Tobacco Documents Online

K.C.L'2.2'90/8!3. Iit: ..}°_r NA,i=ER' O: . ~f The corporation P'r:_TLI? t;- F~IS EELGIL~ heeirc _z:S rc.poze,e heaccuiclter£ at i6~, C:.cL"ss€e Ce l,a ~i:',1:°, E,rl:sse,_S __/c R.C. Frussel's n°. 252_2'bS', plaintiff, , aWWeerinc -z':_cucr. 'Ie I.o;:is VhI: FUt`NrN and Me Jezn-Pierre V;~:; CC7E_,:, ztzorne:-s. A'V lt 1 N S T: :"he corporation B)~^' 9E'!.ELU3a'-O'0O'N t.xR?i.FND. whose cc_ oo: ate heamguerters is at 3'E, rue de Kori'ncY.. F'russe? s:0i0,, mefend'zmt, ezoezrinc throuch, Me F.r.tcine SR;,L'N znc' Me "'hier_.- VF':' .rNIS, attornev's.

The ccr..'_ola'i-kt that initiated this artio: was filed on' l:arch 10, 1963. Acco-c_rc tc this cor:.plz'int, the purpose of the acti'on :s tce or:.a:rn arn order :crb dcl:r.c the ce_`e-,der.t fror.m all eo-:ne_ria'_' acvc.,= -s-rc b.- mea-s of' the ress, bz__-boarcls or ci::e:-a'to- c:cL ._c f_l`'sl- _._ fZ°'vcr of "Bcrcla\' c_Cc:e'ttes', tChlc: aWve:._s:-'ac' declares that the "L2_c.ay" c:-carette I)c=sesses 2"r1C* 2rC^2" or 'an'-e'Y.Ceyt iOnci td,5te" or 2' C`_sti:lti'tive taste -cesY:te so little tar anc'nicotine"; cr refe_:is€ tc tar contents of :rRC and nicotine contents C'_°, 0. 2nc,, GSr cia'_. inc "ooV _ar-free" or Froclair..i:ag the' "sna:1 are~^t a` tar an.._cet:.ne" or in a.-v other ec;:iva1!ent forr•'- -= i` -ec es.ed that a fine of 2'0i0, 0010 frznr= be ir..posed per _-.sta-ce c" a-`re_ tis-nc irn violatic- cf the iir ~Iiunct_,,.. arcer.. T:re conc:aint a?sc recuestec an orcer rec::.zis:c the ef the Cou_ t's -'ucar..e:.t _r. t:4e ne.:spape_ s at the op`'e:-.:a^t' s expense; f ina_1_•- the Flairtif f' ree'ueste'c ccsts and a' :vd'Qre'nt tha,, could be 1'171mEC:ate,.v executed w_tho::t' rC2nG. - o-:' A'cril 13, 1951, the defendant filed an, aprlicatiossn seek_nc the reope:n:nc of the' debates. _,:.s ac^lication is based on the fact t`.:at, on A_c _1 E, tnie =_.. Secti'o- of the Coa:'rt cf' -.:stice cf Geneva :e'ec'a'C an action b'.©L:e;,. L-'. `_,i:e'E: S'.:_ss, :.c.^..:facti:'re.s' of :obac 4 croi;:cts zcairust E'.~.T. Sw__te_1'a nc sFek_n'g tc. `o.~_c' t7e 1'«te,r =rom se' ii1K o',r ct'*.e_.wise cistr',ibL.'_-'c . a:clav'" cic,arett'e's lin D'cc'}Za!C1n'C that clained a tar cc:1te' z (icon~'e:Ssate)i of 1I1C and a' Licotlroe cc :telrt of 0. 2'mC; a' c0^v Cf tr':s decision was annexed to the c=pI,iCailon. The' a'p.^.l2'ca- tion and ts ' aiCCo^t~anVlnlC C'ocL"i.le^ ts ti:e'e e se,r VeG on t:1ie :.la_ _c`•tv lu 1'clal notification dated Fpr.li 14, lCE'-3 c':C -~e_ e de _ ive-ec to the p12= nti'f f on Apri1 15, 1'c'E3. O'r, r19E---, the oefen¢art `ilec' with the cleri: of co,,:rt ame-cra-:cuTr contai'n_nc its _esponse to, the ap°' ica _ i o.^ tha _ the ceba te be reopened. t.r. :exec to tr i s :espo":s:e was an a1tel^at::E cDpl_cat,lo'' that any -e'opEI ::nC Gr LT1iE debate ti'e e>:tt,'1iCe: tC a discussion of ar. Ori :.C-. rende:ed on Frr_I :. 19E: br' the' United States Court of hWoea:s =c_ the Sixtr, CircLi' cecic'i::c an apee€'_ from e - WcTe::i c: Seyter:oez 2% ;°i€'2' -ence_ec b.: Jucce ~a'_la-. _-:'e c: ~~:e ~:eszern District of Ke: tu'c}:.•. The S:xth C_rcL:t Cc-jrt c` Appeals moc__iec a cccisior of the i'ower coc'r ~~ _t':cc~e er. oinin'c the eceral' .r ace' Conr.:;ss:c^~' t i-oir p_: l1 s`,inc ar. oDi'niio.n to the e`:'ec t tha t the clOrr.e.t n'ethod' of test'_ng cicarEt'.es does roct accurately test c.care;tes anc seeY._nc co .-:e^ts on a pcssii~'e r,oz'_`__caao^ ¢` _-.e te'stinc raethod. , - 2

The J!udieiiall Code states that the reopeninc of debates nay be ordie:ed at the =ecuest of one of the parties i f, during the peri~od in which the matter is sub juc,ice, a document or a new fact of, major significance iss discovered by thiss party. No matter ho:: interesting these decisions na'.• be, it rerains true that these are `o_e:c:^n cecis_c.^.s, reTde_ea irn cases that are sic._lar only s;:pes`ic_a- to .-:E one ..•_t:^ wh.ch : is coLrt is cancE_ned. Im on e c` t:^e cases, _ e c~estiorn is whether a prelimir.a-'rv remecy shculc be crantec. In the othe_, the cuestion is whether ar. ir.:unc:ion shot:_c be entered avzinst zn ads:inistrative acency ;.reventinc o_ elinina:inc a publication, uithoa:t any i: cica,ior. that sLc': pcbl_catiorn would cc;:t2_'r a Juccne::t c` a de`_ ._ti•:e naz::re t.'.at could not suhsecue^t1v be revised. t;breove:, the very pr=nciple cf' the relative ra._re of the doc'trine of collcteZal estc^:>E1 G'1Ctates that, cnct.Er of' principle, these decisions cannot be : nc_r. .:_t.or our court. It follows from this that these decisions are not silr.•ilar to a document or a new fact of inejo_ s_aTr:`icance justifvinc the reope'-aing of the debates. 74ccordinc..•, ther•e is no reason to order such a remedy. h'e the_E`_o_e proceed tc exami'ne the demand presentec iin the cor..:la_^t. iliE F:+CITS Before setting forth the facts and the :e..i_p:oca_ pcsitio:-:s of the parties, it ils approprizze to recall that the roVai decree of' December 2E,, 1°7c, A_ ticle 3, provides that it _ is f©r ccen to di!stribete cicarettes that do not bear in eesil.n visible characters cf' att least "corps g", cler_?v readaWle znd" indelible o.^n zhe D'cctitaciac, cartons, labe:s or tax stamps, the tar content in mc per c_ca_ette an~ the :aicct:ne cortent rn nc aac tEnt1:_ of rc cE: c'_carette. Thi-s information rzv not be cissi:-::?atec', concealed c7 separated bv other Mritteni mate-i4'_ or _-.aces. I't is provided also that the or...• met5oi's oF -e`erence that are valid for the ana1._rs • s o_ nlcot_ne anz ' tar content are those set forth ini the Belgian nc_r..s of the scries WBN ' t'. 01. Since the end of FehrLi the defendant has c'_acec or thee market in 8!rlsiurr under the trademark "'ma_cia,°", a new sort o_`' fillter-tip cigarette; for t*is ci5a_e;te,~ the coc~EnV has implemented' a sig,ni f'icant acver tisin5 campaign in u::c.t; emphasis is place& or. the particularly low tar (]mc) and nicotine {0.2mgJ content. - 3 -

( Tfiese numbers are those obtainecl from an ana~lysis of the cicarette in, accordance with' the Belgian nor'ns hE'K V.01 re_e,red to above. Ir addition, these numbers are set :orth on the cicarette packages irn e'_ce_ to co'-.or- to the rec:;i:e- me-:':s of the roval cecree, of Dece-:ber 2€. 1°79. The defendant rep_ocLces these numbers o- the posters and i:r the press acv'e: tisirnc with which it has launched these c'Gc'_,ettes. The G'efendalr.'t's' promotional ca'm.'..a1C : Eflp.'.as_zes -:~at, despi te the low tar a'nc' nicotine cor.'te: t of this cicarette, it has the C1S'tlnct,, st_oT:c taste that aFpEa:s, to, a 1'a_ce maiority of simo}:e_s and which_ ', e_dir.G_i_.., one obtains ' o^i%- ba' a' 1'i,Xt'19re of tobacco c'CI: tc n_::C a cc'.s',1Ce:ab1}'' hicher Sevei of tar and nicotine. In t_ cc.-E .;s:nC„ the CE-enda71t :Lses the s:loCar„ "Earc,iaY',, the v1!EaSu:E is tiJac;k,. 3cth _n press articles and in its briefs in this cz'se, the ce`e::';aat exPlains that the nov'elty ,of the Barclay cigozette. resices in its "hctron" filte_ which is designed so that the smoker breathes in smoke th'rough the center of the filter and air th'r'ou5,h fcur surrounding caTals. The mixture of air and smoke takes place in the mouth of the smoker. By an aero-_:~ynar.:ic effect causec bv the location of the periphe:al canals, the air and the smoke uneezgo' a.^n in terse rixinS w-._ci: more e__ectivel- cisoerses the s-c'r:e in the rotth, caritv res4Lt_nc ini better =t:mL_atior.: o`_' the tas_e nerve CE'~E=c iT, t'1e' G0 i:t:'.. 1'T: aCdi:ao:, t:e :'ft:7ctiEC ^.~?::,~:'re of, air and smoke j.roCuces a 6ecrease in the tar and ^ico'ti!le'e ccntent of each pu: f. The smoker has a sen'sa tion of tastee ec;:-Zvaleat to strong tobacco without absorbinc the' equivalent - cuantitv of tar anc' nicotine. ^"~e clainti`` contends that this adv'ert_siac_ is false anc' mislea¢_nc for the followinc rea.sons: Sc_e-t.i`ic tests have e'stablishec that the see-:n'c_y re-arka.5le rEsu_ts that the cefendarrt cites are cbtainec onlv on a 14t~cratorl mac:::ne -- the sraokin5 mac: irne -- : here2's, in reality, the story is altogether different. The olzint_ff reveals that, in the L1ni'tec' States ('a'nc also S.c:tzerland)', liv'e trials have shov-: that the srnoker, by a--r _.°inc the ' i^-pr'essLre necessarv tc kee: the c:carette in micht block the pe: iD:'I'erall Cancl s -zrirG^uC.a which the (1ou:;h ,,, the air enters. The rese:t uon:.c' be .c~o°~l eo°~le pass across the tobaccc and ' the a.^.c all of the bene_`:- resLltinc fror^ wc::l'~c be consice_ably~oiminishec' a~¢ - S - that the i:.`alled air center of the filter, ~; the :take of air ~ the cil1t:t_c^ rate, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,;A

expressed as a percentace, would be reduced fzom, =SOt to a'pproAimateiy 311: this would have the effert of increasing the tar and nicotine (anc.also carbon monoxide) content of each puff. In this recard, the plaintiff cites tests made at the tnive.s:tv o`' !:-e::chatel in Sw:tzeri'and r::t?: a device )t^oun as t^e "?'.:" ' Pa_a^etez Rnal_vse'r"'. Fcllowir.c these tests, it was conc:ucec that, although with other types of Lltra-licht cic;a_ettes ('k'itfloti't 1'nta''ke of ' air by peripheral cab'1'cls)' the re's1:lts of h-j,man nouth or "?.P.A." saoY.inc woulc' be si-:iiar, in the case of "Barclz}," there woc:lc Se a sis',r.:i`icant d_':_e_e.-,ce ;- the dilution rate Mhich would co =ron 3S.S1C1 (s-nc*-:'inc bv hLnan, Iips) to iE.3'9E (s~okinc by stanclarc' rrac`:ine) . I!n addition, reports of seve_al F:ne=ic2n scientists have reached the same conclusions, with the resulit that the Feeer2? Trade Commission (F.T.C.) has decided that the standard smokingimachine i= not eccipped to ceml with the peculiar cispos;tion of the air canals in the "hctron" filter of Barclay. Accordingly, the F.T.C. has held that Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, which r,,anu`actures Barclay in the Dn.itedl States, may not rel~y o^ the ='.T.C. test in order to support the allegatio' : tSat Ba:.cl<<- i's a lmcr tar cict_e_te. (Lite'ra!'ly: "75s a_esL?'t the Co;n_ssio'- _7:fo_'med Brown and Z:1111a:_Is'.^..n Cor^ manufacturer of Barc:a' that it canniot rely on the' .._.C.• test method to s::b,stc-, _a'_e claims that Barclay delivers only "lmc.tz_')". The F.T.C. announced also tmat it would pn:'blish in, the Federal Register a©uestior: concerning the validity of itss t'estinc methods and whether it would'.be aYpro_oriate to modi`y these methods; it asked also how best to face the related probler.r presented by the possi5iliitl^ that tar ccr.ter.t- is a function of the method of smol:inc. The various reports and' opinions Frodiucec or the occasion c` the.F.T.C'. matter were annexed by the plzintif'f' to its brief ar.c' it was with, interest that this court read th;s r.:ateri'a'_ (as well'as the scientific reportc including res~lts of experiments, etc. filec'bti the de`endant)1. "'ae foregoing sets forth the facts. _. '_s aaprop:iate also brie`lv tolmention cErtai-: procedura_ natters includinc a summa:l-y proceeding .ci~th respect to whic'` we shal!1 refer again when we discuss the substance of the case. 1) The procedure on the ex parte application: On Ma.ch, 8, 19'8?, the plri..t:`f PhiTiF Morris 5elciu- `illed a: apTlicat.or.: tc the Presicer.t of this court for t::e - - 5 -

4 desicsation of an expert in order tc determine the veracity of the defendant's advertising claims. The application stated that the plaintiff intended to seek a preventive :r.;unctior.4 or. !:arct 9, 1963, the presicinc President of this court cranted t".is apFlicztion anc' designa.ec Mr. Marc Herman as an ex: e_t 4••_ttih a mission,, bro2cl.• sta:.ed, that was in con- `o_:-::,_yy w_t?* the mission recuested bN- the pla:^ tif=. :,he order recu:red that the expert submit his report within two wee :s o_' his being notifie~ of the r..issior. Gr. F:arch 14, 1'9E3', the defendant made application seeri,nc retraction of the above order; this appli~caticn was Yreser.tectc the P_es:dent of this ccurt sittinc as a referee. Bv o_eer dz,ted h2rc:h _7, 1963, the President c.' this court affirmed his order of March 9, 19E3. it ther., became clear that, the deadline given to the expert foz, the filina of' his report was in, znh event insufficient since the tests~rebLired by the milssion would themselves take at least five weeks and that theconplIetion of the expertise woul& take.seven to eight weeks. F,: a reszlt, the plainti.f, which eic not wish to aue_t the :'ili~nc of the expert's report in order to seel: a decisior on the ne.its, se_veG a, conolai-t on E.A.T. Be7:Elcx ir., the. Yrese :t cccrt seekinc a pTeliminarl^ inju.ncti'or; ir, itsb-_Ef f_ie~_'- ' durinc_ our hearinq, of A:a,ch 30, 19E'3', the _ai nti"f souet t to pro :ibit, on a oTel irrina_ v basis and u; t:l' scc.*'h time as the results ©f the expertise becarne Y.no;on., the further publication of advertising: a) cla,ir..:.^c that the Barclay cia2rette possessed a rich taste and "an exceptional taste ... despite so 1:ttle tar and ni'cotine" ; b) referring to a content o:: ."imc tar anc' @.2mc nicotine and all similar exY_essi'ons such as 9191 tar-free, low, tar and nicotine, etc. "' and ' this subject to a penal :.y of 2GG,GGW francs for each act of advertisinc occurrinc af_e.r service of the judgme:nt cc:inc_ the period a_ the pre1 ir.:inary injunctior.. Irn aWcit:=r, this court was recuestee, before cecid'i~r.c on: a per-.ar.e:^t injunct_o.^., to confirm the cesionatior of N.r. r:arc Sermzn as 4 n expert with the sane mission as was set forth in the orce r of l:arch 5, 1963. At ~ur hearing of March 30, the df fen©ant filed a brief ini ah:: =, it rroposec the diesicnat:on cf a croL p of experts, the r.:ise :or c`. W~ic1: was describe¢ irn the brie`. I'r orce- to

