Many consumers are perhaps unaware of the scope and functions of the many flavorings utilized by manufacturers. However, the industry itself, secretive as it often is, has no illusions as to the disastrous effects such legislation would create were many of the vital flavorings to be banned outright. Not the least among these, say industry experts, would be a catastrophic rise in illicit and unmonitored contraband products flooding the market as smokers seek to re-capture the tastes and flavors of the brand’s they used to enjoy before the ban was introduced.

Adding to the concerns of many in the industry is the belief that the Bill itself was cynically enacted using flawed science for political gain (some industry insiders we talked to referred to "the total absence of any science"). Many would disagree with some of the "scientific" justifications employed by legislators concerning the correlation between flavorings in tobacco products and under-age consumption.

Some of the ingredients commonly used in processing tobacco, which include licorice, cocoa, water and various sugars and other natural and nature-identical fruit-based products, are vital to give the smoke a palatable aroma and taste properties. Of immediate concern to the US legislators seeking to protect US burley is the fact that burley leaf needs to be treated with molasses or licorice after it has been air-dried to replace the natural sugars that are absent in the leaf once it has browned. Failure to do this results in a dry, unpalatable, cigar-like smoke. Treated burley is then blended with other, tobaccos, which are often similarly enhanced with natural ‘flavorings’ to bring out the best smoking characteristics.

Legislators – both in Canada and in the US, where the recent FDA-oversight decision incorporating strict guidelines banning many ‘overt’ flavors, such as chocolate, cloves and strawberry (but not menthol) has created more issues of concern to the industry - appear to have drawn on some questionable, un-scientific sources in order to justify their positions, including the opinion’s of UK’s ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), which claims in part that "Additives are used to make cigarettes that provide high levels of ‘free’ nicotine which increases the addictive kick of the nicotine... to enhance the taste of tobacco smoke, to make the product more desirable to consumers. Although seemingly innocuous the addition of flavorings making the cigarette attractive and palatable is in itself a cause for concern." ASH’s website claims that "Sweeteners and chocolate may help to make cigarettes more palatable to children and first time users; eugenol and menthol numb the throat so the smoker cannot feel the smoke aggravation effects. Additives such as cocoa may be used to dilate the airways allowing the smoke an easier and deeper passage into the lungs exposing the body to more nicotine and higher levels of tar."

Other groups whose views were considered include Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada and the Canadian Medical Association, which argued that products with flavors such as strawberry, vanilla, piña colada, chocolate mint, grape and cherry, are clearly aimed at youth and are appealing, "because they come in a variety of flavors, are affordable, carry no health warnings, and are sold in brightly-colored packages that can look like markers, lip gloss, and music players."

Such sentiments are hardly scientific evidence, and yet legislators have shown scant interest in researching the issues more diligently – perhaps because the progenitors of much of the research that debunks the claims accepted by legislators are the tobacco companies themselves.

"There is no evidence that the use of flavorings has a measurable effect on the overall toxicity of cigarettes," according to Albrecht Tribukait, the author of BAT’s presentation. "On the contrary, all evidence from toxicological studies indicates that there is no such measurable effect. A remarkable number of different types of chemical, biological and clinical studies have been reported by the industry in peer-reviewed journals and have been presented at international meetings, which aid significantly in establishing a basic toxicity profile for ingredients in cigarettes."

Tribukait went on to cite over 20 Toxicology Studies conducted between 1990-2007 to support this stand.

A spokesperson for a major flavor company added that "The FDA indeed used "characterizing" flavor terms, which could be viewed as overt, and the actual meaning is still open to interpretation. Canada’s C-32 bill however uses the terms ‘additive’ or ‘ingredient’, the former being any ingredient other than tobacco leaves, so in real terms this legislation is MUCH more draconian in its approach."

Equally, the ‘evidence’ accepted by legislators that flavored cigarettes leads to a greater incidence of under-age consumption and introduces more young adults to smoking is clearly flawed, if not entirely baseless, according to BAT and others in the industry.

"I can absolutely state that the C-32 BILL was ABSOLUTELY NOT based upon ANY scientific evidence nor factually based," according to a senior director of a major flavor supplier. "Also I do subscribe to the TOTAL lack of factually based data on the correlation between ‘flavored’ tobacco products and children/teen smoking incidence… For me it was a hysterical reaction by bureaucrats in order to headline grab AND effectively illegally ban ALL US blended products," he told Tobacco Asia.

The fact is that Virginia cigarttes contain far less flavorings than American-style brands and so should be far less attractive to young smokers, if the theory presented by the anti-tobacco legislators and lobbyistys is correct,. In fact, the evidence does not support this theory.

"If, as alleged, ingredients such as sugars, cocoa etc. appeal to youngsters and, if as alleged, tobacco companies develop product strategies aimed at making products more attractive to children, why is the prevalence of Virginia styled cigarettes in some markets higher than for AB, in such markets and in many others?" questioned Tribukait. "American blend, the most popular of the blended cigarettes, is made with a mixture of flue-cured Virginia (FCV), burley, and oriental tobacco. The specific percentage of each type varies from brand to brand but, generally, FCV is around 30%, burley is around 20 – 25% of the blend and oriental is the smallest percentage of the blend at around 12%. The role of burley is dependent on the processing of such through an adequate casing and toasting operation. This operation is crucial in developing American blends of international standard. When added as casings to naturally low-sugar tobacco, sugars reduce perceived harshness, irritation and improve smoke balance. However, cigarette smoke from either a Virginia cigarette (with no added sugars) or an AB product (with added sugars) produces sensations which a non-smoker would describe as being harsh and acrid."

If we accept the very limited scientific basis for the legislation recently enacted in the US and Canada restricting flavored tobacco products is flawed, then the rationale behind the legislation has to be questioned as well. Possible repercussions to governments and consumers if this legislation is widely adopted in other countries could see markets swamped with illicit products designed to give smokers what they crave and further denying governments excise revenues from licit products.

"A potential global blanket ban on ingredients would restrict competition in the marketplace and distort market dynamics," according to Tribukait. "It would Increase illicit trade in tobacco products, particularly in countries where the predominant types of tobacco products consumed contain ingredients, and impede the ability to produce ‘modified risk tobacco products’."

"I totally agree that the large scale banning of ingredients will result in lower smoking quality products and therefore ‘opening the door’ to contraband products that DO contain ingredients which give fuller, more appreciated quality of experience of product use," concluded the flavorist we quoted earlier.

But the final word goes to Luc Martial, a former employee of Health Canada’s Tobacco Control section.

"There is no solid evidence on how frequently youth are smoking cigarillos, how minors are getting access to them, whether they are smoking legal or contraband products, or what impact banning certain flavors would have on reducing the youth smoking rate," he said on May 9, 2009. "Its baseless legislation. Its purely anti-business. It has absolutely nothing to do with health. You will see the contraband skyrocket and these guys are already in every schoolyard in the country. The same flavors used in cigarillos are used in a wide variety of alcohol products, yet the alcohol industry is not facing a similar crackdown. What we clearly have here is a product access (by minors), not a product design issue, that will never be resolved by simply banning flavored cigarillos in Nova Scotia. If all it took to stop minors from consuming certain age-restricted and/or illegal products was to ban them, then [these] efforts would find greater cause and sincerity in pushing for a complete ban on tobacco, alcohol, gambling and drugs".