HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - TOBACCO CONTROLAGENDA REPORT
myvager roval
Item to be presented by:
Michael Murphy
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: May 10, 1994
SUBJECT: TOBACCO CONTROL
DEPARTMENT: MANAGEMENT SERVICES
BACKGROUND
On five previous occasions, the City Council has discussed enactment of a tobacco
control ordinance. The provisions of the ordinance have centered around prohibitions
of smoking in municipal facilities, public places, work places and restaurants.
At the January 11, 1994, meeting, the City Council directed staff to hold two public
meetings for purposes of receiving additional public comment on prohibitions of
smoking in the work place and smoking in restaurants and bars. Furthermore, vending
machine sales were also to be considered.
City staff conducted three public comment meetings on the subject of local tobacco
control. The meetings were held on April 5, April 6 and April 18. A 157 piece mailing
was done to each restaurant and food service facility in the City inviting participation
at any one of the meetings. Additionally, personal letters of invitation were sent to the
approximately 75 people who testified at each of the five prior City Council sessions.
On April 5, Mike Murphy met with representatives of several Canyon Country area
restaurants to discuss their concerns regarding the tobacco control issue. Paid
newspaper advertising and press releases rounded out the meeting outreach campaign.
Approximately 50 different people, in total, attended the three meetings. The work place
smoking ban drew very little comment. Those expressing a viewpoint focused primarily
on allowing employers to determine smoking policies in conjunction with their
employees. Limited comments, generally favoring elimination of tobacco vending
machines, were made at the meetings.
Continued To: y - 9 y
Ages -1 Item:
The City Council was provided a summation of oral comments made at the three
meetings, copies of written comments and other materials submitted as part of the public
meeting process.
The vast majority of comments at the public meetings were reserved for the prohibition
or limitation of smoking in bars and restaurants. Key issues identified by supporters of
a smoking ban include health concerns, inability of restaurants to adequately separate
smoking and non-smoking areas, the need to protect the health of food service workers,
potential employee lawsuits, a significant number of cities having enacted some form of
tobacco control ordinance, no significant loss in business in cities which have enacted an
ordinance and the responsibility of government to protect its citizens from harmful
situations.
Key issues identified by opponents of restaurant smoking restrictions include
establishing minimum levels of smoking and non-smoking seat areas, loss of business
by restaurants in the City to restaurants in other jurisdictions (most notably Los Angeles
County), significant negative impact already being faced by local restaurants from the
recession and earthquake, potential job losses of food service workers resulting from
individual restaurants losing business, letting restaurants decide for themselves based
upon their individual customer base, government regulation of personal habits and the
regular daily exposure of people to a variety of pollutants beyond tobacco smoke.
Public comments generally supported the language presented in Ordinance 93-20 with
the exception of the restrictions on bars and restaurants. The City Council may wish to
consider a number of options which are presented in a non -preferential order:
1. Totally restricting smoking in all restaurants and bars in the City.
2. Totally restricting smoking in restaurants and bars which share the same
facility but permitting smoking in stand alone bars..
3. Specifying floor space or seating percentages which shall be assigned to
smoking and non-smoking areas. For example, requiring that 75% of all
seating capacity in a restaurant facility be devoted to non-smoking and a
maximum of 25% be designated to accommodate smoking patrons.
4. Allowing smoking in restaurants which have separately ventilated areas for
smoking and non-smoking patrons.
5. Changing the percentages of food service in the definition of a bar facility
from 25% to a maximum of 49%.
6. Requiring that restaurants post, in a conspicuous outside location, the
individual facility's policy relative to smoking allowing customers to know,
in advance of being seated, the restaurant's smoking policy.
7. Specifically delineating restaurants as exempt from work place or public
place definition and permitting each facility to determine its own smoking
policy.
8. Enacting some form of restaurant smoking restrictions which could be
progressively phased or establish a long term date for compliance. For
example, establishing decreasing seating percentages in which smoking
would be permitted on a specified time schedule of up to one year.
Efforts are being made at both the state and federal levels to address the smoking issue.
