cigarettes

Menthol has been used to make some US cigarette brands more appealing to the young, say researchers.

A Harvard University team said menthol masks the harshness of cigarette smoke, meaning new smokers get more nicotine.

They said industry documents showed US firms tested menthol levels for their appeal to different ages.

A leading tobacco company denied such product targeting, while anti-smoking groups said the strategy had not yet been tried in the UK.

The study, in the American Journal of Public Health, analysed a 2006 survey of US smokers, and found that significantly more adolescent and young adult smokers preferred menthol brands.

Between the age of 12 and 17, 43.8% of smokers said they used menthol cigarettes, as did 35.6% of 18 to 24-year-olds.

Cigarettes with higher levels of menthol have been available for many years, but these tend to appeal to older, established smokers.

In the past decade, brands with lower menthol content have been released, and gained a significant following among younger adults.

'Minimised reach'

A spokesman for the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, which represents the interests of British tobacco companies, said that it could not comment directly on the findings, as they referred to US brands.

She added: "The UK has had for many years a voluntary system for the regulation of ingredients, as a result of extensive co-operation between the companies, the government and government-appointed committees.

"Under the terms of the voluntary agreement, UK tobacco companies have regularly held discussions with the Department of Health about modifications to the list of approved additives and continue to engage in these discussions."

A spokesman for Philip Morris USA, which manufactures Marlboro, one of the biggest brands mentioned in the study, said it did not accept its findings.

He said: "We disagree with the authors' conclusion that menthol levels in our products were manipulated to gain market share among adolescents - and are unable to find evidence supporting that conclusion within the study.

"The company's various brands, including our menthol brands, are designed to meet the diverse taste preferences of adults who smoke.

"We believe kids should not use tobacco and our marketing methods are designed to minimise reach to unintended audiences - such as kids."

Philip Morris SA, a division of Philip Morris International, one of the world's largest tobacco companies, yesterday urged MPs to change the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill's definitions of advertising and promotion, arguing that the present wording would prevent legitimate communication within the industry.
The bill, which is before Parliament, aims to place greater restrictions on the advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products.
It includes "all commercial communication or action brought to the notice of any member of the public" in the definition of advertisement, and says promotion includes "the practice of fostering awareness of positive attitudes towards a tobacco product or manufacturer for the purposes of selling".
"If strictly interpreted, a phone call, a price list or a job advertisement would have tobacco companies falling foul of the law," Philip Morris spokesman Neetesh Ramjee told MPs. He called for the bill to be amended to include a definition for the cigarettes trade, and for this group to be exempted from the advertising and promotion restrictions.
Philip Morris also called for changes to the bill's controls of point of sale advertising. The existing laws say signs for tobacco products must be placed within 1m of a point of sale. The signs are allowed to show price and availability, and must carry health and minimum age warnings. The bill proposes limiting such advertisements to a single sign at the point of sale.
A single notice for all tobacco products would prejudice new market entrants and well-established firms an unfair advantage, said Steen Hjortholm, Philip Morris southern and east Africa manager. Philip Morris disinvested from SA in the 1980s, and only began selling its cigarettes products here again in 2004.
It has about 5% of the market, and faces stiff competition from British American Tobacco and JT International. "Each tobacco company should be allowed one sign at point of sale that would list its brands and the price of the products," said Hjortholm.
Philip Morris supported the government's plans to tighten tobacco regulation, he said. "We want a clear concise framework that levels the playing field."
In addition to tighter controls on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products, the bill proposes the introduction of picture-based health warnings, banning misleading descriptions such as "mild" and "low tar", increasing the minimum smoking age to 18, and increasing the penalties for transgressing the regulations.
For example, employers who allow smoking in areas that are supposed to be smoke-free will face maximum fines of R50000, a five-fold increase on the current R10 000 penalty.

Philip Morris International Inc. has done well since its spinoff from Altria Group Inc. last month. In the first quarter, cigarettes maker reported that net income jumped 29 per cent and sales rose 18 per cent – all of which taps into the argument that international tobacco is a thriving market because growing affluence in many parts of the world is encouraging people to smoke premium Western brands.
Investors are coming around: They drove Philip Morris' the stock up 3.9 per cent on Wednesday, after the results were released. Since its spinoff, the stock has risen about 5 per cent in total, outperforming the rump Altria Group, which holds the domestic operations.
But Stéfane Marion, an economist at National Bank, points out that while the tobacco market might be a good safe haven in developed economies – since people tend to smoke in good times and bad – premium are considered a luxury good in many of the markets where Philip Morris is pinning its growth prospects.
“Although we remain positive on the long-term outlook emerging economies, the short-term has become more challenging because of the surging price of food which is depressing disposable income in many countries,” he said in a note to clients. “Since food is a necessity, households will obviously pare down spending on other categories of goods."