Examination of Witnesses (Questions 520
- 539)
THURSDAY 13 JANUARY 2000
MR MARTIN
BROUGHTON, MR
PETER WILSON,
MR GARETH
DAVIS, MR
DAVID DAVIES
AND DR
AXEL GIETZ
520. Can I ask each of you a question, whether
you believe you have any responsibility to inform and protect
your customers beyond the statutory requirements or the voluntary
agreements you have entered into and, if so, how would you define
that responsibility and how do you exercise it?
(Mr Wilson) I feel that cigarettes are a unique product
as we have already established. Our role is to market our products
in a competitive market on the basis that people who choose to
smoke are informed, are aware of the risks of smoking. I cannot
over stress the importance that I would attach to that. I believe,
as Mr Broughton has said, that the awareness today is immensely
high of the risks of smoking helped by governments in the past
and by the media along with all the health warnings that appear
on all the packs and advertising. Our concern, it is a very real
concern to us, is to satisfy ourselves that smokers are aware
of the risks when they choose to smoke.
(Mr Broughton) Can I say I think first of all the
most constructive way forward continues to be for tobacco companies
to work in co-operation with Government public health authorities
so whatever message is going out is an agreed message that all
parties can work to. That is the first thing that I would like
to say because I think it is very important going forward. I think
that in that context not enough is done today to support what
you might call the moderation argument. I think it was Mr Amess
who asked me: "Is the Government's policy eradiation?"
and my answer was "No, I do not think it is" but I think
the messages that come out are very much focused on "Quick.
Stop. Eradicate". Nothing wrong with those messages but I
think it might be more helpful to the many smokers who do not
wish to quit to focus some of the message down the "Okay.
Smoke fewer, smoker lighter and why not try and quit" kind
of approach rather than just the black or white quit or not. I
am not sure that is getting to a lot of people who do not want
to quit.
521. It is a different message from that which
we heard from Mr Davies.
(Mr David Davies) As I said earlier, our view is that
there has to be a single and consistent message in relation to
the health issue. That being the message of the public health
community.to do what we can to ensure that occurs. That is why
we state the positions that we state, that is why we made the
decision not to debate any of those issues.
522. Mr Davies?
(Mr Gareth Davis) I would agree, I think there has
been a very single and consistent message from public health authorities
which we have never sought to challenge but beyond that I see
it is the societal norm.
523. You do not accept causation?
(Mr Gareth Davis) It is a societal belief that smoking
causes harm and I think that has been enshrined for many, many
decades.
524. It is a societal belief which you do not
accept?
(Mr Gareth Davis) No, no, I accept that there is a
societal belief.
525. You think we have got it wrong. You do
not think there is a causal link between smoking and lung cancer,
for example?
(Mr Gareth Davis) No, what I have said is it has not
been shown.
526. It is just some strange unsubstantiated
notion that scientists have got?
(Mr Gareth Davis) No. I think there is a significant
body of evidence that has been amassed by epidemiologists and
through studies. I am not challenging it or questioning it.
527. But you do not accept it. It is something
that somebody else believes.
(Mr Gareth Davis) I do not accept it has been shown,
no.
528. That is your message to the public?
(Mr Gareth Davis) No. That is my answer to you, Chairman.
529. Dr Gietz?
(Dr Gietz) I think it is a joint responsibility, definitely.
If only on the basis of the fact that 80 per cent of the retail
price of a packet of cigarettes is taxation, if you like in a
way the Government and the industry are partners in this business
and, for sure, the industry has a joint responsibility to ensure—and
I think we take this very seriously—that the consumer is
informed about what it means to smoke a cigarette. Again, as I
said earlier, what the public health authorities say, given their
much higher qualifications, certainly carries much more weight.
Our major contribution, while never remotely even disputing or
debating it, is to put into product development what we can to
address these issues and reduce those risks.
Audrey Wise
530. Continuing with the question of information
and protection, I think you have all agreed in fact that it is
desirable that smokers should be aware that smoking is a risky
activity. That is fair comment? Right. I think the record should
show everybody agrees. Do you think that part of that should be
an indication of the magnitude of the risk because, of course,
we all know that you say to somebody—especially somebody
young—"You will die of this" and their general
tendency is to say "Well, I am going to die anyway some time".
Do you say that to counter that kind of reaction an indication
of the magnitude of the risk, I do not mean in precise terms but
the general magnitude, should be part of the information given?
(Mr Broughton) Yes. One aspect of the magnitude which
I think people should be more aware of—and it comes back
to the whole smoke argument that Mr Wilson made—is quantum
of smoking. I think if you look at the epidemiological evidence—and
I can throw numbers at you but I am not trying to be too precise
on the numbers—whether it is a study of women smokers or
male smokers, there are differences between these studies, you
will see that somebody who has smoked for 40 years or more, more
than 30 cigarettes a day, for example, will have a relative risk
ratio, let us take lung cancer, of 29 in the one particular study
I can think of for women, 35 for men. Very high, very high, whether
it is 29 or 35, very high. Whereas the same studies showed that
if you are a smoker of less than 20 cigarettes a day over a much
shorter period of time then the relative risk ratio is three for
women, it is a little more again for men. The point I am getting
at there comes back to the point I was making earlier in the public
messages. I think there is a danger in treating all smokers as
identical when the relative risk ratios are very clear. I think
it substantiates the case for saying epidemiology and the likelihood
of cause is proven by epidemiology when you see these risks. I
think it is very important in terms of magnitude of risk that
people do understand that the longer they smoke and the more they
smoke the higher the risk. I think that is an element that should
be coming through.
531. The higher the risk and that it is a high
risk?
(Mr Broughton) And that it is a high risk.
532. Do you all agree with that?
(Mr Wilson) I think that is right. We are talking
in generalisations, this is the problem, in terms of trying to
get across the magnitude of the risk because it is different for
all sorts of smokers, maybe it is different for the smoker of
a low tar cigarette from a high tar cigarette. But the fundamental
point you make I do totally accept. If you are talking about the
wording of the warning that is printed on our packs, I am very
happy to discuss with the Department of Health what is the appropriate
warning to get these messages across. But, as I said before, it
is important that smokers do understand the risks that they are
taking on when they decide to smoke.
Chairman
533. Does Mr Davis want to say something? You
have been somewhat dissident of the issue this morning, what is
your response to all this?
(Mr Gareth Davis) I think it comes back again, Chairman,
to the societal norm. I think the level of belief is so widespread
and so entrenched in society which is why Mrs Wise said there
should be some question of quantification of scale. The answer
to that is I do not know whether there should be but I would only
emphasise that I think belief within society that smoking causes
harm is so widespread because of the long standing public messages
backed up by actions in terms of reducing tar, etc., that they
are so well understood throughout society.
Audrey Wise
534. I actually disagree that people understand
the magnitude of the risk and I think that the lack of understanding
is compounded when gentlemen like yourselves use expressions like
"Well, it has not been shown". We accept that people
think this. It is a real reluctance to say "Yes, this is
a very risky activity". You fall back on "Oh, well,
not proven". I think that is significant. I am not just talking
about wording on packets, that would be a very precise question,
it is the general messages. It is not only on packets that messages
are given. Most people do not realise that their chance of dying
from smoking related diseases if they are a smoker is about 50:50,
most people do not realise that, or that their chance of dying
prematurely is about one in four. I think those are very significant
messages. There is another significant message that I do not think
people have in their minds, I would like to have your comment,
the magnitude of the benefit of stopping smoking. Quite a lot
of people will say to you "Oh, well, I have smoked for 30
years, too late now, too late now", yet if people do stop
smoking, unless they are already growing a cancer, the recovery
from the effects of smoking is tremendous. I do not think people
understand that. Do you think they do? Do you tell them ever in
any way?
(Mr Broughton) First of all, can I make a comment,
because I think it demands a comment, on your statement of the
50:50 chance, you do not think most people realise they have a
50:50 chance. I have heard in previous hearings here several people
around this table use that 50 per cent position. I think it comes
back to what I have been saying, that kind of statement is often
bandied around I think with very little substantiation. I remember
sitting on a panel with Dr Yach, who presented evidence here,
where he used the same comment, 50 per cent of smokers die from
the habit. I challenged him on it by saying that was a blatant
misrepresentation and he knew it. He immediately withdrew the
comment by saying "Well, no, what I meant to say was 50 per
cent of life long heavy smokers". That comes back to my point
that there is a big danger in globally using expressions as though
50 per cent of smokers is the same whether you are a life long
heavy smoker or if you smoke a few cigarettes for five or six
years and then give up, it is a very different message. I think
you are absolutely right, Mrs Wise, that the messages which need
to be coming through are smoke fewer. I think smoke lighter is
right but quit sooner. It is the same point you have just made:
quit sooner is a good message to be putting to people.
Chairman
535. Mr Broughton, can I just interrupt and
ask you, I think I understand the point you are making but are
you raising questions again about what the Government stated in
the White Paper? It is my understanding they are saying—and
I quote—"half of all who continue to smoke for most
of their lives die of the habit". Do you take exception to
that?
(Mr Broughton) You have, particularly there, qualified
the statement. You have quoted it much more accurately.
536. I think that Mrs Wise was trying to reflect
what the White Paper says. Let us be specific. Regardless of your
interpretation of her question, do you take exception to what
the White Paper has to say on that?
(Mr Broughton) I do not take exception to it in that
sense—
537. You accept that?
(Mr Broughton) I do not know. I do not take exception
to it because I do not actually know the study on which that is
based. All I am saying is people who claim to know the study,
people who claim to have been involved in the study themselves,
accept that it is a study based on life long heavy smokers. I
think the message that was in the piece that you read out reflected
that life long position and, therefore, I would not take issue
with it.
Mr Gunnell
538. The Royal College of Physicians have told
us they consider nicotine should be regarded as a powerfully addictive
drug on a par with heroin and cocaine. Is nicotine addictive or
would you say they are incorrect in what they say?
(Mr Wilson) Certainly I accept that smoking is a habit,
and in the way the word addicted is used today, yes, it is probably
addictive. But the key question surely is can people stop smoking
and the clear answer has to be yes because people do stop smoking.
There are somewhere between 11 and 12 million people in this country
today who used to be regular smokers, a figure not very different
from the number of regular smokers that there are in this country
today.
539. You think that quitting these drugs, whether
it is heroin or cocaine or smoking, is simply an individual choice
about lifestyle?
(Mr Wilson) I am sorry, can you repeat the question?
|
