Question About History of English Tobacco

[Briar Lee]

Years ago I learned somewhere that Great Britain had a law prohibiting the adulteration of pipe tobaccos for over a century, which was lifted in the 1980s.

It was this law that led to the development of the classic English blend of Virginia, Oriental and Latakia still called English tobacco today. Former colonies had no laws against flavoring tobacco so aromatics became popular outside of England.

I would like to hear from a resident of the United Kingdom exactly what that law prohibited and what was allowed.

Was cavendish outlawed?

Could tobacco be cased in flavored casks?

Was propylene glycol allowed?

Was there cheating or rule bending?

Did it outlaw imported aromatics?

And in a world of ever tighter laws against tobacco, why was the law lifted?

The first reason I want to know is I love to learn new things.

The second is that the do gooders are after artificially flavored tobaccos and we might all be smoking English blends again or making our own.

 

[jndyer]

Very interesting questions. Hopefully one of our knowledgeable English brethren chime in. Well, actually, I guess they do not need to be English, just truly knowledgeable.

 

[Briar Lee]

Very interesting questions. Hopefully one of our knowledgeable English brethren chime in. Well, actually, I guess they do not need to be English, just truly knowledgeable.

True, a knowledgeable colonist could give me the answers I seek.

But back when there were real pipe shops in Missouri it was just common knowledge that English tobacco was English tobacco because of English purity laws.

I’d like to know what a man who likes hot Guinness beer and tweed jackets says.

 

[jguss]

This is a really good question. It’s come up a few times before, with what I personally think are inconclusive results (on this I believe Jesse disagrees). For one interesting thread see: "Tobacco Purity Law" in Great Britain. Myth or Reality? :: General Pipe Smoking Discussion - https://pipesmagazine.com/forums/threads/tobacco-purity-law-in-great-britain-myth-or-reality.68077/

What I’d like to see is authentic extracts from relevant legislation that defines purity, applies to smoking tobacco, and can be shown to have been in force in the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

[sablebrush52]

Much is mentioned of the British Purity Laws, little is found of them. The closest I came to anything was during a Google search that landed me with some scans of British decrees from the late 17th century that forbade the unscrupulous exportation of tobacco shipments with added wood bark, grasses, mulberry leaves (IIRC) and other adulterants to increase the weight of the shipment.

For such an oft mentioned topic of tobacco industry history, there's precious nothing to support it. There may be such laws, but they may be squirreled away in some such Act or Proclamation and not exactly easy to find.

SOMETHING SOMEWHERE must have happened, as makers aren't still adding things like talc, asbestos, belladonna, eye of newt, toe of frog, and other fun such additives to smoking mixtures.

Is there a Barrister in the house?

 

[Briar Lee]

This is a really good question. It’s come up a few times before, with what I personally think are inconclusive results (on this I believe Jesse disagrees). For one interesting thread see: "Tobacco Purity Law" in Great Britain. Myth or Reality? :: General Pipe Smoking Discussion - https://pipesmagazine.com/forums/threads/tobacco-purity-law-in-great-britain-myth-or-reality.68077/

What I’d like to see is authentic extracts from relevant legislation that defines purity, applies to smoking tobacco, and can be shown to have been in force in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Thanks for that link, which sheds a little more light on English Purity laws, but unfortunately no actual law.

The part about cracking down on unscrupulous tobacco merchants has a ring of truth about it.

 

[bullet08]

Well, there was a big bang. Bunch of dinosaurs died of lung cancer. Then this funny guy, Sir Franky Drake, brought pipe and tobacco to England. When he landed back on England, he flag down the first Englishman he saw and said "yo my goodman, I got some seriously good shit from over the pond. Threepence for a quarter bag".

 

[crusader]

@gawithhoggarth
Can you find anything on this? If anything, I would think your company would know.

 

[Streeper541]

Well, there was a big bang. Bunch of dinosaurs died of lung cancer. Then this funny guy, Sir Franky Drake, brought pipe and tobacco to England. When he landed back on England, he flag down the first Englishman he saw and said "yo my goodman, I got some seriously good shit from over the pond. Threepence for a quarter bag".

I heard a similar story.

