Tobacco Documents Online

r f r`° _j i,. COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE SUBCOMw'1'=x FOjt CDDTSIAlBRS Hssrinq on S. 1454 MasA,iaqlap, 0. C. Thussda, 10 t.bWuas!. 1972 DUPIICATTON OR COPYING OF THIS TRANSCRIPT BY PXO?iOGRAPHIC, ELECTROSTATIC OR OTHER FACS[1KILE MEANS IS PROHIBITED BY THE ORDER FORM AGREEMENT. MONICK - SULLIVAN Official Reportera 415 S.cQnd Str..t, N.E. Washinqlon,.D. C. 20002 TtNphmn: (CoAe 202) 547-M a NATIONWIDE COVE1tAGt

CF.?5004 TAYLOE ht 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 8 18 19 20 21 22' 23 24 C 0NT D Il1T S' ~.m-':•'-1.-""..,1 ST.._..'" OF: 343 PhC:D Dr. Ernest L. Wynder, President, American Health Foundation, New York, New York 374 The Iionoravle John Sherman Cooper, United States Senator from the State of Kentucky 431 jj,~I Dr. ..rt;.hur I'urs t, Director, Institutd of Chemical Bioloay, Univcrsity of San~rrancisco, California 444 The Honorable Strom Thurmond', United States Senator from the State of South Carolina 482 Bruce B. ~lilson, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U. S. Depart^ient of Justice 48? Dr. F:onald Okun, Director of Clinical,F'harmacology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California 506 Dr. Charles C. Edwards, Corrti^nissioner, Food and Drug Administration - accompanied by: Peter B. Iiutt John F. Banzhaff III, Executive Director, Action on S>'tol:incr and IIealth, Washington, D. C. Charles J. tiouhtouris, Secretary-Treasurer, Little Cir,ar Council 534 'ed'erall Reporters, Inc. 25

344 TAY LOE:re CR #'5004 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22' 23 24 A,.. -Federal Repai!crs, lnc. Hearing on S. 1454 Thursday, 10 February 1972 United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee for Consumers, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, the Honorable Frank E. Moss, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding: ~ . Present: Senators Frank E. Moss, Howard H. Baker, Jr., and Marlow W. Cook. + + + 25

Jon 34'' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ice - FederaI Reporters,Inc.. 25 Senator .:oss. Tae tleari'ng will co+.;e to order. Toe:r.v t. e•Co. -.ittee will reconvene in its consideration of leerislation ::?idc`.1 i have introaLced to ariend the P u:)lic 7Ica 1 4-511 C :. Jrarctt-e @r..c;,~-. . to rec~,zi r e~ re the I'c,_1 .~~ra ~i ..~~~,. ,ir.c~ 1'.e~.. ~. ~~ ~ nr~..jc . Cc :-~: -:iss ion to esta:,•.lish levels of tar and: nicotinc . content of cigarettcs i,ddlti.onall:', ;ic also %'.'1t:Yn SSc^-S :'Tl'ta us today ,:ho discuss t'_ie mar::etir.g of littlc cicars and the anLilicwtion of the Fculz: ral. zarciousSus':s.tances,.rct to •. cic;arettcs. I 47nuld like to cor:Lment Jrieily on Sor!le of the witnesses ::.":o i1ave tn's tii:lc^..d ~~ravlousl:'. It seens to n;c :.:e have ;-,ad a lot of people quoting other ~xeoI)le out of context in~ this hearing and I arl distu'r:.)ed to not2 that. Certain: witnesses quote the Surgcon Geneial's report .::1cn it it:T%T'.orts t.:^il* position and refute everything ~iA.`r c J~.n~ t'.:e report. c~Jt.. ,;~,`e:• of Per)lUiJ l. 1~1•l~ c- a:.Al~1 c.)~/.. ?'' C4'Lcl• rlL.r~~~... IY' ,/aJ th3 l:Jc_..alr.1ony 1~' s;r'. ;:ora cc of ta'C' To'.~acco I.15-11--1tLitc?., in ca' ha c1uc~t`Ll '~r. ;;i.lliar:: i. Stc:;art, forr er Surr,eon Get:vr~~1 of t:i,:! Lnit-au S`atOL;. 2015045954 Tiie statc;.ent:~ attri_'utuc: to Jr. Stct,*art indicated taat t.1C:' f'Jr::.~y Sl2iYjl3on Ge.'::icral woui!ti Oi:i:Os':r' li:(;islatlon to C:i':_1iJ11S;1 Ti,1::iIiL:T1 l].?'lit i on' to.'1' aniCl nicotine .ln, c1CZ:!rCL:tC'. r;.

j on 3,1 U' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1ce - Federal Reportets, Inc. 25 It seems to :^e :chcn you quotc r:omeone out of contc::t you can invariably quote words which agree with your pcsition. I::oulc; not be surL riscd i{ so~.c:.ouy mirht be quotinq re out of cor:tc;:t ana' havc mo supporting thcir position on so.:,o matter related to cigarettco. In any case, Iwrote to Dr. Stnwa.rt, who is noe:. ~ ,;,, ~ er C::,~ , ~ncel l:~r of tI•,^'. ~uisi4na St~.te L:z wer_sit+~ ~,' dic~, ._ ~ `'cr.t and asked hir.; to cor,1.;,cnt on IIr. Kornc5aw's testimony in our cf`oa to to es taulis;i m«}:i:r.:um limits on tar and'nicotir:c. I would like to road into the record Dr. Stc•rrart's letter to r,e in answer to tirat inc;ui r. jr. It says: :.o~s: "'Dear Senatcr '_'.o~s "I appreciate the opportunity to cor.^u ent on S. 1454 and, rarticularly, on the testir:ony rrepar.ed by :Ir. Prc.cident of the Tobacco Institutc. ::orneaaa, "First, 1et me say t;!1t I ar.c not surprised by anything the Tobacco Institute c?oes or says. They are very c;ood at the ruote out of conte::t and the r„isuGe of facts for their own c'.esires. 2015045955 ":1r. hornec:ay has quoted re in several places from testir:,ontr I gave in 19G9 co..cernin r"tar" and nicotin~c levels in cicarettes. I T•:as asl:cci innur•.er<-:ble tir.,cs (luring tl:ct zr •::h^tI.er or not I fclt tll.cr.c shoulc'd be a cciling on ti:c of 'tar' and nicotint: allv.:cc' lal ciRar.ct_tes. "I did not fec]., at the ti~(., t:1at tlrerc: should L)~_, Z

jon 3,17 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3' 24 c~ilin a o.^n the lcvels of ' tur' and' nicotin^ allo,.red in cigarettes. :1v •basis for this position was that to establisl'; an acnWYent :.ealth hazard threshold would imr 1y that there ,:as a safC cirarette. Tnis, of course, is not true. iacr_e is no suc : thing as a safe cir.arette. "'Excosuro to ci-qarcttc smol..e is more than the tvpe of ci~a: ette sr..o?:c•c3. m:ze c::posure to 'tar' and nicotine ir.crea ,cs rapidly as the ls.st 'Alci1F of the cigarette is s.T.'.o%Cd. iXpC) sllre o.~iviously increases by the number of ' cie;arettcs smio.:ed per day and by the nuTMber of years of sno:cina. "It i..as my position that it was better to have the oacAaqe and all advertising labelcd witlY! the 'tar' and nicotin le•.,els along with the hazardous product label so that the pu::lic could choose a cigarette ~,rith lower 'tar' and! nicotine content if they found that the pressures to smoke were such that cessation of sr~oking ~~:as impossiblc.- I believe there is some evidence now that t:ie public is, in fact, choosing more cicrarettes with lo,::er 'tar' and ricotine content. "I do not have co,ies of r.y numerous testinonies on cigarette smoking during 19GE'^-69, so I cannot checl; with certai..th. I:owever, I believe it s•.as the st4ttc:;ents I madle t::at position t'.:at 'ir. .::ornegav is quotincr. course, I c.-:s stutinG r.-•.Position Lccause I fc:ar(:d kce--Federali Reporters, Inc. II t::at settinq a tTcre ;:iola t;ould ltall t'.'ic, pco~~,~l(-: into the

j'on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10! 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federai Reporters,Inc. 34 '1 assumption that a::_r cicarettes in any quantity that werc belo,.l that level could be sr;ol:ed with •i:~;ounity. That aould only serve to inc::ease t;ze health hazard to tlie puilic of cigarette sL-Io};in!g. °:?r. !'.ornega1 , on the other hand, quotes my stc^+tel':c:nts in part to imply, tthat 'tar' andi nicotine have noti~:.inr, toI do ;.ritiZ t`..e health liaza.r~ls of ciRarcttc This, of coursc, has c:izracteriz--d tae conl-rov_-rsy from the be;innir.g. "I believe tiiat S. 1454 rerresents a. ne,-; and ibroaeler a)l:roacIl to the settinq of 'tar' a:zdl iiicotinc limits in ci;arettes which avoid ti:c thresh:olc'., i;roblcM. ~. 1454 is i>a'Sed on a i uJlic ::Gdlth principle w::ich has bcen used for lcZ1Z1' C0:1tl.ries as ^u1j17C t.Co11t;Z I..e~s"u11res to avoid i:Ealta .:azarus. ".. :~;odern e::<<r;cle :,auld be ra~i ation ~rotectio7 at lo:•r ievels of radiatio.: eaposure. There is substa:itial scientific arr_e^e: t t'.at all r, zdiatior. is ::a::arc?ous -.and t:`,atno t:rres'.:old exists. All radiation protection r..casures that I}.no,Y of are :.~;.s:!C: oIn that P.adiatyO:]1 protection I:easure3 are all ai:-ed at allowing only that e::pcsuurc t:Zat cannot absolutell ;)c avnided or the benefits out,:-cic;ii the risk of the hazards. "I thln% the samc holc?s true for cigarettes. Any 201504595'7 e::cosure to cigarette sr..o}.:c or the contents off tzat •s^o':c w:: ~ I., ~_• y ,vaic1•,.,ul ,• ~~~iouild '.:,y ~~ ~vo:tic,ed. T ,: ~ t:ie ~~;:~ ;lic :,il n.; ca. t 2511 acc^; t 1~:-c~ ~i:~:iti^:l CIf c.ircr.c•! t,s, and I don't t'.:in:, t'ZI

-oulc?, t,:ezo tht? T ruc:ent i ~ublic healt:: posture is to do those 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .ce -ederal Reporters,inc. 25 t::i'nrc that decro-ase eriposurc to the r.a::ir!u;1 degree acceptable to the pu.5lic. "This is Z;;orka:;le p roc,rram which :%rill, in the long run, cut uown en the hazard to aealth. There is 5ood, eviGence t'_ie :,u:~Dlie <zccc}-t ci:.arettcf, th:,t arc lo.w in e::j osure to 'tar' and nicotinc• "I L-elieve t`:ie testi:.;o::y presentec~, to the Su:.-cort:.;ittee ~ ~ 1iJ ~ C\l. ~*:J ~. U. •+L• T~ Lu.."C. istent ,: i'=i .~:hat I aave just said. I lieve Chaotcr 9 of L'. c 197'' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~urgeon Gencral s report suppor~:: it. r'I would a?ree ,:ast!-i I:1r, I;uVrl t:iat the bill should l:e a:::end.oa: so that successive red'uctio7s in the pe^rr.:issibls lc vel~ chouled not he made solely c:eper.dent u-:on the avoidance of ' la:.reasona!)1e' health zazards. . "I would~ li!:e to concratulate you orn all of your efforts to-,; arvis solving this health problemanel I hope 1 ou are successful in securi ni, Senate approval proval of your bill~." Sa.~ned William P:. S:cc•>art, ::.D, , Chancallor, Louisiana ctate Univcrsity ;tcdi'~cal Center. And the letter in its Q cn tirct1~ ~7<~s now been read ir_to the recorc:. O Senator Coo:.. "r. C'::air:-,3n? A GD Senator :4osc,. Yes? ~ Senator C:oo)C. In resj'.`nse to t~:1S letter I WOulG ll%e t~o a~l:;~o r~et into the rccoa:c: t:rat~t I'r, :,orncqay ~ saiv~ f~it~ to

jon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10! 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 %ce -Federai Reporters, Inc. 350 avail himself of t:zis Co:;,:,dttee, not only to give his state- r:ent, but to be 'czoss-e:~a ~incd by anv member of this Co.:L-,ittee who eit..er nc~reed or disaareed c•rith his statement. / J You have seen fit to send his testimony to Dr. Stewart ' to com.:.ent bY letter. I would request of this Cozi.r: ittee that it- invite Dr. ;:tc;9'c r t to coP'te beyo1 e this CoI:'^.ittee becc» u3e t'.zere are r:n1 t:zir..r,s in his letter that can be ab: olutely rEfuted wit?iout any question. Further, if it is not the desire of this Co,-.-iittee*to invitc him, then I-uould like to take the matter to the whole Co:^^ittee so that we right get a suhpoena issued to Dr. Stewart so that he might '.Jo u'skec: to ccme before this Committee if ha doos not wish to d'o so. Senator iioss. ~-icll, the Senator knoc•.s very well that Dr. Ste%.rart can be invited, is willing! to testify. I3e has t_stified before us numerous times. Vlhat I did was send do~:n ti':e testironm, in which a witness quoted Dr. Stewart and cuote6ci him in a way that said •.;hat Dr. Stewart now refutes in hi:s letter. ii'e says that those stater..ents were out of context and do not su7,r.ort his tosition. If you want Dr. Stc;.:•art to come and say that in so many `oras, wh'y, we ;,ri11 :Zave Dr. Stewart. 2~.5Q'459.59 Senator Cook. I do inei''eeci, :Decausc Dr. Stesaart :,ays in i his o~an ].etter.: "I dc not `.:,1ve copies of tr.y nw.;erous 2511 t"~t 11:'.OI11C' : on' c]: J';'_2.°::!::te s~lCi...I:r: C::?IlJ:I:!CJ ].)(II"i 9, so I cca::lU't:

jon 351 c ooi: 1 2 4 5 8 9 10 • 11 12 13 14 15 16 ciiec:: with certai:.t.!." So I can only say to you in all fairness he should check his testinonv before he cor;es before t:1is Cor:.raittee so that :,h~at tme said can be in fact docu:r.cnted as it has already L-n.^-..'1 G:ocu::,e:'1tCd ::.vtorE:' this CoI^s~littc.^_', a'n d if he wants to rciut0 it he should c:o SO in .)erSon and not L}' 1!a tter, The reason I:;av this, :Sr.C:a ir;::c::2, is if VG'1 wi? 1 clI :c;; latest issue of Fortune :iaG,aZiI'lV' there is awonC2nrr'u.!a article on our Toy Sz-fety Act and it is called "iemnest in , - . ~ `i"ovlanG, " and the rectsonI~'Jrin'j. thiSLa)is IC:onOt tiiinii t7ii,'' Co:-,mittce or t.:e pui.;lic should be stamrcc?ed into so:,:etl:ir.g t::..t cvcrlbcdf iias alrcady bia~edlj~ agrced~~ they are going to. do sor;etiiing about, including the Surgcon General of t::e T7n; ted Stateo. Senator ::oss. I ir,i.ght say f::.e Adr::inistration. Senator Cook. If tiiey are })iased, I will agree to :0o'•: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24: >te - Federal Reporders,Inc. 25 you t:aat I%:ill say to you that tlrey are biased also, and I do not do that with any degree of certainty that I have to acree Viith everyt.'°.ing that this Adniniatration says. I might say to you t::at I aia reading frorl "Tempest in _bylezn,c?" in I'ortuane ;_acazine. 201504SBC0 For cr.ar.:,~1a, the Ce:^r..isJlOI1 re~, orted that in the U. S. rore than 15,000 ch_ldron unc?cr 15 die cach year frmr acc? c:ents a::d anot'.:cr 17 r:illiori ar.c znjLr.ec, sevcr.cly enouch to r.estr.i.ct ^o,-7 -i1 ac tivit:' or r.cc,uira r Cc? ical atteatioa.

jon 3521 1 2 4 b' 7 8 9 10 1 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A staff report of thc .;ational Cor..nission on Product Safety datedJuno 10701 estir.:ated that in 1967 a nur:her of caile:'ren und1er 15 ;•,ao died of acLidents clearly involvi:IS tol=s :•;as not 15,0010 but was 72. S'ena'tor :1oas. does that have to do with the hearing ;,7e havc toc'!ah on ci,arettcs? Senator Coo':. I!I-aa to do e:.actly with this: i^e have he=n ;iven facts and firur-s on stu'dics that :!:e have J../.U;~ wCGll .1+~_l .~.a l a'ttc1..~`^tc;, .a to ~ .~ wcf,tE ' t~/~ ~;eJ _ ~~ G~lf,1 logical researc'1', and :-e have ue: n told ~S' taat t:;ere is a lot of criticism c,~Jout tt2o6v 1"cr',or ta, so t;:'Cy really do not have any value. Pr. Stc:::<.t. .^,'a:.'S ~:.,:'t h E, c (;r.n:^3 i']'ith'.::._^'f' conclU:~io:"1.3 Of.C::..^::(?r 9 Of t.:Ic rC~~rJI1 :=cncral~ i rtorliulY' ~7 Lj.:J iir1°:: i1 after a onc-d'ay : erinar of' peonle who agreecl' with the Ssrgcon G--r.,:!ral ` s position who ~acre h1roucrht into ,7aschington to ;yrito taut c:':ia~ ter, and at the end of it they had to ' put arr asteris:. c0.:.11itt:: , and Say this ~4«3 not the u.Zani.:.ous c,lcreeMCnt of t he so::.a disagreed. 2015045961 Senator i'oss. ::oca, how ridi'culous can you bc? ":cdicul -ei tr.u;;scs t;ho ::avc `.;ccn' studl1'ing the subjicc t for years have a!rcddv ;:r.'.tt.^.n t;i^_l:r c:3ts on it and t}iov are Lrnuc- rlt ir,to a room whcro t:::.- aring :': ~ ttl t'.le:"l all t}:C' stttCG icz tlw j' have .;•:..C:G ailCG sit down and t];:v to come to a con:i.^.,:13us a.*;:onG t:1C ~3o t:)nt t:zey cou3.cii iss'.ze a' rc' ~or t, ar.d I~.rould loe a:;touncled Ac. -Federal Reporters, Inc. J' + 25 if f •~:~o'u br.ou(-.,:t in al lot of r.: c?i ca1 practil.ionc:rs and t`.:cl

jon 353 aGrecd on ever•1 ab solute ::orc:. `_'ou have to come to a 2 majority consensys, and! that is what happened on it. 3 But, Senator, you have used this as a pulpit to try 4 to car..~)airn for your con ~;tituency at tiese hearings. Let's 5 get on with the hearing. Let's hear, the witnesses, and hear 6 what t.:cy have to say and not have this con stant harangue 7 arout -v,•hat the su:.)ject ratt-a r is in ta].ki r.c; about toys, as 8 thour.a we were tal}.in_r, about toys today. 9 Senator Coo::. Senator , let r,:e add a fe~z things to 10 pc:o-,le who wish to look afte r their constituents under tt:oc(, ll circuu:.s tances . I would like to have put into the record a 12 :>tat---.ent of Co:zr::esFr-.::,n .":. G. S::-: c;er ~,,:zic'., he ;-:ou1d like to 13 ` ' ~. '.zt:. ~rcent tr •'~"..r an incl~.c..d' in t: zCi~co.u, a~t r_,, or.~~~~ 14 r:illiam P. Curlin from my statt;: :•rhich I would like to have nut 15 ir.t}o the record, and a statement of the IIonorab,le Carl D. 16 Per::ins that he would' like to have put in the record, and all 17 of the;:i assured r,~e if tiie Cor:-mittee wishes to ask then 18 any questicna t.zey ~aill ::e deliglited to appear. 19 Senator '.:oss. Thc1 1..,411 l be includec.i in the record in 20 f ll u . 21 ) N t f ll St t o:r. a cr,en o s ~ 22 ~ 0 23 ~ 24 ~ Ace- Federal, R"orters, Inc. 25

fotential r.conomic Dis-.ster 3ec :use of its obvious vested ir_terest, the tobacco in?ustry have not mia.de much of~. r_eint,of the eff ects of restrictions on or -orohibions of cigarettes. ::owever, made cor:Cressme.n_, : articularly those from tob.: cco-gxo~,~i::g st~.tes, have eloquently

354 Statement of Rep. Mi. Gene Snyder before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on the Consumer, February 10, 1972 Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present a statement for this committee today. I come before you today with great concern. I am not only concerned for the people involved in the tobacco indus- try of Kentucky, but also for all of' the people of the United States. As I look over the punitive mea:suresthat have been taken against tobacco over the years, I fear that the main proposal of this new bill to reg,ulate the "tar"-nicotine content in cigarettes, may very well be just another step toward a back door to their total prohibition. In the past few years, the anti-smoking advocates have mounted a potentially disasterous propaganda campaign. A campaign which is designed to totally annihilate one of the oldest and most well established industries inthis country. About three million members of tobacco farm families ~ O earn their principal livelihood from the crop. They live ~ ~ in 22 states and earn more than 1.4 billion dollars yearly 4b C11 from the leaf. More than 100,000!workers are gainfully W employed'in tobacco manufacturingand collect an annual payroll of more than half-a-billion dollars. Fed'eral, state

-2- and local governments receive five billion dollars in taxes from the sale of tobacco products. In all, there are about 329 industries directly or indirectly involved in selling their products to the tobacco industry, ranging from cello- phane and advertising to transportation and'steel. Mr. Chairman, taking all into account this adds up to about eleven billion dollars. This cigarette controversy -- and make note that I employ the word controversy -- may very well be a microcosm of one of the principles formulated as a building block in the creation of this great nation of ours. And that principle simply is this: Shall we as a nation scrap the historical principle that anybody -- an industry as well as an individual -- is innocent until proven guilty? , . Shall we impose on~ the business community a cruel and unusual assumption of guilt and force it to prove its innocence of all charges, however irresponsible? If this new standard is imposed~on business then we can say good-bye to the economic system as we know it. And for the 170,000 Kentucky farm~families as well as the rest of the industry that would spell nothing but devastation. 355

I think that tobacco smoking must be the most widely- accused product on the consumer market. Tobacco has in one way or another been linked to more ailments than I care to even think about. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's more than high time that something be done to replace the malicious scare campaigns raging on against tobacco with objective facts. It's high time that the people of this industry not only speak up, but that they are also listened~to. The anti-smoking advocates have truly succumbed to their bwest point when one newspaper editorial recently referred to scientists who accept tobacco industry money for smoking-health research as "tobacco industry prosti- tutes." The tobacco industry, in the interest of scientific objectivity has given millions of'dollars toward an increased campaign to find the answers to the questions about smoking and health that remain unsolved. This money has gone to some of the most eminent scientists and researchers in the world -- and totally on a no-strings- attached basis. And I tell you Mr. Chairman that it is more than a social curse to refer to such respected scientists as "prostitutes."

