=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #321
—January 20, 1993—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
THE HAZARDS OF TOBACCO COMPANIES
U.S. EPA released a report earlier this month declaring that
second-hand tobacco smoke is a Class A carcinogen, meaning the
agency is convinced it causes cancer in humans. (Second-hand
smoke is also called environmental tobacco smoke, involuntary
smoking and passive smoking.) EPA says exposure to such smoke
kills about 3000 Americans each year by lung cancer. The agency
says second-hand smoke also:
** Increases the severity of asthma in somewhere between 200,000
and one million American children each year;
** Causes 150,000 to 300,000 cases of respiratory infections like
bronchitis and pneumonia in children in the U.S. each year;
** Causes fluid buildup in the middle ear, a condition that can
lead to ear infections in children;
** Gives spouses of those who smoke at home a 2-in-1000 chance of
getting cancer. (NY TIMES 1/8/93, pg. A14)[1]
According to physicians with the American Heart Association, the
situation is somewhat worse than EPA is letting on:
** About 50 million nonsmoking adults over the age of 35 are
involuntarily exposed to secondary smoke each year in the U.S.;
** Half of all American children live in families with one or
more smokers;
These people have a 30% greater chance of developing heart
disease, lung cancer, or other respiratory illnesses than do
people who avoid frequent exposure to smoke;
Second-hand smoke may contribute to as many as 40,000 deaths each
year from heart disease. (NY TIMES 1/11/92 pg. A20)
* * *
The recent history of tobacco offers a lens through which we can
observe how we got ourselves where we are today, not just with
tobacco but with all toxic chemicals.
** The Surgeon General of the U.S. declared smoking cigarettes a
cause of lung cancer in 1964. By that time people had been
calling cigarettes “coffin nails” for many decades, so the
Surgeon General in 1964 was merely confirming what most people
already knew. The tobacco companies CERTAINLY knew it before 1964.
** The Surgeon General of the U.S. in his 1988 annual report on
smoking declared that nicotine–the main psychoactive ingredient
in tobacco–is as addictive as heroin. (NY TIMES 5/17/88, pgs. 1,
C4)
** A survey of 77 scientists whose research is supported by the
Council for Tobacco Research (created by cigarette manufacturers
in 1954) revealed that 98% of them believe tobacco is addictive.
The same survey revealed that 91% of the 77 researchers believe
that most deaths from lung cancer are caused by tobacco smoke.
The scientists who conducted the survey (which was published in
the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH in June 1991) concluded
that the tobacco industry does not act on the research it
finances. (NY TIMES 9/24/91, pg. C3.)
** A physician’s study of tobacco industry practices, published
in the medical JOURNAL OF FAMILY PRACTICE in August 1992,
concluded that the Tobacco Institute’s program called “Tobacco:
Helping Youth Say No” is “clearly designed to encourage tobacco
use” among children by portraying smoking as an adult activity
and therefore a “forbidden fruit” for children. (NY TIMES 9/2/92,
pg. D18)
** A study of 2256 children ages 4 to 11, published in the
September, 1992, issue of the medical journal PEDIATRICS, showed
that children of mothers who smoke are twice as likely to have
behavior problems, compared to children of mothers who don’t
smoke. Behavior problems include conflicts with peers, immaturity
and a tendency to be antisocial, anxious, depressed, headstrong,
or hyperactive.
Commenting on this study, Dr. Loraine Stern, an associate
professor of pediatrics at the University of California at Los
Angeles, said she wasn’t surprised by the results. “There are
thousands of toxins in cigarette smoke,” any one of which could
affect behavior in children, she said. (NY TIMES 9/8/92, pg. C9)
** Since 1954, citizens have brought more than 300 lawsuits
against tobacco companies, claiming the companies misled them by
advertising the pleasures and benefits of tobacco while
withholding medical information about its dangers. No plaintiff
has ever collected a cent by suing a tobacco company for health
problems. ** Five of the nation’s six tobacco companies–all
except Liggett–have been represented by a single law firm,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon of Kansas City, Missouri. The 175-lawyer
firm has about 35 attorneys defending tobacco companies, plus
“scores of researchers, biochemists, veterinarians, nurses and
other experts, along with technological support of commensurate
sophistication,” according to a recent report in the NEW YORK
TIMES (11/20/92, pgs. A1, B16).
“In the best Philip Morris tradition, Shook, Hardy engages in
conspicuous charity, sponsoring bowl-a-thons for the Big Brothers
and Big Sisters of Kansas City, ringing Christmas bells for the
Salvation Army, marching for the March of Dimes,” the report said.
