[Intl-tobacco] Canada: BAT's Project Chameleon

[Robert Weissman]

Smart smoke was hot item
Tobacco companies tried to create cigarette with 'adjustable' tar,
nicotine

 WILLIAM MARSDEN
 Montreal Gazette


Monday, January 14, 2002

Tobacco companies tried in the early 1990s to create an "intelligent
cigarette" that could adjust its delivery of tar and nicotine to the
needs of
individual smokers, according to a tobacco company document obtained by
The Gazette.

Called Project Chameleon, this smart cigarette would be able to increase
or decrease its delivery of tar and nicotine, giving a smoker
"subconscious control of the per-puff delivery," the document states.

Instead of having separate strength cigarettes such as light, mild or
regular, it appears from the document that intelligent cigarettes would
become part of a "family of innovative products" that would supply the
puff for all seasons for all smokers.

The Project Chameleon document came from the British archives of British
American Tobacco, owner of Imperial Tobacco Ltd. in Montreal.
The document is dated Jan. 26, 1990.

The project was intended partially to combat smokers who might grow
bored with getting the same kick every time they take a puff. The
smart cigarette would allow smokers to vary the kick.

"One can speculate on the existence of a perfect product where no
interaction is necessary, one which delivers the appropriate amount of
tar
and nicotine per puff and over-all to completely satisfy the smoker,"
the document says.

It's not clear whether Project Chameleon got off the ground or whether
it was just a pipe dream tossed around by tobacco executives trying to
grab market share and keep people smoking.

The document was one of several obtained on the eve of what promises to
be one of the most important tobacco trials in Canadian history.

Opening today in Quebec Superior Court in Montreal, the case pits the
three major tobacco companies - JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. - against the
federal government and the Canadian Cancer Society.

The key issue is the government's right to impose labeling requirements
on tobacco companies, specifically shock pictures of
smoking-related diseases attacking the heart, brain, mouth and lungs.

These photos take up 50 per cent of the outside package. Should the
federal government lose the case, it could open the field to unregulated

tobacco advertising.

A study published last week indicated that the gruesome photos are
effective in persuading smokers to try to quit.

Other documents obtained by The Gazette show the degree to which tobacco
companies use "mild" and "light" labels on package to affect the
psychology of smokers, giving them the false impression they are smoking
a less-harmful brand.

Federal Health Minister Alan Rock announced last year his intention to
ban the advertising and package labeling of "mild" and "light"
cigarettes.

Studies show they can be more dangerous than regular cigarettes because
smokers tend to inhale deeper and smoke more to get enough of a
nicotine kick.

The documents show that the tobacco companies carefully study the
psychology of smoking "light" or "mild" relating health and social
acceptance.

Several marketing studies for British American Tobacco discuss the need
to maintain the deception that lighter brands are less dangerous.

One study notes that most "light" and "mild" smokers believe the
cigarettes are healthier and therefore they will live longer if they
smoke
them.

"The main benefit of being more healthy is that you live longer," the
study notes.

"Therefore, indirectly you will live longer if you smoke a 'mild'
cigarette."

The document goes on to say: " 'light' cigarettes are extremely healthy
from the smoker's point of view."

The same study states that the "most interesting" psychology at play
with smokers is the "underlying feeling of guilt that smokers have."

"Even though 'mild' smokers insult 'light' smokers for being afraid 'to
take the punch,' they are feeling guilty about smoking.

"Smoking the 'mild' option has given them the opportunity to fool
themselves - i.e. they are not smoking the very strong cigarettes so
they
are not as harmful."

The study goes on to claim that "guilt is also expressed in that the
'milds' do not offend non-smokers as much, because they don't smell and
the smoker does not smell and have yellow teeth and fingers.

"They feel a certain pride in themselves, that they are taking other
people's feelings into account, but not giving in completely."

The study claims that smokers of "light" cigarettes feel "more trendy"
and notes that "packaging has contributed largely to this perception."

"It is also interesting to note that the guilty levels are considerably
lower for 'light' smokers, almost a sense of relief because they are
really
making an effort."

Another BAT report, which is stamped 1992 but appears from its contents
to be of an earlier vintage, states that "increasingly, smokers will
accept the alleged harmfulness of smoking, and while wishing to continue
will look for health-reassurance brands."

The documents could have critical impact on the court case, which hangs
on the question of whether the government has reasonable
justification for violating the tobacco companies' freedom of expression
by forcing them to run the shock photos and large health warnings.

The documents appear to support the government's contention that
cigarette packaging has enormous impact on smokers.

Since smoking is the No. 1 cause of preventable disease in Canada, the
government argues, it should therefore have the right to regulate this
packaging.

Tobacco-company officials were not available for comment but in the past
have claimed that packaging has little impact on reducing
smoking.

http://www.canada.com/montreal/story.asp?id=%7B2CF7BFA2-E866-4386-8871-63FE78B86891%7D