6 q
OMB
18.12.80
STANCE ON SMOKING AND HEALTH
Note for Information and Discussion
The Situation
There is a growing feeling that the worlwide
climate
demands that the cigarette industry must change
its stance
on smoking and health if it is to regain or attain
credibility.
The present complex situation may be summarised:
1. Though it is rarely possible to prove or
disprove
causation for any specific health situation, there
is
well-documented evidence of a statistical
association
between smoking and risk of ill-health.
2. Without in any way accepting the allegation of
causation,
Industry has for the past 25 years used as a
working model
the assumption that there may be potentially
harmful components
in smoke. Although it has not established any
causual
links it has made progressive changes to its
products to
reduce the total intake of smoke by the smoker -
in line with
the requirements of a substantial body of
consumers.
3. There is now increasing epidemiological
evidence
which some authorities believe indicates that the
early
move to filters has led to a significant reduction
in
associated risk. The present strong move to even
lower
deliveries, especially through ventilation, may
continue
the trend - and it is possible that the stage will
eventually be reached where further
epidemiological studies
will not distinguish smokers of low delivery
products
from the background level of risk of the
non-smoker.
4. Largely because of the US legal constraints,
however,
the Industry has not to date found a 'safe' way of
communicating
either the product changes or the encouraging
medical evidence
to consumers, doctors, authorities, the media or
even to its own
employees. (Communication by third parties cannot
ever be
relied upon to achieve this desired end.)
5. Because of this lack of response to the
allegations,
Industry has acquired a "presumption of guilt"
posture
in the eyes of most people.
\0
C6
'IV
BATCO document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 4
November 1999


A Possible Change of Stance
Throughout this year, Public Affairs, Legal
Department and
R&D have been considering ways of breaking out of
the
dilemma without prejudicing the legal position. It
happens that other companies or industry
associations
(Jaoan, Switzerland, South Africa,) are also
beginning to
react to the situation by issuing booklets to
their employees.
Unfortunately, however, they are tending to
over-state the
ncausation is not proven" argument which we
believe will
not convince any audience - and will probably
further reduce
rather than raise the credibility of the Industry.
It is believed that a far better approach for the
future will
be to develop a stance based on three factors:
1. Industry acknowledges (but does not accent)
the strong body of opinion that smoking is
associated %Yitii risk.
2. Industry has been highly responsible
in undertaking research and in working
closely with medical authorities -
while at the same time responding to the
views of governments, the medical.
profession and the consumer by
substantially reducing product deliveries.
In doing this, it has met the increasing
consumer demand for such products.
3. There is growing epidemiological evidence
derived by third parties (who are
themselves generally committed non-
smokers) that supports the trend to
lower deliveries.
Action to Date
The first adoption of this possible change of
stance was the
preparation of pages 6 and 7 of the new R&D
Brochure (copies
of which will be av.-Alable at the BMB). The
wordinq was
considered in detail by the Legal Department, the
TEC, the
Group Legal Conference and, finally, by B&W (Dr
Hughes
and Mr Pepples). Although the Brochure itself will
not be
a major vehicle of change, it does represent the
first positive
step in a new direction.
Another step has been the two meetings held at
Southampton,
first with the BMA Secretary and Chairman of the
Board of
Education and Science, and later with the full
Board -
both of which gave open and genuine support to the
new
approach of open communication. The subsequent
decision
of the BRA following the second meeting not to
press for the
abolition of advertising other than at point of
sale, was
Cb
'4
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 4
November 1999


conditional on advertisements emphasising that the
"product
of the 180's" gives lower deliveries than that of
the 160's.
we shall loose their good will if, as an Industry,
we do not
in the future disseminate information in this way.
A current major action is the preparation of a
booklet for
BAT employees by a small group comprising Public
Affairs
Millbank and UK&E, Legal Department and R&D. The
aim is to
combine two existing draft booklets prepared by
Public
Affairs Millbank and UK&E, and at the same time to
intersperse
sections containing realistic accounts of the
basic
controversy and of the emerging medico-scientific
evidence
that supports the change to low delivery products.
Another plan is that a video-tape recording is
made of a talk
on the general subject - basically on the lines of
my recent
talk at the Latin American Public Affairs
Conference. After
full vetting by the Legal Department, (and
probably by
Shook-Hardy and Bacon in the US) it will be
available for
wider use within the Group.
The Future
If we are to take the initiative in adopting a
modified
stance, we must plan very carefully how we are to
prepare
material and promote the activity - both within
and outside
the Group. It is essential that we communicate the
outline
of any change in stance clearly and swiftly to the
Operating
Companies - both to forewarn them of what is to
come, and to
prevent any confusion or conflict of action
between operating
Companies and the Centre.
The type of actions that can be considered in due
course
include:
- invitation to bodies such as 'Hunterl
Committee, DIISS, DUPA and selected
MP's to Visit GR&DC.
- similar invitations to selected general
and scientific press.
- advertisements on the lines of those
issued in 1978 by Imperial (copy
attached) - but with more reference
to the 'three factors'
We must avoid at all costs falling into a half-way
position
whereby we fail to make real progress, but merely
muddy
the waters at this most critical time. Whatever we
do
must be capable of defence against our most active
detractors,
who will become aware of our actions and will
probably
obtain copies of much of our material.
C6
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 4
November 1999


-4-
we must also be able to show that our "new stance-
is in no
wav an admission of the causation issue, but
rather a
re;ponsible response to a genuine demand created
by our
detractors.
The above remarks apply to the BAT Group. In due
course,
we must also make plans to discuss and, if
necessary,
defend our initiative with competitors, industry
associations
and INFOTAB. It would not seem feasible to attempt
to get
t~heir support in advance of our action.
L C F BLACKMAN
03
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 4
November 1999