Tag Archives: Andre Calantzopoulos

He who sups with Philip Morris should have a long spoon!

The words that came to me as I read this piece in today’s Financial Times were disingenuous, self-serving, cynical and the like.

Philip Morris International has pledged up to $1bn over the next 12 years to an arm’s-length foundation that will fund scientific research designed to eliminate the use of smoked tobacco around the globe.

[Philp Morris]…last week registered the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World as a US charitable organisation, with the stated aim of making grants on ‘how to best achieve a smoke-free world and advance the field of tobacco harm reduction’.

How generous of them! That’s what we need – scientific research (of course they wouldn’t do unscientific research, would they) to eliminate the use of smoked tobacco! And what a noble cause: to ‘advance the field of tobacco harm reduction’!

Then we have the two-faced André Calantzopoulos, chief executive of Philip Morris Ineternational, telling the Financial Times (emphasis added of weasel words and clichés):

Our efforts are squarely focused on ultimately replacing cigarettes with smoke-free products, by offering the millions of men and women who continue to smoke a better alternative. We are standing at the cusp of a true revolution and look forward to the foundation’s objective review of our efforts and efforts of others.

Allow me to re-write this in plain English, saying what I think he really means:

For the millions of people who are addicted to the nicotine in our cigarettes and who therefore find they are unable to quit, we offer an alternative, iQOS, which may (or may not) be a safer way of inhaling tobacco fumes. If everyone were eventually to switch from cigarettes to iQOS our profits would be sustained or may even increase and into the bargain we can present ourselves as a public health champion! (The $1bn is, of course, a drop in the ocean for us.)

Well, I can tell them exactly what they need to do to achieve a smoke-free world and advance the field of tobacco harm reduction – and I won’t charge anything like $1bn for my services. In fact I’ll advise them for free. This is what they need to do, and should do in a much shorter time span than the next twelve years: stop making cigarettes. That will achieve, as least as far as Philip Morris are concerned, the first aim of eliminating the use of smoked tobacco. As for the second aim, that of advancing the field, as they put it, my suggestion will go a long way to achieving that too.

But, of course, what they really want to do, while they keeping merrily on making and selling ordinary cancer sticks, is to plug for all they’re worth their new product with the unpronounceable name of iQOS. For those of my readers who are unfamiliar with what this is, here is a picture of an advertising placard for it, conveniently placed at a child’s eye level in my local branch of Seven-Eleven.

iQOS (or should that be iQOSs?) look like little cigarettes. They are made of tobacco which is heated (not burnt), with the resultant poisonous fumes being inhaled into the lungs. Philip Morris claims this is potentially less harmful than inhaling cigarette smoke – so that’s all right then. And, Bingo! – the field of tobacco harm reduction is advanced!

The misleadingly named Foundation for a Smoke-free World is curiously described as ‘arm’s length’, by which I suppose mean independent. But will it be?

Our old friend Professor Linda Bauld (http://nicotinemonkey.com/?p=1823), however misguided her views on the use of e-cigarettes in pregnancy may be, at least strikes a note of scepticism about this set-up:

I’m very cautiousI’d prefer research completely independent from industry.

Quite right.

Why do I say the Foundation is misleadingly named? Because what they envisage is a world where, even if smoking disappears, millions of people will still continue in the thrall of nicotine addiction.

Text and photo © Gabriel Symonds

Calling out Philip Morriss

We have to thank the BBC for bringing us news of a major scandal (online 30 November 2016).

Andre Calantzopoulos, the CEO of Philip Morris, a tobacco company that turned out 850 billion cigarettes in 2015 from which it generated net revenue of about $74 billion, was recently interviewed on the BBC.

AC:  We produce a product that causes disease and I think the primary responsibility we have…is to develop products like this [the unpronounceable ‘Iqos’] and commercialize them as soon as possible. These products hold very great promise obviously for consumers and also for public health.

BBC:  Conventional cigarettes might eventually be taken off the market because of public health…aren’t you doing this because you’re concerned not about the consumer but because you’re concerned to have a future business?

AC:  First of all we are concerned about the consumer. Secondly even based on WHO projections there will be in 2025 still one billion plus smokers around the planet and there are 9.6 million smokers in the UK. Once we have the ability and innovation to offer these products to consumers we have to offer it to them.

BBC:  If you were concerned about the consumers you wouldn’t sell cigarettes.

AC:  I think consumers choose to use cigarettes. I don’t think Philip Morris has invented cigarettes. I think for us is to offer our consumers the best product we can in the category we all know is addictive and causes harm. Once we have the alternative and we have it today and I’m very happy…and we’ll do everything we can to convince them to switch to this product.

What an utterly breathtaking load of self-serving hypocrisy! I am sure Mr Calantzopoulos is very happy and concerned about the consumer, especially the amount of money he can continue to extract from those who are hooked on his company’s poisonous products. So he thinks consumers choose to use cigarettes, does he? They chose to use the first one, no doubt, but they didn’t choose to become addicted to them. Addiction is the only reason smokers continue to smoke and why they find it so difficult to stop. Does a heroin or cocaine addict choose to continue to use heroin or cocaine? It would be an insult and a lie to talk about these unfortunate people in such a way. What’s the difference between cigarette (nicotine) addiction and other drug addictions? The only difference is that heroin and cocaine are illegal but nicotine is legal. And it wasn’t Philip Morris who invented cigarettes. So that’s all right then? But it’s Philip Morris – the world’s second largest manufacturer of cigarettes – that chooses to continue to make and sell them (together with others in the Big Tobacco cartel). Then he says ‘…the best product…in the category [cigarettes] we all know is addictive and causes harm.’ So he’s contradicting himself: if cigarettes are addictive, how can he say smokers choose to use them?

If he were sincere (don’t laugh), he would forthwith arrange for his company to stop making cigarettes and instead concentrate on alternative products like ‘Iqos’ which, he says, they have today. What’s he waiting for?

Then we hear from Deborah Arnott of ASH:

DA:  On current trends smoking will kill a billion people in the 21st century mostly in poor countries. If Philip Morris really want to [inaudible] smoking then it has to stop promoting smoking to new young smokers around the world using methods which are quite rightly illegal in the UK. You know smoking’s coming to an end here, we’re seeing a smaller and smaller proportion of young people taking it up, and if these products can help adult smokers quit then all well and good but they still need regulating as tobacco products and we still need to be very cautious about what the industry’s up to.

BBC:  [Andre Calantzopoulos] extended an invitation for groups like ASH to come and check their science, would you take them up on that?

DA:  We’re not scientists, it’s not for us to do…but yes we need more independent verification…and that will take a lot of time and money.

What is it with ASH? Why does Ms Arnott think Philip Morris only needs to stop promoting smoking to new young smokers? What about Philip Morris stopping making cigarettes? As for her admission that ASH lacks the expertise to check out the scientific basis of the claims that ‘heat not burn’ and similar products are safer than ordinary cigarettes, do you need to be an Einstein to form a view on this? Nobody can know the effects of these new products, including e-cigarettes, until they’ve been in use for a long time, say ten to twenty years.

While this huge unregulated public health experiment is going on, what about banning conventional cigarettes in the meantime?

Text © Gabriel Symonds