this is bbc news. the headlines: cardinal george pell, the most senior catholic cleric to be found guilty of child sexual abuse, has lost an appeal in australia against his convictions. the former vatican treasurer was jailed for six years in march for abusing two choir boys in a cathedral in melbourne in the 1990s. a record number of wildfires have raged across the amazon this year, with 70,000 already detected, concern is growing over brazilian president jair bolsonaro‘s environment policy. the surge marks an 83% increase on last year's figures. farmers‘ unions in the uk are warning that a no—deal brexit will cause severe disruption. the minister for environment, food and rural affairs says the government will support the farming sector through what he called "short term turbulence".

now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. today i am inside the swiss laboratories of an international business which makes billions of dollars every year making and selling a highly addictive, potentially lethal product. these laboratories belong to philip morris international, the makers of marlborough and a host of other cigarette brand the ceo of the company is my guess today, andre calantzopoulos. he says he is sleeping philip morris into a smoke—free future is that clever

strategy or the most outrageous corporate hypocrisy? andre calantzopoulos, andre cala ntzopoulos, welcome andre calantzopoulos, welcome to hardtalk. thank you for having me. i wa nt to hardtalk. thank you for having me. i want to begin with a bit of history, you have been with the philip morris organisation for more than 30 years. you lived through that period in the late 80s, 1990s, when it became clear that philip morris and the other big tobacco companies had

lied, deceived and manipulated the public about the nature of cigarettes, the dangers of cigarettes. you chose to stay. why? first of all, because i think change can come from within. the second thing is, just for clarity, philip morris has stated clearly since 1999 that cigarettes are addictive and cause disease and premature deaths and then the question is, what we do about this? and what we develop, these products, that can reduce the risks. that is important to understand. people know that cigarettes cause disease and are addictive... let's be very blunt, you are the boss of the biggest international cigarette manufacturer in the world. cigarettes kill

people. cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands, millions of people. yes. you said at the top of the company that makes and sells cigarettes. first of all, people also buy cigarettes and somebody has to supply them. the key question is what do we do about reducing the harm of this product. it is important to understand that what causes the problems of cigarettes is not very well—known. it is not tobacco per se, it is not nicotine that all the addictive is not the cause of the disease. it is combustion. that is what causes the disease. as we have the technology over the last years, we can start developing products for the people that will not wait that do not combust. i understand that you want to penetrate philip morris as a

company working towards a smoke—free world. i understand that is why you frankly invited us here because of this is where you are doing the work on your smoke—free products as you call them but with all respect i also need to talk to you about the call of your business and last year, asi call of your business and last year, as i understand your corporate figures, use of something like 780 billion — billion — cigarettes. you, as the ceo have to live with the fa ct as the ceo have to live with the fact that that product is killing people today. 0k. the objective of the company that i set years ago is that we will replace cigarettes as soon as possible with smoke—free alternatives and if this is not portraying the company as such. it

isa portraying the company as such. it is a fact. we have invested $6 billion in developing and commercialising this product... statistics are important. last year, asi statistics are important. last year, as i understand it, almost 90% — 90% —of as i understand it, almost 90% — 90% — of your revenues came from cigarettes. actually a bit less about the key thing is that 14% came from these new products and what is important is 92% of our expense is on products that are smoke—free and 60% of any commercial activity we run worldwide is on these new products. so cigarettes will be phased out over time and we will do our best to convince people to switch. let's look at the facts that today you are increasing shares and markets in lower income and middle

income countries. you clearly as a corporation have a strategy to maximise cigarette sales these are key, international growth markets. this is not correct. first of all we have been present in these markets for many years... i said you are working very hard to maximise your sales. in indonesia, for example, you spent billions of dollars launching and promoting a new brand that philip morris old — you clearly wa nt that philip morris old — you clearly want that new product to take market share, to get more cigarettes sold in indonesia. first of all, ifi talk about the detail of indonesia, this is not a new product, it is an existing product that was renamed because we are consolidating all the brands we have in cigarettes in order to reallocate all the

resources we have into the new products so it is not new. do not promote, market and spent on advertising unless you want results, u nless advertising unless you want results, unless you want people to be smoking your product in great numbers. festival, there are i your product in great numbers. festival, there arei billion people that smoke in the world today and somebody is selling them cigarettes. the second thing is, we should not be confusing in my view, prevalence, so increasing consumption of cigarettes versus brand preference. people know what cigarettes are. so if there is any expenditure in commercial terms and there is very few as we move on cigarettes to maintain ourshare of few as we move on cigarettes to maintain our share of the market because there is no reason from a business perspective, for as long as cigarettes exist and we have not phase amount not to give market share to accompany, i think that is a normal thing. share to accompany, i think that is a normalthing. one more example,

