Tobacco Advertising: Safer cigarettes plan 'abandoned'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.SAFER cigarettes could have been sold in the US by the subsidiary of a British tobacco company, but were not because they would make regular cigarettes look bad, according to company documents obtained by the New York Times.
In the early 1960s, the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, a subsidiary of the London-based British American Tobacco Plc, came up with the idea of heating, rather than burning, tobacco, thus avoiding many of the hazardous substances.
They tested it in a secret cigarette named Ariel. A prototype was made and granted a patent, but never sold, according to the documents. Much of the research into safer cigarettes was done at the company's British laboratories.
The company felt smokers would find the cigarette less satisfying, so did not sell it. Another cigarette manufacturer, R J Reynolds, introduced its own version of the safer cigarette, Premier. It also used the idea of heating rather than burning the tobacco, but it was not favoured by consumers and was withdrawn from the market.
Yesterday, Thomas Fitzgerald, a spokesman for Brown & Williamson, told the New York Times that the company had no comment to make on an inquiry apparently based on information from documents that had been 'stolen' from the offices of its lawyers.
According to the documents, the Ariel cigarette would have greatly reduced the cancer-causing agents in a cigarette, but exactly how this would occur was not specified. In addition to being less harmful to the smoker, it would also have reduced the amount of second-hand smoke.
The family of a man who died of lung cancer is suing the tobacco industry for dollars 650m (pounds 436m) alleging second-hand smoke caused his death. The suit alleges that Burl Butler, a non-smoker, contracted cancer after inhaling tobacco smoke at the barber shop he ran for 35 years in Laurel, Mississippi.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments