Responds to requested comment for Barclay Cigarette testing modifications. References the Federal Register of April 13, 1983 for Lorillard's comments. Addresses questions as to "Are Kool Ultra and Kool Ultra 100's assessed accurately by the current FTC [Federal Trade Commission] Method?" and "If not, how should these products be assessed?" Explains how the FTC method used does not accurately measure air filtration. Provides requested comment on the MK II "Filtrona" Holder. Answers specific FTC questions regarding proposed modifications, cost implications, Barclay cigarette ranking, accuracy of FTC Method, recommendations, and modification consequences.
Page 1: 86026672
/ June~ 1983
Federal Trade Commission
Sixth & Pennsylvania Avenue, N'.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580
Judith P. Wilkenfeld, Esq.
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Request for Comment of Possible
Testing Modifications- Barclay.Cigarettes
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Reference is made to the captioned Request, as set forth in "the
Federal Register of April 13, 1983 (48FR15953).
There is set forth below Lorillard's comments regarding the
testing of cigarettes with the Barclay filter d~esign, and
relative to their general testing methodology. The comments are
set forth in the order in which the questions are posited by the
Are Kool Ultra and Kool Ultra 100's assessed accurately by
the current FTC Method?
(2) If not, how should these products be assessed?
Although. we have no information on these specific brands and the
accuracy of their assessment by the current FTC Method., we
believe the filter construction, to be identical with the Barclay
Filter, and, therefore, our comments are based upon test
conducted on the Barclay Cigarette.
We, therefore, believe that they are not assessed accurately by
the Method in that the smoker inadvertently and without his
knowledge causes the air dilution during puffing to be less than
that when the cigarette is smoked by the FTC Method.
In our September i, 1981 response to the Commission on the
Barclay matter, we suggested that these products be assessed
using the holder that has been proposed by Philip Morris. This
holder blocks the air dilution channels located on the outer
periphery of the cigarette construction but does not alter the
results obtained from other cigarette constructions. We continue
to believe that this is the most practical and realistic method
of assessing filter constructions where the air filtration system
will be blocked inadvertently by the lips.
Page 2: 86026673
Federal Trade Commission
8 June, 1983
The Commission. additionally seeks comments on the following.
(A) The MK II "Filtrona" Holder. .We do. not believe that th,is
holder represents as good a solution to the evaluation of the
Barclay-type filter as that of the (B) modified version of the
Can%bridge holder currently used on the machine, containing a ring
of foam rubber so as to abut the mouth end of the cigarette and
block the exit channels of filter construction where air dilution
is blocked by the lips. The Commission seeks further comment on:
(C), a cigarette holder designed so that one or more of the
ventilation channels of the Barclay filter are blocked. We feel
that this is impractical with respect to potential filter designs
of the future and would lead. to a proliferation of devices to try
to compensate for different future filter designs. We think it
impractical to try to simulate the precise reduction in
filtration that occurs when humans smoke a filter of this design.
The Commission also seeks comments on the following specific
(~) Which of the proposed modifications, or what other
modification, would yield the most appropriate test results for
all cigarettes, given the Commission's finding in this matter and
the consultants' estimates of Barclay's tar delivery?
ANSWER: We believe that the modified version of the Cambridge
Holder currently used: on the machine containing a ring of foam
rubber so as to abut the mouth end of cigarette filter types
which have exit channels or holes at the outer periphery of the
mouth end of the cigarette is the best method for testing of all
(2) How quickly and easily, and at what cost, could the
Commission implement each of the proposed modifications, or any
other proposed modifications?
ANSWER: We believe that the suggested modification could be
implemented for a relatively nominal cost, namely that of
holders, and that it could be implemented on a relatively short
time schedule,~ by the FTC conducting a parallel test on the
current and proposed holder types.
(3) Regarding. proposal (C), which would more appropriately rank
Barclay cigarettes ~ for example, a holder blocking two channels
or one blocking three channels?
Page 3: 86026674
Federal Trade Commission
8 June, 1983
ANSWER: We have answered this question above with the comment
that we th~nk ~t impractical to try to adopt holders to try to
match the air dilution thought to occur in humans for this one
filter type. This may encourage devices with differing number of
(4) Does the current FTC Method accurately assess the relative
"tar", nicotine, and carbon monoxide of Kool Ultra and Kool U,Itra
100's each of which utilizes the Actron filter utilized in
Barclay? If not, how should these products be assessed~?
ANSWER: Again, we have answered~ this previously and suggest that
these products should be evaluated in. the same holder as that
used. for Barclay.
(6) Would there be unintended consequences from. modifying the
cigarette testing method and/or machine? What effect might
modification have upon possible innovation, in the cigarette
ANSWER: We are unaware of any unintended consequences from
mod~ifying the cigarette testing method as proposed. We further
believe that the suggested modification would discourage
cigarette filter designs where air dilution systems can be
blocked or defeated inadvertently by the smoker.
we have no comments with respect to questions (5) and (7).
We trust the foregoing will be of assistance. Any requests for
additional information should be directed to the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
LORILLARD, A DIVISION' OF LOEW'S THEATRES, INC.
Arthur J. Stevens
Senior Vice President-General Counsel
Mr. C.H. Judge
Dr. A.W. Spears
Mr. J.R. Ave
Mr. F. Schultz
Mr. T.H. Mau
Mr. J.R. Cherry
Mr. R.S. Goldbrenner
Mrs. E. Dubbs