Tobacco Documents Online

This report from the Lorillard tobacco company discusses means of increasing "free" nicotine in tobacco. Nicotine in "free" form (as opposed to "bound" nicotine) is more readily absorbed by the smoker. The reason tobacco companies value free nicotine in tobacco is because it produces an "organoleptic effect" in the smoker. Dorland's Ilustrated Medical Dictionary (25th Edition) defines "organoleptic" as "making an impression on an organ of special sense." Many interpret this as the drug-effect of nicotine.

The document states that as tar levels decrease in cigarettes, so too does the amount of nicotine. Therefore, "the smoker desires more organoleptic effect than the low tar cigarette delivers." Lorillard wanted to enhance the organoleptic effect of nicotine by increasing the amount of free nicotine in smoke. They mention several ways of doing this, the most promising of which was treating tobacco with ammonia or ammonium ion. They determined this was inexpensive and safer than adding metal alkali.

Also of interest is the fact that they mention that treating tobacco with ammonia decreases its combustibility. This may be a reason why tobacco companies add chemicals to cigarette paper that keep cigarettes burning.

In the early 1960s, Philip Morris' (PM) Tareyton cigarettes sported a "dual filter" that contained carbon particles. There were subsequent reports that smokers of these "dual filter" cigarettes were experiencing a higher incidence of chronic coughing. Philip Morris CEO Hugh Cullman asked his director of research, Dr. Helmut Wakeham, to design a test to see if any of the carbon particles were being sucked out of the cigarettes and inhaled. A handwritten note on the original memo from Cullman stated, "Dr. Bavley, Virginia Johnson said she did this four years ago and carbon particles were sucked out of the cigarettes when smoked. She is looking for the negatives showing the carbon particles of transmitted carbon. RHB 1/10/62" http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?if=avpidx&DOCID=1001882144

In this memo, Wakeham responds to the problem by minimizing it, saying "All cigarette filters can be shown to transmit particles...Medical and industrial hygiene literature abounds in studies of the abilities of humans to inhale copious quantities of solid particles of all kinds without suffering ill effects..."

He concludes with the ironic line,

"Let's worry about the chemical constituents of smoke. There's a real problem!"

People who do presentations about tobacco to teenagers often get asked about the relative safety (or danger) of smoking clove cigarettes. Clove cigarettes, known as "kreteks" in Indonesia, became a fad in the U.S. in the early 1980s. They are still around today.

This June 18, 1985 Los Angeles Times article links the eugenol in clove cigarettes to an increase in hospitalizations among teenagers for respiratory distress.

Documents indicate that eugenol was an additive in tobacco cigarettes for many years.

Eugenol is derived from cloves. It serves as a weak anaesthetic and has been used by dentists as a pain reliever ("clove oil"). Eugenol is listed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as "Generally Regarded as Safe" (GRAS) when consumed orally, in unburned form. It is non-toxic in food, but toxic when administered directly to the airways.

Between March, 1984 and May, 1985, the U.S. Centers of Disease Control (CDC) recorded 12 cases of severe illness possibly associated with smoking clove cigarettes. In one case not cited by the CDC, a 17 year old Newport Harbor (California) high school student became short of breath after smoking a clove cigarette and eventually died of respiratory failure. His parents initiated a $25 million lawsuit against the sellers, makers and importers of the clove cigarettes, claiming they were negligent in supplying "dangerous and defective" cigarettes.

Eleven other patients were hospitalized with symptoms of pulmonary edema (blood and fluid-filled lungs), bronchospasm (constriction of the airways), hemoptysis (coughing up blood), nausea and vomiting.

According to the article, Dr. Frederick Schecter, a Whittier, California thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon discovered "a wealth of scientific studies have been conducted on eugenol," and said the chemical has been documented as toxic to cells and pharmacologically active on the central nervous system. He also said eugenol is "sensitizing" (meaning it can induce development of an allergy against itself) and has produced severe allergic reactions in dental patients, manifested by wheezing and shortness of breath.

