February 18, 1987 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 3463 EXTENSIONS OF. REMARKS INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ON portant questions related to <ETS> exposure In addition, there are serious concerns over THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF require further research. More accurate es­ the method in which these studies . were con- · timates for the assessment of exposure in ducted. Again, let's look at some examples for SMOKING the home, workplace, and other environ­ ments are needed." <SG's report, Dec. 16, the report which acknowledge these con- HON. WALTER B. JONES 1986, p. 101). cerns: OF NORTH CAROLINA "(L)ittle is known about the magnitude of SG's research: "Misclassification of expo­ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES the <ETS> exposures that occur in different sure to environmental tobacco smoke is in­ segments of the U.S. population. A better herent in epidemiological studies of involun­ Wednesday, February 18, 1987 understanding of the exposures that are ac­ tary smoking." <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, tually occurring in the United States, and of p. 72). past exposures, would be needed to accu­ On February 10, I celebrated my 21st anniver­ "Misclassification of smokers or ex-smok­ rately assess the risk for the U.S. popula­ ers as nonsmokers may produce the appear­ sary as a Member of Congress proudly repre­ tion." <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, pp. 96-97). ance of an involuntary smoking effect when, senting the First District of North Carolina. My ACUTE RESPIRATORY ILLNESS in fact, the true relationship is with active district is predominantly rural with tobacco "There are no studies of acute respiratory smoking." <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, p. 66). being the catalyst of our economy. During my illness experience in adults exposed to envi­ "Most studies of lung cancer to date have tenure, I have consistently fought for tobacco, ronmental cigarette smoke." <SG's report, used the number of cigarettes smoked by and there have been many tough fights. How­ Dec. 16, 1986, p. 60>. · spouses as a measure of exposure to invol­ ever, I believe that my district faces its tough­ PULMONARY FUNCTION untary smoking, and thus have disregarded duration of exposure, exposure from other est fight ever during the 1OOth Congress, and "The physiological and clinical signifi­ I am confident that we will prevail as we have sources, and factors that influence expo­ cance of the small changes in pulmonary sure, such as proximity to the smoker of size in the past. function found in some studies of adults re­ and ventilation of the room where the expo­ Over the past several years, there have mains to be determined. The small magni­ sure occurred. Moreover, all of the pub­ been increasing efforts to restrict smoking in tude of effect implies that a previously lished studies have based involuntary smok­ the Federal workplace, increase the cigarette healthy individual would not develop chron­ ic lung disease solely on the basis of invol­ ing exposure measures on questionnaires excise tax, ban smoking on airlines, ban ad­ untary tobacco smoke exposure in adult without validation of these data with bio­ vertising or eliminate the business deduction life.'' <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, p. 62). chemical markers or environmentally meas­ for advertising of tobacco products and on ured concentrations of tobacco smoke con­ BRONCHOCONSTRICTION and on. The oft-stated goal of those support­ stituents. Misclassification of involuntary "The magnitude of these changes is quite ing these efforts is a smoke-free society by smoking exposure is likely to be random and small, even at moderate to high exposure to bias the effect measures toward the null. the year 2000. To me, that means economic levels, and is unlikely that this change in <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, pp. 67-72). ruin for the First District of North Carolina by airflow, per se, results in symptoms." <SG's "The exposure variables employed in epi­ the year 2000. report, Dec. 16, 1986, p. 63>. demiological studies do not separate nonex­ Leading the charge against smoking and ASTHMATICS posed from exposed subjects; instead they thus, against my tobacco growers, is the Sur­ "Pulmonary function was not influenced discriminate more exposed groups from less geon General. Two years ago, the antismok­ by <ETS> exposure. Nonspecific bronchial exposed groups." <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, ing efforts reached somewhat of a plateau; responsiveness decreased significantly, p. 72). they needed a new issue, a new harm from rather than increasing, as would be antici­ "Information bias is an added concern in smoking which would polarize smokers and pated following an irritant exposure. case-control studies since neither interview­ Studies of large numbers of individuals with er nor respondent bias can be ruled