A quest is on to make smoking less of a drag on health
In a scene from the satirical film Thank You For Smoking, the head of the Academy of Tobacco Studies tells his colleagues: "We don't sell Tic Tacs, we sell cigarettes. And they're cool, available and addictive. The job is almost done for us."
In the real world, however, the business of selling smokes is more complicated. Legal and health risks, shrinking customer numbers and bans on using the product in public places are prompting the west's tobacco industry to develop so-called reduced-risk cigarettes - what some term "potential reduced exposure products", or Preps.
Biotechnology, pharmaceutical and cigarette companies are researching - and in some instances already marketing - tobacco that is genetically modified, specially cured or has some other way of reducing harm. The question is how such products will be regulated and how big a share of the smokers' market they could achieve.
"If there is real innovation and an acceptable product that is substantially lower in risk, it has the potential to be a game-changer for the entire industry," says David Adelman, tobacco industry analyst at Morgan Stanley. "Coming up with an acceptable reduced-risk product that doesn't compromise taste is, in some sense, the Holy Grail."
Safer cigarettes, designed to produce fewer toxins, have been around for nearly two decades. RJ Reynolds (now part of Reynolds American) developed two - Premier in 1988 and the "smokeless" Eclipse in 1996. But neither was a hit.
In 1998 Altria's Philip Morris USA started testing an "electronically heated smoking system" called Accord, which reduces the smoke and ashes from the end of a cigarette. Last year it launched Marlboro Ultra Smooth - a cigarette with a "new carbon filter" - in three test markets.
Philip Morris has been careful not to make health claims about Accord or Ultra Smooth, the first product from its top-secret Smoke Constituent Reduction (Scor) research programme. Misleading assertions would raise the risk of litigation.
While tobacco watchers diverge on harm-reduction policy or what the industry will look like in the future, most agree smokers hope for a safer cigarette and, given the choice, would switch. So why have Philip Morris's and RJR's attempts not been commercially successful?
"There is no question current smokers want a reduced-risk product," says Bonnie Herzog, tobacco and beverages analyst at Citigroup. "But it has to taste, drag, smell, burn and look like a regular cigarette." To date, no product has come close.
Then there is public mistrust. "Consumers do not trust Big Tobacco's claims," Ms Herzog says. "However, if some government body would also stand behind a particular product, they would feel more comfortable." Industry observers say the future marketing of reduced-risk cigarettes needs to go hand-in-hand with government control of tobacco products - for which anti-smoking advocates have lobbied for decades.
Pro-regulation advocates say government oversight would create a scientific gatekeeper to monitor new products. It would also make cigarette companies accountable to an agency that would verify claims of fewer toxins or less harm and prohibit "reduced-risk" health claims if they could not be substantiated.
Philip Morris, the only US cigarette maker to lobby for regulation, has said that granting the Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco products would address issues such as standards for defining and marketing any reduced-risk cigarettes.
"Whether the tobacco market moves into less harmful products, or to products that look more like pharmaceutical products, depends almost entirely on whether legislation is passed creating strong government regulation of tobacco products and how they are marketed," says Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
In 2000 the US Supreme Court ruled that the FDA did not have the authority to regulate tobacco as a drug and made clear Congress would have to change the law if it wanted the agency to supervise cigarettes. In 2004, the Senate twice approved a bipartisan bill giving the FDA power to regulate - but not ban - cigarettes and tobacco products. The legislation failed in the House of Representatives.
Last year similar bills were reintroduced to Congress. Mr Myers says the US is "closer than ever" to regulation but congressional leadership and the administration are "standing as a roadblock".
Kenneth Warner, dean of the University of Michigan's School of Public Health and director of its Tobacco Research Network, says regulation hinges on three factors: a sympathetic Congress and administration, more resources for the FDA and an "activist" FDA that is "willing to take chances". "We need regime change in order to make FDA regulation happen and work," he says. "But I do think it is a real prospect in the next five to 10 years."
If regulation does happen, some believe it would increase competition not only among cigarette makers but also between the industry and pharmaceutical companies.
Scott Ballin, a tobacco and health policy consultant, sees a convergence of tobacco and pharmaceutical industry interests over the next decade "as both look at the tobacco arena as a profitable area for developing harm reduction and smoking cessation products".
Drugmakers have long had a stake in aids to quitting, with nicotine- replacement therapies such as gum, patches and lozenges. Now treatment is shifting towards pills such as GlaxoSmithKline's Zyban. Last month Pfizer won US regulatory approval for Chantix, which mimics nicotine, hitting the same receptors in the nervous system to alleviate craving.
Mr Myers says tobacco products will change if regulation is strong. "The tobacco industry will be forced to compete based on the relative safety of different products - and the tobacco industry will be forced to compete with non-tobacco products that satisfy the nicotine urge but don't kill."