At the state level, an initiative is presently in circulation for qualification which would,
among other provisions, pre-empt local government authority to enact a tobacco control
ordinance. Assembly Bill 13 (Friedman) also contains control language on local
government authority to regulate smoking. At the federal level, both through legislation
and department regulatory policy, smoking restrictions are being contemplated.
At the present time, it is difficult to assess which regulations or combinations of
regulations might be enacted at the state and federal level and whether local pre-
emption clauses will remain. The Council could be in the position of enacting an
ordinance which may be superseded by state or federal action in less than six months.
Conversely, the Council may wish to enact an ordinance in the event that no definitive
action is immediately taken by the state or federal government. Furthermore, in the
event that "grandfather" clauses are inserted into legislation which recognize locally
passed ordinances before a given date, the City may be better served to have an
ordinance in place.
RECOMMENDATION
1. The City Council direct staff to prepare a new tobacco control ordinance containing
the same provisions as Santa Clarita Ordinance 93-20 with the exception of those
provisions relative to restaurants and bars.
2. The City Council should discuss and provide direction to staff parameters to be used
in drafting language in a new tobacco control ordinance relative to restaurants and bars.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance 93-20
mpm\ tcagenda.tes
CRC:NAYCE NO. 33-20
AN O��INANCE GF Tii, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA CLAR:TA, CAL:FORNIA, A.MLNDING THz
SANTA CLAR:TA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW
CHAPTER 9.50 TO TITLE 5, HEALTH AND SAFETY,
E: ED "TOBACCO CONTROL"
C"'Y COU*ICIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA C`ARi* „A
JCES HERESY ORDA:N AS FOLLCWS: ` "aIiFORNIA,
SECT:ON 1. A paw Chapter 9.50 anti*_
ie hereby added to Title 5P Health and Safetd Tobacco Control^
Clarita v nicipal Code to read as follows: y, °f the Santa
"Chapter 9.50 TOBACCO CONTROL
Sections:
9.50,010 Purpose.
9.50.020 Definitions.
9.50.030 Prohibition of Smoking in City Buildings
and City Facilities.
9.50.040 Prohibition on Smoking in Workplaces.
5.50.050 Smoking in Public Places.
9_.50.060 Posting of Signs.
9.50.065 Tobacco Vending Machines Prohibited.
9.50.070 Violations --Penalties.
A. The City Council finds that numerous studies have showy
that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollutio:i
and that breathing.secondhand smoke is a significant health
hazard for several population groups, including elderly people,
individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with
impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those
with obstructive airway disease.
B. Health hazards induced by breathing secondhand smoke
also include lung cancer, respiratory infection, decreased
exercise tolerance, decreased respiratory function,
bronchocorstriction, and bronchospasm. Nonsmokers who suffer
allergies, respiratory diseases and ocher ill effects of
i AX,'3295.1
bras= =` _ aeco::dha==d smoke may experience a loss of 40b
Dios ct= tY"= may be"fcrced to take periodic sick leave because
__ accr. aaverse reactions..
C, The U.S. Surgeon General has declared ne is
ared that nicoti as addictive as cocaine or heroin; no other addictive product
or
drug, or cancer -causing product or drug is sold through vending
sacs'-nes- F"Irther, t:^.e U.S. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the U.S, Surgeon General and leading voluntary health=rganizatio:,s all recommend the elimination of cigarette vend ,.g
: ^acn_nes health reasons.
D. For all of these reasons, the City Council finds that
the provisions of this Chapter 5.50 are essential to protect. the
Public health, safety and welfare.
5.50.020. Defiaitio^e.
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this
chapter, shall be construed as defined in this section:
A. 'Bar' means premises licensed, with any type of
1_..ense, and maintained and operated for the selling or serving
of alcoholic beverages to the public for consumption on the
premises. Food products may be sold or served incidentally to
the sale or service of alcoholic beverages.
3. 'Enclosed area' means all space between a floor and
ceiling which is enclosed on all aides by solid walls. Said
walls may be penetrated by windows, doors, or passageways.
C. 'Home occupation' means any use within a dwelling which
has been issued a valid home occupation permit by the City of
Santa Clarita.
D. 'Incidental food sales/service, means the sale or
service of food products in a bar if said sales/service
constitutes lees than 25k of the annual gross income of the bar,
an amount higher than 25V of sales/service of food products
constitutes a premises other than a bar.
E. 'Public place' means any enclosed area to which the
Public is i:ivited or in which the public is permitted, including,
but not limited to, banks, educational facilities, health
facilities, shopping malls, laundromats, public transportation
facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail food production
and marketing establishments, retail service establishments,
retail stores, hotels and motels, theaters and waiting rocme.
r ,r:jai,A.t - 2 -
.=bacco Store' .means a retail utilized
for ti sale of tobacco products and accessories and in
wrich .^a sale of other prcducts is merely incidental.
v. 'Smoke or smoking' means inhaling, exhaling, burning or
carryit:g any lighted cigar, c_garette, Pipe, or plant in any
manner or ill any form.
H. 'Tobacco Vending Machine' means any machine or device
designed for or used for the vending of cigarettes, cigars,
tobacco or tobacco products upon the insertion of coins, bills,
trade checks or slugs.
1, 'Workplace' shall mean any enclosed area which is
normally occupied by two or more employees of a cemmercial
enterprise, nonprofit entity, or the City of Santa Clarita; or
any office that shares a heating, ventilation and air
conditioning system with a workplace.
9.50.030.
Without any limitation on Section 9,50.040, it is unlawful
for any person to smoke within any portion of the Santa Clarita
City Hall structure which is reserved for City functions or
I or any other City facilities, out buildings or
eatellite offices, except where specifically designated.
A. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in all workplaces
of commercial enterprises, nonprofit entities and all City -owned
and managed buildings and vehicles, including but not limited to
open office areas, shared offices, private offices, hallways,
restrcome, escalators, elevators, stairways, lobbies, reception
areas, waiting rooms, classrooms, meeting or conference rooms and
auditoriums.
B. Onsite workplace cafeterias, lunchrooms, and lounges
shall be deemed workplaces and smoking prohibited, whether or not
such facilities are open to members of the general public..
C. Each commercial enterprise, nonprofit entity and the
City shall comply with these smoking prohibitions and be
responsible for their implementation in the workplace, and 'No
Smoking' signs shall be posted in the manner prescribed in
Section 9.50.060.
T AX;13295. 3
`:o_.: etandi
_ _ eecticn, a private residence
-= an attached or detacaed garageence
a ' _-r'cp!ace except wheel the residence ehall not
C.^.1_3 care facility
: 291d221C2 Serves as a
^ealth care aci licensed
AVID, state law. -._y pursuant to
A. Except as otherwise provided, it is unlawful for any
person to smoke in any public place within the City of Santa
clarlta.
a. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to
the contrary, the following areas shall not be subject to the
emckiz,g -restrictioIls of this sect4o2l:
1. Private residences, except when used as a child
state law.
cart or health care facility licensed pursuant to applicable
�. Dwellings used for home occupations.
3. Retail tobacco stores.
motels. G. A maximum of 50V of the guest rooms in hotels and
5. Hare.
6. Conference, banquet or meeting rooms of private
clubs or fraternal organizations when used exclusively by members
or guests of the clubs or
bs and
organizations shall designateorganizations.
, andmake available uto their
employees, non-smoking areas.
Every owner, operator, manager, or other having control of
an enclosed area regulated by this chapter shall conspicuously
post at all exterior entrances to the enclosed area a No
Smoking' sign or the international 'No Smoking' symbol
(consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette
enclosed in a circle with a bar across it).
