STUDY FAILS TO LINK PASSIVE SMOKING WITH CANCER

THE World Health Organisation has finally published a study which
shows that there is no significant statistical link between passive
smoking and lung cancer.

As reported by The Telegraph in March, the 12-centre, seven-country
European study failed to prove the anti-tobacco lobby's assertion that
there is a significant correlation between passive smoking and lung
cancer.

The 10-year study was co-ordinated by the WHO's International Agency
for Research on Cancer, based in Lyons, France, and involved 650 lung
cancer patients who were compared with 1,542 healthy people. It looked
at people who were married to or worked with smokers, who worked with
and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

Data was also collected on other environmental factors, such as
heating and cooking arrangements, exposure to known occupational lung
carcinogens, and, in some centres, dietary habits.

The study, which has been published in the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute, and is the largest of its kind in Europe, shows that
there is "no relationship between childhood exposure to second-hand
smoke at home and lung cancer".

And it found a "statistically non-significant positive association"
between exposure to spousal smoking and lung cancer and for those who
work with smokers.

The IARC scientists said in March that their findings translated into
a 16-17 per cent relative risk of contracting lung cancer if you lived
or worked with a smoker. But they now concede that 16-17 per cent is
statistically non-significant, implying that it could have been
produced by random chance.

The Telegraph was criticised for reporting the findings, which had
been quietly published in abstract form in the WHO's biennial report.
Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) reported The Sunday Telegraph to
the Press Complaints Commission claiming the article was "false and
misleading".

Clive Bates, the director of Ash, said in a press release that the
publication supported his interpretation of the statistics. Mr Bates's
objection to this newspaper's report was largely founded on the
headline: "Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer - Official". The
word "official" referred to the provenance of the findings - the WHO.
Mr Bates continued: "As yet, there has been no retraction, correction
or apology by the newspaper . . ."

The PCC has not yet made a decision on the complaint and the Ash press
release suggested that this was because of the appointment of Dominic
Lawson, the editor of The Sunday Telegraph, to the commission.

Mr Lawson said last night: "The Sunday Telegraph has no intention of
apologising for stating that the WHO study showed no significant
statistical correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer. The
press release from the National Cancer Institute refers to
'statistically non-significant' links and in the case of childhood
exposure 'no association' with lung cancer."

Mr Lawson added: "It is reprehensible of Ash to imply that I could in
any way delay the judgment of the PCC and, indeed, it would be most
improper of me to play any part in the PCC's deliberations on this
matter."

In an interview with this newspaper on Friday Mr Bates said: "We are
not saying that if you are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke you
are going to fall down dead. If you are a non-smoker, you are not that
likely to get lung cancer."

He also said that the issue was heart disease. This was not, however,
the subject of the IARC report.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry