"Tobacco Purity Law" in Great Britain. Myth or Reality?

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

New Cigars




PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Status
Not open for further replies.

argakusumah

Lurker
Jan 7, 2019
4
0
I'm a new pipe smoker. I want to know a little about "Tobacco Purity Law" in Great Britain. There are so many different opinions about that. Can anyone explain about that? and whether that regulation still exists today? Thank You

 

mikethompson

Lifer
Jun 26, 2016
11,292
23,327
Near Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Up until 1986 England had what where called Tobacco Purity Laws. These laws made it illegal to include any additives in tobacco products made in England. While many other countries made tobacco that was flavored with vanilla, cherry, rum, and other flavors, England’s tobacco’s where just straight tobacco mixes.
Link
I have never heard about these laws, but this one source says they have been repealed. They would very similar to the Reinheitsgebot, the German Purity Laws pertaining to beer.

 

paulfg

Lifer
Feb 21, 2016
1,567
2,933
Corfu Greece
Soooooo...

That means 1792 Flake wasn't released until 1986?
why should that be?

These were once called ‘English’ blends as a result of the old purity laws imposed on English manufacturers; as only natural flavourings such as rum, whisky, Port, floral oils and spices were permitted in regulated doses
Tonquin is a natural spice,this is why many Gawith & hoggarth/S gawith products make use of cloves,bergamont etc

 

yaddy306

Lifer
Aug 7, 2013
1,371
502
Regina, Canada
Cherry, vanilla, maple, chocolate, etc. are also "natural", so how exactly was the "purity law" worded?
Why would it preclude manufacturers from using vanilla but not tonquin? Or preclude cherry but not rum (which is man-made)?
These were once called ‘English’ blends as a result of the old purity laws imposed on English manufacturers; as only natural flavourings such as rum, whisky, Port, floral oils and spices were permitted in regulated doses
That's what you say, but the link above states that no flavours were allowed, only "straight tobacco mixes".

 
Every aspect of the purity laws is confusing. I think it best explains why latakia blends are refereed to as "Englishes", but in no way explains why a company started making soap flavored tobaccos. Tonquin, rose geranium, etc were the exact same things going into soaps, perfumes, and other scents also being produced in the Lakeland district.
And, Yaddy, hit the mail on the head with exactly what I have always wondered, "Why not use real vanilla? or even real rose hips, instead of their ugly cousins which only tastes similar, but not exact?" Purity, seems to translate into using other stuff used in chemical productions to replace natural flavorings.

 

sablebrush52

The Bard Of Barlings
Jun 15, 2013
19,632
44,858
Southern Oregon
jrs457.wixsite.com
Do a Google search of your own and you'll find better than that article. The basic purpose of the Purity Laws was to require that tobacco blends were made from tobacco. Prior to the establishment of these laws, blenders were throwing all kinds of stuff into their blends as filler, wood shavings, straw, corn silk, asbestos, talcum, etc in order to increase profit. It's not like the enterprising blender couldn't still find ways to provide a kick even when the laws were in place. Early samples of WarHorse contained belladonna, which is a poison that will kill you in sufficient amounts. In WarHorse it just killed off enough brain cells to give the smoker a nice buzz.
Here in the States we have no such stringent requirements. So you can drive to your local Taco Bell and order a beef taco that's only 27% beef and the rest grain filler. It's technically a "beef product", not actually beef. But there's enough actual purported "beef" in it that Taco Bell can legally call it a beef taco.

 

mau1

Lifer
Jan 5, 2018
1,124
837
Ontario, Canada
I think of sablebrush as "The Professor" as he always brings an educated and instructional voice to the discussion. I picture him in front of an auditorium full of students expounding on some particular topic, pipe in hand. Cosmic, you too...hahaha.

 

jpmcwjr

Moderator
Staff member
May 12, 2015
24,570
27,077
Carmel Valley, CA
I highly doubt 1792 has been around since the actual year of 1792.
I can gorrrantee dat! Certainly, if it was, there were no warning labels....
And Jesse is nothing like that! But could pull it off if need be.

 

workman

Lifer
Jan 5, 2018
2,793
4,219
The Faroe Islands
The purity laws were real. As Jesse said, their purpose was to ensure that tobacco was actually tobacco. Flavoring was not prohibited, but there was a limit to the relative amount of flavoring to tobacco. That is one of the reasons lakelands are the way they are. Another reason is the very old tradition of making flavored snuff. I assume they didn't have as many artificial flavorings in the 19. and 18. centuries as we do now. Included in the laws was a list of approved additives, so they were somewhat restricted, forcing them to try and make very good blends with high quality tobaccos and minimal casings and top dressings.

 

mau1

Lifer
Jan 5, 2018
1,124
837
Ontario, Canada
Cosmic, you would be the Prof that had students not enrolled in the course turning up at your lectures for the entertainment value.

 

yaddy306

Lifer
Aug 7, 2013
1,371
502
Regina, Canada
The purity laws were real. As Jesse said, their purpose was to ensure that tobacco was actually tobacco. Flavoring was not prohibited, but there was a limit to the relative amount of flavoring to tobacco. That is one of the reasons lakelands are the way they are. Another reason is the very old tradition of making flavored snuff. I assume they didn't have as many artificial flavorings in the 19. and 18. centuries as we do now. Included in the laws was a list of approved additives, so they were somewhat restricted, forcing them to try and make very good blends with high quality tobaccos and minimal casings and top dressings.
... but has anyone here actually read the law? Or seen the list of "approved additives"?

How about a link so we can read it?
Without a link, we haven't really settled the "myth or reality" question posed in the OP.

 

mau1

Lifer
Jan 5, 2018
1,124
837
Ontario, Canada
^^what he said^^
Go to the source, otherwise it's just a distorted opinion that's convoluted by the time the 10th person repeats it.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.