save time a'nd space, we sha'11i not set :orth here the tc.a_;-.~y of this 1'i_Siio*: ) sl7f f,ice' it to say that the g',roL^ rr os' -_ e2:pe,_'tsI ti:o".:ld be' a'sked to: pSo:?oCCc'e themselves' c^ the c.^.': a_a'- ~_ve ra'te' ^._' absor^t,loP: bV' t we t:z:ma'1 orcan:s;n c_' tar and nicotine after the smo,cinc' of Barclay cigarettes and ct'r.er cicarettes having a declared tar/nicotine content of a sirilaz c_der. :his g,roap of experts was supposed ' to include at least two r;a',rr..2colocists specialized in i.ha',.mccoci:.€t_cs'. ^_'he defe^car:t diees not contest this coL_t's =•urisdict_orn nor the admissibility of this action, and prese::: ts no other obiectibn of form. A'ccordincly, we can turn to an e'xa'mination of the merits of the case. Ix is appropriate at the outse't to recall that the decisi!o^ rendered by the Presiident of thi s co;:_ t. or the ex par te aprIicaticn as .kelil as the dec:siorn rendered when the defendant contested the first decision, were bot.*h ren'terecd i^ a rre?_rirna,_v manner and therefore cannot affect a dec=s_c: on the me_ its. The fact that the ID:es:cent of t`,s, court sitting in an ex parte sess_c::, as .:ell as at a contested :~earing reiatiree to this ex parte decision, ormere~c and ccnfianed an expertise, does not nerrr that thi~s coc'rt,, hearinc the merits of' the matter, nc longer has the opao:- tLnity to ~udre the appropriateness c_' the expertise for the case which we have to decide, even if the mission of the exoert is identical i:' the two cases. we must next acknowled'ge that the statements orn the Sarcia.- ciaarette packs and on' the advertisync for these cigarettes -- te t.e extent that they refer to z co-tent of lnc_ tar and G_2mc nicotine -- are statements the cresence of uhicr or the packac_es is legally recuirec pcrsr„ant tc the royal decree of December 2'8I, 197'9, Article 3. We note also that the plaf r.ti _f ac'r ees that the rumbe_ _ in cuestion faithfL;:.- re=1'~ecL the iesuilLS VD.L.2.iTiie'~G a=zer tests perfo_ReC in accc_ a nce wi . the lecal nethods, name vtFose set : crth in the elgian norms '2RV'.-01 r'o_va_ decre'e of December 28, 1579, art. 6/S 2) . Accordinclr, it is not claimed in: this litication that the Barclav cicarette or its manufacturers are setting forth false _'igures ?rn relation to those khich one would obtair. by testinc the cicarette in acec:dance with the leaal norms o'r~ uhic': voule exceec the maroin of error of 15k set forth in art. 3 S1/'2 of the rcuyal decree of December 28, 1979. - 7 -

In fact, what the plaintiff as::s of us is a finding that the fic_ures for Barclay that conform kith~ the pro~~is~icns o_ art.. 6!'S2 A.R. 28/'121,79 do not correspond to reality. This is tantamount to a prohibition against the sale a` the Ba:cLav cic,;arette on the Belgian market, because _;.e nc_-s t.3!: V.01I are the or.lv_norns t`~ar mav be used to cete-ri^e the tar and nicotine content that mzl• be me:ntiWnec' c:-n t`e Yaci:aee. Any In'.^.icatio:^.s of ' resL`,lts obtained folilo-..7:ac, telstS' c't~:er thar those per`.ormec i n, accordance with the norirs ::R.: 11.01 would be illecal, and A.R. 2&/12/'79 stipulates cleariv that "it is. `er*_ iccen to plzce on the mz_ ket .... 2: cicarettes .... etc It is zz_ ropriate to bear ir. mind that r.R. 2SL''_,!'79 is c_iri.nal ir nature anc accorcinc,l-Y must bE strictly ir.terprEtec; irn the belgiarn legal systec., the basic princ?r.ie cf freedor.. incliies that alli acts or conduct which the lau does not protibit are ar,:thorizec and legal. It follows fron this that, once it is admitted that the indications recu:red W}•y law are set forth on the Barclay ciezrette packs in the prescribed manner and that, in addition, the numbers mentioned' thereon are ir. conformitv with test resr,:lts obtained in accordance the legal ' norms, and that the packa©inc co=.tai~ns no statement that is cont_ar•, to the law or to good cor..r..erc_ai p_actices, the ce:e:nca-t cannot be _`o..bi©cesi to pLt __._s ci.rarette on the market. It is self-evl¢ent that, if the law reculires t hat nicotine anc' tar content be stzte6, such statements irn and of themselves cannot constitute a breach of honest com:,e_ciall practices. One must observe also that a recar'.reme n: that the Barclay ciaarette packaginc, contain num5ers in accition to those recuired by law -- numbers resultinc fror.. tests of an unof_`ici2i nature -- would be iiilecal anc :.rr vic1 atior. of the provisions of' art. 6/E2 of A.R. 2'E/'12/'79 which states that the onlv reference methods that are valid are those set forth in the Belgian norms of series i:BK V.01. To accept or to irpose othe_ :icures aouic'be ecu_valent to acmitting that methods of reference other than, those prescri5e-_4 ' 'bylan: are 1ec21!iv acceptable. f ~- - -- - -- -- -- -- -- ^ais be_nc c,'_ven, car it be sa_c' that ar.\" advertisinc betic_~c the mere mention of the numbers rECu_-et b~~ 3ew -- that is to say, use of the numbers as a means cf promotic: -- becomes illeca1 if there is a poss_bilitv thzt,, because c: certain circurs;.ances, the numbers for tar anc nic.ot;ne content of the cicarette i~n auestion micht not correspond tc th~e numbers rEsultina from the l~egal testing?

It seems cl''ear to: t^s that adve:tising may not be cecl'ared illecal if it makes clai:rs ~sn the _e'suI~s __. eaal Lesti,nc an w. ere the partles aeree ,at tte resuits wE:e c tzinec usina t:ie only tesz~ethocis recognized as va':a under the law. Indeed, it woulic-~'e abu_ii-e and contrary to the principle of liberty as such princi'rle is Y.ncs.n =r. c::_ sys .em of Law to seek to forbid someone from va u:: _inc t e f a ct that he has complied with a legal rec::i'_enent anc' that the reselts obtained froa. this compliance are, in t::..e eyes of some people, advantageous. One carr see im:mec'iatecy thzt, •` one! ad'ii'ted the contrary, it wou'1d' constitute the iCpcsl __L^ : Lpon' the affected partv' of' additional and d:- scret:ona.y oblications :*.at the law does not icpcse'. 1:n addition, since the law contains no auidance, the c'riter:a under uh_.- these oblications would be imposed necess2rilv wc::?c be arbitrary and thus destructive of the citizen's richt to a miinimum degree of legal security. It seems clear also that, if the legislator, irn establishinc norms, resorted to a test method recuir ing smakinc bv r--ac'; i ne, the'only reason was that all other methods csd' nct prod.::ce the necessary certainty. Fo1lo::ing this reasp .i'ng, it is necessary to elimirnate+ mt- the outset a11' rce;.hod's t*at _sp_.~ live tests, that is to sav'with human scbject,'askec to - smo?ce unce= carefully prescribed test concitic::_. A :eac_nc_ of the substan_ial d'ocure7 tct_'on 2i:c.s o•::e' tc see that the tar/nicotine eoI tent' of ' a puff of tobacco smoke can vary considerably in accorciance with the behav_o;:r of the smokez -- whether he is relaxed, nervous, whether he inhales larc'e or small puffs, whether he puts the cigarette deeply in the moLth or barely on the lips, etc -- ; it is also strikinc to see that the res'ezrchers who relv'on smokinc experiments wilt1: the human mouth obtain on1}~~ aYp,:oxi'r..ativee results (see Professor ~"ouerin of ttile' Ka'ti'oncl i.a'.Joratorv ' of Oak Ridge, Tennessee: p.4 of his report: "'The degree to w•hiz'r .