| Passive Smoking |
Article Index for Passive |
Website Links For Smoking |
Information AboutPassive Smoking |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT PASSIVE SMOKING | |
| cigarettes | |
| tobacco | |
| health risks | |
"Second Hand Smoke" redirects here. For the Sublime album, see Second-hand Smoke (album) before the Smoking Ban came into effect on March 29, 2004]] Passive smoking (also known as '''secondhand smoking''', '''involuntary smoking''', '''exposure to environmental tobacco smoke''', or '''ETS exposure''') occurs when smoke from one person's burning Tobacco product (or the smoke exhaled by the smoker) is inhaled by others. Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control ; First international treaty on public health, adopted by 192 countries and signed by 168. Its Article 8.1 states "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General", 2006 ; One of the major conclusions of the Surgeon General Report is: "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke." California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board, "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant" (June 24, 2005) ; on January 26, 2006, the Air Resources Board, following a lengthy review and public outreach process, determined ETS to be a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer "Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking" IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 83, 2002 ; the evaluation of the Monograph is: "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans. [...] Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)." Passive smoking is one of the key issues leading to Smoking Ban s in workplaces and indoor public places, including Restaurants , bars and night clubs. LONG-TERM EFFECTS Research has generated scientific evidence that secondhand smoke (i.e. in case of cigarette, a mixture of smoke released from the smoldering end of the cigarette and smoke exhaled by the smoker) causes the same problems as direct smoking, including , Lung Cancer , and Lung Ailments such as COPD , Bronchitis and Asthma .1 Specifically, Meta-analyses have shown lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer, and those exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased risk of 16–19%.2 A wide array of negative effects are attributed, in whole or in part, to frequent, long term exposure to second hand smoke.345 Some of these effects include:
SHORT-TERM EFFECTS Persons with Asthma can experience attacks brought on by passive smoking11 whether they are adults or children,121314 supporting calls for a Smoking Ban .15 Tobacco smoke is an Irritant , and allergy sufferers can experience stuffy or runny noses, watery or burning eyes, sneezing, coughing, wheezing, a feeling of suffocation, and other typical allergy symptoms within minutes of exposure. Some people with no known allergies and without asthma may cough in smoke-filled rooms, get Headache s, feel Nausea ted, feel sleepy, and experience other ill effects, when they would not normally exhibit these symptoms without the presence of smoke. Many former smokers, and those who are trying to quit prefer to not be around smoke as it can cause them to have cravings. Some people simply do not like the odor, which clings to hair, skin, teeth, fingernails, clothing, furniture, and rugs. Many of these short-term effects terminate after the exposure ends. Repeated exposure, however, is believed to cause more serious long-term effects. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF PASSIVE SMOKING Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking. In 1992, the '' Journal Of The American Medical Association '' published a review of the available evidence regarding the relationship between secondhand smoke and heart disease, and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s.16 Some studies find that non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25% increase in risk of death from heart attack, are more likely to suffer a stroke, and can sometimes contract genital cancer. Some research, such as the Helena Study,17 suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate. The Helena Study reported that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60%.Whincup PH, Gilg JA, Emberson JR, Jarvis MJ, Feyerabend C, Bryant A, Walker M, Cook DG. Passive smoking and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: prospective study with cotinine measurement . BMJ. 2004 Jul 24;329(7459):200-5. PMID 15229131 Parental smoking can affect children and babies, and is associated with low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia, and Middle Ear Infections .18 In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency For Research On Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded: These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.1920 Additionally, studies assessing passive smoking without looking at the partners of smokers have found that high overall exposure to passive smoking is associated with greater risks than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers.21 The National Asthma Council of Australia cites studies showing that: Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is probably the most important indoor pollutant, especially around young children:22
In France passive smoking has been estimated to cause between 3,00023 and 5,000 premature deaths per year, with the larger figure cited by Prime minister Dominique De Villepin during his announcement of a nationwide smoking ban: "That makes more than 13 deaths a day. It is an unacceptable reality in our country in terms of public health."24 Studies of passive smoking in animals Experimental studies in which animals are exposed to tobacco smoke have produced results supporting the Carcinogen icity of passive smoking. The International Agency for Research on Cancer expert group concluded that: There is ''limited evidence'' in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of mixtures of mainstream and sidestream tobacco smoke. Secondhand smoke is generally recognized as a risk factor for cancer in pets. Secondhand Smoke Causes Cancer in Pets , by Andrea Thompson. Posted at LiveScience on August 31 2007 ; accessed August 31 2007 . A study conducted by the Tufts University School Of Veterinary Medicine and the University Of Massachusetts concluded that cats living with a smoker were more likely to get Feline Lymphoma ; the risk increased with the duration of exposure to secondhand smoke and the number of smokers in the household.26 A study by Colorado State University researchers, looking at cases of canine lung cancer, was generally inconclusive, though the authors reported a weak relation for lung cancer in dogs exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.27 In 1990, a tobacco-industry researcher in Germany proposed a study of the effects on animals of lifetime exposure to secondhand smoke. The proposed study was blocked by Philip Morris ,28 as described in an internal company report: PM Morris recently succeeded in blocking Adlkofer's plan to conduct lifetime animal inhalation study of sidestream smoke. ( . . .an INBIFO study has shown that in 90-day inhalation test, no non-reversible changes has been detected. In a lifetime study, the results were almost certain to be less favorable. Based on the analysis, the other members of the German industry agreed that the proposed study should not proceed.)[http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2023223372_3383_0.PDF Smoking and health research activities in Europe , from the Philip Morris document archive . Accessed August 10 2007 . Risk level of passive smoking The International Agency For Research On Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded in 2002 that: There is ''sufficient'' evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans. Most experts believe that moderate, occasional exposure to secondhand smoke presents a small but measurable cancer risk to nonsmokers. The risk is considered more significant if non-smokers work in an environment where cigarette smoke is prevalent.30 In May 2006, the United States Centers For Disease Control issued its first new study on secondhand smoke in 20 years. Surgeon General Richard Carmona summarized: The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought. The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults. The study estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25–30% and lung cancer by 20–30%. The report also found that passive smoke causes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and Asthma attacks in children.31 SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR BANS A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the s have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke.33 ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE AND PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) was shown to be a much higher source of pollution than an idling Ecodiesel engine in regard to Particulate matter (PM) emission. In an experiment conducted by the Tobacco Control Unit of the National Cancer Institute, three cigarettes were left Smoulder ing, one after the other, in a 60 m³ garage with a limited air exchange. The cigarettes produced PM indoor pollution exceeding outdoor limits, as well as PM concentrations up to 10-fold that of the idling engine.34 CRITICISM OF THE SCIENTIFIC MAJORITY VIEW The link between passive smoking and health risk has been the subject of some dissent, notably publicised by 2007 . Critique of confidence intervals Some criticism has focused on debate over proper Confidence Intervals in passive smoking studies. These critics focus on the statistical significance of passive smoke findings at the p=.05 confidence interval. 2007 . writing in the Libertarian Cato Institute 's journal ''Regulation'', claims that "...of the 75 published studies of ETS and lung cancer, some 70 percent did not report statistically significant differences of risk and are moot. Roughly 17 percent claim an increased risk and 13 percent imply a reduction of risk." www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n1/v30n1-5.pdf This is contrary to the scientific consensus, which asserts that the evidence assembled in these studies, when taken as a whole rather than individually, demonstrates a clear link between passive smoking and health risks. The tobacco industry's approach to epidemiology, involving efforts to discredit individual studies rather than addressing the evidence as a whole, was described in the '' American Journal Of Public Health '': A major component of the industry attack was the mounting of a campaign to establish a "bar" for "sound science" that could not be fully met by most individual investigations, leaving studies that did not meet the criteria to be dismissed as "junk science." The campaign also included attempts to characterize relative risks of 2 or less as highly questionable and not amenable to investigation by epidemiologic methods.35 These efforts were largely abandoned by the tobacco industry when it became clear that no independent epidemiological organization would agree to the standards proposed by Philip Morris et al.36 World Health Organization Report controversy A 1998 report by the International Agency For Research On Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) found "weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS."37 In March of 1998, before the study was published, reports appeared in the media alleging that the IARC and the World Health Organization (WHO) were suppressing information. The reports, appearing in the British '' Sunday Telegraph ''38 and '' The Economist '',39 among other sources,Le Grand C. Anti-smokers blown away by study. Australian 1998, March 10.WHO Rejects smoking link with lung cancer. Zimbabwe Independent 1998, Oct 23.No Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer. The Times 1998, March 9. claimed that the WHO withheld from publication its own report that supposedly failed