For the third time this year, Health Canada has required British American Tobacco to recall some of the cigarette brands it sells in Canada through its subsidiary Imperial Tobacco Canada. On May 19th, June 6th and July 18th, the department advised consumers that the cigarette brands in question "do not meet the performance standards required by the Cigarette Ignition Propensity (Consumer Products) Regulations under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act" and therefore pose an increased fire hazard.
Consumers were given advice on how to protect themselves from this manufacturing defect: "Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and contact the distributor, Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, to return the product for a replacement product."
This post provides some background on the fire-safety regulations that led to this recall.
For more than a century, smoking materials have been a major cause of home fires. Although the deaths and injuries caused in this way are much less than the impact on deaths from disease, they are large enough to be identified as a major concern for fire officials
Statistics Canada recently reported that about 200 Canadians die each year in residential fires. The leading identified cause of those residential fires is smoking materials (cigarettes): one fifth of all residential fire deaths, and two-fifths of those where the cause is known.
These fires are thought to typically start when a smoker falls asleep or otherwise leaves a cigarette unattended and in contact with flammable material. Because many smokers are annoyed if they have to re-light their cigarettes, manufacturers traditionally used papers and packing techniques that ensured that the cigarettes would burn completely even when not being smoked. This increased the likelihood that a cigarette dropped by a smoker would smoulder long enough to ignite the material onto which it had been dropped.
The proposed solution: self-extinguishing cigarettes.
Proposals to require manufacturers to make their cigarettes self-extinguish if left unattended were presented to U.S. legislators in the early 1970s, but it took almost three decades before any government agreed to it. In 2000, New York State was the first jurisdiction to regulate fire safety standards, which came into effect in June 2004. In 2001, private members' legislation aiming to require the Canadian government to pass such a standard was introduced to the House of Commons by John McKay (C-260, An Act to Amend the Hazardous Products Act, Fire Safe Cigarettes).
Over the following three years, John McKay's proposal gained the support of the House and Senate and in 2004 it received Royal Assent. Health Canada duly established regulations the following year, replacing the term 'fire safe' with 'reduced ignition potential'. Initially the regulation was connected with the Tobacco Act, but following a subsequent review by a Parliamentary committee, it was transferred to Consumer Product Safety Act in 2016, where it remains.
The standard adopted by the regulations is set by the ASTM ( ASTM E2187). The Canadian requirement is not that all cigarettes that are tested by this method self-extinguish before the entire rod burns, but that no more than one-quarter (25%) of them do.
Following New York State and Canada, a number of other countries similarly adopted similar requirements. In 2014, the World Health Organization reported that "all 50 US states, Australia, Canada, Iceland, South Africa, and all 28 European
Union Member States have adopted policies requiring RIP cigarettes. These countries
represent approximately 20% of the world’s population, consuming approximately 20% of
the world manufactured cigarettes and on the whole are mostly large high income nations."
Initially, Imperial Tobacco met the test
During a review by WHO's advisors on tobacco regulation, data from Canada showed that cigarettes manufactured by Imperial Tobacco consistently met the standard: fewer than 1 in 10 failed the test. By comparison, cigarettes manufactured by other companies (of which there are very few on the market, and most of which were likely made by Grand River Enterprises), initially failed the test but over time met the standard.
The results of Health Canada's compliance tests conducted before responsibility for the regulation was transferred to the Consumer Product Safety Branch in 2016 remain available on Health Canada's website. These show that all of the brands manufactured by Imperial Tobacco during this period passed the test. Other products that failed to pass the test (including those manufactured by Lanwest, Dynasty and Grand River) were not subject to recall as this system was not in place at the time.
Are Imperial Tobacco's production woes the reason for the test failures?
Under the new administration of the regulations, Health Canada does not appear to report the results of its compliance tests, but it is authorized to require a recall of products that do not meet the standard.
Imperial Tobacco has not made a public statement about the recall (not even on its Twitter feed). The company did, however, reveal a potential reason for the change in a filing submitted to the Ontario Court that is managing its insolvency proceedings. (All of the Canadian tobacco companies have received court protection from their creditors, arguing that current and future court-ordered damage awards make them insolvent).
Last September, Imperial reported to the court that the pandemic had caused supply problems in their Mexico factories, and that it had shifted manufacture to South America. "production of cigarettes for sale in Canada commenced in Brazil and Chile in May 2020." These factories generally make cigarettes for countries where reduced ignition propensity regulations are not in force.
The consequences
Despite the potential for irony in governments encouraging consumers to ask tobacco companies to replace faulty cigarettes with ones that are no less harmful to smoke, there are reasons to welcome the transparent disclosure of the ignition test results.
The effect of the recall is a little more than a slap on the wrist. In addition to the bad publicity, once these products are recalled the manufacturers and retailers have to remove them from the shelves. This inconvenience may be costly, and a deterrent to future infractions.
But there is another shoe that Health Canada could drop. The Consumer Product Safety Act also provides for hefty fines for companies which break the law or its regulations -- including prison terms. If the wrongdoing was made by the corporation, and not an individual acting independently, directors and officers can also be penalized.
If, as it turns out, the company was aware that its new production facilities were not capable of producing cigarettes that met the Canada standards, a greater penalty may be justified.
