Anne Landman's Collection
Memorandum RE: Phillip Morris documents
Abstract
This document is a "memo to file" written by Alan M. Darnell, a plaintiff's attorney who worked on the Cipollone case in 1987. Rose Cipollone was the first case in which a tobacco company was found partly liable for a smoker's lung cancer. Rose Cipollone smoked cigarettes for 40 years and died from lung cancer in 1984, four years before the case led to a verdict. The jury awarded $400,000 to Rose's husband, Antonio Cipollone. While this document was not written by anyone inside the tobacco industry, it is posted on www.tobaccodocuments.org and as such it is in the public realm, and it does provide a road map to the industry documents that were used with some success in the Cipollone trial.
Fields
- Notes
Comments: marked confidential Produced by: RJR Affected Defendants: RJR, PMI, L&M
- Quotes
TO: CIPOLLONE FILE DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 FROM: ALAN M. DARNELL RE: PHILIP MORRIS DOCUMENTS
The following are Alan M. Darnell summaries of some of the more important and "wow" aspects of certain Philip Morris documents.
[From page 1]
... Document No. 283971 - an undated letter from Buyer Research Consultants, Inc. (F. Homburger) Director to William Gardner, Scientific Director, Counsel for Tobacco Research. The importance of this letter is that Homburger complains that the CTR has discontinued support for his studies on cigarette smoke inhalation on inbred Syrian hamsters. There is attached to it a chronology of events that may be helpful to demonstrate that the CTR cancelled experiments when they thought the results might be adverse...
[From page 2]
Philip Morris, dated 2/1/66, entitled "Contribution of Cigarette Paper to Benzo(a)Pyrene in Smoke."
This document is important because, at page 1880284, it indicates that "all that can be said with a comfortable measure of assurance is that these studies indicate that the tobacco contributes most, and the paper only between five and fifteen percent, of the benzo(a)pyrene found in cigarette smoke."
This is important because there is thus a concession that benzo(a)pyrene is found in cigarette smoke...
[From Page 3]
Document No. 128587 - Memo from DeNoble and Carron to Osdene entitled "Progress Report", dated October 14, 1980. It is prepared on Philip Morris Inter-Office Correspondence stationery. The subject of the progress report is "The Behavioral Pharmacology Program" and it indicates that the major objectives of this program are #(i) To develop a better understanding of the reinforcing actions of nicotine and nicotine analogues, (2) To gain insight into the neurobehavioral actions of nicotine, and (3) To develop and use animal behavior techniques to screen nicotine analogues for their nicotine eliciting properties." In discussing animal studies using rats, the authors state at page 128588 "The results from a small number of animals show that nicotine self-administration by rats is maintained by the response-nicotine contingency, rather than by other behavioral effects of the drug. Substitution of saline for nicotine failed to maintain responding. When nicotine (32ug/kg/injection) was reintroduced, the number of injections rose to previous levels.
AMD NOTE: Thus, internal PM research indicates that animals self-administer nicotine. As a matter of fact, at page 128589 the authors state "These results show clearly that nicotine can function as a positive reinforcer for rats".
The above is "Dynamite": It clearly demonstrates an internal conclusion, based upon internal research at PM, that nicotine is a positive reinforcer for animals. This is a key to the dependency argument and can be used quite effectively to destroy any statement by the experts hired by Philip Morris or other Philip Morris personnel that nicotine is not a positive reinforcer for animals.
- Author
- Darnell, Alan (New Jersey plaintiff's attorney in asbestos litigation)New Jersey plaintiff's attorney in an asbestos litigation case (Jenkins p. 120). Assisted in the Cipollone case, but was disqualified from taking any further cigarette-liability cases.
- Recipient
- File, Cipollone
Created and funded by the tobacco industry to award grants to study of the link between smoking and disease. Part of a four decade effort to cast doubt on the links between smoking and disease.
Dr. Gardner worked for Counsel for Tobacco Research -- U.S.A., Inc. He was a member of CTR's committee which reviewed grant applications in 1974. (UCSF000134) Gardner served on the Scientific Advisory Board for CTR and was a CTR Scientific Director. (N.M.'s CTR Who's Who) (PMI's Introduction to Privilege Log and Glossary of Names, Estate of Burl Butler v. PMI, et al, April 19, 1996). See Gardiner, Bill, TTLA Almanac - Names.
Plaintiff
Vice President and Director of Research & Development, Philip Morris
Principal scientist at PM during the 1970s and 1980s, nicknamed the "Nicotine Kid." Supervised Victor DeNoble, Paul Mele, Carolyn Levy and others. Led "smoker psychology" programs for PM.
Principal Scientist at Philip Morris Research Center in Richmond, Virginia, between around 1968-84.
Vice President of Research and Development at Philip Morris Richmond, VA 1976-1982. Reported to Senior Vice President of Operations. In 1982 transferred to tobacco technology group. Wanted to share ammonia and other tobacco technology with PM International companies.
Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry. Ten years of research when he started with PM in 1965. Worked in Chemical Research Division of PM 1965-66; Chemical and Biological Research Division 1966-69; Director of Research 1969-1984, also assumed independent position as Director of Research and Extramural Studies during these years; became Director of Science and Technology in 1984, reporting directly to Philip Morris USA Executive VP Mark Serrano. Involved with Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) 1988. Attended PM's Operation Downunder Conference in June, 1987. Retired 1993.
Associate Senior Scientist at PM Behavioral Research (83). Senior Researcher at Philip Morris from 1980-1984. Performed in-house PM rat studies on nicotine and addiction; was later fired by PM because of sensitive nature of what studies revealed about nicotine addiction.
Document Images
TO : CIPOLLONE FILE
DATE: SEPTEMBER I, 1987
FROM: ALAN M. DARNELL
PHILIP MORRIS
DOCUMENTS
The following are Alan M. Darnell summaries of some of the
more important and "wow" aspects of certain Philip Morris
documents. The documents are organized by subcategory and I
would describe them by the folder in which they are contained,
the title of the document (if any), date of document, and bates
number.
FOLDER 1 - "Tobacco and Lung Cancer"
Document no. 283971 - an undated letter from Buyer Research
Consultants, Inc. (F. Homburger) Director to William Gardner,
Scientific Director, Counsel for Tobacco Research.
The importance of this letter is that Homburger complains
that the CTR has discontinued support for his studies on
cigarette smoke inhalation on inbred Syrian hamsters. There is
attached to it a chronology of events that may be helpful to
demonstrate that the CTR cancelled experiments when they thought
the results might be adverse. As an additional comment, there
are redacts from this document. I recall seeing a similar
document produced by RDR which does not have similar redacts.
This should be checked.
Document no. 27656 - a memo entitled "Tobacco and Lung
Cancer", authored by Weissbecker and Murrill, Philip Morris
Research Center, i0/19/64. The parts of this document that I
found to be important appear at page 276659 where it states "from
the data, it would appear that a cigarette could be produced
which would significantly lower the delivery of chemicals
implicated as causing cancer .... the publication of the Bock and
Moore paper could be beneficial in aiding the sale of American
type cigarettes in Europe and in helping to create a European
market for hurley tobacco. (Note: there is an argument that
European tobaccos were more prone to causing cancer than American
tobacco). At page 27660, there is a comment that cancer
researchers have, apparently, decided upon the skin painting test
as the primary standard for carcinogenicity. Skin painting
allows them to evaluate cigarette tars as to their tumorigenic
initiating and promoting effect. It is apparently the only
procedure that they rely upon and any other assay method must
correlate with skin painting results. Any improvement in
cigarettes would have to show a significant tumor reduction in
mouse skin painting tests, preferably on an equal weight basis.
I think the above statement is important because the
internal document seems to lend credence to skin painting. Also
recognize that skin painting is a generally accepted form of
testing for cancer potential.
A very important statement appears at 27668 where the report
indicates "In our opinion, there are too many variables - air
pollution, industrial exposure, heredity, smoking habits, e. g.,
degree of inhalation and length of cigarette consumed - to permit
the singling out of any one factor, such as kind or grade of
tobacco smoked, and saying that it determines the number of
deaths to be expected from lung cancer."
The above statement is rather important because it seems to
indicate that tobacco in general is implicated as a cause of
cancer, but there are too many variables to point at one
particular kind or grade of tobacco and saying that the kind or
grade will determine the number of deaths to be expected from
lung cancer.
Document no. 1880278 - Memo from Resnik to Dr. H. Wakeham (R
& D at Philip Morris), dated 2/1/66, entitled "Contribution of
Cigarette Paper to Benzo(a)Pyrene in Smoke."
This document is important because, at page 1880284, it
indicates that "all that can be said with a comfortable measure
of assurance is that these studies indicate that the tobacco
contributes most, and the paper only between five and fifteen
percent, of the benzo(a)pyrene found in cigarette smoke."
This is important because there is thus a concession that
benzo(a)pyrene is found in cigarette smoke.
This has the identical opening as the Charles Memo to Seligman,
document no. 3289974; however, it is somewhat different in the
rest of the content of the document.
Document no. 3289972 - Document by J. I. Seeman to Seligman,
dated March 21, 1980 entitled "Nicotine Receptor Program -
University of Rochester". In commenting on someone who was
selected at the University of Rochester to work on this nicotine
receptor program, the author of this memorandum states "An
additional, and perhaps fundamental, requirement was that the
individual(s) chosen to work with us~is acceptable from a
"political" perspective. Leo Abood filled the criteria. In
addition to being recognized as an ethical individual and
scientist, he is clearly pleasant, easy to work with, has a
positive approach, and has the confidence of the Director. He
also has a history of many years as a CTR grantee."
AMD NOTE: This indicates to me a selection of scientists by
"political and philosophical" criteria, as well as scientific
ability.
Document no. 128587 - Memo from DeNoble and Carron to Osdene
entitled "Progress Report", dated October 14, 1980. It is
prepared on Philip Morris Inter-Office Correspondence stationery.
The subject of the progress report is "The Behavioral
Pharmacology Program" and it indicates that the major objectives
of this program are #(i) To develop a better understanding of
the reinforcing actions of nicotine and nicotine analogues, (2)
To gain insight into the neurobehavioral actions of nicotine, and
(3) To develop and use animal behavior techniques to screen
nicotine analogues for their nicotine eliciting properties." In
discussing animal studies using rats, the authors state at page
128588 "The results from a small number of animals show that
nicotine self-administration by rats is maintained by the
response-nicotine contingency, rather than by other behavioral
effects of the drug. Substitution of saline for nicotine failed
to maintain responding. When nicotine (32ug/kg/injection) was
reintroduced, the number of injections rose to previous levels.
AMD NOTE: Thus, internal PM research indicates that animals
self-administer nicotine. As a matter of fact, at page 128589
the authors state "These results show clearly that nicotine can
~unction as a positive reinforcer for rats".
The above is "Dynamite": It clearly demonstrates an
internal conclusion, based upon internal research at PM, that
nicotine is a positive reinforcer for animals. This is a key to
the dependency argument and can be used quite effectively to
destroy any statement by the experts hired by Philip Morris or
other Philip Morris personnel that nicotine is not a positive
reinforcer for animals.
Document no. 2973585 - From DeNoble to Dunn, dated August
24, 1981, and is a progress report from the Behavioral
Pharmacology Laboratory for the period beginning 9-1-80 to 3-30-
81. At page 2973587, DeNoble states "Several reports have shown
that rats can be trained to lever press for intravenously
delivered nicotine. However, there has been a lack of
appropriate control measures to clearly show that nicotine was
functioning as a reinforcer. A first step in our laboratory was
to demonstrate that nicotine can function as an intravenously
delivered positive reinforcer."
After discussing the various experiments that were done at
Philip Morris, DeNoble states at page 2973588 "These results show
clearly that nicotine can function as a positive reinforcer for
rats."
Thus, we have another admission that nicotine is a
reinforcer for rats.
At page 2973611, DeNoble states "The effects of nicotine on
scheduled-controlled behavior have been studied less extensively
than other commonly used compounds. Most studies have
investigated the acute behavioral effects of nicotine in rats and
monkeys. Less is known about the termination of chronic nicotine
administration on schedule-controlled behavior. Chronic
administration of a variety of psycho active agents results in
physical dependence.
Physical dependence is generally characterized by abstinence
symptoms when drug intake is abruptly terminated or when an
antagonist is administered .... There is a dearth of information
about the potential physical dependence producing properties of
nicotine."
Document no. 89846 - Entitled "Monograph on the Pharmacology
and Toxicology of Nicotine", authored by The Tobacco Advisory
Council (I am not sure if this is an industry group), dated 1981.
At page 89847 it states "Cigarette smoking may induce
psychological dependence in certain individuals as a result of
action of nicotine on brain reward systems, possibly mediated by
noradrenaline release at central synapses ....
Although smokers
develop some degree of dependence on the practice, common sense
dictates that habituation to smoking is distinguishable from
addiction to drugs such as morphine and barbiturates .... Sudden
withdrawal of certain drugs may elicit withdrawal effects in
people and the same holds true for nicotine ....
Although
nicotine is the principal pharmacologically-active component of
tobacco smoke, the pharmacological effects of nicotine in the
amounts absorbed by inhaling smokers from one cigarettes are
relatively small.
AMD COMMENT: I believe this comes from a British laboratory
given the British spelling of the word "Behaviour" and the
reference to certain cigarettes which I believe are European
cigarettes.
Document no. 128656 - Memo from Seeman, et als. to Osdene
dated February 3, 1978. It is done on Philip Morris Inter-Office
Correspondence stationery. The important statements are as
follows:
"When nicotine is administered to an animal, it initiates a
wide range of biochemical and physiological phenomena in both the
central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous system."
At page 128657, the author states, "Understanding nicotine's
biological properties is a key to the tobacco industry for two
very different reasons: (I) .in terms of a defensive posture,
such knowledge will allow us to assess the potential health
hazards of tobacco alkaloids, e.g., heart rate acceleration,
blood pressure elevation, etc.; and (2) in terms of an offensive
posture, one can envision nicotine substitutes (possibly even
endogenous CNS nicotinic neurotransmitters) which will
specifically and selectively activate some of the nicotinic
receptors but not others .... Although we have been pursuing a
nicotine program at PM for some, we feel that it needs
considerable strengthening."
AMD NOTE: We thus have an admission that nicotine, when
administered to animals, has a wide range of biochemical and
physiological phenomena.
Document no. 3290941 - Letter of December 8, 1978 from
Ronald R. Hutchinson, Research Director to William Dunn. The
only reason this is included is because it refers to a meeting
that Hutchinson had with Jerry Jaffe and that Hutchinson blushed
when receiving the compliment from Jaffe that his old work,
sponsored by Philip Morris on the Effects of Nicotine on Anger,
was considered by Jaffe to be the most significant behavioral
work yet appearing on the drug.
Document no. 40405 - Entitled "Possible Richmond (illegible)
Topic", possibly authored by Vic DeNoble, dated June 3, 1981. It
states the following:
i. Chronic administration of a variety of psychoactive
agents results in physical dependence.
2. Physical dependence is characterized by an abstinence
syndrome which can be quantified and qualified by changes in
schedule controlled behavior.
3. Effects of termination of chronic nicotine
administration on behavior has not been systematically studied.
4. Numerous assumptions and assertions about nicotine as a
physical dependence producing agent have been made.
5. We investigated the effects of termination of chronic
nicotine administration on behavior, specifically behavior that
is highly sensitive to the physical dependence producing
properties of drugs.
The conclusion is that there was not a physical dependence
produced by chronic nicotine administration.
AMD NOTE: This document has to be shown to one of our
experts to see if the method used was appropriate. I do not know
enough to determine that.
Document no. 3289974 - From Charles to Dr. R. B. Seligman,
dated March 18, 1980. It appears on Philip Morris, U.S.A.
Inter-Office Correspondence stationery and is entitled "Nicotine
Receptor Program - University of Rochester". The following
important statements are made in this document:
"Nicotine is a powerful pharmacological agent with multiple
site of action and may be the most important component of
cigarette smoke. Nicotine and an understanding of its properties
are important to the continued well being our cigarette business
since this alkaloid has been cited often as 'the reason for
smoking' by the smoker. Nicotine is known to have effects on the
central and peripheral nervous system as well as influencing
memory, learning, pain perception, response to stress and level
of arousal."
The document continues: "For these reasons our ability to
ascertain the structural features of the nicotine molecule which
are responsible for its various pharmacological properties can
lead to the design of compounds with enhanced desirable
properties (central nervous system effects) and minimized suspect
properties (peripheral nervous system effects). There are many
opportunities for acquiring proprietary compounds which can serve
as a firm foundation for new and innovative products in the
future."
AMD NOTE: This sounds like something out of a drug
laboratory. It can be interpreted and argued that this is an
attempt by Philip Morris to manipulate the smoker and it also
recognizes that nicotine is a powerful pharmacological agent.
almost sounds like some mad Nazi scientist doing obscene
experimentation.
It
Document no. 3289991 - Entitled "The Nicotine Program";
there is no author listed. It appears to be dated 12/1/78. The
important statement is at the beginning which states that
"Nicotine, a powerful pharmacological agent with multiple sites
of action, is the most important component of cigarette smoke."
Document no. 3292419 - A memorandum from The Council For
Tobacco Research - U.S.A., dated June 12, 1970. There appears to
be a handwritten note from M. Wakeham addressed to Dr. Dunn that
says "This from Hockett. It is definitely not what we want to
take up in the "benefits" conference.
This memo from Hockett appears to refer to a C.T.R.
sponsored conference on the effects of nicotine and/or smoking on
the central nervous system that took place on June i, 1970. The
important thing about this document is that it sets the stage for
the next document (3292423) which is a resume of the papers
presented at the conference. It is described below.
Document no. 3292423 - Memo entitled "Resume of the papers
and discussions presented during the Conference on the effects of
Nicotine and/or Smoking on the Central Nervous System, organize
by the Council on Tobacco Research-U.S.A., New York City, June
1, 1970". At page 3292423, the memo indicates that some basic
questions facing present day research in the field of CNS effects
of nicotine were the following:
"Why do people become smokers;
What advantages (if any) they derive from smoking;
What harmful effects (if any) are resulting from smoking;
Why is it so difficult, at least to certain individuals, to stop
smoking."
(The above is obviously important because it offers a recognition
by the entire industry that for certain individuals it is "so
difficult" to stop smoking. It is not presented as an issue as
to whether it is difficult, but rather why it is difficult.)
Document 3295309 - Memo from Dunn to Hind dated February i,
1973 entitled "Nicotine and Inhalation Impact". This document
discusses the fact that regular smokers are not satisfied by
cigarettes who nicotine has been reduced to as low as .2 mg.
According to Dunn, the smoker "reports annoyance at the absence
of inhalation impact, and taste becomes unpleasant as he
increases puff volume in an effort to obtain the impact."
AMD COMMENT: Clearly, they are talking about the psycho-
active effect of nicotine.
The memo continues: "Our dialogue has raised some
interesting questions .... Are there are other constituents of
burley that can deliver impact of the absence of nicotine? If
so, can a cigarette be designed around denicotinized uncased
hurley such as to deliver taste and impact? If so, will the
habitual smoker find satisfaction from smoking the cigarette?"
(emphasis supplied).
The memo continues: "We can think of nicotine as the
vehicle of two phenomena; the inhalation impact and the well-
documented physiological responses to its presence in the
bloodstream. Many of us have argued that it is the
pharmacological effect of the nicotine which the smoker seeks.
But it is also a matter of observation that dissatisfaction is
expressed when thee is no inhalation impact. Is it possible that
it is the inhalation impact per se which the smoker seeks and not
the pharmacological effect? A denicotinized cigarette which does
deliver impact would provide an opportunity to answer this
significant question. Given such a cigarette and given continued
satisfaction from it among habitual smokers on prolonged smoking,
it would follow that the pharmacological effects of nicotine are
not sought after by the smoker. Were such findings to emerge,
their commercial significance is obvious."
AMD NOTE: The importance of the above paragraph is a
recognition by Dunn that it is the pharmacological effect of the
nicotine which the smoker seeks and that anything to disprove
this conclusion would have to await a denicotinized cigarette
that provided impact. To my knowledge, such a cigarette has
never been developed.
Document no. 3293476 - Entitled "Some Unexpected
Observations on Tar and Nicotine and Smoker Behavior", dated
March I, 1974; listed as a talk given by Dr. Wakeham in New York.
AMD NOTE: The only important thing I could find in this
document is found at page 3293492 where it is stated that "People
do not smoke like the machine" (commenting on the FTC method of
determining tar and nicotine) and that "Generally, people smoke
in such a way that they get much more than predicted by machine."
AMD NOTE: So much for FTC tar and nicotine evidence.
Document no. 3294034 - Entitled "Human Smoking Habits", this
comes from this PME Research Laboratory, June, 1974. Copies
indicated to Dr. Dunn. No author is listed. The important thing
that is found in this document is the following statement:
"There is evidence in literature that the nicotine of
cigarette smoke experts a distinct pharmacological effect on the
smoker (i) which re-enforces the smoking behaviour [Note: this
is the British spelling]. The smoker doses himself with nicotine
according to his personal needs which depend on the level of
arousal (2) external stress (3) his personality (4) and,
possibly, a number of other factors.
