Memorandum by Imperial Tobacco Group PLC
THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THE HEALTH RISKS
OF SMOKING (TB 13)
THE WAY FORWARD
154. Imperial regrets that the constructive
and effective relationship between the UK tobacco companies and
the Government, which was epitomised by the consensual regulatory
system created by the Voluntary Agreements, has broken down. Imperial
has always responded responsibly and sensibly to smoking and health
issues and would welcome a return to the previous positive relationship.
155. Imperial accepts that it is Government's
role to determine public health policy. As Government and its
advisors have recognised in the past, the UK tobacco companies
play important roles in providing information to Government about
their products and the marketplace to enable Government to formulate
and implement policy.
156. The manner in which SCOTH went about
producing their report into ETS and other issues and the poor
quality of that report illustrates the danger of public bodies
reaching conclusions about tobacco issues without establishing
the facts and without adequate consultation with the UK tobacco
companies.
157. Another problem to emerge from the
current unsatisfactory relationship is the conflict between Government
policies on the taxation of tobacco products and children smoking.
Government tax policy in relation to tobacco products is the principal
factor in encouraging an active black market in those products.
Cross-border trading now comprises at least 80 per cent of handrolling
tobaccos smoked in the UK, and at least 20 per cent of cigarettes.
This undermines the controls on tobacco sales, developed during
the years of co-operation between Government and the UK tobacco
companies. As a result of Government taxation policy, children
have free access to smuggled tobacco, which bypasses retailer
controls and is much cheaper then legitimate retailed product.
158. Imperial recognises that the Government's
objective is to stop people smoking especially children. Imperial
has consistently adopted a responsible approach in not challenging
Government public health messages and in assisting with its policy
to prevent children smoking. Imperial confirms its intention to
continue this approach.
159. Imperial encourages the Health Select
Committee to recommend to Government that it:
(a) re-establishes a constructive and effective
dialogue between all relevant Government departments and the UK
tobacco companies;
(b) continues to adopt and enforce measures
to prevent smoking by children;
(c) adopts effective measures to prevent
the smuggling of tobacco goods; and
(d) continues to allow adults who choose
to smoke to have access to a range of products and information
about them.
Letter by the Corporate Affairs Director,
Imperial Tobacco Group PLC to the Clerk of the Committee (TB 13A)
Imperial Tobacco provided the Health Select
Committee with a written submission at the beginning of October.
Since then, the Committee has received a number of written and
oral submissions which seek to paint Imperial as a party to a
long term deception of the Government and the public. What little
evidence is provided to support this unjustified claim is drawn
from the United States and has no relevance to Imperial.
We set out below our response to this claim
and to some of the other submissions received by the Committee
since October. We have done our best to avoid repeating points
made in our original submission.
1. GOVERNMENT
LOW TAR
POLICY
Introduction
Since the early 1970's successive UK Governments
and, latterly, the European Commission have adopted a policy of
reducing tar yields of cigarettes. This policy was adopted on
the basis of independent scientific advice and was achieved with
the co-operation of Imperial. The manner in which tar yield reductions
were achieved, the basis on which they were measured and the existence
of possible "compensatory" behaviour by some smokers
were all discussed with the Government and its advisors before
the policy was adopted. The messages delivered by Government to
smokers made very clear that cigarettes with lower tar yields
were not safe but that smokers, who continued to smoke, should
smoke cigarettes with lower tar yields.
The allegations of ASH and others that the Government's
low tar policy was the result of a long-running deception by the
UK tobacco companies of the Government and consumers is untenable.
They also directly contradict the views of the independent scientific
advisers to Government over many years.
Independent scientific advocacy of lower tar yields
As early as the mid 1950's, some scientists
advocated that a reduction in the tar yield of cigarettes would
reduce the incidence of lung cancer among smokers.
Research into cigarette smoke condensate ("tar")
During the 1960's, Imperial participated in
the Tobacco Manufacturers' Standing Committee/Tobacco Research
Council's massive research effort at Harrogate. One of the objectives
of this research was to develop acceptable and quantitatively
reliable tests for measuring any biological activity of tobacco
smoke condensate ("tar") in animals. The results of
this research were published in 1967 and were discussed by the
TRC with eminent doctors and scientists.
