Anne Landman's Collection
Statement of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Before the U.S. House of Representatives / Committee on Energy and Commerce / Subcommittee on Health and the Environment / Concerning Whether the Food and Drug Administration Has Jursisdiction to Regulate and Therefore Ban Cigarettes
Abstract
This is the famous 1994 testimony by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where the company compared the addictiveness of cigarettes to that of tea, coffee, Twinkies and even carrots. While not stated, presumably the statement was given by James W. Johnson, CEO of R.J. Reynolds from 1989 to 1996. Mr. Johnson should not be confused with another former CEO of RJR named F. (Frederick) Ross Johnson, who was quoted that same year in the Wall Street Journal as saying the following about tobacco: "Of course it's addictive. That's why you smoke the stuff." [Eben Shapiro, "Big Spender Finds a New Place to Spend," Wall Street Journal , October 6, 1994, p. B1.]
Six years prior to this testimony by RJR, the 1988 U.S. Surgeon General's report focused on nicotine addiction and stated clearly:
"Cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting. • Nicotine is the drug in tobacco that causes addiction. • The pharmacologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine." (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_1988/1988SGR-Intro.pdf)
Fields
- Quotes
[Starting at the bottom of page 17 of the statement, under the section entitled, "The 'Addiction' Hypothesis"]:
In 1964, the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General recognized that cigarette smoking did not meet well-established criteria for "addiction." In 1988, the Surgeon General altered the definition to fit the existing data on smoking. In essence, the Surgeon General moved the goalposts after he located the ball on the field. We categorically reject the claim that cigarettes are "addictive", and we know that an objective review of the facts and science supports our position.
Dr. Kessler defined "addiction" in terms of four elements:
-- compulsive use -- psychoactive effect -- reinforcing behavior -- withdrawal symptoms
When each of these elements is carefully analyzed in an unbiased manner, it becomes clear that cigarette smoking is no more "addictive" than coffee, tea or Twinkies. Further, in spite of the efforts to expand the definition, it still does not properly encompass cigarette smoking.
1. Compulsive use. This concept of compulsive use, like the definition of "addiction" itself, has undergone a redefinition in an attempt to encompass cigarette smoking. The classic definition of "addiction", as used in the 1964 Surgeon General's Report, properly defines compulsive use seen with hard drug addiction as "an overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and obtain it by any means." This is precisely what is seen with truly "addicting" substances like cocaine and heroin. [Footnote: Using similarly vague definitions, researchers claim to have discovered addiction to love, jogging, television, credit cards and even eating carrots. See e.g. Peele, S. Love and Addiction, 1976; Hailey and Baily, "Negative Addiction in Runners," (1979); Winn, M. The Plug In Drug (1977); Parade Magazine, April 5, 1987, p. 28; Wright, MR "Surgical Addiction: A Complication of Modern Surgery?" Archives of Otolaryngology: Head adn Neck Surgery, 112: 870-872 (1986); Cerny and Cerny, "Can Carrots Be Addictive? An Extraordinary Form of Drug Dependence," Br. J. Add. 87:1195 (1992)] The desire is overpowering and leads to criminality and violence, if necessary, to satisfy the need for the drug.
- Company
- R.J. Reynolds
- Author
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 1
- Johnson
- Recipient
- U.S. House of Representatives 2
- Region
- United States
- Litigation
- Minnesota Ag
- Type
- STATEMENT/TESTIMONY
- Subject
- addiction
- testimony
- FDA jurisdiction over tobacco
- testimony
Annotations
- 1. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Author
- Affiliation:
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
- Affiliation:
- 2. U.S. House of Representatives Recipient
- Affiliation:
Committee Energy Commerce, Subcommittee Health Environment
- Affiliation:
Document Images
together with all the d~.bate and discussions. The consensus among scientists participating
in that program was that overall "tar" and nicotine reduction was the most effective and
most appropriate approach. Several scientists, including Dr. Dietrich Hoffmann,
acknowledged the responsiveness of the tobacco industry:
I do thi~tk the tobacco industry, voluntary or not, adjusts very
well to ~:he demands of the logical reasoning of the scientific
commurity and that we should continue on this path?
