Hot LIPs
Monday, December 5, 2011 at 10:43 A reader writes:
I have been reading your comments on your website and I am surprised to see that there is nothing mentioned about the so-called fire safe cigarette. People in the United States are travelling inter-state to where you can still buy ‘normal cigarettes’ because of the horrible taste of these new fire-safe cigarettes.
I recently bought some in Majorca and I honestly thought they were not genuine Lambert & Butler Gold. Now I have bought some in the UK but they taste just as bad. Interestingly though there is no mention on the packet that they are fire-safe.
I have asked numerous smokers what they thought about their cigarettes and everyone I talk to (just members of the public, like me) say they taste awful.
Does anyone want to comment on this? Lower Ignition Propensity (LIP) cigarettes were introduced to Europe last month. They are designed, as we know, to increase the chances of cigarettes self-extinguishing when left alone. It is argued that this will help reduce the number of accidental fires allegedly caused by unattended burning cigarettes.
My understanding is that the taste and flavour of a LIP cigarette should not be affected. I have also read that "under normal smoking conditions, (LIP) cigarettes should not self-extinguish" unless they are "at rest".
Retailers will continue to sell non-LIP compliant cigarettes until stocks run out so if you don't know whether it's LIP or non-LIP compliant I suggest you ask the retailer at the point of sale.
Feedback welcome.
Reader Comments (24)
I smoke hand rolling tobacco which is not affected by LIP yet and if the anti-smoker industry makes the same demands for Fire safe rolling rice papers, then I would find an alternative.
House fires caused by burning cigarettes simply don't justify this piece of nastiness which would appear to have been done to put people off cigarettes.
Carl Minns over at his blog came to the same conclusion about house fires based on the evidence available. http://carlminns.blogspot.com/2011/01/is-smoking-really-major-cause-of.html
LIP is propaganda and another tool used to force people to quit by changing the taste of their favourite brands. The hysterical anti-smoker industry should butt out of the tobacco industry and earn its own living rather than scrounging off the back of a legal self-sufficient industry.
Simon says: "if you don't know whether it's LIP or non-LIP compliant I suggest you ask the retailer at the point of sale."
Tried that at Tesco and got a blank stare. And I mean blank. I might as well have asked the bird what she thought of Pluto's inclination to Earth's ecliptic orbital plane.
Amen to Pat Nurse's comments too.
This post will probably be deleted because it shows the Tobacco Industries involvement in Reduced Ignition Propensity (RIP) cigarettes.
"Safer Communities Directorate
Fire and Rescue Services Division
Steven Torrie QFSM, Head of Fire and Rescue Advisory Unit
T: 0131-244 2342 F: 0131-244 2564
E: steven.torrie@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
28 July 2011
Dear Chief Officer
DEAR CHIEF OFFICER (SCOTLAND) LETTER 10/2011
REDUCED IGNITION PROPENSITY (RIP) CIGARETTES - UPDATE
Introduction
1.
Dear Chief Officer (Scotland) Letter 15/2010 - Reduced Ignition Propensity Cigarettes Update, provided an update on the new Standard and Test Method for RIP cigarettes. I am now in a position to provide you with a further update on the good progress which has been made on this issue.
Background
2.
CEN (the EU standards making body) published the Safety Standard and Test Method on 17 November 2010, with Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) Referencing planned for 12 months from that date. This period is to allow manufacturers sufficient time to change the necessary manufacturing process to meet the new standard. The EU has said that the Standard will be referred to the OJEU on 17 November 2011. In parallel, the British Standards Institution (BSI) published the equivalent BS EN 16156 (Cigarettes Assessment of the ignition propensity) on 31 December 2010.
Current Update
3.
Following the publication of both the CEN and BSI standard, policy colleagues in the UK Government and Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser in England (CFRA) have continued dialogue with the main UK tobacco manufacturers to ensure they have in hand plans to comply with the Standard. These meetings have been very positive and the manufacturers are on track to deliver compliance for all cigarette products at point of manufacture in advance of the publication of the Reference Standard on 17 November 2011.
4.
The tobacco industry have advised that although every effort would be made to ensure there is ‘sell through’ of product lines before the Reference Standard takes effect, it may not be possible to guarantee all retailers stock would be compliant by the Reference date. The industry is working with their sales teams to inform retailers of the incoming standard, and the importance of ensuring that as much non-compliant stock is sold through by 17 November 2011.