to prove an association between passive smoking and a number of other diseases (lung cancer in particular). In response, the WHO issued a press release entitled: "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer; Do Not Let Them Fool You." The press release denied the allegations, saying that the results of the study had been "completely misrepresented" in the popular press and were in fact very much in line with similar studies demonstrating the harms of passive smoking.40 The study was published in the ''Journal of the National Cancer Institute'' in October of the same year. An accompanying editorial summarized: When all the evidence, including the important new data reported in this issue of the Journal, is assessed, the inescapable scientific conclusion is that ETS is a low-level lung carcinogen.41 It was later discovered that the controversy over the WHO's alleged suppression of data had been engineered by Philip Morris , British American Tobacco , and other tobacco companies, in an effort to discredit findings which would harm their business interests.4243 It was also reported, in the '' American Journal Of Public Health '', that Philip Morris had launched a public relations campaign to "shape the standards of scientific proof to make it impossible to 'prove' that secondhand smoke... is dangerous."44 The Osteen decision In 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the U.S. were caused by passive smoking annually. Philip Morris , R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company , and groups representing growers, distributors and marketers of tobacco took legal action, claiming that the EPA had manipulated this study and ignored accepted scientific and statistical practices. United States District Court Judge William Osteen of the Middle District Of North Carolina vacated this study in 1998 , finding that the EPA had: 1) Publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun 2) Violated procedural requirements 3) Adjusted scientific norms to validate their conclusions 4) Engaged in a scheme to influence public opinion 5) Disregarded information and made findings based on selected information 6) Not disseminated significant information 7) Deviated from its own Risk Assessment Guidelines 8) Failed to disclose important findings and reasoning, and 9) Left significant questions unanswered.45 The EPA appealed Judge Osteen's decision to the United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit . The EPA made five arguments on appeal: 1) The District Court incorrectly held that the Report was final agency action under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 2) The plaintiffs did not have proper standing to challenge the EPA report 3) The EPA had followed certain protocols 4) Any violation of protocols were not grounds for vacating the Report, and 5) The District Court exceeded its scope of judicial review. In 2002 , the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision below solely on the procedural ground that "the Report is not a reviewable agency action under the APA."46 Enstrom and Kabat Two studies by Enstrom and Kabat suggest that previous studies may have overestimated the effect of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) on both lung cancer and heart disease. The first, a Cohort Study spanning 39 years, appeared in the May 17 2003 issue of the '' British Medical Journal '' (BMJ). Focusing on over 35,500 never-smokers, the study concluded that "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."47 This study was the subject of considerable debate. BMJ Editor Richard Smith defended the publication, explaining that the study was "a useful contribution to an important debate... We must be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered." Smith also "found it disturbing that so many people and organisations referred to the flaws in the study without specifying what they were."48 Enstrom and Kabat's second contribution was a 2006 Meta-analysis , published in ''Inhalation Technology'', which came to similar conclusions.49 The BMJ study was criticised by the American Cancer Society , which describes the study as "misinformation" on the grounds that both the original cohort and Enstrom and Kabat's follow-ups were inappropriate for reliably determining ETS exposure and smoking history and that Enstrom and Kabat had failed to disclose funding from the tobacco industry.50 Other criticisms were made on methodological grounds.515253 Role of tobacco industry funding Supporters of the scientific consensus have argued that much criticism is funded by the tobacco industry.54 The influence of tobacco-industry funding on studies of passive smoking was investigated in a literature review by Barnes & Bero, who found that the only factor associated with concluding that passive smoking is not harmful was whether an author was affiliated with the tobacco industry.55 The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report criticized the tobacco industry's role in the scientific debate: The industry has funded or carried out research that has been judged to be biased, supported scientists to generate letters to editors that criticized research publications, attempted to undermine the findings of key studies, assisted in establishing a scientific society with a journal, and attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus.As quoted in the '' 2006 ; accessed July 25 2007 . Presentation of dissent in legal cases In the 2004-2005 case of ''United States of America v. Philip Morris et al.'', heard by the United States District Court For The District Of Columbia , the tobacco industry called only one Expert Witness to dispute what the Court described as "the overwhelming weight of scientific authority finding that secondhand smoke is a health risk to both adults and children."pp. 1234-1235 This witness, Edwin Bradley, stated his belief that the existing evidence did not demonstrate a link between passive smoking and lung cancer or heart disease. His testimony was rejected