AHF NCI Collection
Tobacco Additives / Cigarette Engineering and Nicotine Addiction
Abstract
Discusses use of additives in cigarette manufacture, notes the additives approved for use in European Union may be benign but lead to greater smoking incidence or consumption by making cigarettes more palatable or less irritating without reducing health risks. Discusses use of ammonia to raise levels of free nicotine and calls for greater regulation of additives. Urges disclosure of additives, listing ingredients on packaging, stating the purpose of each ingredient, and toxicological/pharmacological testing of all additives. Recommends regulators have authority to challenge any additives, ban any that are found to be harmful as well as those that cannot be proven to be safe due to European restrictions on animal testing. Includes introduction to tobacco products and additives, discussions of scientific advisory committee reports on tobacco additives, the enhancing impact of additives with a pharmacological effect, masking the taste and immediate effects of tobacco, additive toxicity and changing the perception of sidestream smoke.
Fields
- Notes
Document code 5457, e-mail.
"Using additive technology they were able to build cigarettes which registered low tar reading on the machine but delivered high levels of nicotine to the smoker." p 11
- Hypothesis
- Design changes over timeChanges in cigarette design over the past half century.
- Health effects
Design changes which have measurably altered health effects of cigarette smoke, both for smokers and nonsmokers.- Mainstream constituent yields
Modification of selected mainstream smoke constituents in response to health concerns.- Nicotine transport, transfer, and uptake
Design changes which alter nicotine delivery or effect how the product causes and maintains dependence, including transfer of nicotine from tobacco to smoke, and uptake into the body.- Perceptions of ETS
Design changes to reduce perception of environmental tobacco smoke among smokers and nonsmokers in response to public concerns about the dangers of ETS.- Smoke constituent testing
Development of methods for measurement of gas and particulate yields in mainstream and sidestream smoke.- Use of additives
Modification of tobacco products through use of additives and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity. - Health effects
- Type
- Report- Scientific
- Study
- Keyword
- Addiction (Dependence)
- Attribute perception ratings
- Behavioral effects (Behavioral pharmacology)
Addiction behavior, withdrawal, and measured nicotine effects- Carcinogenic (Cancer-causing)
- Consumer acceptability (Consumer preference)
- Delivery modification
- Flavor/ Taste (Attribute measure)
- Impact (Throat grab)
- Low delivery (Reduced delivery)
- Nicotine delivery (Smoke nicotine or nicotine yield)
- Nicotine manipulation
- Puff frequency
- Toxicity
- Attribute perception ratings
- Named Organization
- Action on Smoking and Health, USPlaintiff
- *British American Tobacco Company Limited BAT (See British-American Tobacco Co.)
Defense- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W)
Subsidiary of BAT U.S., located in Louisville, KY.- Commissioners of Customs and Excise
- Department of Health
- European Commission
- European Union
- Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for laws against deceptive advertising)
Enforces laws against false and deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising, sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of cigarettes.- Imperial Cancer Research Fund
- Independent Committee on Smoking and Health (The Independent Committee on Smoking and Health - U.K.)
The Independent Committee on Smoking and Health is in the United Kingdom- Johns Hopkins University
- Massachussetts Tobacco Control Program
- Philip Morris Companies Inc. (Parent company of Philip Morris USA, Kraft, Miller)
America's seventh-largest industrial enterprise in 1993, owns Kraft, Miller Brewing, General Foods, and more.- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cigarette manufacturer (Camel, Winston, Doral))
Cigarette manufacturer (Camel, Winston, Doral)- Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company
- SCOTH (Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health)
Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health was convened by the UK Dept. of Health in early 1994, replacing the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. Advises the UK Labour government's Dept. of Health on tobacco issues. BAT, Gallaher Group Plc, Imperial Tobacco Group Plc and Rothmans (UK) sought legal challenges against SCOTH for releasing a report relating to smoking without consulting the tobacco industry. - *British American Tobacco Company Limited BAT (See British-American Tobacco Co.)
