House of Commons - Health - Minutes of Evidence

Select Committee on Health Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum by Gallaher Group Plc

THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THE HEALTH RISKS OF SMOKING (TB 8)

4. SMOKING AND HEALTH

4.1 In this section Gallaher sets out a summary, from its perspective, of the key events in the UK and the action that it has taken in relation to those events. Gallaher also addresses smoke measurement, compensation, additives, nicotine and addiction.

4.2 To assist with an understanding of some of the terminology used in this section (and elsewhere in the submission), background information on the composition of a cigarette, the process of product modification and cigarette smoke is provided at Appendix 1.

4.3 The publication of the reports by Dr Richard Doll, as he then was, and Professor Austin Bradford Hill in 1950 and 1952, linking lung cancer with cigarette smoking, became, in the view of most social commentators, the catalyst for a much higher level of debate about smoking and health in the UK and, subsequently, world-wide.

4.4 By the mid-1950s, there was a body of scientists who supported Doll and Hill's conclusion that there was an association between smoking and lung cancer, but others were more sceptical. By way of illustration, as recently as last year Sir Richard Doll observed that, despite the publication of the two subsequent Doll and Hill "Doctors" studies in 1954 and 1956, two leading statisticians—one in the US and one in the UK—remained unconvinced by the reported statistical association between smoking and lung cancer.[3]

4.5 Gallaher recognises that starting with the publication of the Doll and Hill reports in the 1950s, the quantity and quality of the statistical evidence reporting the association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer have increased. For many years, Gallaher has proceeded on the assumption that cigarette smokers are more likely to contract lung cancer and certain other diseases, such as chronic bronchitis, heart disease and certain vascular diseases, than non-smokers. In essence, Gallaher's response has been to pursue a policy of lowering tar yields. That approach was adopted before the introduction of voluntary agreements with Government and long before subsequent legislation required Gallaher to do so.

4.6 When the smoking and health issue developed in the 1950s, the UK tobacco companies co-operated with each other and responded collectively through the auspices of unincorporated associations and, individually, so as to address the issue in the most effective way. Gallaher has always belonged to the UK tobacco companies' trade associations which had responsibility for part of the companies' response to the smoking and health issue.

The Collective Response of The UK Tobacco Manufacturers

4.7 During the 1950s and into the early 1960s, Gallaher contributed to the research undertaken into the risks associated with smoking. In 1954, the UK tobacco manufacturers, including Gallaher, provided a fund to the Medical Research Council[4] ("MRC") for research into the causes of lung cancer. The research was undertaken independently of the manufacturers and was supervised by the MRC. The fund given by the manufacturers was not exhausted until 1962. The results of the research were published.[5]

4.8 In putting events into context, although the early epidemiological studies[6] of Doll and Hill and subsequent studies[7] gave rise to a strong body of opinion that it would be preferable for people not to smoke, such studies did not lead to any similarly clear view as to how, if at all, cigarette smoking could be made less harmful. What then seemed to be an obvious route was to seek to identify and then eliminate potentially harmful constituents within cigarette smoke. Before attempts to do so could be embarked upon, it was necessary to understand the chemistry of cigarette smoke.

4.9 In 1956, Gallaher and other UK tobacco manufacturers established and began funding the Tobacco Manufacturers' Standing Committee ("TMSC")(1956-1963) to assist with research into the question of smoking and health.[8] At the time, the TMSC began to investigate, in particular, the question of what it was about smoking cigarettes that might cause or contribute to the development of lung cancer. Its work in the main was directed to chemical research and biological testing. The TMSC, on the recommendations of its medical and scientific advisers, soon began to fund directly an increasing volume of research in the field of smoking and health. Reports of the research undertaken by the TMSC between 1957 and 1963 were published.[9]

