Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1100
- 1119)
THURSDAY 27 JANUARY 2000
MR MARTIN
BROUGHTON, MR
PETER WILSON,
MR GARETH
DAVIS, MR
DAVID DAVIES
AND DR
AXEL GIETZ
1100. We have some evidence that BAT had a link
to smoking in a particular film in India, which involved the use
of an actress who was accepted as a role model on a different
front, I think in the area of AIDS, which you obviously consider
important, but she was seen smoking on the screen which, obviously,
if she was regarded as a role model, it was particularly bad for
her to be doing in a film which would attract a good deal of women
and probably young people too.
(Mr Broughton) That was brought to my attention. I
was slightly concerned at that because our Indian operation is
not a subsidiary. I was concerned that because it is not a subsidiary
and only an associate it was not implementing the practice that
we have established. I made some inquiries about that specific
thing. My understanding is that that was nothing to do with BAT.
It was Golden Tobacco, which is a competitor company, which was
introducing a brand I think called MS. I am not absolutely certain
about the brand. I think it is fair to say as a generalisation
big tobacco means responsible tobacco. You will run the risk of
getting product placement in films paid for but I do not think
you would find it from companies sitting here. It is much more
likely to be a local, smaller company playing with different rules.
1101. Would that be accepted by other companies
here?
(Mr Broughton) I would not say that you could not
find examples in the past, some years ago, where product placement
was paid for, but I am talking about quite a long time ago.
(Mr Wilson) I agree with that.
1102. The health warnings that appear here and
presumably health warnings that you use on packets elsewhere are
attributed to government or to health bodies but given your recent
public acceptance of the health risks which you said you made
the last time we met, how would you be prepared to endorse the
health warnings yourself and link the company's name with the
health warning?
(Mr Wilson) The health warnings that we use throughout
Europe and I think elsewhere are health warnings appearing on
our packs with no attribution to government at all.
1103. You make it quite clear that the company
is actually giving that?
(Mr Wilson) We do not say, "company health warning",
but they are our packs and there is the health warning. There
is no attribution to a government.
Chairman
1104. Does this apply to all of your companies?
(Mr Davis) I am not exactly sure offhand.
1105. Perhaps you can come back to us?
(Mr Davis) Yes indeed.
(Dr Gietz) I did not get the question.
1106. It was in relation to whether there is
a government requirement. Our government requires health warnings.
Mr Wilson was indicating his product elsewhere would contain some
health warning from the company. Would your product similarly
include that?
(Dr Gietz) Yes. We have a corporate policy whereby
we have health warnings on every pack we sell anywhere in the
world.
(Mr Wilson) If we are required to attribute it by
law in some countries, then we would do so obviously.
1107. Otherwise, there would be a warning there?
(Mr Broughton) There is a warning on every pack that
we sell.
(Mr Davies) There is a warning on every pack we sell.
In Europe we put attribution on only when required to do so.
Dr Brand
1108. There has been a lot of evidence on additives
to tobacco. Can you tell us whether you believe that the additives
themselves might be toxic and may contribute to some of the health
problems related to tobacco?
(Mr Wilson) The additives that we use in the United
Kingdom are all additives that are approved by the Department
of Health.
1109. We have had evidence from the Department
of Health saying that only the newer additives are approved and
that for the traditional additives, of which there may be some
600, there is no requirement.
(Mr Wilson) Let us understand what we mean by additives
in the United Kingdom. Traditionally, the United Kingdom is what
we term in the business a Virginia market as opposed to an American
blended market. Virginia style cigarettes contain very few additives.
The fundamental additives that we use in 99.5 per cent of our
cigarettes in this country are additives used in the processing
of tobacco—i.e., cellulose, chalk, adhesives etc.—and
there are no flavourings used at all in Virginia cigarettes or
in 99.5 per cent. We do have a couple of brands involving flavourings
in very minute quantities. The total amount of flavourings that
we use in all that is very, very small. They have been in use
for a long time. You cannot make a cigarette without paper, cellulose,
chalk and adhesives. They are used in accordance with the voluntary
agreements we have entered into with government and they are on
the approved government list.
1110. There could be no problem about extending
the approved list which, as we have heard—we may have been
misled somewhat—only applies to the newer additives? You
would have no problem releasing any published data on the other
additives that have been used over a longer period of time?
(Mr Wilson) We have had discussions with the Department
of Health recently and those discussions are ongoing at a technical
level.
1111. But there is nothing the company would
put in the way of actually making that data available?
(Mr Wilson) We are quite happy to disclose in confidence
to the Department of Health the additives that we use and what
information we have about those additives. That is currently happening.
1112. Presumably under ordinary consumer protection
law people should be entitled to know what in addition to the
tobacco they are inhaling or absorbing.
(Mr Wilson) What they are inhaling is smoke. The only
constraint which we have to resolve, and I think will be resolved,
is the confidentiality that we have with suppliers of certain
flavourings, but these are minute.
1113. We do not want your exact recipes. Does
that apply to the rest of you?
(Mr Broughton) Absolutely.
1114. That is a step forward because when we
started the inquiry we were told the information was only available
for the newer additives.