-4- The Surgeon General of the United States has no real scientific case against tobacco. He is basing his case on statistical data that from a purely scientific point of view cannot be accepted as final truth. The truth must be made available, but it can only be obtained through dedicated scientific research. We are placing the lives of hundreds of thousands of growers and their families in jeopardy. Can we do this on the basis of statistics and emotional crusading? Over a hundred years ago, the English writer William Hazlitt put his finger on the problem. He said: "The origin of all science is in the desire to know causes; and the origin of all false science and imposture is in the desire to accept false causes rather than none; or which is the same thing, in the unwillingness to acknow- ledge our own ignorance." A statistical crusade is no way to get at scientific truth, and I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Ameri- can people deserve better. 357

Statement of 12op~. Sdi llir:m P. Curlin, Jr., Ky.-6th before the Senate Commcrce Cunsurier Subcommittne 2--10-72 Mr. Chairman: I appear before your committee today to speak on behalf of the thousanc3s of farm families in the Sixth Congressional District of Kentucky who have suffered publi c abuse time and again v:ithout the chance to reply. These families raise tobacco and they sell tobacco. Thcy are riot subversives trying to unc?ermine the health of the nation. They are not criminals spreading evil throuoh the land. My people are law-abi dina, God-foaring, hard-working farm families who depend on a cash crop called tobacco to keep them going. And tlie tobacco industry ti..,hich buys their produce is a legitimate business thatt is just as concernedlabout the public health an&well-being as any person here today. But neither the farmers nor the industry is willing to go along with a smoke-scteen of fear in the absence of facts. Long before the first report on smok--'ng and health was submitted to Congress, the tobacco industry had already begun a multi-million dbllar research campaign on its own. The Commonwealth of Kentucky, certainly not willing to sacrifice the health of its people in the name of economy, wants to find the real answers to the smoking-health question. 35U

359 But the state doesn't accept propaoanda in place of research. No, it has chosemto impose a special five cent cigarette tax to finance additional research. Isn't this more to the point than mai:ing ash trays that cough, or selli.ng ,sterlino.-silver adult pacifiers, or clipping ti7e name of a city off television because it also happens to: be the name of a cigarette? But whi& side gets accusec]~ of "lh~.ciatering'' and "propagancla"? Mr. Chairman, I believe thi& is a serious business, worthy of a higher level of concern than that shown to datee by the tobacco prohibitionists. You, sir, have publicly conwnended the tobacco industry for volunteering to proceed with~ many measures to edocate the public concprnino the alleged hazards of smoking. You, sir, have advocated research, such as that being sponsored by the industry and the state of Kentucky. • But you, sir, have also introduced a bill in the Senate to raise the federal excise tax on cibarettes to 30 cents a package. A bill which also would phase out the entire tobacco crop sLIpport program to be replaced by a Commission on~ Tobacco Adjustmcnt Assistance. I cannot agree, just as my coll_eab e, Senator Cook, could not agree vnccn tie statccd: "At a ti.me when the United States economy needs a].l the hell) i t can get frm om all se,;mcnts of societ:y, it is inconceivabl.e to attempt to destroy t]4c,to',)acco se^~~-nt in an attempt to c,loi what Carrie Nation failed to do iin tltr• ]1920's."'

? 36v Make no mistake about the economi;c import of' tobacco among the people of Kentucky. Sv'a have 170,000 farm families in the state, many of them~with tobacco patches. Last year they harvested over 380 million pounds of what many consider the world's best varictyy of this crop, accounting for a third of the cash receipts in Kentucky's farm income. We had over 27,000 retail outlets liandlin-1 about $158 million in cioarette business in last year alone. Andi since 1936, when~ the excise tax was first applied to cigarettes, my state has received more than 246 million dollars in revenue. That's almost aquai:ter of a billion dollars helping under~~.rrite probrams the state could not have otherwise affor.ded. But, Mr. Chairmam, you know that tobacco has a significant economic impact. Its greatest critics know it has a significant economic impact. But its sionificance in economics should have no bearing,on its role in health. That is a matter to be decided impartially and:sci.entifically, an& I submit that the jury is still out and ils far fromi a verdict of cond'emnation. Tar-and-nicotine regulation would.punish the farmers of my district without waiting for factual evidence. It would represent yielding to hysteria instead of adhering L) to reason. rir. . Chtiirman, my pee,plr~, have d'one no wrong. I ask that no tin un;;, be clone unto them. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on your latest legislative proposal in the field of tobacco and health, S. 1454. Over the years a special relationship has developed between us. I represent the Seventh District of Kentucky where tobacco is an essential element in our economy and our way of life. You have become the leading advocate of what is a vocal anti-tobacco movement in this country. Thus my constituents try to grow tobacco and your constituents try to restrict it. And as long as these attempts continue, I will be active in opposing them-- not, I hasten to add, for the sake of mere obstructionism, but because I sincerely believe the anti-tobacco cause to be an oversimplified solution to tremendously complex ard unsolved medical enigma. in the 1950's the Nation was beset by complex domestic and international problems. There'were those who attempted to solve them with a single, simple answer. It was all due to a Communist plot, and Coznmunists were found under every bed. Today, the same tendency seems O to be operating in the field of public health, and there ~ C11 O are those, most notably the Surgeon General, who find ~ . . GD . ~

2 f smoldering tobacco at the scene of every public health issue. Let me say that it is my aincere belief that witch hunting is as wrong now as it was then. I challenge the credibility of the premise that cicarette smoking is the Nation's nurber one public health problcm, worse than heroin addiction, marijuana, alcoholism or automobile accidents. I challenge the credibility of a Surgeon General who would advance such a premise. The distinguished chairman, hou-ever, accepts the premise, and as a result he proposes in R.R. 1454 to limit the "tar" and nicotine content of cigarettes to progressively lower and lo•.:er limits until the practice and the product eventually disappear. In the recent past, the Chairman under the same goad of biased public health reports proposed the elimination of the tobacco price support program. I opposed the legislation because it would have been economically disasterous to the tobacco growers of Kentucky and it N was unsupported by scientific evidence. With less evidence than would have justified submitting a case to a jury, 04 this proposal would have driven many of the Nation's Ul

3'ua 3 625,000 tobacco growers and their families off their land and into the urban ghettoes, offering them job retraining and welfare payments as consolation. As chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor I have been as strong a supporter as anyone of legislation to help all A.m.ericans achieve as high a living standard as they could attain. Consequently, I was totally opposed to a measure which in the name of fighting an alleged health hazard would uproot productive farmers and make them welf are recipients in our big cities. In my district a man with a half acre or one acre of tobacco is able--on his arrn--to raise and educate his family. He has always been his own best provider and I hope he will always be so. But let me get to the heart of the matter and question the basis on which the anti-tobacco advocates are now advancing this legislation. The Surgeon General's extreme insistence that cigarette smoking is the number one health problcm in the Nation fails to be supported N by the evidence. O N C1't O . Ut W ~ W

4 The tobacco growers of Kentucky have long asked to know what ingredient in tobacco as it is smoked is the cause of human disease, so that it could be removed. And so have I. The Surgeon General has not named it, which fact should be enough for anyone to reject this legislation. I for one favor effective medical research to find the cause or causes of cancer but the tobacco growers of Kentucky wonder why the Congress and the President have decided to spend $1.6 billion to conquer cancer if, as the Surgeon General says, cigarette smoking is the major cause. This inconsistency does not enhance the case the Surgeon General or advocates of this legislation attempt to make. The tobacco farmers of Kentucky are aware of the puzzling fact that nost smokers do not get the terrible diseases linked to tobacco while many non-smokers do. And so am I. The Surgeon General's exclusive interest in eliminating tobacco does not improve the case for this or similar punitive legislation. The people of Kentucky are curious about why it is so difficult for one branch of HM7 to determine that the

5 inhalation of coal dust causes black lung disease while it is so easy for another branch of HEW to determine that smoking causes emphysema. The inconsistent approach of HEW on thcse two matters in Kentucky seeks to deprive coal miners of black lung benefits on one hand and tobacco growers of cash for his crop on the other. Finally, Mr. Chairraan, I would like to offer for your serious consideration some of the apparent contra- dictions to the Surgeon General's anti-tobacco position that have crossed my desk. They represent to me, at least, grave causes for concern about the policy deter- minations being made in the Public Health Service. 1. The Council on Environmental Quality in its second annual report links emphy;ema, bronchitis and lung cancer to air pollution. The Surgeon General links them to tobacco. 2. The Environmental Protection Agency data shows that in 1969 all forms of transportation, but principally the automobile, released more than 100 million tons of carbon monoxide into the air. The Surgeon General wants to prohibit smoking in public places to cut down on the amount of carbon monoxide relcased.

6 3. A 1967 Public Health Service publication dealing 1' h with air pollution stated: "Deaths from lung cancer have been increasing rapidly in recent years, and while many factors are probably involved, the striking difference between the urban and rural raortality rates for lung cancer points to one of thc:,m--air pollution. The rate in our large metropolitan areas is twice the rural rate, even ;::itc:.r is r,de for differ- ences in :-~, n::ina riz.axts. " But the Surgeon General ignores this crucial evidence in his crusade against smoking. The President's Council on Environmental Quality in its first annual report to Congress in 1970 was properly cautious. It stated that: "The causes of chronic diseases which constitute the major public health problem of our time are difficult to detcrmine. Assessing the contribution of particular pollutants to these conditions is comolicated by the seemingly infinite variety of pollutants to which persons, particularly those in urban areas, are exposed from the day of their birth. And it is difficult to separate pollution from the.other biological and physical stresses to which people are sub- jected." My constitutents and I wonder why when it comes to tobacco the very same difficulties, coraplications, infinite varieties of chemicals, biological and physical stresses

.3u 7 7 are.ignored out of hand. My constitutents and I wonder why it is so easy for the Surgeon General to determine that smoking causes chronic diseases and so difficult for the Environmental Council to make the same determination regarding pollution. Can it be that tobacco is the easier target? Whatever the reason, the truth is we cannot have it both ways. If it is difficult to determine the cause of chronic disease from pollution it must be equally as difficult to assess causation from tobacco. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that we do not know the truth. And it is time that we got the truth.

368 FT n~ 2 ty 1 1 Senator Cook. I will say to the Chairman, in regard to 2' his last remarks, I am not using this as a pulpit and I have 3 no intention of doing so. I do not smoke. As a matter of 4 fact, when Mr. Carnegie said, if you recall, you~ asked him 5 if you would tell someone that he ought to smoke lower tar 6 and nicotine cigarette, he said that he would leave that choic 9 up to the young man. ` I told this Committee if that were given to me, my choice would be I %tould try to convince him not to smoke. 10 The only point I am trying to make is that it is a 11 legitimate business, and you are nit-picking it to d'cath, and 12 I object to it, and I object to it strenuously, and I am not 13 quite sure who is on what pedinstal to satisfy whose constituent ~ 14 Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, before you answer that, and 15: I sense you may, let mc also offer a statement for the record 16 and comment that as a member of the Commerce Committee I am 17 gratified to see that both points of view are being energetical ' y 18 representedin this hearing. 19 I have necessarily been at other subcommittee hearings 20 since these hearings have beenigoing on involving communication 21 industry where we also have some conflicts, and I want to N 22' commend both of you for making sure that an important subject N 0 23 Igets important attention and to apologize to the Subcommittee 0 24 Q and~to the Committee for not having given it more attention 4ce Federal Reporters,inc. 25 i Cz in the past. But I think you will build a good record. I

369 ty 2 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-FeddraIiReporters, Inc. think there will be substantial cases made oniboth sides. I think the Committee will act in its usual good way. So, if my statement in full can be placed in the record, Mr. Chairman, I will be gladito supplement it as you may require, but with that I intend to watch with great interest as you and Senator Cook continue your debate. Senator Moss. Thank you, Senator. Your staternen.tl will bE printed in full. (The full statement follows.). IV a ~A CA 0 4 C!1 tD ~ I 25

370 Statement of Senator Howard H. Baker, Consumer Subcommittee, February 10, 1972 Mr. Chairman~, I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a statement for the record on S. 14541, a bill to require the Federal Trade Commission to establish acceptable levels of tar and nicotine content of cigarettes. I regret that I have been unable to attend the previous hearings omthis measure, but I understand that a good deal of excellent testimony has been presented, by my colleagues in the Senate and by representatives of the tobacco in- dustry and the medical profession~, in an effort to point out the potential effects of this legislation. I would like to express at this time my own concern about the possible economic impact of this measure on the state of Tenn- essee, and my feeling that the bill is unneeded and unwarranted'by the evidence which is now available. In weighing the relative merits of legislation such as this, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important that we remember that we are dealing here with an industry that is as old as this-nation~it- self. It is an industry which is vitally important to the economic stability of one whole area of the country, which makes a sizeable coritribution to our trade balance each year, and which is an enor- mous source of revenue for federal, state, and local governments. I know of no agricultural commodity which returns more for invest- ment than the tobacco crop. I understand from reviewing the testimony presented by witnesses at these hearings that there is considerable controversy about exactly how an "'acceptable" level of tar and nicotine content in cigarettes would be determined. Even if such a determination could~be made easily, however, the setting of any level could~do irreversible damage to~tobacco growers who have no control over climatic conditions which determine, in many cases the amount of e tar and nicotine in their crop. 20504C980

-2- The tobacco industry has beemmuch maligned~in recent years by those who seek the prohibition of cigarettes im~this country. I submit that the industry has shown a cooperative spirit that all of us can be proud of and that it has discharged its re- sponsibility to the Americaniconsumer in a most honorable fashion. It has voluntarily devoted millions of dollars to medical and:sci- entific research into the effects of smoking upon health. It has voluntarily agreed to discontinue advertising,over radio and tele- thee vision. It has printed in its advertisementsA tar and nicotine content of various brands of cigarettes. It has displayed the Surgeon General's warning on cigarette packages, and it has now volunteered to show this warning iniall printed advertisements. In addition, the industry has responded to concern about the possible effects of tar and~nicotine by developing cigarettes with lower tar and~ nicotine content and any smoker who desires to reduce his intake of these substances has a wide variety of reduced tar and nicotine brands to choose from. Mr. Chairman, surely no one caniargue that the American citizen does not have adequate information to make an intelligent and informed'decis,ion for himself as to whether or not to smoke and as to which cigarette he will smoke. Surely he does not need the help of the federal government in making this decision, and I seriously doubt that he wants that decision made £or him. There is a growing body of statistical and cliinical evidence of a linkage betweenicigarette smoking and health; but it seems to me that the basic issue confronting us is whether to make the Congress the universal guardian of the medical welfare of the public, or to provide a full and appropriate disclosure of the effects of a given product or practice so that informed individuals can make their ownidecisions. IG.O1.3d4SSoJ. As I have said on the floor of the Senate during debate on the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, I would be equally concerned for health hazard warnings on alcoholic beverages, for automobiles, or for any number of patent medications which are sold in voluminous quantities without prescriptiom. I am not arguing, therefore, against the action which we have already taken in this area, but I feel that

if we go further, as many propose, we will be abandoning the role of legislative policy determination and assuming the role of public protector. I very mucli doubt that that is what the Congress should do.

373 ty 1 1 Senator Moss. We certainly are trying to gather all 2 points of view, and as the Senators both know, we have been 3 invited as many what could be called contra-witnesses as pro 4 witnesses. We certainly doWt want to suppress any information 5 that can be brought before the Committee. And what I'was 6 trying to straighten out with Dr. Stuart's letter is that he w s 7 quoted by those opposed to the legislation as supportingthe 8 opposition point of view, whereas, Dr. Stuart wants to be 9 understood as supporting the thrust of this legislation that ~ 1.0 ll is before us, and:I think that is trying to clarify the record. 12 We have request from other Senators. Senator Thurmond 13 was to appear this morning. If he comes in:, he will be called 14 upon, and Senator Cooper indicated he would come in to this 15 hearing some time during the hearing. Either of those 16 Senators, when they arrive, we will have themitestify, 17 and~ I, therefore,would like to get on1with the business of 18 hearing the very important witnesses that we have invited 19 to come and~testify before us today, and I hope that any 20 elements of conflict that have appeared here will not impede 21 a very thoughtful and orderly hearing!, because that is the whol e 22 purpose. 2015045983 23 It is not for me and Senator Cook to have any kind of 24 debate, and I apologize for any emotional conflict that 1ce - Federal Reporters, Ihc. 25 appears. What we want to do, and I am sure he does, as well as

ty 2 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 xxxx 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ac- -Federal Reporters, Ihc. 25 374 I, is get as clearly and as fully as we can on the record all of the information, and our objective is simply one of public health. Senator Cook said in part of his riposte there, that he would advise a person not to smoke at all. Wc11, I wouleC so advise, but I think we all are realists and know that totzil prohibition is just impossible a political and social move at this time, and~ therefore we are searching at some less than that, but which at the same time will be an improvement of the public health of our people. Our first witness this morning will be Dr. Ernest L. Wynder, who is President of the American Health Foundation, from New York. Dr. Wynder has been before our Committee before. He has spent many years in this area of research on cigarette smoking and isease, and we look forward to hearing from Dr. Wynder. If you would come to the table, Dr. Wynder, we will be please to hear you now. STATEMENT OF DR. ERTNEST L. WYNDER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN HEALTH FOUNDATION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK. Dr. Wynder. Senator Moss, Senator Cook, Senator Baker: It is a great privilege for me to testify on this importart issue. 201.5045984 Speaking of constitucnts, I think it is important to stat that those of us who are physicians have only one constituent,

ty 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ae• Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 375 namely, that is our patient, andI will be glad to invite all of you to come with me on some rounds to see patients who have suffered from cancer of the lung,, cancer of the mouth, cancer of the esophagus, and study with me their smoking habits, and I wish you would come with me to learn how relatively poorly we have done in treating these and other types of cancers, and that therefore, after having served for 20 years at h?emorial Hospital and Sloan-KetteringiInstitute, I decided that I woulc: promote my full-time effort to the prevention of disease, particularly since we have learned that many of these diseases relate to environmental factors, and we take the ~ issue that many of the diseases of which we suffer today are preventable, and the American Health Foundation, a nonprofit voluntary organization, is d'evotingiits energy to reducing unnecessary illness in the United States, indeed in the world. This is our goal. Our constituency is the nation, of our nation. Now, briefly, to read out testimony: 2015045985 We believe that a causative association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, a variety of other types of cancers, i heart attacks, and certain other types of cardiovascular diseases, as well as with emphysema and chronic bronchitis, is now regarded as %•.ell established by the majority of scientific i opinion. The evidence for such conclusions has been reviewed a series of reports by the U. Surgeon General, the British n

ty 4 l 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 M 1T 12 13 14 ,15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ac -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 376 Royal College of Physicians,.and by the Wor1d Health Organization. While there will always be people who question the scientific evidence that the earth~is round, our present day thinking,is certainly based on the majority opinion that is indeedround. The evidence of the harmfulness of cigarettes will undoubtedly be questioned by some forever, but we ought to act on the majority opinion now. Thus, the que'stion~under discussion at these Senate hearings is not whether cigarette smoking is injurious.to man but, rather, what we are going to do with the established evidence. It appears to me that there are only two path~s to be followed: (1) get individuals to cease the smoking habits, and (2) have individuals smoke in a less harmful fashio:a~ such a: not inhaling the smoke, decreasing the number of cigarettes smoked, not smoking cigarettes to the very end, and using less ~ • . harmful smoking products. 2p1504598s Educational efforts have succeeded in encouraging many Americans to stop smoking cigarettes or to smoke more cautiousl but the fact remains that a large number of individuals continue to smoke cigarettes despite all warnings. We do not want to discuss here the reasons why so many people continue to smoke or why they being smoking in the first place. It appears evident hosaever, that complete cessation~of smoking by the entire population is unlikely to occur within~th foreseeable future as is the likelihood that our society will

ty 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Cce Fedelral Repoite+s, lhc. 25 377 prohibit the production of cigarettes. it would seem, therefore, that the second approach is necessary to combat the smoking/health problem, that is, the establishment of less harmful smoking products and habits. This suggestion represents an area in which the independent scientific community and scientists from the tobacco industry i should have a mutual interest. It has been of interest to observe in recent years that the scientists and top management of some of the major tobacco companies appear to be purstaing the establishment of less harmful tobacco products. While they may not admit this publicly, their efforts in this area speak for themselves. As a result of this, we have seen that the tar and nicotin levels have been dramatically reduced in American cigarettes during the last 20 years. it makes little difference whether the tobacco industry has done this because of its interest in the health status of individuals Qr because smokers desire ' cigarettes with low tar and nicotine yields. 20150'45987 The question needs to be posed as to what evidence there is that certain cigarettes are less injurious than others to I smokers. The AmericanlHealth Foundation is engaged in long- term term epidemiological studies to test this questionlin the human environr^,ent. We have already shown that smokers of filte cigarettes for more than 10 ycars have an appreciably lower risk of developing lung cancer than smokers of nonfilter 2 rr

378 l ty 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ,15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 • Federal Reporters, lnc. 25 cigarettes. We are observing:similar evidence regarding cancer of the mouth. It is of interest to note that studies of individuals who switched from high tar and'high nicotine cigarettes to lo-a tar and low nicotine cigarettes show that the smoker does not correspondingly increase the number of cigarettes smoked~per day. While filters appear to be useful, the maj,ority do not selectively reduce a significant portion of toxic or carcino- genic components, thus suggesting that tar appears to be the most important indicator of carcinogenic activity. Population studies on humans, as well as studies with laboratory animals, have established that the lower the tar dosage, the lower the risk of cancer. The evidence therefore clearly points to the reduction of tar as an important step N towards reducing the carcinogenic potential of smoking,. MO For cardiovascular disease, two factors have been 0 I'Ph suggested to relate to this problem -- nicotine and~carbon ~ monoxide. Epidemiologically, a clear dose/response effect 9 has been shown to exist between the smoking of cigarettes and heart attacks. Experimentally, we have shown that nicotine in tobacco smoke increases adrenalin levels in the blood which subsequently lead's to an increase of factors which may be etiologically related'to arteriosclerosis. It has also been, suggested that nicotine, via adrenalin release, can induce

ty 7 3 6 7 9 10 11 12 13' 14 ,15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Act Fedeial Reporters, Inc. 25 379 irregular heart beats in an already damaged heart. Preliminary findings of a study by our group suggest that filter cigarettes with a relatively low nicotine content are associated with a reduced risk for heart attack and for peripheral vascular disease. If these data are confirmed in large-scale investigations, it might indicate a lesser role for, or the absence of, carbon monoxide which is currently not reduced by available filter cigarettes. As far as chronic bronchitis and emphysema are concerned, a clear dose/response relationship to cigarette smoking has also been established. The evidence incriminates the particula phase while the gaseous phase could also play a role in the etiology of this disease. The combined role of the two phases needs further examination. A recent English study on this rpoblem did not produce conclusive evidence and further research in this area is indicated. N On~ the basis.of our present knowledge', what should our.. {!y recommendations be? Based on available evidence on the ~ I relationship of tar to various types of cancers and the ~ relationship of nicotine to,cardiovascular disease, we are N recommending the establishment of maximum permissible tar and nicotine levels in American:cigarettes which should, in years to come, lead to a further reduction of diseases related to cigarette smoking. Fromexisting data it is clear that the average smoker of r- e

ty 8 l 2 3 4, 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 380 today smokes cigarettes that are about 40 percent lower in tar and nicotine content than he did 20 years ago. Few people would have predicted this to be possible in 1950 when we were reporting the first epidemiological study on the subject. From current cigarette sales it is also apparent that an appreciable number of American smokers today are smoking cigarettes containing less than 20 mg. of tar and 1.2 mg. of nicotine as measured according to standard FTC techniques. These are much lower than would have beern acceptable 10-20 years ago. We suggest that these levels now become the upper permissible tar and nicotine levels for all P.meri;can and''import cigarettes. Since certain manufacturers may need to alter the makeup of their cigarettes, we recommend some interval period! to bring all of their brands to, or below, these maximum levels. More and more cigarettes are appearing on the market with tar contents ranging between 10-15'mg5 of tar and with nicotine levels at about 0.8 mg. We suggest incentive systems -- be they in terms of tax concessions or price incen- tives -- that would~encourage the individual to prefer these cigarettes over the higher tar and nicotine brands, being wary of any incentive that would actually encourage people to take up the habit. 2015045991-MO FThile we have been primarily stressing'tar and''nicotine sa kce Federal Reporters, Inc. II nr 11 .r , . . ._~ i-srr 1-n.-c YC+ ^ ~'."n 1 Tlf'PYl~~'f'-+Rl liTl

ty 9 381 1 selectively reducing other specific components in tobacco smoke 2 that appear to contribute to the development of cancer, 3 emphysema and chronic bronchitis. As more evidence accumulates 6 about these harmful components, we should have a provision in t law whereby maximum permissible levels for each can also be introd'uced. ie 7 We suggest two courses of action whereby upper limits can 8 be set for specific harmful components in tobacco. One might 9 be through the formation of an advisory committee, headed by 10 an appointee of the Secretary of HEW and made up of repre- 11 sentatives of the government, the academic community and the 12 tobacco industry. This group would be charged with the 13 responsibility of deciding exactly what limits should be set, 14 however difficult that task might be at present. 15 The second, and possibly the most promising, approach to 16 the problem of how to bring tar and nicotine levels down to 17 lower limits would' be the regulatfon of the industry by 18 itself in cooperation with the government. Knowing how 19 American business shudders at the thought of "government inter- 20 ference" on any level, volv.ntary compliance in this area would 21 obviously be preferable to all concerned. 2015045991 22 The problem of harmful tobacco products is one of the 23 major health concerns of the day. We can understand why the 24 tobacco industry does not join health educators in their Acc Federal Rcporters, lnc. 25 1 attempt to persuade the public to qive up smokin:q. We cannot,

ty 10 2 3' 4 5 6 8 9 1& 11 12 13 14' ,15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ac -Federal Repotters, Inc. 25 382 however~ understand~ why the industry should not join in full force with the scientific community in its efforts, including the recommendations made here, to achieve the point when inhalation of tobacco smoke would become increasingly less harmful. The industry specter that these low tar/nicotine cigarettes would not be acceptable to consumers can be discount ci by looking at the high tar and nicotine levels prevalent in the mid-1950s compared with today's "best sellers." The day may never come when we can inhale tobacco.smoke as safely as unpolluted air. In life, however, we need to be realistic as well as idealistic. We need to apply the theory of Realpolitik to the current situation in that we must look at the problem as it is. This•.applies to those of us who want everyone to give up smoking as well as to those representing the tobacco interests. While health educators are doing their best to get everyone to stop smoking, we have to realize that in the framework of our current society their influence will always be limited. 2M5045392 We should learn from the history of medicine that the greatest advances in disease prevention have not come from what individuals have been able to do for themselves, but rather have come from the modification~of the environment, or of a ~ product, through engineering, managerial or regulatory changes. The establishment of less harmful tobacco products is realistic. It can combine the dcsire of the tobacco industry

ty 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . 17 18 19 20 21 22' 23 24 AcE Federal Reporters„Inc. 25 383 to continue to sell its products with the desire of a population that wants to satisfy its smo}:ing habits, the desire of the medical profession to prevent unnecessary illness, and the desire of a government that wants to satisfy all of its citizens. Setting maximum tar and nicotine levels i an important practical step in achieving,the aims of'all these groups. The Congress ~Lnd you gentlemen have a particular oppor- tunity tunity in this regard because it can, more than any other singill institution in a free society, cater to the desires of all of these factions. A foremost role of Congress is to safeguard the health of all the citizens of this nation. The legislation under discussion, and the suggestions made here, are directed towards advancing the health of our people and, thus, of our nation. It is therefore aimedat reaching the medical goal that we, in the American Health Foundation have set for ourselves -- "to help people die young as late as possible." Now, I would like to show you the charts that go with our presentation, and I think someone before me said~ that pictures speak louder than a thousand words, and the first graph shows C what has happened to tar and nicotine levels in the United C ~ States, and all of you see it has dramatically declined. C!1 Cr In other words, in the last 1&to 20 years, the American ~ tobacco industry has succeedcd in producing tobacco products which are significantly lower in tar and nicotine consumption.

ty 12 1 2 3 4 51 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 Acc Federal Rcporters„Inc. 25 384 Now, this is not to be saying that we are in favor of the tobacco industry, but as I pointed out in my testimony, the tobacco industry has succeeded in reducingthe tar and~ nicotine level of American~cigarettes. Now, the next chart indicates that on animal studies we have demor:strated years ago that the lower the amount of tar you apply to an animal, the lower the tar yield. Now, there are a couple of points I would like to make on an'ur.al studies. We have never claimed that a mouse is like aman, for that matter, a monkey is more or less not like a man. What we are saying is that we use animals as a test tool, and~as you gentlemen know, the Celaney amendment has stated that any food! additive that produces tumors in any kind of animal, under any kind of concentration, is to be banned from human consumption. So the Congress has uecided that animal experiments are important. N Now, we have never said that just because tobacco tar ~ C11 produces cancer in mice that therefore this material is ~O carcinogenic to man. It must be viewed together with the ~ CD human data. ~A Another point I would like to~ make : It has been stated that the amount of tar that was applied to the animal would be equivalent to a human smokinq f:rom,30.1, 000 to 150,000 cicx,arettes

ty 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1' 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ac( Federal Reporters,Inc. 25 385 a day. Now, this statement is obviously wrong, and it only applie if we would spread out the lung, wsing all the alveoli, but lung cancer rarely occurs in the alveoli, it occurs in~the bronchial tree, and if you measure the diameter of the bronchial tree of the humans andthe amount of tar that settles there, it is roughly comparable with the amount of tar that we apply to these animals. But animal experiments must only be judged in line with the human data. Let me emphasize another point: It has been said that we cannot develop an animal system that would duplicate man. Now, this is a key question for us to consider in view of the new cancer authority act that you~gentlemen have passed I S for wh~ich we are very grateful, and we need to recognize in ~ O cancer research, there are situations where the human ~ situation cannot be duplicated in the animal. ~' C!1 CA One of these is the inhalation of tobacco smoke. All CD Ut of these animals are obligatory nose bleeders. They have been, crawling on the ground for millions of years, and therefore develop a nasal passage system,which absorbs the dust that they would'normally inhale and from1which they would die when it went into the lungs. Human beings, however, have been walking upright for a few hundreds of thousands of years, and so our nasal passage systems are relatively good compared to the 0

ty 14 7 9 10 11 12 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Aee Federal Reporters,Inc. 25 386 animals. And therefore, we have said some years ago, that the use of smal]l animals, in terms of inhalation studies, ~ particularly with toxic substances like tobacco substance, are not useful, and this does not only apply to lung cancer, but . cancer of the large bowel, and cancer of the pancreas, which we are studying now. In this case the human diet is so complicated the animals cannot adjust to it, and we have another situation where the animals cannot be used in the very same fashion as man. Now, the next point after we have shown the dose/response to animals, numerous investigators in this country and abroad have clearly shoVan a dose/response of cigarette smoking against lung cancer. And you see here, the more you smoke, the greater is the risk of cancer of the lungs. Now, I know all the jokes that have ever been written about statistics, and that we say, well, you:can lie with statistics. And againlI invite ev.eryone in the Congress to visit with me all the lung cancer patients we and others have seen over the years, and the rarity, let me emphasize, the rarity in which epidemic lung cancer occurs in smokers, it is so rare that o%•cr the last 20 years I have written two papers on the occurrence of lung cancer in nonsmokers. We see about 1 in 100. And the majority of our lung cancer patients smoke two or three packs a day. 2015045996 We are dealing here with relative ratios of 1 to 60, in

ty 15 End #2 24 Act Federal Reporters„Inc. 25 387 other words, of an order of magnitude where you do not need a degree in higher statistics to demonstrate that these d~ifferences are real, and the statistician who says, well, ther .could be an element of bias, these studies have been confirmed on all kinds of lung cancer patients throughout the world, and therefore, it has been shown that peoplE who give up smoking will significantly reduce the risk of lung cancer. 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 r_

388 FERANK # 3 1 1ml cr5004 2 3 '4 5 8 9 M 11 1.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -Federal Repoiters, Inc. 25 Senator Baker. Doctor, do you havesome sort of statistical relationship between the length of smoking versus the amount of smoking in relation to the instance of cancer? I don't want to~unduly burden your presentation, but two or three packs a day or a year, for 20 years, or is there a relationship on the length of smoking? Dr. Wynder. That is a good question, Senator Baker. There is obviously a link to duration. This, in~fact, is other evidence that tobacco smoke, and I have emphasi.zed it frequently, it is a relatively weak carcinogenic. By relatively weak I mean compared to, say, radiation. And so, you must smoke for a long period of time. Boughly most of the lung cancer patients smoke for more than 20 years. So, it is duration and'it is amount,and it is reversible up to a certain point if you stop. Now, because the carcinogenic activity of tobacco smoke is relatively weak, it is because of this that we feel that - we can't produce the kind of cigarette where the risk of developing cancer will be relatively low. ?V O N C!i Senator Moss. Isn't it also true that there is a rather 0 dramatic drop in~the cessation of smoking so far as lung Imp, Ll CD CD cancer and other diseases? WU Dr. Wyndler. I just pointed out that in our studies, if an individual has smokedfor more than 20 years, and he gives it up, and provided he has smoked relatively heavily, that in

389 4 5 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' , 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ac -Federat Reporters, Ine. 25 thefirst one or two years nothing will happen in terms of his risk. Then it will gradually decline. This is an intriguing thing that we have learned from occupational tumors, where you can work in a die industry, leave the job, and up to ten years later, still have evidence of bladder cancer. The length of period is not important. Eut for lung cancer, we have observed a relatively rapid drop, and I consider a drop after four years relatively rapid. Now, on cardiovascular disease, we believe the drop to be more rapid, because there our data suggests that the effect of cigarette smoking is an acute one. Now these are the data for Veterans' Hospitals, andit shows again that the dose response, that the more smoke, the greater the risk for myocardial infarction. The data here sho4, that the risk is far greater in younger patients than in older patients. 2015045999 So much for the background on dose response. This last sketch I would like to show is a very key one, and I would like for all of you to pay very close attention to. In other words, we can go here as witnesses and tell you it is very difficult for us to produce this type of cancer in animals, and I may say that with all the millions of dollars that we are going to spend in the next l&years, we will never quite succeed in this.

390 . 1 2 3 6 ,7 . .8 1-9 10 1.1 12' 13 14 15 16 A 7 .18 19 20 21 22 23 We may also say that it is very difficult for us to study the interrelationship of all the different carcinogenics and tobacco. May I say to you, it was in 1933 that carcinogenics were first identified in coal tar, one of the first classical materials found to be carcinogenic to man~as early as 1775, and shown to be experimentally carcinogenic in 1961. And yet there are so many different carcinogenics in this coal tar that to identify all of them~and their inter- relationship was virtually impossible. ~ And'so I d'aresay that in spite of the fact that we worked very hard in identifying all the possible carcinogenics and possible material in tobacco, we will never succeed in inter- relating all of them or in identifying all of them:: Therefore, the key data that we ought to show is that the kind of tobacco products that appear on the market which differ markedly, have different effects on man, and therefore, let me emphasize this last item. to you again. We now have established evidence that filter cigarettes on the American market, with the lower content in unfiltered cigarettes, have a lower risk of lung cancer. 2015046000 The studies are done on man. One kind of Ame'rican smoker who has smoked filter cigarettes for more than ten years has a lower risk of lung cancer than people who continue to smoke 24',non-filter cigarettes. And our data shows that the major 4ce Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 difference in these kinds of cigarettes relates to the tar

391 mm4 2 4 .5 7 0 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 p 19 20 21 22 23 24 Aci Fedetai Reporters, lnc. 25 content. In other words, in~the long line, what is important and what we demonstrate for man. It so happens that these dose response studies that we now demonstrate on man have now been demonstrated for animals as well. In other words, the American tobacco industry is capable of producing cigarettes which are lower in tar content and which produce less disease. And our ongoing studies now suggest that within~ these kinds of cigarettes, the lower the tar content, the lower the risk of cancer of the lung. And~therefore, let me emphasize what I said before. The tobacco industry has heavily represented here, and we as scientists have a perhaps different aim as to why we do things, but the end result may be the same. Now, we, in science, I, in particular, face a difficult role. I am attacked by those of my friends who believe that I should say that everybody should stop smoking, and indeed, everybody should. And I am attacked' by the tobacco industry, who believe that we are interfering with their business. 2015046001 But, I said before, I have only one constituent, and that is the health of my patients and the health of the people of this country. And it seems to me that the scientists within the tobacco industry are working very hard, are working with us

am5 24 4ce Federal Reportcrs,Inc. 25 392 to see to it that the day may come when we can produce cigar- ettes and when at the same time they will be relatively less harmful to our people. And so,'as we emphasize, we need to .go into the elements of the health organization who are trying to encourage to stop smoking, we need to support them. And I need'the help of the tobacco industry. I need the help of the American Congress to help us to help man themselves, because, as I emphasized, it is a tool of preventive medicine 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 8 We can go and have the most brilliant advertising on television on drug addiction, on seat belts, on obesity, but we, as people, always believe that we are immortal. These things cannot happen to ourselves. And yet they can. And yet they do. that man believes himself to be immortal. 10 11 1? 13 14 And~therefore, I have emphasized that if we are going to advance in improving the health status of our nation, we have 15 16 ,~ got to re-engineer, we have got to modify the products in 17 our environment, and that is what the American Health Foundatio I is all about. 19 To accomplish this, gentZemen, we need your help, we need the heLp of the industry, and1I think working!at this together 20 21 we can improve the health of our nation. 22 Senator Moss. Thiank you, Dr. Wynder, for a very eloquent 2015046002 and thoughtful presentation. 23 We know thR ve'-arq t-h~lt- voa, hinvo nti{- i n i n i-hli a f i-l r3l nnw n

393 m6 24 Ar, -Fedcral Reportets, Inc. and the work that you are currently doing. I think you described rather dramatically one of the prob- lems inthe bill that we have before us. on one hand, some group saying you ought to have total prohibition, nobod'y ought to smoke. And1while we could agree that would be a desirable thing, it just is socially and politically impossible On the other hand, we have those who say, well, you are interfering if yow try to cut down and get a less dangerous cigarette, and consequently, assailed from both sides. The Surgeon General has recently published another report, an updating of his previous reports, and no doubt you ~ .arefamiliar with that report. When we had Dr. Sommers and Dr. Hockett before us, they both said that in effect, there was nothing new on cigarettes and health, and they would rather dismiss this as not containin 2 3 4 7 .8 10 11 12 p 14 ,15 any advance information. This does not seem likely to me, and'I wondered if you~ could comment on that general subject. 2015046003. Are we getting additional information out of this report, and out of research that iscping on now? 16 1 18 19 20 Dr. Wynder. Well, the case of smoking and Iung cancer was in~our view, quite well establishcd in 1950, and since this time, every year, studies from man come out inother countries. A study came out from Japan again showing the 21 22 23 t -I•i -,-. f-r. liinrr n~f~n--r nnA +-hin e.Tri r• nf

394 mm7 interest because it occurredlin a different kind of people. The evidence to any of the review committees that has ever lookedat this has been overwhelming, and other review committees have decided that cigarette smoking was related to health and' speci.fically related to disease. Now, I suppose if I were an employee of the American tobacco industry or related to it in one way or the other, I 1 2 3 4 5 . 6 7 would haw no choice but to deny existing evidence. It is, of 8 course,my hope that all of the moneys that are being spent by the American tobacco industry, and Mr. Kornegay indicated, ~ and I was very pleasedwith that, that since 1954 the 10 1~ American tobacco industry had spent $40 million on tobacco and health research. Now, I would say this to Mr. Kornegay and to all the scientist s in the tobacco industry: That if you would have 12 13 14 15 spent that $40 million in supporting scientists who believe that we have a problem, we would have been much further along. And if the tobacco industry would~spend their energies on the problem itself, as indeed most of the scientists do, rather than spending so much of their energy on refuting the evidence, we would hasten the day when we would have less 16 17 19 20 21 22 harmful smoking products. 2015046004 Now, I believe, to paraphrase Einstein, he once said, it 23 it not important what a scientist says, it is important what 24. Ac- -Federai Reporters, lne. I 251 he does, and within the tobacco industry excellent work is

395 mm8 being carried out in their laboratories to work in precisely 1 the same areas as we do, and many of the scientists have told 2 us, we wish we had more.freedom to work in these areas together 3 with independent scientists, and that would hasten the day when 4 we would solve the problem that is before us. 5 So I think I would salute that portion of the tobacco 24 -Federal Repoiters, Inc. 25 industry who, like we, understand a problem exists and work at it, and I don't have to tell you that if you tell people that no problem exists, the people that work for you cannot do a 7 ,8 '9 good job. I would rather believe -- and this reminds me, if the Congress could free the tobacco industry of their fear of further suits, maybe then they would change their emphasis and not be worried about further suits, but work with us in 10 11 13 what I think is a common objective. Senator Moss. But does this report update any of the information, or is it just cumulative. ~ Dr. Wynder. Well, it is to a large extent, cumulative. You may always ask yourself, Senator, at which time is further evidence really not necessary, and as far as I am concerned, the evidence that cigarette smoking relates to the various diseases is very clearcut. 201SO46005 20 , ., 21 22 23 Where more evidence is required is on specific 'factors that may relate to cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic bronchitis and so forth, and there we will always have to do

396 mm9 1 more work, and therefore I would welcome the continuous support I 2 3 '4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22 23 24 A( -Federal Reporters, Inc. of the tobacco industry in these areas. Senator Moss. Isn't the effect of carbon monoxide a rather new area that is just coming into attention now? Dr. Wynder. S-;ell, carbon monoxide has been incriminated for a great number of years, and the studies by people have suggested that at least in animals, the carbon monoxide will I relate to arteriosclerosis. I I think this area needs to be investigated further, and I can see both~sides of the argument on the issue of carbon monoxide. And this is precisely the kindof area where I would like to see further research being done. 25

CR-5004 T 4 2-10-72 sw-1 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ar -Fedaral Repocters,Inc. 25 397 Senator Moss. Thank you. Have you done research also on little cigars? We had considerable testimony here before on little cigars now being marketed. Dr. Wynder. Well, Dr. Hoffman and our staff is continuously looking at new products that appear on our market, and we have a test system where we test materials, both from!their chemical composition and for the biological activity, and studies in~regard~ to cigars, little cigars, new tobacco products, new non-tobacco products, are in continuous progress in our laboratory. And let me take the opportunity to invite anyone of you to come to our laboratory to see the kind of work that we are doing, and to the extent that we are committed to the problem~. 2015046007 In general, we have felt and reported in the past that the smoking of cigars had a different risk pattern from cigarettes,primarily because of the difference in inhalation. In other words, we have demonstrated' that in animals the carcinogenic activity of cigars and pipes was quite simila to that.of cigaretts. Indeed, by and large, they contain higher nicotine, so they are more toxic to animals. But, the lower risk of cigar smokers compared with cigarette.smokers are related to the fact that cigar smokers will not inhale. You will say, why would they mostly not inhale, and

398 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4cc Fcderal Rcportcrs,Inc. they would mostly not inhale because, A, the nicotine content is reasonably high, the Ph is realtively high, and it contains other types of alkaloid products which~are difficult to inhale. And, therefore, we have always felt that cigar smoking was less injurious to the health of a man with one exception, and that relates to cancer of the mouth, and for cancer of the mouth, the risk among cigar smokers is identical to that of cigarettes, but for cigar smoking there is an additional important variable that comes in, and I am sure Senator Cook may ask me why we are not working on other factors as well, and we are working on other factors, heavy alcohol consumption, and we have demonstrated that the risk of cancer in this is also relatively small unless you consume more than seven shots of whiskey a day. This is a problem I won't tackle today. We have got enough problems with tobacco. On the.other hand, you know; there are not too many in" this room who would admit of consuming seven shots of alcohol a day, which reminds me of how difficult sometimes it is to take history. I was once trying,to demonstrate how well we take history, and there was a patient with cancer of the esophagus, and we asked him how much alcohol do you consume per day, and he say, 10 shots of whiskey. I said is that all. IIe said no, I also drink at night. 2015046008 2511 (Laughter.)

399 sw- 3 We need to be very careful in the way we ask questions to our patients, and we have learned a great deal about how 3 we can avoid such areas in the future. 4 But the point of my answering the question is that the 5 major difference we felt between cigars, pipes and cigarettes, 6 lies in whether or not these products can be inhaled . 7 Now, by and large, little cigars have reasonably high : 8 nicotine levels, and~ particularly a high nicotine level in an 9 alkaline Ph and therefore are not readily inhalable. 1!0 Now, if someone came along with a product where the 11 nicotine was very low, in spite of the fact that it may be 12 in an alkaline media, particularly in the last few puffs of 13 the smoke, then the key question really is, is this smoke 14 readily inhaled by people who smoke. 15 This is a key question that I think needs'to be 16 investigated, and I believe that any product which a populatio 17 would as readily inhale as-a cigarette would be more similar- 18 in its harmful effects to a cigarette than to a cigar. 19 Now, the definition of what a cigar is, you know, is 20 relatively outdated. If you look at Webster, it says it is 21 something, tha.t is wrapped in a cigar type of product, and 22 certainly this product and all cigars are. 2015046009 23 And I would suggest that a Committee be appointed by the 24 Secretary of HEW to look into this particular question in line ke-Fedcral Reporters, Inc. 25 with our current scientific evidence to redefine differences

sw-4 400 between cigarettcs and cigars, and I think this is important today because Congress in its wisdom set out certain legislation that specifically exempted cigars, and therefore •since you specifically exempt cigars, I think you ought to define again what really is a cigar and what really is 6 a cigarette. 7 Senator I•ioss. tti'e had considerable discussion about the 8' Winchester little'ci_gars at our previous hearing. i 9' Are you familiar with this product, this Winchester, 10 little cigar? It comes in a package, as you can see, looks 11 just like a cigarette, as far as the package is concerned. 12 If you have any familiarity with it, I can ask another 13' question or two. I don't know whether you have or not. 14 It has a filter on it. I t is the same diameter as a 15 cigarette, but it does have a brown paper on the smoking 16 part of the cigarette, and witnesses testified that this 17 is made of 60 percent tobacco leave and~other products that• 18 they didn't identify that are put with the tobacco leave to 19 make that wrapper around there. 2015046010 20 Now, I don't know. Does this have the alkaline content ' ~. ~ 21 I. that you were talking about of a cigar, or do you know? I 22 don't know whether you have c-:orked with these. 23 Dr. Wynder. Well, as I indicated, we are, , Iooking at this .~ 24 and all other tobacco products on the market. Our data Ace fedetal Reporters, Ihc• II. 25 1 suggests that this conforms in terms of qualitative factors

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 ,15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ac •Fcdernl Reporters, inc. ?5 401 with what we generally expect from a cigar. Largely, burley types of tobaccos have been used as we gather, and the Ph does turn alkaline at the very end of the smoke, but our data suggests that the nicotine and tar content is very low. This question can, in my view, only be answered by a legal opinion, and therefore I suggest that you or the HEW appoint a special committee on this. Obviously we have seen the advertising in New York. Obviously it is a kind of advertising, which according to the tobacco industry's own cod'e, some years ago, for cigarettes probably would not pass, because it certainly relates very closely to sexuality. I also tell the joke in some lectures that normally I don't think women are offered a cigarette, and when they take it, and I said, if we as non-smokers could offer a girl -- say, we don't have a cigarette to offer you, and we would end up with two girls that we really did something for our side. This is more or less what I notice in the advertising of this particular product, where this gentlemen offers a cigarette to a girl, and he succeeds in stealing the other girl away fr=the other fellow who happens to smoke a big cigar. I 2015mmi-1 So, it is certainly a winning attitude directed towards I sexuality, but this has nothing to do with the problem exceptinq that it certainly tries to suqqest that this is the

402 sw-6 l kind of smoke that is very manly and very appealing to women. 2 But to finalize my answer, the key issue really is not 3 a scientific one in my view, excepting to the fact that we must redefine what a little cigar is. 5 Senator t4oss. As a matter of definition, the IRS 6 apparently, for taxation purposes, has classified this as a 7 little cigar, and, of course, taxation is very important. 8 Cigarettes are taxed about twice as much as little cigars. 9 Several times as much. 10 qr. Wynder. I think this is obviously a question for the 11 tobacco industry itself to police. It seems to me that the 12 tobacco industry ought to, itself, be helpful in defining 13 I what little cigars are and what the differences between 14 cigars and cigarettes are. 15 I just pointed out that from our point of view, in terms 16 of the epidemiology of cancer, the major difference is not 18 19 23 so much related to the constituence of'the product, but whether or not a product can be had. Senator Moss. Thre is an advertisement for Winchesters stressing the fact that it costs less than cigarettes, and saying at the bottom, it is not a cigarette, it is just little cigar . "'V1S046~,2 Dr. Wynder. I would like to emphasize this: The anothe product again is an example of the ingenuity -- I am not 2411 -Federal Reporters, Inc. II talking about the advertising people. It is the ingenuity 2511 1 of

403 sw-7 1 2 6 8' 9 10 e 4 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I I 19 20 21 22 23 24 to tobacco chemists and the producers- of tobacco products to show that they can manipulate the tar and nicotine content almost to any level that they desire, and I for one would have thought it was very difficult to produce a product made out of essentially cigar type of tobacco with a cigar wrapper that is so low in tar and nicotine as this particular product. And it always comes back to me that the tobacco industry has the capacity to do almost anything if they are given the right direction. Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25

dta 1 CR5004-T5 404 Senator Moss. That might be some kind of an'economic incentive, perhaps, or disincentive that would induce them~ to produce lower nicotine and tar content in cigarettes and cigars. Would you agree with that? Mr. 6,;ynder. Naturally. In this country, you know, we are very much interested in the health foundation and motivation, and'we always ask ourselves how can we motivate our people to~take better care of themselves, and our motivational psycholog,ists come up with all kinds of ideas, but it always comes down to two factors. The two motivating forces in life are money and fear. Fear, unfortunately, of ten comes too late, and so a key incentive, obviously, is an~economic incentive, and it is for that reason that in our testimony we indicated we ought to give economic incentive to the manufactarers to produce products that are low in tar and nicotine levels. Senator Moss. Talk about fear, have you ever seen one of those? Mr. Wynder. Actually, Senator Moss, in my view, the 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1&I 11 12 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 fear component of motivating people to take better care of themselves comes, unfortunately, too late. 2015046014 I remember the young intern here in Washington -- I interviewed Senator Vandenberg, who at that time was dying from cancer, who, incidentally, was a heavy cigar smoker, and 22 23 24 kce - Federal Reporters, Inc. 25

dw 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 40 21 22 . t 23 24 kce Federal Repordcrs, Inc. 25 405 he was obviously afraid, like all of us are when we are about to die, and I have never really seen very many patients die who at that point are not afraid, but fear comes too late, and, therefore, I pointed out in all of our advertising, and all of your health campaigns, be it VD, be it seat belts, ourr f ear camna.ign hardly ~-rorks . I think the National Football League is to be congratulated'on brilliant advertising on drug addiction, and it is for this reason that we emphasize againand.again on the managerial changes of our products, ' I appeared before Congressman Wilbur Mills' committee .on the same issue, that if we are going to change the health system of our country, we have got to give brownie points for staying well,'_ and we have got to change our products and change our environment because people will not do so by and large by themselves. Senator Moss. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Wynder. Senator Cook will probably have some questions. Senator Cook? Senator Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. wynder, first of all, I think you kind of suggested what line of questioning II might ask you, and you are going to be wrong, I think. 2015046015 Many of the remark-, that youlmade in your statement I 4-h;1„l- irnai nrirT?ii- f-n h- rnnnmnnnIr,r1 fnr

dw 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 22 23 24 kce Fedetal Reporters,Inc. 25 406 One of them that I would really like to correct, because I think it is only fair that we analyze both sides of the picture, and I am not here as the representative of the tobacco industry, I think they will be able to look out for themselves. But when we were talking, about the research funds, I would like to read from an article in the Cincinnati Inquirer. "The Tobacco Institute has allocated~5 million dollars for cancer and health research for 19~71. The breakdown is 2.6 million for the Council for Tobacco IZesearchgrants, 2 million for the American Medical Association Educational and~Research Foundation, $4010, 000 for a Washington University of St. Louis, the total Washington:University grant is for $2 million over a five-year period. "By comparison, the American Cancer Society has allocated' a total of 1.3 million for such research in 1971, according to its Cancer Facts and'Figures for that year of '71. "The United States Department of Health, Education and' Welfare has allocated 41.2 million for similar research. "'The Department of Agriculture has allocated 3.2. "°The University of Kentucky is spending $2.5 million on - tobacco and health research, the program being funded through an increase in the state cigarette tax %:,hich went into effect in 1970. " 201504sQ1s So I think we ought to in a way, in all fairness,

dw 4 dw 4 2 3 b 7 407 overcome the idea that all of their research is to prove that they are right and that all of their research is totally and completely controlled research. Now, I am~subject to criticism on that, and I will lay it out before anybody criticizes me, because I think one should put his shoes on both feet if he has an opportunity. I have been critical of people from HEW and from the Surgeon General's Department because I wonder why there isn't some of the research that has been given and some of the research that doesn't totally refute what we are talking ~ about, but at least in some instances might put it in better perspective. None of this appears initheir studies, that they start 14 15 22 23 24 -Federal Repoiters, Inc. 25 with the premise that it is all wrong, and that there is not a safe cigarette, as you have said, and really they want, in essence, as they have testified, an I don't even think the chairman would disagree with Dr. Duval's'testimony, or with~ the testimony of gentlemen from~ the Federal Trade Commission, that what they really wanted was prohibition. So I would kind of like to set that record straight, because I think in many instances there is a failure on the part of those who feel that they are already on the right track and don't want to go on any.other track, that•they may not pick up somebody's research study. 201504CC17 For instance, I don't expect that anybody's study got

dw 5 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 kce-FederallReportcrs, Inc. 25 408 more publicity than yours on tar in mice, when you produced a remarkable figure of cancerous growth of 44.3 percent, I think, and yet no study since that time has ever been able to come anywhere near that. No study by the College of Surgeons in England or any- where else has been able to come any closer to a figure than from three to five percent. But these things are hard for the federal government to get into its report. Now, what I want to ask, and not questions about your study, and not questions about your reports, but questions of how we implement what we have before us this morning. Now, we have S.14'54. It provides that the Federal Trade Commission shall set tar and'nicotine maximums, that they shall review those every year. Now, they came before us, the FTC, and not the chairman of the FTC -- as a matter of fact, the gentleman who is head of one of the divisions came before us and said that he would not speak for the commission, that he was really speaking for himself. He said that they had no idea how they could scientificall make this determination and that they needed' the help of HEW. 241504CC18 Well, HECa,had previously testifaied before us that they weren't going to make such a determinationiand had no y

409 dw 6 1 2 3 5 6 8 )a 11 12 13 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federal Reportcrs,inc. 25 intention of making such a termination because they thought I the only safe cigarette was no cigarette and therefore, they weren't going to help anybody even establish figures because they weren't going to be a part of it. Now, with your knowledge and your expertise in this field, Doctor, just what direction do we go, or what suggestior can you give this subcommittee to work out the problems that are inhereint in 1454, when you have the-multitude of depart- ments of the federal govern:nent"that are going to control and handle this thing that say, in:effect, we d'on't have the expertise and it is going to be impossible for us to do it unless HEW helps us, and HEW says, don't look to us because we are not going to help you. Now, let's explore this, because this is the problem that we are going to have as we review this, and this is the problem that we have had since these hearings started. Dr. Wynder. May I answer this? The first point you made related to the amount of money spent by the tobacco industry, and I pointed out in my testimony that these $40 million have been spen_~ since 1954, it was really a tremendous effort in terms of total expenditure. 201504601;9 What I pointed out, ho,,.7ever , was, and Iam ref lecting discussions I had with the scientific directors of a number of tobacco companies, and to paraphrase, some of my best

410 dw7 1 2 5 6 7 9 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4ce Federal Reporters„Inc. 25 friends are in the tobacco business and~are scientific directors, andover a cup of coffee, they will volunteer that they thought these monies couldhave been spent in a better fashion. And perhaps you, sir, might want to look into this, and if the money were spent on people who believed they had a problem, on research that was not moving into an.impossible direction, but rather related directly to:the problem, my point was, that this money could have been spent in a better fashion. Senator Cook. But Doctor, you are not really saying that some of the scientists and some of the doctors and the institutes that have been working on this problem, that you are familiar with, are absolutely slanting their research to satisfy the requirements of the grant? Dr. Wynder. I am not saying that some of the work that was done was not very good. All I am saying~, and I think I am reflecting the opinion of most of the scientific directors of the tobacco industry, that they thought that at least a portion of these funds could have been spent more productively. ~r~r~ That is all I am saying. tiv1504s Now, number 2, you referred to a report that we-made in 1953 where we reported 44 percent tumors in mice. "n•, i i- i- t-hi - vi na nf +-hi nrr c,hi rh T norannn1 lv T?nu1r3

dw8 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ac -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 411 not have brought up myself, but since you brought it up -- Senator Cook. You alluded to it in your presentation. Dr. Wynder. Right. Senator Cook. That is the only reason that I suggested it. Dr. Wynder. Yes. This was contained in some -- has been repeatedly alluded to by the tobacco industry, and since you raisedit, let me give you a brief explanation. Senator Cook. All right. Dr. Wynder. We reported a d'ose- response to the amount of tar that we apolied to animals. Now, specifically, it was stated that a Dr. Passy had reported only a very few tumors when he reported this in 1962. Now, Dr. Passy was a good investigator, a very good ~ friend of mine, and yet in this particular study that he reported, he really applied tobacco tar with a glass rod in low concentration to the unshaven skin of mice. Now, there is no question that as I go lower in my tar applications to animals, I get a lower dose,and that was the purpose of the experiment I showed to you. 2015046021 So even in 1953, instead of painting 50 percent tar solution, we hadapplied a 10 or 5 or 3 percent solution, wn would also have gotten different tars.