out." nonsmokers and more importantly, convert <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, p. 73>. nonsmokers into antismokers. What they measurement of the relevant physiologic ex­ posure parameters will be necessary to ade­ "The direction of the information bias came up with was environmental tobacco quately address the effects of environmen- · may be dependent on the type of respond­ smoke [ETS]. This would be their ticket for tal tobacco smoke exposure on- asthmatics." ent.Self-respondents may be more apt to in­ eliminating tobacco use in our society. <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, p. 65>. terpret their disease as related' to exposure There was one major problem. The existing EAR, NOSE, AND THROAT to tobacco and thus overreport the expo­ scientific evidence did not begin to support sure.'' <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, p. 73). "There are no studies of chronic ear, nose, "Surrogate respondents may minimize the the position that ETS was a health hazard. and throat symptoms in adults with invol­ But this did not deter the Surgeon General reporting of their owri smoking because of untary smoking exposure." <SG's report , guilt, involuntary smoking exposure in an from releasing his December 16, 1986, report Dec. 16, 1986, p. 65 ). attempt to explain their relative's illness." which stated ETS was a health hazard to non­ EXAMPLE 2 <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, p. 73). smoking, healthy adults. SG's conclusion: "Simple separation of "Relative risks ranging from 2 to 3 were The Surgeon General, like myself, is a politi­ smokers and nonsmokers within the same generally reported for the highest level of cian. I have learned that when dealing with air space may reduce, but does not elimi­ · exposure based on the spouses' smoking politicians it is better to watch what they do as nate, exposure of nonsmokers to environ­ habits, but since sample sizes in most stud­ opposed to listening to what they say. This is mental tobacco smoke.'' <SG's report Dec. ies are not large, the point estimates of as true for the Surgeon General as it is for 16, 1986, p. 318). effect are unstable, and confidence limits SG's research: "There are no controlled are broad and generally overlap from one me. The simple fact of the matter is that the studies in which smoking behavior has been study to another. An index of involuntary conclusions in the Surgeon General's report tracked over time in the states or communi­ smoking based on the smoking habits of the are not supported by the research in his own ties th'at have enacted smoking legislation." spouse is simplistic and convenient meas­ report. <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, p. 14). ure." <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, p. 101). Here are some examples: "Validated questionnaires are needed for "Misclassification of the lung as the pri­ EXAMPLE 1 the assessment of recent and remote expo­ mary site and the lack of pathological con­ sure to environmental tobacco smoke in the firmation are repeated concerns. Misclassifi­ SG's conclusion: "Involuntary smoking is home, workplace, and other environments.'' cation of exposure to ETS cannot be dis­ a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in <SG's report , Dec. 16, 1986, p. 14). missed, since an index based solely on the healthy nonsmokers." <SG's report, Dec. 16, "To the present, t here has been relatively smoking habits of a current spouse may not 1986, p. vii). little systematic evaluation of policies re­ be indicative of past exposure, cumulative LUNG CANCER stricting smoking in public places or at the exposure, or the relevant dose to the respi­ SG's research: "Risk associated with invol­ workplace." <SG's report Dec. 16, 1986, p. ratory tract." <SG's report, Dec. 16, 1986, p. untary smoking exposure is uncertain. Im- 16). 101). I e This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted ~r appended, ra ~her than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. 3464 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS February 18, 1987 Finally, I have to ask the question, "What Fact 12: Studies have shown that most COSTA MESA, CA, CHAMBER OF are the real causes of indoor air pollution?" people spend 75-90 percent of their time in­ COMMERCE HONORS GEORGE Professional investigations in hundreds of doors, so exposure to indoor air pollution is L. AND JUDIE A. ARGYROS workplaces indicate that complaints oft~n at­ considerable. tributed at first to ETS-such as headache, Fact 13: Virtually all "sick building" pro­ grams are curable once diagnosed. Ventila­ HON. ROBERT E. BADHAM nausea, coughing, and eye irritation-are in tion rates can be increased, ductwork OF CALIFORNIA approximately 95 percent of cases the result cleaned and sanitized, microbial contamina­ of inadequate or dirty ventilation systems or tion controlled, and filtration systems up­ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES exposure to one of numerous other, less visi­ graded.