the philippines, won a city is trying to impose a very strict restrictions on smoking, particularly for young people. philip norris international, —— philip norris international, —— philip morris international has joined other companies to fight the ordinance put in place in that city. why have you done that? the particular case of philippines is that the restriction is such that essentially there is no place you can sell any cigarettes in the city and there is a national lot... if you want a smoke—free world, presumably you are in favour of that. this is covering all tobacco products, let's be clear and i also wa nt to products, let's be clear and i also want to clarify that if we did not differentiate cigarettes from the rest of the smoke—free products, many of the... rest of the smoke—free products, many of the. .. with respect we're talking about cigarettes. you are trying to stop a filipino city which

is trying to restrict public smoking. you tell me you want a smoke—free world that these two things that do not add up. smoke—free world that these two things that do not add upm smoke—free world that these two things that do not add up. it is a small city, very small, we have not engaged in litigation. you are the ceo of the company. this is about a mindset. i began by asking about the litigation in the united states which followed on from your bosses at the time lying repeatedly about the dangers of cigarettes about the fa ct the dangers of cigarettes about the fact they knew cigarettes were addict and potentially lethal and they covered it up. my question to you today is, have you learned nothing? why are you still using lawyers at vast expense to try to stop controls on smoking cigarettes? first of all, again, there are very few cases and in this particular case it is just the way the law is

written is eliminating all possible tobacco products, future and current, from sale. you are get to address the moral issues behind the fa ct address the moral issues behind the fact that your company still sells upwards of 750 billion cigarettes a year. it is a question in the end of corporate morality and leadership. let me quote to you george butterworth, director of cancer uk, the best way, he says, that philip morris can help people stop smoking is to stop making cigarettes. that simple, isn't it. very but absolutely not logical because if philip morris stops selling cigarettes tomorrow, do you think people stop smoking or that would help public health?” people stop smoking or that would help public health? i think it would have a massive impact, a massive impact on the global debate on the

future of smoking. you could tell me that other companies could fill in behind you, that they would take your business. that may be true in the short—term but if you showed the leadership that your rhetoric isn't just words but that we tomorrow i going to stop making cigarettes, just imagine how powerful that would be. our objective is to phase out cigarettes as soon as possible... we have already established, particularly in the poorer countries, that is not true. you are expanding your sales. we are not expending ourselves, i'm sorry. in some countries you. cigarette sales are declining everywhere in the world and we will exhilarate this decline by selling to the people that don't wait, these products. i do not think that philip morris already company in this world has

invented cigarettes. whether we exist or not, they will continue using it. we have had the same discussion on cannabis. people still use that although there were no advertising for it. people have a will and they take decisions and our job is to convince them to kick the habit of cigarettes and the best for them to create... we have to give them to create... we have to give them alternatives... we too have two be real and realistic as observers and what we see is that almost 90% of your revenues come from cigarettes and your overall revenues are into the hundreds of dollars and your remuneration packages around $15 million per year. you are so heavily invested in cigarettes that you cannot afford to walk away from them? on the contrary. we are

walking away from them. i don't think that if we stop selling cigarettes tomorrow, because i get this question logically sometimes, this question logically sometimes, this is going to move an ita the needle on public health. 0n the contrary. there will be illicit cigarettes and industry selling them. my objective is to phase them out, and as i said at the beginning, iam doing out, and as i said at the beginning, i am doing everything is accompany focus on these new products, the alternatives and we want to phase out cigarettes at government regulators play the game we could get there very fast. the world health organization which you have tried to work with, ironically, want nothing to do with you. they have set the tobacco industry has a long history of systematic, aggressive, sustained and well reserved opposition to tobacco control measures and that continues. their goal is to weaken tobacco controls.

that is the world health 0rganization. that is the world health organization. the world health 0rganization organization. the world health organization and the convention on tobacco control generally, i think they are still struggling to move between ideology and the belief that only through restrictions are we going to resolve the problem. despite all the measures and restrictions in 2025, we still have 1 billion people. starting to use a bit of a scientific approach into their thinking, and my view again is to continue restricting cigarettes, we need to differentiate the smoke—free products that we have the potential, to reduce harm, and once we stop selling tobacco and nicotine isa bad, we stop selling tobacco and nicotine is a bad, then you can have different regulatory regimes. this

