Tobacco Documents Online

REPORT TO SURGEON GENERAL'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SMOKING AND HEALTH MATERIALS ON CIGARETTE FILTRATION Submitted By P. LORILLARD COMPANY MORGAN J. CRAMER, PRESIDENT May 29, 1963

REPORT TO SURGEON GENERAL'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SMOKING AND HEALTH Y Table of Contents A. Filtration of Tar . . . . . . B. Filtration of Nicotine , , . . C. Filtration of Phenol . . . . . Cigarette Smoke and Phenol as Ciliastatic Agents . INTRODUCTION I. ROLE OF FILTER CIGARETTES IN REDUCING OR ELIMINATING ALLEGED HEALTH HAZARDS OF SMOKING . . . . . . . . . . 4 MATERIALS ON CIGARETTE FILTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , , 5 , , 7 . . 9 . . . . 10 Selective Filtration of Phenols ,,, 12 Phenol Content of Cigarettes ,.,, 14 D. Significance of Filter Cigarettes , , II. THE NEED FOR REVIEW OF THE 1959 POLICY STATEMENT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL ... CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . i BIBLIOGRAPHY 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 • 0 0 . . 15

r r INTRODUCTION This report is submitted pursuant to the invitation contained in a telegram received from Dr. Luther Terry on July 20, 1962, and affirmed in a letter from Dr. James M. Hundley dated March 12, 1963. In his telegram, Dr. Terry advised that Lorillard's views with respect to the studies of the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health would be welcome directly in writing. In his letter Dr. Hundley advised that the Surgeon General's Committee would be pleased to receive data of relevance to the Com- mittee's task of assessing the nature and magnitude of the health hazards. On April 3, 1963, Morgan J. Cramer, President of P. Lorillard Company, advised Dr. Hundley that Lorillard was preparing a compilation of scientific information on cigar- ette filtration with emphasis to be placed on data deYived from studies conducted in Lorillard's own laboratories and in outside laboratories. 1

, r , The materials contained in this report are submitted neither to prove nor.disprove any of the conflicting claims advanced by medical authorities with respect to the health hazards of smoking. We believe any submission by Lorillard relating to these questions would only be cumulative since this aspect of the Committee's inquiry will receive full and sufficient coverage from other sources. In Lorillard's view, the claimed association between smoking and various diseases is based largely upon statistics which have been challenged both as to adequacy and method- ology, and is lacking in probative physiological or clinical substantiation. We make this declaration in order precisely to position this presentation in the context of Lorillard's official policy. We recognize, however, that while this claimed association is seriously disputed, it has been asserted by respected authorities, has been heavily documented and given expansive publicity. Lorillard neither disregards these claims nor acts irresponsibly to discredit them. Thus, while P. Lorillard Company does not believe the serious health charges against cigarette smoking have been C C.: - ~ C11 ~ - 2 - `~ 0

r , proved, we are deeply concerned. We, therefore, regard it our fundamental responsibility to explore every substan- tial health charge directed at cigarette smoking -- though we do not accept them as proved -- and to strive to meet these charges through development of cigarettes designed to reduce the amount of the suspect components of smoke and thereby to mitigate or eliminate the alleged health hazards. In this presentation we do not claim or seek any advantage for the P. Lorillard Company. The developments which we describe are within the present competence of all cigarette companies, and advanced techniques of cigarette filtration are also used by a number of other companies. These companies are engaged, as is Lorillard, in continuing, unrelenting efforts to develop improved filters and to adapt these filter advancements, as they are achieved, to their cigarettes. We believe that the materials contained in this re- port will be relevant to this Committee's inquiry and will assist the Committee in reaching an informed judgment con- cerning the effectiveness of filters andthe significance and utility of filter cigarettes. 3

I. ROLE OF FILTER CIGARETTES IN REDUCING OR ELIMINATING ALLEGED HEALTH HAZARDS OF SMOKING Cigarette smoke contains a combination of air, gases , t and particulate matter, by-products of incomplete combustion of tobacco or derived from unburned tobacco.1/ The components of tobacco smoke most seriously con- r sidered at various times in terms of health significance include tar, nicotine, phenol, carbon monoxide and poly- nuclear hydrocarbons such as benzpyrene. of these, tar, nicotine and phenol now receive major attention.v ~ The complex chemistry of smoke has yet to be definitively summarized. The literature reports identification of 261 compounds by one source(7) and of "some 300 compounds" by another(27). Other estimates, which include isomers, are much higher. ~ The Royal College of Physicians considers that the con- centration of carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke is "not enough to have clinical effects in normal circumstances"a7) . Benzpyrene, the most extensively studied of the suspect polynuclear hydrocarbons, is a carcinogen under some conditions, but its concentration in cigarette smoke is so low that experiments in which benzpyrene mist was inhaled failed to produce bronchogenic carcinoma in . 0 animals(32) W ~ C: W~ CD - 4 - ~ N

r . The quantity of tar, nicotine and phenol in the mainstream smoke of cigarettes varies according to a number of factors including the selection and blend of tobaccos, treatment of tobaccos, the tightness of packing the tobacco, and factors which affect the rate of combustion, hence the amount and nature of combustion by-products. in a filter cigarette, the quantity of tar, nicotine and phenol in the mainstream smoke is affected by these factors but is a function principally of the design and efficiency of the filter. On the following pages, we discuss filtration of these substances in greater detail: the charges which have been made concerning their presence in cigarette smoke, the performance of filter cigarettes in reducing these substances, and the significance of filter cigarettes. A. Filtration of Tarv The consensus of that portion of present opinion which charges an association between cigarette smoke and ~ For simplicity the word "tar" is employed synonomously with "smoke condensate" or the particulate phase of cigarette smoke. 5