4.10 Following the publication of the first report of the Royal College of Physicians of London ("RCP")[10] the TMSC opened its own laboratory at Harrogate in 1962, which had been under development since 1960. In 1963, the TMSC was renamed the Tobacco Research Council ("TRC")(1963-1978). A central focus of the work of the TRC was to continue to identify constituents in cigarette smoke and to determine those which were considered to be potentially harmful, with a view to the removal of those constituents. The TRC also contributed to the development of laboratory tests for measuring the chemical constituents and biological effects of tobacco smoke, which could be used for comparative purposes. Part of the TRC's work was planned on the working hypothesis that cigarette smoke affects the respiratory epithelium[11] by direct contact.[12] Gallaher itself pursued similar research from the 1960s, which was predicated on the assumption that cigarette smoking could cause or contribute to the development of lung cancer and certain other diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The work undertaken at the Harrogate laboratories continued until 1974. Reviews of the activities of the TRC between 1963 and 1974[13] were published in 1963, 1967, 1970 and 1975.

4.11 The research published by the TRC along with other research findings (whether conducted through TRC scientists at Harrogate or by other researchers) is also contained in various papers, reviews and monographs. Looking at Gallaher's contribution alone, the number of published research papers funded directly or indirectly by Gallaher total in excess of 600. The TRC research also contributed to the information assessed by independent bodies, such as the RCP and various Governmental advisory bodies. Samples of condensates[14] were also made available to any independent researcher who wanted such samples for analysis.

4.12 Sir Peter Froggatt[15] the then Chairman of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health[16] ("ISCSH"), wrote of the TRC research:[17]

"Their research effort deserves to be more widely known. . . These efforts substantially advanced knowledge of many aspects of smoke and smoking, but is was directed research, never far from their central credo, embodied in their simple statement `it is in the belief that a very large number of people will continue to smoke that the Tobacco Research Council is seeking to provide scientific information that will contribute to a practical solution of the problems involved'."

GALLAHER'S RESPONSE

Background

4.13 In the UK, and indeed globally, the past five decades have seen a period of extraordinary change and development in scientific and medical knowledge generally and at an accelerating rate. In the 1950s, the instruments and techniques available to identify and to undertake chemical research into the constituents of cigarette smoke were in their infancy. As technology became more advanced, Gallaher was able to employ these more sophisticated instruments and develop techniques to identify, analyse and measure the constituents present in cigarette smoke. With the passage of time, it is easy to overlook the fact that the efforts and timespan required to develop precision instrumentation and analytical techniques, which are now taken for granted, were much greater in the 1950s and 1960s.

4.14 The response of Gallaher needs to be assessed from a contemporaneous standpoint. For example, the office of the 1950s bears no comparison to that of the 1990s. In the 1950s the typewriter was manual. The photocopier, word processor and facsimile machine did not exist, let alone computers and mobile phones. Copy documents were made on the typewriter by use of carbon paper. Documents produced in manuscript would remain in that form, not generally being typed up. Communication was by telephone, telex and telegram. The changes in science generally and scientific technologies in particular have been even more remarkable.

4.15 When the work began, in the 1950s, the goal of identifying potentially harmful constituents within cigarette smoke and then eliminating them appeared to be a reasonable and attainable objective. To illustrate the point, in 1957, cigarette smoke was identified as containing some twenty constituents or groups of constituents. [18]However, the task of identifying which constituents were implicated proved elusive, not least because, as analytical techniques improved, the number of constituents identified increased, so that now more than three thousand five hundred constituents have been identified in increasingly minute quantities.[19] Ultimately, the TRC concluded that the work that was being undertaken into the understanding of the smoke condensate had been taken as far as it could and would not provide a solution.[20]

4.16 The RCP concluded, in their first report in 1962, that cigarettes which sought to reduce the risks associated with smoking could be, but were not necessarily, "safer".[21]

"It should be realised that since we cannot identify the substances in tobacco smoke that may be injurious to health, no firm claims for the safety of modified cigarette tobaccos or filters can be made. It would, of course, be many years before it would be possible to detect any effect upon death rates resulting from the use of cigarettes with filter tips, or of modified tobaccos. A reduction in the prevalence of smoker's cough among those who had used such cigarettes or tobaccos might give early evidence of a beneficial effect."