 

[gawithhoggarth]

@gawithhoggarth
Can you find anything on this? If anything, I would think your company would know.

Much of English law is based on case law, so while you have the actual statute laid down, how it is interpreted is left up to the courts and then that forms a precedent. So to find actual examples of how law is applied you would need to trawl through case law, and not sure how far back archived cases are scanned online and you usually need access to legal online databases for that.

I have found the following:

"United Kingdom they had the “Tobacco Purity Law”. This law prohibited blenders from the use of large amounts of artificial flavourings and hygroscopic agents in the manufacture of tobacco products. In the early years of the Dunhill store Alfred Dunhill himself used to experiment at home with the creation of new blends. Regularly he got visits from police-officers who thought they smelled illegal things going on.. There was a list of additives that were approved and which had to be dissolved in alcohol or water. BUT they could only be applied at small percentages. For example, it was estimated that less than 0,5% of the weight of any given brand, manufactured in the United Kingdom, consisted of flavourings. This stood in contrast with some brands manufactured in the United States. There sauces constituted as much as 25% of the gross weight of the tobacco product. And in the case of Dutch tobaccos, this number was as high as 35%. So the blenders in the United Kingdom had to use the best quality tobaccos available, primarily the Virginia-type ones, orientals and condiment leaves like latakia and perique. And of course they had to have to skills to create outstanding mixtures. This with the help of all kinds of processing techniques such as stoving, toasting, panning, steaming and pressing. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the Tobacco Purity Law was abolished by the Thatcher government so that American tobaccos could be sold in the United Kingdom"

 

[CoffeeAndBourbon]

Much of English law is based on case law, so while you have the actual statute laid down, how it is interpreted is left up to the courts and then that forms a precedent. So to find actual examples of how law is applied you would need to trawl through case law, and not sure how far back archived cases are scanned online and you usually need access to legal online databases for that.

I have found the following:

"United Kingdom they had the “Tobacco Purity Law”. This law prohibited blenders from the use of large amounts of artificial flavourings and hygroscopic agents in the manufacture of tobacco products. In the early years of the Dunhill store Alfred Dunhill himself used to experiment at home with the creation of new blends. Regularly he got visits from police-officers who thought they smelled illegal things going on.. There was a list of additives that were approved and which had to be dissolved in alcohol or water. BUT they could only be applied at small percentages. For example, it was estimated that less than 0,5% of the weight of any given brand, manufactured in the United Kingdom, consisted of flavourings. This stood in contrast with some brands manufactured in the United States. There sauces constituted as much as 25% of the gross weight of the tobacco product. And in the case of Dutch tobaccos, this number was as high as 35%. So the blenders in the United Kingdom had to use the best quality tobaccos available, primarily the Virginia-type ones, orientals and condiment leaves like latakia and perique. And of course they had to have to skills to create outstanding mixtures. This with the help of all kinds of processing techniques such as stoving, toasting, panning, steaming and pressing. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the Tobacco Purity Law was abolished by the Thatcher government so that American tobaccos could be sold in the United Kingdom"

Thank you!

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Edit: I see GH&co has posted, ne'er mind.

 

[crusader]

Much of English law is based on case law, so while you have the actual statute laid down, how it is interpreted is left up to the courts and then that forms a precedent. So to find actual examples of how law is applied you would need to trawl through case law, and not sure how far back archived cases are scanned online and you usually need access to legal online databases for that.

I have found the following:

"United Kingdom they had the “Tobacco Purity Law”. This law prohibited blenders from the use of large amounts of artificial flavourings and hygroscopic agents in the manufacture of tobacco products. In the early years of the Dunhill store Alfred Dunhill himself used to experiment at home with the creation of new blends. Regularly he got visits from police-officers who thought they smelled illegal things going on.. There was a list of additives that were approved and which had to be dissolved in alcohol or water. BUT they could only be applied at small percentages. For example, it was estimated that less than 0,5% of the weight of any given brand, manufactured in the United Kingdom, consisted of flavourings. This stood in contrast with some brands manufactured in the United States. There sauces constituted as much as 25% of the gross weight of the tobacco product. And in the case of Dutch tobaccos, this number was as high as 35%. So the blenders in the United Kingdom had to use the best quality tobaccos available, primarily the Virginia-type ones, orientals and condiment leaves like latakia and perique. And of course they had to have to skills to create outstanding mixtures. This with the help of all kinds of processing techniques such as stoving, toasting, panning, steaming and pressing. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the Tobacco Purity Law was abolished by the Thatcher government so that American tobaccos could be sold in the United Kingdom"

So, Forgive my American naivety. The making of flavored tobacco like menthol is more of a principle of the do gooder's fear that it will kill all the children of the world and not because of the aforementioned Purity Law that hasn't been a thing since the 80's?