5.
The industry expects to have achieved a complete sell through of non-compliant products by the end of summer 2012.
6.
My colleagues in CFRA are working closely with the General Product Safety and Better Regulation teams at the department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to understand how the new Reference Standard will be implemented. BIS’s standard practice is to communicate the existence of new standards through the Trading Standards Interlink to Local Authority Trading Standards departments on the date they take effect. This will confirm the UK Government’s expectation that all cigarettes sold in the UK and EU will comply with the new safety standard.
7.
As is normal with Reference Standards, this will be a light touch. BIS will not instruct nor expect Trading Standards to enforce the standard. It will be a matter for local Trading Standards to determine their role in any monitoring and enforcement activity.
Conclusion
8.
I would ask that you note the further good progress on this important issue and I will keep you informed of any future developments.
Yours sincerely
STEVEN TORRIE
Head of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Advisory Unit
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG
www.scotland.gov.uk
Tobacco companies do as they are told. We know they can't help us. We should not turn on each other but the real source of our exclusion. As far as I am aware, Simon only deletes offensive posts but according to his rules, your post may be deleted Eddie because it is rather long.
Other than that, nice to see you back because you've been a bit quiet of late.
Over the last 2 months I have noticed that my cigarettes(Benson & Hedges) keep going out and have a very funny taste.
Just what have the manufacturers put in the cigarettes or cigarette paper to do this.
SMOKERS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!
Pat: The letter I posted is informative despite it's length and should in my opinion not be deleted.
I am back with a bang and Tobacco Control globally will be on the receiving end.
PS. I see that David Camerson has sold out to Big Pharma.
Were consumers ever involved in test markets of the products? Early feedback would suggest an own goal by the Tobacco Manufacturers and could drive many smokers to grow their own tobacco and roll in a medium of their own CHOICE.
The very serious issue of Reduced Ignition Propensity (RIP) or “fire safe” (FS) cigarettes.
RIP cigarettes have been mandated in a number of countries, e.g., Australia, parts of the USA, Canada, and soon in other countries, e.g., Europe. These cigarettes were pushed in the USA by the rabid antismoker dentist, Greg Connolly, and, in Australia, by the high-profile antismoker, Simon Chapman.
Initially, FSC were supposed to have burn accelerants removed. However, the eventual design has been to add bands of glue running the length of the cigarette paper. The burning of this glue introduces an additional chemical load to smoking. This design of cigarette was never health-tested on people, yet they were made mandatory. Many smokers have reported immediate symptoms from these cigarettes, e.g., constant phlegm production, a burning sensation in the lungs, wheezing, headaches.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-brooks/fire-safe-cigarette-laws_b_519867.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-brooks/fire-safe-cigarette-laws_b_519867.html
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/repeal-fire-safe-cigarette-laws/
http://www.brandcigs.com/carbon_1776/
http://www.gopetition.com.au/petitions/stop-act-697.html
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/685697
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/health/fire_safe_cigarettes.html
Chapman was the first to push for RIPs for Australia in 2004. At the time the talk was about removing burning (accelerants) agents. By 2006, this had changed to “speed humps” (glue) added onto the cigarette paper. He was still pushing RIPs.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/where-theres-smoke-no-fire/2006/08/22/1156012541790.html
He was then very much behind fast-tracking RIPs for Australia in 2009.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1009297/Fire-safe-cigarettes-to-be-fast-tracked
RIPs were introduced into Australia (mandatory) in early-2010. RIPs were never health-tested on smokers. For many, RIPs produce immediate symptoms, e.g., constant phlegm production, cough, wheezing, a feeling of “bruised lungs”.
The antismokers that pushed for FSC are in denial.
The research that backs up claims of elevated toxins in the new Fire Safe Cigarettes points to a 2005 Harvard study led by a man with the last name of Connolly. Connolly said people who regularly smoke cigarettes have become very acutely set off or cued by sensory stimuli, and that, "any change can drive a smoker crazy."
EVA is used to slow the absorbtion or delivery of a drug into the human body.
Connolly led the 2005 Harvard study that found higher levels of some toxins in fire-safe
cigarette smoke. He said these differences were insignificant.
"There's actually more variation in toxin levels among the different cigarettes within a brand than between fire-safe and conventional cigarettes, he said.