dw 9 1 5 7 8 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Ihc. 25 412 So the difference in the results relates to the amount of material we applied to the skin. Now, the other point that the tobacco industry in this particular report failed to investigate is this: In subsequent years, we have reported a continuing decrease in nunlber of tumors that we obtained with animals. in other words, this report in 1953 was based upon tobacccs that were prod'uced'in 1949, 1950, 1951, where the tobaccos wer far higher in tar content than they are today. And in the Journal of Science, and in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Hoffman and I reported that we inirecent years get fewer and fewer tumors. Now, it was pointed out that we have given no explanation for this. That is not correct. We have given explanation for this, and we pointed out that in these years, the berrzpyrene content as one indicator had fallen, and the reason we believe it had fallen was because the Department of' Agriculture is going to tobaccos that are lower in content i than they were 20 years ago, whichiare now primarily being used by the tobacco industry. So we have said that not only is the tar content of our cigarettes lower, but the tar is different on a gram to gram level. ZM504s= Now, this was very, very important to us, because now we showed, when we applied a 50 percent tar acetone solution,

4'13 dw 10 :xx we got significantly fewer tumors than we got 20 years ago. Senator Cook. But at the same time you got significantly fewer tumors, did you make a total analysis of the tar that you got by reason of the chill tunnel so that you could make a determination whether there had been this tremendous decrease? In~other words, did you make an analysis of the original experiment in '53 so that you could tell the tar and nicotine content as opposed to that that has been used since? Dr. Wynder. Yes. You see, what happened, Senator Cook, if we get a 50 ~ percent reduction in tar and'nicatine level, obviously we 2 4 .6 7 8 9 10 , end #5 24 Ace - Federal Repot ters, Inc. must have a different'tobacco product, because this reduction is only partially due to filtration, because we also 14 got a reduction in nonfilter cigarettes. 15 Now, what has happened? 16 The tobacco industry began to use constituted tobaccos. 17 The tobacco industry began to put more stems in their 18 cigarettes, which from our point of view had two benefits. Both of these products lower the tar yield, and we and others have shown that if youlmake cigaretees wholly of the constituted tobacco, you reduce the complete carcinogenesic .19 20 21 22 23 25 !activity of the tar. 2015046023

Frank ar 1 CR 5004 Tape 6 2 3 4 5, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace -Federal Reportcrs, Inc. 25 414 Senator Cook. Let's take that equation, because I think that is very interesting. What you are saying, in effect, in relation to the equation, or the original study, anddo you have anything in the original study that can give us the milligrams of tar and the milligrams of nicotine so that we can make an analysis between that and what we now face in the later studies? Because what ycu are saying is, let's say they reducedlit, and use the figure 15 percent, well, the ,reduction in the experiments from~.~our original '53 experiment, to the 'GO1s, or the late 'G0s experiments, that came up with fig,ures of three percent to five percent, does not show a 50 percent decrease, but sho~cs a 12 to 14 percent decrease. Dr. Wynder. It e:'oes not go cuite that low in our experi- ment. It goes to 20 percent. %'e always pointed it out, because we forever applied gram to gram. So we were the first ones to stress that we had a different tobacco product in the 1960s than we had in the 1950s, because of the response of the animals, but in addition we showed that the chemical constituents differ. We used to use an indicator, 1.2 parts per million. But we are now running .8, .9 parts per million, which is a reflection, in my view, of the g,reater co:nbustibility of the produc t . 2015046024 So what I am saying is, and I guess you know, I have ispent, and my colleagues have spent the last 20 years to

415 ar 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federal Repoiters, Inc. 25 determine what is carcinogenic in~tobacco tar, how can we reduce it, and we have published our reports, and the tobacco industry may not have given us accolades, but they used our !suggestio7s in re-engineering the product. So we have on a gram to gram basis a change. Now, what I am now saying is that this change applies more to some cigarettes than to others, and we are showing that today certain cigarettes are less harmful than others, and I would like all American smokers to smoke the least harmful cigarette as possible. in this line, may I say that we are doing some experi- mentation now with the Department of Agriculture where we are comparing the chemical constituents of a tobacco plant, the upper portion, the lower portion, and the middle portion, and we are finding distinct difference there. The genetic experiments done by the Department of Agriculture show other beautifull possibilities that may lead to less harmful products. What I um saying here is that we have the capacity, Senator Cook, to produce even less harmful products, and the reason why we, of course, perhaps do relatively well in our laboratory, because Dr. Huffman has been with me for 14 years, and both of us believe that we have got an urg;ent problem facing the state of health in our nation, and we can solve it. 2~5a460~ Now, your last question related to arriving at a specific

ar 3 416 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federali Reporters, Inc. 25 level. Now, I was reading the mobacco Reporter, and I was -- Senator Cook. Senator Moss got a far better one on an organization that is against smoking, because he got his picture in color, and I had mine in black and white. I ireally feel second-rated. (Laughter. ) Dr. Wynder. It was very effective. Senator Cook. Probably you feel that all Christmas wreaths should be mae'e out of tobacco stalks and tobacco shouldn't even be used for the purpose of large, small or little cigars. Dr. Wynder. Well, I think that you and the people at the University of Kentucky are working in this same general area, and it would'be my hope that we could collaborate more I closely than~we have in the past, and I would urge you, any way that you can help us, that we can interchange our information more openly, and the tobacco industry would be very welcome, because as you know, most tobacco chemists working for the industry feel very hesitant to exchange information with us, and~I don't know if this requires a law of Congres s. I wish you would pass it. 2015Q4602s Senator Cook. I get the feeling that some people below the Surgeon General in the United States that are in that research feel the same degree of hesitancy that you referred

ar 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 Aee- Fedcrai Reportcrs, Inc. 25 417 to, some of the chemists in the industry. I Dr. Wynder. Well, in the independent group, Senator, we really work very close together. The point is, there are not enoug,h others. I was chairman of a conference of less harmful tobacco products in London a few months ago, and there was very little ~representationn from industry, and there are very few people in the indepen~c.ent scientific world who want to go into this research. You know, for every single person that we have on tobacco research, we have several hundred people who want to study virus and cancer. I don't know why they don't want !to enter this field. it is a difficult field'. The chemistry is very complicated, ;~-and I wish more young people who listen to this testimony would join us in our efforts. But in regard' to your question on this. If you read the reports in this Tobacco Reporter, and I must say I enjoy reading this, and I get a lot of my knowledg,e out of what the Tobacco Reporter says, and to some extent, it is often a very balanced report. They are talking about the tar and nicotine levels in this country, and they suggest, or they indicate that when I come up with 20 milligrams in 1.2, that some 5&percent of all American cigarettes now sold fall in this area. So it is acceptable. 20150460217 Suppose our long-ranc;e data would show that the lung cancer risk of someone who sr.loked cigarettes in~ this

418 ar 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federal Reporters,Inc. 25 neighborhood, would be relatively low unless he smoked 80 cigarettes a day, here is something that the tobacco industry can do. Senator Cook. Let's put it in prospective, because I think this is only fair. In effect, what you~are saying, and you said in your statement on page 5, from the current cic;arette sales, "It is also apparent that an appreciable number of Imerican smokers today are smoking cigarettes containing less than 20 milligrams of tar and 1.2 milligrams of nicotine." Now, my only argumentt would be, then youisay "measured according, to standard FTC techniques." These figures came ; from where, David? Now, this is what they shovied, but youl' re picking these as a basis, but really what we are doing is we are picking something out of the air and saying this may be a good thing to start with,. Do you have any research to back up the 20 and the 1.2? Could you furnish us with any that you have got? Dr. Wynder. The point, of course, what I did, I obviously, as a scientist, must go alongiwith the statement of Dr. DuVal that necessarily there is no threshhold level, and this problem we face time and time again when we talk about what is a 0 safe level for good additive, and ~%,e talked to Commissioner O Edwards about this, and my own feeling is in some cases, ~ O like inicyclamate, we really go to one extreme, and' then on GO

ar 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13' 141 15 16 17 18 19' 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - FederaI Reporters, Inc. 25 419 another we have no extremes at all. Senator Cook. We did go'to quite an extreme in~that, didn't we? Dr. Wynder. It is my oum view that in certain food additives, we go to extreme. But the hand's of the commission was tied because the Delaney F:.mendment passed by the Congress, which says any concentration, any concentrution produced in animals, must be banned from human consumption. I think we are a little diverse from ~•,,hat we are talking about here. Now, as a scientist, and epidemiol.ogist, you pin me down, you say, is there any threshhold level, couldn't it be that even a single cigarette, theoretically, perhaps, but the per- centage is certainly very, very low. So then whenwe arrive at a point from which to start, I first of all picked a level at which half the American ~cigarettes were already involved in, so it was durable, it was consumer acceptable, and I then said to myself that this is probably a level that we ought to pick. We couldn't agree on one, because there is no specific level at which everybody could agree on. So 20 milligrams at 1.2, I am told by my experts within the tobacco industry, is durable. At first I thought 20 nilligrams of tar and 0.1 milligram f nicotine, I was told that ~-ras not durable probably at the present time with the kinds of tobacco available, but this

420 ar 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ' 23 24 Ac- Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 was durable. So let's start at this level. Let us see whether we can give other incentives. If you look at some of the other tobacco~ads of certain~ companies that relate to lower tar and nicotine cigarettes, you k=,-r, these were some of the ads that we could have written. Senator Cook. But you remember you can't do that any more, because the Federal Trade Corz=ission banned the industry from doing that and.said they weren't going to let the industry get into this tar derby, as they called it. Do you recall that? Dr. Wynder. I recall this, and I was one of the people who have urged the Federal Trade Co:wnission to dispense with this particular regulation, because I am inipressed with what American industry can do. I would rather have them spend their advertising dollar on behalf of the health of this nation. And so we are using this as a starting point, Senator Cook, but any other committee may arrive at a different value. Of course, I stress the point, that I think this is the !kind of thing that the industry could do in terms of a self- N 0 regulatory step. After all, industry has done it in terms ~_h of advertising, and as I stressed in my testimony, if we can ~ C9 do anything voluntarily in this country, I prefer it to be ej 0 done by legal steps of the Congress. Senator Cook. D.aybe I am incorrect when I say they didn't n

ar 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9' 10l 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20l 21 22 23 24 A cP - Fedetal Reportcrs, Inc. 25 421 want it. Maybe it ~,:as when people said something constituted~ a safe or safer cigarette.that they would not let them then say by reason of the fact that it was lower in tar and nicotine that as a result thereof it created a safe or a Isafer cigarette, and they said we are not going to get into this tar derby, and <<;e, not going to let you, do it. So, at least the original positioizwas that even if some- one, for instance, advertises what his milligrams of tar and millig;raTM;s of nicotine are, that the FTC said', originally at least, at least that was their thinking, and apparently it is changing, that this is a race that they didn't want to get into as far as the advertising community was concerned. Dr. Wynder. t•1e11, I like the course that the industry was given the freedom to publish~ the nicotine level, and I think it had a great thing to do with lowering the nicotine ~levels, consumer awareness of these levels, and I think the industry has not suffered, because per capita smoking has remained about the same, and I really always come back to the same thing,, that we have a common interest. Let me stress again, obviously, a safe tobacco product ~ h+ Ut is probably not feasible, but as I stressed in my testimony, 0 we have got to be realistic, and if the industry would work O W with us, then I think we could accomplish more. h"& Then used! this another polint that I stressed, andiperhaps I have occasion also to te1L you a bit about the problems

ar 9 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.. 25 422 that we have in animal experimentation, and that when you ,read about the new cancer authority act, you realize that we .. have more problems than just the money. And one of the problems that we really have in cancer research is to interrelate the experimentalist with the epidemiologist, and this i-c one of our great problems. Ile have many researchers who testified here, who only work with mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, and occasionally with: a monkey, and then we have an epidemiologist who never sees the laboratory, and we have got to bring them together,'and we have got to recognize that certain problems, including,the tar and nicotine importance to human disease in the long run can only be solvec?_ by what we are sho:,iing in man, and we in the Health Foundation intend to continue our studies to show whether or not one kind of tobacco product has a different risk than~ another for certain diseases. Now, I am convinced that we will show that this is the case, and I am equally convinced that the day will come when we can smoke with~a far greater amount of safety than we do today, and already we are doing it withla greater amount of safety than we did 20 years ago. This, of course, is not good enough, and I know that friends of mine within the A.mcrican Cancer Society have done a tremendous job in educating the A.-nerican people, and they feel that perhaps this is not the way we have got to go, but

ar 10 ,nc 1 2 3' 4 5 6 7 8 10 il 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reputers, Inc. 423 I stressed in my testimony, even it is a fear that I may lose some friends among health educators and lose some friends within the tobacco industry, but I have got to do as a physician, and somcone intcrested~in health, %,,hat is practicabiE. you see, and what is practicable is that people obviously . in the foreseeable time continue to sr,zoke, andyou can help us to make safer. Senator Cook. Let me ask you a couple of questions. V~'hen we were talking about these little cigars, I am a little concerned that sor;~ehow or other -- who makes Winchester? I ' c?!on't really know. Senator Moss. Reynolds, I believe. It does not say on there. 25

424 CR-5004~ Senator Cook. It says here thcy are made by R. J. Reynold #17 2 nb-1 Tobacco Company, Cigar 1•iar;ceting Division, t~,inston-Salem. The 3 only thing that bothers me about this is far the last two days 4'~ we have been talking about T':incaester, and I don't know any!)oely 5 at R. J. Zeynole;s, but t..e t;ling is that t'iiere are probably about 25 or 30 s::;all cigstrs on the rzarl:et today. They hahpen 7 to be one of t1.e manufUcturars. 8 Some of these have 'p-jeen on the nar::et, a gentleman said, 9 since 1958, aria it has heen i~y opportunity to check bac,t,, for 10 instance, on one smiall cigar that has been produced which is 11 c«lled' T;et: cen the hcts,and I think tiiat cic}ar has been on 12 ti:u r:,ur~:et for over 50 yGl-:I-.s. Tiie sma ll cigar with the 13 Sa":iy' type of wrilppf_'r, tilty si11'.',Ce alkaline cigar t,`r''pe. 14 I h`ard' a few peo ple snicker in the audience about, here 15 is anoth cr attempt to get into the market. There have been 16 cigars i n this market for many, many years. You are a-viare of 17 this, ar e you not? 18 - Yes. Dr. Plynde:r. 19 Senator Cook. ilo a, the poin t is that if we say -- and by 20 the way, one of my mai n arq,ur.:.Iits about this is to lower tar 21 and nicoi-ine a little bit evcry year and lower it every year, 22 and thien to secure pro,iibition, at least tTrW indicated this is 23 c;,hat they would like. 2015046034 24 Imiglit say to yc>u th,:t thc: Surgeon Ceneral reported' this Inc Ace -Federali Reportcrs , . 25 1 was What he would lil:c, and certainly th e man from the Fedcral I i :

425 1 2 nb- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Aee-Federal Reporters, Inc. Trade Commission said so. Then the next thing is, you start in the cigar industry anc then you prohibit them. And then I don't know where you go fro: there, I guess snuff and whatever else it is. I haven't got the slightest idea what all they make. . But the point I am tryingto make is that here is an argu- ment of trying to say that a little cigar is rto:a trying to get into the cigarette market because the pressure is on the cig- arett-e mar}r.et, and yet we know that this product has been in existence and on the market place for many, many, many -years. Is that not true? Novr, as far as the al};aline content of these, have you made c^17y~ rCsec3rch on the al',:c3l.ine content of small cigars? Dr. Wynder. Yes. Senator Cook. Could you put this in the record so that we can see it? Are they by branc3? Dr. .Wynder . :le have looked iZito this, and as I indicated, Dr. Hoffman and his stalff and the Health Foundation are looking into it further. And we, of course, ask ourselves vrhat is the definition, which I said before, of a little cigar and what extent is it different from a cialarette. AndI pointed out tha from a point of view of epi(?eMiology, they are really different a~s we saw, it, related to t•rheti,er or not one product could be 20'15046035 inhalcd or not. 25

42G 1 If you~take a product that has an excess of 2 milligrams nb- 3 2 of nicotine, then, you know, only the toughest of us can really 3 inhale it. And really it is up to you gentlemen to decide what 4 really is the definition of a cigar, or little cigar. 5 Is it sufficient to just say it is wrapped in a cigar 6 wrapper, or other parameters? Senator Coo;:. But if you make the test that it is inhalab =' 7 9 that it has got to be considcredas a cigarette, I have got to tell you I;cno;7 some tough souls that even inhale dark Certifiei 10 Bonds, and I don~'t know how they get away with~ it. 11 If this is going to be a basis, that we have got some 12 gentlemen in here that have got pipes in their mouths right now 13 aild they can't tell pe that every once in a'ahile they don't 14 inhale t:zat tobacco smoke, because they do. 15 Dr. Wynder. Senator Cook, I have also known some tough 16 souls who can inhale deeply a big cigar. 17 The question is: what will the majority of people be able 18' to do? I am just raising this as a question. But it seer.l.=~ to 19 me that the cigar industry itself has got to ask this question, 20 , because as you know, in some earli€:r advertising campaign, that 21 you do not need to inhale. 2015(}4sQ3s 22 Senator Coo;:. You mean it has got to look like a cigar? 23 Dr. Wynder. ~,.ell, I am not really so much concerned wheth r 24 it loo'.: s like a cigar. I am really corncorned t:';letlier or not Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 iiidividuals can inhale it decply. There is a different l:ind ,

42? 4. 5 of inhalation. You can~bring it to your throat or you can deeply inhale it. I think the cigar industry has benefited to some extent from the evidence of cigarettes and should ask itself whether ,or not what the parametei s are. 6 7 8 9 one of the things that is possible, if you come along with a given product that is ii7halable, that then becomes very successful. T.rid all the other cigars say, look, %•re really can't't compete against this because this product is inhalable, 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federol Repor ters, Inc. 25 ours is not. They will also re-engineer the product so it will become inhalable. This to mie is a 11-ey question, that I think the cigar in3us -- try itself Senator Cook. Aren' twe really saying• in these hea 'rings , about the indictability of the Winchester, because I haven't smoked them, but the real-indictubility factor is that they look like a cigarette and'thereLore we should change it so they don't look like a cigarette, so they look, you know, like a rose by any other name. And if we make it look different, then~ nobou is going to inhale it because i:e ma~e it look different. isn' t this what we are really getting at? 201504603'7 Dr. [•,ync:er. It looks li3:e a cigarette. I think, if you ta::e an 85-milli,aeter product and~ you wrap it in a cigar type oi thing, hoc-r it loo'r:s, I tiiin;c in part, c:epenas on the adver- ,A-' 1i,,at an in~iiu st~-Y gives it. i ~,i.<~~.i~ cam~aaic~ ~. .~ t V

nb- 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16, 17 18 19 20 211 22 23 24 Senator Cook. We turn that around and make cigarettes thu loo}k like Tiparillos and go right back on the market and go right back to advertising and say this is a cigar. But thon everybody is going to ~inc; out pretty soon that it is nothing but a long cigarotte and in.•,ale it all they %.rant to? Dr. j''ynd-or. You have dilcr^a here, obviously, because of the law which you past which specifically relates to ci:garettes and exempts cigars. I will really suggest that you form a Committee that has a mc.mbcrship of the tobacco industry, including the cigur indus try, to answer this particular question. The point that I ma}.e is that our data seei-,ie to suggest t'_::.t this rarticulz:r. .~..oc'uct lias i:€eri specifi.cally designLd to be similar to cigars in view of its PH, in view of the type of tobacco it has, but it has also been specifically designed to 'r;eep the tar and nicotine unusizally low, to keepr othex : alkaloid, unusually low, so that this product can be inhaled. Senator Cook. But have you taken some of the other cigars such as Tijuana Smalls, Tiparillos, you name them, there are all kinds of them. Have you run the same tests on those and found that the tar and nicotine is here, or equivalent to? Dr. Ilynder. Yes, sir. 2015046038 Senator Cooi:. h',ijy we have those figures for the record? Dr. !•~ynder. ~1e11, :•:c are testing a fcta.- We can test . Au - Federal Repor ters„ Inc. 25 I sor.~e r.~ore. But in r~cneral you can say, and I think the gentl~ I

42'3 nb-6 1 of the little cigar industry can certainly give the data, in 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 certainly most little cigars of nicotine content above 2 milligrams. Senator Cook. But what I am trying to say is that this line of questiorning, was started by the Chairman~, and what I vTant is, if you have got any information on~the research that you have already done so far, that you can put into this record witii no problems whatsoever. I think it is valuable to this record and I think it ought to be in~ it. Dr. Wynder. t1e are glad to suamit to you what we have already Lolne. Senator Coo::. Tlian;; you. Senator Moss. Very good. That will be included in the record. I have no more questions, and I thank Senator Cook for his~' I wanted to make one addition: Dr. DuVal of HHW was q,uotec: as saying that HDN had no intention of doing any research on amount. As I understood Dr. DuVal's testimony, he testifies that he believed, and the Surgeon General believed that there was no such thing as a safe cigarette, and therefore they didn'tt want to fix a position at %•;hich it could be said that this is a safe cigarette. 2015046039 They t•:ould rather leave it to the acceptability side of ,as low as possible in tar and nicotine, and still have enough 23' 24 4ce --Fedeial Rcpoidcrs,inc. 25

430 d::,ree of acceptability that it could be marketed. ihat is the nb-7 2 ~reason~that they felt that on the health side they shouldn't get irvt-o it. 4 But they ought to leave it with the Trade Commission, whic, 5 ~,:ould determine the margin, of accoptabili ty and thcrefore put it 6 do,vn to whercvcr it would u•e accep`:.~E-,ble a nd now 1ower, aecausc 7 ii it was drivc.n~ too Io,::~ in; acccpt~ubility , then the black 8 I mar:cet sets up. - I 9 I j.ell, of course, it is in the record . It speaks for itsel . I 10 But tl~.at was my understanding of th^ thru st of the testimony. 11 Tlianh you very much, Br. .Wyndcr . 12 I'a e1':.'ay."i you have ti~E:ea an ci;cC'-1.lC.'nt t:'ltY>.C.'Ss i;n~: very 13. i C:.I--C'•:~";:1'vt3. WE', anprEC~_i, _te Z-i: grei~'t1.~~'. t 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 N 0 21 N CA 0 ~ 22 23 O wA 24 O Ace - Federat Reponters, Inc. 25

431 :r 5004 ar 1 ; .pe 8 1 Senator N!oss. Senator Sherman Cooper of Kentucky wants 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to make a statement. You may proceed. STATEMEi1T' OF THE H'O:dORA3LE JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, UNITED~ ° STATES SENATOR FROM TI'.E STATE OF KENTUCKY. Seriator Cocper. Senator Iioss and Senator Cook, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this sub- ; coiram ittee . I must say my statement is relatively short, and I do not attempt to get into any depth~as to the question before 1I Ilus. But I do want to raise the question about the imprac- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Fedeial Repoiters, Inc. 25 ticability about the bill that is before us, and also to raise some questi;ons about the ultimate authority of the corrrrittee or the Congress to enact such a bill. I oppose S. 1454, which would amend Section 3 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising;. Act chiefly by I providing to the Federal Trade Commission rule-making. iauthority to establishima}:imuM permissible levels in the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes. You may recall that when the issue of labeling cigarettes was before this Senate in 1965, I argued before this committee and on the Senate floor that the Federal Trade Commission does not have such rule-making authority unless the IV O N Congress(A specifically delegates such authority to the commission. I think the Congress up::eld that argument. It prohibited the application of such rules being

promulgated by the commission for a specified period of time, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22' 23 24 1ce-Federal Repertcrs, Inc. 25 until Congress had an opportunity to review the question. Congress then enacted legislation in two fields with ~which w~e~are~~all familiar. The first was the requirement that a warning label be printed on the cigarette package, and by later legislation the label was modified to read as follows inlits present form: "''Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health." In 1970, Congress enacted additional legislation making it unlawful to advertise cigarettes by television or radio broaucasting after January 1, 1971. ~. ; The bill, S. 1454, itself, recognizes that the Federal Trade Corrtmissionidoes not have rule-making, authority to I determine acceptable levels of tar, nicotine, and other incriminated agents in cigarettes. The question then arises as to what is wrong with S. !1454 which would provide to the Federal Trade Commission this additional authority. I have read the statement of Mr. Robert Pitofsky, ~ N O director, Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade A~b Commission, before this subcommittee, and'it appears to me ~ 0 that he has made very good~ arr;t::.,,ents against this bill. 4-A N First, it is correct that the Federal Trade Commission

ar 3 1 2 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19' 20 21 22 23 24 433 has not asked for the authority to set acceptable levels of tar and nicotine in cigarettes. Second, Mr. Pitofsky made it clear that the Federal Trade Co;xmission has no staff with the expertise to establish such levels, if, indeed, they are at all possible to establish. I am very glad that I was here when Dr. S•lynder was ~ ill testifying, because it seems to me that part of 1' his statement ~ indicates the dif ficul ty and the expertise and' the time required to make,such a determination. Third, even based on the hypothesis of the controversial health issue, Mr. Pitofsky pointed out that to establish, arbitrarily levels of tar and nicotine could lead a cigarette I sr,oker to believe that smoking of cigarettes below these i ilevels would not impair health. I point out that it would be as difficult to establish or prove that there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between certain levels of tar and~nicotine as to determine Ithe issue of smoking and health which we know has been the subject of years of scientific research resulting in conflict- Iingiclaims even to this day. i O Mr. Pitofsky pointed out a provision of the bill which, ~ O if one accepted the hypothesis of Senator Moss' bill, would ~ in effect nullify the bill. That is -- if the establishment Q11 W of standards %.,ould' not m,eet pu'.)lic acceptability and therefore Ace-Federal Repocters, Inc. i~ 25~resulted in creating a market for the illicitsa,le and

ar 4 4 3:4 1 2 3 4 5 6 8' 9 10 1!2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ' 23 purchase of significant quantities of cigarettes, then the standards would' have to be abrogated. ! . ~ I see no point in the bill. If you say it is necessary 1to establish these levels, then if the public won't accept it, no matter what the danger to health may be, it seems to be a nullity, in essence. I point up these matters to indicate the contradictions and therefore the impracticabilities of the bill itself. As I have noted above, the controversy over the causal jrelationship between smoking andihealth continues, and~'it would certainly be more difficult to establish acceptable Ilimits of tar and nicotine content. I think at this point, to give youimy own attitude, and I think it is very boring to read what someone has said~on a subject before, but on the floor of the Senate, on March 10,. 1970, which expressed my view then and expresses my view today. I know that all of us are zoncerr.ed about these health problems. The people in my state are concerned because of the large investment in the tobacco industry, and also about health Efforts are being made at the University of Kentucky and other institutions, as %ti1ell as scientists, to review the claims of the relationship of tobacco to health. I do not know. I do not think any of u~s know. From the research view- ~ point, three tests have been rccoc,nizcd. 20150460,14 24J~ Ai - Fcderal Reporlers, Ihc.JII '' 25 One is statistical association, or correlation, which,

ar 5 435 1 2 '~was the chief basis on which the Surgeon General's report was made, but certainly it is not conclusive. The second test is a delegationof agents, which causes 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 1! 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federal Repor ters, Inc. 25 the disease, and it is known t::at research has not been able to idcntify such an agent, and the third test is the ability to proalucesucha disease in hus:an. beings . r;ow I may be wrong, but I do not know that this has been accomplished. I know the work the committee has done on this matter, and the efforts by everyone to try to solve the ~problem. I su'pport this bill, and1I am talking about the Ilabor bill, and the denial of the electronic media:. This act is informed. Only qualified scientists will finally jsolve this issue. Reading the statement of Dr. Melvin J. DuVal, assistant Isecretary for Health, Scientific Affairs, Department of HEW, before this subcommittee on February 1, 1972, there was a rather interesting statement despite all the research that has been done, and as I said, I am not a scientist, I am not a doctor, I hope that these facts can be determined, but I quote just what he says. 0 He talks about the chapter of the 1972 report that 0 ~ is most pertinent this year, and deals with the harmful Q~ O constituents of cigarette smoke. An array of compounds is ~ Cr( listed. The first compound~s listed are those judged most likely to contribute to the health hazard of smoking, carbon

ar 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 8' 9 10 11 12 13' 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Nce - Federal Reporters,lnc. 25 436 monoxide, nicotine and tar, the last being after nicotine and moisture have been~removed. The second series comprise a total of six substances judg,ed as probable, and I emphasize the word probable, contributors for the health hazard in smoking. I can't pronounc all these naes. And, finally, the thirdseries comprises a larger number of compounds judged as suspected.. I emphasize suspected, con-1ributor to health hazards in-smoking. That was the statement of the secretary in the Department HEY'7 which does have some staff and expertise in trying to determine these issues, but the words he uses are certainly not conclusive. The Cigarette Labeling Act passed by the Congress, ar.dl I voted for it, provides to consumers information that in the view of the Congress, is proper. Many do not believe that it is a correct statement and that the hazards have not beer, proved, but nevertheless Congress enacted this I !legislation to provide information to the public. The cigarette manufacturers have voluntarily taken the following steps : In the fall of 1970, the cigarette industry voluntarily ;agreed to list the tar and nicotine contents in all its cigarette advertising, aind this is the current practice. Any smoker can casily comrare the tar and nicotine contents

ar 7 437 1 2 3 4 8! 9 110 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 2'1 22 23' 24 iof the various brands and take this factor into consideration I about smoking. Secondly, in the past fewweeks, the cigarette industry has agreed to carry the warning label which now appears on all cigarette packages in a black box in all newspapers, magazine and billboard advertising. As Iamlinformed, the CoTM.missionihas not yet finally agreed upon these voluntary consent orders. But the fact the that they have been worked out with the Commissioner and'e fact that the industry has cooperated with the-Commission in developing these consent orders, would indicate that the Coamission considers them of value and that they will be accepted. This is a further example of the industry's cooperation in providing broad informationito the public. To give another example of the impracticability of this bill's approach, I take the liberty of calling attention to Senator Moss' statement, which was quotedby my colleague, Senator Cook. 2015046047 According to Senator Cook's statement, Senator Moss said on an educational television program,, "The Ad'vocates," when asked why it would not be effective to reduce the alcoholi content in whiskey to sixty proof -- the answer: "Because if 60:proof whiskey were sold, I assume that two drinks instead of one wouldigive the pcrson the same-result." Ate - Fedeial Fepaitcrs, Inc. 25 It seems to me that the same reasoning could be applied

ar 8 2 3 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1:7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 acp -Fed'erat' Repoi ters, Inc. 25 to a tar and nicotine level for cigarettes -- if such a level could be establ.ished. 4.38 I think that might be a question you could ask such a person as a scientist or a researcher, that even if such a lower level is established, if by the same analogy as in your example, if smoking,an additional number of cigarettes would no result in the same level. Senator Moss. If I may interrupt just there. Dr. Wynder did address himself to that matter by pointing out that the cigarette com?anies have reduced very drastically in the last 20 years the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes, and their research indicated that beorle did not smoke more cigarettes by reasom of that reduction, so we have some hope that they wouldn't smoke two in the place of:one. Okay. Senator Cooper. I think it is,true that filter cigarettes and cigarettes of low tar and nicotine content are helpful to people who wish to reduce their smoking in N r C1Y ' individual cases. But to give the impression that some O~ arbitrary level is necessarily safer would be an illusion ~ ~ in the very educational process that many are encouraging.QD In several of our debates on the tobacco program, debates raised by bills by Senator Moss and others to abolish the tobacco production control program, I have not heard any of the proponents of these various measures advocate the prohibition of production, manufacture and sale of

1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22' 23 24 4ce-Federal Repoiders, Inc. 25 cigarettes. In fact, whpn they have spoken, as Senator Moss has, they have forthrightly said they were against prohibi- tion. Nevertheless, the effect of these measures, beyond 1com"mon sense and practicability, are steps toward prohibition. This is a threat against an industry which provides a living for thousands of farm families and ~;orkers. There are over 6010,0010 farm families growing tobacco. Over 150,000 live in my state. Over $10 billionlis paid by the consumer of which~ over $4 billion is paid~ to federal, ,~state and local governments in taxes. i ~ Only about 25 percent of the total paid for tobacco is. ( ~received by the farmers. As I have said above, none of those who propose controls of various forms on cigarette advertising and smoking,advocate prohibition of the production, manufacture ' and use of cigarette tobacco. But these various measures which are proposed impose some kind of prohibition upon individuals. For example, cigarette smor:ers denied cigarettes of certain levels of tar and nicotine properties after being made aware of the infor::ation provide.d by the Labeling Act, that they may be harmful to use, still may desire to smoke a particular cigarette. If another provision of this bill should be fol]!owcd, the yearly reductionof levels of tar and nicotine if these pursued to zero, or near-zero, i

ar 1& 6 7 9 10' 11 ' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 kce - Federa l Repor t,~rs„ Inc. 25 440~ ~prohibition on cigarettes for all practicable purposes would have been achieved. You would end up by smoking hot air. I do not think there is any legal authority for prohibi-- tion~to be achieved by indirection as this bill proposes. I have not voted against any act, or any bill which provides full inforr.:ation to the consumer of cigarettes or to cigarette sn:okors regarding possible hazards to health, and' I have no obj'ectionto such inLorr;ation as long as the informa:- tion directe:1 by the F"ederal Trade Commission or the Congress is itself honest and basedon fact. But I do oppose these bills strongly, these bills which attemot to control the choices of individuals and result in the prohibition or use of a corm-nodity or without legal or constitutional I authority. I think we should recognize that £ollowing'the example of the prohibition of spirited liquor, it could only be done by constitutional ame.ndsc:nt. N I wcuild say that in essence, the committee is following ~ Clt this course, and if it came to the logical conclusion, it 0 0 would be the prohib,ition against one commodity. ~ O GA I point out again~, I will say, that I think although 0 it was obj.ected to by many, but this committee and the Congress embarked upon the course of giving the fullest information it could to one who smokcd'cigarettes, and now this bill, ~%,ith its

ar 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1& 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24, - Federal Reporlers„Ine. 25 441 inconsistencies and impracticabilities and contradictions, is embarking upon another course, that of prohibition. Senator Moss. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your statement. You have discussedthe problern very well. We are glad to have your views in the record. I do think %;,e have come a long way in giving information to the consumers and relieving the -- what appeared~ to the 811 iCongress to be excessive advertising on television of cigarettes, and some witnesses have testified to the fact that cigarettes are'now much lo~aer in tar and nicotine content than I they used' to be, and filters have become the preponderant ~,iten::in the cigarette industry, and that filters have a beneficial effect, so"there has been a lot of progress made. The one thing that I think I should point out is that in an attempt not to go to prohibition, the bill does provide `that the level of acceptability must be considered by the Federal Trade Commission, and presumably there is a level at which~people that like to smoke would stop smoking, because the level became too low, and as you say, it became hot air only, and;I don't know what that level is. But the N,idiea of the bill is to try to get the tar and nicotine level ~ C1i down as far as we can before ~re cross that threshhold where 0 MP it is unacceptable, andi therefore not be marketable, and O Clt the black market would grow up in cig,arcttes. I don't know. ~& That is a hard lin~e to talk about. Mlaybe it will be awfully

ar 12 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ar^ -Fcdcral Reportets, Ihc. 25 442 hard to find, but at least it would assure us that we won't go to totah prohibition on cigarettes. I Senator Cooper. I understand that. I understand that. iI do say I feel like that section alone shows the imprac- ticability and the contradiction of the bill. Thank you all very much. i I II Senator Moss. Any auestions of your colleague, Senator ~ Cook? I - ~ Senator Cook. Senator, I only want to add to what you 'said, when Mr. Pitofsky said they would have to be advocated. During the questioning pericd, I askedhim what that degree I!of acceptability would then be, and he said it would be the ;'consum.er acceptability, and we would have to accept that level. j'And so if they set it at 20 and the consumer wanted 22 or 23, Ithey r,ouldlimm,ediately abrogate their standards and go to 23 or 1 24. 2015046052 So I can only say that what you are saying is indeed a fact, and I might add, Senator, that although it has been said by Dr. Wyndler and many other people and the chairman repeatedly, that cigarettes have come down tremendously in tar and nicotine, those statistics have not appeared in any of the Surgeon General's reports, nor have they appeared by anybody who has testificd yet here to put into the record the decrease in tar and nicotine other than the one chart that was given bY Dr. Vlyndcr today, aY, and that indicated no particular brand

ar 13 1 6 7 8 9 an-' 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24, Ar° - Federal RoportCrs, Inc. 443 ofcig,arette, no particular industry, as a particular corporation that is in the production of cigarettes, and we have no knowledge of knot:,ing whether one particular brand is picked out or whether an analysis was done of all brands to make a d~etermination~ of_ whether in fact this is really reality. Senator Cooper. Thc.z:k you very much. Sena tor i•loss. Thank you, Senc-tor Cooper. I do think that there is in the record a chart that was furnished to me 'averaging all cigarettes showing this decline. 25

444 dw 1 1 t5 04-t9 4 5 X?' XX 7 9 M 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 Senator Moss. Our next witness is Dr. Arthur Furst, i Director, Institute of Chemical Biology, University of San~ Francisco. we are glad to have you, Dr. Furst. Will you proceed? STATEMEINT' OF DR. ARTHUR FURST, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF CHLMICAL BIOLOCY, UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRALYCISCO, CALIFORNIIA. Dr, Furst. Thank you, sir. Seantor Moss. We are pleased to have you, sir, and we note your record and background in your field and we look forward to your testimony. Dr. Furst. I appreciate that. Senator Moss, Seantor Cook, Senator Baker: I am Dr. Arthur Furst, Director of the,Institute of Chemical Biology and Professor of Chemistry at the University of San Francisco. My background is as follows: I received my Bachelor's and Master's degrees in chemistry from the University of California at Los Angeles. I was awarded:a Ph.D. degree in chemistry by Stanford University. My curricul=vitae, which is attached, has been brought up to date since the last time I appeared before a congressionzif con.mittee. This was in April, 1969, when I testified on the 1969 Cigarette Labeling and Adver tising bill. ~0-1504fip54

445 dw 2 Parenthetically, may I ask permission to give you my 2 3 list of publications which is not appended here. I shall send those in. 4 Seantor hioss. I am sorry . 5 Dr. Furst. I would;like permission to submit my list 6 of publications, which I do not have here. They will be sent in immediatel 8 y. Senator Moss. That will be-included in the record following your statement. 10 Dr. Furst. I appreciate it. Thank you. 11 Since that appearance, I hve.published over 25 additional 12 articles, bringing my total publications to about 150. 13 I have served as-a Clinical Professor at'the College 1i4.. 15 of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University for a year, 16 been appointed a temporary consultant to the World Health Organization and' am to be listed in Who's Who in America, 17 18 1972 edition. As a Research Consultant to the Council for Tobacco 19 Research - U.S.A., I review proposals for funding, particularly 20 those requiring the analysis of experimental design. 21 My work in canccr research~began in 1947 and my interest 22 is a continuing one. 2015046055 23 For example, last week I gave three papers covering~my 24 Ace - Federall Reporters, Inc. experimental work at the annual meeting of' the Western 25 Pharmacology Society and my paper for the American Association

dw 3 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Aco- Fedeiat Reportevs, Ihc. 25 446 for Cancer Research meeting in May, 1972, has been accepted.. I have published a number of scientific papers on various aspects of cancer. These include publications in all major journals dealing with cancer chemotherapy, cancer biology, biochemistry of cancer and mathematical models. I am now engaged in experimental carcinogenesis, which involves learning more about the genesis -- "beginning" -- of carcinoma -- "cancer." All of this has helpedilead to my developing new techniques, introducing new approaches, and suggesting,new hypotheses. I believe I am one of the very few scientists in the country who has read nearly every scientific reference relai.edto cancer that is cited in the annual "Surgeon General Reports." I have also reviewed the majority of other references set out in those publications. I am bothered by these reports. They give only one side of the problem. The apparent selection of material reinforces only one point of view. I am especially bothered by the omissions -- why the omissions? As a citizen I feel the members of Congress should have all information available. 2ossa4so5s My basic interest has been in the experimental induction

