Overview Of Responses To Regulatory Proposal For Reducing Fire Risks From Cigarettes (December 2002)

3.0 What did they say?

A complete list of respondents, organised by group, is found in Appendix 1. For the purpose of this analysis, the respondents have been organized into three main interest groups:

In general, the responses included information on the level of stakeholder support, answers to the three questions asked in the consultation paper, and notes about additional issues the respondents indicated need to be addressed. Levels of support for the initiative and the answers to the three questions posed in the paper have been rated according to categories specific to each topic. The results of this analysis are presented below in Table 2. The tabulation of the raw data is shown in Appendix 2.

Table 2. Number of responses according to topic, interest group and opinion

Topic 1 - Support for Health Canada's objectives (i.e., reducing fire hazard) & Topic 2 - Support for the proposed regulatory action

The analysis of the responses to these two questions reveals a sharp difference of opinion between Group A and other stakeholder groups. Groups B and C were unanimous in their unconditional support for Health Canada's objective of reducing fires caused by cigarettes. In contrast, no member of Group A supported the objective unconditionally. This same division can be seen with respect to the proposal to introduce ignition propensity regulations to reach the objective.

Topic 3 - Question 5.1: Increased toxicity risk?

Many respondents indicated they did not have the expertise to comment on this issue and thus could not express an opinion. The following describes the opinions expressed by each group.

Group A: All indicated a concern about increased toxicity and a need for further study. In particular, Group A respondents indicated that current evaluation methods are not adequate and, thus, an appropriate toxicological testing program must be established prior to regulation.

Group B: The majority of respondents from this group (18) indicated that it is the responsibility of cigarette manufacturers to ensure reduced ignition propensity cigarettes are not more toxic than conventional cigarettes. Others in the group suggested that further study is needed (1); that regulations should include a requirement for testing (2); and that the question of increased toxicity is not an issue (1).

Group C: Two opinions were expressed by this group: first, that toxicity is not an issue as demonstrated by information from both Philip Morris and the U.S. Technical Advisory Group for Cigarettes and Little Cigar Fire Safety and, second, that regulations should include a requirement for toxicity testing.

Topic 4 - Question 5.2: False sense of security?

Of the four Group A respondents who expressed an opinion, two noted that further study is required in order to understand the potential effects of RIP cigarettes on consumer behaviour. One of these respondents indicated that no such scientific information is currently available and that this data gap should be addressed prior to developing regulations. This respondent also suggested Health Canada include a process in RIP regulations for monitoring fire incidence and causation. The other respondent indicated that currently available RIP technology and testing methods are not satisfactory and therefore if consumers did feel any sense of security from using RIP cigarettes it would indeed be false.

The other two Group A respondents suggested the following:

• "reduced ignition propensity regulation should be supported by government-led public education initiatives, which highlight the limitations of current RIP technology and reinforce the inherent dangers of handling ignited materials."

• "the argument that smokers might be more careless if Canada were to introduce regulations effectively making cigarettes less 'fire-prone' is not in itself a good enough argument for doing nothing." Instead, this respondent indicated a need to be careful with terminology and expressed concern about the media's use of the term 'fire-safe.'

For the most part, Groups B (20) and C (6) dismissed the idea that RIP cigarettes would create a false sense of security among smokers. Many, particularly from Group B, suggested that smokers already have a false sense of security and that is exactly why RIP regulations are needed. Other respondents referred to the use of seat belts and air bags as examples of similar safety initiatives that have saved lives despite claims that people would become more careless. One Group B respondent suggested that the introduction of RIP cigarettes might actually highlight the dangers associated with conventional cigarettes, thus increasing fire-risk consciousness. Four other respondents from Group B suggested a need for restricting the promotion of RIP cigarettes and/or a public education campaign on the fire-risks associated with smoking.

Topic 5 - Question 5.3: Extend to other products?

All groups agreed, in similar proportions, that Health Canada's initiative need not be extended to other tobacco products at this time. However, the reasons given were not the same for each group. Group A cited technical and methodological barriers while other stakeholders based their reasoning on the flammability risks and popularity of these other products. Health groups were somewhat more in favour of this extension but generally indicated that cigarettes deserve immediate attention because they pose the most significant problem by far.

Only one respondent, a member of Group A, indicated opposition to the idea of regulating only cigarettes as a first step. This respondent stated: "If a regulation on ignition propensity is enacted, we believe that it must apply to all tobacco products sold in Canada. This should include fine cut, tubes, paper, sticks, cigarillos, cigars and kreteks....Furthermore, we are adamantly opposed to any regulation which would provide any exemption for any manufacturers however small their market share may be, whatever their product may be, and whether it is imported or not."

Other issues:

Consumer acceptance & smuggling

This issue was brought up exclusively by Group A respondents. Their main concern was that if consumers do not like RIP cigarettes they will turn to illegal distribution methods to find non-RIP cigarettes.

Current technology and testing methods

Group A exclusively indicated concern that no proven technology exists for RIP cigarettes. The main argument was that the ASTM filter-paper test method proposed by Health Canada and New York State is too far removed from real world conditions to be able to predict real-world outcomes. As proof, respondents cited data which they allege proves that cigarettes which pass the filter-paper method may in some cases have a greater chance of ignition. These respondents suggested that Health Canada focus on developing a protocol based on the 'mock-up' ignition test method instead of using the already established ASTM filter-paper method.

One Group A respondent indicated that it would like to see a Canadian standard which is consistent with any U.S. standard that may be adopted. This respondent further suggested that Health Canada defer RIP regulations, "until such a time as U.S. legislative initiatives have been fully discussed and determined", indicating that this approach "will permit Canada to benefit from the scientific and technological improvements that will undoubtedly follow the introduction of these products in the U.S."

Another Group A respondent suggested that Health Canada take a closer look at a brand of roll-your-own papers called Chantecler which were made by Domtar Inc. some time before the 1990s. The respondent indicated that the papers were designed specifically for lumberjacks. Cigarettes rolled with these papers would purportedly self-extinguish when not actively smoked

A number of Group A respondents requested further consultation opportunities, including the formation of a technical working committee to further discuss the technical challenges associated with RIP cigarettes.

One Group C respondent suggested creating a committee of the Canadian General Standards Board to examine the testing protocol, if required.

Impact of the regulations

A couple of Group A respondents calculated the ratio between the number of reported fires in a given year attributable to cigarettes and the number of cigarettes smoked during the same year. The results range from approximately 1 in 15 million to 1 in 19 million. These respondents indicated that these numbers represent the risk of conventional cigarettes starting a fire.

One Group C respondent suggested that Health Canada measure the number of fires before and after implementing the regulations to determine the effectiveness of the regulations.