The following document was first revealed by Greg Conolly of Massachusetts Tobacco Control at a press conference in St. Paul, MN in 1998. It is an RJ Reynolds scientific report from 1989 describes how RJR's additives nicotine levulinate and levulinic acid enhance the binding capacity of nicotine in the brain by 20-50%. Other documents show RJR added these chemicals to Winston ultra lights. Type of Document: RJ Reynolds scientific report Authors: Patrick M. Lipello and Key G. Fernandes Date: Sept. 25, 1989 Starting Bates No. 508295794 Total No. of Pages: 27 Site: RJ Reynolds Document Site http://www.rjrtdocs.com URLs: [Note: I think I have found a way to bookmark documents on the RJR site now. I hope these URLs work--if not, this document can be found by entering as combined text the phrase 'Enhancement of Nicotine Binding to Nicotinic Receptors.') This is a lengthy report, so I will give you the most effective pages. The first page contains a succinct summary of the research: http://www.rjrtdocs.com/imaging.jsp?SIZE=774&LOCATION=0 Quotes from the Summary: Nicotine levulinate and levulinic acid significantly increased the amount of L[3H] nicotine bound to nicotinic receptors in rat brain tissue. The observed increase ranged from 20-50%, with a mean value of around 30%...According to the model, levulinic acid binds to a...class of low-affinity receptors and increases the affinity of these receptors to nicotine. Page 20: A chart, titled Figure 2: Levulinic Acid Enhancement of [3H]-Nicotine Binding to Nicotinic Receptors in Rat Brain (page is Bates No. 508295813 -- this is useful as an overhead at presentations to demonstrate what this study is about): http://www.rjrtdocs.com/imaging.jsp?SIZE=774&LOCATION=20 Page 23: Figure 5 - Theoretical Model for Levulinate Enhancement of Nicotine Binding to Nicotine Receptors (the left pie chart represents nicotine binding without levulinate, the right pie shows the amount of enhancement of binding with the additive -- also makes a good overhead for presentations) (Page is Bates No. 508295817): http://www.rjrtdocs.com/imaging.jsp?SIZE=774&LOCATION=23 The following document shows that RJR scientific affairs evaluated nicotine levulinate as a cigarette additive in their Winston Ultra Light cigarettes: Type of Document: Interoffice Memorandum Title: Scientific Affairs Evaluation of Nicotine Levulinate as a Tobacco Ingredient Author: Dr. Scott Appleton Recipient: Jerry Lawson Date: 01/09/1987 Bates No. 506826449 No. of Pages: 1 URL: http://www.rjrtdocs.com/imaging.jsp?SIZE=774&LOCATION=0 (if this can also be found by entering the Bates No. in the document ID field).

If took a product into your body on a regular basis, perhaps a food or a medication, would you feel safe in knowing that the manufacturer's clearance procedure for additives implied that the company has shown due diligence in their efforts to avoid harm to their customers? Apparently it was enough for Philip Morris. Title: Tobacco Additives Type of document: Personal and confidential internal Philip Morris memo Author: T.S. Osdene Recipient: Dr. R.B. Seligman Date: 19810112 (January 12, 1981) Site: Philip Morris document site http://www.pmdocs.com/ Bates No. 2029109909 URL: http://www.pmdocs.com/getimg.asp?pgno=0&start=0&bool=Additives%20and%20confidential&docid=2029109909 (You may have to cut and past the whole thing into your browser) Found using search criteria: additives and confidential

Philip Morris also adds urea to its cigarettes.

This memo indicates that in 1984 Philip Morris (PM) prepared a submission to the Independent Committee on Smoking and Health seeking approval of urea as a "flavor additive." The memo, which was received by Donald P. O'Brien, Vice President of International Services for PM's Tobacco Technology Group, contains a handwritten question, "What is it's role as a flavor component?"

