BOOK REPORT

In a book recently published by the Fraser Institute of Canada, "PASSIVE SMOKE: the EPA’s Betrayal of Science and Policy" authors Gio B. Gori and John C. Luik dismantle the EPA’s 1992 Report on ETS almost line by line, characterizing it as "corrupt science." The Agency is further condemned for contributing to the declining trust in real science and the ethics of policy making in general. The book is so thorough and detailed that it will most likely earn a reputation as the definitive work on the subject. Early on the authors state: "In the end, it should be obvious that the accumulation of uncertainties and arbitrary assumptions can only qualify the EPA report on ETS as an exercise in selective wishful thinking. To top it all, the agency adopted further assumptions and announced with preposterous precision that ETS is responsible for 3060 lung cancer cases a year in the US alone, a figure that has been amplified by advocacy and regulatory interests to justify an unprecedented social engineering crusade of worldwide intolerance. The agency proceeded on its course even though internal reviewers from the EPA’s Cincinnati laboratories were highly critical of the agency’s approach and conclusion. (USEPA, 1992) The EPA’s Science Advisory Board itself – the highest advisory committee to the agency – advised the agency against producing numerical estimates (Stolwijk, 1993), and Dr. Erich Bretthauer, Associate Administrator for Research and Development at the EPA in 1992, had to admit in official correspondence that the excess risk of lung cancer could be virtually zero (Bretthauer, 1992). Also, two assessments by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress reached equally critical conclusions (Gravelle and Zimmermann, 1994; Redhead and Rowberg, 1995)." The authors point out that statistical evidence indicates that "ETS doses could be well over 100,000 times smaller than prevalent doses for active smokers," and that this translates to an equivalent dosage of "more or less than 1 cigarette evenly distributed over the period of 1 year." Putting it in perspective they go on to point out that, if EPA conclusions were valid, "then all US smokers would succumb to lung cancer in less than one year." Taking a look at the many complexities and immeasurables involved they conclude that, "The only tenable summation is that ETS risks are probably null or imponderable and beyond detection, and that a case against ETS as a lung cancer risk cannot be made on defensible scientific grounds Thus it is on the basis of indefensible conjectures that the EPA has unleashed a de facto regulatory frenzy and a crusade of hateful cultural and social discrimination against smokers in the US and worldwide." Towards the end of the book, in discussing the moral issues involved in the anti-smoking campaign, comes this statement: "...by far the most morally objectionable consequence of the EPA's corrupted science it its use by the anti-smoking movement to deprive smokers not only of their right to pursue their pleasure in public, but quite possibly to gain or retain their employment or advance their prospects. Put in its bluntest fashion it is the issue of the moral justification of using corrupted science to hurt innocent people. For it is vital to remember that since the EPA report does not demonstrate a significant risk to non-smokers, smokers cannot be accused of posing a significant threat to non-smokers." Throughout the book, point after point, is related to Judge Osteen’s 1998 finding vacating the Report, and Osteen’s statement that the "EPA’s procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law" is quoted. The book is copiously annotated and a bonus is the inclusion of the complete text of Judge Osteen’s judgment. It would seem that there could be little quibbling with the facts of the case, yet the EPA is contesting the Osteen verdict. Since the Report constitutes the keystone of the entire anti-smoking campaign it is no wonder. They view its overturn as crucial to their cause. This is the only explanation for Carol Browner’s bizarre statement that, despite the Osteen decision, "We believe the health threat to children and adults from breathing secondhand smoke are very real." With the True Believers in the anti-tobacco camp it has always been a matter of misguided faith.