Tobacco Documents Online

DOCUMENT NEW PROJECT PROPOSAL Project LESS Initiator: Mr. W.D.E. Irwin. Reference: Special Sidestream meeting on 3.12.85 in Millbank. Objective: General - To reduce total sidestream yield per cigarette to a |~V6| which gives a readily recognisable reduction in room odour and irritation, relative to leading market brands. Specific - Significant reduction (99% confidence level) in irritation and odour relative to target brands in standard cubicle and room tests (the latter to be devel oped). 2. Mainstream deliveries and puff ~umber to targets set by individual market considerations. 3. Taste performance comparable to target brands as measured by (a) Omega and (b) consumer tests. Background: Attitude surveys continue to suggest an opportunity for products which would alleviate .the nuisance of room cigarette smoke - irritation, odour and haze. A second reason for developing low sidestream products, Government action to limit sidestream yields seems unlikely for at least 5 years because standard measurement methods have still to be agreed. A distinction is usually made between effects of the fresh concentrated plume and those associated with its later dispersion around a room (ambient smoke). People affected Brand association Controlling factor PLUME ROOM In the i)mlediate vicinity Can be avoided Plume visibility - yes Odour/Irritation - no? Rate Everyone in the room Cannot be avoided Sum of brands smoked Yield per cigarette In sunBary, the primary social need is to reduce overall room burden but in recent years there has been a concentration on reducing plume visibi]ity for U.S.P. reasons. I I 1 i I t I I i ! i BATCo document for Mayo Clinic 13 December 2001

-2- Three theoretical options can be identified to improve sidestream properties : 1. Qualitative changes to less objectionable components. 2. Quantitative reductions in yields. 3. Addition of odour masking agents. Ecusta and De Mauduit papers have produced a qualitative change. The same total sidestream is produced but a greater proportion is non visible. The limitations are well known-- Haze is reduced but Irritation and odour are not. Undesirable side effects include some distortion In taste and biological properties. The cosmetic effect on plume visibility has tended to dominate the need to reduce overall smoke burden. Other qualitative routes, if discovered, may also lead to unpredictable side effects. This statement is supported by the history of attempts at selective mainstream modification. Quantitative reduction in total sides~ream and, therefore, smoke burden requires burning less tobacco to sidestream. This can be done by a combination of lower tobacco weight and design changes (e.g. slower burning papers) to mlnimise puff number reduction. Length, density and circumference reductions have been used but circumference has the least effect on puff number for a given weight reduction. This approach • is being used in projects MISSILE and EEL. Odour maskers may offer an additional benefit if they do not affect mainstream. Suitable maskers have not been identified to-date but research continues. In conclusion, the primary need is a reduction in total room smoke burden and this can only be achieved by a reduction in tobacco weight burned to sidestream. Proposal: At constant density and length, 19n~ and 20m circumference ~garettes being developed for MISSILE (USB) and EEL (Virginia) respectively give 40 and 35% weight reduction relative to a 24.75m circumference standard. Puff numbers of 8 and higher have been obtained. These products will be assessed against the sidestream performance targets noted earlier. Depending on r~sults, developments may require further circumference, density or rod length reduction. High levels of expanded tobacco in combination with LTR slow burning sheets will be examined as an extension of Project RUGBY. Later options will include the use of expanded extruded tobacco with high inorganic contents, from Project DEER. In general, the project will determine the weight reductions required to meet the sidestream sensory target and, within this, optimise combinations of dimensions, new filler material and new papers to achieve the mainstream targets. Thus a developing series of new options will be made available. Meanwhile, it will be necessary for Marketing to explore methods of communicating the message that such products continue to offer the taste and satisfaction required by smokers whilst mlnimising room pollution. The easier option based on the cosmetic reduction in plume visibility must now be discarded because of unacceptable side effects and the absence of a real consumer benefit. BATCo document for Mayo Clinic 13 December 2001