Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460
- 479)
THURSDAY 13 JANUARY 2000
MR MARTIN
BROUGHTON, MR
PETER WILSON,
MR GARETH
DAVIS, MR
DAVID DAVIES
AND DR
AXEL GIETZ
Chairman
460. Can I just say I am rather conscious that
perhaps the next session would spend perhaps more time looking
at the marketing and advertising side next week which is directly
relevant to the area that you are asking about. I do not want
to constrain these questions because they are very, very important
questions but I wonder, if you are agreeable, if you would like
to come back to this area in two weeks' time in much more detail.
Any conclusions?
(Mr Broughton) Chairman, there was another part of
Mr Burn's question which also you may to prefer to address next
time. I will take it whenever you want me to take it but he did
talk about opening up markets in Asia.
Chairman: I think we could perhaps come back
to that in two weeks' time. It is a fundamental area. Both the
areas he has raised are and clearly we need to look at that in
more detail. Stephen?
Mr Hesford
461. I want to continue from Mr Burns' questions
to when the companies first knew of the dangers, that sort of
area. I am sorry, Mr Davis, to pick on you again but could I focus
on the question of privilege first. Privilege is documents arising
out of a court case. That is what privilege attaches to, documents
put together for internal purposes for legal advice. There are
two issues there. If your company has produced documents simply
for its own internal use so it can understand a situation outside
a legal case there is absolutely no question of any privilege
attaching to those documents. Certainly I was asking about that
kind of documentation that would arise in the course of business.
Secondly, even if there were documents that came into existence
because of the court case once that court case is finished and
there is no issue live in terms of that document and the court
case, no privilege exists for that document either because the
privilege as between the parties has ceased to exist, so it seems
to me that you may be misinformed or ill-advised if you talk about
privilege to this Committee. I am also advised, helpfully, by
the Clerk in terms of this Committee, I think the point has already
been made by Mrs Wise, that privilege in any normal sense of the
term does not attach to this inquiry. I would ask you to be careful
about that in responding to what was my earlier question. I am
sure you would want to be more helpful than not.
(Mr Gareth Davis) Yes, indeed. I do not think I can
add much more to what I said. I think the best course open to
us—and I thank for your helpful comments on privilege—but
I am not a lawyer and I do not understand—is I can put our
people in touch with you to see how we can best help you and I
will take advice.
462. Gentlemen, a generic question. There is
a consensus that smoking causes, can cause illness and death in
terms that you have already been asked about. Can I ask each of
you in turn, does your company attach itself to that consensus?
(Mr David Davies) Philip Morris has acknowledged the
consensus.
463. Do you accept the consensus?
(Mr David Davies) It is our position that there has
to be one single consistent public health message in relation
to this issue. That has to be that smoking causes diseases. That
is why we say there is no such thing as a safe cigarette. That
is why we say if you smoke the only safe thing to do is to stop
smoking and if you do not smoke do not begin to smoke.
464. That is very helpful. Mr Broughton?
(Mr Broughton) I think I am repeating what I said
but for the sake of clarity the simple and most common understanding
of causation is the one which Dr Brand has referred to, the one
that you are talking about, and we accept it entirely. I think
it is fair to say it is absolutely accurate, repeating what Mr
Davies has just said, absolutely right for the public health authorities
to take that position. We accept it and it has been our working
hypothesis for a very long time, yes.
465. Hypothesis?
(Mr Broughton) We accept the definition of causation.
466. I am talking about fact, a factual consensus
about the causal relationship. Do you accept that?
(Mr Broughton) We accept in the common and simple
understanding, which I think is the right one for everyone to
take, that the answer is yes.
467. Mr Wilson?
(Mr Wilson) I do not think I can add to what I have
already said. We accept that smoking is a cause of illness. Yes,
we accept the consensus is there.
468. Thank you. Mr Davis?
(Mr Gareth Davis) We accept certainly the public health
authorities' conclusion and the consensus they put forward that
most people in society believe that there is this consensus and,
furthermore, we have never sought to challenge that consensus
certainly that has been followed and messages put out by the public
health bodies.
