Tobacco Documents Online

PROJECT FLEECE - AN EXAHINATZON OF R.J. REYNOLDS' BRANDS REPORT NO. RD. 1422 RESTRICTED 20.10. 1976 AUTHOR: E.A. Ccell£n ISSUED BT: D.J. Wood PROJECT JOB NO: 33.O4.01 DISTRIBUTION: Dr. S.J. Green Dr. I~.W. Hughes Dr. R.A. Sanford E.M. Gibb, Esq. E.S. Wade, Esq. R.G. Nicholls, Esq. HezT H. Socc:o~'f Dr. F. Seehofer A.J. Kz~szynski, Esq. Dr. C.J.P. de Sique:Lra Dr. D.C. 1felt.on Library Copy No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 We my 9 " " 10, 11 " " 12 " " 13, 14, 15 " " 1(5, 17 " " 18 " " 19 " " 20 " " 21 " " 22 " " 23, 24 COPY NO: BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION o',, 0%

P..ACILKIt Group Kesearch & Development Centre, British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd., SOUTB~TON. 20th October, 1976 PROJECT FLEECE - AN EXAHIlqATZON OF . R.J. REYNOLDS' BRANDS (Report No. RD.1422 Eestricced) L 1. StTMMAEY Ten versions of R.J. Reynolds international brands of =he U.S. blended type have been examined; the study was confined to Winston and Camel Filter, and included U.S.A. versions. Existing information on Marlboro (U.S.A.) and VICEROY (U.S.A.) has been included to enable some inter-company comparisons to be made. Taken together, ~he results rank the blends in terms of decreasing flue-cured character in the order:- Winston ~ VICEROY (U.S.A.) • Camel > Marlboro (U.S.A.). Host of the blends contain PRT-eype rec0nscicuced tobacco and puffed tobacco. The chemistry of the reconstituted tobacco is unusual in some respects, and this may be responsible for an inc=ease in the proportion of nicoClne which ks extractable and • decrease in formaldehyde delivery. Zn these respects, these tobaccos resmmbte Phillp Morris PCL-cype reconstituted tobacco ~ their effects. • e3molds appear to pay less attention to uniformiC7 in nicotine dellvery chart do Philip Mocrls; on the other hand, the Reynolds BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION o r,,j o'-- m CD

-2- produces show more unigormlCy in filter Criacetiu content mad deliveries of carbon monoxide and nitric oxide. The level of O/WP volatile c4~:po~nds is cons£stenCly low ~n Reynolds produces. Both ~Ids and Philip Morr£s appear to exercise strict control over total ciKaxetta pressure drop, which shows llUCle varlmnlon in spite of wide variation in other phTsical par~ne~ers. f~ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION c2~ P'O w m

-3- \ 2. IST~ODUCT ION Exminacions of Marlboro (1) and ocher international blended brands from Philip Harris Inc. (2) have alras~:ly beam conducted. These examinations have revealed some aspects of the product consCructlon scracssy adopt~d by one of our major competitors for international brands. In particular, iC was shown Chat cerceln desiln features of the products examined were held consr~lnc, vh~lst considerable latitude yes permitted in ocher azeas. For examples wh/Isc cisarecce pressure drop and smoke u/racine delivery were relatively uniform, blend type and reconstituted tobacco usase varied widely. ~ny Of chest findinls run counter to B.A.T international brand practice. For example, B.A.T normally aims co r~ailor leaks dlliveries to the nicotine requirements of particular markets. Ic is therefore of interest to examine the practices o£ a chlrd major manufacturer. The present report, therefore, is concerned with an assessment of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. international brands. The eXlmination has been ClnCred on Winston LSF/KSF end Camel KSF. l~our s~lel Of each brsnd (in addition co the U.S.A. versions) have been dra~n from world-wide sources (in the c.8le of Winston) and European sources (in the case of Camel). Three of these Winston samples - from Honk Konj, Kuwait and Spain- are described on the packaK£nj as 'Made in U.S.A. '. The Maxlcan version is described as domestic in manufacturlnK teEms. The German and Swiss Camel packaKins indlcaca domestic manufacture. The Dutch version does not specify source, but the French version is ~abelled 'Made An Germany'. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION l O r',o

-4- Dace for VICEROY and Harlboro (U.S.A. versions) have been dz=~n from the earlier report (2) and are presented in the tables for comparison. The results (and a discussion of them) are presented in the same format as was adopted for the earlier reports (I, 2] in this series, namely :- 3. 4. 5. 6. o PHYSICAL ~ASUREMENTS BLEND ANALYSIS SMOr~ ~UIE~r S SUKJECT£VE ASSESSMENTS. Further conclusions, drawn from taking the results as a whole, are presented in Section 7. 3. PHYSICAL MEASU~S (Table I) Cigarette lengths, weights and pressure drops, together with measurements of paper porosity and tobacco rod circumference and density, are Listed £n Table. 1. Filter criacet£n concenCs are also listed in the c&bls. With the excepclon o£ Wlnscon (Mexico), all cigarette pressure drops lle wichln a narrow band (103-118 mm W.G.). Winston (Mexico) had a lower pressure drop (98 mm W.G.). This tight control over cilaretCe pressure drop has been achieved in spite of considerable variation in tobacco rod pressure drop (43-66 mm W.G.) and tobacco densLty (247-280 mK.cm-3) • However, when tobacco rod pressure drop is low, filter pressure drop is relatively high. A S/~L£1ar degree of control over tots1 pressure drop vas noted in the case of Philip F~rris brands (1, 2). BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION w O w (..a.,,I

-5- / The Mexican version of Winston (the only version mxam£nmd for which U.S.A. manu£acture is Rot claimed) is anomalous in several respects. In addition co low Coral prmssurm drop, Ch£s cisareCte was low in paper poros£ty (74WTU £n comparison ~iCh 179-4S3T~"U for rsmainins brands) and hish in tobacco density (287 ms. cm.-3 in compar£son~th 2A7-280 mS.cm.-3 for ramainlnS brands). A11 versions o£ Winston except the Mexican vers£on (i.e. all smmples stated co be manufactured in the U.S.A.) are broadly similar in physlcal respects. The nect level 0£ cr£acetln applled to the £ilcar (slnsle secClon cellulose a~etate tow throushout) was also maintained wLthin a rmlatively tight specification. Levels within the ranle 5.5-7.5Z ~ere noted, although West C~Drman Camel had a sisni£icanCly higher content (11.1Z). There are other sisnificant d£££erencea becwmen French and German versions o£ Camel (both stated Co bm mmnufacCured in WesC Germany), notably pap@r porosity. 4. 3LEND ANALYSIS ~.1 Nicotine and SuRars (Table 2) The n£cocine contents of the blends lie in the rsmKe 1.AO-1.80Z after exclusion of the Mexican brand. The ranse is chere£ore similar Co thmt established £or Philip Horris brands (1.54-1.74Z) a£Cmr exclusion o£ the ArSentlne brmgds (2).- Lo~lr u£cotlne contents are 8enerally noted in Central and South A~nerlcm; in addlcion to Winston (Hmxico) at 1.10g and the £our Philip Morris Arsentina brands (1.01-1.49Z), ~rlboro (Brazil) was also low ~n blend nlcoCine content (1.ooz) (~). BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION C'~ k..,~

-6- The level of reducing sugars in the Winston blends is, on average, higher than in the Camel blends. This may imply greater inclusions of elf-cured :obacco Ln Camel with respect to W~nston, or the use of riper flue-cured tobaccos of lower sugar content in Camel. Whilst Winston and VICEROY are similar in reducing sugar content (9-11Z), the lower content of Camel (8-10Z) is marginal vhan compared wlth the 8igniflc~ntly lower level in Marlboro (~6Z). Little difference beaten Camel and Marlboro is noted on a total susar basis, however; this" implies the use of invert sugars (fructose and glucose) in the Camel casing formulations in contrast no the cane sugar (sucrose) casing implied for Marlboro. Zndeed, the difference bemoan reducing and total sugars is unusuaZly mmall for all the versions of Camel end Winston exmnined. 4.2 Liquorice end Cocoa (Table 2) The levels of the ~Jo flavour casings liquorice (4) and cocoa (5) have been measured. The methods adopted assume 2.2Z cheobromine in cocoa and 5.0Z Slycyrrhizin in liquorice; it must be remsmbar~ when examining the resulta that the level of active principals can vary widely with souzce. Nevertheless the results obtained imply hiKh levels of application of liquorice and cocoa by R.J. Reynolds on both brands. This can be contrasted ~,£th the high level of llquorice and moderate level of cocoa used by Philip Hot-rls and with the moderate levels of both liquorice and cocoa used by Brown & Willia~son. Alteruatlvely, At can be argued that Reynolds use sources of liquorice and cocoa with h£sh proportions of the active prLuc£pals. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ¢..~m r,,o o',,.

