260 likes | 649 Views
RIP cigarettes. Reduced Ignition Propensity Cigarettes – An Introduction. Meeting of the GPSD Committee 15 November 2006, Brussels J. Vogelgesang, SANCO.B.3. RIP cigarettes. The issue. Burning cigarettes may cause fires when left carelessly unattended
E N D
RIP cigarettes Reduced Ignition Propensity Cigarettes – An Introduction Meeting of the GPSD Committee 15 November 2006, Brussels J. Vogelgesang, SANCO.B.3
RIP cigarettes The issue • Burning cigarettes may cause fires when left carelessly unattended • 1,000 fatalities every year in the EU as an estimated minimum1 • Victims are also non-smokers including children and fire-fighters 1 The ASPECT Consortium. Tobacco or Health in the European Union. Past, present and future. European Commission, 2004.
RIP cigarettes What is a RIP cigarette? • A RIP cigarette … • normally stops burning when left unattended • is NOT a fire-”safe” cigarette • may contribute to reducing the estimated 1,000 annual fatalities from cigarette fires in the EU
RIP cigarettes How to achieve RIP? • Ultra-thin concentric bands (« speed bumps ») in the cigarette paper • restrict oxygen access to the burning end of the cigarette • are 6 mm wide and spaced by 20 to 30 mm approximately • « Speed bump » production technology is indeed available. • No chemical additives necessary
RIP cigarettes How to test RIP? • 1. Cigarette extinction test • Tests the cigarette’s capacity to go out/prevent a fire. • Burning cigarette is placed on 10 layers of standard filter paper: Does it burn through the full length? • Out of 40 test cigarettes, 10 may burn through.
RIP cigarettes How to test RIP? (cont’d) • Extinction test standardised in US standard ASTM E2187-04 • Used in all legislations where RIP cigarettes are or will be required: • USA: New York, Vermont in force. California, Illinois, New Hampshire, Massachussetts: In force as of 1 January 2008 at the latest
RIP cigarettes How to test RIP? (cont’d) • Canada: RIP requirement in force since 1 October 2005 • Australia: In preparation. Public consultation on ASTM standard closed on 6 October 2006.
RIP cigarettes How to test RIP? (cont’d) • 2. Mock-up ignition test • Tests the cigarette’s capacity to ignite a fire. • Burning cigarette placed on a simulated piece of furniture: Does it ignite a fire/lead to smouldering?
RIP cigarettes How to test RIP? (cont’d) • Mock-up test very delicate: Provides results, but difficult to carry out in a standardised way • No standard simulated furniture available • Real-world furniture fabrics change all the time: A realistic simulated furniture would require adaptation all the time.
RIP cigarettes Situation in the Member States and Norway • Information transmitted to SANCO in late 2005 and in 2006 • Cigarette-related fires registered in some Member States only - no data from several large Member States • Detailed fire cause not always entirely clear: Cigarette left alone or cigarette stub thrown away?
RIP cigarettes Situation in the Member States ... (cont’d)
RIP cigarettes Impact of a RIP requirement in 14 MSs and NorwayBased on Health Canada approach • Baseline scenario1, 2: Annually ... • 11,000 fires • 520 deaths and 1,600 injuries • €13 million material damage 1 14 MSs: CZ, DK, EL, EE, HU, LV, LT, NL, PT, SK, SI, FI, SE, UK 2 Health Canada approach: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/rias-reir/index_e.html#description
RIP cigarettes Impact of a RIP requirement for 14 MSs and Norway (cont’d)Based on Health Canada approach • Reduction of fires • Scenario 1: 68% reduction of fires, etc., to take into account that furniture may ignite more easily than ASTM test indicates (75%) • Scenario 2: 34% reduction of fires, etc., to account of easily ignitable fabrics, paper in paper in bins, air flows, etc.
RIP cigarettes Impact of a RIP requirement for 14 MSs and Norway (cont’d)Based on Health Canada approach • Benefits through RIP cigarettes • Scenario 1 (68% reduction): Prevention of ... • 7,500 fires • 350 fatalities and 1,100 injuries • €9 million damage • Scenario 2 (34% reduction)
RIP cigarettes Impact of a RIP requirement for 14 MSs and Norway (cont’d)Based on Health Canada approach • Tentative extrapolation to 25 MSs and Norway • Baseline scenario: Annually ... • 38,000 fires • 1,900 deaths and 7,000 injuries • € 140 million damage • Scenario 1 (68% reduction): Prevention of ... • 26,000 fires • 1,300 deaths and 4,700 injuries • € 93 million damage • Scenario 2 (34% reduction)
RIP cigarettes Impact Assessment for 14 MSs and Norway (cont’d)Based on Health Canada approach • Economic impact • If compliance cost entirely absorbed by cigarette manufacturers: Reduction of operating profits by 2.9 – 5.9% • If costs entirely on prices: Price increase of cigarettes of 0.2 – 0.4% • With price elasticity of demand of -0.4 • Price increase of cigarettes of 0.08 – 0.16% • Reduction of manufacturers’ operating profits by 0.08 – 0.16%
RIP cigarettes Common arguments against RIP • The ASTM cigarette extinction test is not a real-world test, but the mock-up test is. • Comments: • Good correlation between extinction and mock-up tests; • Extinction test reproducible over 8 years; • Mock-up test very delicate to carry out according to in-depth evaluation during 10 years ; • No standard materials for mock-up test available; • Furniture market and fabrics changing permanently: Standard to be adapted regularly?
RIP cigarettes Common arguments against RIP (cont’d) • New York fire statistics show no effect of RIP requirement. • Comments: • Preliminary reduction of 30%. To be observed further.
RIP cigarettes Common arguments against RIP (cont’d) • No information available on changes in smokers’ behaviour. • Comments: • Comparison of cigarette sales in NY State before and after RIP requirement: No change. • Comparison of cigarette sales in NY State with sales in surrounding States, before and after RIP requirement: No change.
RIP cigarettes Common arguments against RIP (cont’d) • Longer term health implications of RIP cigarettes unknown. • Comments: • 2005 study: A few toxic smoke compounds increased by less than 20 %. No effect on the already high toxicity of cigarette smoke.
RIP cigarettes Common arguments against RIP (cont’d) • Consumers could mistakenly consider RIP cigarettes as being fire-’safe’. • Comments: • Consumer information and education necessary, as for any new product.
RIP cigarettes Common arguments against RIP (cont’d) • ‘Coal drop-off’ from RIP cigarettes has lead to court action. • Comments: • ‘Coal drop-off’ may burn small holes in fine cloth, but hazard negligible compared to a burning cigarette.
RIP cigarettes Common arguments against RIP (cont’d) • RIP cigarette paper is not available in sufficient quantities and costs 5 to 10 times the price of conventional paper • Comments: • Industry: RIP paper available in sufficient quantities in the EU-25 in 3 to 5 years • Canada RIA: Price increase of less than 0.2% expected
RIP cigarettes A RIP requirement for the EU? • Is action necessary at EU level? • To mandate a standard on RIP cigarettes?
RIP cigarettes Thank you for your attention.