·~ .!. -·1                          .......,
               ·..·'·LL·~*.e~·~L·r,·· ··-·1.- .,.~ . ~I , · ·- · ·

      re E S T R I C T E D
                                            collo~po~cC~r


               ROYAL COLLEGE OF CE~ERA~ PRACTITIONERS
                   TALK TO TRAINEE DOCTORS
                  WHITTINGTON HOSPLTALI LONDON
                      2 SEPTEMBER 1981


      About twelve 4th Year trainees attended the seminar run by
      the RCGP, Dr R E Thornton was present from GR6DCI Dr Grant
      deputised for Dr Marie Campkin, who gave us the invitation,

      As might have been anticipated, the views of the trainees were
      more penetrating than those of the doctors we met at the BMA
      meeting,

      Overall there was very positive land apparently sincere)
      ~DDreciation for the information that was given ~ most of
      which was entirely new to the audience~ Naturally not
      all points were accepted as they stead: there was even a
      suggestion that 'statistics can be made to prove anything'!

      for our part, the most valuable aspect of the meeting was
      the discussion points that were relevant to our approach to
      the subject~ These may be summarised:

      i, Reference to the strict definition of causation
        is a red herrina: it may have legal implications,
        but it does not negate the allegations re the
        association between smoking and health,

      2~ I~ the Industry has for 20 years been developing
        low delivery produetsr why has it only now been
        prepared to mention the fact? They suggested
        the answer was that the Industry is only now
        coming under severe pressure,

      3~ It may be a fact that Where countries have
        banned advertising the tendency is for
         the use of filters to be low and the average
         delivery levels to remain higher, It did not
         follow, however, that anti-smoking propaganda
         necessarily fails to have significant impacts
         The ~100,000 budget of ASH was contrasted with
         the multi-million advertising budget of the UK
         Tobacco Industry - and it was suggested that
         things would be very different if the amounts
         were reversed, (It would seem to be counter-
         productive for us to belittle ASH talking with
         such audiences,)

      4~ The argument, raised in the context of double             ul
        standards in the 3rd world, that there is no               ch·
        financial incentive for the Tobacco Industry               O~


                                               CTD/,,,
Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: Dill

                                               __
      ~21
         to retain high delivery products was thrown
         back at us: if we centinue to make good profits
         frbm low delivery products, then it is naturally
         in dur interest to promote them as hard as we
         can!

      5, I:, as the statistics suggest, low delivery
        nroduets are "hetter"l then there should be
        ~legislation to forbid the sale of high delivery
        pr6ductst It was not accepted that this went
        against the freedom of consumer choice; it was
        claimed that many food-stuff compounds have been
        banned by law,

      Finally there seems to be a split view as to whether the Industry
      was dcwnright wicked to sponsor sports, arts etc or whether
      it was truly a mixture of competitive action plus altruism,

      I jU~~p the meeting to have been very worthwhile, I hope
      to ge; some feedback about the debate on smoking that was to
      follow our talkl


      L C f BLACKMAN
       Sec:ember 1981


      Circulation

      Mr C a Stewart Lockhart
      Mr R L O fly
      Mr M 3 Leach
      Mr J Geait
      Dr n G Felton
      Mt A L Heard                                       a
      Dr R E TharntonJ                                   U;


Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111