This message was re-inforced in later reports.[22]

4.17 It was during the 1960s that it started to become apparent that no definitive results were emerging from the research begun in the mid-1950s into what it was about smoking cigarettes that might cause or contribute to the development of lung cancer. Accordingly, researchers, public health bodies and Gallaher increasingly turned their attention to overall tar reduction in cigarettes as the appropriate approach, on the basis that a reduction in the tar yields[23] of cigarettes generally would, or might, assist in reducing the reported incidence of lung cancer amongst cigarette smokers in the UK. Subsequently, attention also focused upon the possible use of substitute smoking materials to replace tobacco, partially or wholly, in tobacco rods.[24] Gallaher responded positively and voluntarily to both these approaches.[25]

Consumer acceptability

4.18 When Gallaher considered the steps available, it recognised that it would be essential in developing a cigarette with a lower tar yield that it was acceptable to the consumer. If smokers found the taste, by contrast to their existing brand, unacceptable, or if they found that the cigarette had different characteristics, in terms of draw resistance[26] or otherwise, the cigarette might then be perceived as different from and significantly less satisfying than their previous brand. As such, consumers would reject the cigarette. Rapid reduction in tar yields would have been unacceptable to smokers and would merely have led them to switch back to higher tar yield brands of cigarettes.

4.19 The importance of consumer acceptability was recognised by scientific authorities in the 1970s and early 1980s. One such authority was the ISCSH, which was appointed in 1973 to provide independent scientific advice to the Government. The ISCSH held the view that reduction in tar yields had to be gradual to achieve consumer acceptability:

4.20 The scientist Dr Wynder shared this view.[30]

"As a practical matter, it is important to appreciate that a virtually harmless cigarette smoked by only 1 per cent of the population will have a lesser impact on the reduction of tobacco-related diseases than a somewhat more harmful cigarette smoked by 80 per cent of the total smoking population. Research on the less harmful cigarette should therefore be directed toward developing a cigarette containing the lowest possible amount of harmful elements for all tobacco-related diseases, but one that has sufficient acceptability for the largest segment of smokers."

4.21 Government, through the advice given to it by the ISCSH, also accepted that overall reductions in tar yields had to be achieved gradually to encourage smokers who wanted to continue smoking to switch to lower tar products. That acceptance is reflected in the voluntary agreements (see appendix 3) setting maximum tar yields for new cigarettes and requiring reductions in the average of the tar yields taking into account sales volumes for all cigarettes during the 1980s. Indeed, Government backing gave additional impetus to the goal of overall tar reduction through gradual reductions.

4.22 Following the emergence of an approach of overall tar reduction, from the mid-1960s onwards, extensive dialogue took place between Gallaher, the other tobacco manufacturers and Government both individually and collectively through the TRC concerning the type of information that would increase the smoker's awareness of the risks that were associated with smoking. There was a shared concern that information presented in the wrong way might encourage cigarette smokers to believe that lower tar cigarettes were safe or that tar had been confirmed as the actual cause of ill health. The dialogue culminated in the placing of warnings on cigarette packets and on advertisements in 1971 (appendix 3). It also culminated in the establishment of the Standing Scientific Liaison Committee on the Scientific Aspects of Smoking and Health[31] ("SSLC") in 1971 and subsequently the publication of tar and nicotine yields by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist ("LGC") from 1973.

GALLAHER'S LOWER TAR PRODUCTS

4.23 From the early 1960s, Gallaher began exploring methods of tar reduction, with a view to being able to offer consumers a range of products with lower tar yields. A promising route, given the limitations upon the modifications that can be made to a plain cigarette (ie a tobacco rod), was to employ filter technology.

4.24 Gallaher proceeded to reduce the tar yields of its cigarettes in a way which would be acceptable to smokers. As part of the process of achieving reductions in tar yields, Gallaher actually had to develop many of the techniques that were utilised, with the result that experimental testing was required to ensure that any proposed change to an existing product did not have unacceptable effects on the existing characteristics of that product. The techniques developed and used by Gallaher are summarised at paragraphs 4.25 to 4.36.

Variations to tobacco blend

4.25 Prior to the 1950s and 1960s, the main constituent of the tobacco rods manufactured by Gallaher was tobacco leaf. During the 1950s and 1960s Gallaher introduced processes for the production of (1) crushed rolled tobacco plant stems and (2) tobacco sheet (made from small bits of stem and tobacco recycled during the production process) for use in the cigarette blend. Since tobacco is a natural substance, when blended, different parts of the tobacco plant are capable on burning of producing different quantities of tar and nicotine. For example, the stem of the plant—which acts as a conduit for water and nutrients during growth—produces tar and nicotine in significantly smaller quantities than tobacco leaf. Similarly, tobacco sheet also produces smaller quantities of tar and nicotine than tobacco leaf.

4.26 Today, Gallaher uses various combinations of tobacco leaf, crushed rolled tobacco plant stems and tobacco sheet in its blends.

Filters

4.27 From about the late 1950s, Gallaher began to investigate the tar reducing properties of certain filters. At that time, Gallaher did not make its own filters and was dependent upon the innovations and co-operation of filter manufacturers supplying the UK market. In passing, it should not be overlooked that, at that time, filter cigarettes were not generally popular with UK smokers. Whilst, between 1955 and 1961, sales of filter cigarettes represented approximately 10 per cent of total UK sales, even when filter cigarettes became more widely available within the UK, these were not readily accepted by the consumer until the early 1970s.[32] In the 1950s and early 1960s consumers maintained a strong preference for non-filter cigarettes. Now, filter cigarettes represent over 99 per cent of the UK market.

4.28 By around 1960 Gallaher was using single acetate filters. Then, only relatively high denier tow[33] was available, which restricted its use in increasing filter efficiency because an unacceptably high level of draw resistance was encountered above certain levels of use. Therefore, such filters were subsequently superseded by dual acetate myria[34] filters which were first developed in the UK by specialist filter manufacturers in about 1961. In 1964 Gallaher launched its Silk Cut brand with a tar yield now estimated to be approximately 28mg, using an advanced version of this filter. The average tar yield of cigarettes at the time, estimated now by Gallaher, in a similar manner, was 40mg.[35] Popular demand amongst cigarette smokers for Silk Cut remained very limited until the early 1970s, reflecting continued consumer demand during the 1960s for cigarettes with the traditional strength demanded by UK smokers. Subsequently, there were further developments in acetate tow technology leading to significantly lower denier tows and improvements in the design of the cross-sections of the fibres. These developments both enhanced the efficiency of the filters and made them more acceptable to cigarette smokers. These developments also enabled tar yields to be lowered still further.

4.29 Today, Gallaher uses low denier acetate filters in all its UK filter brands of cigarettes.

Filter ventilation

4.30 Filter ventilation increases the amount of air in each puff and thereby decreases the proportion of tobacco smoke and hence the tar and nicotine yields combined in the mainstream smoke. In about 1968, Gallaher began to investigate the use of porous tipping paper and plugwrap[36] as possible routes to introduce filter ventilation. In 1970, Gallaher began to use such techniques in its Silk Cut brand increasing the amount of air in each puff and producing levels of filter ventilation of approximately 20 per cent. Gallaher also explored different techniques for creating holes in the filter wrapping, including mechanical perforation and subsequently electrostatic perforation. However, restrictions in the capabilities of the cigarette production machinery then available initially limited the use to which these applications could be put. As a consequence, considerable resources had to be devoted to overcoming such difficulties, so that Gallaher could ensure that cigarettes manufactured using these techniques fulfilled the specification criteria for such ventilated products.

