Tobacco Documents Online

Puff Profile Paper.

Abstract

This handwritten letter is the perfect example of how the tobacco industry prevented any information that might reflect poorly upon their industry from being made public.

The document discusses a study, apparently done either in-house or commissioned by the tobacco industry itself, whose results were adverse to industry interests:

"This paper is well-organized, professionally written, and describes highly competent work. There is nothing wrong with this paper as concerns work quality, scientific merit or written preparation.

...At this time, contents can be interpreted to be contrary to Corporation interests...the results of this study may be interpreted by adversary forces to mean that smokers received much more 'tar' than FTC numbers indicate. Such interpretation would be damaging to our already besieged industry even if it were later shown to be untrue.

...3. Because publication of this paper might raise further controversy over the issue of 'tar' delivery to smokers, publication is deferred."

This document is part of a larger collection (500286124/6151) that seems to indicate that, had the results not been inimical to industry interests, the study would have been presented at a 1971 Tobacco Chemists' Conference.

Fields

Notes

Thank you to the legal assistant who forwarded this document to Doc-Alert.

Quotes

Puff Profile Paper

1. This paper is well-organized, professionally written, and describes highly competent work. There is nothing wrong with this paper as concerns work quality, scientific merit or written preparation.

2. At this time, contents can be interpreted to be contrary to Corporation interests.

a. Puffs taken by human smokers are depicted as being much larger in volume than the generally recognized "FTC puff volume." In the absence of puffing frequency data for these same human smokers under free form smoking conditions, the results of this study may be interpreted by adversary forces to mean that smokers received much more "tar" than FTC numbers indicate. Such interpretation would be damaging to our already besieged industry even if it were later shown to be untrue. As it now stands, we do not have any means of disproving or challenging such interpretation.

b. It is indicated by these data that smokers compensate for low "tar" deliveries by taking larger puffs. This could be interpreted by adversary forces to mean that the industry is failing in actuality in its present approach toward reduced "tar" delivery to smokers. Our own approach -- higher filtration and/or air dilution -- is make to seem self-defeating by these data.

3. Because publication of this paper might raise further controversy over the issue of "tar" delivery to smokers, publication is deferred.

Company

R.J. Reynolds

Author

No author stated. Found in the area of

Laurene, Anders H. (RJR Chemical Div. Manager, '70-72, Director '77-80)

Manager of RJR's Chemical Division, c. 1970-72

Recipient

No recipient noted.

Region

United States

Type

HANDWRITTEN

REPORT

Named Organization

Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for laws against deceptive advertising)

Enforces laws against false and deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising, sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of cigarettes.

Subject

industry sponsored research

industry strategy

industry activity

research activity

research studies