"The cigarette is the most lethal, toxic product in the marketplace," Connolly said. Fire-safe cigarettes, he said, are "no more or less lethal."
http://www.examiner.com/x-4874-Indianapolis-Music-Examiner~y2009m11d23-Firesafe-cigarettes-cause-headache-fatigue-naseua-and-more-says-rock-band-Black-Shirley
Connolly has also made such statements:
To Professor Gregory Connolly of the Harvard School of Public Health, estimates that smoking may be banned in the United States by 2050 aren’t good enough.
“I want to see the last cigarette sold to a child by 2020,” Connolly said. “I want to accelerate that because I want to go to the party.”
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/05/the-battle-of-the-butts/ 5/
At the moment there is no government mechanism to investigate any detrimental effects of FSC on consumers. No-one wants to know.
1.
Wherever TC is involved, facts undergo considerable torture, e.g., “light” cigarettes. In keeping with the theme of the current thread, in TC’s hands, everything somehow is turned into a conspiracy of the “evil” tobacco industry; only TC is forever “saintly”, having to fix the “mess” created by BT.
This from a 1992 tobacco-industry document. The RIPs that have been imposed on populations around the world are the same design that was purely exploratory in 1992. It was indicated that these paper banded designs were associated with higher mainstream deliveries, e.g., carbon monoxide.
----------
Burn retardants have been used on cigarette paper to reduce ignition proclivity, i.e. self-extinguishing cigarettes. The use of burn retardants, in this fashion can result in excessive increases in mainstream deliveries and/or a decidedly poorer quality smoking experience. Numerous patents and references are available (2, 3, 8, 9), but at the present time, the commercial viability of truly self-extinguishing products is doubtful.
Most research into the use of burn retardants has been conducted by paper manufacturers such as Ecusta, Kimberly-Clark and de Mauduit. Samples of the new developments in reduced ignition proclivity papers are periodically reviewed by cigarette manufacturers. An example of such a review was conducted by Irwin in 1983 (20). In this technical note, Irwin described a "periodic burn retardant paper" developed by Ecusta, The paper was coated with transverse bands of magnesium oxide/nitrocellulose/maleic resin 8mm in width. The manufacturer claimed that the cigarette would burn but not smoulder through the bands. Therefcre, it would not remain alight for more than 5 minutes unattended. Irwin found that indeed the cigarette did not smoulder through the bands, but it did not self-extinguish under standard smoking conditions. Furthermore, all mainstream deliveries were elevated relative to the control cigarette. Carbon monoxide delivery was especially elevated, to twice the delivery of the control (28.1 mg/cigt. vs. 14.1mg/cigt., 20). There was also a distinctly unpleasant odour associated with the sidestream smoke.
Case also looked at burn retardants added to cigarette paper from the point of view of controlling sidestream emissions (9). The results are extremely difficult to interpret in terms of the effects of these additives on mainstream deliveries. The blend used contained 80% expanded tobacco which would greatly influence the deliveries of the cigarettes. However an excessive increase in mainstream delivery of tar and CO was observed (Table 9). P.25
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fks46b00/pdf;jsessionid=A8B7F94131D876EA6065F7F2A21B538C.tobacco04
The idea of “fire safe” cigarettes has been aggressively pushed since the 1980s by TC. The issue came very much to the fore in early-2000s. TC was claiming that BT had long known how to make a fire-safe cigarette. TC was claiming that, by not introducing FSC, BT was responsible for cigarette-related fire deaths. It even introduced the idea of people affected by cigarette-related fires should sue BT for not having introduced FSC. Fire authorities were also brought in to pressure for FSC. The overriding theme was that to not introduce FSC was irresponsible and negligent. Through the 2000s, there was great pressure brought by TC to introduce an FSC to market. In Australia, FSC was fast-tracked and introduced in early-2010. It seems that the design spoken of in the 1992 report is what was eventually brought to market.
2.
Here’s a 2007 article by the TC advocate, Hemant Goswami. The major thrust of Goswami’s argument is that FSC had not been tested from the health perspective.