4.31 During the course of the 1970s further advances in technological processes started to be applied to plugwrap, producing higher degrees of ventilation. Subsequently, in the late 1980s, cigarette machine manufacturers developed a new process to ventilate filters, using lasers to burn holes in the outside of the filter. Today, Gallaher also uses laser technology to make its filters even more effective in reducing the mainstream smoke yields in various of its brands of cigarettes. Gallaher has used this technology since about 1992.

Cigarette papers

4.32 Prior to the 1960s, the porosity of cigarette papers supplied to UK tobacco companies was relatively low. Cigarette papers with higher degrees of porosity enable increased amounts of air to be introduced into each cigarette puff taken by the smoker. In the course of the 1960s, encouraged by Gallaher, certain paper manufacturers developed cigarette papers with a porosity of about 30 CORESTA[37] units (an international standard of measurement). Experimental perforated papers were also tested, at about this time, which would have allowed even higher degrees of porosity to be achieved. Those papers proved to be physically weak and could not be used within production with the cigarette manufacturing machines then available to Gallaher.

4.33 From the 1970s onwards, the paper manufacturers developed cigarette papers with an inherent porosity in excess of 30 CORESTA units, which were physically strong enough to be used in the cigarette manufacturing machines then available. Increased levels of porosity have continued to be introduced gradually to the present day. To overcome some of the difficulties inherent in reducing the tar yields of non-filter cigarettes, Gallaher is now able to use cigarette papers with a porosity of up to 200 CORESTA units in such cigarettes.

4.34 Today, Gallaher uses cigarette papers with a very high degree of porosity across a large part of its brand range.

Expanded tobacco

4.35 In the 1970s, Gallaher investigated a process which used carbon dioxide to expand tobacco and, in 1981, started using carbon dioxide expanded tobacco in its range of lower tar brands. Expanded tobacco blends facilitate tar reduction because less tobacco is required to create the cigarette rod. The process is similar to that used by some breakfast cereal manufacturers. During the 1980s, Gallaher also investigated other processes which resulted in the facilitation of further expansion to the tobaccos used across its blends.

4.36 Today, expanded tobaccos are widely used in the development of lower tar yielding cigarettes and have proved of great assistance in the steps Gallaher has taken to ensure compliance with the regulations relating to maximum tar yields (see paragraph 4.47(r) and (s)).

GALLAHER'S WORK TO DEVELOP CIGARETTES CONTAINING SUBSTITUTE SMOKING MATERIALS

4.37 At the same time as Gallaher was using product innovations to lower tar yields, the company commenced, in about 1968, a detailed and sustained programme of research into the development of substitute smoking materials. In 1971, the then Chairman of Gallaher reported that:[38]

"Our research into the problems of smoking and health is now concentrated on two main areas. First, the development of new smoking materials, the use of which may eventually enable us to reduce greatly or even eliminate those constituents of cigarette smoke which are under suspicion of being harmful to human health. Secondly, the development, in conjunction with the other UK tobacco manufacturers, of biological tests by which to monitor the effects of these new materials.

Although encouraging progress is being made, the testing of new materials is a lengthy process and it will be some time before we are ready to market them. It is likely that cigarettes containing these materials will have a slightly different taste and because of this their acceptability will depend on giving smokers a reason to change from traditional cigarettes made entirely from normal tobacco. The UK tobacco manufacturers cannot provide this reason because it implies a health claim which they are not qualified to make. This is the responsibility of the medical authorities. We are very glad to see that the importance of giving a reason to smokers to change to new products and of the need for the medical authorities to become involved in their development was acknowledged by the Royal College of Physicians in their recent report "Smoking and Health Now". Discussions on testing have started between the medical authorities and the tobacco manufacturers and we look forward to receiving the continued co-operation and advice of the medical authorities.

Many of the recommendations in the RCP report concern our commercial activities and these are at present being discussed between the Secretary of State for Social Services and the tobacco manufacturers."