Research was provided to Government
The conclusions reached by those doctors and
scientists were provided by Imperial to the Government and to
the RCP's Committee on Smoking, Atmospheric Pollution and Health
as part of discussions about the desirability of modifying cigarettes
to reduce tar yields. The following matters were also discussed:
— the possibility that smokers of modified
products might increase their consumption or alter their mode
of smoking;
— the need for modified products to
be acceptable to consumers; and
— the role of nicotine in smoking.
The RCP's Committee were not in favour of publishing
tar and nicotine yields and their recommendation to the Government,
which was accepted, was that further research was needed into
the effects of any reduction in tar yields.
RCP recommendations, 1971
In 1971, the RCP published its second Report
on Smoking and Health in which it revised its view and concluded
that there was evidence that cigarettes with lower tar and nicotine
yields "may be less dangerous" and that tar and nicotine
yields "should be published and a public statement made on
the possible effects on health of smoking" cigarettes with
lower tar and nicotine yields.
Cohen Committee recommendations
The RCP's report was followed by the establishment
of the Cohen Committee, whose report recommended to the Government
the publication of tar and nicotine yield figures, measured by
machine under uniform conditions.
The Committee also recommended that any published
data "should be accompanied by an explanatory note by the
appropriate Government agency about the known effects of tar and
nicotine" and "should emphasise that changing to low
tar and nicotine cigarettes is only a means of reducing risk;
such cigarettes are not safe". The statement recommended
by the Committee advised people to stop smoking and gave advice
to those that did not about how to smoke to "reduce the risk".
The statement identified that the published figures for tar and
nicotine yields were averages produced by a machine.
It was never claimed that the published figures
for tar and nicotine yields quantified the yield of a cigarette
for an individual smoker. Indeed, in its Fourth Report in 1988,
the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health commented
about the suggestion that published figures were misleading:
"These parameters have been criticised
as not reflecting average human behaviour and leading to published
yields universally under-estimating yields actually obtained by
the average smoker. Critics of the machine smoking procedure have
frequently failed to understand that values presented in tables
published by DHSS have never been intended to be actual yields
obtained by any one smoker. Rather, they enable brands to be ranked.
This allows inter-brand comparison under a standard test procedure,
presenting the smoker with information to enable him to choose,
if he so wishes, a lower yielding brand".
Implementation of Government policy
The history of the Government's acceptance of
the recommendations of the Cohen Committee, of the establishment
of the ISCSH and of 20 years of co-operation between Imperial
and the ISCSH and the Government and its other advisers to implement
the policy of reducing tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes is
outlined in our original submission (paras 35 to 59) and in the
submission of the Department of Health (paras 38 to 49). The advice
given to smokers during this time by the Government is summarised
in the submission from the Health Education Council (page 6).
The evidence is beyond dispute that Government
policy of reducing tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes was formulated
on the basis of independent scientific advice to the Government
from among others the RCP, the independent members of the Cohen
Committee and the ISCSH. Equally, it was the Government that encouraged
those smokers, who did not follow Government advice to stop smoking,
to smoke cigarettes with lower tar yields.
Imperial's co-operation with Government policy
Throughout, Imperial acted as a responsible
tobacco manufacturer. In particular:
— Imperial made available to Government
and its advisers the results of the TRC's research at Harrogate
and discussed with them the conclusions to be drawn from that
research.
— It co-operated with Government to
reduce tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes.
— It highlighted to Government the
need for modified products to be acceptable to consumers and the
possibility of compensatory smoking. (In 1979, in its Second Report,
the ISCSH acknowledged the need to make cigarettes that smokers
would find acceptable and in 1983 the ISCSH's Third Report addressed
the topic of compensatory smoking).
— It never made health claims for its
lower tar yield cigarettes.