. r various diseases asserts that tar is the fraction of smoke which contains the principal suspected agents. In this view, the alleged adtierse effects of smoking are approxi- mately proportional to the degree of exposure to smoke, particularly to its tar components. The use of filters to reduce the tar yield of cigar- ettes has become widespread since the mid-1950's. Filters can be devised which remove 100•,6 of the tar or particulate matter of cigarette smoke, but since tar contains the principal flavor elements of smoke, the smoke thus filtered becomes tasteless and unsatisfactory to the smoker. There- fore, manufacturers have controlled both tobacco blend and filter performance so that the mainstream product -- the smoke which enters the smoker's mouth -- has acceptable flavor characteristics. Filters physically trap and remove particulate matter from the mainstream smoke with a high degree of efficiency. Cellulose acetate fibers have been found to serve well as a filtering material for cigarettes, permitting a high degree of control over the quantity of particulate matter removed GO. ~ C!t Cd - 6 - .~ ~

from the smoke. The filtering action is achieved largely S. f by the physical entrapment of the particulate matter as it impinges on the cellulose acetate fibers while being drawn through the filter. Filter cigarettes as a group yield substantially less tar in the mainstream smoke than nonfilter cigarettes, and within the filter group there is a wide range of tar yields. The tar content of 37 brands of cigarettes tested in 1961 by Reader's Digest showed a range from 5.7 mg. in the lowest- yield filter to 33.2 mg. in the highest-yield nonfilter. (See Table 1) B. Filtration of Nicotine Traditionally, nicotine has been bracketed with tar as the principal toxic agent in smoke, and'critics have used nicotine as a basis for illustrating the possible harmful effects of smoking. Nicotine is largely in the particulate phase of the smoke and is technically a component of the tar ur condensate. Its removal or reduction by means of filtra- tion is accomplished in the manner described 7 in the preceding

TABLE 1 Tars (Si»vke So(icl:r)' Brond 54. 1957 1958' 1959 196'l FILTER'-T1 PS Oasis King. 24.5 mg 29.8' mg Tareyton Dual King. 27.1 mg 25.3 nig 23.O1mg 22.0 mg r Raleigh King - 21.4!mg Kool King 24.1 mg 21,0 my L & M King 38.5 nig 24.9 mg 18'.6 m; 20.7 mg Salem King - 25.4 nig 20.3 mg Wi ns to n King 32.6 mg 29: t' nig 22.7 nig 19.0 nig r Marlboro Kin, - 1'9.9mg . 19.2mt; Marlboro Long 34.4 mg 24.7 mg 16.7 m5 19:1i m,; ~ Alpine Kin~ - 15.2'mg, 1Y,11 m~.~ L&M Long 24.0 mg 18.9 m; I S. II mo Kentucky Kings King - - 17.9 nig Winston Long 23.7 mg 20.4 mg 17.5 nig Viceroy King 30:2 mg 27'.7'mg 20.0 rng 17:2 m:; Parliament King - 16.2 mg 16.2 mt! Old Gold Kins. 39:&mm 20.8' mg 18.4 mg 1!6.0 mg Parliament Long 3-1.1' mg 19.6mg I5.8ms 15,8mg Newport King - 19.7 mg 1'S.6 mg, Viceroy Long - 14!.9 ms' Newport Long, 17.3 m~ 14,0 mg, Kent Kin; 30.4 mg 17.9 mg 17.6mS 13'.7m, Kent Long 16.41 nig 15.6 ms 12.8 m, Duke of Durham King - 7:2 mg 0 1 11.9 mj, 8 6 Spring King Sano i<ingKing - 18.5 ma mg 1 . 18'.1 mo . n:g 7.9 m- Life King 9.8 mg 5.7 mg I PLAIN-T1PS I Pall Mall King 38.6 mg 37.1 mg ' 34.4 mg 33.2 mg Chesterfield Kins 41.1 mg .7 mg 38 35.7 mg 32.4 mg Raleigh Philip Morris King 39.3 mg 35L6 ms - 34.9 mg 32:3 mb "Commander" King - - - 31.9 mg Herbert Tareyton King 3'6,6 mg 34'.3 mg _ 30:7 mg 30.9 mg. Chesterfield Reg. 32.7 mg 30.6 mg, : 28.4 mg 26.2' mg Lucky Strike Reg, 31.5 mg 28.6 mo' 25.8 mg 24.8 mg Old Gold Straight King - - - 24.4 m.- Philip Morris Reg. 353 mg 28.9 mg 25.8 mg 23.7 mg Camel Reg. 31.0 mg 28.7 mg 27:7 mg 23.4 mg Old Gold Straight Reg. 30.9 mg 22.4 ms .21.3 mg 18.3 mg . Source: Reader's O Digest (July 1961) p. 75. ~ ~ ~ z