Study fails to link passive smoking with cancer
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
THE World Health Organisation has finally published a study which shows that there is no significant statistical link between passive smoking and lung cancer.
As reported by The Telegraph in March, the 12-centre, seven-country European study failed to prove the anti-tobacco lobby's assertion that there is a significant correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer.
The 10-year study was co-ordinated by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, based in Lyons, France, and involved 650 lung cancer patients who were compared with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to or worked with smokers, who worked with and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.
Data was also collected on other environmental factors, such as heating and cooking arrangements, exposure to known occupational lung carcinogens, and, in some centres, dietary habits.
The study, which has been published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and is the largest of its kind in Europe, shows that there is "no relationship between childhood exposure to second-hand smoke at home and lung cancer".
And it found a "statistically non-significant positive association" between exposure to spousal smoking and lung cancer and for those who work with smokers.
The IARC scientists said in March that their findings translated into a 16-17 per cent relative risk of contracting lung cancer if you lived or worked with a smoker. But they now concede that 16-17 per cent is statistically non-significant, implying that it could have been produced by random chance.
The Telegraph was criticised for reporting the findings, which had been quietly published in abstract form in the WHO's biennial report. Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) reported The Sunday Telegraph to the Press Complaints Commission claiming the article was "false and misleading".
Clive Bates, the director of Ash, said in a press release that the publication supported his interpretation of the statistics. Mr Bates's objection to this newspaper's report was largely founded on the headline: "Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer - Official". The word "official" referred to the provenance of the findings - the WHO.
Mr Bates continued: "As yet, there has been no retraction, correction or apology by the newspaper . . ."
The PCC has not yet made a decision on the complaint and the Ash press release suggested that this was because of the appointment of Dominic Lawson, the editor of The Sunday Telegraph, to the commission.
Mr Lawson said last night: "The Sunday Telegraph has no intention of apologising for stating that the WHO study showed no significant statistical correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer. The press release from the National Cancer Institute refers to 'statistically non-significant' links and in the case of childhood exposure 'no association' with lung cancer."
Mr Lawson added: "It is reprehensible of Ash to imply that I could in any way delay the judgment of the PCC and, indeed, it would be most improper of me to play any part in the PCC's deliberations on this matter."
In an interview with this newspaper on Friday Mr Bates said: "We are not saying that if you are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke you are going to fall down dead. If you are a non-smoker, you are not that likely to get lung cancer."
He also said that the issue was heart disease. This was not, however, the subject of the IARC report.
