COMMENTS OF BRENNAN DAWSON JULY 20, 1992 Tomorrow, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Thank you for joining us this morning Respiratory Health two-day public hearing on the Agency's draft document; will begin The SAB will then Lung Cancer ad Other Disorders. Ettects of Passive Smoking: provide recommendations to EPA Administrator William Reilly: This has been a long process, and one that has been intensely covered in the media for more than twO years_ the smoke t0 which nonsmoker EPA's treatment of environmental tobacco smoke Science and public policy are getting is without Agency precedent: may be exposed Press reports would have the public believe that nothing is amiss that shont shritt everything is being done according to the rules. That is far from accurate selectively used data and has EPA has employed questionable scientific  standards elinos and the recommendations of expert panels on the appropriate ignored its own gulde methods for conducting scientific reviews_ panel of The first draft of the EPA report was issued in June 1990 ad considered by The panel was critical of the dratt ad called for major the SAB in December 1990. The SAB also acknowledged that labeling ETS as a Group A carcinogen; Or revisions: guidelines for carcinogen;,  might not be possible under EPA's "known human Own carcinogen classification: Rather than disapproving the classification; however, the SAB panel in essence suggested Group guidelines to accommodate that EPA change the rules by revising The SAB also urged EPA to attempt to 'make the case' against staff designation for ETS: ETS based on active smoking data Now, here we are for a second review: ETS/lung Even though the Science Advisory Board already has recognized that the EPA persists in selectively using this data t0 cancer  epidemiology are weak, results support its case: This still doesntt wOrk: Over two-thirds of the studies reviewed in the EPA dratt document do not report 1 a statistically significant associations between reported exposure to ETS and lung cancer Group Never before has EPA proposed to classity substance as among nonsmokers: carcinogen on the basis of such weak ad inconclusive data
COMMENTS OF BRENNAN DAWSON JULY 20, 1992 Thank you for joining us this morning Tomorrow, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) will begin two-day public hearing on the Agency's draft document; Respiratory Health Ettects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer ad Other Disorders. The SAB will then provide recommendations to EPA Administrator William Reilly: This has been a long process, and one that has been intensely covered in the media for more than twO years_ EPA's treatment of environmental tobacco smoke the smoke t0 which nonsmoker may be exposed is without Agency precedent: Science and public policy are getting shont shritt Press reports would have the public believe that nothing is amiss that everything is being done according to the rules. That is far from accurate EPA has employed questionable scientific  standards selectively used data and has ignored its own gulde elinos and the recommendations of expert panels on the appropriate methods for conducting scientific reviews_ The first draft of the EPA report was issued in June 1990 ad considered by  panel of the SAB in December 1990. The panel was critical of the dratt ad called for major revisions: The SAB also acknowledged that labeling ETS as a Group A carcinogen; Or "known human carcinogen;,  might not be possible under EPA's Own guidelines for carcinogen classification: Rather than disapproving the classification; however, the SAB panel in essence suggested that EPA change the rules by revising guidelines to accommodate Group designation for ETS: The SAB also urged EPA staff to attempt to 'make the case' against ETS based on active smoking data Now, here we are for a second review: Even though the Science Advisory Board already has recognized that the ETS/lung cancer  epidemiology results are weak, EPA persists in selectively using this data t0 support its case: This still doesntt wOrk: Over two-thirds of the studies reviewed in the EPA dratt document do not report a statistically significant associations between reported exposure to ETS and lung cancer among nonsmokers: Never before has EPA proposed to classity substance as Group carcinogen on the basis of such weak ad inconclusive data 1