Tobacco Documents Online

°- TO REF B.A.T (U.K.andEx rt) Limited SESEAI~,)I & DEVELOPMENT ¢I[NTnS i FROM Mr. R. P. Ferris P.O. Case Hr. ,6. I.. Heard PDC/MM/45M DATE 19th April, 1988 f°. COMMENTS ON THE PAPER BY PROFESSOR W. CAIN.'- PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL MEASURES OF ETS FOR FOUR BRANDS OF CIGARETTES f. : %*: • Further to my involvement with the Capri exercise undertaken by R&D in 1987 and discussions with Professor Cain in January 1988, I have been requestsd by R. P. Ferris to comment on the above paper. Basically, I feel some of the data IncorPorated In the i)aDer can be used but its current format does give rise to some concerns. Essentially, the concerns reduce to a very simple argument i.e. do we work on a cigarette basis (in which Capri wins hands down) or should the discussion relate to a tobacco weight burnt basis, in which case, Capri dos not necessarily win] The De,oar currently works In both area~ The major areas of interest are listed below:- The statement, "It would appear then that to a first approximation amount of tobacco burned can predict the odour and irritation of ETS Irrespective of whether the tobacco comes from a conventional, slim, or ultraslim cigarette" needs to be eliminated. This statement is almost in direct contradiction to earlier comments relating to "the departure from parallelism caused by Marlboro" i.e. comments made in dose response relationship terms. EssentlaJly, I feel Professor Cain is claiming slmillar dose response curves for the 4 cigarette types (can he be so bold when only two points on the dos~ response curve exist for each product type)? Examination of figures 27 to 45 does not fully support this. Additionally, in many of these figures for an equal quantity of tobacco burnt or an equal CO concentration Calori often produces the highest objective score.~ This can of course, be counter-argued by saying one has to burn 15 Capri cigarettes to generate this dose rather than 10 of the other product types, hence showing the potential advantage to Capri. My -= 0 0 F~J ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

"'.. : -:.' point Is why bother get'dng Into an argument/counter • arguement like this in the first place I.L Keep it on a per cigarette basis in the first lnstancel 2. In the .objective data, the X weight saving results of Capri relative to the other products, is not reflected In the Z reductions of the Individual components; monitored in ETS. 3. Table 6 Is of some concern. On going from smoking 10 cigarettes to 15 cigarettes, the CO concentration should Increase by a factor of 1.5; apart from two of the examples, the concentration rises by more than 1.5. 4e Professor Cain In the discussion and final two pages of text Illustrates that Capri has the highest ETS Tar potential per gram of tobacco burnt. This is true, bearing in mind point 2 above, and would be extended to other anaiytes. This is true from our own data but does it need pointing out? AddltlonaJly, Cain states Cagrl Is the slowest burning product, without evidence to support thls, and in SBR ~rms, this Is not the case. 5, Returning to the subjective attributes, figures 7 to 10 show Increases in subjective Intensity for various parameters assessed. No comment Is made as to whether thts has any bearing on the order in which the panelils~ make the assessments of these parametsrs. ~Q Finally, part of the process Involving Professor Cain was to establish If results on the same products examined in R&D translate ac~ to his laboratory. Thus we are not helped very much by R&D examining Hariboro Box a 79mm product; in detail and Cain examining an 85mm Marlboro! In summary, I do not wish to appear to being nega~Jvely disposed towards this paper, the finding on Capri having the lowest subjective and objective results are correct and need to be highlighted. However, some of the other fa6-tors currently Incorporated within the gaper If published, could be potentially turned against Cain (and hence us) by other parties. ,, Consequently, I feel we need Initially to rationallse the~e concepts amongst ourselves before decldlng on the next phase of the operaUon which should involve further discussions, with Professor Cain, who we clearly do not want to antagonise. Before discussion with Cain, we need to have addressed a couple of questions Internally: (I) Do we actively encourage Cain to change some of the format of the paper, bearing in mind we have a *hands off" policy towards third party consultants? o. ! 0 0 O~ ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

• ,o- I (2) P. D. Case ..', , .. .?.,,~ -.. Cain is starting to understand the-weight argument towards sidestream reduction and is slut|dating such in this pager. To help him in this, should w~ be more open In our findings in rela'don to weight and sidestream yields, and henc~a suggest to him, there Is no need for him to go into this ¢letaJl in his paDer~t . :- . "'' ' - ¢ -t~ ., .o • .-,. "1 : c.c. Dr. i~ Binns Dr. T. HlrJi Mr. J.A. Luke ° ° ~. • • 0' . • -. -?, b C~ O U~ U1 P~ CO ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

.I p i Table Vll. Comparison of Brands .'.:-' • °.--l'"b°" ' . .. ,~-;-: ;.~... Brand: Capri ; : : : Doral Lights : MaJtboro Va Slims Lights n- 4 3 Burned (g) 4.86±0.16 7.31+0.16 Gases: nab CO (ppm + 0.3) HC (ppm + 1.0) NOx (ppm + 0.01) Nicotine (ug/m3) Dec Feb Dec Feb Dec Feb Dec Feb 2 2 1 " 2 2 2 1 2 4.3 4.2 5.8 5.4 6.0 4.7 3.5 7.1 6.2. 7.7 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 74.+_7 est 89.,-4 73+6 5.5 5.4 5.4 6.2 5.5 5.3 0.13 0.13 0.13 89±7 Particles: i1=, TSP (ug/m3,Dec) (ug/m3,Feb) 4 3 872+32 1078±25 (ug/g-m3,Dec) 184+5 (ug/g-m3,Feb) 217+3 976.+.0 1047#..114 133 155+1 4 3 1077+167 1000:p..1 1250¢71 1278:p.91 143+5 144 166+_.2 : 169:p.1 • . ~. -...:; . . .: ., .,. -.:. ; :" . O U'l (j1 ",,4 O", ,,,,O ClibPDF - www.fastio.com