- Subject
- additives
- Ammonia (Additives)
- Ammoniation (Technology)
- Blends (Design)
- Irritation (Effects)
- pH Manipulation (Technology)
- Pharmacology (Effects)
- Smoke Nicotine (Measures)
- Smoke pH (Measures)
- Smoothness/Harshness (Effects)
- Ammonia (Additives)
- Brand
- Kent (Lorillard)
- Kool (BW (1933-2003)/RJR (2003-present))
First Menthol cigarette line, released in 1933. Premium priced brand.- Marlboro (PM)
- Merit (PM)
- Now (RJR)
- Winston (RJR)
- Kool (BW (1933-2003)/RJR (2003-present))
- Team
- additives
- Author
- Bates, C.
- Connolly, Gregory N., D.M.D., M.P.H. (MA Dental Public Health Dir., Anti-Tobacco Expert)
Plaintiff, Tobacco Control Program Dir.- Jarvis, M.
- Connolly, Gregory N., D.M.D., M.P.H. (MA Dental Public Health Dir., Anti-Tobacco Expert)
- Recipient
- Cummings, Kenneth Michael, Ph.D., M.P.H. (Epidemiologist, Roswell Park, Plaintiff's Expert)Senior research scientist in the Department of Cancer Control and Epidemiology at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, NY
- Leavell, Nadine-Rae, M.L.S. (Proprietor/Information Specialist, Summerland Communications)
Document Images
545-/
Mike Cummings PhD, 03:18 PM 7/14/99 , FW: 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives
Reply-To: <MCummings@sc3102.med.buffalo.edu>
From: "Mike Cummings PhD" <MCummings@sc3102.med.buffalo.edu>
To: "'Nadine-Rae Leavell'" <nleavell@sc3103.med.buffalo~edu>
Subject: FW: 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives Report
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:18:39 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Maile~: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Please download this new report.
Mike
..... Original Message ....
From: Gene Borio [mailto:geneb@tobacco.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 2:57 PM
TO: tob~cco-enews@smokescreen.org
Subject: 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives Report
Tobacco Additives / Cigarette engineering and nicotine addiction
ASH London
Date: Jul 14, 1999
Clive Bates
Action on Smoking and Health
London
Dr. Martin Jarvis
Imperial Cancer Research Fund
London
Dr. Gregory Connolly
Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program
Boston
14 July 1999
Summary
Introduction. In the European union over 600 additives may be used in
the manufacture of tobacco products under an extremely loose and
de-centralised regulatory framework. Although tobacco additives are
generally screened for their direct toxicity, there is virtually no
assessment of the impact additives have on smoking behaviour or other
undesirable external consequences. If a small quantity of a
relatively benign substance added to a tobacco product can make the
product more addictive~ make it easier to start smoking or facilitate
continued smoking then it may be causing great harm by 'leveraging'
additional smoking. The additional smoking brings increased exposure
to over 4,000 chemicals, including many that are highly toxic and
carcinogenic. Given that over 500,000 people die prematurely in the
European Union each year as a result of smoking-related disease, even
a one per cent change in smoking attributable to the use of additives
would have large absolute health consequences - tens of thousands of
lives annually. For this reason, tobacco additives should be seen as
major public health issue in their own right.
Evidence. This report draws on evidence from tobacco industry
Printed for Nadine-Rae Leavell <nleavell@sc3103.med.buffalo ....
1
Mike Cummings PhD, 03:18 PM 7/14/99 , FW: 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives
internal documents released during recent litigation in the United
States and held on the Internet or in British American Tobacco's
document depository in Guildford, UK. The views of the UK
Government's scientific advisory committees since 1971 are also
discussed - showing that the issue has been recognised and debated
for more than twenty years.
Which brands use which additives? Though 600 additives are authorised
for use in tobacco products, only the tobacco manufacturers can say
which additives are used and in which brands. Not even the Government
or the European Commission, which are responsible for the regulation
of tobacco products have this information or the power to demand it.
Findings. Most additives are not necessary and few were used before
1970. The purpose of this report is to raise concerns about the
impact of additives on smoking behaviour. The finding~ suggest that
there is a case to answer and that there is need for increased
regulatory scrutiny. There is cause for concern in the following
areas.
* Additives are used to make cigarettes that provide high levels of
'free' nicotine which increases the addictive 'kick' of the nicotine.