4.38 The substitute smoking materials which Gallaher developed, in conjunction with others, consisted of a sheet made of modified cellulose derived from wood pulp and materials such as clay and chalk. That sheet could be shredded and mixed with tobacco. The research was carried out with the intention of using these materials either as a complete or partial replacement for tobacco in cigarettes. This work, which began in 1968, occupied a significant proportion of the overall resources of Gallaher's Research and Development department and continued until 1977.

4.39 The work undertaken by Gallaher was monitored closely by the ISCSH, which prepared extensive protocols for the testing of tobacco substitutes. To meet these requirements, it was necessary for Gallaher to fund a comprehensive research programme, which involved testing at independent laboratories. All reports of the test results were submitted to the ISCSH in commercial confidence. Research findings from the work that was undertaken were subsequently accepted for publication in peer-review journals.[39]

4.40 It was not until April 1977 that the ISCSH authorised Gallaher (and others) to market substitute materials. In July 1977, Gallaher launched four cigarette brands containing a substitute material named Cytrel. None of these brands, nor those containing other substitute materials marketed by other cigarette manufacturers, were commercially successful. After one year of being on sale, the market share of all substitute brands was only 1 per cent of the total UK cigarette market. In 1978, Silk Cut No 3 and Benson & Hedges Sovereign Mild and later, in 1982, Silk Cut King Size (all of which contained 25 per cent Cytrel) and Silk Cut Ultra Mild (which contained 40 per cent Cytrel) were withdrawn by Gallaher due to the reluctance of consumers to smoke them. Consumers did not accept these cigarettes for a number of reasons including:

(a) The word "substitute" had to be printed on the packet;

(b) The product was taxed at the same level as cigarettes containing no substitute materials, therefore there was no financial incentive to switch to these brands; and

FURTHERING THE PROGRAMME OF TAR REDUCTION

4.41 Following the demise of tobacco substitutes, the focus of Gallaher and the ISCSH became the further reduction of the overall tar yields in cigarettes. Indeed, tar reduction became reflected in a series of voluntary agreements (see appendix 3) with Government on product modification, the objective of which was to lower tar yields further. The policy for the voluntary agreements was formulated and agreed on the basis of recommendations made by the ISCSH in its periodic reports to Government. The ISCSH and the tobacco manufacturers monitored the policies and ensured compliance. Sir Peter Froggatt said of the voluntary agreements:[41]

"No country has developed such a competent and (generally) successful regulatory system, and moreover one based on consent."

4.42 Sir Peter Froggatt also commented on the impact that the failure of the substitute initiative had on the product modification programme:[42]

"The failure of the "substitutes" sounded a knell for radicalism in product modification; thereafter, the ISCSH and the tobacco industry were forced to a strategy of gradualism, reducing tobacco yields by such means as effective filters, increasing the porosity of cigarette papers, introducing ventilation holes near the tip of the cigarette, and ingenuities in tobacco chemistry and blending. Though aimed primarily at "tar" they also reduced the yields of nicotine and of some gaseous components, though not necessarily pro rata, so that any harmful effects of non tar components would also be reduced pari passu."

4.43 In the early 1980s, encouraged by the ISCSH to explore means of further reducing the tar yields of cigarettes and, in particular, to look at ways of improving the acceptability of lower tar cigarettes to smokers of middle tar products, Gallaher researched and developed a process for improving the sensory aspects of a lower tar cigarette. The process, which was called "profile printing", involved printing nicotine onto cigarette papers. The idea was a process that enabled the tar yield from cigarettes containing added nicotine to remain low or be lowered further, whilst, at the same time, providing the smoker with a constant nicotine delivery as the cigarette was smoked. Accordingly, a concentration of nicotine would be printed on the cigarette paper at the end furthest from the filter and reduced progressively to zero within two centimetres of the non-filter end.

4.44 The research into profile printing was carried out in consultation with the ISCSH. However, ultimately Gallaher chose, in 1985, not to launch a product using profile printing, not least because Gallaher was concerned that, if it did so, it would be wrongly accused of artificially adjusting the nicotine level in some of its cigarette brands. The ISCSH, which had been kept informed of all the development work on the project, expressed its extreme disappointment when Gallaher decided to abandon profile printing as a means of encouraging smokers of middle tar products to switch to lower tar cigarettes.

