The truth behind the studies

I believe it's important to clear up some of the studies being pushed by the opposition to the smoke-free ballot measure -- most are biased and have been discredited.

The 1995 Congressional Research Study that's used as a way to prove that secondhand smoke isn't harmful contains a controversial method of analysis that most scientists and public health officials don't accept. One of the study's authors, Stephen Redhead of CRS, an arm of the U.S. Library of Congress, said the report does not dispute the claim that secondhand smoke "is a known, class A carcinogen" that can cause lung cancer.

The National Restaurant Association study used to show economic harm was funded with a $75,000 grant from Philip Morris. Restaurants from around the U.S. were cherry-picked for their study, looking at only 232 restaurants (down from 3,145) covered by any smoke-free law. And consequently, the authors preface the study with a statement that reads, "Estimates should be interpreted with caution."

Finally, the British Medical Journal study being pushed as a way to show secondhand smoke isn't harmful was funded by the tobacco industry with it's author receiving over $200,000 from Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, who wanted to show there's controversy about the dangers of secondhand smoke. And as the British Medical Association stated, "the study is fundamentally flawed."

There are many studies around this issue. But the authors, intent and funders of each study are just as important to examine as the findings.

KURT HOUGLAND, Cape Girardeau