Tobacco Companies Respond
The president of the NFPA, James Shannon, recently sent a letter to the three major tobacco companies asking them to produce only fire-safe cigarettes. Here are the responses from Lorillard, Philip Morris, and R.J. Reynolds.
Lorillard and Philip Morris both support federal regulations that would require fire-safe cigarettes even though they don't believe any cigarette is "fire-safe". They have a point, but a cigarette with reduced cigarette ignition propensity (RCIP) doesn't exactly roll off of the tongue.
All three companies point out that a broad approach to reducing accidental cigarette-caused fires is needed. They note that this should include public education about the fire danger of cigarettes (even fire-safe cigarettes), better regulation of upholstery and furniture fabrics, and installation of smoke detectors and sprinkler systems. They are right. All of these areas should be addressed.
However, the response of R.J. Reynolds is troubling. They do not support federal or state regulations requiring fire-safe cigarettes. Their letter refers to their Position on "Fire-Safe" Cigarettes on their website. Here is an excerpt:
Just like other cigarettes, the cigarettes that are currently being sold in New York will scorch or melt any fabric or material they come in contact with, and if the fabric or material is flammable, it will burn. We do not expect these cigarettes to reduce the number of fires or fire losses caused by the careless handling of cigarettes. What we know about these cigarettes is that they are less likely to burn their full length when placed on filter paper in a controlled laboratory setting.R.J. Reynolds continues to believe that "fire-safe" cigarette regulations are not an effective means to address the problem of accidental fires attributed to the mishandling of cigarettes.
I guess R.J. Reynolds hasn't taken enough of a beating over the past decade or two. With this statement, they are dropping their guard and leaving an opening for the public to deliver another roundhouse to the jaw. Sheesh!
Here is an excerpt from the Myths vs. Realities from the Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes:
MYTH: There is no such thing as a cigarette that reduces the risk of fire.FACT: Research by the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), funded by the American Legacy Foundation, indicates several benefits of implementing the New York regulation. "Fire Safer" Cigarettes: The Effect of the New York State Cigarette Fire Safety Standard on Ignition Propensity, Smoke Toxicity and the Consumer Market " compared the physical properties of cigarettes sold in New York with cigarettes of the same brands sold in Massachusetts and California. The report found that New York cigarettes were far less likely to exhibit full length burns (only 10 percent) than those of the other states (99.8 percent). The HSPH researchers found no valid reason why cigarette manufacturers should not sell lower ignition strength cigarettes nationwide. The Harvard study confirmed the 20-year-old conclusion of the Federal Technical Study Group on Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety. This group, created by the Cigarette Fire Safety Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-567), concluded that it was technically feasible to develop cigarettes with a reduced propensity to ignite upholstered furniture and mattresses. As the Harvard study makes clear, the federal study was correct, and the tobacco industry can make reduced ignition strength cigarettes if it chooses to do so or is required to do so.
Here is the key phrase: it was technically feasible to develop cigarettes with a reduced propensity to ignite upholstered furniture and mattresses.
Its common sense - something R.J. Reynolds seems in short supply of.
