Using Ctr Special Projects To Exonerate Secondhand Smoke

In 1981 Patrick Sirridge, an attorney at Shook, Hardy, and Bacon, wrote a letter to a group of tobacco industry lawyers known as the Committee of Counsel recommending funding for a revised proposal that had been submitted by Dr. Theodor D. Sterling {2026.01}. The purpose of Sterling's project was to study sick building syndrome. (Sick building syndrome refers to buildings in which a substantial proportion of occupants experience symptoms such as headaches or eye irritation when inside the building. Sick building syndrome has become increasingly common since the 1970s, when new buildings were built without windows that opened

and in which air was recirculated to conserve energy. Outgassing of building materials, carpeting, and furnishings and accumulation of bacteria and other contaminants can contribute to sick building syndrome, as can tobacco smoke.) In his letter Sirridge notes that "Dr. Sterling has incorporated into the current proposal plans for collection of data on substances [other than tobacco smoke] present in buildings." In Dr. Sterling's previous work on sick building syndrome, Sirridge points out, "[s]moking was considered and found not to be a problem." Dr. Sterling's request of $207,913 for eighteen months was recommended for funding.

It is our opinion that this study could be useful with respect to the controversial issue of restriction of smoking in the workplace. {2026.01}

As discussed in detail in chapter 8, Sterling has regularly appeared on behalf of the tobacco industry at scientific meetings and legislative and administrative hearings as an independent scientist who believes that the risks associated with passive smoking are being overstated by health authorities. The documents indicate that Sterling has received more than $6 million in special project funding from 1971 to 1990 (table 8.1).

Another special project related to ETS was conducted by ACVA Atlantic, Inc. ACVA Atlantic was awarded $13,800 in 1985 to conduct a special project on air quality in the home. The proposal for the project stated:

Results of such a study ... could demonstrate that environmental tobacco smoke has a relatively insignificant effect on indoor air quality. {2041.03}

The methodology for the study is described as follows:

Twelve homes will be selected in three discrete areas of the country giving a total of 36 homes, the selection will be by the Tobacco Institute who will provide the names, addresses, phone numbers and contact at each of the homes chosen to ACVA [emphasis added]. {2041.04}

ACVA Atlantic, which later changed its name to Healthy Buildings International (HBI), characterizes itself as an independent firm that specializes in monitoring indoor air quality and in diagnosing causes of sick building syndrome. However, it is highly unusual for an "independent" company to allow an organization such as the Tobacco Institute, which clearly has a strong interest in the outcome of the study, to select the sites for its study.

To our knowledge, the ACVA Atlantic study has never been published, and the tobacco industry has never used the data for any purpose. However, a study conducted by ACVA Atlantic's successor, HBI, has been cited extensively by the tobacco industry. This study—which was funded

by the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR), a tobacco industry–sponsored organization similar to CTR (27)—was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Its authors measured levels of ETS in typical office buildings and concluded that "with good ventilation, acceptable air quality can be maintained with moderate amounts of smoking" (28). A congressional inquiry subsequently found, however, that more than 25 percent of the data from the HBI study was falsified (27, 29, 30). For example, employees of HBI who conducted the study stated that they had been instructed to put their measuring devices in lobbies and other open areas, in order to keep ETS readings as low as possible (31, exhibit 2). In addition, HBI employees stated that their data collection sheets were routinely altered, so that the levels of ETS recorded were lower than those that had actually been measured (31, exhibit 2). An independent analysis of HBI's data concluded that there were "many unexplained anomalies, raising serious questions about the integrity of [the] data" (27, exhibit 10). A reanalysis of HBI's data revealed that, in areas where moderate smoking occurred, "the impact of ETS on indoor air quality is 40-fold greater than HBI asserts publicly" (27, exhibit 10).

Gray Robertson, the president of HBI, and other HBI employees have testified on at least 129 occasions before local, state, and federal government agencies regarding various proposals to ban smoking in public places (27, exhibit 9). Their standard statement is that, according to their studies, moderate levels of smoking can be tolerated with adequate ventilation (27, 33). In many cases they did not acknowledge tobacco industry support (31, 32).