Ammonium compounds can fulfil this role by raising the alkalinity of
smoke
* Additives are used to enhance the taste of tobacco smoke, to make
the product more desirable to consumers. Although seemingly innocuous
the addition of flavourings making the cigarette 'attractive' and
'palatable' is in itself cause for concern.
* Sweeteners and chocolate may help to make cigarettes more palatable
to children and first time users; eugenol and menthol numb the throat
so the smoker cannot feel the smoke's aggravating effects.
* Additives such as cocoa may be used to dilate the airways allowing
the smoke an easier and deeper passage into the lungs exposing the
body to more nicotine and higher levels of tar.
* Some additives are toxic or addictive in their own right or in
combination. When additives are burned, new products of combustion
are formed and these may be toxic or pharmacologically active.
* Additives are used to mask the smell and visibility of side-stream
smoke, making it harder for people to protect themselves and
undermining claims that smoking is anti-social without at the same
time reducing the health risks of passive smoking,
Regulation. The existing regulatory framework is based on the
assumption that additives are useful to facilitate consumer
acceptance of lower tar yield cigarettes. By facilitating the switch
to lower tar products, it was hoped that tobacco additives would lead
to 'health gains'. No data is available to show that additives are in
fact used only or predominantly in lower yielding brands. However,
there is now good evidence that questions the value of low tar
cigarettes. Low tar cigarettes have generally used perforated filters
to dilute the smoke with air. Smokers learn to block the holes, often
subconsciously, thus adjusting the dilution of nicotine in the smoke.
The smoker may also compensate by smoking more intensely. With the
primary rationale for a relaxed regime discredited, it is necessary
to adopt a new approach.
New regulatory framework needed. A new regulatory framework is
required in which the manufacturer is obliged to demonstrate that no
Printed for Nadine-Rae Leavell <nleavell@sc3103.med.buffalo ....
2
Mike Cummings PhD, 03:18 PM 7/14/99 , FW: 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives
additional harm arises from tobacco product design decisions such as
the use of an additive. This should include the impact of additives
on smoking behaviour, passive smoking and fire risks~ While it is
impossible to make safe cigarettes, it is perfectly reasonable to
prevent the manufacturers doing things that lead to an increase in
the harm caused by tobacco. Such a framework may have the following
elements:
* Disclosure. As a first step, manufacturers should be required to
disclose all additives used in tobacco products, by brand, to a
regulator - in the UK this is the Department of Health. This approach
has already been adopted in Massachusetts and British Colu~oia.
* Public information. Such information should not be confidential,
but made available to the public through publications, the Internet
or on request from the regulator.
* Packaging. There may be some additives that should be listed as
ingredients on tobacco product packaging. This is a separate decision
to a requirement for disclosure and making the information public in
other ways -- the right approach will depend on assessment of the
direct value of such information to consumers.
* Disclosure of purpose. Tobacco companies should be required to
disclose the purpose of an additive and any secondary consequences --
whether intentional or unintended.
* Conduct and disclosure of research. Tobacco companies should be
required to undertake extensive toxicology and pharmacological
testing of all additives
* Regulatory challenges. Regulators should have the power to
challenge any of the existing 600 additives currently allowed and to
have them removed until the manufacturer is able show that no extra
har~ to the public arises as a direct or indirect result of the
additive. If it is impossible to supply evidence, for example because
of restrictions on animal testing, then under a precautionary
approach the additive should be banned.
* Focus on pharmacologically active additives. There should be an
automatic challenge to any additive thought to have a direct or
indirect pharmacological influence~ New additives should be permitted
only if the manufacturer can show that no extra harm or other net
negative consequences arise from use of the additive.
* Permit essential additives. A~y regulatory framework should permit
additives necessary for the manufacture and storage of tobacco
products providing these are safe, but should challenge all additives
that may influence smoking behaviour.
Contents
iIntroduction: tobacco products and additives
2Scientific advisory con~mittee reports on tobacco additives
2.1First Report of the ISCSH (1975)
2.2Second Report of the ISCSH (1979)
2.3Third (1983) and Fourth (1988) Report of ISCSH
2.4SCOTH (1998)
2.5The 1997 UK Voluntary Agreement
Printed for Nadine-Rae Leavell <nleavell@sc3103.med.buffalo ....
