Letter from the Chairman British American
Tobacco to the Clerk of the Committee (TB 28B)
Thank you for your letter of 14 January in which
you ask for supplementary evidence. Most of the issues raised
in your request were covered at the oral session. I took the view
at that session that, in order to move forward, it was best not
to debate semantics or technical definitions but rather to find
what is clearly common ground between the Government, public health
bodies and our company and move on.
I have asked Dr. Chris Proctor, British American
Tobacco's Head of Science and Regulation, to provide me with a
note, which I Annex, on the technical responses to your request
for supplementary evidence, which I hope will be helpful to the
Committee for its deliberations. Dr. Proctor will be available
for further questions regarding this note when the Committee visit
our Research and Development laboratories in Southampton.
The issues, as you will see from Dr. Proctor's
note, are complex. However, in order to help the committee and
in the spirit of moving forward, I shall take each question and
provide you with a brief non-technical reponse.
Could you indicate the amounts your companies
spend on research annually, what proportion of turnover that represents;
and what proportion of that research is geared towards the health
risks of smoking?
The majority of our Group turnover, as you will
know, goes to Government in the form of excise duties and other
sales taxes, and hence is not available for investment decisions.
Governments typically do not specify how the revenues they obtain
from tobacco sales are allocated, but it could be assumed that
some of this revenue is invested in acadmic smoking and health
research.
In 1998, prior to the merger with Rothmans,
our research and development budget was £45 million. That
is around 0.26 per cent. of gross turnover. Our adjusted profit
after tax for 1998 was of the order of £720 million, making
the proportion spent on R&D around 6 per cent.
The proportion of the R&D budget that is
geared towards the health risks of smoking is described in Dr.
Proctor's note. He explains that much of the R&D budget goes
to making assessments of the product, ensuring compliance with
regulatory standards, and looking to make product improvements,
both in terms of consumer acceptability and in terms of reducing
risks.
Could you indicate the outcome of legal proceedings
brought against SCOTH, and confirmation of whether your company
was a party to the action?
A British American Tobacco subsidiary company
was party to the legal proceedings seeking judicial review of
the production of the SCOTH report. At the initial hearing, the
judge granted leave and commented critically upon the inflammatory
language used in what purported to be a scientific report. At
the full hearing a different judge decided that it was not necessary
for the Courts to intervene on the basis that the report was only
a consultative document. Why we felt it necessary to take legal
action against the Government in relation to the SCOTH report,
and the proposed advertising ban, is a subject I would like to
address the Committee on at the next session.
Could we have a reply to whether your company
believes that nicotine is addictive by reference to each of these
criteria: DSM-IV and ICD 10?
The question seems to misunderstand the purpose
of DSM-IV and the manner by which criteria are set out in DSM-IV.
This manual does not set out to define criteria for judging whether
a particular substance is addictive (or more accurately capable
of producing dependence). Rather, it provides standardised diagnostic
criteria to assist clinicians in determining whether a person
has a particular disorder.
DSM-IV and ICD 10 use similar criteria to define
whether someone can be classified as being dependent upon nicotine.
We think that it is reasonable that, under these criteria, some
smokers would be classified as being dependent upon nicotine.
The attached note also gives three other definitions
related to addiction—those of the US Surgeon General in
1964 (which led to the introduction of health warnings), the US
Surgeon General in 1988, and the Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
I said at the hearing that I did not wish to waste the Committee's
time with semantics but I would be interested to learn whether
the Committee agrees that the definition of addiction has changed
over time and that none of these definitions is wrong—they
are just different. I repeat that in my view the discussion should
move away from semantics on to consideration of any action that
may need to take place.
Does smoking cause lung cancer—"cause"
meaning that smoking is an activity that results in there being
more lung cancer deaths that there would otherwise be—other
things being equal?
Yes.
Do you agree that smoking causes lung cancer beyond
all reasonable doubt?
In populations, yes.
Does smoking cause heart and circulation disease—"cause"
meaning that smoking is an activity that results in there being
more heart and circulation disease related deaths that there would
otherwise be—other things being equal?
Yes.
Do you agree that smoking causes heart and circulation
disease beyond all reasonable doubt?
With several of the heart and circulation diseases,
such as coronary heart disease, the relative risks for smoking
are similar to those for other identified risk factors such as
obesity, hypertension, lack of exercise and high cholesterol.
Smokers will often have other risk factors in addition to smoking.
The relative risk for lifetime smoking is typically much lower
for heart and circulation diseases than for lung cancer or emphysema,
and the interpretation of the epidemiologic data is more difficult
given the multiple risk factors. However, notwithstanding these
complexities, the answer to your question, as it relates to populations,
is yes.
Does smoking cause respiratory illnesses such
as emphysema—"cause" meaning that smoking is an
activity that results in there being more respiratory illness
related deaths than there would otherwise be—other things
being equal?
Yes.
Do you agree that smoking causes respiratory illnesses
beyond all reasonable doubt?
In populations and with regards certain respiratory
illnesses such as emphysema, yes.
Let me repeat that British American Tobacco
believes and has for decades recognised that along with the pleasures
of smoking come real risks of serious diseases such as lung cancer,
respiratory disease and heart disease. In the most simple and
commonly understood sense, smoking is a cause of certain serious
diseases. This has been the working hypothesis of much of our
research, has been believed by smokers for decades, and is the
most appropriate viewpoint for consumers and public health authorities.
As the Government states in its White Paper
on Tobacco, "Smoking Kills", "Currently, well over
a quarter of the people in Britain smoke. The Government fully
recognises their right to choose to do so. We will not in any
of our proposals infringe upon that right. But with rights come
responsibilities."
We agree with Government. As I stated earlier,
we take the view that Government, public health groups and the
UK tobacco industry should work together to ensure:
— that only adults smoke;
— that the public are appropriately
informed of the risks;
— that smokers are informed of the
varying levels of risk and are therefore encouraged to smoke fewer
cigarettes, smoke lighter cigarettes and quit smoking sooner;
— that the desires of non-smokers to
avoid the annoyance of smoke be accommodated;
— and that the effort to both research
and develop lower risk cigarettes and also communicate those developments
to consumers be encouraged and supported, unencumbered by opportunistic
criticism.
For the Committee's information, we are writing
to the Secretary of State for Health in order to seek a constructive
dialogue. We also think that the Health Committee has a significant
opportunity to suggest constructive ways forward.
Martin Broughton
Chairman
19 January 2000
| 