469. Yes.
(Dr Gietz) We are in no position nor of a mind to
dispute or debate with the public health authorities who are very
well qualified to interpret the scientific evidence available
but again what we do is more important than what we say. We do
try to translate that into a responsible development of products
addressing this issue.
470. Thank you. What would you say given that
from the 1950s, if not before, that there was an awareness of
some relationship between smoking and illness and/or death has
been the aim from that realisation on behalf of your companies?
What has been the aim of your research in terms of that realisation
if you could encapsulate that from the 1950s onwards for the record
,each in turn please.
(Mr David Davies) Philip Morris' aim has been to try
to improve our products to address those issues. I referred earlier
to our latest introduction into the test market of such a product.
We have done so in various ways through product characteristics,
design, modification of the compositions and that has been our
consistent aim and remains so today.
(Mr Broughton) The company's aim has been a product
modification strategy to fundamentally seek a less risky cigarette.
I think, as Mr Wilson said earlier, the early part of that aim
was taking a rather simplistic position that there was some kind
of magic bullet approach, some kind of constituent that as long
as we found the biological mechanism, the cause, the specific
constituent, it could be extracted, eliminated or at least reduced.
That turned out to be a false avenue but the aim was the same
to try and say what is causing it and so the aim has been product
modification.
471. I am fascinated by that, Mr Broughton.
Do you say then that tar is not a recognised dangerous constituent
of a cigarette?
(Mr Broughton) That is not what I am saying at all.
472. It seemed to me implicit in what you were
saying.
(Mr Broughton) If that was what you thought was implicit
let me rephrase it because that is not at all what was meant to
be implicit. I was saying the simplistic view in the early days
was maybe there is one magic bullet approach, eliminate the constituent.
As time went on it became evident that that was a false line of
inquiry, an unproductive line of inquiry and, as I think our submission
shows, a much more productive line was a reduction of all of the
possible constituents. Tar is clearly seen to be the key element
that encapsulates the risky constituents but it would be simplistic
to say tar is "the" constituent which causes all of
the problem and therefore eliminate tar, so to speak, and that
is the end of the discussion. So I think the whole product strategy
has been, first of all, the research has been a product modification
strategy seeking less risky cigarettes, how to get there has been
modified over time and it is laid out in our submission. Working
with government has been the route we have gone. I think in practice
a general reduction, which is encapsulated through tar reduction
(but bringing down tar tends to bring down nicotine, carbon monoxide
and any other constituent in it) . It seems to be a very logical
strategy to bring down tar whichever constituent may or may not
be the cause of disease is likely to be coming down with it.
(Mr Wilson) I have already discussed the earlier research
and Mr Broughton has referred to it, which tried to identify out
of the 3,500/4,000 elements in tobacco.
473. It is the corporate direction I am concerned
with.
(Mr Wilson) The corporate direction we have pursued
is very similar to that which Martin Broughton has described which
is to try to find ways of reducing the risk. We have done that,
encouraged by and working with the government and Independent
Scientific Committee with a lot of emphasis on tar not to forget
the substitute programme which we went through in the late 1960s
and early 1970s which was a huge programme for us all but sadly
that failed and following that the Chairman of the Independent
Scientific Committee commented, and I would agree with this, that
the failure of substitutes marked the end of radicalism in the
search for better cigarettes and we must concentrate on the gradual
reduction of tar. Let me make two further points. This has to
be done gradually in order to take smokers with us. Over the years
we have made immense strides forward. In the 1950s tar was not
measured in the way it is measured today but probably the average
tar yield of cigarettes in the 1950s was somewhere around 40 milligrams.