3
Mike Cummings PhD, 03:18 PM 7/14/99 , FW: 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives
3Enhancing impact -- additives with a pharmacological effect
3.1Free basing nicotine
3~2Ammonia Technology and The Marlboro Story
3.3Concealing the nicotine by increasing the vapour phase
3.4Other additives that may enhance the effect of nicotine
3.4.1Acetaldehyde
3~4.2Levulinic acid
3~4.3Cocoa and theobromine
3.4.4Glycyrrhizin
3.4.5Pyridine
4Masking the taste and immediate effects of tobacco
4.1Additives and 'low tar' cigarettes.
4.2Front end ~lift~
5Additive Toxicity
6Changing the Perception of side-stream smoke
7Notes
i. Introduction: tobacco products and additives
Cigarettes as nicotine delivery systems To understand the role of
additives, it is important first to have a grasp of how cigarettes
work. The long-term success of the tobacco industry is the direct
result of the addictive nature of nicotine and tobacco use. AS those
in the industry were first to recognise, the cigarette - marketed as
a lifestyle accessory - is in fact a delivery device for an addictive
drug. There are many tobacco industry documents that show tobacco
products acting in this role, essentially as sophisticated, highly
engineered nicotine delivery systems. For a more detailed survey see
ASH's report Tobacco Explained (Chapter Two).l Two examples are given
below:
Philip Morris explains.,. "The cigarette should be conceived not as a
product but as a package. The product is nicotine. Think of the
cigarette pack as a storage container for a day's supply of
nicotine .... Think of the cigarette as the dispenser for a dose unit
of nicotine ..... Smoke is beyond question the most optimised vehicle
of nicotine and the cigarette the most optimised dispenser of
smoke."2 (Philip Morris 1972)
RJR recognises it is in the drug business "In a sense, the tobacco
industry may be thought of as being a specialised, highly rituallsed,
and stylised segment of the pharmaceutical industry."3 (RJR 1972)
Impact of additives on smoking behaviour Additive technology is a
major tool used by the tobacco industry in the production of this
nicotine ,p~ckage' . While some cigarettes have been Marketed as
additive free, according to the verbal testimony of JL Pauly of the
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., the modern U.S cigarette contains about
i0 percent additives by weight, mostly in the form of sugars,
flavourings, and humectants4. But there are others - present in
smaller quantities -- which may have a more profound influence on the
product. Evidence suggests that additives are actually used by
manufacturers to influence the pharmacological effects of nicotine,
make individual brands taste more appealing to young and
'aspirational' smokers and mask the taste and immediate discomfort of
smoke.
How nicotine addiction works -- additives play a subtle role At the
simplest level, a cigarette delivers a dose of the main active
Printed for Nadine-Rae Leavell <nleavell@sc3103.med.buffalo ....
4
Mike Ctu~nings PhD, 03:18 PM 7/14/99 , FWz 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives
ingredient, nicotine, into the smokers' lungs in a mixture of smoke
particles and gases. The nicotine is rapidly absorbed into the blood
through the large surface of the lungs (and mouth and throat) and
reaches the brain within ten seconds. Rsceptors in the brain respond
to nicotine stimulation by producing chemicals (dopamines and other
neurotransmitters) that give the user what is variously described as
a 'hit', 'kick' or 'impact' - the drug effect of nicotine. Over time
the receptors become conditioned to expect nicotine (tolerance), and
when deprived, the smoker experiences nicotine withdrawal - a very
unpleasant sensation for many. This pharmacological impact and
withdrawal, enhanced by psychological and social factors related to
smoking, create dependency on tobacco products. Nicotine is the main
reason why tobacco products are addictive. AS this report shows there
are a number of subtle ways in which the delivery of nicotine to the
brain,s receptors can be influenced by additives.
Harm caused by smoking The smoke particles and gases in which the
nicotine is transported contain thousand of chemicals, many of which
are toxic or carcinogenic. Though nicotine itself is the reason
people smoke, the other chemicals do the bulk of the damage to
health. The other chemicals are often collectively referred to as
'tar' and provide flavour and other taste sensations. This tar and
the gases produced by combustion such as carbon monoxide, cause
cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses as well as many other
conditions. Regulators aimed to reduce tar exposure by insisting that
tar yields should be decreased.