Recent criticism of Government policy
There has always been a debate among scientists
as to whether or not low tar yield cigarettes carry any health
benefit. Until recently there was, however, a public health consensus
in favour of lower tar yield cigarettes. Now, some organisations
have questioned this consensus and have expressed the view that
smoking lower tar yield cigarettes carries no health benefits
and, indeed, may be harmful. (See, for example, the ASH, HEA and
Department of Health submissions). Whether or not this view is
correct has not been established. However, we do not believe that
its advocates assist informed discussion in an extremely complex
scientific area by denigrating a long-standing Government policy
as attributable to an entirely fictional UK tobacco industry attempt
to deceive the Government and the public.
Indeed, in the English litigation against Imperial
and Gallaher which was abandoned early last year, smokers, for
whom Martyn Day acted, claimed that Imperial and Gallaher were
negligent and in breach of their duty of care because they :
— failed to reduce the tar yield of
their cigarettes between 1957 and 1971 to a maximum of 10mgs;
and
— failed to advise the Plaintiffs and
all consumers to switch from high tar products to low tar products
and/or to inform them of the risks of lung cancer if they did
not do so.
In giving evidence, Mr Day said:
"What we are saying is that the tobacco
companies had a responsibility to take what were the most reasonable
steps, and those reasonable steps were to reduce down the tar
and to inform the consumer of the potential benefits of doing
that. On the basis that that was the most likely—best way
of reducing the risk apart, of course, from stopping."
2. NEW PRODUCTS
As we explained in our original submission,
Imperial has spent enormous sums of money undertaking and funding
research to try and identify potentially harmful constituents
of tobacco smoke with a view, if possible, to removing them. As
a result of that research and research by others, it has been
established that tobacco smoke contains many thousands of constituents.
None of these constituents, including nitrosamines, as they exist
in tobacco smoke, have been shown to be harmful to smokers. Nor
has it been shown which, if any, constituents account for the
statistical associations between smoking and various diseases
including lung cancer.
Mr Bates, of ASH, believes that the removal
of some constituents of tobacco smoke, including nitrosamines,
can be justified on the grounds that it "could only have
a health benefit". This is effectively the same grounds on
which the RCP recommended reduction of tar yields in 1971: that
the resulting products "may be less dangerous". As Professor
Britton told the Committee on 9 December, nobody knows whether
reducing nitrosamines in cigarette smoke will bring health benefits:
"So in theory yes, reducing nitrosamines,
reducing tar in general, should help but in practice you don't
know it does until you've introduced it and tried it."
In fact, Mr Bates is advocating a similar type
of change to the change recommended in 1971 by the RCP which he
is now criticising.
Mr Bates' allegations that Imperial failed to
use new technology or to develop new products are untrue. For
example, during the 1970s, Imperial spent in excess of £22
million developing and marketing a new technology product, NSM.
The history of this initiative and the reasons for its failure
are outlined in our original submission (paras 63 to 70).
3. NICOTINE
Nicotine occurs naturally in tobacco. Contrary
to some of the submissions made to this Committee, Imperial does
not manipulate the nicotine yield of its products. It achieves
the different published nicotine yields for its different brands
by the blending of different tobaccos and tobacco sheet.
4. FURTHER REGULATION
Government policy over a long period has been
to encourage smokers to stop smoking or, if they do not, to smoke
lower tar yield cigarettes. The public health consensus underpinning
the Government's long-standing policy of reducing tar yields and
encouraging smokers to smoke lower tar yield cigarettes is now
being questioned. Given the continuing scientific debate about
the possible benefits of lower tar yields, further tar yield reductions
are not justified. Nor, is it justified to reduce or remove individual
tobacco smoke constituents, such as nitrosamines, simply on the
grounds that they might be harmful.
There is already substantial regulation controlling
the production and marketing of cigarettes. There is no lack of
control. What there is, despite many years of research, is a lack
of answers to some very difficult scientific questions. Increased
regulation will not provide those answers. On the other hand,
despite absence of clear answers, Imperial has shown itself willing
and able to respond to reasonable Government proposals.
11 January 2000
| 
