From The Economist:
TOBACCO companies specialise in contradiction. They herald the decline of smoking among youngsters, for example, then flaunt their sales to callow puffers. The most skilled contortionist in the industry may be Philip Morris International, the world’s biggest tobacco firm. To date, any good news for shareholders has been bad news for lungs. But the firm now says it wants to improve profits and health alike.
It may seem an odd goal for a company that last year sold 850 billion cigarettes. But it boss, André Calantzoupolos, insists Philip Morris is on the verge of a revolution. He touts “reduced-risk products”: on April 19th the firm said its top offering in this category, iQOS, accounted for one in 30 cigarette sales in Tokyo, a test market.
The new product resembles a pen. A user inserts a cigarette-lookalike called a HeatStick; iQOS then warms the stick’s tobacco, but doesn’t burn it. That produces an aerosol that carries a traditional cigarette’s taste but, the company hopes, eliminates much of the nasty stuff that comes with combustion. “For the first time in history,” Mr Calantzoupolos declared recently, “we have products with the real potential to both accelerate harm reduction and grow our business.”
...
Philip Morris says that early evidence is promising. It reports that the vapour created by iQOS contains just one-tenth as much “harmful or potentially harmful” chemicals as a standard cigarette.
...
Sales could rise even further if Philip Morris can sway health officials. The company will soon ask American regulators to designate iQOS as a “modified risk tobacco product”. Such a title would let the firm’s partner in America, Altria, hawk iQOS’s claimed lower risks. ...
So if the evidence shows that this tobacco product is one-tenth as harmful as traditional products, should regulators allow for the marketing of the product to indicate that? If not, will the producer have some credible legal claims it can bring? If so, will its competitors have claims they can bring?
And will this issue be litigated in the trade and investment world? How will the tobacco carveout from the TPP apply here? (If the TPP ever comes into force, that is). If U.S. regulators allow this product to be marketed as having a lower risk, could other foreign companies who are investors in the U.S. market challenge this? Or would the carveout prevent such a claim?