Low tar cigarettes in theory The rise of additives in tobacco
products is intimately linked with the strategy to reduce tar yields.
The amount of tar and nicotine in smoke is measured by a standard
smoking machine in which the cigarette is smoked with a fixed puff
volume and frequency with tar and nicotine residues collected on a
filter and weighed. Governments have insisted on reducing tar 16vels
as measured by this approach, hoping that this would reduce tar
exposure to smokers -- and therefore lead to reduced harm.
Low tar cigarettes in practice In practice, low tar cigarettes have
been produced by the addition of filters and most importantly, by the
use of filter ventilation (Kozlowski et al, 1998).5 Holes in the
filter allow air to be drawn in to dilute the smoke and this reduces
the amount of tar and nicotine residues collected by the machine. ~n
the lowest tar cigarettes 80% of the 'smoke' is air drawn in through
ventilation holes. Ventilation also means that the smoke might taste
'weaker' because the agents that give rise to flavour are diluted
with air. However, smokers do not smoke like machines. Faced with
diluted smoke, smokers will tend to 'compensate' by smoking the
lower-tar cigarette more intensively, in order to obtain a
satisfactory dose of nicotine. Compensation may take the form of
deeper or more frequent puffs, or blocking of ventilation holes --
often sub-consciously. The result is that smokers of low-tar
cigarettes do not consume less nicotine (Benowitz et al, 1983,6 Bates
and Jarvis, 19997). A survey of tobacco company documents by ASH and
Imperial Cancer Research Fund (Low Tar: why low tar cigarettes don't
work and how the tobacco industry fools the smoking publicS) gives
greater detail on why low tar cigarettes do not work and what the
tobacco companies knew privately and said publicly.
Low tar cigarettes and additives One of the prime justifications for
the addition oŁ artificial flavourings is to replace the 10st flavour
of the diluted smoke. This has in theory been done to facilitate the
switch to low-tar. However, any hoped-for health benefits from
low-tar cigarettes have largely failed to materialise. At the same
time an extremely lax regulatory regime for additives has emerged.
Printed for Nadine-Rae Leavell <nleavell@sc3103.med.buffalo ....
5
Mike Cummings PhD, 03:18 PM 7/14/99 , FW: 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives
Although smokers of lower tar cigarettes may be consuming as much tar
and nicotine in total, they will be consuming greater volumes of
diluted smoke to do it. This is perhaps analogous to drinking watered
down wine - it is possible to become intoxicated, but drinkers will
have to consume more and the flavour will be weaker.
2. Scientific advisory committee reports on tobacco additives
Scientific advice to government The Government takes advice on
smoking and health from a long-running scientific standing committee.
Guidelines for the monitoring of tobacco additives were initially
published in the First Report of the Independent Scientific Committee
on Smoking and Health (ISCSH) in 1975.9 The ISCSH was established in
1973, primarily to prepare guidelines for the testing of tobacco
substitutes which were being developed at the time. This section
gives an overview of the conclusions regarding tobacco additives.
Arrangements before 1970 Prior to 1970, the use of additives in
tobacco products was prohibited without special permission from the
Commissioners of Customs and Excise, under Section 176 of the Customs
and Excise Act, 1952. This permission was given only within very
strict limits and mainly in respect of flavourings in tobacco
products other than cigarettes. The prohibition extended to the
importation of tobacco products containing additives as well as a ban
on the production of cigarettes with additives for export.
2.1 First Report of the ISCSH (1975)
The Finance Act of 1970 changed the rules and allowed for tobacco
duty to be charged on additives and tobacco substitutes, thus paving
the way for the restrictions on additives to be removed. Statutory
control over the materials used in the manufacture of cigarettes
finally ceased with a revision of the tax system in 1978, The First
Report of the ISCSR stated that the Committee was concerned that
these changes in the law should not increase the health hazards of
smoking and concluded that:
"Other means have to be found to guard against the possible risk to health."
