursday, October 1, 1992

LETTER
Publication Date: October 1, 1992

Editor's note: Over the years ACSH has tried to start a dialogue with The Tobacco Institute (knowing well that they would never respond in a meaningful way.) Our point in doing these letters is to bring attention to the fact that the tobacco industry is a privileged one which plays by different rules than other industries. They reject data as being inadequate to demonstrate causality, yet they do not divulge their standards of proof. Unlike any other industry, they do not respond to questions about the quality and safety of their products.

August 14, 1992

Mr. Samuel Chilcote
President
The Tobacco Institute
1875 Eye Street N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Chilcote:

Re: Request for information about smoking and health

I am writing to request information about the health effects of smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke so that I might assist my teenage daughter (age 15) and her schoolmates in making informed decisions about whether to smoke when they become adults. As you represent the manufacturers of cigarettes, I assume that you are in the ideal position to clarify some key questions about smoking.

My inquiry on behalf of my daughter and her friends is prompted by the recent ambiguous media references concerning the health effects of smoking. These statements were attributed to The Tobacco Institute and your spokespersons. I will divide my inquiry into two parts, one dealing with the health effects of smoking; the other focusing on the health effects of inhaling so-called "secondhand smoke."

1. Questions Regarding the Direct Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking:

Anna Quindlen ("Public and Private," op ed page, New York Times, August 5, 1992) quotes The Tobacco Institute as follows: "We recognize the risks associated with smoking; at the same time there is virtual universal awareness by the public of those risks."

As you can imagine, such an ambiguous statement does not assist me in guiding teenagers about the decision whether or not to smoke as adults. I consulted The Tobacco Institute publication (which was advertised on the New York City Transit System) Tobacco: Helping Youth Say No, but it did not specify what the "risks" were and only urged children not to smoke because smoking is an "adult custom." Please clarify the above statement by answering the following questions:

a. What exactly are the "risks associated with smoking" to which The Tobacco Institute refers? For example, which of the following conditions do you now recognize as sometimes or frequently caused by smoking:

                                               YES NO
1. A cough?                         _____ _____
2. Chronic bronchitis?            ____ _____
3. Emphysema?                   _____ _____
4. Lung Cancer?                  _____ _____
5. Cancer of the larynx?       _____ _____
6. Cancer of the pancreas?   _____ _____
7. Cancer of the bladder?     _____ _____
8. Coronary heart disease?   _____ _____
9. Aneurysm of the aorta?    _____ _____
10. Cerebro-vascular disease? ___ _____

b. What is the magnitude of the "risks associated with smoking," that is, how would you describe and quantify those risks? Please address this inquiry by comparing the risks of smoking with other risks of modern day life, for example driving a car, using oral contraceptives or having uncontrolled high blood pressure.

c. What is the Institute's reference or source to support the statement that there is "virtual universal awareness by the public of those risks"?

d. As President of the trade association representing the cigarette industry, you are obviously very knowledgeable about all aspects of smoking. What would your advice be to young adults who are deciding whether or not to start smoking? Do you smoke? Do you have children, and if so, do they smoke? Did you encourage them to smoke? At what ages?

2. Questions Regarding "Second-Hand Smoke" (that is, the charges that cigarette smoke puts non-smokers at risk of chronic and acute disease):

I read with interest the comments of The Tobacco Institute spokesperson Brennan Dawson on the subject of the alleged health effects of second-hand smoke. The Wall Street Journal (July 23, 1992, page A3) quoted her as saying that the data presented by the EPA and others who claim that second hand smoke poses a cancer risk are based on "intuition" adding, "That's not science."

a. Before approaching the question of alleged risks of chronic disease from second-hand smoke, does The Tobacco Institute accept the overwhelming scientific body of literature which concludes that second-hand cigarette smoke causes increased levels of acute respiratory distress (including ear infections and asthma) and school absenteeism among non-smoking children whose parents smoke cigarettes?

b. If your answer to the above question is no, what evidence would you accept as proof of a link between passive/second-hand smoke and acute respiratory illness in non-smokers, particularly the link between childhood respiratory symptoms and parental smoking?

c. Given that the Institute rejects the EPA designation of second hand smoke as a human carcinogen, what evidence would you accept as proof that second-hand smoke poses a cancer hazard to non-smokers? In other words, please describe a scenario in which you would totally accept the premise that second-hand smoke causes cancer in non-smokers and contrast that to the evidence available now.

d. Would you agree that the statement, "We recognize the risks associated with smoking; at the same time there is virtual universal awareness by the public of those risks," could now apply to the health effects of second-hand smoke as well as direct smoking?

I would appreciate your response to my specific questions by September 15, l992. I hope that your answers will help impressionable young adults to make informed decisions about a "universally" recognized "risk" behavior.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan
President

On September 14, 1992, Dr. Whelan sent another letter to Brennan Dawson asking once again for specific responses to her questions.

August 28, 1992

Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
President
American Council on Science and Health
1995 Broadway
16th Floor
New York, New York 10023-5860

Dear Ms. Whelan:

Thank you for your recent letter to Samuel Chilcote. Mr. Chilcote has asked that I respond to your questions.

Given your well known views on tobacco issues, I am surprised that you would pose such questions to The Tobacco Institute. Since your positions on tobacco have been often articulated, I find it disingenuous for you to suggest that you require our assistance in clarifying issues with your teenage daughter.

The tobacco industry's position on underage smoking is clear: we are absolutely opposed. Our position on adult smoking is also clear: it is a matter of informed, individual choice.

Accordingly, I believe that an exchange in response to your specific queries would satisfy no productive purpose.

Sincerely,

Brennan M. Dawson

(From Priorities Vol. 4, No. 4, 1992)