F No cigarette or other, tobacco product may be sold, offered
.or sale, or distributed by or from a vending machine or
f A% ',319l.1 - 4 -
app -arca, or any otter device designated or used for vending
purposes. -
-- Violators - P ++ lt4
Ally Person who violates any provision of, with anor fails to comply
y oall y requirement of, this chapter is guiltor
i and shall be punished in accordance with Section alli00 of this
code. The City Manager and City Code Enforcement Officers of t:^
City are authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of e
this Chapter 9.50.,,
U-CMIoN - if any secticn, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase', part or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, ouch decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council declares
that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions he
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION, The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of
this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as
required by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED this _ day of
, 19_
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
f AX;77297.1 I 5
S - ATE
`77Y - -
C_TY SAS :A C:ARiTA ee
City Clark of the City of
anza
Ciarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No.
vas regularly introduced and placed upon its first
reading at a regular maatIng of the City Council on the
f 19 That thereafter, said Ordinance waaca7
duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the city Council on the day of 19_, by the following
votC, to wit: `
AYES: COU*iCII."MEMgERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMHERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
twX.73293. t
Name of Restaurant
Address
Your Name
Number of Seats
Do you have a Full Bar?
ECEIVL- i- iD MADE A
DART OF THE RECORD AT
Phone
Title
Number of Employees
Beer and Wine None?
What Percentage of your Customers Smoke?
Do You Have A Smoking Ban Ordinance In Your City? Yes No
Is There A Smoking Ban Ordinance In Neigboring City? Yes No
If Your Answer was Yes to either Question — Please answer the following:
Before the Ordinance, Did you have separate Sections?
Average Number of Customers before the Ordinance. Weekdays?
Average Number of Customers Since the Ordinance. Weekdays?
Average Number of Customers before the Ordinance. Weekends?
Average Number of Customers since the Ordinance. Weekends?
If you have had losses, do you think they are going to other cities or not eating
out as often?
In General Terms, describe the effects of the Smoking Ban ordinance on your business:
Other Comments:
Do You Agree or Disagree with the Smoking Ban Ordinance?
Who should determine your smoking policy?
Your Signature:
Agree Disagree
You Govt
Date:
"'�• 3. ff
Statistical Summary Of Economic Impact Of Total Smoking Ban
Percentage
Total Surveys Mailed To Businesses 1000
Total Business Responses With Full Bar
40.00%
Total Business Responses With Beer & Wine Only
38.00%
Total Business Responses Who Serve No Alcohol
0.00%
Total Business Responses In Los Angeles Ban Area
78.00%
Total Business Responses Outside Los Angeles Non -Ban Area
22.00%
Total Business Responses Who Agree With Ordinance
11.00%
Total Business Responses Who Disagree With Ordinance
83.00%
Total Business Responses Who Are Undecided With Ordinance
6.00%
Total Businesses Who Had Losses In Los Angeles Ban Areas
46.00%
Total Businesses Who Had Gains In Los Angeles Ban Area
3.00%
Total Businesses Who Had Gains Outside L.A. Non -Ban Area
1.00%
Total Responses Of Businesses Owned By Caucasians
61.00%
Total Responses Of Businesses Surveyed Owned By Asians
20.00%
Total Responses Of Businesses Surveyed Owned By Hispanics
15.00%
Total Responses Of Businesses Owned By Other Ethnic Groups
4.00%
Total Who Think They Should Decide Their Smoking Policy
90.00%
Total Who Think Government Should Decide Smoking Policy
7.00%
Total Who Think Their Customers Are Going To Other Cities
54.00%
Total Who Think Their Customers Are Not Going To Other Cities
28.00%
Total Who Are Undecided If Their Customers Are Going To Other Cities
18.00%
Average Percent Of Business Loss In Los Angeles Ban Area
33.22%
Average Percent of Business Gain Outside Los Angeles Ban Area
33.33%
Statistical Summary Results For Survey Of Economic Impact Of Total Smoking Ban
Statistical Percentage Results in the Los Angeles Ban Area
Percent Of
Responses
Who Had
Losses
Count Of Responses Who Have Full Bar 60.00%
Count Of Responses Who Have Beer & Wine 58.00%
Percent of
Percent of
Responses
Responses
Who Had
Who Had No
Gains
Change
0.00% 40.00%
8.00% 34.00%
Count of Responses Who Serve No Liquor 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Awksm. ca. aeeoe
caia>asssass
migams
a
June 22, 1992
ATTN. Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
Institute for Health Policy Studies
University of California
San Francisco, CA. 94143
Dear Dr. Glantz:
Thank you for the copy of your Mar. 1992 report and your June 1, 1992 letter.