by the Court, which found it "not credible" for, among other reasons, focusing primarily on the Statistical Significance of individual studies of passive smoking. The Court found that: No scientific or medical authority shares Dr. Bradley's view. Statistical significance is not one of the Surgeon General’s criteria for causality. As described below, it is a statistician's term of art, a tool to evaluate the possibility of chance in a particular study... Moreover, Dr. Bradley admits that he stands alone in adopting and applying his test.p. 1235 Current state of controversy Currently, there is widespread scientific agreement that passive smoking is harmful, with little to no scientific dissent. The link between passive smoking and lung cancer is widely accepted; while there is general agreement regarding the existence of a link between passive smoking and heart disease, as reported by the WHO and Surgeon General, the magnitude of the increased risk remains debated by a minority of epidemiologists.Passive Smoking: Out from the Haze, by Kris Novak. ''Nature'' 2007 Jun 28;447(7148):1049-51. PMID 17597735. For example, John Bailar of the National Academy Of Sciences questioned the proportionality of the passive smoking risk, stating, "Regular smoking only increases the risk of cardiovascular disease by 75%, so how could second-hand smoke, which is much more dilute, have an effect one-third that size?" One explanation put forward is that secondhand smoke is not simply a diluted version of "mainstream" smoke, but has a different composition with more toxic substances per gram of total particulate matter. For other scientists, on the other hand, the risk of passive smoking, in particular the risk of developing coronary heart diseases, may have been substantially underestimated.56 The health benefit to non-smokers of smoking bans has also been disputed by a small number of epidemiologists, who call for a prospective trial to more accurately determine the benefit. These epidemiologists advocate indoor smoking bans, but express a concern that widespread outdoor smoking bans,as implemented by some towns in the U.S., may be unsupported by the evidence available thus far. TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESPONSE The passive smoking issue poses a serious economic threat to the tobacco industry. It has broadened the definition of smoking beyond a personal habit to something with a social impact, it has been the cause of successful litigation against employers by workers with a history of exposure to smoke, and it has resulted in various types of smoking restrictions. In a confidential 1978 report, the tobacco industry described increasing public concerns about passive smoking as "the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred." A STUDY OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD CIGARETTE SMOKING AND THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY IN 1978 , produced for the Tobacco Institute and released under the terms of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement . In ''United States of America v. Philip Morris et al.'', the District Court for the District of Columbia found that the tobacco industry "... recognized from the mid-1970s forward that the health effects of passive smoking posed a profound threat to industry viability and cigarette profits," and that the industry responded with "efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that ETS causes disease." Accordingly, the tobacco industry have developed several strategies to minimise its impact on their business:
Citing the tobacco industry's production of biased research and efforts to undermine scientific findings, the 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report concluded that the industry had "attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus... industry documents indicate that the tobacco industry has engaged in widespread activities... that have gone beyond the bounds of accepted scientific practice." Executive Summary of the U.S. Surgeon General's Report , 2006. The U.S. District Court, in ''U.S.A. v. Philip Morris et al.'', found that "...despite their internal acknowledgment of the hazards of secondhand smoke, Defendants have fraudulently denied that ETS causes disease.", p. 1523 Position of major tobacco companies Altadis (site accessed on November 19, 2006)
British American Tobacco (site accessed on July 27, 2007)
Imperial Tobacco Group plc (site accessed on November 19, 2006)
JT International (Japan Tobacco) (site accessed on November 19, 2006)
Philip Morris USA (site accessed on November 19, 2006)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (site accessed on November 19, 2006)
SMOKING BANS See also: Smoking Ban s, List Of Smoking Bans As a consequence of the health risks associated with passive smoking, a general Ban On Smoking in all establishments serving food and drink, including Restaurant s, Café s, and Nightclub s, was introduced in Norway on 1 June 2004 , and in Sweden on 1 June 2005 , the United Kingdom on 1 July 2007 , and Many Parts Of The United States have similar legislation in place. These initial bans have grown in scope, with countries (such as Ireland , the UK , Australia ), jurisdictions (like New York State , Washington State , Ohio , and Arkansas in the U.S.) now prohibiting smoking in public buildings as well as private businesses such as restaurants and clubs. Many office buildings contain specially ventilated smoking areas; some are required by Law to provide them. The state of Hawaii recently passed a bill making it illegal to smoke in any public place or within 20 feet of an entrance or ventilation shaft intake of a building. Some regions and local governments have banned smoking in all workplaces, in taxicabs, and in ventilated smoking rooms or enclosed smoking shelters such as those found in front of hospitals. Even in countries traditionally seen as nations of smokers, opinion polls have shown support for bans, with 70% of those in France supporting a ban. |
|
|