4.45 This project required the devotion of extensive research resources by Gallaher, for more than three years. It illustrates the difficulties and the dilemmas that a tobacco manufacturer faces, in seeking to take a step, on its own, which it perceives might assist in the reduction of the risks associated with smoking. It also demonstrates the need for there to be a concerted approach to current ideas, such as the possibilities of lowering tar yields further, whilst maintaining, or increasing, nicotine yields to deter compensation.[43] The merits and difficulties surrounding such an approach were commented upon in a recent publication:[44]

"Research should be commissioned to examine the pros and cons of setting an upper limit for nicotine yields. We currently advise great caution in the regulation of nicotine. Indeed there is a plausible argument in favour of raising the nicotine content of smoke. Smokers may respond to reduced nicotine content by increasing smoke intake to attain a satisfactory dose of nicotine. This would increase harm. The reverse may equally be true."

4.46 As this article illustrates, the relationship between tar and nicotine needs careful consideration. It is Gallaher's view that steps which seek to assist the reduction of the risks associated with smoking can only be taken in conjunction with regulators and with the backing and promotion of Government, if it is concluded that such a course of action is beneficial.

SILK CUT

4.47 The practical application of the work that Gallaher has embarked upon since the 1960s, in response to the smoking and health issues that emerged, is exemplified by the history of the Silk Cut cigarette brand. New aspects of cigarette design technology, having gone through Gallaher's research and development function, were introduced into Silk Cut before being introduced into other cigarette brands. Of particular note:

(a) In 1964, Gallaher launched Silk Cut Filter Tipped as a mild cigarette. By what has become today's standard, reflecting decades of development, the tar yield of 28mg may appear high, but it compared favourably with cigarettes then on the market that Gallaher now estimates had a tar yield of approximately 40mg.

(b) At first, Silk Cut Filter Tipped appealed to a minority of smokers. Gallaher's main brand at that time was Senior Service, a non-filter cigarette.

(c ) Silk Cut Filter Tipped was the result of blending high quality Virginia tobaccos and filter technology. In the absence of filter ventilation, Gallaher used filters made of acetate and myria[

(d) In 1967, Gallaher introduced tobacco sheet to the blend in Silk Cut Filter Tipped, which lowered its tar yield.

(e) In 1970, Gallaher introduced filter ventilation to Silk Cut Filter Tipped, which lowered its tar yield still further. Filter ventilation has since been incorporated into all later Silk Cut brands.

(f) By 1971, the tar yield of Silk Cut Filter Tipped was reduced to 15mg, according to the Consumers' Association, which also identified Silk Cut Filter Tipped in its "Which?" report of 1971 as the UK cigarette with the lowest tar yield.

(g) In April 1973, the first tar and nicotine table was published by the LGC, classifying cigarette brands by levels of tar and nicotine yield. Silk Cut Extra Mild had the lowest tar yield at less than 4mg.

(h) In February 1974, the second tar and nicotine table was published by the LGC and, at the same time, the Government introduced five groups, according to the tar yield of brands, to enable smokers to identify the position of their own brand within the tar and nicotine table. "Low tar" was defined as ranging between 4mg and 10mg tar. Silk Cut Extra Mild was the lowest on the list, with three other brands manufactured by other companies.

(i) In 1974, Gallaher introduced electrostatically perforated citrate paper to Silk Cut Filter Tipped to reduce further its tar yield. This paper was later introduced into some other Silk Cut brands.

(j) In 1977, Gallaher launched a number of Silk Cut brands that contained the substitute material Cytrel.

(k) In 1978, Silk Cut No 3 (which contained 25 per cent Cytrel) was withdrawn by Gallaher due to the refusal of consumers to smoke this product.