Today it is around 10 or probably less than 10. Enormous strides
have been made but it has to be done gradually. Many of the techniques
that reduce tar are also techniques that reduce the whole smoke
and whilst there is some evidence that this is a better cigarette,
it seems to me basic fundamental common sense that if you are
concerned about the smoke of a cigarette then let's produce less
of it and things like ventilation and the porosity of the paper
and the amount of tobacco we use, the use of expanded tobacco,
all these techniques have the effect of delivering less smoke
to smokers and that ,to me, has to be the right way forward.
Chairman
474. Obviously I am interested in the slight
difference between yourself and Mr Davies. The product we saw
in the United States your new Accord cigarette was an interesting
development that you explained to us. There is a significant distinction
between Mr Wilson's approach and your approach in this area. You,
Mr Wilson, talk about gradual reduction of the tar levels and
that is obviously different to what Mr Davies' company is doing.
If you are developing an allegedly safe cigarette, by implication
all of the rest of the products that you are gradually reducing
tar from are unsafe and it is apparent to the consumer that they
are unsafe. Is that the reason you have got a different strategy
from Mr Davies?
(Mr Wilson) Let me hasten to say that whilst personally,
and there is some evidence to suggest it, common sense would suggest
that lower tar, lower yields, lower everything has to be right,
I would never say and never have and would not want this Committee
to be seen as the record of a public statement from me that these
cigarettes are safer. We do not know that but common sense suggests
that it has to be the right way forward. I am talking about a
gradual reduction. I am not talking about radicalism. My view
is that radicalism is a very hard thing to achieve. You have got
to take smokers with you.
475. You are saying that Mr Davies' company
is radical or what they have done is radical?
(Mr Wilson) I think I know the product.
476. I think it is important. Obviously what
they showed us in the States was of great interest to the Committee.
And there is a clear distinction between the strategies of your
two companies. I think it is important for us to explore that
distinction in looking at the way we pursue this issue.
(Mr Wilson) We are pursuing a policy of gradualism
to constantly strive to make our product better. There was an
interesting comment, which again I would support, by Dr Wynder
in about 1980 was that a very safe cigarette smoked by one per
cent of the population will have significantly less impact on
overall public health than a slightly safer cigarette smoked by
80 per cent of the population. We are certainly adopting a policy
of gradualism, trying constantly to reduce the yields of our product
and at the same time, this is vitally important, ensure that the
smoke or the product that is presented to the public is acceptable
because if it is not then we are not achieving anything.
Dr Brand
477. Can I pursue that slightly. If you are
lessening the smoke, which is a nice phrase, but at the same time
you are trying to keep the smoker satisfied, are you altering
the way that the nicotine is being delivered even if a smaller
amount is available? Is it more readily accessible?
(Mr Wilson) No.
478. So there has been no change in your use
of additives, aldehydes and substances of that sort, during that
particular period?
(Mr Wilson) In the UK Virginia cigarette hardly any
additives are used. You raise an interesting issue as to maybe
we should. There is an issue, there has been for some time, we
have explored it and there was an interesting paper in Tobacco
Control contributed to by Mr Bates and Martin Jarvis recently
on this whole question of the relationship between nicotine and
tar. If tar is what is causing the damage and nicotine is making
a significant contribution to what smokers want there could be
a case for increasing the nicotine to tar ratio. We have not done
that. We have looked at ways of doing that but we have not done
it because if we did so our motives would be misconstrued and
I really do not want to do that. It comes back to the importance
of dialogue with government. We were encouraged by the Independent
Scientific Committee to pursue this. They decided not to launch
it and we decided not to launch it because we would be accused
of manipulating the nicotine levels. This is the sort of area
where dialogue with government would be extremely important, valuable
and is probably the only way we can move forward on projects like
that. I am not advocating that route. It is a route which to me
is worthy of more work.
Chairman: I would like to come back to you,
Mr Wilson, on the compensatory smoking issue which arises directly
out of what you have said. Stephen, I apologise for that.
Mr Hesford
479. Can I ask how much each of the companies
spend annually as a proportion of your annual turnover?
(Mr Wilson) It varies.
| 