°entilaticn is reduced is less certzin ..."'I . I: is appropriate also tc mention thzt this :esearche=, on p.4 cf his report, lets escape a phrase that is, to sa_v the least, curious: "'The Filtror.a holmer provides a result in better agreement with my expectations"', fror.m a scientific vie-wpc:rt, it seems to us an undesirable procedure to assume that object:vit}~• reccire's that one record results not pursuant __ experiments but rather srittii the purpose of obta:r.'inc ar. expected result. (ti7ovld Lyssenko have' had follo~e,s in the United States?) It is appropriate aliso to reread with care what thi's researcher said abou't the cotinine cc:^.tent tests that he recoanized as being "the most ci icu!'t for me t_ interpret*.

vith respect to the subjective nature of the plaintiff's a.leratior_s, because they are based umor uncontrollable hier..an behaviour, it is apFropriate also to refer to a sentence irn the report of Professor Ko:.lowski of the Utiiversity of Toronto: "'There is no cuestion that behavioural' defeat o.' c:l'utioT f ic;:res is wi t*:in the competence of almest any smoker".. Cos~non sense itself svccests, in addition, that if one ccncares test methods based in part on human, behaviourr aca_nst tests mec'e by nieans of a.^ arti ficial r..achine, such as that recui.ec by the law, which ana?vzes a u:^iferr, and r.o.:-a. i zed "behzvicur" Cone can well cal l it thet1 , tre net=:oe w`ic'- i~s the mo_e subjective anc whic^ ,.iElids stztist_- call. the l2rcest differences i:: results ca nrrot be v:ewec as the be tter of _ the methoc s. This sa^,e co^mon sense allows us to conclude that,, :n pzactice,, the srioker who is attracted' br acvertisinr, relati'ng, to the low tar/'ricotine conter t oF' a cic_arette will be aware of t_he fact that the publishec', numbers are the result of laboratory tests conducted under uniForr•~ and~ care°_L1_y definec' conditions. ::-e phenomenorn which the plaintiff clairs tc have detected w:t': the barcla_r cicarette and o. which the plaintiff re''ies in cccL"si'nG the defendant of false ?'.ls`21c1'.tV CoL1'L=,, it see-s, be `_o--,;n,c a:sc: arnonc other brands of cica_ettes whese r..anL_acture_s announce ve_v low tar and nicotine contents b_v .^i'=tue of a filiter w i t}: a srnoke-c'ilution systen usinc air ' t_ ocuced ci_ ectly i nto the filter. ('.See: excerpt -'_om 1' :. "Jo--rnal of' Public Health" which the plaintiff atta^hec to :':s file and which contains an: article bh l;essss Ko:.iowski iiliecible? : "The Misuse of Less P.arardous Cicaretxes and its Detection: Hole-81!ocking of Ventilated Filters"). ini addition, the plaintiff"s ther-ry is in large measure basec'on a claim that, upon c ost e niruation, turns out tc be nothins more --ha- hypothesis, ranei.• thet the pressure c_ t -- --~ ~ - he ir o_ t ~ e smom ~he barcl4v cigarette ::ecessarily and a=wavs results in obstruction: of the peripheral'l carnals whereas such an obstruction would not occur in tests made on the stancard' smoK_nc machine. Zrn the first place, it is oba-ious that, in, oroes for the cigarette to stav in the holder of the machine, the holder :s designed so that it applies pressure on, the mouth-enc of the ciasrette therebv avoidinc the aisliodgiing, of the cicarette during the experiment. In fact, the defendant states -- a:,d' produces supporting documen ts from 1!a5oratories -- that the pressure exercised b1• the smoking machine's holder on the - 10 -