OTTAWA — A group of health and legal experts is filing a complaint today with the federal Competition Bureau in order to stop the consumer fraud created by 'light' and 'mild' cigarettes. The officials behind the complaint include three medical officers of health from major Canadian cities, the provincial officer of health for the province of British Columbia, and the dean of medicine at the University of Laval.

"It is obvious to medical officers of health that dishonest 'light' and 'mild' marketing has been a major factor in the tobacco epidemic and has caused the death of thousands of Canadians," said Dr. Rob Cushman, medical officer of health for the City of Ottawa. "Any practice that contributes to an epidemic and that can be stopped quickly must be halted without needless delays. We believe that laying this complaint under the Competition Act has the potential to bring this predatory behaviour to an end."

"Two-thirds of Canadian smokers are smoking brands labelled 'light' or 'mild'," said Dr. Mary Jane Ashley, a professor of public health at the University of Toronto and the expert who swore the supporting affidavit for the complaint. "Yet science shows that 'light' and 'mild' labelling tells smokers nothing meaningful about how much disease-causing tar they are actually inhaling. Smokers who switch to 'low-tar' brands and believe these cigarettes offer health benefits or reduced risks in comparison to 'full-strength' cigarettes have been sold a bill of goods."

"The tragedy of this marketing is that thousands of smokers holding these beliefs have stayed smoking rather than quitting," Dr. Ashley added. "And thousands of those duped will inevitably pay with their lives."

"Some have suggested it's enough for smokers to be warned in general terms that smoking is bad for them," said co-complainant David Hill, a senior partner at Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall. "Well, that's not what the law says. For example, a car manufacturer couldn't get away with using fictitious safety features as sales arguments for a new model by issuing a general warning that driving any car carries risks. Precisely because cigarettes are both highly addictive and extremely dangerous, manufacturers must not be allowed to falsely suggest some brands are less hazardous than others."

"Under the Competition Act and other legislation and jurisprudence, manufacturers are responsible not just for the explicit claims they make for their products, but also for the overall impression they create with consumers about what their product does or does not contain and how it will perform when used," said David Sweanor, legal counsel for the Non-Smokers' Rights Association (NSRA). "The term 'light', when it refers to food, drink or alcoholic beverages, means that the product contains substantially fewer calories, less fat, less sugar or less alcohol than the 'regular' version of the product. Consumers of cigarettes have a reasonable expectation that when they switch to a 'light' brand, they too will get less of the substances they're trying to avoid. But that's not what happens in reality. It's a classic case of the type of destructive and deceptive trade practice the Competition Bureau is mandated to stop."

"The European Union and Brazil have both banned misleading cigarette labelling," said Francis Thompson, NSRA policy analyst. "The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, recently adopted by the World Health Assembly, includes a similar provision. In the last two years, complaints about misleading cigarette marketing have been filed with the Australian and Italian competition authorities. We take particular comfort from the fact it took the Italian authorities just five months to rule that the brand name 'Marlboro Lights' constitutes misleading advertising. The case for quick action by the Canadian Competition Bureau is very strong."

"I have reviewed the complaint that will be filed today and find it to be compellingly argued and professionally presented," said Anthony Vanduzer, professor of law at the University of Ottawa and an adviser to the complainants. "The problem that this complaint addresses is one of great gravity. In my opinion, the Competition Act has the potential to produce a remedy of major importance to public health. In fact, I know of no complaints brought forward under this Act which, because of the morbidity and mortality involved, were of greater importance to the public interest."

"Bringing an end to the 'light' and 'mild' consumer fraud is a priority of the national health community," said NSRA Executive Director Garfield Mahood. "The Non-Smokers' Rights Association co-ordinated the filing of this complaint because we want this practice stopped."

"Tobacco is the most destructive consumer product in the marketplace," said Dr. Cushman. "It is intolerable that the havoc created by this product is worsened by deceptive marketing. Our responsibility as medical officers of health is to press regulators to recognize the urgency that misleading labelling represents."

Contacts:

Francis Thompson (613) 230-4211
David Sweanor (613) 230-4211 cell. (613) 799-0665