In Dr. Kessler~s March 25, 1994 statement, he asked the cigarette companies to
address the intent of cigarette design developments. The clear intent behind cigarette
design developments l~as been and remains to manufacture and market a broad range of
cigarette products in cesponse to the demands and tastes of today's adult smokers and to
ensure cigarette to cigarette and pack to pack consistency within a brand. Within the
universe of cigarette products, there is a range of"tar" and nicotine levels. As noted earlier,
reducing "tar" yields automatically results in roughly proportional reductions in nicotine
yields. That is seen by the dramatic reduction in both "tar" and nicotine achieved by
Reynolds Tobacco an :1 other dgarette manufacturers since 1955.
In 1957, Dr. Ernst Wynder and others called for efforts to reduce "tar":
[F]or practical purposes, a filter-tip capable of filtering out 40
percent of the tar would be a step in the right direction ....
"Such a filter-tip.., placed on a regular-size cigarette which
normall~, yields 30 milligrams of tar in its smoke, would reduce
the smoker's tar exposure to about 18 milligrams. A reduction
to that level, as shown both by animal experiments and human
Dietrich Hoffi~aarm, Discussion in "Risk Reduction Achievements", Banbury Report
3 - A Safe Cigarette?, pp. 155-178 at 174 (1980).
TIMN 0046276
statistical studies would be a significant reduction in cancer
risk.''~
The tobacco industry i-as accomplished this objective -- and has gone much further. The
vast majority of today's cigarettes are 85-100 mm long, have filters and yield an average of
11.5 mg of "tar" and 0.8 mg of nicotine. Some cigarettes now available yield less than 1.0
mg of "tar" as measure fl by the FTC method.
These "tar" and nicotine reductions have largely been achieved through innovations
in cigarette design - in,lovations pioneered by Reynolds Tobacco and other members of the
tobacco industry. Sinc( the complexity of smoke provides a cigarette with its taste and other
sensory properties, rnmty of these reductions in "tar" and nicotine have come at the expense
of flavor. Some smokers are unwilling to sacrifice flavor for reduced "tar." This has
prompted a continuing effort to develop new cigarette designs.
It is ironic that in the face of the overwhelming recommendations of just such an
approach, certain publ .c and private critics of cigarettes have decided once again to attack
the industry - and to r;eek to stop, if not to reverse, the extensive design innovations that
other public and priva~:e critics have encouraged over the years.
"r~"/Nicotine Ratios
Reynolds Tobacco does not manipulate the nicotine in its products to create,
• maintain,, or satisfy "a, idiction". Claims to that effect are false. As "tar" yields have been
reduced over the years_: nicotine yields have also been reduced, roughly in proportion to the
"tar." The fact that "t~r" to nicotine ratios are not exactly the same for all cigarettes is not
Mattox, L and Monahan, S., "Wanted -- And Available - Filter-Tips That Really
.-
Filter", Readers D~....D.~, pp. 43-49, 44 (August 1957) (quoting Dr. E.L Wynder).
TIMN 0046277
news to anyone famili~tr with tobacco products or to anyone who has reviewed the extensive
"tar" and nicotine rep,9 .r~ts published by the FTC.
Reynolds Tob~cco's cigarettes contain approximately one and one-half to two and
one-half percent nicotine, depending upon the tobacco blend. When burned, these
cigarettes yield varying amounts of "tar" and nicotine. "Far" to nicotine ratios, while not
constant, are very clo~-;ely linked because both are found in the particulate phase of smoke.
As "tar" yield is reduced, through filtration, paper porosity, expansion, and other design
parameters, nicotine field is also reduced. Filters, however, are slightly more efficient at
reducing "tar" yield than nicotine yield. This is due to the fact that cellulose acetate, the
primary fiter mated:at used by Reynolds Tobacco and others, was developed to reduce "tar"
yield. The ability Of these fiters to reduce the gas phase constituents is somewhat limited.
Since a small amount of nicotine (uniike "tar") is found in the gas phase of cigarette smoke,
as well as in the p:~'ticulate phase, slightly more "tar" is filtered out of the smoke,
proportionately, than nicotine. Thus, as yields are reduced, the ratio of "tar" yield to
nicotine yield is redu:ed slightly.
In response t,~ the fact that "tar" and nicotine yields are so closely and naturally
linked in cigarette smoke, many public health officials and others have suggested that the
tobacco companies s~ould attempt to develop cigarettes which break that link. In other
words, we have been encouraged to develop cigarettes with reduced "tar" while maintaining
nicotine yields. Notable among o~eials who have encouraged such development is the
Independent Committee on Smoking and Health of the United Kingdom, which
recommended in 19:-13 that "... there should be available to the public some brands with
-12-
TIMN 0046278
low levels of tar and a proportionately higher nicotine yield.''1° According to one recent
publication cited by E~r. Kessler in his testimony:
One proposal has been to develop tobacco that is high in
nicotine but low in tar. This is not easy to do naturally;
nicotine and tar are highly correlated in the tobacco leaf. One
method would be to add nicotine to a low tar, low nicotine
cigaret-t-,.,ll
The fact is many scientists, government and/or public health officials have suggested
reducing "tar" to nicotine ratios as a way toward potential progress in cigarette design,lz
Much as the i, tdustry responded to calls to reduce "tar" and nicotine yields in the
1950s and 1960s, Reynolds Tobacco has devoted research to responding to these calls to
reduce the "tar" to n icotine ratios. Out of the hundreds of patents issued to Reynolds
Tobacco personnel o:~er the years, Dr. Kessler referred to nine Reynolds Tobacco patents
during his recent testi,nony to thi.˘ Subcommittee. These patents reflect work that Reynolds
has done in this area. As Dr. Kessler recognized, however, patents do not necessarily reflect
what is being used i,a practice. While Reynolds Tobacco has been able to develop a
cigarette which dis~ociates "tar" and nicotine in the laboratory, it has not been able to
achieve an acceptable commercial product. As stated above, this is not easy to do because
Third Report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health of
the United Ki,tgdom (1983).
Schelling, T.C. "Addictive Drugs: The Cigarette Experience." Science Vol. 255:430-
433 (1992).
See..˘.,g,, "UICC Tobacco Control Fact Sheet 3," Tobacco and Cancer Programme,
International ~Inion Agaimt Cancer (March 1993); Editorial, "Monsieur Nicot's
Legacy," Lancet. H (8249): 763 (1981); Russell, M.A.H., "Smoking and Society (There
Is No Question1)", Rehabilitation, 32 (1-4): 41-42 (1979).
-13-
TIMN 0046279.
"tar" and nicotine are :;o highly correlated. If we could develop such a cigarette acceptable
to the consumer, it would apparently be welcomed and encouraged by European
governments and public health officials, rather than being characterized as some sinister plot
by tobacco companies, as Dr. Kessler appears to characterize it.13 In fact. n0n˘ of the nine
Reynolds Tobacco~a :en~ cited by Dr. Kessler has been used commercially.
Published F~C !q'~_r" ~nd Nicotine Yields
The amount ot' nicotine present in a cigarette is in large part a result of the choice
of tobaccos used in t~-e cigarette blend, which are chosen because of their taste and other
properties.14 It is noi: present as a result of a decision to "manipulate" nicotine levels to
some carefully contro tied "addictive level." The concept of an "addictive level", raised but
not defined by Dr. Kessler, is not a concept known to or understood by Reynolds Tobacco.
Neither that concept aor any similar concept is used by Reynolds Tobacco in the design of
its cigarettes. We do not know what the concept means, and we are unaware of any data
t3 In 1988, Reyn,)Ids Tobacco introduced Premier, a cigarette that heated rather than
burned tobacc ~. That cigarette addressed many of the scientific criticisms
that had
been made og ain.~t cigarettes for many years. It virtually e!~mirtated "tar";
it vastly
reduced envir,)nmental tobacco smoke; and it reduced cigarette ignition
propensity.
Despite these attributes, certain U.S. government officials, public health
officials and,
of course, ant i-smoking activists launched a vigorous attack on the
cigarette -- in
terms that sound strikingly similar to the anti-smoking rhetoric
surrounding this
current debat,;. European health offici.als, .on the other hand, and
some United
States scientis;s recognized the attributes of Premier and, indeed, encouraged the ...... "
..............
development ,~)f s~milar cigarette technologies. See,_C.,g,, "Smoking Pleasure Without
the Danger of Fire and Risks To Health," Die Neu Aerzt!iche (December 19, 1988);
Hoffmanrt, D:, .CA al., "Cancer of the Upper Aerodigestive Tract: Environmental
Factors and P~eventiort," Journal of Smoking-Related Diseases 3(2): 109-129 (1992).
t4 A variety of a_.jrieultural factors and practices influence these properties, including,
for example, t 3bacco type, stalk position of the leaf, curing practices, and crop year.