-7- The implled level o~ llquorice is slgn£f£cancly lover on Winston (Mexico). 4.3 Reconstituted and Puffed Tobaccos (Table 3) In the examination of.Philip Morris brands (2), the level of reconstituted tobacco in the blend varied widely (O-25Z). A similar desree of variation has been noted in the prasanc examination of Reynolds brands (0-.-23Z). However, a coherent pattern of reconstituted tobacco usage could be discerned. All samples of W£nscon (except Mexican) contained the same proportion (19-20Z) of PRT-t-ype reconstituted tobacco, and no PCL-cype reconstituted tobacco. In contrast, all samples of Camel (except Swiss) contained PRT-~ype tobacco, but in total amounts varying from IO-23Z. The Swiss version of Camel, in addition to PRT-cype also contained 5Z PCL-~/pe reconstituted. The PRT-t:ype in ~inston versions and the predominant PET-type in Camel were visually sLmilaz i.e. both dark in colour. The C~-el PCL-uype was also dark in coLour. All of theme macar£als therefore resemble Philip Morris reconstituted tobaccos in colour which mugsests preparation from predominantly air-cured tobaccos. In contrast, the ~or PRT-type, present in Cml, was light in coLour, suEEestlng fLue-cured tobacco origins. Thus the principal type of rec=nstituted tobacco in use in Reynolds brands ks PRT-type; Philip Morris, in contrast:, use princlpally PCL- type. Of the nine brands from Central and South America examined in this and the previous report, only two (Philip Morris brands from Panama) BAT Co LTD - MINNF_.SOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m 0 Cr',, CF',,

-8- have concalned reconstituted tobacco. All other brands examined do not contain reconstituted tobacco. The level of puffed tobacco has been determined by floatation on n-hexane. Again, the content is ~elatival7 constant (10-13Z) in Winston (exceptlng the Mexican version) but more variable in the ~1 samples (O-lOt). Neither Winston (Mexico) nor Camel (West Germany) contained puffed tobaccos; nor did VICEEOY (U.S.A.). Marlboro (U.S.A.) conCalned a small amount (5Z) of puffed tobacco. Increasln6 levels of puffed tobacco in the blend are senerally reflected by decreased tobacco densities (Fisura I). Zt is intarastinS to note chat Marlboro, VIGEOY and several versions of Canal are lower in density than would be expected from the trend 14ha whilst several versions of Winston are hishar in density chat exptcCtd. SuperimpoainK on this pattern the normal pattern of var£aCion of density with blend type implies greater air-cured content in the Marlboro, VICEROY and Camel blends than in the Winston blends. 4.4 Blend chemistry (Table 4) The blend chloride level was Kenerally h£Kher in the Camel versions than in the Winston versions. VICEROY ~d Marlboro were intarmed£ate in content. Withln the Winston series, the Mexican version has ~he hiKhest chloride content. This may reflect the use of local ~obaccos; • similar result was noted for the ArKent~ne brands in the aurve7 of Philip Morris brands (2). Within the Camel ser~es, the European versions have hishar chloride contents tlamn the U.S.A. version; a similar explanation is possible. All five samples manufactured ~n the U.S.A.i.e. W~nston (U.S.A., Hone KonK, Kuwait and Spain) and Camel (U.S.A.)have similar bland chloride contents (0.58-O.62Z). BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O O',, ,,.,.,,.a

-9- The level o£ mmnon£a nitrogen in the blend is hisher An the Camel versions then in the Winston versions. Since mmnonia nitrogen level is generally higher and reducing sugar content generally lower in air-cured than in flue-cured tobaccos, a plot of these blend components can show gradations in blend type (Figure 2). On this basis, the air-cured content of the blends can be ranked An the order Marlboro (U.S,A.) > Camel (U.S.A. and Europe) • VICEROY (U.S.A.) • Winston (world=ide). Ic must be remembered, however, that m considerable proportion of the ammonia nitrogen in Marlboro (U.S.A.) and other Philip Morris brands £s due co the'addition of dia"~oniumphosphata Co the PCL-zTpe reconstituted tobacco. The phosphorus content of the blends was very constant at 0.24-0.26X with the exception of Winston (Mexico) at O.32X. The Mexicanverslon of Winston else contained an unusually low level of ~n~8 nitrosen. Samples of PI~ and PCL-type reconstltuned tobaccos from the blends were also analysed. These materials contained relatively high levels of chloride, partlcularly the Camel PET-type tobacco. The high chloride content could conceivably be inherent to the tobacco, since some grades of u.s. flue-cured tobacco can have chloride contents in excess of IZ; alternatively, it Is possible Chac• chloride may have been •dded, perhaps to control burn rate. The ammonia nitrogen content (O.OI-O.04Z) and phosphorus content (approximately O.3Z) of the FET-cype from Winston and Camel is much lower than the ~nia nitrogen (0.9-1.2Z) and phosphorus (l.A-l. TX) content of the PCL ~ Philip Morris brands. Consequently, it is thought that no m~non£um salts or phosphates have been added to the PgT-C3rpe, and the high ~nla n/trogan content of BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O O~ r',o o",, co