“We must do independent primary research before accepting and adopting concepts like fire-safe cigarettes, (also called Reduced Ignition Propensity Cigarettes [RIP]) which are claimed to be less likely to catch indoor structural fires if left unattended. Such concepts have been only tested from the fire-safety point of view and no independent study has still been undertaken by the scientific or public health community to assess the effect of the engineered modifications in RIP cigarettes. The scientific community must do independent primary study to get a clear idea about things like, the effect on Nicotine delivery due to change in mass burn rate, paper porosity, chemical coatings, banding pattern manipulation on RIP; the increased toxicity levels in RIP; puff-to-puff count and changes in actual human puffing and inhalation of RIP so as to assess it’s effect on current smokers and know about any increase in addictiveness and other changes,” Hemant emphasised.
He also makes the extraordinary claim that it was BT that forced FSC, untested, onto the market. He also refers to supposed secret studies code named as “Project Tomorrow,” “Project Hamlet,” “Project Delta.” etc. with an intention to develop a patented cigarette paper technology which could give it’s business the cutting edge and reduce the competition in the market. The company actually succeeded in its objective by developing such a patented cigarette paper and by managing to manipulate and strategically push it through the scientific and public health community in the name of “Reduced Ignition Propensity” cigarettes. The patented paper and the testing method developed by Phillip Morris (On which ASTM standard E2187-02b have been modelled) actually have been adopted in its totality in the name of fire-safe cigarettes. Such tactic has already increased the market share of the big tobacco in the New York by eliminating the smaller and unorganised tobacco industry players.”
This claim is extraordinary. The evidence points to TC being the culprit for rushing FSC to market. Believing that nonsmokers are the priority, it is nonsmokers that should be “protected” from potential cigarette-related fires. FSC were only independently tested from the fire-safety perspective. But, as Goswami notes, FSC do not seem to prevent fires either. Whatever the spin by TC, FSC are a Public Health disaster. It is Public Health that should have required a health investigation of FSC. And, according to another Public Health advocate – Greg Connolly – there is no health issue with FSC. This statement is fraudulent because no health testing has ever been done.
There has been a dangerous cross-over as now many health departments across the globe are adopting RIP as fire-safe cigarette standards, unconcerned and unmindful of the fact that the initial concept of RIP was tested by the NY fire-safety department and the modification were also approved by the fire-safety department and not the health department. This crossing over of the concept from the fire safety departments to public health department is the biggest slip and manipulation ever in tobacco control.
The analysis of the structural fire related fatalities in NY also show that there has been no reduction in the fire-related deaths as was initially claimed. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, RIP cigarettes actually offer no protection from the California like forest fires.
http://www.prlog.org/10036553-science-and-public-health-duped-on-rip-cigarettes-hemant-goswami.html
Acknowledging that “fire-safe” cigarettes are, in fact, not particularly fire-safe either – in addition to health issues for smokers, the latest language used is “fire-safer” cigarettes.
The most common “fire-safer” technology used by cigarette manufacturers is to wrap cigarettes with two or three thin bands of thickened paper that act as ‘speed bumps’ to slow down a burning cigarette. If a cigarette is left unattended, the burning tobacco will soon hit one of these speed bumps and self-extinguish. “Fire-safer” cigarettes meet an established cigarette fire safety performance standard.
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=131524
Funny that Majorca should be specifically mentioned.
I holidayed in Majorca in September and bought Coronas cigarettes (made by Japan Int). Both my wife and I noticed that they seem to extinguish themselves readily, especially if rested on an ashtray for a while. So much so that I took a fag apart and examined the paper, even using a magnifying glass! There are no signs of bands or substances.
I have not noticed any difference in taste - I would never have been aware had it not been for the cigs tending to go out.
Actually, I don't mind them doing so, since they last longer.
When will governments realise that TC is a complete sham and a total waste of money?
I agree Eddie your opinion should not be deleted and it's great to have you back. But you did imply Simon would delete it because it criticised the tobacco industry and I suggested that if it went then it might be because of length.(Others have posted longer pieces tho)
I knew about FS cigs ages ago but I guess because tobacco companies can't promote their products by law, then they were prevented from telling us about it. I've also seen their marketing plans. The law says they can only inform smokers of their products if the smoker asks. The chemicals in cigs are all dictated and approved by the DoH.
I have said before that I am as bad as anyone for attacking Simon and Forest when I'm frustrated but it does us no good. That much I have learned in five years. As for Big T - they get enough attacks without us helping the other side to stick the knife in deeper.
"And Diff'ring judgements serve but to declare that truth lies somewhere if we knew but where .." but I for one believe Big T over Big P lobby groups because they have been caught out lying far too often and they do have hate as their guiding prinicple and not "care".
Checking back on earlier research
"It was all a fix."
"For the testing of upholstery, cushion, sheets and pillowcase material the backing was non-FR polyurethane upholstery foam of density about 22Kg/m3 as specified for qualifying upholstery fabrics according to the UK Furniture and Furnishings
(Fire)(Safety) Regulations 1988, as amended(1).
For the purposes of this project report this type of upholstery foam is called “standard”
foam.
Preliminary tests using the UK brand cigarettes carried out over backings of polyester fibre and feathers did not manage to induce either flaming ignition or progressive smouldering in any of the test materials and so these backings were discounted."
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/160414.pdf
oh - and please don't fall into the trap of calling them RIP cigs. That is TC taking the piss. Even when quoting TC, you shouldn't play their stupid word game.
Pat:
I was not attacking Simon nor the Tobacco Industry, merely supplying information.
In view of David Camerons comments today about Big Pharma and their £50 Billion investment in the UK economy it is clear where they are heading. get more Big Pharma money to offset the Tobacco Revenue Duties and proceed with more Tobacco Control Policies.
Perhaps the UK Tobacco Companies should call his bluff and close everything down in the UK.
What will they do to us pipe smokers?
I mentioned this on another blog several months ago. They are already doing it. As a matter of fact, this fire safe cigarette can be a hazard, as the lit end falls off, not good in a car.......mmm, interesting plot!
I must be missing something here.
Is this new Lower Ignition Propensity (LIP) cigarette being brought in as a result of legislation, or is it a voluntary move – in which case why?
Have these been market researched properly, if so, and they have a bad taste why would they allowed on the market. What about health and safety looking at the chemicals used in this new cigarette, aren’t they supposed to be safe to smoke chemical wise?
It seems to me that BT is simply curry-favouring with the antis. Why should they do this. Billions of cigarettes are smoked each year, yet there is no massive problem with fires started by cigarettes are there?
It’s time the tobacco industry showed some courage and fought its corner.
We holidayed in Majorca in October and bought back a large quantity of Futura cigs and a few Fortununas in packs of 24.
We have noticed that the both brands tend to go out a lot, although some cigs smoke fine, without going out, but the Fortunas definitely do not have the taste they used to have.
Not noticed anything else different though and, like Junican, cannot see anything obvious in the paper.
I think these have already been brought in, haven't they? I noticed about a fortnight ago that my fags were going out halfway through smoking them. And I'm not talking about resting them in an ashtray, either. I'm talking about smoking them hurriedly in an outside "designated smoking area."
For the first time since 2007 I am actually considering giving up. While Big T aren't saints, there is a wealth of evidence as to the harm of cigarettes going back a century (once you get past TC's deliberate manipulation of the figures). Considering I enjoy smoking, I'm willing to take that calculated risk. But considering the idiots at TC are possibly the most malign, incompetent imbeciles to see the light of day and every one of their initiatives always has the reverse effect of what was intended, I am not willing to take the gamble that my health hasn't deliberately been put at risk by their machinations. I've already found that I now need to smoke more per cigarette to keep the thing lit (bravo TC!), and I am sure I read somewhere that one of these morons said something like, "We don't need to test the health impacts as all cigarettes are completely lethal, anyway!" or similar. So there's no way I'm letting these evil, evil people deliberately poison me.
I predict in 15-20 years there will be a rise in a very specific type of lung cancer that is only found in countries with these cigarettes. And TC and the complicit MSM will either ignore it or blame Big T.
I'm sorry I won't be their guinea pig.
As you may have guessed, my loathing for these people knows no bounds.
Fire safe cigarettes (FSC) are cigarettes that are designed to extinguish more quickly than standard cigarettes, if ignored, with the intention of preventing accidental fires. These products are also known as Lower Ignition Propensity (LIP), Reduced Fire Risk (RFR), self-extinguishing, fire-safe or Reduced Ignition Propensity (RIP) cigarettes. In the United States, "FSC" above the barcode officially stands for Fire Standards Compliant (FSC).
John Henson & Mr A:
You obviously have not read the letter in my post near the beginning of this debate.