In 1992, H. Lee Sarokin, a federal judge in Newark, N.J.,
“accused tobacco lawyers of participating in what he called a
conspiracy to conceal smoking’s dangers from the American
public.” The judge said the tobacco industry “may be the king of
concealment and disinformation.”
** Shook, Hardy initially opposed the law that requires cigarette
packages and cigarette ads to carry a Surgeon General’s warning.
Then they turned the labels into an advantage, winning cases by
claiming that the labeling law “pre-empted” lawsuits against
tobacco companies. However, on June 24, 1992, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that this defense was not valid. The court thus
opened the way for lawsuits claiming that tobacco companies
concealed facts about the dangers of smoking, or claiming that,
by actually lying about damaging information in their
possession, tobacco companies breached a legal duty not to
deceive. (NY TIMES 6/25/92, pgs. A1, B10)
** The NEW YORK TIMES reports that attorneys for the tobacco
industry offer various excuses for their work: every client is
entitled to counsel; or, the dangers of smoking have not been
proven; or, smokers don’t have to smoke (they’re not really
addicted); or the work they do is no more ethically suspect than
the work of other attorneys. Or they take refuge in cynicism: a
poster in one office at Shook, Hardy says, “Smoking is the
nation’s leading cause of statistics.”
And some statistics they are:
Cigarette smoking causes about 435,000 deaths each year in the
U.S., including 200,000 from cardiovascular disease, 100,000 from
lung cancer, and 80,000 from chronic lung disease. (NY TIMES
1/11/92 pg. A20). Thus during the 40 years that Americans have
spent pursuing the tobacco companies fruitlessly in court,
roughly 17 million Americans have been killed by tobacco smoke
while the tobacco companies pocketed something like a thousand
billion dollars.
* * *
What have we learned about toxic chemicals from this review of
tobacco?
** Ordinary citizens knew long before the scientific and medical
community that smoking was harmful.
** Subtle damage–like hostile behavior in children, or
depression, or hyperactivity, can be caused by “any one of
thousands” of toxic chemicals.
** The courts have not provided justice for the addicted victims
of tobacco, or for their innocent families. Even when a federal
judge learns so much that he feels compelled to accuse the
poisoners and their lawyers of “concealment and disinformation,”
the courts cannot provide justice.
** The poisoners have a trained army of lawyers, researchers,
physicians, nurses, and veterinarians who make a fat living
helping others evade liability.
** The poisoners routinely engage in conspicuous philanthropy and
acts of charity.
** The poisoners have no difficulty sleeping at night. Mere
questions of right and wrong do not trouble them.
** For all its vaunted size and power, the United States of
America is unable to protect its citizens from an organized
assault on health and pocketbook by predatory corporations.
* * *
When the EPA report on second-hand smoke was released, Dr. Louis
W. Sullivan, head of the federal Department of Health and Human
Services, said, “It is irresponsible for smokers to expose young
children to the health consequences of their addiction.” (No one
asked, “What about exposing children to pesticides, solvents and
other industrial poisons in their food and water?”)
After the press conference, most U.S. newspapers called for a ban
on smoking in public buildings, in workplaces, and in any setting
where innocent people may be exposed. But the NEW YORK TIMES went
further, asserting (in an editorial titled “No Right to Cause
Death”), “No one would grant his neighbor the right to blow tiny
amounts of asbestos into a room or sprinkle traces of pesticide
onto food. By the same logic, smokers have no right to spew even
more noxious clouds into the air around them.” (1/10/93, pg. E22)
But that is precisely the right that corporations claim when they
allow industrial poisons to spread into our food and water. Both
Dr. Sullivan and the TIMES denied that polluters have a RIGHT to
pollute. Logically, this leads to a demand for zero discharge.
No one has the RIGHT to poison our neighborhoods or our common
air and water. If the legislatures and the courts cannot protect
us against corporate poisoners, then we should take this as clear
evidence that corporations have become too powerful. Corporations
themselves must become the focus of our energies and our
attention. The TIMES is right: zero discharge IS the right goal.
And reducing the power of corporate poisoners–perhaps by
amending the corporate charter–would be one way to achieve it.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: epa; second hand smoke; passive smoking;
carcinogens; cancer; lung cancer; asthma; lung disease; heart
disease; tobacco industry; council for tobacco research;
advertising; bans; zero discharge;