The *'other means" resulted in a voluntary agreement between the
tobacco manufacturers and the Government whereby the companies would
supply details of proposed additives. Only those approved by the
ISCSR would be permitted. Guidelines for the testing and use of
tobacco products containing additives were included an appendix to
the First Report of the ISCSH, published in 1975. In the Second
Report, the guidelines were amended to include the general
requirement for an acute inhalation toxicity study and data on
transference to smoke for any new additive.
2.2 Second Report of the ISCSH (1979)
The Second Report of the ISCSR expresses concern that no additional
"dependence-inducing" compounds should be incorporated into tobacco.
Paragraph 13 states:
,'The concept of adding flavouring ingredients to cigarettes might not
lessen the incentives to smoke and could indeed have the opposite
effect."10
The tobacco industry argues that one of the key purposes of additives
is to make lower tar cigarettes more palatable. The ISCSH accepts
this and notes~
Printed for Nadine-Rae Leavell <nleavell@sc3103.med.buffalo ....
6
Mike Cummings PhD, 03:18 PM 7/14/99 , FW: 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives
,'Some smokers find existing low and low to middle tar brands
unsatisfying, but if those who smoked middle or middle to high tar
cigarettes could switch to low tar brands whose acceptability was
improved by additives, the dangers of smoking could be reduced. The
Committee recognises the potential value of using flavouring
additives in this way."ll
The Second Report of the ISCSH expresses satisfaction with the use of
other additives not covered by the guidelines. These include
additives in filters, cigarette papers, filter wrappers, tips and
overwrappers. Thus, such additives could be used without reference to
the Committee. Between 1979 and 1983, the Committee revised the
guidelines to include an assessment of ',all substances added to those
parts of tobacco products intended to be bur~t". Thus any substances
added to cigarette papers were included in the revised guidelines as
~ppended to the Third Report.
2.3 Third (1983) and Fourth (1988) Report of ISCSH
The Third Report of the ISCSH concluded that the system of providing
information on additives had been working well and recommended that
the system should continue.12 The Fourth Report, published in 1988,
made a similar recommendation for the continuation of the voluntary
system.13
2.4 SCOTH (1998)
official acceptance of the tobacco industry's arguments regarding the
need for additives appears to have continued until the publication of
the report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH)
in 1998. SCOTH states:
"One of the effects [of additives] has been the maintenance of
"taste" as tar yields have fallen with an ensuing reduction in
natural flavour. The negative side of this has been the maintenance
of the appeal of a product, which might otherwise have been rendered
unacceptable through the adulteration of intrinsic flavour."14
SCOTH, which replaced the ISCSH, reviewed the tobacco additive
guidelines and made recommendations for their revision in the light
of scientific and technical advances. While the Committee expressed
the clear reservation about the possibility that additives may
prolong use of cigarettes by making them more palatable, SCOTH only
recommends that the use of additives in tobacco products be closely
monitored. Specifically, it recommends that the Technical Advisory
Group, which reports to SCOTH, should regularly review the changing
patterns and types of additives used.
At no stage in the 25 year period has the Department of Health or its
advisory committees been provided with information regarding which
additives have been used in which tobacco product brands. There has
therefore, never been evidence of whether the approved additives have
actually been used in low-yield brands, or more widely. There has
also been no validation of the anticipated health benefits that the
liberal regulatory regime for additives was supposed to offer.
2.5 The 1997 UK Voluntary Agreement
Existing additives escape detailed scrutiny The 1997 Voluntary
Agreement requires tobacco manufacturers to provide toxicological and
other data for any new additives manufacturers wish to add to the
approved list, but such information is not required for the 600
existing approved additives.
Printed for Nadine-Rae Leavell <nleavell@sc3103.med.buffalo ....
7
Mike Cummings PhD, 03:18 PM 7/14/99 , FW: 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives
Limited scope of evaluation Furthermore, even for new additives there
is no requirement for companies to state the purpose of the
additives, merely that it is "desirable that the purpose of use
should be detailed". While it is possible that some additives may be
harmless or even beneficial, under the present voluntary agreement
system there is no way of ascertaining the relative advantages and
disadvantages of these substances. No broad criteria for acceptance
or rejection are stated in the agreement. The criteria applied are
only ',the results of toxicity testing are unsatisfactory; or
acceptability cannot be judged on the basis of the information
provided." The impact on smoking behaviour is not assessed.
