P age A3
W ere Y ou M isled ?
TODAY, READ ANOTHER SIDE OF THE
STORY ABOUT SECONDHAND SMOKE.
E v e r sin ce the E P A issued its rep o rt a b o u t the “d a n g e rs ” o f seco n d h an d sm oke in 1993,
seriou s qu estio n s h ave been raised a b o u t the rep ort s validity.
H ere are som e o f those questions:
• If there were doubts about the report, w hy weren’t they w idely publicized?
• O f 11 U .S. studies used by the E P A , not a single one concluded that there is a statistically
significant overall association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer.
W hat did the E P A do to find a link, using the very same studies?
• W hy did an article in a major scientific magazine call the E P A ’s report “fancy statistical footwork ?
• W hy, in its assessment o f secondhand smoke, did the E P A suddenly disregard generally
accepted standards o f statistical analysis?
• A large U .S. study, published in The American Journal o f Public Health, found no overall statistically
significant link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. W hy did the E P A not include this study?
• Is it possible the E P A decided that secondhand smoke was harmful years before their
assessment was done?
Today, on the n ext tw o pages, P hilip M o rris brin gs y o u the an sw ers to these qu estio n s in an article
from Forbe.i MeJiaCritic entitled Passive Reporting on Passive Smoke, b y J a c o b Sullum ,
M a n a g in g E d ito r o f Reason m agazin e. T h is is one o f the m ost co m p reh en sive articles e v e r w ritten
ab o u t the E P A ’s risk assessm ent o l seco n d h an d sm oke.
W e b elieve that both sm ok ers an d n on -sm okers should co n sid e r these (acts
and d ra w th eir o w n co n clu sio n s about the issue o l seco n d h an d sm oke.
PH1UP MORRIS U.8.A.
I n A ny C ontroversy , F acts M ust M atter .
© 1994 Philip Morris, Inc.