Press release
Not for publication before
1
12 ncon, Wednesday 7th March
Issued by*
The Tobacco Manufacturers' Stahding Committee and
The Tobacco Advisory Committee.
6-10 Br,.,.ton Street, W.l. (MAYfair 38o4)
SMOKING AND MALTH
Note to Editorst The following ccnsists of two
separate statements on the
report published today by a Committee of the Royal
College of Physicians.
Statement I is concerned with the scientific
aspects of the report
and is issued by the Tobacco Manufacturers'
Standing Committee, which was
set up by the industry in 1956 to promote research
into the effects of
smoking on health.
Statement II is concerned with the commercial
aspects of the report
and is issued by the Tobacco Advisory Committee, w
hich represents the
industry on general trade matters.
KU British home and export tobacc, manufacturers
are represented
on each of these bodies.
I. Statement by the Tobacco Mamifacturers'
Standing Committee.
The Tobacco Manufacturers' Standing Committee
(T.M.S.C.), whiah
exists to promote research into the effects of
smoking on health, has the
following comments to make on the scientific
aspects of the report published
by a Committee of the Royal College of Physicianst
1. The tobacco manufacturers have approached the
problems of smo king
and health, since these first became a matter of
concern, with a full
recognition of their responsibility to the public.
Tbrough T.M.S.C. they
have cooperated with medical and scientific
authorities in supporting re-
search into these problems. There has been no
financial limitation on the
manu.factui-rerst support of research projects;
the only requirement has been
that the projects should have the approval of
recognised authorities in the
L-4
Un
03
Ln
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 29
October 1999


fields of research concerned.
2. The evidence summarised by the R.C.P. Committee
is well known and
adds little to that quoted by the PL-dical
Research Council in 1957.
3. The R.C.P. Committee vms set up to ccnsider the
effects on health
of both snoking and air Pollution. By deferring to
a separate report
its consideration of air pollution the R.C.P.
Committee has reco..nised the
importance and complexity of this factor; but in
so doing the Comndttee
has, in T.H.S.C. 7s view, produced an incomplete
assessment of the problems
involved.
4. There is a growing body of evidence that
smoking has pharmacological
and psychological effects that are of real value
to smokers.
5. The main unspoken lesson of the repcrt is the
need for far more
intensive research. T.M.S.C. believes that the
following three approaches
in particular are both practical and essential-
(a) Only a minority of even heavy snokers contract
lung cancer
or chronic bronchitis, and there may well be
predisposing factors
in both smokers and non-smokers whr contract the3e
diseases.
A study of environment and per4onal
characteristics, as weld as
past medical histories, may throw important new
light on the
incidence of these diseases.
(b) There is smch evidence to suggest that the
striking dif-
ferences in the incidence of lun; cancer and
brcnchitis between
urban and rural areas, and between one country and
another,
reflect in varying degree the effects of air
pollution. To
take only one example, research has shown a 7 to I
variation
in male lung cancer mortality rates between
certain localities
in Northern Ugland and North Wales. Much more
research is
undoubtedly needed into the constituents and
effects of air
pollution.
(c) Further investigation is needed into the
chemistry and
biological effects of tobacco smoke. The R.C.P.
Committee U-4
C)
states that ",,m cannot identify the substances in
tobacco
CD
Un
- 2 00
110
Un
CO
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 29
October 1999


smoke that ma-.1 be injurious te health." If such
substances
do exist in significant quantitiesy it should
eventuaUy be
possible to identify and then t- elim4nate or
minimise them.
In this country, research of this kind has s~ far
been carried
out through the Medical Research Council and by
independent
workers, in many cases with the financial support
of the tobacco
manufacturers. T.M.S.C. is n~.-T building its own
chemical and
bio-assay laboratories at 111arrogate, which will
come into
operation in the autumn of this year, to enable
such investi-
gation to be pursued on a much ~iider scale.
6. T.F-S.C. therefore feels that a general
condemnaticn of cigarette
smcking is not a constructive approach to these
problems. The R.C.P.
Committee has acknowledged that "most smokers
suffer no serious impairment
of health (ir shortening of life as the result of
their habit."
II. Statement by the Tobacco Advisory Committee.
The Tobaccr Advisory Committee, which represents
the tobacco industry
on general trade matters, makes the following
comments on the commercial
aspects of the recrmmendatirns by a Committee of
the Royal College of Physicians.
1. The R.C.P. Committee recommends "more effective
restrictions on the
sale of tobacco to children."
It is Illegal to sell tobaccr- to children under
16 whether for their
own or another's cnnsumption. It is possible that
this is not generally
appreciated and the manufacturers would be glad to
assist in any measures
to make the law mrre widely known.
2. The R.C.P. Committee recommends restriction on
the advertising of
tobacco goods.
Tobacco manufacturers' expenditure in the press
and television is
devoted entirely tr~ competitive brand
advertising, and is only about half
the naticnal average spent in these media in
relatirn to retail sRIes.
In 1960 this expenditure by the tobacco
manufacturers represented about
1 A.d. in the E of retail sales, compared with 3d.
in the F. for all consumer C:)
goods and ser7ices.
3 CC)
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 29
October 1999


3. The R.C.P. Committee recommends increased tax
on cigarettes.
The tax on cigarettes in this country - 3/4d. on a
packet sold at
4/6d. or the equivalent of about 400% purchase tax
- is already the highest
in the world. Any further increase would be most
inequitable. The
R.C.P. Committee is doubtful whether it would have
any lasting deterrent
effect. It would penalise the many millions of
smokers who derive pleasure
and solace from smoking and who, as the report
shcws, do not develop the
diseases in question.
4. The R.C.P. Committee recommends that there
should be printed on the
packets of cigarettes figures showing the amounts
of smoke condensatep
nicotine and volatile irritants fcl,nd in the
smoke per gram of cigarette
of the particular brand.
The harmful constituents of smoke, :Lf any,, are
not known. The
R.C.F. Committee states that "no claim should be
made that any particular
brand of cigarette was safer than any other*" The
public wruld neverthe-
less interpret these figures as indicat4ng
substances that should be
minimised and wculd be misled into thinking that
the brands with less of
these substances were somehow "safer" than others.
In the present state
of scientific knowledge the mamLfacturers would be
strongly opposed to the
adoption of thin proposal.
Liq
C)
C:)
U1
co
1.0
(71
C:)
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 29
October 1999