Thank you for your correspondence dated January 28, 2000. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions. Answers to these same questions have been previously provided to individuals and associations that purport to represent your industry. It is unfortunate if indeed these representatives have been unable to disseminate this information to you, as an owner, employer or worker in the industry.

Your first four questions relate to the scientific evidence that supports the Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) requirements contained in the OH&S Regulation. The scientific evidence that ETS causes adverse health effects is too extensive to provide you with a list. Instead, I would refer you to expert reviews or summaries of the toxic effects of ETS. For example, the following expert groups have reviewed the scientific evidence and, as a result, have identified ETS as a carcinogen;

• Health Canada,

• The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),

• The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health in the U.K.,

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

• The National Cancer Institute (NCI),

• The Surgeon General,

• The National Academy of Science,

• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,

• The EPA Science Advisory Board,

• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration,

• The California EPA,

• The U.S. National Toxicology Program,

Of these groups, the most up-to-date summary report that comprehensively documents the health risks of ETS is Monograph No.10 "Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke", published by the National Cancer Institute. This report documents the adverse health effects that are causally associated with ETS exposure. These effects include:

• Carcinogenic effects (lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer);

• Cardiovascular effects (death due to heart disease, acute and chronic coronary heart disease)

• Developmental effects (decreased fetal growth, sudden infant death syndrome)

• Respiratory effects (eye and nasal irritation in adults)

The report also details the evidence which suggests a causal association between exposure to ETS and the following effects:

• Carcinogenic effects (cervical cancer)

• Developmental effects (spontaneous abortion, adverse impact on cognition and behavior)

• Respiratory effects (exacerbation of cystic fibrosis, decreased pulmonary function)

Extensive bibliographies, included in the report, list the individual papers and studies that address each of these different types of adverse health effect. Included in these references are specific studies that identify increased risk of disease to members of the hospitality industry.

Your second question refers specifically to the notion of a "safe level". ETS is a complex mixture that contains more than 4,000 constituents, of which more than 40 are known or suspect carcinogens. The WCB has the legal responsibility and mandate to protect workers' health and safety. There is no credible, scientific evidence as to what constitutes a safe level of ETS exposure.

In addition, many of the toxic chemicals that are contained in ETS are designated as ALARA (As low as reasonably achievable) substances. This means that the employer has the duty to eliminate exposure to these substances whenever practicable. As ETS is a chemical contaminant that is typically not essential to the work process, it is practicable to eliminate it in virtually every workplace. There is no jurisdiction in North America that has established limits of acceptable exposure for ETS. The position of both health and regulatory authorities is that there is no known safe level of exposure.

Your third question refers specifically to a general ventilation proposal that was rejected by WCB. Neither the Board nor any other regulatory agency is aware of a general ventilation design that would provide adequate protection for workers from exposure to ETS. A general ventilation system assumes a safe level of exposure and to the Board's knowledge, there isn't one ¹. Such ventilation systems are more about comfort than they are about safety. General exhaust ventilation systems do not prevent workers from breathing ETS, or any other air contaminant for that matter, and therefore do not meet the intent of the Regulation.

In fact, the industry committee's general ventilation proposal is based largely on the US tobacco industry's "Accommodation Program". This program, sponsored by large tobacco manufacturing corporations including Phillip Morris, purports to provide alternatives to health authority requirements for smoking restrictions. It even uses the slogan "Get rid of the smoke not the smoker." However, the "Sign of the Times" newsletter published by Phillip Morris to promote its accommodation program states that "The Accommodation Program does not purport to address health effects attributed to smoking." (Phillip Morris "Sign of the Times" Newsletter, Summer 1998) This fine print in the newsletter gives Philip Morris legal cover against potential liability claims for knowingly exposing nonsmokers to dangerous secondhand smoke.

Your final question refers to the claims experience of the WCB with regards to ETS exposure. The WCB has provided compensation to workers as a result of ETS exposure at their workplace. Between 5 to 10 claims are received annually, the majority of claims are related to acute exposures and aggravation of a pre-existing medical condition.

There is a long latency period for many conditions (10-20 years for cancers) and people may not associate a condition that develops years later to a work exposure. Further, these conditions can be multi-causal in origin. Consequently, individuals exposed to ETS may not associate a respiratory condition they experience with their workplace exposure. If the association is made, the individual may not be aware that s/he can claim for this type of exposure. With the increased knowledge and awareness of the adverse health effects associated with ETS, it is likely that the future claims experience will be significantly greater than the past claims experience.

In the future, should you wish to obtain clarification on ETS or any other aspect of the Workers' Compensation Act or OH&S Regulation, please feel free to take advantage of the education and outreach services provided by the WCB.

Prevention Division information specialists, at the WCB Information line (1-888-621-7233) are available to answer any occupational health or safety question. They can provide support material and information for anyone seeking clarification of specific requirements or hazards. On the topic of ETS, the WCB has available a pamphlet, "Working Smoke-free" and lists of Frequently Asked Questions, including several specific to the hospitality industry. Additional support materials can also be ordered through the WCB Films and Posters Department or through the WCB web page (www.wcb.bc.ca or www.worksafebc.com).

The Prevention Division also provides occupational health and safety education for stakeholders on an on-going basis. For example, between April 1998 and April 1999, the Prevention Division conducted 870 sessions, attended by 23,485 stakeholders, regarding the new Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Regulation. There were 50 sessions, specific to the Hospitality industry that were attended by approximately 530 stakeholders. WCB Prevention Officers with experience in the particular industry, are available at these sessions to provide answers to general and specific questions on the regulation.

In closing I would like to reiterate that the WCB has the legal responsibility and mandate to protect workers' health and safety. The WCB established the current requirements to control worker exposure to ETS, based on the vast and overwhelming scientific evidence on the adverse health effects of ETS.

Thank you again for your correspondence and for your interest in occupational health and safety.

Sincerely,