(Ottawa) – Physicians for a
Smoke-Free Canada hopes that Canadian courts will hold
tobacco companies accountable for the harmful marketing
of cigarettes as ‘light’ or ‘mild.’
“Light cigarettes are a public
health tragedy,” said PSC president, Dr. Atul Kapur.
“Millions of smokers have been deceived into believing
that light cigarettes are safer. Light cigarettes are
not safer and it’s time someone forced Big Tobacco to
make amends.”
Dr. Kapur spoke on the occasion of
the first hearing of the first citizens’ lawsuit against
tobacco companies for the marketing of so-called ‘light’
cigarettes. On Monday, October 25th,
the British Columbia Supreme Court begins a review of
whether legal action against Imperial Tobacco for the
sale of light cigarettes is certifiable as a class
action suit. This lawsuit was filed by the firm Klein
Lyons on behalf of Kenneth Knight and other British
Columbians in May 2003.
“Tobacco companies have ignored their
obligations to their customers, and governments have
failed consumers too. The last resort that
citizens have is to go to court to seek to bring this
massive fraud to an end. If this class action is
certified, both public justice and public health will be
advanced.” concluded Dr. Kapur.
The lawsuit claims that the ‘light’
cigarette descriptor “is intended to convey, and does
convey, to consumers an implicit message of health
reassurance…[so] that smokers who are worried about
their health may switch to lights instead of quitting.”
Health Canada’s own research supports this assertion.
The most recent Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey
(CTUMS) showed that last year more than 340,000
Canadians smoked ‘light’ cigarettes because they thought
this meant they could reduce the harm to their health
without having to quit.
“British Columbia has led the way in
the fight against Big Tobacco,” said Dr. Kapur.
“This class action suit is an important complement to
the B.C. government’s comprehensive law suit against
tobacco companies for their wrongdoing.” British
Columbia filed a suit against the tobacco companies in
1998, and re-filed the suit in 2001 after the enabling
legislation was revised. No other province has yet filed
a lawsuit for damages other than those related to
smuggling.
The B.C. government lawsuit (for
which hearings have not yet been held) was broader than
the Knight case, but contained claims about the
misleading nature of ‘light’ cigarettes that are
virtually identical to those contained in the Knight
suit. The B.C. government suit argued that the
industry “sold ‘light’ cigarettes as an alternative to
give false reassurance to smokers who were concerned
about their health – even though these cigarettes
deliver about the same amount of tar and nicotine as
regular cigarettes.”
A class action suit in Illinois
similar to the Knight case resulted in an order that
Philip Morris pay US$10.5 billion in damages (the case
is currently under appeal). Class actions on light
cigarettes were certified in Massachusetts and Missouri
earlier this year.
In 2001, the federal Minister of
Health (Mr. Allan Rock) said Health Canada would
prohibit the use of these misleading descriptors and
issued a regulatory notice to that effect on December 1,
2001. A few weeks later he was replaced as Health
Minister by Ms. Anne McLellan, and no further steps have
been taken by the federal government since that time.
“The delay by Health Canada is unexplained,” said Dr.
Kapur. Our requests for action or explanation have
been politely but firmly rebuffed.”
“The legislative system has failed
Canadians: the federal government has shirked its
responsibility to put the laws and regulations in place
which prevent tobacco companies from misleading
consumers about ‘light’ cigarettes. Now it is up
to the justice system to show that Canadian law does not
allow companies to act in such a harmful and fraudulent
way.
For information:
Ottawa - Neil
Collishaw (613) 233 4878
In Vancouver (October 25, 26) - Cynthia Callard
(cell) (613) 850-5594
Backgrounders:
Chronology of court and
government actions on ‘Light and Mild’ cigarettes since
2000.
On January 24, 2001:
The government of British Columbia (premier Ujjal
Dosanjh) re-filed a lawsuit against the tobacco
industry. The lawsuit includes claims that the
industry “sold ‘light’ cigarettes as an alternative to
give false reassurance to smokers who were concerned
about their health – even though these cigarettes
deliver about the same amount of tar and nicotine as
regular cigarettes.”
(B.C.
statement of claim)
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)
21 August 2001:
Environics reports that two-thirds of
Canadian support ending the use of "light" on cigarette
labels.
(Environics news release)
8 September 2001:
100 days pass without the cigarette
companies removing misleading descriptors from their
packages.
(Imperial Tobacco's response)
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)
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 in the name of Kenneth
Knight 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.