(l) In 1980, Gallaher launched Silk Cut Super Low with a tar yield of 1mg and a nicotine yield of 0.2mg. This product used high ventilation achieved by non wrapped acetate filters ie acetate filters without plugwrap.

(m) In 1981, Gallaher introduced carbon-dioxide expanded tobacco into its Silk Cut brands.

(n) In 1982, Silk Cut King Size (which contained 25 per cent Cytrel) and Silk Cut Ultra Mild (which contained 40 per cent Cytrel) were also withdrawn by Gallaher for the same reasons that Silk Cut No 3 was withdrawn in 1978.

(o) In 1985, the Government re-defined the "low tar" band as "0-9.99mg". All Silk Cut brands fell within this band.

(p) In 1986, Gallaher introduced further tobacco expansion to Silk Cut brands.

(q) In 1992, Gallaher applied laser technology to assist further filter ventilation.

(r ) By 1992, the highest yielding Silk Cut brand was 7mg tar, at a time when EC Directive 90/239/EEC required the maximum level of tar yield to be no more than 15mg.

(s) Today, Silk Cut products in the UK have tar yields of 5mg, 3mg or 1mg, in contrast to the current maximum tar yield permitted by UK legislation and the EC Directive of 12mg.

4.48 As the modifications made to Silk Cut demonstrate, Gallaher has had a committed response to the smoking and health issue and lowered tar yields, long before tar reduction came within the ambit of voluntary agreements with Government and subsequent EU regulation. In addition, using techniques developed to lower the tar yields in Silk Cut, from the late 1960s onwards, Gallaher also reduced the tar yields in all its cigarette brands generally. With reductions in tar yields came resultant reductions in the nicotine yields of cigarettes.

3 "Uncovering the effects of smoking: historical perspective", Sir R Doll, pp 99-101, published in Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 1998, 7, pp 87-117. The two researches cited by Doll are J Berkson and Sir R A Fisher. Back

4 The MRC is a registered charity which promotes medical and related biological research, and is financed by an annual parliamentary grant. The MRC employs its own research staff, funds research by others and complements research resources of universities and hospitals. Back

5 A summary of research conducted is contained in "The Tobacco Research Council: Review of Past and Current Activities", published in 1963. (See paragraph 4.10 of this submission). Back

6 Epidemiology has been defined as "The study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states and events in populations, and the application of this study to control of health problems". A Dictionary of Epidemiology (1983), John M Last, referred to at p 548 of Medical Negligence, M Powers and N Harris, 1994, 2nd edition. Back

7 See for example "A Study of Tobacco Carcinogenesis. 1. The Primary Fractions", E Wynder MD and G Wright PhD, published in Cancer, March-April 1957, p 255; and "The Changing Cigarette 1950-1995", D Hoffman and I Hoffman, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 50, pp 307-364. Back

8 In addition to such work, the tobacco manufacturers provided funds for independent research to the British Empire Cancer Campaign, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the International Cancer Congress. Back

9 First Annual Report for year ended 31 May 1957, TMSC; Second Annual Report for year ended 31 May 1958, TMSC; Report for year ended 31 May 1959, TMSC, "Smoking and Lung Cancer-The Conflict of Opinion" December 1957, TMSC. See also footnote 13. Back

10 Formed in 1518, the RCP is a registered charity which maintains medical standards, and fosters research and the progress of medical science and the continued medical education of physicians. Back

11 Respiratory epithelium is the lining of the tubes that conduct air to the respiratory region of the lung; The Ciba Collection of Medical Illustrations Volume 7 Respiratory System, F Netter MD, 1992, p 25. Back

12 "Review of Activities, 1963-66". TRC, published in 1967, p 17. Back

13 "The Tobacco Research Council: Review of Past and Current Activities", published in 1963; "The Tobacco Research Council: Review of Activities 1963-66, published in 1967; "The Tobacco Research Council: Review of Activities 1967-69", published in 1970; "The Tobacco Research Council: Review of Activities 1970-74", published in 1975. Back

14 See appendix 1, paragraph 7.10. Back