|
The
continuing saga
Deceptive Descriptors....
For a
quarter century, efforts have been underway to end the deception of 'light'
cigarettes. (Just to show how long the deception has gone without regulatory
response, read this
1981 story in the
Toronto Star about the misleading nature of tar and nicotine yields on Cigarette
packages). In November 2006,
as its response to a complaint filed and pursued by the Non-Smoker's Rights
Association, the federal Competition Bureau reached
voluntary agreements with the major tobacco companies. The tobacco companies
agreed to stop using terms like "light", "mild", "ultra light" and "ultra mild"
-- but did not agree to stop making artificial or misleading distinctions
between one type of cigarette and another.
By summer, most of the brands had been converted in
ways that removed the offending four words, but which continued to suggest brand
distinctions. It was at this time that Health Canada published notice that
it would pass a regulation that was, to all extents and purposes, the same as
the voluntary agreement reached with the competition bureau. Health
groups, like the Non Smokers Rights Association (NSRA) and Physicians for
a Smoke-Free Canada found that the government's proposed regulation "offers
little or no public health benefit." (PSC
submission).
During 2006, the companies have increased their use
of package colours to denote differences in strength. They have also
initiated the use of marketing terms that are, in themselves, a lifestyle
promotion (such as 'Prestige', 'Distinct' )
PSC proposes that government's curtail this
unhealthy marketing by:
banning all brand extensions
banning deceptive cigarette designs (including
'ventilation' holes in cigarettes)
banning deceptive cigarette packaging (plain
packaging would be the most effective way of accomplishing this)
|
Changing Names... |
|
At the beginning of 2007: |
At the end of 2007: |
 |
|
Accord |
|
|
regular, light |
Accord,
Accord Select |
| |
|
| Avanti
(du Maurier) |
|
| Avanti Light |
Avanti
Elite Slim |
| |
|
|
Benson and Hedges |
|
| 100s, Special,
,Ultra Light, Special Lights, Ultra Mild, Special Ultra, Light, 100s |
100s,
Black, Deluxe 100s, Gold, Sapphire, Silver, Sterling, Superslims, 100s,
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
Craven |
|
| Craven A, Light,
Special mild, Ultra Mild, Special mild, Ultra Mild |
Craven
A, Gold, Special, Special Pearl |
| |
|
| Cameo |
|
| Cameo, Cameo Extra Mild |
Cameo, Cameo Frost |
 |
| Canadian Classics |
|
| Light, Extra Light |
Silver,
White |
 |
| Du Maurier |
|
| Edition, Light,
Extra Light, Ultra Light, Special Mild, Light Smooth Carbon, Avanti LIght |
Edition, Distinct, Premiere, Prestige, Special, Smooth Taste, Elite |
 |
 |
|
|
Export A |
|
| Extra Light, Mild,
Light, Ultra Light |
Full
Flavour, Extra Smooth, Rich, Smooth, Ultra Smooth. . |
 |
 |
 |
|
| Macdonald |
|
| Menthol Light,
Select Ultra Light, Select Light, Select Extra Light |
Menthol Smooth, Select Ultra Smooth, Special Smooth, Special Extra Smooth |
|
Mark Ten |
|
| Medium, Light, Full
Flavour |
Blue,
Original, Select |
| Matinée |
|
| Select, Extra Mild,
Ultra Mild, Silver, Menthol |
Select,
Slims, Slims Menthol, Subtle, |
 |
 |
| Medallion |
|
| Medallion Ultra Mild |
Medallion by Matinee |
|
Number 7 |
|
| Light, Extra Mild |
Blue,
Silver |
|
Peter Jackson |
|
| Full
Flavour, Light, Extra Light, Smooth, Menthol. |
Full Flavour,
Select Flavour, Smooth Flavour, Mellow Flavour, Menthol. |
|
 |
|
Players |
|
| Plain, Filter,
Light, Extra Light, Medium, Light Smooth, Silver |
Player's Plain, Original, Rich, Smooth |
 |
|
Vantage |
|
| Light, Medium,
Filter, Rich, Max |
|
 |
Take a look at
what vantage looked like in 1999 - click here: |
Vantage in 2006:
 |
|
|
Timeline of recent events |
| |
| January
1999 – Health Canada issues an official
advisory, warning consumers that “light” and “mild” tobacco products “have
the same potential to be debilitating and lethal as other types of tobacco.”
(Consumer Warning) |
| |
|
May 31, 2001 -
World No Tobacco Day. Hon. Allan Rock asks tobacco companies
to voluntarily remove "light" and "mild" terms from cigarette packages
within 100 days, and asks the Ministerial Advisory Council on Tobacco
Control to recommend actions in the event the companies do not comply.
(Health Canada press release) |
| |
|
8 September 2001
- 100 days pass without the cigarette companies removing misleading
descriptors from their packages.
|
| |
1 November 2001
– The Health Minister Allan Rock releases the
findings of the Expert Panel, which advises that regulations under the
Tobacco Act be passed to ban the use of the descriptors.
(Health Canada press release)
Expert Panel Report |
| |
|
27 November
2001: United States' National Cancer Institute scientific
report concludes no benefit from lower tar cigarettes.
