Feature Article

It's been a bad month for public relations at British American Tobacco (BAT). Separate reports published in the past month demonstrate that BAT marketed air filtration systems it knew to be ineffective and concealed the toxicity of its low-tar cigarettes.

On January 28, British Medical Journal reported that BAT marketed air filtration systems to the hospitality industry as an alternative to prohibiting indoor smoking, despite knowing that these systems were not effective in reducing contaminants from secondhand smoke. The information was taken from newly released BAT documents.

In 1993, BAT tested the effectiveness of air filters in reducing harmful secondhand smoke particles. Although the filters were very effective in reducing odor and haze, the filters were only 34% effective in removing harmful substances produced by cigarette smoke. Despite this, BAT concluded that the air filters should be marketed to the hospitality industry to improve corporate image and prevent indoor restrictions.

By 1995, BAT had successfully marketed and installed the air filters in hotels, restaurants, and bars worldwide. BAT representatives were armed with "mini" units to show owners how effective the air filters were. The representative filled the box with smoke, pointing out how quickly the smoke was cleared from the box. The representative did not tell the owners that most of the microscopic contaminants were left behind. After presenting the owner with this "attention-grabber," BAT representatives commented how the establishment may suffer a loss of customers by prohibiting smoking, and how installing the air filters would attract more non-smoking customers.

BAT claims that installing the filters, even though they were inadequate, was necessary to keep up with competition while more effective filters were being developed. However, a 2005 position statement from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers says that even current and advanced ventilation or air cleaning technologies should not be relied upon to control health risks from secondhand smoke.

On February 7, The Lancet published a study indicated that BAT developed a strategy to conceal the dangers of its low-tar cigarettes. Again, the report was based on a review of internal BAT documents.

The study indicated that BAT knew that although its "low tar" cigarettes registered low levels of nicotine and tar in laboratory tests, the cigarettes delivered much higher doses of tar and nicotine to actual smokers. The documents show that BAT attempted to maximize the discrepancy between the test results and the consumption by smokers. According to the authors, "these documents depict a deliberate strategy whereby BAT and ITL (Imperial Tobacco Limited) designed products that would fool their consumers and regulators into thinking these products were safer or less hazardous when they were not." Unfortunately, this deception continues to this day, and many consumers continue to mistakenly believe that they are smoking "safer" cigarettes when they smoke cigarettes labeled "low tar."