In your June 1, 1992 letter you state that you have verified your DATA.
We have reviewed the data in your March 1992 report. We compared, as you suggested,
your DATA to that recorded in the California State Board of Equalization (CSBE), Taxable
Sales In California (Sales & Use Tax) --tables. (Which in your June 1, 1992 letter you maintain
your March 1992 report is based.) The tables prepared by the CSBE provide conclusive proof
that five of your data elements remain in error. For example, according to the CSBE tables,
and confirmed by a CSBE analyst, total retail sales for the category of "Eating and Drinking
Places" in San Luis Obispo City, 19W Fourth Quarter, was $Z0,533,000.00. By contrast, table
A-1, on page 14 of your March 1992 report, shows $15,033,000.00. This erroneous figure is
at a critical point. By reason, any conclusions based on this erroneous figure are invalid. The
enclosed list details these errors.
In the interest of clarifying our understanding of the effects to retail sales by the
smoking ordinance, we compared the sales tax reported for market places in 29 cities and 10
counties.' This includes the eight cities used in your study. We concluded that at this time
there is insufficient data available to support any credible conclusions as to the short term or
the long term effects of a smoking ordinance. However, a comparison between the 29 cities
and 10 counties, resulted in surprising results for the majority of the test cities. There are
incontrovertible negative fluctuations in taxable sales in some of the market places of the
"TEST" cities. There is also a corresponding positive fluctuation in the "CONTROL" city's
share of that particular market.
Example: Total retail sales show that 4th quarter 1990 sales for Morrow Bay, a "CONTROL"
city, dramatically increased. In that same period, San Luis Obispo's, a'TEST' city, share of
' List available on request.
county sales decreased. The SLO city decrease includes a 29.8% decrease in Restaurant sales,
from the previous quarter.
We believe such obvious errors harm the credibility and reputation of the Institute
for Health Policy'' Studies, the University of San Fransico and shed doubt on any
future studies that you might publish.
We at Ferret Research believe that the University and you have a moral and legal
responsibility to report the true facts. The University and you, also need to double check the
accuracy of your data since tax funds supplied by proposition 99 are being utilized in the
preparation of your report. Where public money is involved, personal bias or prejudice on any
particular subject must by law be set aside. Otherwise a fraud is worked upon the tax payer.
Further, we believe your report has been relied on by the public and government officials in
some cities which now have a smoking ban. It is hoped you will act responsibly and swiftly
in correcting your data entry errors. We invite you to include a larger number of cities, both
"MST" and "CONTROL", as well as counties in your study. We also hope you will include a
comparison of the city of Morrow Bay to San Luis Obispo.
Ferret Research consists of a diverse group of researchers who do not receive funding
from anyone regarding this project. We do our best to report only the verifiable facts when
possible. Dealing with large quantities of data, we know there is an increased possibility of
data entry error. We appreciate notification of any errors found in our reports so that we may
promptly produce a revised release.
We look forward to reviewing your revised release. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Sincerely,
C arf Tho n
cc: Public Release
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
6ERREE£Y . OMIS . IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAS FRANCISCO
HOMER A. BOUSHEN.:. M.D
Profawr and b7u Chairman fa. Clinical Affairs
Chef of Afrdfcal 4.vkr
oepamnmt of ,lltdidnr.
Jack Little
Pharma-C Inventory Service
1788 Danbury Ad.
Claremont, CA 91711
Dear Mr. Little:
�k�F 44
..
Ii 1A ..