A controlled experiment with a group of some 150 smokers who
were given at random high and low nicotine delivery cigarettes
(0.8 mg/cig, and 1.6 mg/cig.) showed the existence of definite
compensation mechanism in the smoker which operates on a per
cigarette base (preferred delivery fairly independent of standard
delivery) and not a 'cigarettes smoked per day basis'. (5).
FOLDER ii - "Philip Morris Documents Re: Nicotine"
Document no. 128672 - Entitled "The Nicotine Program". It
is a handwritten document and the author is not given.
Similarly, it undated. However, the document says "Nicotine is
undoubtedly the most important component of cigarette smoke and
as such has been often cited as the 'reason for smoking'.
Theories have been proposed for 'nicotine titration' by the
smoker and there appears to be increased amount of external
research on the actions of nicotine in the human.
It has been known for a long time that nicotine has many
biological properties which include effects both on the
peripheral nervous system, as well as on the central nervous
system. Marked defects on the cardiovascular, i.e. blood
pressure have also been observed. In addition to purely
physiological effects noted there is strong evidence for nicotine
effects in the behavioral areas, such as influence on memory,
learning abilities, pain perception, etc.
It thus becomes patantly obvious that while a great deal of
knowledge has been accumulated, at the present time we still do
not know what the action of nicotine is or what its role is in
the smoking habit to our product. Due to its fundamental
importance, we have undertaken a major 9ffort in the study of
nicotine and its analogs, both from the chemical and biological
points of view, as well as from a behavioral stance and developed
a fully integrated program."
AMD NOTE: The importance of the above is that the author
recognizes nicotine as the most important component of cigarette
smoke, it is the reason for smoking and that it has been known
for a long time that nicotine has certain properties to it.
It
also establishes that there was a major research program on
nicotine at Philip Morris.
Document no. 128665 - Again, this a handwritten document,
undated with no author give~. In discussing nicotine, the author
(whoever it is) states that nicotine has a prominent place in
tobacco 'lure', the name is widely known. He also cites nicotine
titration and nicotine as the 'reason for smoking' and that
nicotine has known multifaceted biological properties. He makes
a reference to tremendous external research being done on
nicotine couples with increase NIDA efforts. In terms of a
proposal for fundamental goals and objects of a nicotine program,
the author recommends subjecting the literature to "re-
examination and re-interpretation", recommends that Philip Morris
"develop and independent, forceful, creative, in-house program
aimed at both defensive and offensive research" and, in terms of
offensive research, suggests that there is "drug research
similarities" and that they should recognize that nicotine has
multi-component activity. In terms of defensive research, the
author notes that the terms nicotine and tars appear
simultaneously to the public and gives the impression that the
net effect in terms of activity (carcinogenicity) are the same.
"Certainly untrue".
AMD NOTE:
poes this concede that tars are carcinogenic?
Document no. 285420 - This appears to be a handwritten memo
by Dunn that says "Do not type" on it. The subject is "The
Nicotine/Tar Ratio". The document is undated. In commenting on
nicotine, Dunn indicates that "it is also remarkable that during
the past two decades of anxious experimentation by the industry,
that nicotine delivery has not been liberated from tar delivery,
particularly in view of the importance of nicotine as a
.significant, if not the primary gratification component of thm
smoke.
AMD NOTE: The impact of the above is that Dunn is trying to
figure out a way to have increased nicotine delivery with low tar
because he recognized that nicotine is what keeps smokers
smoking.
Document no. 1900169 - Dated April 23, 1963 from Dunn to
Bavley, entitled "Additive for Providing Lung Impact in the
Denicotinized Cigarette". This early document indicates the
following:
"...I learned that the removal of nicotine from the
cigarette results primarily in the loss of the sensation of
presence or impact (emphasis supplied) from the smoke in the
throat and bronchial regions. This is clearly discernible to the
inhaler but when the denicotinized cigarette is smoke tested
against its control the noninhaler is unaware of the difference.
One would infer that, since presumably nicotine was the only
material removed from the smoke, that the nicotine is responsible
for the sensation of what some call throat irritation and I what
I have referred to as lung impact.
We would like to see developed a denicotinized cigarette
with some additive that could provide the sensation of lung
impact in the absence of nicotine. We would like to investigate
whether such a cigarette would prove satisfying to the habitual
smoker, as the denicotinized cigarette clearly is not. If you
are able to provide us with such a cigarette which lends itself
readily to production we will pursue this question by means of
subjective tests."
AMD NOTE: The above document is important because it
recognizes the role of nicotine in "lung impact" as early as
1963.