烟草业也打“健康”牌
在
讽刺影片《感谢你吸烟》(Thank You For Smoking)中有这样一个场景：“烟草研究协会”的头头告诉他的同事：“我们卖的不是Tic Tacs薄荷糖，而是香烟。它们很酷、随处可得而且可以令人上瘾。对我们来说，这工作几乎不费吹灰之力。”
然而，在现实世界里，烟草销售业务要复杂得多。法律和健康风险、烟民数量下降以及在公共场所禁止吸烟等因素，正促使西方烟草行业开发所谓的低危害香烟，一些人称之为“低潜在危害产品”(Prep)。
生物技术公司、制药企业和烟草公司正在研究低危害香烟（有些企业已在推广），通过改变其基因、特殊处理或其它一些方法来减轻对身体的危害。问题是，对这类产品该如何监管？它们能取得多大市场份额？
“如果实现真正的创新，开发出可以大大降低风险的可接受产品，就有可能改变整个行业的游戏规则，”摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)烟草行业分析师戴维?艾德尔曼(David Adelman)表示，“从某种意义上说，生产出既能减轻危害又不影响口感的产品，希望非常渺茫。”
旨在减少有毒物质的更安全香烟问世已近20载。RJ雷诺 (RJ Reynolds，如今是雷诺烟草(Reynolds American)子公司)开发出了两种这样的香烟，一种是1988年的“首相”(Premier)，另一种是1996年的“无烟”的Eclipse。但这两种产品均未在市场获得成功。
1998年，奥驰亚(Altria)旗下的菲利浦?莫里斯美国公司(Philip Morris USA)开始尝试具有“电热式抽吸系统”的香烟：Accord。这种香烟可以减少烟头上的烟和烟灰。去年，该公司在3个测试市场推出了Marlboro Ultra Smooth，这种有“新型碳过滤嘴”的香烟是该公司最高机密的“减少烟气成分 (Scor)”研究计划的首个产品。
菲利浦?莫里斯很谨慎，没有对Accord和Marlboro Ultra Smooth两种产品发表健康方面的声明。误导性的健康声明可能会招致诉讼。
对于降低危害政策或烟草行业的未来，观察人士意见不一，但多数人认为，烟民希望有更安全的香烟，而且，一旦可以选择，他们会换吸这种产品。那么菲利浦?莫里斯和RJ雷诺的努力在商业上为什么没有获得成功呢？
“毫无疑问，如今的烟民想要低危害产品，”花旗集团(Citigroup)烟草和饮料行业分析师邦妮? 赫尔佐克(Bonnie Herzog)表示，“但这种产品的口感、吸吐、味道、燃烧方式和外形都必须像普通的香烟。”迄今还没有一种产品接近这种标准。
接下来就是公众不信任的问题。“消费者不相信烟草巨头的话，” 赫尔佐克表示，“然而，如果某种产品还得到政府机构的支持，消费者就会感觉更放心。”行业观察人士表示，低危害香烟未来的营销将与政府的控烟行动联合开展，反烟人士已经为此游说了几十年。
提倡监管的人表示，政府监督将为新产品的监控创造一个科学的“守门人”。同时还可让香烟企业对某个政府部门负责，这个部门将对有关有毒物质较少或危害较轻的声明进行核查，还可以在无法证实的情况下禁止发布“低危害”健康声明。
美国惟一为支持监管进行游说的香烟制造商菲利浦?莫里斯公司表示，若授权美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)管理烟草，那将会解决低危害香烟定义和营销标准等问题。
“无烟青少年运动”(Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids)总裁马修?迈尔斯(Matthew Myers)表示：“烟草市场是向低危害产品发展，还是向看上去更像药品的产品方向发展，几乎完全取决于是否通过了立法，建立了政府对烟草制品及其营销方式的严格监管。”
2000年，美国最高法院(US Supreme Court)裁定，FDA无权将烟草作为药品进行监管，并明确指出，如果国会希望FDA监管烟草，就必须修改法律。2004年，参议院两度批准两党共同支持的一项法案，赋予FDA监管而非禁止烟草产品的权力。但这项立法在众议院(House of Representatives)没有通过。
去年，类似的法案再次提交国会。迈尔斯说，美国距离烟草监管“比任何时候都近”，但国会领导层和政府充当了“绊脚石”。
密歇根大学(University of Michigan)公共卫生学院院长兼该院“烟草研究网络”主管肯尼斯?华纳(Kenneth Warner)表示，监管问题取决于三个因素：国会和政府的赞同、对FDA的更多资源支持以及 FDA “愿意抓住机会”积极行动。“我们需要制度的变革， FDA监管才能得以实现并发挥作用，”他说道，“不过，我认为，在未来五至十年内，这种情况很可能会发生。”
一些人认为，如果真的对烟草行业实行监管，不仅会加剧香烟制造商之间的竞争，还会加剧烟草行业和制药企业之间的竞争。
烟草和健康政策顾问斯科特?巴林(Scott Ballin)认为，未来十年内，烟草和制药业利益会有交叉点，“因为两者都将烟草舞台视为一个开发低危害产品和戒烟产品的利润丰厚的领域”。
长期以来，制药商一直以提供戒烟口香糖、膏药、戒烟糖等尼古丁替代疗法等帮助人们戒烟。现在，治疗方法正转向药片，如葛兰素史克公司(GlaxoSmithKline)的“盐酸安非他酮缓释片”Zyban。上个月，辉瑞(Pfizer)的戒烟药“Chantix”通过了美国监管机构的审批，这种药品模仿尼古丁的作用机制，刺激相同的末梢神经，以减轻烟瘾。
迈尔斯表示，如果监管有力，烟草制品就会改变。“烟草业将被迫基于不同产品的相对安全性展开竞争，而且，烟草业将被迫与那些能满足对尼古丁的需要、又不会致命的非烟草产品展开竞争。”
