Children of Tobacco Users Suffer More Ailments : Panel Cites Harm From ‘Passive’ Smoke

A panel of scientists, saying that children of smoking parents more frequently suffer respiratory ailments than children living in smoke-free homes, urged Friday that young children, especially infants, not be exposed to “passive” tobacco smoke.

“The exposure of small children to smoking in the home appears to put them at risk of respiratory illness,” said a committee of the National Research Council, an affiliate of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, in releasing a yearlong study on the effects of tobacco smoke in the environment.

“Chronic exposure to tobacco smoke clearly is harmful to small children, and parents should take steps to eliminate it from their environments,” said Barbara Hulka, chairwoman of the epidemiology department of the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina, who headed the panel.

Twice as Often

The panel’s conclusions were based on a comprehensive assessment of available research on environmental tobacco smoke. Its report said the respiratory infections may occur up to twice as often during the first year of life in children who live in homes of smokers as compared to those of nonsmokers, and that these children are hospitalized for respiratory infections more frequently.

Further, the panel said, there is evidence of a small decrease in lung capacity among children of smokers, greater likelihood of stunted growth and an increased risk for chronic ear infections.

In other findings, the committee said that studies throughout the world show that spouses of smokers have a 30% increased risk for developing lung cancer over that of spouses of nonsmokers.

Increases Risk

The panel acknowledged that no data was available on the effects of short-term, occasional exposure, such as in the workplace. However, Hulka said: “Nevertheless, when taken as a whole, the scientific evidence shows that exposure to passive smoking does increase the risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers,” although, “the size of this increased risk is not certain.”

Hulka, speaking at a press conference, said the panel estimated that approximately 20% of lung cancer cases among nonsmokers were due to exposure to cigarette smoke. In 1985, there were an estimated 12,000 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers, she said.

The National Research Council study, which was conducted at the request of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency, is the second of three major reports to be issued this year on environmental tobacco smoke. In August, the National Academy of Sciences called for a ban on smoking on all domestic airline flights. Next month, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop is expected to issue his annual report on smoking, which will also deal with the effects of passive smoke on nonsmokers.

‘Positive Development’

Scott Stapf, assistant to the president of the Tobacco Institute, said that, although he found “major problems with key conclusions” in the National Research Council report, it “nonetheless represents a dramatic and, from our perspective, positive development in the scientific discussion of environmental tobacco smoke.”

He added: “The report clearly backs away from and turns down the level of hysteria in some elements of the scientific community about environmental tobacco smoke. It appears that cooler heads are finally prevailing after years of extreme claims and wild-eyed statements about risks to nonsmokers from environmental tobacco smoke--including 100% or more increases in the likelihood of cancer and other claimed health effects.”

The report was also praised by anti-smoking organizations. “The evidence is clear and overwhelming that tobacco smoke not only contaminates and pollutes the air, but it can cause disease to innocent bystanders who have no choice but to inhale the smoke,” said Ahron Leichtman, president of Citizens Against Tobacco Smoke, a national coalition of 42 groups working to ban smoking on airlines.

‘No Question’

The committee said that “there is no question” that many nonsmokers suffer acute effects from passive smoke, including eye, nose or throat irritation, “and many also find the odor of cigarette smoke very objectionable.”

The panel added: “Indoor ventilation rates must be five times higher in spaces where smoking is allowed versus areas where it is not in order to compensate for these acute effects in nonsmokers.”

Hulka emphasized that the panel was not asked to recommend public policy actions, but she said that “we hope policy makers and the lay public will use this information in an appropriate way” to formulate new policies regarding smoking, “and for one’s individual thinking and behavior.”