Just curious and thank you for clearing this query for us.

 

[gawithhoggarth]

So, Forgive my American naivety. The making of flavored tobacco like menthol is more of a principle of the do gooder's fear that it will kill all the children of the world and not because of the aforementioned Purity Law that hasn't been a thing since the 80's?

Just curious and thank you for clearing this query for us.

Do you mean the current ban on flavourings for hand rolling tobacco for example and the re-naming of blends that contained "flavours" in the UK? This is all the anti-smoking lobby and a way to try and reduce smokers and make less appealing. Yet you have vapes that are bubble gum flavoured and strawberry milkshake etc.....tell me that is not targeting kids!!!

 

[sablebrush52]

Do you mean the current ban on flavourings for hand rolling tobacco for example and the re-naming of blends that contained "flavours" in the UK? This is all the anti-smoking lobby and a way to try and reduce smokers and make less appealing. Yet you have vapes that are bubble gum flavoured and strawberry milkshake etc.....tell me that is not targeting kids!!!

I've never bought into the "we're doing for the kids" messaging. It's cheesy political messaging, laughable even by today's degraded standards.

This is about money. It's always about money. The tax revenue doesn't begin to cover the estimated loss of productivity due to health issues, as well as covering medical care of a population of drug addicts.

The death by a thousand cuts approach over the past half century is working to marginalize this filthy and disgusting practice that I dearly enjoy. Vaping has allowed some to engage in the magical thinking that it is somehow healthier, though the chemicals added to the juice contains some pretty toxic substances. Eventually vaping will dwindle away.

 

[gawithhoggarth]

I've never bought into the "we're doing for the kids" messaging. It's cheesy political messaging, laughable even by today's degraded standards.

This is about money. It's always about money. The tax revenue doesn't begin to cover the estimated loss of productivity due to health issues, as well as covering medical care of a population of drug addicts.

The death by a thousand cuts approach over the past half century is working to marginalize this filthy and disgusting practice that I dearly enjoy. Vaping has allowed some to engage in the magical thinking that it is somehow healthier, though the chemicals added to the juice contains some pretty toxic substances. Eventually vaping will dwindle away.

I agree. Vaping will be hit hard by a ban on flavours which I see coming. But the money currently being thrown at it is obscene. There were 3 massive halls full of vaping products at the recent Inter-Tabak trade show in Germany. Many being sold with flashy cars for advertising, young girls in very short dresses prancing around, like something out of the 80's and the playboy mansion. Everything was marketed around a sickly sweet cartoon character type thing. The names are geared at kids, the colourings, the art work, the way they are made to look like confectionary products. Yet the NHS push vaping as a way to stop smoking, even though reports have shown that around 1/3 (?) of kids that vape have never smoked and many then go on to smoke.

Definitely a try and kill off smoking by a thousand cuts thing, although in the UK the government makes about 4 times the revenue in taxes than is spent on the NHS caring for smoking related diseases and issues so its a very bid money spinner they don't want to lose, but need to be seen to be doing something to stop smoking.

 

[woodsroad]

Much of English law is based on case law, so while you have the actual statute laid down, how it is interpreted is left up to the courts and then that forms a precedent. So to find actual examples of how law is applied you would need to trawl through case law, and not sure how far back archived cases are scanned online and you usually need access to legal online databases for that.

