Next steps for the regulation of cigarettes

1
Next steps for the regulation of cigarettes

• Bill King and Ron Borland

2
Introduction

• As we know, there are known knowns
• There are things we know we know
• We also know there are known unknowns
• That is to say, we know there are some things
• We do not know
• But there are also unknown unknowns
• The ones we dont know we dont know
•  -Donald Rumsfeld 2002.

3
Possibilities for regulating cigarettes

• Regulate to attempt to reduce toxicity
• Emission limits.
• Regulate to attempt to reduce addictiveness
• Nicotine limits.
• Regulate to attempt to reduce attractiveness,
  especially illusions of reduced harmfulness.
• Restrict engineering and additives that help mask
  inherent signs of toxicity, and/or make the
  cigarettes taste better than they otherwise would

4
Toxin reduction

• Responsibility of companies and regulators
• Combustion sets limits to possible amount
• Requires selective filtration
• If there were any easy solutions , the industry
  would have adopted them

5
Reduction in addictiveness

• Phase out the nicotine
• Prohibition by stealth, unless viable alternative
  source
• NRT and/or smokeless tobacco
• An agenda worth considering
• But lots of research needed on viability

6
Reinventing the gasper

• Cigarettes used to be little more than tobacco
  rolled in paper
• Large numbers of additives to enhance flavour,
  facilitate inhalation of smoke etc
• Filter ventilation key engineering feature that
  dilutes smoke, making it seem lighter
• All plausibly add to consumer appeal, and are
  unnecessary

7
Low tar Australia

• Australia took the low tar harm reduction
  strategy further than any other country
• The system of tar bands, with six prescribed
  categories, enabled the industry to produce a
  huge variety of mild brands
• Six varieties for major brand families
• Most countries have only regular/ light/ ultra
  light for major brand families

8
The Winfield brand family 2005

• Nominal tar 1mg 2mg 4mg 6mg 8mg 12mg
  16mg
• ventilation 81 73 62 45 34
  18 3

9
How do you get so much variety in tar yields and
taste?

• Simple filter ventilation
• Without filter ventilation you couldnt produce
  more than 2 or 3 distinguishable varieties.

10
Post Lights Australia

• As of March 2006 Australian cigarette brands no
  longer have
• tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide figures on-pack
  (replaced by qualitative warnings)
• Mild or Light descriptors in brand names
• Labelling/ descriptions have changed
• replaced by Smooth and Fine descriptors and
  colour schemes
• But, we assume, actual cigarettes remain the same

11
Mild becomes rich and fine
12
Old T/N/CO figures and new qualitative warning
13
The PJ brand family in transition

• Nominal tar 1mg 2mg 4mg 8mg 12mg 16mg
• ventilation 81 76 58 30 23
  20

14
The Marlboro brand family gets a new addition
15
Mean level of endorsement of Light Benefit Scale
UK ban
AUS ban
16
The other member of the Marlboro family

• Menthol flavouring also creates illusions of
  reduced harmfulness
• Menthol vapour blocks irritation receptors and
  stimulates cold receptors
• Why allow that?

17
Banning flavour additives

• There is no public health reason to allow flavour
  additives
• However, apart from menthol and candy
  cigarettes, we dont really understand the role
  of most additives
• We shouldnt allow the industry to trade-off
  ceasing using flavour additives while being able
  to use engineering to manipulate flavour and
  harshness
• We do know that filter ventilation is being used
  to manipulate flavour and harshness

18
The mechanism of the Lights fraud

• Filter ventilation not only fools smokers
• It also fools the ISO testing regime
• Heavily vented cigarettes test as very low tar
• Yet, within limits, deliver equivalent tar to
  smokers
• Smokers compensate by puffing more and harder
• The dilution effect is reduced at higher puff
  intensities

19
Conclusions

• While steps that have been taken to deal with the
  low tar deception that may have reduced the
  problem, they have not ended it
• The deception is an ongoing cause of harm
• Banning filter ventilation is the most direct way
  to deal with the problem
• This would effectively result in banning lights
• Those that are genuinely low delivery would
  remain
• But few smoke them
• There is no reason to allow the current fraud to
  continue

20
International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation
Projecthttp//www.itcproject.org