Saturday, July 25, 1998

Studies used to make policy must be sound

A federal judge has ruled the Environmental Protection Agency basically fudged a pivotal 1993 study in the war on smoking to reach the predetermined conclusion that secondhand smoke causes cancer.

The EPA is debating whether to appeal. The judge's ruling is a serious charge, and the EPA should appeal or at least find some other forum to defend the integrity of its process and the validity of its findings.

Numerous state and local governments used that study, which linked 3,000 cancer deaths a year to secondhand smoke, to justify prohibitions against smoking in public places, offices and restaurants.

Typically overreaching, the tobacco companies - through their lawyers, not, it should be noted, their scientists - are claiming the ruling gives them blanket absolution, that "science does not justify public smoking bans." Judge William Osteen made no such finding. He only ruled that this study overstated the cancer risk from secondhand smoke. Some, more recent studies support the EPA's findings; others are as inconclusive as the judge found EPA's.

Other reasons to ban smoking

There are other reasons to ban smoking in publicly shared spaces, not the least of which is that many people find other people's smoke disgusting.

Anti-smoking advocates are probably correct in predicting that the judge's ruling may slow but not stop municipal smoking bans.

Osteen's ruling, assuming it stands, will benefit the tobacco companies in lawsuits alleging damages from secondhand smoke. It does not affect EPA regulations, since the study was only used to justify a policy recommendation that indoor smoking be banned.

But the decision still raises a critical point: Scientific studies used to justify major government policy changes should be close to bulletproof. Smoking is a health hazard and maybe secondhand smoke is, too, but a federal agency has no basis tinkering with the data to make it so.