Next steps for the regulation of cigarettes

1. Next steps for the regulation of cigarettes Bill King and Ron Borland

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. The Winfield brand family 2005 • Nominal tar: 1mg 2mg 4mg 6mg 8mg 12mg 16mg • % ventilation: 81 73 62 45 34 18 3

8. How do you get so much variety in tar yields and taste? • Simple: filter ventilation • Without filter ventilation you couldn’t produce more than 2 or 3 distinguishable varieties.

9. 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

10. Mild becomes rich and fine

11. Old T/N/CO figures and new qualitative warning

12. The PJ brand family in transition Nominal tar: 1mg 2mg 4mg 8mg 12mg 16mg • % ventilation: 81 76 58 30 23 20

13. The Marlboro brand family gets a new addition

14. Mean level of endorsement of Light Benefit Scale UK ban AUS ban

15. 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?

16. Banning flavour additives • There is no public health reason to allow flavour additives • However, apart from menthol and ‘candy’ cigarettes, we don’t really understand the role of most additives • We shouldn’t 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Major Research Support International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Projecthttp://www.itcproject.org