Can there be such a thing as a ‘safe’ cigarette? Not even the tobacco industry would claim that, but British American Tobacco argues there is value in the search for a ‘safer’ product that will reduce the health risks associated with smoking.

The pragmatism of such an approach will do little to satisfy those who think that the only way to cut the risk of cigarette smoking is for tobacco manufacturers to stop production altogether.

However, British American Tobacco believes that while it is ‘unlikely’ the health risks from smoking will ever be eliminated, it could not claim to be a socially responsible company if it did not pursue ways of reducing the negative health impact of its products. Its chairman, Martin Broughton, has publicly stated that the company aspires eventually to produce a new generation of cigarettes with mass appeal that will be recognized as posing ‘substantially’ reduced health risks to smokers.

British American Tobacco is not alone in this; all other major tobacco companies have put resources into trying to find some kind of safer product. But it is the only business in its field to position its attempts within a structured corporate social responsibility programme.

Until now, much of British American Tobacco’s research into potentially safer cigarettes has centred on reducing the tar content of its products, not least because governments and regulators have stipulated that this is a key area they want to see addressed.

Like its rivals, the group has several low tar brands, but the consensus on whether tar is the most dangerous constituent of cigarette smoke has been challenged in recent years. In any case, says Sharon Blackie, head of the company’s strategic research, ‘we’ve pushed low-tar products as far as we can go, and now the worry is that people are compensating because the taste isn’t good enough.

‘They may be taking bigger draws, although they are still taking in less tar because of the reduced tar content.’

British American Tobacco sees two ways ahead in the quest for a safer product. The first is to selectively reduce the constituents of cigarette smoke that are thought to cause disease, particularly the 44 chemicals generally identified by scientists as dangerous. The second is to dilute the tobacco smoke with some other kind of smoke that is less harmful.

The group believes it is making some headway on the first option, and its US subsidiary has been test-marketing in Indianapolis a new cigarette called Advance that has between 14 and 80 per cent less of various identified toxins in its smoke. The product costs more, but initial consumer reaction has been favourable.

Smoke dilution may be a tougher nut to crack. Essentially, many of the negative health effects of smoking come from combustion, so burning something other than tobacco does not necessarily make things better.

British American Tobacco is working on various commercially sensitive ideas in this area, which will have to go through a lot of testing before any see the light of day. ‘The problem is to make sure you’re not doing anything worse by introducing different kinds of smoke,’ says Blackie. ‘It sounds easy in principle but you have to be very careful indeed.’

Apart from the technical difficulties, one of the biggest barriers to change is the attitude of consumers, who, the company claims, are extremely reluctant to switch to a potentially ‘healthier’ alternative product if it involves any adjustment in taste or habits.

There have been a number of ‘dodo’ ideas that have never been accepted by the buying public – including a carbon rod (not developed by British American Tobacco) that is shaped like a cigarette and heats the tobacco rather than burning it. ‘The trouble is that creating a technology that might reduce risk is no good for public health if nobody smokes the product,’ says Blackie.

Another difficulty is that there is no consensus on what actually causes various diseases linked to smoking. ‘I don’t think you’ll find a scientist out there who’s willing to say, for example, that if you reduce certain listed constituents, then that will decrease disease,’ says Blackie.

‘Some even believe that the health risks may be to do more with the irritant effect of smoking than the carcinogens themselves. All we can do is say that there are carcinogens in there, and that smoking causes cancer, so it seems a good approach to try to take out the carcinogens,’ she adds.

One final hurdle, says British American Tobacco, is the unwillingness of governments and regulators to work more closely with cigarette companies on what approach they should take.

‘We’re not always getting a clear picture from regulators about where they would like us to go,’ says Blackie. ‘We’d like to work with them to agree a joint way forward.’

It’s a point that Broughton has made many times. ‘There may be little merit in developing what might appeal to consumers without a consensus about what changes to the product regulators might accept as reducing risks,’ he says.

‘The answer is for regulators and critics to engage with us over the production of lower-risk products.’