CURRENT DEBATE

  56.  The Government acknowledges that the industry has cooperated with successive administrations in lowering tar levels as measured in the standard method. However, there is currently considerable debate as to whether the low tar regime and the associated arrangements for the regulation and labelling of tar, nicotine and additives, are adequate to protect the public health.

  57.  To take additives first, as mentioned above there are currently around 600 additives which may be used in the European Union in the manufacture of tobacco products. But there is no uniform regulatory framework for the approval of new additives. Several countries within the European community do not have an ongoing approval or rejection system akin to the UK Voluntary Agreement. Belgium has a list of substances that may be used and prohibits the use of any other ingredients or additives not listed in an annex to a law dated 1990. France and Germany also publish lists of permitted additives. France has an advisory group on additives in tobacco products and these three countries list similar products. The German tobacco ordinance of 1977 contains a positive list of permitted ingredients which was last updated in 1998. Ireland has enabling legislation which gives the Minister of Health the power to make regulations to control or prohibit the use of any material in tobacco products other than water, tobacco or reconstituted tobacco sheet.

  58.  One perceived weakness of the United Kingdom Voluntary Agreement is that it requires the Department of Health to approve additives granted approval in other European Member States. Another criticism is that there is no compulsion for tobacco companies to reveal the purpose of the additive: this is merely "desirable".

  59.  The concerns about tobacco product regulation and labelling in Europe are addressed in a recent paper published in "Tobacco Control" 38 which argues against the route of requiring further reductions in tar and nicotine yields as measured by the International Standards Organisation/Federal Trade Commission (ISO/FTC) method. The authors state that the current ISO/FTC methodology is misleading to customers and express concern that the low tar cigarettes may be used by smokers as an alternative to stopping smoking. The authors go on to call for disclosure of additives by brand and establishment of a new basis for measurement, regulation and labelling. In their view the new basis should include upper limits and progressive reductions for concentrations of known carcinogens and other toxins in smoke; a new measure of total toxicity; a ratio of specific carcinogens and other toxins to nicotine (this ratio to be reduced over time); and research to examine the pros and cons of setting an upper limit for nicotine yields. The paper states that it is not enough to assess the toxicity of an individual additive but before permission is granted to use an additive it should meet a test of public health or public interest. Currently there is no evaluation of the overall public health impact of the use of an additive.

  60.  In America the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has acknowledged that machine methods of testing tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields are open to serious criticism and an 18 month period of review is necessary. During this current review the FTC will be advising consumers of the significant limitations in existing tar and nicotine yields. A press release from the FTC in November 1998 stated "The National Cancer Institute and US Food and Drug Administration stated in comments that new data suggests that the limited health benefits, previously believed to be associated with lower tar and nicotine cigarettes, may not exist".

  61.  British Columbia in Canada is the first jurisdiction in the world to require tobacco companies to reveal additives and ingredients in each brand of cigarettes and to provide detailed chemical analysis of the smoke of each brand of cigarettes. This became law in July 1998. The authors of the Tobacco Control paper draw attention to the British Columbia "The Tobacco Sales Amendments Act" which requires companies to test their products for the presence of 41 toxic chemical constituents of smoke in addition to nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide. According to the authors the British Columbia example is a good precedent for full disclosure of ingredients, additives and smoke constituents by brand which could be adopted in the European Union. Other concerns that are discussed in this paper include the use of ammonia to alter the pH of the smoke and increase the rate at which nicotine is released for absorption into the bloodstream of the smoker; the use of additives to make smoke more palatable to the teenage palate; burn enhancers that keep cigarettes smouldering and compounds such as cocoa which may produce substances which dilate the bronchial passages.

  62.  ASH and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund published a document "Tobacco Additives"39 in July 1999. This document draws heavily on evidence from tobacco industry internal documents which have been released during recent litigation in the United States and are now available on the internet or in British American Tobacco's document depository in Guildford, UK. The internal tobacco industry quotes give rise to concerns that industry research, not in the public domain, has provided their scientists with considerable knowledge of the role of additives which have enabled them to perfect the engineering of the cigarette which is a very efficient drug (nicotine) delivery system. It is fair to add however that the internal industry documents do not emanate from UK domestic tobacco manufacturers.

THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION

  63.  The Government takes the claim set out in the Tobacco Control article referred to above very seriously. It acknowledges that there is a debate in this area and officials have initiated discussions with the industry. It takes the view that improvements are necessary to the existing regulations on the labelling and tar and nicotine content of cigarettes. Action is also needed to give consumers more information on tobacco additives.

  64.  The Government stated the following in "Smoking Kills", the White Paper on tobacco published in December 1998:40

"The European Commission is currently examining possible improvements to the existing directives governing the labelling of tobacco products and the tar and nicotine content of tobacco. We are keen to help the Commission develop effective, practical proposals.

"Given the single market approach taken by the EU on tobacco labelling, packaging, taxation and now advertising, we believe it is sensible for developments in the regulation of tobacco products within the EU to continue to be pursued on a European-wide basis." [Paras 8.10-11.]

  The White Paper went on to note that any new directive should also cover additives. [Para 8.12.]

  64.  This remains the Government's position. The Government looks forward to the European Commission bringing forward a draft directive as soon as possible. The Government would aim to negotiate a final directive that increased significantly the information available to consumers about tobacco products.

October 1999

REFERENCES

  1.  Doll R, Hill AB. Smoking and Carcinoma of the lung. 1950. BMJ ii 739.

  2.  Wynder EL, Graham EA. Tobacco smoking as a possible etiological factor in bronchiogenic carcinoma. A study of 684 proven cases. 1950. JAMA. 143: 329-96.

  3.  Doll R, Peto R, Wheatley K et al. Mortality in relation to smoking: 40 years observations on male British doctors. BMJ. 1994. 309: 901-11.

  4.  Hammond EC, Horn D. Smoking and death rates—Report of 44 months on follow-up in 187,783 men. Part I Total mortality. JAMA. 166(10): 1159-1172. March 1958.

  5.  Best EWR, Josie GH, Walker CB. A Canadian study of mortality in relation to smoking habits: A preliminary report. Canadian J of Pub Health, 52: 99-106. 1961.

  6.  Kahn HA. The Dorn study of smoking and mortality among US veterans: report on 8½ years of observation. In: Haenzel W (Ed). Epidemiological Approaches to the Study of Cancer and other chronic diseases. National Cancer Institute Monograph 19. US DHEW. 1996: 1-125.

  7.  Hammond EC. Smoking in relation to death rates of one million men and women. In: Haenzel W (Ed). Epidemiological Approaches to the Study of Cancer and other chronic diseases. National Cancer Institute Monograph 19. US DHEW. 1996: 127-204.

  8.  Royal College of Physicians. Smoking and Health. Summary and Report of the Royal College of Physicians of London on Smoking in relation to Cancer of the Lung and Other Diseases. 1962.

  9.  US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. Smoking and Health, Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, 1964.

  10.  Royal College of Physicians. Smoking and Health Now. 1971.

  11.  Royal College of Physicians. Smoking or Health. The third report of the Royal College of Physicians of London. 1977.

  12.  Royal College of Physicians. Health or Smoking? Follow up report of the Royal College of Physicians. 1983.

  13.  Royal College of Physicians. Smoking and the Young. A report of a working party of the Royal College of Physicians. 1992.

  14.  International Agency for Research on Cancer. (IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans) Lyons, IARC, 1986 No 38.

  15.  Zaridze D, Peto R, eds. Tobacco: a major international health hazard. Lyons: International Agency for Research on Cancer. (IARC scientific publication No 74.)

  16.  Parish S, Collins R, Peto R et al. Cigarette smoking, tar yields, and non-fatal myocardial infarction: 14,000 cases and 32,000 controls in the United Kingdom. The International Studies of Infarct Survival (ISIS) Collaborators. BMJ, 1995; 311: 471-7.

  17.  US DHHS. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking. 25 years of progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. 1989.

  18.  Callum C. The UK Smoking Epidemic: deaths in 1995. London: Health Education Authority 1998.

  19.  Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health: third report. London. HMSO, 1983.

  20.  Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health: fourth report. London. HMSO, 1988.

  21.  Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: lung cancer and other disorders. US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington: Office of Air and Radiation, 1992. (EPA/600/6-9/006F).

  22.  National Research Council. Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Measuring exposures and assessing health effects. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1986.

  23.  US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: a report of the Surgeon General. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1986. (DHSS Pub No (PHS) 87-8398).

  24.  Effects of passive smoking on health. Report of the NHMRC working party of the effects of passive smoking on health. Canberra: Australia Government Publishing Service, 1987.

  25.  Report of the California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency. 1997.

  26.  The health effects of passive smoking: a scientific information paper. Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council, 1997.

  27.  Department of Health, Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland, The Scottish Office Department of Health, Welsh Office. The Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. London: The Stationery Office, 1998. ISBN 0-11-322124-X.

http://www.open.gov.uk/doh/public/scoth.htm.

  28.  Hackshaw AK, Law M R, Wald NJ. The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. BMJ 1997; 315: 980-88.

  29.  Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence. BMJ 1997; 315:973-80.

  30.  Cook DG, Strachan DP, Ross Anderson H. Systematic quantitative review of the effect of ETS exposure on respiratory health in children. In Thorax, 1997-1998. Series of papers: "Health Effects of Passive Smoking". Eds. Britton JR and Weiss ST.

  31.  WHO. Tobacco Free Initiative. Consultation report. International Consultation on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Child Health. 11-14 January 1999. Geneva, Switzerland. WHO/NCD/TFI/99.10.

  32.  Bonita R, Duncan J, Truelsen T et al. Passive smoking as well as active smoking increases the risk of acute stroke. Tobacco Control 1999; 8: 156-160.

  33.  Department of Health. Effect of Tobacco Advertising on Tobacco Consumption: A discussion document reviewing the evidence. Department of Health, 1992.

  34.  Proposal for an Approved Code of Practice on passive smoking at work, CD 151, published by HSE Books: Sudbury, Suffolk: 1999.

  35.  Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health: first report. London. HMSO, 1975.

  36.  Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health: second report. London. HMSO, 1979.

  37.  The Tobacco Products Research Trust, 1982-1996. Cheryl Swann and Sir Peter Froggatt. The Royal Society of Medicine Press, 1996. ISBN 1-85315-294.

  38.  Bates C, McNeill A, Jarvis M, Gray N. The future of tobacco product regulation and labelling in Europe: implications for the forthcoming European Union Directive. Tobacco Control, 1999; 8: 0-10.

  39.  Bates C, Connolly G, Jarvis J. Tobacco Additives. Cigarette Engineering and Nicotine Addiction—A Survey of the Additive Technology used by Cigarette Manufacturers to Enhance the Appeal and Addictive Nature of Their Product. ASH, ICRF, 1999.

  40.  Department of Health, December 1998. Smoking Kills. A White Paper on Tobacco. The Stationery Office. ISBN 0-10-141772-1.