This 1981 internal Philip Morris (PM) memo reveals doubts that PM lawyer Fred Newman had about public statements PM was making on a new additive in Northwind brand cigarettes. Internally the additive was called WS-14. In Northwind cigarettes PM referred to it as "Chill Blend." WS-14 caused a cooling sensation similar to menthol. Newman's statements reveal his doubts about the adequacy of PM's testing on WS-14:

"...I am not confident that the testing we did conduct would withstand FDA scrutiny."

Newman questioned the wisdom of a press statement about Northwind which named the independent testing laboratories that PM used to test WS-14. Newman cautioned against naming the laboratories, saying that if contacted and questioned, they would be unlikely to endorse the additive:

"I think it is logical to expect that any interested person investigating Northwind would contact the labs and ask for their evaluations of the cigarette. If this is done, the best response that could be hoped for is that Northwind does not increase the risk involved in smoking cigarettes. That is hardly an endorsement. On the other hand, given the overall anti-smoking bias of the laboratories, the more likely response would include a statement condemning cigarette smoking."

Newman also recommended eliminating statements in the press release that invited public policy on cigarette additives, saying "...[W]e ought not refer to any public policy interest in testing additives."

On Friday, November 9 the Lorillard Tobacco Company issued a press release taking exception to a new American Legacy Foundation advertisement that accused Lorillard of adding urea, a major component of urine, to their cigarettes. The ad further suggested that the company uses dog urine in the manufacturing process. In the press release, Lorillard Vice President of External Affairs Steve Watson said that "urea is a compound that naturally occurs in the tobacco leaf, as well as in mushrooms and many baked goods, Lorillard does not and never has added it to its cigarettes."

Today's document is a 1989 Lorillard Tobacco internal memorandum entitled, Project B-451, "Urea."

The first paragraph of the memo states:

"This memorandum summarizes experiments conducted using Urea as a tobacco additive, for the reduction of benz[a]pyrene and formaldehyde. Three major guidelines were adopted to aid in succesful completion of this project. These guidelines are that the product would be smoke in a conventional manner, burn tobacco, and have an acceptable taste."

The memo states that Lorillard developed an experimental cigarette blend and construction that would "hopefully evolve into a less biologically active cigarette." With regard to the paramenters for this product, the memo further states, "This [experimental] cigarette would have (1) a blend with mostly Urea treated, expanded, flue-cured tobacco."

The author of them memo concludes by saying "Urea is believed to be an important [cigarette] additive for three reasons, it reduces benz[a]pyrene, it greatly reduced formaldehyde, and it improves the taste."

Urea is defined in in part in both Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (Edition 13) and Dorland Illustrated Medical Dicitonary (25th Edition) as "the chief nitrogenous constituent of urine and the final product of protein metabolism in the body."

This 1968 memo shows that scientists at Philip Morris (PM)considered medicating smokers by adding a cough depressant to their cigarettes. They decided against it because doing so would have invited scrutiny (and regulation) of their products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which PM has worked to avoid.

A problem with low and ultra-low tar products is that the first initial puffs give less "satisfaction" (nicotine delivery) due to the high level of filtration at the beginning of the rod. This Brown & Williamson (B&W) study shows that B&W tried to find ways to remedy this by adjusting the pH of the smoke at the beginning of the rod to increase the amount free nicotine liberated during the first few puffs. The additive of choice for this process was sodium carbonate, because it is "stable, non-toxic and previously has been shown to be effective as an additive to enhance impact by pH modification." The report describes differnt methods of adding sodium carbonate.

These are notes of a "Problem Laboratory" brainstorming session held in April of 1976, attended by Lorillard Tobacco Company advertising department employees. The group was encouraged to present goals and wishes in the form of "How To" and "I wish" statements. Participants were instructed tom come up all kinds of ideas, even ones that were non-feasible, illegal or immoral.

That is what makes this document so fascincating and insightful. With all need to appear decent and moral taken away, these cigarette company employees were able to expres their most true, sincere and ambitious wishes and desires for their products.

In Session #1 participants were asked to identify ways to give smokers more perceived value in their cigarettes. Ideas expressed by the group included #38: "How to have a cigarette with MJ [marijuana] added to it", #50: "How to make it so addictive: one cigarette and you've got him for life," #51: "How to have a cigarette specifically for children (sparkler additive candy)."

In Session #2, participants were asked to make a wish list for ways to convey more economic value to cigarettes. Responses for this included #1: "How to make butts a collector's item," #12: "Put a flower seed in each butt," #17: "How to get an AMA [American Medical Association] endorsement," #48: "How to provide timed release nicotine," and #53: "How to put something in filter that would be perceived as being physically healthful (e.g. baking soda - reduce odor of stale butts)."

The question posed in Session 3A was "How to get longer lasting satisfaction [from a cigarette]?" Responses included a "wish" for long-acting nicotine. Under that is a question about how to "prevent overdosing options." Responses included "Depend on getting sick to prevent O.D." and "Sell by presicription only."

Later wish-list items included "How to make cigarettes more like Linus' blanket," and "How to get physical characteristic that would make you feel it [smoking] was more a part of you and you, it." (Page 39), "How to dull the cough centers," "How to inhibit the formation of plaque," "How to make cigarette make everything taste rotten (appetite depressant),"How to [use cigarettes to]deliver arthritic medicine," "How deliver birth control (for men)," "How to prevent pimples," "How to deliver a laxative," and, after all this, "How to get credible 3rd part endorsement." (pp42-43).

This 1982 internal Philip Morris memo written by R.B. Seligman (Vice President of Research and Development at Philip Morris) notes the existence of research indicating that beta carotene may be "a deterrent for the formation of lung cancer in humans." He follows up on suggestions that "this material be added to cigarettes for direct application to the lungs."

This 1994 report to the Philip Morris (PM) Board discusses the onslaught of public health actions to regulate tobacco that occurred in the U.S. under the Clinton administration. It also discusses a television news show (An ABC News' "Day One" segment) that claimed that Philip Morris spiked cigarettes with nicotine to keep smokers addicted.

While the entire document is of interest, one portion near the end discusses the tobacco industry's inside view of the particular threat that accrues when smoking is focused upon as an addiction rather than a "choice."

In 1994, David Kessler (then -commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or FDA) asserted that nicotine was an addictive drug intended to affect the structure and function of the body and that therefore cigarettes should be regulated by the FDA. This document conveys why PM executives considered references to the addictiveness of smoking to be a major threat:

"...The most serious concern that I have is that the adverse media attention...being leveled at the industry may ultimately impact on jurors' attitudes about our defense in product liability cases...But even if jurors do not believe that we 'spike' our products, they could nevertheless adopt a more skeptical attitude in the future toward our principal defense--personal liability...If he [Kessler] were to declare that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive and must be regulated, that action could affect the way in which jurors approach the issues of addiction and choice."

[Italicized emphasis added]

Widespread belief that smoking is a normative personal choice rather than an addiction is central to the industry's ability to continue to defend itself in liability suits. This portion of the document shows that the notion of smoking as "free choice" is undermined when smoking becomes widely viewed as nicotine addiction, which is actually a diagnosable disorder.

These notes from a British American Tobacco (BAT) company scientist (D. Irwin) discuss "ROOT Technology," a tobacco industry term for enhancing nicotine delivery to smokers by adding ammonia-based compounds to tobacco.

In 1994 in the United States, an ABC News Day One segment accused tobacco companies of "spiking" their cigarettes by adding nicotine. The accusation only slightly missed the mark. The tobacco companies' technology is aimed at putting more of the nicotine that already exists in a cigarette into vapor form (also called "free nicotine"), where it is more rapidly absorbed by the smoker. As D. Irwin put it in a different BAT memo (from 1994) ,

"I need hardly point out that adding substances to tobacco that lead to more of the tobacco nicotine ending up in smoke is very close to nicotine fortification." http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/400/482/

Today's document states, "Ammonia increases impact because it increases smoke pH which enhances impact."

Even more interesting, however, is the question Irwin poses in this memo about another cigarette additive: Urea.

