Letter from Campaign President Matthew Myers to Ambassador Shunji Yanai

September 18, 2000

The Honorable Shunji Yanai
2520 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008

Dear Mr. Ambassador:

Earlier this month, the Japanese government indicated that it may protest the European Union's proposals to protect public health, by curtailing the use of misleading labels "mild" and "light" on cigarette packages. The Japanese Times reported on Sunday September 3, 2000 that Japan Tobacco is concerned about the pending prohibition on the use of these descriptors on tobacco packaging. The paper reports that, in the view of the Foreign Ministry of Japan, "The [EU] rules would violate WTO rules, so if they are enacted, we should take the case to the WTO." The draft EU directive would prohibit:

"the use of the terms 'low tar', 'light', 'ultra light', 'mild' or any other similar terms... which have the aim or the direct or indirect effect of conveying the impression that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than others"

I am writing because we believe that this action by the Japanese Government would not be in the best interest of public health. It has become increasingly well known in recent years in the United States that users of cigarettes denoted as "low tar" or "light" can and do receive levels of tar and nicotine that are similar to those of regular versions. Moreover, the epidemiological data in the United States show that despite advertising and labeling claims, so called "light" cigarettes do not significantly reduce the health risks from tobacco use when compared with regular or full flavor cigarettes now on the market. That is, there is no proven substantial reduction to the smoker in the risk of cancer, heart disease, or other smoking caused illnesses.

In addition, even though most smokers do not know the tar/nicotine yield of their cigarettes, the evidence shows that they are very aware whether their brand is "light", "low tar" or "ultra-light." The data also show that these consumers falsely believe that such products are healthier and safer and have less risk. In fact, many American smokers have switched to these products rather than quit - just as the industry intended. Thus, because these products don’t reduce the health risks from tobacco use and do result in more people continuing to smoke, the public health has suffered from the tobacco industry’s use of these terms and lives have been lost needlessly.

The decision by the EU to ban the use of these misleading terms was based entirely on legitimate, scientifically reliable health concerns. The decision was not intended to inhibit trade. I hope that your government will consider these facts as it decides whether it will protest the EU actions taken to protect the health of the citizens of Europe.

Sincerely,

Matthew L. Myers
President
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids