Tobacco Documents Online

3. The tar yield of the low-tar cigarettes (9.2 mg) was 46.8% lower than the tar yield of the non-low-tar cigarette (17.8 mg). However, based on plasma nicotine levels and the T/N ratios, the Ti for low tar smokers (341) was only 27.3% lower than the Ti for non-low-tar smokers (469). It should be noted that Russell did not report the number of cigarettes consumed per day in contrast to the previous study by Teeuwen. It can be argued that rather than "oversmoking" their cigarette, the low tar smokers in Russell 's study simply smoked more cigarettes. The results of both these studies are consistent with the propositions that: 1. Smokers of low yield cigarettes adjust their smoking maneuver to obtain some desired level of nicotine and therefore concomitantly increase their tar intake. 2. The somewhat lower T/N ratio of low yield cigarettes insures a lower tar intake in a smoker who switches to lower tar cigarettes even if he adjusts his smoking maneuver to obtain more nicotine.

In order to illustrate these points we can utilize data from studies by Teeuwen (Table I taken from Ref. I) and Russell (Table II taken from Ref. 2). Teeuwen studied smokers of cigarettes whose FTC yield of nicotine varied from 0.1 mg to 1.2 mg and whoose FTC yield of tar varied from 1.0 to 16 mg. The T/N ratio of these cigarettes ranged from 5 (for a 0.2 mg nicotine yield) to 14.5 (for a 1.1 mg nicotine yield). The data in Table II are consistent with an "oversmoking" argument in the following ways: > There is no statistically significant difference in the number of cigarettes smoked per day (CD) for any of the brands in spite of a twelve fold range in FTC nicotine yield from high to low. > With the exception of the smokers of the lowest nicotine yield cigarette (0.1 mg), there was no statistically significant difference in the circadian mean plasma nicotine concentration (Nc) of any of the smokers (Note: this suggests that these smokers were "self-titrating" with nicotine to essentially the same "dose"). > The tar index (Ti) which is an indicator of the amount of tar that each smoker obtained per day is approximately the same (280-375) for the first four cigarettes. > Smokers of the 0.1 mg nicotine cigarette have a Ti of less than 1/2 that of the smokers of cigarettes with 1.0 mg N or greater. These smokers either had a lower requirement for nicotine (their Nc was also less than 1/2 that of smokers of higher nicotine cigarettes) or more likely, the cigarette was so air diluted that they could not further adjust their smoking maneuver to obtain more nicotine. > Smokers of the 0.2 mg nicotine cigarette while having a Nc as high as that of smokers of 1.2 mg nicotine cigarettes have a Ti only 1/3 as high (138 vs. 375). This is because the T/N ratio of the 0.2 mg nicotine cigarette is only approximately 1/3 as high (5 vs. 13.3) as the 1.2 mg nicotine cigarette. A similar argument is derived from data published by Dr. M.A.H. Russell (Table II, Ref, 2). The more interesting points from this study are: 1. The T/N ratio of the low tar cigarettes (10.8) was a highly significant (p<0.001) 12.1 % lower than the T/N ratio of the non-low-tar cigarettes (12.3). 2. While the nicotine yield of the low-tar cigarettes (0.86 mg.) was 39.3% lower than the nicotine yield of non-low-tar cigarettes (1.42 mg), there was only a 17% lower plasma nicotine in smokers of low-tar cigarettes (38.3 ng/ml vs. 31.8 ng/ml; p<0.001).

TAR AND NICOTINE YIELDS BY COMPANY AND CATEGORY > Fuller Flavor > Full Flavor/Low Tar > Ultra Low Tar

51066 6219 TABLE I NICOTINE INTAKE BY YIELD (TEEUWEN) 16 1.2 13.3 18.1 21.3 ±1.5 28.2 t 11.8 288.7 ±46.5 10.1 375 16 1.1 14.5 19.3 21.5 ±3.0 19.3 ± 8.1 218.9 ±70.0 11.3 280 16 1.1 14.5 19.3 22.2 t 3.7 20.3 ± 7.5 248.7 ±75.6 12.3 294 13 1.0 13.0 16.7 22.5 t 1.6 23.7 ± 5.6 302.5 ±82.5 12.8 308 1.0 0.2 5.0 5.3 23.8 ±4.3 27.5 ±12.2 327.3 t73.5 11.9 138 1.0 0.1 10.0 10.3 19.6 t 1.5 10.35 ± 3.0 135.8 ±34.6 13.12 104 T N T/N GS CD Nc Cc Ti e e FTC tar (mg) FTC nicotine (ng) Tar to nicotine ratio Gori Score Cigarettes per day Circadian mean plasma nicotine concentration (ng/ml t S.D.) Circadian mean plasma cotinine concentration (ng/ml t S.D.) Tar index =(T/N x (Nc) = surrogate measure of tar yield to smoker I. Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Nicotine, Caffeine and Quinine Harald W. A. Teeuwen Ph.D. Thesis University of Wijmegen (1988)

Y THE OVER-SMOKING ISSUE (Tar to Nicotine Ratio) It has been argued for several years that low tar and ultra-low tar cigarettes are not really what they are claimed to be. Numerous investigators from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom have studied the way in which smokers smoke full flavor (FF) full flavor low tar (FFLT) and ultra-low tar (ULT) cigarettes and have concluded that: 1. Each individual smoker has his or her own nicotine requirement from each cigarette. 2. Virtually all cigarettes can be made to yield the desired amounts of nicotine depending on the size of the puff taken and the extent to which the puff is inhaled. (This is referred to by some as the smoking maneuver). 3. The amount of tar yielded by a FF, FFLT or a ULT cigarette (per mg of nicotine) is not appreciably affected by the smoking maneuver. In other words, for a cigarette that yields one milligram of nicotine and 14 milligrams of tar under FTC smoking conditions the tar to nicotine ratio (T/N) is 14 and this ratio remains relatively constant no matter how the smoking maneuver differs from FTC conditions. For this cigarette, the smoker will receive 14 times as much tar as he does nicotine no matter how he smokes it. Applying the above conclusions to a ULT cigarette (the argument can be constructed) that ULT advertising is misleading to the smoker. > Assume a ULT cigarette that has an FTC yield of 0.4 mg of nicotine and 5.6 mg of tar (i.e. T/N = 5.6 + 0.4 = 14) > Now assume that a FF smoker (who has been smoking a cigarette that yields I mg of nicotine and 14 mg of tar under FTC conditions) decides to switch to the ULT cigarette described above. > Further assume (as has been claimed) that this smoker's nicotine requirement is one mg per cigarette. If he adjusts his smoking maneuver so that he obtains one milligram of nicotine from the ULT cigarette and if the T/N does not change with his altered smoking maneuver, then he will received 14 mg of tar from the ULT cigarette. In reality, however, ULT cigarettes have T/N rations somewhat lower than FF or FFLT cigarettes (see Table A) and a smoker of ULT actually does reduce his tar intake to some degree.

. TABLE I 08:38 Monday, November 12, 1990 \ 1 Full Flavor ------------------------------ COMPANY=AMERICAN ------------------------------ BRAND STYLE TAR NICOTINE TAR-NICOTINE RATIO Herbert Tareyton KNFSP 25.1 1.58 15.9 Lucky Strike RNFSP 24.4 1.52 16.1 Malibu Filters KFSP 16.4 1.18 13.9 Malibu Menthol KFMSP 17.2 1.24 13.9 Pall Mall 100's 100FSP 17.0 1.28 13.3 Pall Mall 25's KNFSP 24.7 1.64 15.1 Pall Mall KNFSP 24.9 1.64 15.2 Tall 120's 120FMSP 18.0 1.57 11.5 Tall 120's 120FSP 20.4 1.64 12.4 Tareyton 100's 100FSP 14.1 1.02 13.8 Tareyton KFSP 14.3 0.98 14.6 ------------------------- COMPANY=BROWN & WILLIAMSON ------------------------- BRAND STYLE TAR NICOTINE TAR-NICOTINE RATIO Kool KFMHP 16.2 1.12 14.5 Kool KFMSP 16.8 1.14 14.7 Kool RNFMSP 21.5 1.36 15.8 Kool Super Longs 100's 100FMSP 16.7 1.25 13.4 Raleigh 100's 100FSP 15.5 0.99 15.7 Raleigh KFSP 15.5 0.97 16.0 Raleigh KNFSP 23.8 1.40 17.0 Richland (25) KFMSP 16.2 1.09 14.9 Richland (25) KFSP 16.6 1.18 14.1 Richland 100's (25) 100FMSP 16.0 1.16 13.8 Richland 100's (25) 100FSP 17.0 1.28 13.3 Richland 20's 100's 100FSP 16.6 1.23 13.5 Richland 20•s KFMSP 16.4 1.05 15.6 Richland 20's KFSP 16.3 1.13 14.4 Richland 20's Menthol 100's 100FMSP 16.7 1.15 14.5 Viceroy KFSP 15.3 0.97 15.8 Viceroy Super Long 100's 100FSP 15.9 1.14 13.9 -------------------------- COMPANY=LARUS & BROTHER --------------------------- BRAND STYLE Craven A Filter Standard Size RFHP TAR 18.6 NICOTINE 1.51 TAR-NICOTINE RATIO 12.3 Craven A KFHP 15.8 1.15 13.7 Dunhill International 100FHP 15.2 1.39 10.9 Dunhill Menthol 100FMHP 14.2 1.19 11.9 Lq Rothmans KFHP 19.4 1.34 14.5 m St. Moritz Filter 100's 100FSP 14.9 1.08 13.8 rn St. Moritz Menthol 100FMSP 14.9 0.96 15.5 a, N N N