447 dw 4 2 3 of cancer. I have followed the reportedliterature on tobacco smoke and smoke condensates and have myself experi- mented with tobacco smoke. Some years ago I constructed smoking machines to 5 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4ce - Federa! Repoitors,Inc. 25 evaluate the effect of cigarette smoke on animals. After many long and frustrating,years, I re-evaluatee'd my research and all other published work in the field. I conciuded that all of the work, including our own, was extremely primitive. Only in the last cojple of years have -cientists been able to appreciate the real difficulty of doing, tobacco smoke inhalation experiments. I also concludedthat %,,hile we have been able to induce I lung cancer in animals by the inhalation of various substances, we have not been able to do this using tobacco smoke. In the 1971 Surgeon General's Report I read with interest the account of the Auerbach beagle dog experiment. I asked myself, why was there no emphasis on the fact that the dogs reccivedthe smoke through a tracheostoma? Th~is in no way resembles human _Gmoking, and unless the pictures I have seen are wrong, the smoke was initially forced into the lungs thrh ough the trachea by use of a pump. 20IL504sp5'7 This experiment has no meaning in relation to the human experience and any reports off tumors should be considered in light of the fact that the experimental data was not made available to an independent panel for evaluation, as

Ace - Federal Repoi teis„Inc. 25 44 8 dw 5 1 2 3 requested. And~ this refusal, by the way, was not mentioned in the 1971 R t 4 epor . Since beagle dogs do not get lung cancer spontaneously, 5 a discussion of this fact would have been useful to readers interested in evaluating the Auerbach work. To do any animal experimentlation which has meaning. recuires a great deal of sophisitication. It is no longer acceptublc to conduct research without 10 11 regard to the parameters that can be measured when a human 12' smokes a cig,are tte . In my section of the A.E.C. symposium Series 18 13 "Inhalation Carcinogc:nesis," I delineated the minimum criteria 14 15 which must be met if a cigarette inhalation experiment can be id d m i full r a 16 cons e e c: n ng . 17 The symposium was in 19!70 but the criteria are not 18 I I mentioned in either the 1971 or 1972 Reports. Without meaningful inhalation experiments, it is premature 19 20 to assign significance to any ingredient or group of ingredient d k b i i t renorte to e present garet e smo e. n c 21 In Chapter Nine of the 19:72 Surgeon General's Report, I 22 find a list of chemicals. I also findjudgments about these 23 chemicals couched~in such terms as: "which may be," "twhichl 24 probably, "' "suspt,:cted cotitribution, "' potentially harmful," "may interact, "' might be. "' 20150AC6OS$

dw 6 449 There are too many unas%rered questions to make this 2 chapter at all useful. And where is the supportive research? 3 If I may ask a simple question at the moment, where is 5 that report of this meeting? I cannot find~ it in the li 6 terature. 7 I would like to read it and read it verbatim, what had taken place. I have not been able to find a report on this. 9 May I next discuss, with reference to research, a 10 specific gas, nickel carbonyl. 11 Some years ago the Doctors Sunderman postulated that 12' this gas cou:la.be formed in the main stream smoke of 13 r; cigarettes. That was in: 1961. 14 In 1963 I wrote a published~objection to this on chemical 15 grounds which has never been rebutted. 16 The statement continues to be made, however, that this 17 gas does exist in cigarette smoke,, 18' A positive statement, whether corr ect or not, is somehow 1'9 more appealing. Negative reports that something has not 20 been found -- or does not seem~related to something else -- 21 2015 make little impact. 04s0S9 22 More is now, being published on nickel carbonyl and ho;,? it 23 inhibits enzymes. This may be interesting to nickel 24 researchers, but it has no application to cigarettes. Inc. Ac- - Federal Reporlors „ 25 Why, at this late date, is the Sundermans' theory still

450 dw 7 l 2 3 4 5 6 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22' 2'3 24 Ace - Federal' Reporters, Inc.. 25 being cited in the Surgeon General's annual reports without reservation? Much is being made of the fact that benzpyrene has been foundin very minute quantities in tobacco condensate or in the smoke. Dr. Ii'arry GElboin~ of the National Cancer Institute has written so,-f:e outstanding papers on~ th:emetabolism and deactiva--ion of benzpyrene by enzymes induced in various body tissues and organs. Why is his work not discussed in the Reports? The contact of the hydrocarbon, benzpyrene, with lung tissue involves a completely different system than~the contact of ben::,pyrene with the skin of the back of a mouse. I fear that all views are not being presented -- there is an apparent seeking for unanimity where unanimity does not ex'i s t. Those whose views are not fairly reflected may be intimic.ated-- those who have no views may be mis led . Sirs, I am an experimentalist. Over a period of time I have learned to rely much more 0 job upon the results of good research than any interpretations ~ and:implications that a non-experimentalist makes. ~ I have a plea, one I have made before. t•1hy cannot the Senate Conmittee insist upon good, sophisticated research once and for all. 11hy not insist that

dw 8 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10! ll 12 13 14, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federai Repor ters, lhc. 25 451 before Vast sums of money are spent for research that the protocols for major projects be available for scientific scrutiny, evaluations and constructive suggestions. i There are many scientists who can~set up criteria for i good researchi. We have the manpower and technology to then carry out such research. In the field of cigarette tobacco research, we must insist that the work be conducted so as-to simulate, as closely as we can, the human experience. It is essential to kncw the source of any compound said to be identified. Was it obtained from the leave, the smoke I as a whole, the gaseous phase, the particulate matter, or the I condensate? I I We shiould know the chemical or instru.mental method used to detect and identify that material. Once chemicals are identified',, the biological experiments must be conducted. Listing a group of chemicals tells us nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about biological effects. Identification is not implication. We must do individual chemical evaluations and then evaluate the chemicals by groups. Without this, we can have no understanding of their significance, or lack of significane. We must always keep in mind: Was the human experience

452 dw9 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 duplicated? I am not going to be all negative: I recognize that much has been done in the experimental field under discussion. We }tnow a good'deali no;, about the state of the art on inhalation. We are aware of the need for the further development of good animal mod'els . The praarmacology of nicotine is being investigated. II'iochemical pharmacology, behavioral pharmacology and 14 15 16 17 18 19 201 21 22 ' 23 24 Ace - Federal Repotters, Ihc. 25 stress factors (yes, the emotional makeup:of animals can influence results)'are all under investigation. Bioche:alists, biostatisticians and others are seeking answers. It is encouraging that scientists, including those frorn 1 government and tobacco companies, maintain liaisonlunder Dr. Gio Gori's direction. I think that is very good. If we are not stampeded, I feel that N in time much real 0 information will be available on smoking and health. This should inc].ude answers to the many questions which presently exist about "tar," nicotine, carbon monoxide and other compounds mentioned in Chapter Nine of the 1972 Report. I do h ope , however, tha t I have been ab le to convey to e N you:the imiaortanceof your demanding good scientific research

dw 10 1 2 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 231 2 4 Ace - Federal Reporters„Inc. 25 453 as a preliminary to decision-making in this area. In closing, may I say that I have been, for many years, a great admirer of Jesse Steinfeld, M.D., the present Surgeon~General. I know him personally; I served with him some years ago on the Special Grants Committee of the Californi Section of the American Cancer Society. He was engaged: in clinical cancer chemotherapy and was one of the outstanding cancer chemotherapists on the West Coast. However, I do have an honest disagreement withihirn on ~•~hiat is proven an6r:hat is conj'ecture in the smoking-cancer rue r t.,ion:. His statement that there is no honest disagreement is c adisservice to a nu7r.ber of scientists and to science. The previous speaker said that we need more people in cancer research, of whichiI have said in my last appearance, ~ and~I would like to say it again, it is extremely essential we - get more scientists, especially younger scientists in this f_ ie ld . When you say there is no honest disagreement, you are simply saying that people who disagree are not, honest, and 0 this I resent. In further comment, let me ask these questions : Even if one believes sincerely that his cause is just, is it scientific to support such a cause with doubtful

454 end 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i results? Is it fair to omit or neglect important research results? Is it necessary to question the honesty and sincerity of a: scientist because he insists on good scientific research before reaching conclusions? I am as concerned as anyone for the health of the American people. I am also concerned for the health of the scientific method, properly implemented. . I cannot help~but be convinced that respect for the latter ultimately best serves the former. It is this conviction that has brought me here to say that setting limits on compounds formed in tobacco smoke or condensate would be to act in what is nearly a scientific vacuum as far as good experimental data is concerned. Thank you. (Curriculum,Vitae follows : ) (Information to be furnished follows:) - 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc. 25

455 PFI;SONAL : CURRICULUM UIT71E OF ARTF'UR FURST Born Minneapolis, Minnesota, December 25~,11914 Married, four children:. EDUCATION: Los Angeles City College 1932-3'5 Psychology, Chemistry A.A. University of California Chemi:stry, Psychology, at Los Angeles (UCLA) 1935-37 Physics, Education A.B. UCLA. 1937-39 Chemistry, Mathematics Cred. UC LA 1940 Chemistry M.A. Stanford'i University 1948 Chemistry Ph.D. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 1937-39 Teaching Assistant University of California at Los Angeles 1939-40 Teacher, Science and Mathematics Pacific hlilitary Acad'emy, Culver City, California 1940-47 Instructor, Chemistry Department San Francisco City College During War, part time at: University of California War Training; San Francisco State College; Uni- ver sity of San Francisco 1947-49 Assistant Professor of Chemistry University of San Francisco 1949-52 Associate Professor of Chcmistry University of San~Francisco 1949- Research Associate Mount Zion~ Ilospital, San Francisco 1952-61 Lecturer, Chemistry Department University of San Francisco 1952-57 Associ.ate Professor of Pharmacology Chcmistry)~, Stanford University (t•ledicinal Q hrofcssor of I-1edici_nal Chemistry, Pharmacology 1957-61 Dcpartment, Stan~ford Universiity

456 PROFESSIO\AL EXPERIENCE (cont.): 1961 - Director, Institute of Chemical Biology University of San Francisco 19Fi9-70 Leave of Absence: a) Research~Consultant: Council for Tobacco Research-USA b) Clinical Professor of Pathology, College Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia;University 1970- Appointed to W.H.O. Select Committee on Carcinogenesis MEMBER OF : American Association for the Advancement of Science (F'ellow 19156) American Association for Cancer Reserach American Chemical Society (Member, Executive Board, Three Years) American Society of Pharmacology andlExperimentall Therapeutics California Association Chemistry Teachers (Organizer, first President) New York Academy of Science (Fellow 1966) Phi Laim;)da~ Upsilon (Honorzry Scholastic Chemical Soc~iety)l Japanese Pharmaceutical Association Society Sigma Xi (Life N;ember) Toxicology Society Western Pharmacology Society (Charter Member) LISTED IN: Who's Who in America (1972), American Men of Science International Biography Who' s Who in American Ed!ucation Who' s who in College and University Administration Who' s,N'ho on the Pac if ic Coast Who's Who in the V'est Worlds t•,ho' sWho in, Science PUBLICATIOidS : See Attached List. As of this date: 1 February 19:72 148 Papers in Print 1 Paper accep;:ed and in Press 3 Papers submitted

457 PUBLICATIONS (cont. ) : In Fields of: 1) Organic Synthesis 2) Cancer Research: a) Carcinogcnesis b) Chemotherapy Chemotherapy of: a) Virus b) Tuberculosis 4) CNS : a) Psychopharmacology b) Biochemistry

;x-5uu4 T 10 2-10-72 sw- i 2 3' 4 5 6: 7 10 11 12 458 Senator Moss. Thank you, Dr. Furst, for your appearance again before this Co:nmittee, and I was., of course, interested in what you have to say. You have a background which indicates that we ought to listen and gain~as much as we can. I was a little bit concerned, you criticize the Auerbach Researc4because you said the experimental data had not been made available to an independent panel for evaluation. I that the usual procedure when research is done on a ; certain problem and apaper is published? Is it all submitted to a panel before it is accepted? Dr. Furst. Well, sir, my laboratory is open. I do publish papers, I do get visits from many scientists who like ~ to see my notebooks. I feel this should be standard procedure And if a group of scientists or scientist asks for specific data, specific slides, they should be permitted to se those. I Senator Moss. Well, you say it should be, and perhaps it should be, but is it? Aren't papers published all the time by medical research that haven't been submitted to a panel N I I 13' 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I 231 24 A - Fcderal Reporteis, Ihc. 25 O for critical analysis andlevaluation? ~ O Dr. Furst. I agrec with you, sir. Yes, sir, that is o4 ~ the case. ~ ~ Senator t-ioss. And you state on page six that research 4 00 protocols for major projects should be submitted to scientific

459 sw-2 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 scrutiny, evaluations, and constructive suggestions, prior to the expenditure of funds, and I believe that is a good suggestion. Now,doesn't the tobacco working group out of the National Cancer Institute have a number of researchers from the tobacco industry working with it in the development of these protocals? I noticed you mentioned Dr. Gori in your paper, and it is my understanding he is administrator of the tobacco working group. Dr. I'urst. I was thinking of a philosophical thing, which is probably a little, shall we say, radical in this sense. . . I visualize before a multi-million dollar project is started that these protocols should be published in a scientific journal like Science, and I can see where somebody may see I may want a year to evaluate this. This would make no sense. I1~ O I would say in a finite period of time the investigator ~& O should be able to look at the protocol, evaluate them, be ~Pb constructive. This is not being done. ~ CD I don't know if I as a scientist, not on this Committee, has the privilege of asking for the protocols. I think this is important. I have a certain amount of expertise and I thin I can make constructive criticism. 24 ~ -Fedeial Reporteis„Inc. ~ '! I 25

4 k- 5 b 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 460 This is not the way it is done as open to all scientists, an I am recommending it be done this way. Senator Moss. I remember reading your testimony before the House Committee in '69, and in that I believe you said that scientists are generally disinterested in initiating studies of problems which they are told are already involve, and: out of that I take it there is an implication that because of the propaganda about.cigarettes there is an inadequate number of scientists who are initiating studies. Is there a relative dirth of scientists who are conductin studies in the smoking and health problem? Dr. Furst. I think the first speaker pretty much said the same thing, that there should be more. Yes, I believe there is. There are too many unsolved questions for the few people in the field. I Let's take Chapter 9 of the '72 reports. There are many chemicals listed. The implication is that we should study these individually, we should study these in pairs, but there is a tremendous amount of guessing which can be done. We can even devise mathematical models to help us make decisions, and there is practically nobody in the field working in mathematical models. 24150460'70 There are very fucw scientists working in the low level area. We talk about zero tolerance. What does happen to low level? Let me go back to my personal experience in researchI I 24 ~~ Ace-Fedcral Reporters, Inc. III 2'5 1i

461 sw-4 which I have published. This is not smoking, but in drugs. 2! We took tranquilizers and went lower and lower and lower 3 levels to see what would happen, and we came to a rather 4 interesting surprise, that at rather low levels we got a 5 I complete inversion. Those tranquilizers at low levels b become exciters. This we published in the journal. 7 You can not predict by simply looking at chemicals or 8,1 numbers at level A what is going to happen in level B,and 9 there are not sufficient people working in combinations, not 1!0 sufficient people working on various dose•levels, and I 11~i submit once again this is not a predictable area. 12 1 The experimental wor}; must be done, and it is not being 13 ' done. ,14 iSentor t•loss. Dr. Sommers, Scientific Director of the I 15! Council on Tobacco Research, when he was before us, stated 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. Ace - Federai Reporters,inc. 25 that due to the large number of grant requests, it appears to him that a lot of scientists'believe the information on smoking and health is not conclus,ive, and therefore that would seem to negate this statement that because the problems have already been solved, or they have been told that it is solved, that none of them want to go into research. isn't there a contradiction there? Dr. Furst. Apparently, yes, Senator. 2015046071 What I am saying is that -- well, I should say this: The number of grant rcquests does not mc~an necessarily all these

462 sw-5 1 grants are funded. There is really a great discrepancy there. 2 A mumber of men do answer questions. I am not thinking 3I of the 5 or 10 that come up, I am thinking of maybe 50 or I 41I 100 ought to be in this field. I 5:0j So, it is a matter of quantitative differnece. I am not 6 11 saying; everyone is intimidated. I am not saying that every- 7 ,. ' body is staying a~ray. I am saying that many are staying 8 away. A few are coming in, but in my mind not nearly 9 enough. 10 11 .12 Sentor Moss. Well, I am, of course, quite concerned about your questions raised about the Surgeon General's rerort, if I interpret it right, when you made some 13+' additional comments, you spoke• about some meeting, and you fi 14!1 said you couldn't find any recor d of the meeting, and.you I I 15 20 22 wondered whethcr the meeting occurred. 2015046072 16 This, it seems to me, is a very strange indictment to 17 be leveling against the Surgeon General's report that is 18 19 21 I~ 23 published officialiy here by the Surgeon General. Dr. Furst. Well, sir, if I left that implication, I appologize. I did:not mean to say that the meeting.did not occur. I think I was objecting to the fact that the publi- cation of that meeting is not available. I can not find, shall we say, the detailed report of that meeting. I find I 24l'; a resume of it in the Surgeon General's report on Chapter 9, Ae-- r Fcdcral Reno; tc is, Inc. '; 251~ and I think I was referring to the fact that I would like t.o II

463 read the thing myself. Maybe it is there, maybe I omitted it. I don't know, 6 7 I short summary, and with a number of references, to me, it is but I didn't mean to imply it was not there. Senator .ioss. Do you feel that there would be a verbatim transcript taken of all that went on at the meeting so a j suraanary would not suf f ice? I ! Dr. Furst. Something as important as this, I feel we ~' should! knoa what was said, what details were given out. A 10 1; not adeq,uate, no. i Senator Moss. Do you charge then that the Surgeon 11 12111 General's report is slanted and that counterr evidence has ~ 13 I been eliminatEd or suppresse d? !! :~1,4;' .. Dr: -.Furst. Sir, I believe the term suppression is, a 15 20 i little bit too strong. You know, a person gets over zealous, and he can be pushing a point and~maybe in his mind or whoever helped him writing, in their minds, these other thir.gs are 118 19!; I I I , 23II 24'i Ace -FedbralPepoom, In c. 25 I unimportant. I submit Dr. Gelboin's taork is extremely important. Ther is not discussion of it. I submit the fact, again, if I may be personal, that when I expressed a doubt chemically that nickle carbonyl could exist in the main-stream smoke of cigarettes, nothing was said about that. 2015046073 In the Gatling,burg, Conference at the Inhalation and Carcinogenicies, there was a list of certain ingredients in

sw-7 2 3' 6 ~ r 7 I 8 10 11 ~ 12 I, e 10' 13 464 I smoke, which are supposed to be very bad, and there is a statement made that nickke carbonyl exists. On page 180 of the Inhalation Carcinogenesis- Conference, the one I mentioned in my talk, there is a statement here that nickle tetra-carbonyl plus is present in cigarettes. Well, you see, in 19~63, I said it can be, and I feel that is of some bias, because if they had said, well, Dr. Sunnerman said it is postulated, and Dr. Furst doubts that, but we think it is present, but to simply say positive that there is without any statement that there may be a doubt, I .think, sir, is biased. :14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 N O il 2 2 CA ,; 0 ~ 23 I 1 24 04 Aee-Fcd.^.ra l Repertcrs, Ihc. 25

