WHO DENIES SUPPRESSING SECONDHAND SMOKE STUDY

GENEVA - The World Health Organization has angrily denied reports in the
British press that it had suppressed a study showing that secondhand smoke
doesn't cause lung cancer.

Articles in the London's Sunday Telegraph and yesterday's Times of London
said the seven-year study was an embarrassment to the agency.

Industry giant British-American Tobacco Co. said the study casts "further
doubt" on the health effects of passive smoking. WHO countered in a
statement yesterday, saying the study had not been withheld and that its
design was the reason it could not conclusively link cancer with secondhand
smoke.

"Passive smoking does cause cancer. Do not let them fool you," WHO said.

WHO examined the effects of environmental tobacco smoke in seven European
countries, seeking to test results of earlier studies that found increased
risks of lung cancer for nonsmokers exposed to smoke.

The agency said it found about a 16 percent increased cancer risk in
passive smokers. However, WHO acknowledged that this increase was not
considered to be meaningful, because too few people were studied.

This study compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people.
Studies intended to pinpoint small increases in risk often must study many
thousands of people in order to rule out the possibility that the results
were a matter of chance.

"If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk, you have to ask
whether there can be any risk at all," said British Tobacco's Head of
Science Chris Proctor.

Even in conjunction with previous studies over the past 17 years, the
company said the study doesn't show any "meaningful" increase in cancer
risk from passive smoking.

But WHO tobacco unit chief Neil Collishaw said the findings were consistent
with earlier studies - including three last year by Australia, California
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - that add up to a "clear
global scientific consensus" that passive smoking causes lung cancer.

WHO also said a paper containing the study's main results was sent last
month to a "reputable scientific journal" for review following normal
pre-publication procedures.