building is devoted to finding new ways to consume nicotine. you imply that it ways to consume nicotine. you imply thatitis ways to consume nicotine. you imply that it is the healthy alternative. it is not healthy, is it? it is much, much healthier than smoking cigarettes. but it is still banned, right was two we never said the risk—free products are zero. right was two we never said the risk-free products are zero. we have to be very clear. $6 billion in a product which you admit with me is still bad, highly adept and that you think all things being equal, people should not use. cigarettes are 1% relating to using nicotine because they deliver a system as i explained to create toxins. the best thing is for people to quit nicotine altogether for the 1 billion people don't. your new product, your smoke—free tobacco, it comes in a

tobacco stick, a cigarette stick, which is put into an electronic machine which you inhale, but it is heated rather than burnt tobacco. so, all of the medical analysis shows that there are still toxins ingested into the body through that product. correct. and you are telling me you have invested $6 billion in this product because it is better than cigarettes. because it is better than cigarettes. but why not invest that money in programmes to get people to quit tobacco, even to use nicotine patches, which do not have the toxin problem that your new product has. there are all sorts of alternatives, but you still want to make your profits from selling people nicotine, highly had lived, your words, and tobacco. ithink nicotine, highly had lived, your words, and tobacco. i think there is a lot of investment and a lot of bombarding on smokers to quit. so what we do about it, that is the

question. when you say bombarding, you are suggesting that... everybody else. you are suggesting that is a negative? no, it is very positive but i am trying to say what we do, but i am trying to say what we do, but we also have to measure outcomes. so far we are told that smokers, you should quit. we have campaigns, not only us, the entire world. increased taxes. governments, everybody. you can't see the cigarettes anywhere. you can't have any advertising. until people start and still people continue. my view is we have to continue on this avenue and if governments want to co—operate with us, i am more than willing to invest financially because if we do it on our own, we are accused of some subliminal way of influencing people, and we did it in the past, but on the other side, we should offer people, it is something accepted in any other industry. there is no zero impact product on earth. solar panels are not zero impact on the environment.

we're just saying they are better than burning coal. so we help people adopt them. we talk about electric ca rs. adopt them. we talk about electric cars. why when it comes to 1 billion people who smoke, alternatives should not exist? you understand why so many people accuse you of the most grotesque corporate hypocrisy, because at the same time as you talk about your commitment to the smoke—free product, you, and i come back to it, are selling hundreds of billions of cigarettes every single year, and making vast profits, not because of your smoke—free products, but because of your cigarettes. because of your smoke—free products, but because of your cigarettesm that hypocrisy? first of all, people can accuse us of anything because accusing and criticising, i think it is free. doing something is important, so i think we are doing something. we are investing money in new products. now, the action on smoking and health campaign has

calculated that between 2005 and 2030, a 25 year span, 130 million people in the middle and lower income countries will be killed by smoking. is that on your conscience? do you feel that in your own conscience? i think what is important is to understand first of all this new product, we started four years ago. they are already 13% of our revenues for last year and we are progressing, we are almost 20% in the second quarter of this year. we have already 11 million people that would continue to smoke that switch to this product. so i think that's progress. if people want cigarettes and they say that before, they will not find it, i mean, people started smoking tobacco before any industry existed stop it is the same thing like saying

alcohol is due to existing companies. alcohol was invented by the ba bylonians. companies. alcohol was invented by the babylonians. there is something in people that want these kind of products. the question is how we make them less and less harmful and help people quit cigarettes because thatis help people quit cigarettes because that is 100% risk today. and i think we should not have a conversation on can we develop a product with zero risk. yes, ideally, iwould love can we develop a product with zero risk. yes, ideally, i would love to have a product that replaces cigarettes with zero risk, but then you should not contain anything, including nicotine, with hot air. nobody is going to switch to it. they think it is how you find the golden compromise that reduces the risk and the probability of disease. quite substantially. and the same time as adopted by people. it is not people and me who criticise are not going to change anything in this world. it is convincing the people who smoke to do something different. that is what we should focus, sometimes a debate and the conversation. i understand your corporate strategy. let us and with a simple question. when will philip

morris international, your company, the biggest cigarette tobacco company in the world, when will your company in the world, when will your company no longer make and sell any cigarettes? when? i just company no longer make and sell any cigarettes? when? ijust want a timeframe. as soon as possible, but i cannot do this on my own. i don't have the power to wake up in the morning and convince 160 million people users of cigarettes to switch. who am i and who is anybody that criticises this world to say that criticises this world to say that we can tell i that criticises this world to say that we can tell1 billion people what to do in the flip of a finger and they will do it? it takes a lot of ha rd and they will do it? it takes a lot of hard work. you must have a vision, and what is your vision? when? when will they no longer... by 2025, we want to have 40% of our reve nu es 2025, we want to have 40% of our revenues in this product, and if we get accelerated regulation, we can go much faster. i wouldn't mind ten yea rs go much faster. i wouldn't mind ten years moving out of cigarettes, five yea rs years moving out of cigarettes, five years moving out of cigarettes, five years moving out of cigarettes. the way i see it is we create,

