They certainly made the anti-secondhand smoke people look far more idiotic than they actually are. It doesn't take rocket science to conclude that secondhand smoke is the same crap as first-hand smoke, which has been shown upside down and backward to be bad for your health.

Is there anything contradicting their claim that all the second hand smoke reports are based off the exact same report that they said was flawed?

I'd also be interested in information countering the the food parts. I'm not a pure organic foods person, and the story did irritate me a bit with the Greenpeace people boycotting all forms of GE foods.