Councilman Nutter -- oh, I'm sorry, then Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, thank you Madam Chair. No problem at all. If a year ago I heard -- I'm very confused on exactly the position of how I want to express myself. I would totally agree with you if something didn't occur a year ago that your customers would leave and go to New Jersey or go to the suburbs or wherever. I would have totally agreed with you. But I have experienced something in my neighborhood. You all know the name "McNally's." It's a neighborhood bar, it serves a little bit of food. And a year ago, it went smokeless. Can you help to explain to me how that bar -- and according to the owner -- has increased in its patronage rather than decreased? How could that be?
Let me just address that, Councilman. One location I'm sure you're very familiar with it -- the Pub, in Camden. The 134 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 Pub went smoke-free. Their location lost so much business, they had to reverse that, and now they allow the people to come in and smoke in the Pub.
Well, let's talk about McNally's in northwest Philadelphia, a neighborhood establishment that's been there for, I think, a hundred years that does -- serves a great sandwich, not a real elaborate menu. You walk in there on any given day, it's jammed to the door. And when we heard in the neighborhood that it went -- and I don't smoke -- that it went smokeless, we said, Well, this is great, now we'll be able to get a seat anytime we want. And now, it's almost impossible to get in the front door. And I thought -- and unless I experienced that personally -- maybe it's just because it's one place. You know, and I just can't -- I don't have a rationale to explain how that happened.
I would think that just because it is one place. If all the other taverns and restaurants in the City were to be smoke-free, then that would divide it all up. 135 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172
And I think what will work for one may not work for everyone.
Well, in trying to be fair here, I think what Ann told me -- and you know the place seats about 45, 50 people at the max -- a lot of customers, since it is one of the few that don't smoke, go there specifically because it's a smoke-free environment. But what she did tell me was that all of her patrons that did smoke when she adopted the policy, never once has she had a person be rude. Occasionally, some of them will light up that's not familiar with the establishment, and the bartender will just politely tell them it's smoke-free, and they'll just quickly run out the door and come right back after they smoked their cigarette. But I just wanted to -- maybe you could help me 'cause I've been struggling with that since it went smoke-free there.
Right. I think it's just because there's one, it's of the only. And that was my other point -- I don't want my customers all out in front of my place. I have residential all around me, and I like to keep it quiet. 136 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172
For those that are more family-oriented, it may work for them, but for some of us that are more youth-oriented, that might be a sports bar, it may not work for. What works for one person may not work for another.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Mallamaci, Mr. Salmons, and my good friend Prince Gilliard. A couple questions on the testimony and the presentation. Mr. Mallamaci, I was struck by a couple portions of your testimony, but one of the pieces kind of concludes that it was not scientifically correct to try to attack secondhand smoke. Your primary background is in the food and beverage industry?
Okay. And you've been in the industry for a long time? 137 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172
No, a doctor. I mean, do you see your doctor from time to time?
Okay. That's because you might be ill or you trust the doctor's judgment.
Okay. I don't know what you were testifying from, but your testimony seemed to be in direct contradiction to Dr. 138 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 Simmons, Dr. Greenspan, Dr. Willis, Dr. Leone, Dr. Piatt, and Dr. Emmett. Now, is there something that you know about smoking or secondhand smoke that is different or more knowledgeable than those trained professionals?
No. I was just quoting from the literature that I had received from the Oak Ridge report.
I was just quoting from the information I had received from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
And who are they? Who's the Oak Ridge National Laboratory?
The last page. 139 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172
And who owns the Oak Ridge National Laboratory; do you know?
Okay, but you think that their study is better than anything concluded either by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or eight local doctors here who are specialists, if not preeminent, in their field?
I believe, um. . . This research was done, if I'm not mistaken, to the last page, was funded by the Center for the Indoor Air Research facility, managed by the Lockheed-Martin Energy Research Corporation.
Okay. Do you know 140 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 if they're associated in any way with a company by the name of Options?
Options is a company affiliated with Phillip Morris. They do a lot of research in this particular area. So, I mean, you might understand where their perspective might be on something like this. Okay, I just wanted to understand what the basis of your knowledge in the area was as compared to the eight doctors who had testified and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Salmons, on the presentation materials, which are excellent, this Atmosphere Plus, now, why is it that you recommend that you should have these? What is this, a device, or is this a type of ventilation?