differentiate the products and create a proper regulation like the us fda has, then we incentivise people through fiscal and other measures and at the right moment when we have all the new products, the cigarettes, 50, 60% of the market, we can go to cap and trade, nicotine reduction of the elimination of cigarettes and then accelerate this without creating all the unintended consequences. for that to be achieved, unique collaboration between government, the ngos and philip morris or whoever, and not as adversarial relationship that confuses com pletely relationship that confuses completely the smokers and doesn't make anybody quit. final thought. you have spent 3a years in the tobacco industry. are you proud of your industry? i think i am tobacco industry. are you proud of your industry? i thinki am proud of what we achieved as a company over time in these years, because, again, our products are well known to cause

disease, as i said, but there are also people who use them, 0k. somebody has to supply. 0therwise also people who use them, 0k. somebody has to supply. otherwise we will be three quarters illegal industry like we had with marijuana and now we are legalising. so we have two admit sometimes that, as i said, people who smoke who have free will. they don't take their decisions because somebody else tells them to do it. and we have to respect is free will and we are trying to convince them out of the cigarettes. i am very proud be invested a lot of money over the last two years to develop this product and i know the past is not, it doesn't give us, you know, a lot of credibility at this stage. all i am saying is we have to forget a little bit the debates between us, ngos, sometimes who, and we can have this debate, but it should be focused on how we take the 1 billion smokers out of the habit of smoking, and stop shooting over their heads.

we have to stop right there, but andre calantzopoulos, we have to stop right there, but andre cala ntzopoulos, thank we have to stop right there, but andre calantzopoulos, thank you very much for being on hartog. thank you very much. thank you. —— hardtalk. hello there. it looks like we're going to see a return to some summery weather finally. high pressure establishing itself over the near continent will send southerly winds our way and we'll tap into that warmth, which will be building over the continent. today, though, it looks like we still have some weather fronts, weather systems to contend with, which will bring wet and windy weather, mainly to the north and the west if the uk. you can see this deep area of low pressure slowly making inroads as the day wears on. but we start, for many of us, with higher pressure, plenty of sunshine around this morning. one or two showers will develop

ahead of this rain band for northern england into wales and the midlands, the odd heavier one but it turns wet and windy for northern ireland, much of northern and western scotland. gusts of wind 50, maybe 55mph in exposure and a breezy day further south and east. but better chance of seeing sunshine here with 22 or 23 degrees being the high. during wednesday night, that weather front moves southwards and eastwards, tending to fizzle out as it does so. but patchy rain across central portions of the uk with blustery showers following on behind, genuinely a clear and a dry night across the south and east. you can see double—figure values for all starting thursday morning. so, warmer than it's been the last few nights. so, we've got a north—south divide on thursday. low pressure to the north, high pressure building to the south. that weak weather front will continue to fizzle out but we'll see further fronts pushing to northern ireland, parts of scotland and northern england through the day thanks to that area of low pressure anchored to the north of scotland.

it will be quite windy here, but further south and east, again, better chance of seeing lighter winds and more sunshine. and we'll start to tap into the warmth on the near continent, 2a, maybe 25 degrees, but the high teens further north. now, this area of high pressure really starts to establish itself over the near continent. southerly winds dig in and start to push weather fronts to the north of the uk. so, there'll be a gradual process on friday where we will see the clouds thinning and breaking and the rain diverted towards the north of scotland. elsewhere, variable cloud, but some good spells of sunshine and we're really tapping into the warmth over the near continent. temperatures in the high 20s celsius in the south and east, even the low 20s further north. into the start of the weekend, it looks like those weather fronts will be away from the uk. so most places should be dry with variable cloud. plenty of sunshine. winds coming to the south or the south—east. a much warmer day for all. the low—to—mid 20s celsius in the north, perhaps high 20s

in the south—east side, so it's certainly warming up across the board with temperatures probably best across the south and east. it looks like this fine spell will last, for many of us, into next week.

a very warm welcome to bbc news. my name is mike embley. our top stories: australia's cardinal pell to remain injail as his appeal is dismissed. wildfires in the amazon at an all—time high — more than 70,000 blazes across the region. syrian rebels are forces from a key stronghold, as government troops and russian forces continue an offensive in the north of the country. and president trump plays down fears of a recession but confirms he is considering tax cuts.

cardinal george pell,