SANTA aARRARA SANTA CAUZ
997 Mo@itt - Box 0120
San Francixo; Glircrnia 9414 )
December 9, 1992
Dr. Rector referred your letter to me for reply, because of my familiarity with
pulmonary disease and therefore with diseases related to cigarette smoking. My
responses to your questions are as follows: I cannot really tell you whether there is
someone independent of Dr. Glantz who can verify that the studies he cites are correct
without knowing precisely which studies he has cited. i can state, however, that I have
found his descriptions of the results of scientific studies to be accurate when I have
attended his lectures and presentations. I believe this impression is shared by faculty in
our School of Epidemiology and Public Health, who are most familiar with the science of
statistical analysis of populations exposed to various possible causes of disease.
Dr. Glantz is not an M.D. He has a doctoral degree and is an expert on statistics.
This skill has made him extremely valuable to our scientific institution, for statistics is the
science that permits meaningful analysis of data obtained. it is the science most important
to epidemiolcgic studies, and it is this type of study that has established the correlation
between cigarette smoking and adverse health effects. Because Dr, Glantz has worked in
our Division of Cardiology, he has over his many years at the University become familiar
with the causes, presentation, and treatment of heart disease and of other diseases as well.
Dr. Glantz is an employee of the University of California. I do not know if he has
applied for and received funding from the program established for distribution of a small
part of the supplementary tax recently placed on tobacco products in California. This
funding, if he has obtained it, would be applied only to research projects reviewed and
approved by an independent evaluating scientific committee.
I hope these answers help resolve some of the 'bickering" among your employees
that his articles have provoked. Please let me know if I can provide additional information
that would be useful to you.
Yours sincerely,
Homer A. Boushey, .D.
Professor and Vlce Chairman,
Department of Medicine
cc: Floyd C. Rector, M.D.
Stan Glantz. Ph,D.
Ferret Research
V 13 rfer mom
Arbam CA 95M
912 885.3mll
1 88-5-7076
PRESS RELEASE
August 25. 19tr'
"The rnrvl orrlr•:q ita,erd rn srinnfttir' dare/ nn enrnking and ls7:ti
,hut the .bunking 'Tl,nrr.cr
shall not have cusrodv of the ::12ddren in t/tur rinv+n:e. !,aria-cp,,Us, <hrfll nul hr
allowed to have. the chtldrru in heir or i2w. residence because ordunger to rhe. chtld rrn,%."urn
ETS. The, court ,Sather uvdrr.• that lhnsc �rnnrlparerttx who snrokr shall neared
vi.rimr our rights. Based also on srtr,trtlic ,cturlie.T, 117r ;,jIi1rLrr•t 'Thai, nett be allover/ to hr
in (in,v home where red meat is served, m7.v alrnholic hevr:"e's art• t'on,nrmcrl, or vrdeo
rapes with an !�"rating are vieweal'
if the foregoine seems preposterous to yrgt then possihiy you need in look a little more closely at the forces which are
she.* -the world you live in. What would have been ciiusiderecl unthinkabic a mere dccailc ago are now the non,,. Your
drshny,rs being shaped by so•ralled "scientific, medical, and mond researchers. Researchers, fitnded for the most part with
taxpayer motley who have found a way during these times of rccersion, to create a
cirizenn,'at large. career and g in power and cpntroi over the
Smoking, balls placed upon the private business ()woe's rrnd the interference of rhcirnghts to choose whom they shall
sine. 'rhe citizens rights to "smoke tree" air in places where they are obligated to go vs. where they have a freedom of choice to
enter. These are only some of the hot topics now rrcaling controversy.. Controversy sparked by whom? ''file seriously
concemcd person wliosc oltly involvement is herb^ Or .cif appointed "experts" whe feed at the tax troughs( Ara the cfrc
wamings being handed out by special interest groups really on tantet? Or We hcy.E giiip, created for Ole purpose of money and
power? These are the real questions the reader nmsi seek rttuwels to before placing his or her faith into any one. expert or
btgnni<'Otiort.