I have found the following:

"United Kingdom they had the “Tobacco Purity Law”. This law prohibited blenders from the use of large amounts of artificial flavourings and hygroscopic agents in the manufacture of tobacco products. In the early years of the Dunhill store Alfred Dunhill himself used to experiment at home with the creation of new blends. Regularly he got visits from police-officers who thought they smelled illegal things going on.. There was a list of additives that were approved and which had to be dissolved in alcohol or water. BUT they could only be applied at small percentages. For example, it was estimated that less than 0,5% of the weight of any given brand, manufactured in the United Kingdom, consisted of flavourings. This stood in contrast with some brands manufactured in the United States. There sauces constituted as much as 25% of the gross weight of the tobacco product. And in the case of Dutch tobaccos, this number was as high as 35%. So the blenders in the United Kingdom had to use the best quality tobaccos available, primarily the Virginia-type ones, orientals and condiment leaves like latakia and perique. And of course they had to have to skills to create outstanding mixtures. This with the help of all kinds of processing techniques such as stoving, toasting, panning, steaming and pressing. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the Tobacco Purity Law was abolished by the Thatcher government so that American tobaccos could be sold in the United Kingdom"

If the Thatcher Gov't abolished the Purity Laws in the 1980's, then surely that is searchable. You can't abolish something without saying exactly what it is that you are abolishing! Maybe our recovering UK Barrister @condorlover1 can volunteer some time and expertise to research this.

If I may push this a bit further: As a tobacco manufacturer, GH would of have to adhere to these purity laws. Were you furnished a copy of these laws? Maybe just guidelines? Or were they just heresay? Did GH ever challenge the laws, or were the laws in your favor, keeping foreign-made tobacco products out of the UK? Did your blends/processes change after the purity laws were repealed?

 

[anotherbob]

Much is mentioned of the British Purity Laws, little is found of them. The closest I came to anything was during a Google search that landed me with some scans of British decrees from the late 17th century that forbade the unscrupulous exportation of tobacco shipments with added wood bark, grasses, mulberry leaves (IIRC) and other adulterants to increase the weight of the shipment.

For such an oft mentioned topic of tobacco industry history, there's precious nothing to support it. There may be such laws, but they may be squirreled away in some such Act or Proclamation and not exactly easy to find.

SOMETHING SOMEWHERE must have happened, as makers aren't still adding things like talc, asbestos, belladonna, eye of newt, toe of frog, and other fun such additives to smoking mixtures.

Is there a Barrister in the house?

that to me makes it sound like if it really was the thing people think it was then it was probably more likely some addendum to an existing law. Or it could even be nothing specifically on the books. There are plenty of times when the way a law is interpreted changes or it's decided that some previously untried thing is covered by the laws already on the book. If a food law was written in a certain way they could have just started applying it to tobacco at some point (fun law fact even when people write laws they don't know how they'll be applied or followed until it's actually out in the wild).

 

[gawithhoggarth]

You are not furnished with any copies of any laws or rules and regulations that come in. You have to keep your ear to the ground and search out the relevant laws and try and interpret them. This is not always easy as the wording can be very open ended and often matters are only resolved should the issue go to court. Then the judge decides how the law should be interpreted. The purity laws were in place for many many years. You cannot challenge a law. If you are involved in some consultations beforehand with various working groups then you can try and put your view forward but that is that. As far as I am aware our blends and processed did not change. The abolition of the purity laws just meant that new tobaccos could be brought in or new blends could be made.

 

[woodsroad]

You are not furnished with any copies of any laws or rules and regulations that come in. You have to keep your ear to the ground and search out the relevant laws and try and interpret them. This is not always easy as the wording can be very open ended and often matters are only resolved should the issue go to court. Then the judge decides how the law should be interpreted. The purity laws were in place for many many years. You cannot challenge a law. If you are involved in some consultations beforehand with various working groups then you can try and put your view forward but that is that. As far as I am aware our blends and processed did not change. The abolition of the purity laws just meant that new tobaccos could be brought in or new blends could be made.

Thank you for the clarification. Certainly, although our legal systems are very closely related, they are also quite different. Still, if the purity law was struck from the books in the 1980's, that motion had to delineate what exactly what was being expunged/deleted/struck down/overridden. They couldn't just say "That vague law from way back when, that nobody is really sure what it says, or means or if it even exists, is hereby declared moot, null and void".

@condorlover1 care to contribute?