Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1120
- 1139)
THURSDAY 27 JANUARY 2000
MR MARTIN
BROUGHTON, MR
PETER WILSON,
MR GARETH
DAVIS, MR
DAVID DAVIES
AND DR
AXEL GIETZ
1120. In the interests of time, Chairman, I
will miss Mr Davis out because he does not even accept the basic
proposition for this.
(Mr Davis) I do not think that is the case. I do not
know what point Mr Hesford is trying to make there.
Chairman
1121. You differentiated in terms of your opinion
quite clearly last time where your colleagues were indicating
their acceptance of serious health problems arising from smoking.
You made it clear in that session that you differed to some extent
from that view.
(Mr Davis) I am sorry. I misunderstood the point.
(Dr Gietz) I am grateful for the opportunity. Coming
back to a few things I have said,—
Mr Hesford
1122. You have a particular point, do you not?
(Dr Gietz) Exactly. There are if you like at least
three approaches. One is the general tar reduction, general yield
reduction, that we have discussed at length, which certainly still
seems to make a lot of sense. Another is the specific reduction
of individual compounds, problematic but we are working on that
too. We have a product in the tobacco burning cigarette field
that addresses specifically certain compounds that are seen critically
in the vapour phase of the smoke. This is done by combining a
low nitrate/tobacco blend with a special carbon filter, and in
addition we have (which I explained last time) a product in particular
which does not even burn the tobacco any more but only heats it,
thereby basically eliminating all the "bad stuff" that
results from the combustion process. We believe very strongly
that this is a route further to pursue. We have put a lot of money
and manpower and work into it. We have marketed these. We have
not marketed them successfully, one reason being that we were
not able to communicate to the consumer what the fact that this
product is different means to him. There are social aspects connected
with smoking, there are cosmetic concerns connected with smoking,
but at the end of the day what is really important is the health
aspects. As long as we are not able then to explain to him that
this product is different and that means that potentially he can
reduce the risk, it is difficult to get him to switch in a number
that is significant from the public health point of view. In addition,
it would also obviously help to give him a financial incentive
to switch, ie for us to be able to price these competitively.
This is basically the message that we would like to leave with
the Committee. I am more than happy, since I hear that at least
BAT and Philip Morris have had the opportunity to host the Committee
to explain these things in more detail, certainly better than
I can since I am not a scientist, to invite the Committee to take
that opportunity with us too. I would be delighted to get a scientist
over here who can take you through these developments.
1123. Am I right in thinking that hitherto there
are no commercially successful safer cigarettes for the reasons
you have just given?
(Dr Gietz) Yes.
1124. Do we have broad agreement on that?
(Mr Broughton) Yes.
1125. There are examples of so-called failed
products over the last 20 odd years.
(Mr Broughton) Yes.
1126. Am I also right in thinking that if today,
as chairmen, chief executives and presidents of all the major
players, if not the major players in the tobacco industry, you
agreed today amongst yourselves that you will go hell for leather
for developing safer products so that you knew that when you did
that and put that out into the market place you were not unsure
whether, looking over your shoulder, someone else would still
buy an ordinary tobacco product and keep their market share while
you put your market share at risk? If you were assured that that
was not an issue, can you say to me that that is something that
you would want to look at that would be beneficial in terms of
the safer cigarette argument? You want to maintain your market
share.
(Mr Broughton) Certainly for British American Tobacco
and I would imagine for others as well, the first company to manufacture
and sell a product which is accepted by public health authorities
as safe and has consumer acceptance would not hesitate to do so
because they would recognise that, yes, that would eat into current
market share, but it would eat into current market share of the
entire tobacco market.
1127. That is the impasse we are at, if I may
say so. That is the $64,000 question. I want to move beyond that.
(Mr Wilson) Why is that an impasse?
1128. Because there is none out there. There
is an history of failure because they were not commercially successful.
(Mr Broughton) That is because the consumer did not
want them.
(Dr Gietz) The consumer did not grasp fully what they
were about.
(Mr Broughton) You have to get something which the
consumer finds acceptable.
Audrey Wise
1129. If you all produced something that is
not acceptable to the consumer, smoking would disappear, would
it not? That would be the safest.
(Mr Wilson) We would see a surge in imports that none
of us would like.
Mr Hesford
1130. The Accord problem, which the Committee
is not endorsing one way or the other, but it is out there as
a potentially different burning product. Is that right?
(Mr Davies) Correct. It heats the tobacco rather than
burns it.
1131. Have you done some test marketing on that
and if you have how is that going?
(Mr Davies) It is currently in a test market in two
places, one of them in the eastern United States, the other in
Japan. It is fair to say it is work in progress. We are not yet
satisfied that we have a product that works efficiently and effectively
in a manner which is acceptable to the consumer. Equally, we are
satisfied that we should continue to develop the product because
certain consumers have found that they enjoy using that product,
so we are continuing to improve and develop the product and to
test the improvements and developments that we are putting into
effect commercially.
Audrey Wise
1132. Mr Gareth Davis of Imperial, following
on something I asked last time you were here, I referred to your
written evidence, page nine, paragraph 17, which is headed "Consultation
with external independent scientists". I said, "You
say that you have consulted and taken advice" and then we
have a list of distinguished people there, about eight of them.
"We have no means of knowing what advice you were given."
I asked if you would send us written documents that might have
passed between you and these scientists so that we would know.
Just a list of names implies some sort of approval of Imperial
but is not exactly explanatory. We have had some supplementary
evidence as a result of that. The supplementary evidence is a
bit contradictory because there is a paragraph which says, "Our
views on smoking and health are based on monitoring of the scientific
literature, attending scientific conferences and meetings with
and advice from external scientists." Later in the paragraph,
it says, "The advice given by external scientists was not
given in writing." I find it very hard to picture—there
are actually 12 names on the list in your evidence; seven of them
are professors—I find it very hard to picture these people
giving advice and it not being in writing. It seems sloppy.
(Mr Davis) I think there are two separate issues here.
The list of names on page 17 of our submission refers to a lot
of eminent people who were actually from the public health bodies
as well consulted and results made available of the research efforts
in the 1950s and up to the mid part of the 1960s. To the best
of my recollection, that is what page 17 is trying to enunciate.
1133. Page 17 is headed "Consultation with
external independent scientists". It goes on to say what
I have read and then it lists the people, 12 names on the list,
seven of whom are professors. It does not say, "This is only
about the 1950s and 1960s". It gives no indication whatsoever
of what advice you might have been given. It makes you wonder,
the purpose of that paragraph, unless it is to give a general
impression of approval from the 12 eminent people, seven of whom
are professors. You have said in your supplementary evidence as
well that you will send us copies of any written interchange between
Imperial and the scientists listed. Then your letter says, "Any
such documents will relate to research undertaken in the 1950s
and 1960s or its interpretation." You have promised through
this letter from your company to send that. I am a trifle pessimistic
because the two statements seem contradictory. One paragraph says,
"The advice given by external scientists was not given in
writing." The next paragraph says, "Any such documents
will relate to the 1950s and 1960s." It is all under the
heading "External Scientists" which leaves me unsure
whether you have documents or not and as to the purpose of putting
a list like this in your evidence. I think it is quite a serious
thing to do, to put a list of eminent people. I do not know whether
you have got permission from them, for example. I do not know
what they will read into their appearance in Imperial Tobacco's
evidence to this Committee without comment but I am certainly
keen on knowing. I want to put on record that your response is
going to have to be a good deal better than the preliminary, supplementary
response and to ask that you make sure, if you can shed any light,
are there documents or was it all friendly chats?
(Mr Davis) If I can come back to my answer, if you
look at our first submission, paragraph 17 very much relates to
the context of the report as it stands. It is set out a chronology
of early research activity that took place from 1950 onwards.
The list of people, on page 10, paragraph 17, is of those people
at that point in history, people from the Royal College of Physicians,
professors of genetics, some very eminent people at the time,
who were consulted by the company, the Tobacco Manufacturers'
Standing Committee and subsequently the Tobacco Research Council,
to give advice (and a lot of these people are on public health
bodies) and it says quite clearly that we took advice from them
on the direction of our research carried and the interpretation
of research, and it just included those results. That is meant
to be helpful in our submission. Paragraph 2, under "Research
Materials" says quite clearly that we are quite happy to
send a copy of any written interchange between those and we are
in the process of sorting those out and sending them to you, Mrs
Wise. It is as simple as that.
1134. We will read them with interest. Part
of your evidence in this whole section goes beyond the 1960s,
and in any case a paragraph which simply says, "Consultation
with external independent scientists" does carry connotations
of respectability and authorisation, I have a certain scepticism
about which I hope your documents will relieve.
(Mr Davis) It certainly was not meant to give that
impression. I hope my explanation has gone some way to clarifying
the list of people in paragraph 17 and their role.
Mr Gunnell
1135. I have a last question to Mr Broughton.
It is a question that arose in the discussions in Southampton
yesterday. It comes back to the question of marketing in the Third
World. It seems to me particularly that it is anti-social behaviour
to market to females in the Third World because a substantial
increase in females smoking there would obviously produce a great
increase in mortality with the misery this causes. It is immoral
in my view to do this and I wonder what you do to ensure that,
in marketing tobacco products (and clearly you are going to continue
to market tobacco products there), you do not affect markedly
the proportion of women who become or persist in being smokers.
You are trying to attract females.
(Mr Broughton) I am not quite sure that I got the
specific point of the question. We take the view that women are
just as able to make up their mind on any subject as men and should
be free to make up their own mind, to choose what they do. We
think that adult women in other countries are just as able to
do that as in this country without exception and frankly we would
find it very patronising to take any other view. What you find
is that there are some markets around the world where there is
a very low level of female smoking, which is generally a cultural
feature. In other markets there are levels of females smoking
the same as here or higher. Clearly our marketing practice will
follow whatever is appropriate for that local market. Where female
smoking is very low you will not find frankly any female cigarettes
available because there is no market for them. Where female smoking
is popular—
1136. They may be particularly susceptible to
the advertisements on the style of those that Mrs Wise was referring
to earlier, where they link women smoking and women's liberation
with the freedom to smoke and you may attract them to smoking
that way.
(Mr Broughton) Female emancipation is something which
is occurring around the world at different speeds. Frankly, it
is not something which we as a tobacco company wish to get into
in a political sense to restrain, encourage or whatever. That
is much more a local, cultural thing.
1137. You may find it is a useful link to successful
advertising.
(Mr Broughton) I would be interested to see the evidence
you think that is based on.
1138. We shall hope not to find it but I am
dubious.
(Mr Broughton) I share your hopes.
Dr Brand
1139. Do you not wish you could have a job that
is as well paid as your present one that does not involve manufacturing
cigarettes?
(Mr Broughton) Or appearing in front of this Committee.
Dr Brand: That is the least of your worries.
Chairman: Gentlemen, can I thank you once again
for coming before us and for your co-operation with our inquiry.
We are very grateful to you for coming here today. It may be that
we have further dialogue or will be writing at some point but
we appreciate your help. Thank you very much.
|