TIMN 0046280 ,
that give it meaning. Further, what is relevant is not what is present m the cigarette, but
what is present in the r;moke.
Dr. Kessler has made much of the fact that the FTC numbers do not necessarily
reflect the precise "tar" and nicotine yields for every smoker. This is certainly true, just as
EPA mileage estimate:~ do not reflect the precise fuel economy that will be achieved by
every automobile driver. The important point is that in spite of broad variations in how
individual smokers may smoke any given cigarette, the fact remains that the lower the yield
by I~I'C numbers, the 13wer the yield will be to any given smoker. The yield for any given
smoker will probably l:e different from the FTC yield; for some smokers it will be higher,
for some it will be lower, but overall, the FTC yields are generally predictive of the yield
to smokers as a group. The statement, however, that "in reality" low yield cigarettes do not
yield low "tar" and nicotine, is not true. In work published by members of the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, lower yield cigarettes were associated with reduced smoke
absorption.~
Another i/~dica ion of Dr. Kessler's misunderstanding of cigarettes relates to his
statements concerning low "tar" cigarettes. He stated that from 1967 to 1978 eighteen
brands of filter eigaret tes underwent increases in overwrap width, resulting in less tobacco
being smoked by madtine smoking in accordance with the FTC method. Since the FTC
method specifies that the cigarette is smoked to within 3 ~/nillime~rs 0f~he~i~ping
overwrap, and Dr. Keesler stated that the tobacco within the overwrap was still smokeable
t~ Hofer, et al., "Nicotine Yield as Determinai~t of Smoke Exposure Indicators and
Puffing Behaviar." Pharmacolo~ Biochemistry_ and Behavior. Vol. 40, 139-149
(1991).
TIMN 0046281
(and would be smoked by the consumer), he concluded that these brands deviously "cheat"
the FTC method. Tha: is not true. First, Reynolds Tobacco uses standard tipping overwrap
and has not increased ~:he width because that would reduce puff count and the value to our
consumers. But, mor~ importantly, the tipping overwrap simply is not smokeable. No
smoker would conscioltsly smoke the overwrap more than once. The tipping paper, because
it is not intended to b-'. smoked, imparts a significant off-taste to the cigarette smoke.
Finally, in his t zstimony before this Subcommittee, Dr. Kessler used several charts
(which have since been widely publicized) to support his contention that the nicotine/tar
ratio for the lowest "tar" cigarettes has increased since 1982 on a sales weighted basis. This
allegation surprised I',eynolds Tobacco as much °as it surprised Dr. Kessler. Company
scientists immediately tried to duplicate Dr. Kessler's charts, using the identical FTC data
and the only publicly-available brand sales data of which this company is aware. Despite
applying the same data allegedly employed by Dr. Kessler's staff, our scientists cannot
duplicate these find_i_n..-~s. In fact, our results show exactly the opposite'-- nicotine yields and
nicotine/"tar" ratios io the lowest "tar" category decreased slightly between 1982 and 1991 -
- the time period co,ered by Dr. Kessler's charts. We have, in fact, asked FDA staff
members to provide its data and complete methodology~ We would welcome the
opportunity to review the data and methodology used by FDA staff to prepare these charts,
so.that--we, would have~a full opportunity to understand an.d review the.proc~d.u_re~ us_ed ~and
.........
evaluate the eonclusi,~ns reached.
TIMN 0046282
The '!Addiction" Hypothesis
A major premi~-;e of the charges against the cigarette industry today is the claim
that
cigarettes are "addictive". Dr. Kessler and our other critics rely on selective and
incomplete
evidence to support this claim. They ignore significant and meaningful differences
between
cigarettes and truly :'addictive" drugs. When long-established criteria for labeling
a
substance or activity as "addictive" do not permit our critics to fit cigarette smoking
nicely
within the existing cri :eda, these critics resort to a simple tactic to further their agenda
--
they attempt to lower the standards and change the definition of "addiction" and its
alleged
components.
In 1964, the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General recognized that
cigarette
smoking did not me(~t well-established criteria for "addiction.''16 In 1988, the
Surgeon
General altered the d,~finition to fit the existing data on smoking. In essence, the Surgeon
The 1964 Advisory Committee Report to the Surgeon General defined "addiction"
as follows:
"a state of periodic or chronic intoxication produced by the
repeate.] consumption of drug (natural or synthetic) whose
charact~;ristics include:
"(1) ,'Ua overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to
-ontinue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means;
............................ "(2).- . ,'k tendency to increase.the dose;
.........................................................
"(3) ,'k psychic (psychological) and generally a physical
,lependence on the effects of the drug;
"(4) i)etrimental effect on the individual and on society"
The Report c 9ncluded that tobacco smoking was properly classified as a
habituation. 1964 Surgeon General's Report, 351, 354.
-17-
TIMN 0046283
General moved the goalposts after he located the ball on the field. We categorically reject
the claim that cigaret~:es, are "addictive", and we know that an objective review of the facts
and science supports :)ur position.
Dr. Kessler de fined "addiction" in terms of four elements:
compulsive use
psychoactive effect
reinforcing behavior
withdrawal symptoms
When each of these etements is carefully analyzed in an unbiased manner, it becomes clear
that cigarette smoking is no more "addictive" than coffee, tea or Twinkies.17 Further, in
spite of the efforts to expand the definition, it still does not properly encompass cigarette
smoking.
1. Compu!sive use. This concept of compulsive use, like the definition of
"addiction" itself, h~:~ undergone a redefinition in an attempt to encompass cigarette
smokix~g. The classic definition of "addiction", as used in the 1964 Surgeon General's
Report, properly deft aes compulsive use seen with hard drug addiction as "an overpowering
desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and obtain it by any means." This
is precisely what is seen with truly "addicting" substances like cocaine and heroin. The
U~ing similarl~, ~ague definitions, researchers claim to have discovered addictionto
love, jogging, television, credit cards and even eating carrots. See, _˘.~, Peele, S.,
_Love and Addiction. 1976; Halley and Bailey, "Negative Addiction in Runners,"
(1979); Wina, M., The Plug In Drug (1977); Parade Magazine, April 5, 1987, p. 28;
Wright, M.R., "Surgical Addiction: A Complication of Modern Surgery?" Archives
of Otolarmagoto~: Head and Neck Surgev˘_, 112:870-872 (1986); Cerny and Cerny,
"Can Carrots Be Addictive? An Extraordinary Form of Drug Dependence," Br. J.
Add. 87:1195 (1992).
-18-
TIMN 0046284
desire is overpowering and leads to criminality and violence, if necessary, to satisfy the need
for the drug.
In the 1988 Suigeon General's Report, the term "compulsive use" was expanded to
include behaviors driven by "strong urges".TM There is a world of difference between the
irresistible need of th.- hard drug addict and a "strong urge" to engage in a pleasurable
behavior or activity, t~eople have strong urges to eat sweets, drink coffee and watch their
favorite soap operas. It is misleading to label these types of "urges" as compulsions.
Smokers are frequently in situations where they resist the urge to smoke. They are not in
the throes of an overl:owering desire to use and obtain cigarettes by any means. They do
not remotely resemble cocaine addicts whose very real compulsion to take this highly
intoxicating drug totalty disrupts their lives, their families and their occupations.
Smokers are now constantly characterized as addicted and thus unable to quit.
Common sense belie.-, that conclusion. Since 1974, more than 40 million people have
stopi~ed smoking pet~,lanently without any outside intervention or assistance. As one ex-
smoker has candidly neknowledged: 'q'o quit, you have to decide you want to quit. Then
you quit."19
is The full definiiion states: "Highly controlled or compulsive drug use indicates that
• drug seeking :~ ad drug-taking behavior is driven by strong, often irresistible urges":
It provides no ,.'fiteria for determining when a strong urge becomes "irresistible". In
fact, no such ,.riteria exist, as admitted by the American Psychiatric Association.
'The line betw-;en an irresistible impulse and an impulse not resisted is no sharper
than that between twilight and dusk .... " See "American Psychiatric Association
Statement on "7he Insanity Defense", Am. J. Psychiatry_. 140(6), 681-688, 1983.
19 Leonard Larson, Scripp Howard News Service. ~ -
-19-
TIMN 0046285.