TABLE II M. A. N. Russell Average percentage reductions in tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide intake by low-tar smokers in comparison with smokers of higher yield brands Non-low-tar smokers (n=241) Low-tar smokers (n= 151) % Reduction Cigarette data Tar yield (mg/cig) 17.3 9.2 46.8 Nicotine yield (mg/cig) 1.42 . 0.86 39.3 CO yield (mg/cig) 16.6 11.0 34.1 T/N ratio 12.3 10.8 12.1***. T/CO ratio 1.06 0.85 19.R*'* Intake measures Plasma nicotinc (ng/ml) 38.3 31.8 17.0*** Plasma cotininc (ng/m1) 379 333 12.1 * COHb (%) 7.81 7.06 10.6** Index of tar intake TI (Nic) 469 341 27.3*** TI (Cot) 46()1 3543 23.0*** TI (CO) 8.13 5.93 27.1*** Note: The plasma cotininc data arc based on smallcr samplcs of 146 non-low-tar smokcrs and 9.3 low-tar smokcrx. but thcsc subsampics did not differ from the remainder of the subjects in any of the othcr measures used. The percentage reduction in COHb was calculated after suhtracting 0.7 to correct for the background lcvcl in non-smokcrs. The index of tar intake was dcrivcd from the measured blood level of a marker and the ratio of the tar to marker yiclds of the cigarette. For cxamplc. using nicotine as the markcr. TI (Nic) = Plasma nicotine x T/N yield ratio. The cigarette yield ratios and indices of tar intake were computed for individual smokers before averaging them to obtain the group means. Statistical signi- ficancc of differences arc based on I tests between non-low-tar smokers: ***P<(l.(1n1; **P<(1.(II. *P<U.(15. From Russell tt a!." 2. Froggatt Commission Report (1989)

TABLE I 08:38 Monday, November 12, 1990 , 2 Full Flavor -------------------------- COMPANY=LIGGETT & MYERS --------------------------- BRAND STYLE TAR NICOTINE TAR-NICOTINE RATIO Chesterfield KNFSP 24.2 1.65 14.7 Chesterfield RNFSP 20.0 1.30 15.4 Lark 100FSP 14.7 1.22 12.0 Lark KFSP 14.3 1.11 12.9 ----------------------------- COMPANY=LORILLARD ------------------------------ BRAND STYLE TAR NICOTINE TAR-NICOTINE RATIO Harley Davidson KFSP 14.1 0.98 14.4 Kent 100's 100FMSP 14.0 1.04 13.5 Max 120's 120FMSP 17.2 1.38 12.5 Max 120's 120FSP 17.1 1.34 12.8 Newport 100's 100FMHP 19.2 1.46 13.2 Newport 100's 100FMSP 19.3 1.47 13.1 Newport 25's 100FMSP 19.5 1.48 13.2 Newport 25's KFMSP 17.2 1.28 13.4 Newport KFMHP 15.7 1.17 13.4 Newport KFMSP 17.2 1.26 13.7 Old Gold Filter 100's 100FSP 19.7 1.50 13.1 Old Gold Filters KFSP 16.8 1.24 13.5 Old Gold Straights KNFSP 26.9 1.89 14.2 Spring 100's 100FMSP 19.3 1.49 13.0