Okay. And why 141 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 would you put one of these in your place?
If the smoke is bothering people, it would eliminate the smoke from the establishment.
Well, I thought Mr. Mallamaci said that there's no evidence to indicate that smoke bothers people or is dangerous to their health.
Well, why would you need it if it wasn't dangerous to someone's health?
From the testimony I heard, it's mostly about children. And most of our establishment is --
Well, I thought there was a fair amount of testimony about adults as well.
Right. And my father 142 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 died of cancer and he didn't smoke.
The connection, yeah. I think Councilman Rizzo had asked one of the doctors about how some people never smoke and they get diseased and some people smoke all their lives and nothing seems to happen to them. Some may be environmental, some may be hereditary some is, you know, I guess, kind of the luck of the draw. But I was intrigued that there would be a device to remove something from the air at the same time that people are saying that there's no 19 problem with the air, or it's not an irritant or it doesn't bother people, or has no ill health effects. Then I don't understand why you would need to remove it. I mean, if it's good for you, why would you want to take it away?
Well, I understand that, but anybody that smoke, if it goes in your eyes, 143 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 it burns, and some people are allergic to it.
Yeah. I don't smoke, but if I can clean the air up so people have choice, then. . .
Well, let me ask this question, just about the nature of the business -- not so much the business, your membership.
Okay. Is there any technical difference between a bar and a tavern? Is a tavern a kind of a larger bar or maybe has a more extensive menu or something like that?
What's -- for your membership, I mean, you won't know this about me, but Mr. Gilliard does. I have previous experience in the bar and restaurant business and industry some many years ago, in a previous life, before I got here. I mean, is there an average size bar in 144 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 this city or of your membership?
Well, I know they vary but, I mean, within some ranges, is it 6 seats at a bar or 30 seats at the bar? 7
We have places like 8 Finnegan's Wake that has three floors. Compared 9 to my place, I hold like 40 people. And there's a 10 difference. 11
And I know by way 12 of the LCD regulations that if you have Sunday 13 sales, you have to have, what is it, 30 chairs? 14
Well, let me ask 19 this question. In terms of -- and certainly don't 20 share any proprietary information, and the Department of Revenue is not here, I can assure you of that. On average, what would you say the split was between your liquor sales and your food sales? And, again, acknowledging, I know, if you 145 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 have a Sunday sales permit, you are supposed to sell a certain minimum primarily. I mean, you're primarily in the liquor business?
Okay. Mr. Gilliard, do you have any perspective on this?.
Yes. That ratio with mine would be about 70/30, maybe 30 percent food and 70 percent liquor. And let me just say this. Our concern is also for the small operator in this business. And when I say "small," it's one with the location, one level. Say, for example, if it came to a point where there was a bill that should pass, I have two levels in my location. So I could take one level and make it for the nonsmokers. But most of our members, I'd say 85 to 90 percent, don't have that luxury. And it's our concern for those --
When say "members," you're not talking about members of your establishment but of the Philadelphia Tavern organization, right. 146 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172
Members in the City of Philadelphia. They don't have that luxury of having the two levels, and it would certainly be a drastic impact on their business to make their entire level nonsmoking.
Mm-hmm, okay. But between the two organizations, you do think that -- I mean, somewhere in the 60, 70 percent for what your business is as compared to, for instance, a downtown restaurant.
You serve food to a lot of those people who want snacks or something like that. I mean, they really kind of shouldn't couldn't drink on an empty stomach. That kind of thing.
You're not really so much in the restaurant business, the food is not driving your business; the liquor is driving your business, and you serve food to go along with it.
You serve food to 147 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 go with it; is that fairly accurate?
Okay, I appreciate that. I will certainly read through all of these materials. As the Chair said, this is on information-gathering hearing. I appreciate your testimony. You're trying to, you know, I mean, anticipate the prospect of the future. For the moment, we are just gathering information, but your testimony has been very helpful in terms of shaping some of the discussion and dialogue that's taken place today. And because you have been so decent about it, I will not, Mr. Mallamaci, get into an extensive debate with you about EPA and 900 studies and who's got the best numbers and all that kind of stuff, because you've been very nice, and it's also kind of late in the day. Thank you.
Is there anyone 148 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 else here to testify on this resolution? Dr. Kessler? (Dr. Kessler comes forward.)
We have been here quite some time and heard a lot of statistics and information. If you could summarize.
My name is Howard Kessler. For the record, I'm a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. At the present time, I'm Chairman of the Department of Radiology at Graduate Hospital. But I come to you today on behalf of the American Cancer Society. I am the President of the American Cancer Society for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Region, which represents of four counties surrounding Philadelphia as well as Philadelphia County. In my career prior to that, I was the Director of Imaging at Fox Chase Cancer Center for the past 14 years. And in that capacity, I have been intimately involved with the observation, the detection, and the diagnosis and treatment of 149 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 cancer. And I recognize that the hour is late, and I always keep my remarks to just a few minutes, and I'll let the prepared statement serve for the record, but I would like to put a couple things on the table for distinguished members of Council and those who are here both for as well as against this resolution. We all know that cancer has been linked to smoking since the Surgeon General's comments from 1964. According to the 1985 report of the Surgeon General on the health consequences of smoking, cancer and chronic lung disease in the workplace, the Surgeon General concluded that the combination of smoking with exposure to hazardous substances at the workplace presents a serious health risk. We have known for years, since the 20 Surgeon General's report of 1979, that smoking and 21 health and cigarette-smoking in the workplace can do the following four things: transform existing chemicals into more harmful ones; increase exposure to existing toxic chemicals; add to the biological effects of certain chemicals; and 150 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 interact synergistically or in combination with existing chemicals. I think the evidence is incontrovertible that smoking, both primary smoking as well as passive or secondhand smoke, has been linked to lung cancer. And I would like to site for the record three peer review studies that have documented this. This information serves as a matter of public record by the Surgeon General and the National Academy of Sciences, and they have examined and have concluded that involuntary study in the exposure to other people's smoke increases the risk of developing lunch cancer. This occurs at the workplace and at home. And articles published by the Department of Health and Human Services, through the National Institutes of Health, in 1993, clearly documented as much as a 20 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer for those individuals who live with or work with those who smoke. Nonsmokers married to heavy smokers in excess of 40 cigarettes a day are found to have two times the risk of cancer compared to those who 151 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 are married to nonsmokers. And nonsmokers married to current smokers have a percent higher risk 4 of coronary artery disease. 5 And these are from documented peer- 6 review articles published in the literature. So I 7 think it goes without saying that secondhand smoke 8 is harmful. 9 And as you've heard in prior testimony, 10 the Environmental Protection Agency has identified 11 an estimate of 3,000 cases per year of nonsmokers 12 who have been afflicted with lung cancer. And I 13 will tell anecdotally from my experience as a 14 radiologist who has watched and has seen the 15 progression of this disease in individuals, it 16 takes a terrible toll on the individual, on the 17 family, on society.
18 And I think it's incumbent upon us to 19 recognize that although we have made great strides 20 in encouraging smoking cessation in public places, we need to go further, we need to ensure that the workplace, for reasons related to lung cancer, for reasons related the estimated 50,000 related deaths that are unrelated to lung cancer that occur from secondhand smoke, and for the next 152 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 generation of our citizens, that we provide them with an environment, both in school at work and at home, where they have the opportunity to breathe clear air. And, finally, I'd just like to close by offering you one statement, which I think may surprise you. " 12 Secondhand smoke is a combination of mainstream 13 smoke, which is inhaled and exhaled by the 14 smoker. And this, when combined with sidestream 15 smoke, which comes from the cigarette between puffs, contains far more tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, and other chemicals that cause cancer than the smoke inhaled by the cigarette itself. So in closing, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present my view in front of you, both as a physician, as a volunteer for the American Cancer Society, and as individual who would like to see his children and your children grow up in as close to a smoke-free environment as they can. 153 4/25/00 HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - RES. 000172 Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. We have testimony from the Coalition for a Smoke-Free Valley, presented by Alice Dalla Palu, Executive Director, and that will be entered into the record as presented. So we thank you for testifying we thank for testifying, we thank all of the people who participated today. And this committee hearing on Resolution No. 000172 is adjourned. Thank you very much. (Adjourned at 5:12 p.m.) - - - 154 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, April 25, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY RESOLUTION NO. 000172 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter