Complaint
In the programme a British academic, Professor Anna Gilmore, was interviewed about heated tobacco products (HTPs) marketed and distributed under the brand name IQOS by Philip Morris International (PMI).  PMI complained that Professor Gilmore was presented to listeners as an “independent expert†without reference to her role as a campaigner against tobacco products and the tobacco industry.  PMI also complained that it was not invited to participate in the broadcast, or to respond to points made by the Professor. It complained further that statements made by Professor Gilmore contained material inaccuracies about the risks of consuming HTPs and compliance with laws about the sale of IQOS products in countries where tobacco products are banned or restricted and that, in the absence of an alternative viewpoint, the programme’s treatment of its topic failed to meet appropriate standards of impartiality. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s Editorial Guidelines on fairness, accuracy and impartiality.
Outcome
Professor Gilmore was introduced as “Director of Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath in the UK and a spokesperson for the global tobacco industry watchdog, STOPâ€. In the ECU’s view, this was sufficient to signal to listeners that she did not speak from a position of neutrality in relation to the tobacco industry.Â
The ECU agreed, however, that more should have been done to give PMI an opportunity to set out its position. The programme-makers lodged a request for a brief statement from PMI in response to the question, “What evidence is there for modified risk for these products?†(ie HTPs) and, having received no answer, concluded that PMI did not wish to comment; but it appears that, unknown to them, the request (which had been addressed to a subsidiary of PMI rather than to PMI’s press office) did not reach its intended destination – and, in any event, the programme included other points critical of PMI to which it should have had the opportunity of responding. The ECU found a breach of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s editorial standards of fairness in this respect.
On the question of risk attaching to the consumption of HTPs, PMI contested Professor Gilmore’s statement that there was “no evidence [that HTPs] are less risky than smokingâ€. The ECU accepted that relevant regulatory bodies had indicated a possibility, or even a likelihood, that they might be found less injurious to health than smoking when evidence accrues, but noted the World Health Organisation’s assessment that “reducing exposure to harmful chemicals in Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs) does not render them harmless, nor does it translate to reduced risk to human health. Indeed, some toxins are present at higher levels in HTP aerosols than in conventional cigarette smoke, and there are some additional toxins present in HTP aerosols that are not present in conventional cigarette smoke. The health implications of exposure to these are unknownâ€. In the light of this, the ECU concluded that Professor Gilmore’s statement was duly accurate at the time the programme was broadcast.
In relation to compliance with laws about the import and sale of IQOS devices, the ECU agreed that the programme gave the impression that PMI had attempted to circumvent the law in a number of countries. The ECU concluded that it had not been established that PMI had acted improperly in relation to any country, and that the impression given here was consequently in breach of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ's editorial standards of accuracy.Â
In relation to impartiality, the ECU acknowledged PMI’s concern that the prominence of one view (which was that of someone who did not speak from a position of neutrality in relation to the tobacco industry) resulted in a failure to treat the topic with due impartiality, but judged that, in the context of the programme’s particular focus, the topic did not constitute what the Editorial Guidelines term a “controversial subjectâ€, to which considerations of impartiality particularly apply, and that the issue was largely one of correct interpretation of scientific evidence, which stood to be judged primarily in relation to accuracy. The complaint was not upheld in relation to impartiality.
Partly upheld
Further action
The finding was reported to the board of the relevant output Division (Â鶹ԼÅÄ Content) and discussed with the programme-makers concerned. The programme was removed from Â鶹ԼÅÄ Sounds, will not be reinstated on that platform, and will not be re-broadcast in its present form.