European loophole The final and fatal weakness of the Voluntary
Agreement is that it can be side-stepped in its entirety. Directive
S3/189/EEC requires the Department of Health to 'raise no objection'
to the use of an additive permitted in any other EU me~Iber state
provided that certain specified information is provided.
Conclusion The regime established in the 1997 UK Voluntary Agreement
is not retrospective, too narrowly focussed, can be avoided entirely.
It therefore offers minimal safeguards and may be lending spurious
legitimacy to practices that cause harm to health.
3. Enhancing impact -- additives with a pharmacological effect
"The main technical challenge was to decrease the yield of tar in a
cigarette while maintaining a level of nicotine acceptable to the
smoker."15
(Farone, W.A. 1996 former Philip Morris scientist.)
3.1 Free basing nicotine
Free-basing nicotine At least as far as its rivals are concerned, the
success of Philip Morris's Marlboro brand stems from greater 'free'
nicotine resulting from higher alkalinity (pH) induced by the
addition of ammonia technology (see section 3.2). Ammonia can speed
the delivery of 'free' or unbound nicotine to smokers by raising the
pH (alkalinity) of tobacco smoke using additives. This causes the
smoker to ~freebase' the drug -- much as a crack-user takes cocaine.
Dr. Jack E Henningfield of the John Hopkins University School of
Medicine explains the action of ammonia thus:
"A third thing that ammonia-like compounds can do is increase the pH,
increase the amount of free base nicotine, or what Dr Rickert earlier
referred to as unprotonated nicotine .... The free-based form of
cocaine or the free based form of nicotine is more rapidly absorbed,
has a more explosive effect on the nervous system. Ammonia is one of
the ways that you can provide free-based cocaine or free-based
nicotine." (1997)16
Nicotine in different forms Many documents explain the tobacco
companies' recognition that nicotine is available in different forms.
"Nicotine may be presented to the smoker in at least three forms: (I)
salt form in the particulate phase, (ii) free base form in the
particulate phase, (iii) free base form in the vapour phase. It has
long been believed that nicotine presented as in {ii)/(iii) is
considerably more 'active'."(BAT 1984)17
"Nicotine is in the smoke in two forms as free nicotine base (think
of ammonia) and as a nicotine salt (think of ammonium chloride) and
Printed for Nadine-Rae Leavell <nleavell@sc3103.med.buffalo ....
8
Mike Cummings PhD, 03~18 PM 7/14/99 , FW: 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives
it is almost certain that the free nicotine base is absorbed faster
into the blood-stream."(BAT 1964)18
More free nicotine means higher 'impact' Once the relationship
between pH, free nicotine and nicotine ~impact~ was established, it
became a research objective.
,'The purpose of this project is to develop a method for increasing
the smoke pH of a cigarette. A low smoke solids, low nicotine
cigarette with an increased smoke pH would then have relatively more
free nicotine in its smoke, and consequently, a higher nicotine
impact." (Liggett 1974)19
Changing the chemical form of nicotine increases the 'kick' In a
paper entitled, 'Cigarette concept to assure RJR a larger segment of
the youth market' RJR talk about the 'kick' of nicotine:
"Still with an old style filter, any desired additional nicotine
'kick' could be easily obtained through pH regulatlon."20 (RJR 1973)
The pH also relates to the immediacy of the nicotine impact. As the
pH increases, the nicotine changes its chemical form so that it is
more rapidly absorbed by the body and more quickly gives a 'kick' to
the smoker."21 (RJR 1976)
"When a cigarette is smoked, nicotine is released momentarily in the
free-form. In this form, nicotine is more readily absorbed through
the body tissue. Hence it is the free nicotine which is associated
with IMPACT, i.e. The higher the free nicotine, the higher the
IMPACT," (BAT 1988)22
Making nicotine more potent "Increasing the pH of a medium in which
nicotine is delivered increases the physiological effect of the
nicotine by increasing the ratio of free base to acid salt form, the
free base form being more readily transported across physiological
membranes. We are pursuing this project with the eventual goal of
lowering the total nicotine present in smoke while increasing the
physiological effect of the nicotine which is present, so that no
physiological effect is lost on nicotine reduction."23(Liggett 1971)
Free nicotine fraction increases 'physiological strength' "Since the
unbound nicotine is very much more active physiologically and much
faster acting than the bound nicotine, the smoke at a high pH seems
to be strong nicotine. Therefore~ the amount of free nicotine in the
smoke may be used for at least a partial measure of the physiological
strength of the cigarette."24(RJR 1973)
Nicotine transfer increased as a result of ammonia treatment
According to BAT, the addition of ammonia was a technical option to
enhance nicotine transfer:
"The results show that ammonia treatment caused a general increase in
the delivery of bases including a 29% increase in nicotine. This
result, despite the decrease in nicotine content and a 10% drop in
the weight of tobacco burnt in puffing, is only partly due to a small
decrease in nicotine filtration. In other words, the nicotine
transfer has increased as a result of ammonia treatment..."25 (BAT
1965)
'Judicious' use of additives to increase the free base nicotine The
US tobacco company Lorillard accepts that additives can change the
qualitative delivery of nicotine:
Printed for Nadine-Rae Leavell <nleavell@sc3103.med.buffalo ....