!n 1975 Sr George Godbtu iii '.its published addr:•ss to Ute World health Organization, cntphasved that tt would be
essential to roster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would insure those around them, especia Iv•dteir
family -and anv__mfanrs or ynnng cvldren that � .nvonr
would he_xpnsehariJr• y, p TS Gadhars wch placed words Possibly
Provide some clues as to his intent. Vote lie uses the words fuvtur" and 'percerved .. These clearly show that the condirion :nav
not actually exist but the public must 17c made to believe it does csisi. For what purpose? Possibly to further a private circa which of course could not be classified as scientific. Or to create a whole new source.of full cling. research grants. oodbar tile,, reveals
the weapons which could he used to taint the smoker and make him or her the pariah of society. The funny and children.
Nut a so-called "expert" with a gent bito a project which he or she claims will protect the children and you have ate
heretofore unbeatable cttmhination. One need only "foster" a "perception" of danger and who can argue against it,? Ferret
Research can, and will.
Ferret Research is not :ended by anv gruup. corporation. or tcspaycr moruies. It is a group of researchers concealed
with a devastanne bend in this country, 'rhe stnppirte of rehis and privileges of the people by special interest croups who use
fear tactics; prejudice. slander, and children as dtcr arsenal. In a series of repor-s Verret will ask the reader to think. ;lot to argue
about the validity of certain research data concerning F.TS, hilt to look at the authors of these renons. To ascertain possibly dteir
motives veld wlud they are gaining personally out of Uue lrl'S controversy, We will be asking you such questions ns. Can arty
researcher who is :Jready biased in one direction indulge in a shady of i:TS and produce a neutral report) How much in tax or
pnvate gram money is the so -caller) "expert" reccivine and how is it affecting his or her personal life" \Vhat ire the renl
cred=11;11� of the resc idicr wid rue their moives purely eiv c•dundcd or inercenaty'i' ,
We will be raising these issues and n+nrc plus .tmkine .oine hard rinesnpn< to will theft be up tp vote• the reader. Ihu
thinker, to ascenwn lot yotirscives, the tnith of any report. :vici:J1. its vnttt country, your ticadonts, and your tit'c Lose cawnJ
of the first nxq tie ,pea:d intcrest gionp� and the Ibud mone
ld heetnslavery,
Sharman Elliott
t91 ci 1 885-"o?0
cn „ p:rrct Rr<enreh
1?1 0 sr�rf
A
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 18 1993
Marty Ronhoudee OFFICE OF
6844 Live Oak Lane A68£AACHANOOEVELCR.MFNT
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Mr. Ronhoudee:
I am responding to your October 11, 1993, telefax to
Ms. Jennifer Jinot requesting EPA's position on the association
between ETS and heart disease. You also asked specifically
whether or not the reference to 53,000 annual deaths in the U.S
from exposure to secondhand smoke, found in a draft EPA report,
was ever formally endorsed as an official EPA estimate.
With respect to the first point, EPA has not done a formal
health risk assessment on ETS and heart disease and, therefore,
has no Agency endorsed report on it. The only reference I have
found on it which has Agency endorsement is the EPA policy
brochure titled "Secondhand Smoker What You Can Do About
Secondhand Smoke As Parents,_ Decisionmakers, and Building
Occupants" (U.S, EPA, July 1993, 402-F-93-004). In it under
"Other Health Implications" there is a sentence which reads
"Secondhand smoke may affect the cardiovascular system, and some
studies have linked exposure to secondhand smoke with the onset
of chest pain." I am enclosing a copy of the brochure.
On the more specific question of 53,000 annual deaths in the
V.S. from exposure to ETS, that number, as you noted, is from a
1988 or 1989 report by Drs. Glantz and Parmley submitted to the
EPA as a chapter for a technical compendium of information on
ETS. However, that compendium did not receive formal Agency
review and endorsement and is still in draft form.
I hope that answers your questions.
Enclosure
cc: Jennifer Jinot
Si cQrely yours,
9taven Bayard,, h.D.
Statistician
Project Manager for Passive
Smoking Health Risk Assessment
Pn7nd 0n A�Ydwl Pw-