(Dr Gietz) It is perfectly legitimate for the authorities
to have that information. However, as indicated and as you implied
yourself referring to recipes, we would have to insist obviously
that it would be kept in confidence by those authorities. Otherwise,
yes, there is no issue.
1115. Just to stop Mrs Wise entering her culinary
arguments, you say very small amounts of additives are used in
the way of flavourings and whatever, but of course they can make
a dramatic difference in palatability and the nature of the smoke
you are delivering. Do you think it would be reasonable for regulators
to say, "Stop making your stuff so attractive"?
(Mr Wilson) I am not quite certain what you are saying.
I said that we do not use flavours at all—I am talking about
my company now—in 99.5 per cent of our business. Where we
do use flavours in two brands, one is called Park Drive which
is a longstanding, old, traditional brand which is dwindling to
very small volumes now and the other is an American blended product.
American blended products, as sold in America and in other parts
of the continent, have rather different compositions. They have
a different composition of tobacco which needs certain things
to make them smokeable but in the United Kingdom the additives
that we use are almost all processing additives, as fundamental
as things like cellulose which makes cigarette paper, adhesives
and humectants.
(Mr Broughton) On blended cigarettes, they usually
include Birley, which is a specific type of tobacco, and flavourings
are largely used to ameliorate the harsh flavour of Birley and
that is really where the flavourings come in. We have no problem
with all of the flavourings being approved by the Department of
Health. Can I raise one other issue at the same time? I do not
know whether you have looked around at some of these other cigarettes
that are available on the market. These are herbal cigarettes
which do not carry a health warning, which have on the side of
the pack four milligrams of tar, no milligrams of nicotine, or
various things like that. They make specific health claims at
times. They are available in health shops and they suffer no excise
duty whatsoever, but they contain products which would not pass
our additives guide test. They contain various products which
we would not include in cigarettes and we do the testing on them
and they would not pass the test. It is an interesting point you
might like to consider.
Dr Brand: I think that is useful, Chairman.
I think it is totally oxymoronic to sell any smoking product in
a health shop, but there we are.
Mr Hesford
1116. I want to have a look at the issue of
"safer" cigarettes. You will recall two weeks ago this
was touched upon and four out of the five of you accepted that
there was no such thing as a safe cigarette. It was only Mr Gareth
Davis who refused to accept that proposition. I take that as a
starting point for my series of questions. What potential do you
think there is at the moment for developing a genuinely safe cigarette?
(Mr Wilson) Did you say "safe" or "safer"?
1117. Given that there is no such thing as a
safe cigarette as we currently understand the product to be, and
that is what you told us, what is the potential for developing
something that could be credibly thought of as a safer cigarette?
(Mr Davies) I think I said last time I appeared that
I do not think the industry is capable of making a cigarette which
the public health community would regard as a safer cigarette.
I think that the potential to produce a cigarette which has reduced
levels of certain smoke constituents that might be harmful has
not only been realised but has further to be explored. I think
that there are advances that can be made in relation to that,
but I do not think that the reduction of smoke constituents would
in and of itself lead the health community to support any view
that that is a safer cigarette.
(Mr Broughton) In the interests of time I think you
went to visit Southampton yesterday and took these issues up and
I am perfectly happy to cover the ground again but I think you
have probably got our view now.
1118. We need it for the record.
(Mr Broughton) It was not on the record?
Chairman
1119. To clarify it, obviously a formal Hansard
record is kept of this session. Yesterday there was no note taken
in terms of a formal record. That is the distinction.
(Mr Broughton) I would endorse what Mr Davies says.
I think we are working on safer cigarettes. I do believe that
the product modification strategy of leading people to lower tar
cigarettes is part of a safer cigarette strategy. You would have
seen yesterday that we are looking at various other things including
some more selective reduction in low nitrosamines. You will of
course have seen some more novel approaches to smoking. I think
progress can be made but it would be constructive if we could
sit down with various authorities and groups that could be involved
to establish what would be acceptable as a safe or safer cigarette
to the public health authorities and how could we make progress
collectively in advancing such a safer cigarette if one was available.
(Mr Wilson) I too believe that a lot has been achieved
in the reduction in yields that has taken place over many years
as a further good example of the achievements of the voluntary
agreement system in this country. As I think I said to you last
time, most of the techniques that we have used for reducing tar
actually reduce everything and I summed it up by using a reduction
in the whole smoke that is presented to consumers. I would never
make a claim that that produced a safe or even a safer cigarette
but my instincts tell me that that is the right way to move. There
is some evidence to suggest that lower tar is the right way to
proceed and it just seems to me to be common sense to be reducing
the smoke that we present to consumers. I think there is more
that we can do and we will continue to work on this to make low
tar cigarettes more acceptable. I think I touched last time on
the whole issue, which is a complex issue, but it needs to be
debated with the appropriate authorities, both the nicotine and
the right nicotine to tar ratio. I do not believe that we can
achieve progress and we certainly cannot communicate it without
the co-operation of government and the Department of Health, just
as other have said and we have said in our submission. I firmly
believe that the right way forward is a constructive dialogue
with government in order to ensure that we are doing the things
that are going to be met with approval from the authorities. We
need their help and their support and we need to be certain that
whatever we do we are not going to be criticised for doing it
afterwards because sometimes it is possible—people have
found it possible—to challenge our motives in whatever we
do.
| 
