Science has become politicized

By Sen. Tom Neuville

If you ask the surgeon general, the Minnesota Medical Association, or the U.S. Department of Labor, they will say that there are between 4,000 and 4,700 chemicals in second-hand tobacco smoke. Unfortunately, that number is high by a factor of 10.

In June of 2005, the State of California Air Resource Board tried to identify the number of chemicals in second-hand smoke. They could only identify 432. Why is this important? Because it exemplifies the problem when science becomes politicized. If you repeat something that is wrong often enough, people come to believe it is true, especially government bureaucrats.

During the Minnesota Senate debate on the statewide smoking ban, I challenged the U.S. Surgeon General’s report. The Surgeon General’s report was a political document, which included studies that were favorable to his view and excluded the largest studies, which were not.

The surgeon general relied greatly upon a 1992 study by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. But, in 1994 the EPA’s findings were challenged in federal district court in North Carolina. The court found that the EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before any research had begun, that EPA’s findings were based on insufficiently rigorous statistical tests and were invalid, and that EPA disregarded information and made findings based on selective information and deviated from normal risk assessment guidelines.

One of the largest studies on the effects of second-hand smoke was conducted by James Enstrom and Geoff Kabat, and published in 2003. Their study, conducted from 1960 through 1998, found “no significant associations for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.” They concluded that, “the results did not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco and tobacco-related mortality. The association between exposure to second-hand smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”

Unbelievably, the surgeon general did not even consider this large and recent study. Likewise, a study, published in 1998, and commissioned by the World Health Organization in Europe, made similar conclusions, but was not publicized when the results found no relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer or heart disease. Most studies on second-hand smoke find that the relative risk of second-hand smoke is less than the relative risk of taking birth control pills for women. Yet, no one is suggesting that we should declare birth control pills a health hazard.

Truthfully, second-hand smoke is an annoyance and a nuisance. Some people are allergic, and others who have asthma should avoid any kind of smoke. However, second-hand smoke is not a public health risk because people can avoid it. Private business owners should be allowed to determine whether their business permits smoking. If they choose to allow it, a small sign at each door could advise people not to enter if second-hand smoke annoys them. There are many other economic reasons to oppose a ban on second-hand smoke, including reduced charitable gambling profits, a shift of hospitality businesses from small communities to Indian casinos, and the impact on American Legion and VFW clubs.

Most of the senators who supported the ban on second-hand smoke were unwilling to vote for an amendment which would have prohibited all sales of tobacco in Minnesota. There is no question that mainstream smoking causes cancer and heart disease. Why then would people try to ban second-hand smoke, which is an annoyance, but not seek to restrict smoking itself? For citizens who are interested in learning more about the scientific studies that have been conducted with respect to second-hand smoke, we encourage them to visit my website at www.tomneuville.com, and find the link entitled “Smoking Ban.”

Sen. Tom Neuville, R-Northfield, represents District 25.

Summary of the Enstrom/Kabat study, which was published in 2003 in the British Medical Journal:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

A copy of selected risk comparisons assembled by the Congressional Research Service:

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm

A copy of information posted on Sen. Tom Neuville’s website

(www.tomneuville.com), which includes links and citations from many studies involving second-hand smoke, information concerning how to analyze the studies, and quotes from scientists:

http://tomneuville.com/archives/category/smoking-ban/

An article written by Dr. Elizabeth Whelen entitled: Warning:

overstating the case against second-hand smoke is unnecessary – and

harmful to public health policy:

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.800/news_detail.asp

An article by Victoria McDonald, entitled: Passive Smoking does not cause cancer:

http://www.smokingaloud.com/et9803.html

An abstract printed from the National Cancer Institute Journal in

1998, describing a study, commissioned by the World Health Organization, and conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer:

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/19/1440

A letter from Ed Contoski, a retired environmental consultant