"Would disclosure of urea as a tobacco additive have a negative effect on consumer perception given that it is a constituent of urine?"

This confidential 1981 Philip Morris (PM) memo records ideas generated during a meeting to explore potentially beneficial cigarette additives. "Beneficial" was defined as"creating more profit (sales) to Philip Morris, creating a positive public image, being safe, good for you as well as pleasurable, [and/or] creating a favorable image with government agencies." Ideas floated included using smoke to deliver therapeutic agents like bronchodilators, appetite suppressants and pain killers. Another idea was to "incorporate an additive which causes the body to produce its own therapeutic agent. Thus, we could alleviate pain, increase sex drive, etc. without adding agents to do this but by adding a naturally occurring promoter." Another idea was to enhance the appetite suppressing properties of smoke. With regard to this idea, the memo states, "Care must be taken not to make specific claims or to invoke a "drug additive" image..." Still another idea was to use an additive to reduce the amount of tobacco needed to make the cigarette. Diatomaceous earth*, clay and ground corn cobs were suggested as possible additives that might accomplish this goal. Other ideas were to include additives that would reduce dental caries and constipation, regulate the heart rate, soothe colds and reduce anxiety.

This memo shows PM's cavalier attitude towards the use of cigarettes as drug delivery devices, and gives a general--if not chilling--idea of what constitutes product improvement from a cigarette company's standpoint.

The memo was drafted by William Farone, a former Philip Morris scientist who now testifies against the industry. The meeting was also attended by Victor DeNoble who worked in Philip Morris' behavioral research labs and who also now testifies against the industry.

This letter was sent to the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company from vegetarian Camel smoker who wrote to object to the use of licorice, which contains the animal by-product gelatin, as an ingredient in cigarettes. Since ingredients are not listed on the pack, the writer cannot be sure if the ingredient exists in the cigarettes. The writer, who is clearly concerned about unecessary animal deaths, is completely unconcerned about the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused to humans by cigarettes. The writer also states an awareness that insects and animal feces are in consumer products, but says, "this is not what I am concerned about, especially".

This letter should help stave off stereotypes about vegetarians (who are usually thought of as health-conscious people) and demonstrates how smokers think (or do not think) about their product and its ramifications.

In 2001 Philip Morris contracted with Life Sciences Research Office in Bethesda, Maryland (a purported independent research organization) to do a study to evaluate "the health effects and relative risk of selected ingredients added to cigarettes" [from LSRO's Web site, http://www.lsro.org/air/frames_air_plan.html, 24 Jan 1005]. According to LSRO, PM would provide funding for the study, and LSRO would be responsible for assembling panels of experts. LSRO's "Overall Plan" for the project states, "In order to preserve the third party independence of the review, after the agreement has been executed, PM will have no further role in the design, conduct, deliberations, or the conclusions of the panels."

In 2004, LSRO announced the composition of the expert panel. It consisted of the following individuals:

Alwynelle Ahl, Ph.D., D.V.M., USDA (ret.) Carroll E. Cross, M.D. Shayne Cox Gad, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., F.A.T.S. Donald E. Gardner, Ph.D., F.A.T.S. Louis D. Homer, M.D., Ph.D. Rudolph Jaeger, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., B.C.F.M. Robert Orth, Ph.D. Emanuel Rubin M.D. James L. Schardein, M.S., F.A.T.S. Thomas Joseph Slaga, Ph.D. [http://www.lsro.org/air/frames_air_panel.html?content_air_panel_links.html] A review of the panel members shows that a substantial number of them have previous ties to the tobacco industry (which are not listed in their bios on LSRO's web site), either having worked as consultants for major tobacco firms, applied for and/or been recipients of grants from the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), been affiliated with PM front groups like The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC, see previous posting at http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/158433.html) or the industry's Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR, which was forced to disband under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement).

This brief 2001 internal PM email shows that PM did indeed have input into the makeup of LSRO's panel, and screened them for candidates they felt were "biased against the industry."