(Press release) |
| |
|
1 December 2001
– Notice of Intent published in Canada Gazette
proposing ban on the terms “light” and “mild”.
(Gazette) Deadline for public responses to notice of intent is
January 15, 2002. |
| |
|
January 2002: Brazil bans use of "any
type of descriptor, on the packaging or in advertising material, such
as: classes (s), ultra low tar, low tar, smooth, light, soft, leve,
moderate tar, high or any others that could induce consumers to an
erroneous interpretation as to the tar contained in cigarettes.”
(Brazilian regulation)
|
| |
|
November 2002:
The World Health
Organization Scientific Advisory Committee on Tobacco Product
Regulation recommended a ban on all misleading health and exposure
claims and related packaging.
(SACTOB recommendations) |
| |
|
December 2002:
Health Canada research shows that 2 of every 3 smokers of 'light'
cigarettes switched to light based on the belief that there would be
fewer health risks.
(Health Canada overview of 2001 CTUMS findings) |
| |
|
December 10, 2002:
The European Court of Justice rejected a tobacco industry challenge to
the EU directive banning the terms 'light' and 'mild', 'low-tar', etc.
(Court ruling) |
| |
|
December 13, 2002: The Quebec Superior Court upheld the
federal Tobacco Act against an industry claim of unconstitutionality.
The law allows the federal government to regulate how cigarettes are
labelled.
(Justice Denis' ruling) |
| |
| March 21, 2003: Illinois
judge Nicholas Byron rules in favour of a class action suit against Philip
Morris for the sale of ‘light’ cigarettes (the “Price” suit). He ordered
the company to pay US$10 billion in damages and said that "the course of
conduct by Philip Morris related to its fraud in this case is outrageous,
both because Philip Morris' motive was evil and the acts showed a reckless
disregard for the consumers' rights." |
| |
|
May 8, 2003: Lawyers from the
Klein Lyons firm file a class action lawsuit
against Imperial Tobacco for damages associated with the deceptive trade
practice of 'light' labels on cigarette packages.
(Statement of Claim) |
| |
|
May 20, 2003: World Health Organization adopts text for a
global tobacco treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
The treaty calls for an end to all misleading descriptors, including the
use of such terms as "low-tar" and "light."
(WHO press release) |
| |
|
June 16, 2003 - Complaint filed by the Non
Smokers Rights Association with federal Competition Bureau regarding the
deceptive trade practice of labelling cigarettes as "light" or "mild.
(NSRA Press
Release)"
|
| |
|
July 15, 2003: Canada signs the
framework Convention on Tobacco Control - but doesn't say when it will
ratify the treaty, or whether it will implement the requirement to ban
the terms "light" and "mild"
(Health Canada Press Release) |
| |
|
September 30, 2003: "Low-tar" and
similar misleading terms are banned on all cigarettes sold in the
European Union.
(EU directive) |
| |
| April 30,
2004: Imperial Tobacco files its response to
the Knight case filed in British Columbia, arguing that it never represented
that “light” or “mild” products reduced the risk of disease and that it was
the federal government that directed Imperial Tobacco toward “developing and
marketing lower delivery products.”
Imperial Tobacco files a
“Third Party Notice,” deflecting responsibility for liability in the Knight
case to the federal Government. If consumers were misrepresented about
“light” and “mild,” cigarettes, ITL states “then the Federal Government
breached the standard of care in the operation of its health programmes,”
and should pay any damages awarded in this case. |
| |
| August 16,
2004: Massachusetts court certifies a class
action suit (“Aspinall” suit). "We conclude that
a class action is not only an appropriate method to resolve the plaintiff's
allegations, but, pragmatically, the only method whereby purchasers of
Marlboro Lights in Massachusetts can seek redress for the alleged
deception," Justice John M. Greaney wrote in the majority opinion. |
| |
| September
14, 2004: Missouri court certifies ‘light’
class action suit against Philip Morris (“Craft” suit).
(news report) |
| |
| October
14, 2004: The Federal government replies to
Imperial Tobacco’s Third Party Notice by recommending that the court
throw-out the class action suit. |
| |
| January 2005. NSRA
leads a motion before the Federal Court of Canada to obtain a court order to
compel the Competition bureau to rule on their complaint from June 2003.
|
| |
| February 8, 2005.
The Knight Cigarette case is certified, becoming the first Canadian class
action suit against tobacco companies to be certified.
Certification Decision (67 KB) |
| |
| June 28, 2007. Supreme
Court of Canada upholds Tobacco Act, including its prohibition of promotion
or packaging "likely to create an erroneous impression." |
| |
| July 3, 2007. B.C.
courts dismiss the third party claim by Imperial Tobacco Canada against the
federal government.
(Ruling) |
| |
| November
9, 2006: The Competition Bureau accepts
a voluntary agreement with 3 major tobacco companies to phase out the terms
'light' and 'mild.'
(Competition Bureau announcement) |
| |
| August 4, 2007.
Health Canada proposes regulations to end the use of the terms 'light' and
'mild'. (Draft
Regulations) |
|
