THE EPA'S SMOKE SCREEN

MY neighborhood grill-and-ale house has banned smoking inside its premises
since the first of the year Those who choose to light up must do so in a
designated smoking area out-side. I must say, I like this arrangement.

I never cared to breathe the cigarette fumes of others. Nor did I like it
when my clothes, my hair, even my skin reeked of tobacco smoke. But having
mentioned all this, I must also say that I do not like the reason my
favorite watering hole went "smoke free." It was mandated by California
state law, which took effect New Year's Day, banning smoking not only in
restaurants, but also in bars.

And the pretext of this law was a 1993 study and declaration by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency that second-hand smoke Is a Class A
carcinogen as hazardous as asbestos, benzene and radon -and that it causes
some 3,000 lung-cancer deaths a year.

Even folks like me who aren't cigarette smokers, who appreciate a
smoke-free environment, suspected that the EPA's findings were politically
motivated rather than based on sound science. And earlier this month, a
federal judge in North Carolina arrived at the same conclusion.

"EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun," wrote
U.S. District Court Judge William Osteen. Furthermore, the judge added, the
regulatory agency violated federal law, the 1986 Radon Gas and Indoor Air
Quality Re-search Act, in determining that secondhand smoke was a potent
carcinogen.

The law requires that a broad-based panel be convened to make such
determinations and that the panel include representatives of affected
industries. However, the EPA deliberately excluded tobacco-Industry
representatives from its secondhand smoke panel.

Moreover, wrote Osteen, the EPA "adjusted established procedure and
scientific norms to validate the agency's public conclusions." In other
words, the EPA dishonestly selected a small batch of studies that
sup-ported its desired conclusion -that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer
- - while ignoring a larger batch of studies that contradicted its finding.
Two of the studies the EPA ignored were actually sponsorec by organizations
that are any-thing but sympathetic to the tobacco industry.

One study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, found that non-smokers
have no increased risk of lung cancer as a result of exposure to secondhand
smoke during childhood, in the work-place or from living with a pack a-day
smoker for as many as 40 years.

Another study, conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer
and funded by the World Health Organization, similarly concluded that
secondhand smoke poses no significant health risk.

Despite these authoritative studies, despite Judge Osteen's ruling last
week striking down the conclusion of the EPA's 1993 study, the agency
continues to deceive the public that secondhand is not merely a nuisance,
but a proven health hazard.

"The decision (by Osteen) is disturbing," said EPA Administrator Carol
Browner, "because it is widely accepted that secondhand smoke poses very
real health threats to children and adults."

Browner and other anti-smoking crusaders also went so far as to question
Judge Osteen's integrity, because his court is located in North Carolina,
one of the nation's leading tobacco-producing syates. But these same
anti-smoking crusaders applauded the same judge last year when he ruled
that the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to regulate
cigarettes - a ruling to which the tobacco industry strenuously objected.

THE issue here really is not so much about second-hand smoke. It's more
about the corruption of science by the EPA for political purposes. And
while hardly anyone sympathizes with the unpopular tobacco industry, save
for maybe the nation's 50 million smokers, the EPA can just as easily
victimize other less-unpopular industries that fall under its regulatory
purview.

That's why Judge Osteen's ruling was a victory not only for the evil
tobacco industry, but also for all American industries. By throwing out the
EPA's fraudulent conclusions on secondhand smoke, the jurist has struck a
blow for scientific justice.

Joseph Perkins is a columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)