EPA STILL MAINTAINS STANCE ON SMOKING

The agency is likely to appeal a judge's ruling striking down a 1993 report
critical of secondhand smoke.

Washington-The Environmental Protection Agency is standing by its finding
that secondhand tobacco smoke causes cancer despite a federal judge's
decision striking down its 1993 report that made the link.

Although lawyers are still reviewing the ruling handed down by U.S.
District Judge William Osteen in North Carolina, officials said Sunday that
an appeal is all but a certainty.

Osteen, acting on a lawsuit filed by the tobacco industry, ruled the EPA
based its 1993 report on inadequate science and failed to demonstrate a
statistically significant relationship between secondhand smoke and lung
cancer.

"The decision is disturbing," EPA Administrator Carol Browner said Sunday.
"We believe the health threats to children and adults from breathing
secondhand smoke are very real."

The EPA's controversial 1993 report on environmental tobacco smoke
concluded that secondhand tobacco smoke should be classified as a Class A
carcinogen and was responsible for more than 3,000 lung-cancer deaths a
year.

Although the agency never issued formal regulations to control secondhand
smoke, the report has been cited widely in decisions by state and local
officials to restrict smoking in public places, including restaurants,
airliners, offices and - in California - even bars.

EPA spokeswoman Loretta Ucelli said it appeared "the decision was based
largely on procedural grounds."

Osteen, a judge in the Middle District of North Carolina, ruled that the
EPA followed improper procedure in compiling its report by not including
industry in its deliberations as required by the 1986 Radon Gas and Indoor
Air Quality Research Act. That's the law used to support the secondhand
tobacco smoke decision.

The judge further criticized the EPA for having "aggressively utilized" the
report's findings "to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to
restrict plaintiff's products and to influence public opinion."

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)