9
Mike Cuaunings PhD, 03:18 PM 7/14/99 , FW: 99/07/14 Tobacco Additives
"It should be obvious that if the preceding goals of high
physiological impact are to be realised, flavour profiles and their
effect on physiological impact must be understood, even though
measures of such perceived quantities are highly subjective... Hence
judicious use of additives may increase the pH of the delivered
smoke, thereby the apparent free base nicotine.,, (Lorillard, 1976)26
Additives to increase nicotine 'kick' Ammonia can be used to increase
the alkalinity of smoke and increase the amount of nicotine in the
'free' form rather than in the 'bound' form of nicotine salts. R J R
explains:
"In essence, a cigarette is a system for delivery of nicotine to the
smoker in attractive, useful form. At ',normal' smoke pH, at or below
about 6.0, essentially all of the smoke nicotine is chemically
combined with acidic substance hence is non-volatile and relatively
slowly absorbed by the smoker. As the smoke pH increases above about
6.0, an increasing proportion of the total smoke nicotine occurs in
'free' form, which is volatile, rapidly absorbed by the smoker, and
believed to be instantly perceived as nicotine 'kick'."27 (RJR 1973)
3.2 Ammonia Technology and The Marlboro Story
The Rise of Marlboro - the world's best selling cigarette The myth is
that Marlboro man ~nade the Marlboro cigarette: The square jawed icon
of American individualism lassoed a gullible public and herded them
into the Marlboro corral. On the face of it Marlboro's success
appears to be a tribute to the power of advertising and iconography,
However, the chemical history of the brand sheds interesting light on
the subject.
In the early sixties Philip Morris was the smallest of America's six
leading cigarette companies and RJR's brand Winston had annual sales
nearly three times the size of Marlboro's. By 1978 there had been a
seismic shift, Marlboro was the world's best selling cigarette
accounting for one in five of all cigarettes sold and over fifty
percent of smokers aged 17 and below.28
The search begins for the 'soul of Marlboro' Not surprisingly this
dramatic growth in Marlboro cigarettes instigated frenzied research
by other tobacco manufacturers. Through analysis and reverse
engineering of Marlboro cigarettes, industry competitors came to the
conclusion that 'ammonia technology' was essentially the ,soul, of
Marlboro.
"Philip Morris began using an ammoniated sheet material in 1965 and
increased use of the sheet periodically from 1965 to 1974. This time
period corresponds to the dramatic sales increase Philip Morris made
from 1965 to 1974."29(RJR)
Ammonia technology is the key to Marlboro "What product technology,
then, makes Marlboro a Marlboro?
Looking at all of the technology employed in Marlboro on a world-wide
basis, ammonia technology remains the key factor."30 (B&W 1992)
Brands that are selling well have high levels of free nicotine The
higher pH of Marlboro cigarettes helped to maintain the same level of
free nicotine as high-tar cigarettes despite a two third reduction in
overall tar and nicotine - and helped develop a 'US standard taste',
enhancing the iconography associated with the quintessentially
American 'Marlboro Man'.
Printed for Nadine-Rae Leavell <nleavell@sc3103.med.buffalo ....
I0