'•' TABLE I 08:38 Monday, November 12, 1990 3 Full Flavor --------------------------- COMPANY=PHILIP MORRIS ---------------------------- BRAND STYLE TAR NICOTINE TAR-NICOTINE RATIO Alpine KFMSP 17.1 1.14 15.0 Benson & Hedge s 100's 100FHP 17.3 1.20 14.4 Benson & Hedge s 100's 100FMHP 17.4 1.22 14.3 Benson & Hedge s 100's 100FMSP 17.1 1.20 14.3 Benson & Hedge s 100's 100FSP 17.3 1.22 14:2 Benson & Hedge s KFHP 15.4 1.26 12.2 Cambridge Full Flavor 100's 100FSP 17.2 1.17 14.7 Cambridge Full Flavor KFSP 17.1 1.09 15.7 English Ovals KNFHP 23.8 1.87 12.7 Marlboro 100's 100FHP 17.0 1.22 13.9 Marlboro 100's 100FSP 17.1 1.22 14.0 Marlboro 100's Red 100FHP 16.4 1.19 13.8 Marlboro 100's Red 100FSP 16.5 1.19 13.9 Marlboro 25's KFSP 17.2 1.13 15.2 Marlboro KFHP 17.0 1.14 14.9 Marlboro KFMSP 17.1 1.18 14.5 Marlboro KFSP 17.4 1.17 14.9 Philip Morris Commander KNFSP 26.3 1.61 16.3 Philip Morris International 100FHP 16.8 1.15 14.6 Philip Morris International 100FMHP 16.9 1.08 15.6 Players 100's FMHP 14.0 0.98 14.3 Players RNFHP 25.2 1.74 14.5 Saratoga 120's 120FHP 14.7 1.07 13.7 Saratoga 120's 120FMHP 14.7 1.07 13.7 Virginia Slims 100FMSP 15.1 1.06 14.2 Virginia Slims 100FSP 15.3 1.07 14.3 Virginia Slims Lights 120's 120FHP 14.8 1.09 13.6 Virginia Slims Lights 120's 120FMHP 14.9 1.08 13.8 --------------------------- COMPANY=R. J. REYNOLDS --------------------------- BRAND STYLE Camel Filters 100's 100FSP TAR 17.5 NICOTINE 1.06 TAR-NICOTINE RATIO 16.5 Camel Filters KFHP 16.8 1.06 15.8 Camel Filters KFSP • 15.6 1.01 15.4 Camel RNFSP 22.0 1.39 15.8 Century 25's (25) KFSP 15.3 0.99 15.5 Century 25's 100's 100FSP 17.5 1.13 15.5 Doral Full Flavor 100's 100FSP 14.8 0.84 17.6 Doral Full Flavor KFSP 17.4 0.92 18.9 Magna KFHP 14.1 0.90 15.7 More 120's 120FMSP 16.6 1.28 13.0 More 120's 120FSP 16.5 1.19 13.9 cn Salem 100's 100FMSP 16.8 1.19 14.1 164 m Salem KFMSP 15.9 1.04 15.3 rn Winston 100's 100FSP 16.9 1.06 15.9 am Winston KFHP 16.8 1.06 15.8 rn N Winston KFSP 17.1 1.13 15.1 N he,

------------------------------ COMPANY=AMERICAN ------------------------------ BRAND STYLE TAR NICOTINE TAR-NICOTINE RATIO Carlton 100's 100FMSP 4.5 0.42 10.7 Tareyton Lights KFSP 5.2 0.44 11.8 ------------------------- COMPANY=BROWN & WILLIAMSON --------------=---------- TAR-NICOTINE BRAND STYLE TAR NICOTINE RATIO ~ TABLE III 08:38 Monday, November 12, 1990 6 Ultra Low Tar Kool Ultra 100's 100FMSP 5 0.45 11.1 ----------------------------- COMPANY=LORILLARD ------------------------------ BRAND STYLE TAR NICOTINE TAR-NICOTINE RATIO Kent III 100's 100FHP 5.0 0.50 10.0 Kent III 100's 100FSP 4.7 0.45 10.4 Triumph 100's 100FMSP 5.4 0.52 10.4 Triumph 100's 100FSP 5.3 0.50 10.6 True KFMSP 4.9 0.46 10.7 True KFSP 5.1 0.48 10.6 --------------------------- COMPANY=PHILIP MORRIS ---------------------------- BRAND STYLE TAR NICOTINE TAR-NICOTINE RATIO Benson & Hedges Deluxe Ultra Lights 100's 100FHP 5.0 0.44 11.4 Benson & Hedges Deluxe Ultra Lights 100's 100FMHP 5.2 0.47 11.1 Cambridge Ulra Low Tar 100's 100FSP 4.7 0.41 11.5 Merit Ultra Lights 100's 100FMSP 6.0 0.53 11.3 Merit Ultra Lights 100's 100FSP 5.3 0.50 10.6 Merit Ultra Lights KFMSP 4.5 0.42 10.7 Merit Ultra Lights KFSP 4.4 0.43 10.2 --------------------------- COMPANY=R. J. REYNOLDS --------------------------- BRAND STYLE Bright 100's 100FMSP TAR 6.0 NICOTINE 0.44 TAR-NICOTINE RATIO .13.6 Salem Ultra Lights 100's 100FMSP 5.1 0.45 11.3 Ln ~ Salem Ultra Lights KFMSP Vantage Ultra Lights 100's 100FSP 4.9 5.8 0.43 0.50 11.4 11.6 m m ON Vantage Ultra Lights KFSP 5.5 0.47 11.7 ~ Winston Ultra Lights 100's 100FSP Winston Ultra Lights KFSP 5.3 5.5 0.47 0.46 11.3 12.0 N N ~