465 F RAh Kur' 1 li cr5004 mml 2 3 Senator Moss. Why do you think this has persisted~ through several Surgeons General who have preceded one another and:certainly through several administrations as far as the top political structure of the deparment is concerned~? Why has this bias continued? 6 7 8 10 Dr. Furst. Well, it is very difficult for me to g,et into somebody else' mind, but I do feel that the people who are in this, who write the reports, feel.the importance of "cigarettes are so harmful" that it is necessary to submit one point of view. And I think that this has been done. Certainly the governzn;ent has far, far better chances 12 13 4 16 17 18 j9 of getting literature than I have. I happen to be a professor of a school of 3000 stud.ents. We do not have a graduate school and I have to spend a fair amount of time in the literature reading these things, andlif I can find reference after reference that they have not quoted, this bothers me. I would think with their computer work, they could;list, "All right, here are the following thlings, but there are other publications which don't quite agree." And I find this is iacking,and that is what bothers me. AndI certainly will not discuss their motives as others have done to me. I 2U1504(=5 1 Senator Aioss. Yes. Now, I have mentioned about intimidation. May I please, sir, one moment? I Ace-Feddra I Rcportcrs, Inc. 25 Dr. I'urst. The S',orld Iicalth:Crgan]:-r.ati:on asks Ar.zerlcan

4GG mm2 1 scientists to set up a little conference in Europe on inhala- 2 tion of tobacco•smoke. 3 I got a long distance calll from Chicago inviting me to be '4 .a mcmber of that working group. Three or four weeks later, I, 5 got a long distance call from the same chairman, very embarrass says, Dr. Furst, I am~embarrassed to tell you, you have been h- c' j 7 disinvited. 8 I have too much respect for the manito ask him why. This, 9 to me, is something wi-iichibothers me. 10 At the Gatlinburg conference, when nickel carbonyl was 11 mentioned, at the end I got up andsaid I would like to~lay 12 the nickel problem to rest. 13 Now, this is not in the proceeding, but any man who 14. attended that conference will bear me out. The speaker then 1,5 turned to me andsaid, we trusted your work until you took 16 your present assignment. Now I admit that startled me to no 1? end. My present assignment was to read the research request 18 to the Conference for Tobacco Research. 19 I read experimental design, I make a suggestion, is 20 this experiment good enough? 21 Nobody in the audience stood up to protest that 22 statement. I finally did myself, and then he said, and again 23 f I can't quote verbatim, but this is on the tape, if the tapes 24 %cc--Federal Roportcrs, Inc. are available. z~'`~~6~~ i 25 I Besides the present assignmcnt, a well-known paper has

mrn3 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1'9 20 21 22 23 241 i Ac -FederaV Reporters, Inc. I, 251 4G 7 appeared'recently that refutes your work, and that paper by the way does not e..ist. He specified the Journal of Analytical Chemistry. I had the editor run the tapes. That paper doe, not exist. Now, if that is not intimidation, I would lika to know wha Now I admit at the time I was devastated. I did not say another word at the entire conference. I was there, said nothing else, I feel this is pure intimidation. 11nd the third point•, whenthe Surgeon General says there is no honest diaagreement, again I had to go through this nyself. I disagree that so,.e of those things are well established. I disagree with that. I have an honest disagreement. Senator I-ioss. Thank you. Senator Cook? Senator Cook. Doctor, does the Surgeon General's department have copies of those tapes that were made at Gatlinburg that will estahlish that you were told bc:cause you took a research grant from the industry, that youwere no longer trustworthy within the r;onfines of that conference? Dr. Fur:t. Sir, I do not know if the tapes still exist. They were tapcd at the Gatliiiburg c:onference, and I never did follow that up. 201504GOW Senator Cook. In other \•:ords, that. also indicates if you C

468 1 mm4 look at the reverse of that,t that no grant or no ability to stu iy 2 a particular matter is made by the agency unless they know the 3 4 result they are going to get or they are not going to 4ccept the result if it is not what they want? 5 6 Would that be a fair asEumption. Dr. Furst. I hate to be that strong, Senator, but I 7 think there is a little i.mplication th:re. You see, time and 8 I time agai.n~, if I say I have a grant from the Conference of 9' Tobacco Research, or I a.m a consultant where I read other 10' I proposals, introduce something -- if you permit me, sir, to 11 I digress -- I shouJ.dsay, the grants given by the Conference 12 of Tobacco Research or the N-11A, these grant requests are 13 r3coIiallCnd'ed by a scientific advisory board who are not 141 members of the industry. They are deans of medical schools, ( 15 ; professors at various universities, and nobody, but nobody 1'6 tells them you may or may not grant this request. 17 This is done.completely ind'ependent,'and there is no 18 amount of anything, money or otherwise, that will buy the 19 deans of these medical schools. 20150460Tg 20 Now, this is overlooked so often. They talk about money 21 from the tobacco industry. The T,t;A has its own scientific 22 advisory board, a nd the Conference for.'robacco Research has 23 its own advisory board. They are both different. The 24 g4neral feeling i s that thu!chips will fa1L whc:re they may. A~p-Federal Rcportcis, Inc. 25 The research must be good.

469 mm5 24. Ace - Fcderal Reporters, Inc. Senator Cook. Let me a: k. you. Do you have any 1 knowledge of your own, whether the federal government partici- 2 pated in any way in the funds that were expended on the Aucrbach study? Dr. Furst. I have no kr:c:wleda,e of my own, no, except that I know it has k:Ycn statcd as being part of the Veterans A::miriistration, I asai,Me. But I have no personal knowledge, no, sir. Senator Cook. Do you think that one of the ways to cure this problem~that you are talking about, because no one has really beeE_n able to c}et or sce the Auerbach study -- as you well know, one or two publications have refused to publish it, 3 4 6 7 8 9 1!0 11 12' ~~-And yet, the Surgeon G=neral took.a great deal of merit in it, and' Dr. DuVal took a great deal of merit in it the other 13 14 duy . 15 Do you think then we should write into any further legislation for federal grants on research that any grant funds that are utilized in a research that the results of those researches should be muc::; public and that the federal government assumes the responsibility of making those research papers pt;iblic? Dr. Furst. May I just have a moment to think about that, Scr:4tor, beca;use there is a great implication there. I would ba concerned a bit about inva sion of privacy, as 16 17 18' 19' 20 21 22 ' 23 25 sor; e other people who feel thi.s. 2015046079

4,70 mm6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Senator Cook. If the federal government is paying for a research study that you are making, are they entitlea to your results? Do you give them to thGm? Dr. Furst. I a,ould certainly thin }: that anybody uho funds a researciz proj,cct is ent:.ii:1od to the resuilts. i Senator Cook. If it is the federal government, aren't the poopie, who are in fact the federal government, entitled to see those results? 10 Dr. Furst . Well, if you put it that way, sir., yes. 11 I would still say I would like to be sure that the 12 scientist has a certain c?egree of protection of his own 13' integrity and so on~. But in the long run, if a project 14 is done under federal »oncy, not oiily should man publish~the 15 work, but nobody publishes raw data. ' 16 ~ The raw data should be availa;-)).e for scrutiny. And 17 anybody is welcome to come into my labs and look over my 18 noteboo}:s. 21 22 23 24 Ac - Federat Reoortors,Inc. I 25

Frank ar 1 R 004 tape 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace -Federal! Reporters, Inc. 25 471 Senator Cook. Justt a short time ago, there were a number of people here who had buttons on that individuals should stop smoking because it may be dangerous to that individual's health. We will have some testimony on that. The example I really want to give to. you is that in collobora- tion the Fed'eral Aviation Administration and HF'll and the Surgeon General's D`partnent agreed that the FAA would do an in-depth study as to smo);ing in confined places, particularly aircraft. There has been a lot of discussion about it. The federal government -- this was funded. The FAA did an extensive report, 80 some odd papers, full of diagrams, ~!~full of statistics, full of all the material that onewanted:,, . and came to the conclusionithat this was not anything like ~ everybody said it is, that this is way over-evaluated',. I ask why it was not made a part of this '71 report? I was told that it didni't get in there until December of 1971. But it was amusing to have to tell the gentleman from HEW, and particu- larly Dr. Horn, that this senator read it iniJack Anderson's column in December of 1970, and if Jack Anderson,couild get that inforr.;ation from the Federal Aviation Administration, it rather seems strange to me that HEW couldn't. 2015046081 As a matter of fact, I could go farther than you, Doctor, because the record will show exactly how Dr. Horn feels about smoking, and he is the one that coordinates the research for the yearly studies, and'he wants zero consumption.

ar 2 1 2 3: 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 ,15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 472 I am not q,uite sure if I got him to say that he really wanted it prohibited, but I can see very well that he would not refer to your book or, nickle carbonyl. He iaould not want to, because he has got something that says it is bald. And I might say that you asked about Dr. Gori's group. Dr. Gori has not called that group together lin months and months, and the reason it has not been called together is because' the people fro:n:the industry do not agree with the original premise, and that is, that you must start today, says Dr. Gori, with the theory that it is bad and that it can never be made good, and there is no such thing as a good cigarette. And they say we canl't start from that premise, and therefore, that is why that group of inenlwill never function and they will never make any contribution to this discussion, because Dr. Gori starts off with the theory that i here is the premise that you have to begin with, and I think that is in the record. And as disturbing, isn't it? a scientist, that is kind of 2015046082 Dr. Furst. Very much so. You cannot start an experiment and say I am going to prove anything. You are going to investiglute. You are goinglto start with certain hypotheses. You are not going to say this is it, and we are not going, to get data to show this is correct. That is not possible. . Senator Cook. Let me ask, for your benefit and mine. Is i At -FeAenl ROpoitois, In[.I 25 there a representative of fiiEW here for these hearing,s? 1

ar 3 473 Senator Moss. None were su:;unoned today. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 ,15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ac -Fedorat Rrporters, Inc. 25 Senator Cook. I was wondering whether one would be here during the course of the hearings as observors. We usually , 'find that this is what occurs. i I would like to put into the record and ask that this committee send a request to the Surgeon that it give us the tapes or the transcript of the one-day conference in June of 1970, a one-d'ay conference, that was the result of Chapter 9, harmful constituents of cigarette smoking. It merely says to us, Doctor, in the footnote, that this is not to imply that there was unanimous agreement on all statements contained herein. And it further goes on~to say at another footnote, or in the report, the consensus is that there is inadequate evid~ence to support a change in that view at the present ti.:,e in~relation to one particular thing. At least we have got that much. And it also says on page 216 in a footnote, an alternative point of view held by some is that smoking behavior is a , response to the need, et cetera, et cetera. So none of these, except in footnote, were contained in that chaper, and yet the chapter attempted to be totally and completely affirmative =a subject that called for a one-day conference. 2()150460$3 So I can only say to you that I would like to make a

ar 4 1 2 3' 4 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2:3 241 1 Ac •Fedcral Reportcrs, Inc. ~ 2a 474 request to the Surgeon General's department, that if these tapes or the transcript from!those tapes is available, we would~ certainly like to have them andthey ought to be available. Dr. Furst. And I, certainly, sir, would like to see themi. Senator I1oss. The senator, of course, has the right to make that request, and I would hope he would. if he believes that all scientists who believe that smokingis harmful and therefore slanted and biased and would!n't permit any counter- inforr,lation to come, whereas, all who have some doubt are pure and have no bias at all, he certainly can look into that. Iwould say that this committee has been trying, to hear both sides. Otherwise, we wouldn't have invited you, Dr. Furst. You have testified again and again, basically as i you have testifieditoday, and we want to have it in the record, we hope to have it in the record. I am not willing to accept the Surgeon General and Dr. P3orn of the Inter-Agency I Conference or others of a preconceived bias and that they j suppressinformation that come from~other scientists, but I the record will have to speak for itself. 2015046084 Senator Cook. May I merely say, and I do not want to get into a colloquy with the chairman, because I have a ;nuMber of more questions to ask you, I am~merely doing this, Dr. Furst, because youisaid, to begin with, that you felt like you vere being, told yourself by the Surgeon General of the

ar 5 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 475 United States that you are not honest because he said in his report, there is no longer an honest disagreement. So I might say, let's again put both shoes on. I am asking to read what went on~that was the result of Chapter 9.. You asked this cor:4nittee, and we have no answer for you, why the Surgeon General said that everybody that disagreess with h~im is no~ longer honest. So I think vre ought to put it in prosL ective . I might say, this is also t1le same Surgeon General that I said':hefore that made the speech before a national organiza- tion in Chicago and said there were seven former presidents of the United States that smoke marijuana. And by the way, i referredito a doctor who was a research gentleman at the Smithsonian Institute. The only problem is the Smithsonian~ 1511 Institute never could,fii:d that doctor that made up that report. Now, let me ask you this: Are all tobacco smoke condensates pretty much the same thing? 2015046085 Oh, by no means. This is where the experimen-. comes in. Condensates are made by really condensing smoke :^atter under certain conditions. We have to know burning temperature of the cigarette. If you have different burning temperatures, you will have different chemical compositiors oozing out of the end of the cigarette. ZIe must }:no~,7 the distance from the end of thc cigarette Acc Fed~~rali Reporters, Inc. ll 25

ar 6 4176 1 to the condensing tubes. We have to know something about the composition of the tobacco 2 . I along that same line let me ask you Well Senator Cook 3 , . , and you can answer them together: this 4 , only by weight Does a test that sho,as condensate tell 5 , , us anything about the content? 6 Dr. Furst. No, not at all. It simply says that t: ey Fre 20 milligrams by %7eic;:7t. It tells nothing about content, and it does not say that -- this is nothing about composition 9' , that we have all the time. We are so youlsee the problem 10 , , terribly simplistic in %..,hat we say. It is easier to -- I am 1' l 12 13 14 15 161 17 1& 19 2 23 24 Ac •Foderal Repalteis, Inc. 25 sorry for the reporter. I am movinq,around, but I couldn't ~ help but smile at thi s, one of my own papers, which, is not Ii sted here, tahen I said a scientific method~appears, t: at i f you can't understand the phenomena, you name it, andiso we talk about cond'ensate. We feel we understand it. Condensates will vary from condition to condition to condition, to cigarettes, and unless 201! , ~ 21 ' get: dif ~erent condensates. 2015046086 I' S 4- C '- T1 ha b n lot of disc ss' n abou-- a u io o re s e you absolutely specify every single part, moisture content, to'~acco conten'- burning zone rate of burning you will _ ena r oor.. ie e t?+e advantuacge off lo%,,ering tar, content. Now, if we assur,:e j•-,st for the sake of the question that I am about to ask you, that thcre are colr.poundis in smoke wiiich are harmful, is

477 ar 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 necessarily going to improve the situation to reduce tar content? Dr. Furst. Necessarily the answer, I am afraid, would have to be no, because we don~'t know how these things act in concert. ~Ihen you reduce one thing, you may find something else may appear. This is a complex mixture which has to be considered in its totality. Senator Cook. There seems to~be some opinion that a reduction in nicotines could cause some people to smoke more. whut is your opinion of that? Dr. Furst. There is a paper in one of the journals where there was more puf::ing with cigarettes of lower nicotine content. Senator Cook. Was that in that Surgeon General's report? Senator Moss. Could you suspend just a minute? Senator Cook. la'e have asked about animal work involving tar. What about animal work involving nicotine? 201504sQ8'7 lgl{ Dr. Furst. There has been a:fair amount of work in that 19~Irespect. Probably the dean of the pharmacologists would be 20 the Emeritus Professor Burns of Oxford, who has done a lot I ~ 21 of work on that, and nicotine has been studied various ways. 22 ~ Again, I find myself awed, and again I do not have the 23 ~ reference at my fingertips, but Dr. Burns did say there were 1 24~beneficial effects in nicotine. This may sound ridiculous. I acP-Fedcral'Repoitors, Inc. ,I 25IIBtit there have been things in nicotine which have been helpful.

478 ar 8 He found in certain cases that some of tYe excited people, 2 it works as a tranquilizer, conversions. There have been 3~ a few papers on the learning process. 4 Now, w hen~ a rat runs a maze, he does not really learn 5 that immedi ately. fI ce runs a maze, and then ther e is a time 6 before it b ecomes consoli6:.Zted', before it become s part of 7 r-is memory process. And if you give nicotine to rats after 11 8 1 'i rur.ning almaze, you shortc,n their consolid'ation time. It 9 I becomes p art of th`ir brain storage faster. I 10 i Well , to me , is positive. 11 ~ Sena tor Coo k. Dr. Duval said that the Auerbachdog!ttudy 12 i in dicated that filter ci<iarcttes were le ss halzard'ous than, I 13 i I ; r.onf ilter cigarettes. tIou.ld you,say tha t in any way that 14 hi t? s study proved statemen 15 Dr. Furst. Let's go back experimentally. 16 Dr. Auerbach -- and again, I have to depend on my 17 reading. I was not there. My understanding is that Dr. 18 iAuerbach took filter cigarettes through his experiment and 19 i~then literally tore off the filter. I asked, how does this 20 relate to reality? tlhat is provi:zg? I don't know. I am 21 sorry. I can't answer your question. 2015d46O$$ 22' Senator Cook. Doctor, I just have one or two short 23 24 Ace-Fcderal ftcporters, Inc. 25 ' qtiestionis. You said that when you stood up at Gatlinburg and said thalt you had made this study on nick le carbonyl, that the chai rman said we trusted your report -- now, u;hat

ar 9 1. 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 117 18 19 20 21! 22 23 24 Are - Fedcral Reporters„Inc. 25 479 was the phrase that he said? Dr. Furst. Not the chairman, the speaker. Senator Cook. The speaker. Dr. Furst. Again, this is a couple of years ago, but I think I have it verrutim. u+e trusted your work until you took your present assign.ment. Senator Cook. aho was the individual at that meeting that made that statement? Dr. Furst. That ~:Yas Dr. F:offman. Senator Cook. Doctor? Dr. Furst. Hoffman. Senator Cook. And at that stage of the game, whatever ~ll . . +,you had to contribute to that conference had come to an end? Dr. Furst. I did not say another word in discussion. Senator Cook. At least the indication is that it came , ito an end as far as Dr. Hoffman was concerned, wasn't it? Because he said whatever contribution you make, in essence, by reason of your present assignment, it is immateria]l what youlsay, you are now on the other side of the fence. Isn't ~ li that what he said? 2015046089 ~ Dr. Furst. That was the iiapl.ication I took, and therefore I remained' at the conference, without discussing, and you gather, sir, I ar,t a rather verbal person, and with almost 30 I i years of experimental]: work, I thin}: I can talk about these. I l, I did spend a: little time with individuals, but I did

ar 10 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 1' 12' 13 480 not speak at the conference any more in open session. I'don't think I would do that again. But at that time, ~ I d'id. Senator Cool:. Well, Doctor, I think that answers the point of intimidation very c•rell, and I appreciate your coming ' ,here, and. I am~ glad' this co.n.mittee, including this chairman, ~ I ,gave you the forLin-a here that you did not have an opportunity ~ !to have in regard to con~Yibutions that were going to be made jto a report that went to the entire P-merican-people by the iSurgeon General of the United States. I Dr. Furst. Thank you, sir. ~ ~ I Senator Iloss. Thank you, Dr. Furst. I am glad you ~ ~I weren't intimidated, and neither was Senator Cook. Dr. Furst. Senator Moss, I thank you all. nd 12 14 xcPrpt 1' 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22' Senator Cook. May I just ask one q,uesti on? Dr. Furst, you say that the qentleman that was conducting, . Ilthe seminar that you were talking about was Dr. Hoffman. ! ~Is that Dr. Dietrich Yoffman who is chief of the division of iiEnvironmental Carcinogencs.is of the American~Health Foundation II I in tde~•: York? I ~ Dr. Furst. Yes. He was not conducting the seminar. ~ jwas one of the speakers. Senator Cook. But he was the one that made that remark? Dr. Furst. Yes, it was. 241504s090 Senator Cook. Is this the same one that Dr. 4lynder

ar 11 1 2 3 4 d -.:~xc . 5 c. a 6 9 10 11 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 481 testifed at great length this morning that he and Dr. Hoffman had been together on several experiments? Dr. Furst. Yes, sir. They have published a number of papers together. Senator Cook. Thank you~. Aoe-Fedcral Reporters, lnc. 25

4 8'2 CR-5004'1 u13 2 nb-1 3 5 7 9 10: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20, 21 22 23 24 ace-Fedenal Reportcrs, Inc. 25 Senator t.toss. Our colleague, S~:nator Thurr.ionci' Fro-. Carolina is here, andhe has a statement, and we will be gl ud to hear you, Senator. STATF'L•'_iE;i'D' OF THE IiO:;(J7U-,BL:_` S'TPO ,.1 `.Cil'J???i0id!D, liit3ITvD ,:'71z"Ti:S SEa'ATO:?' FRO.'I T1:i. S'i:STT- GI'' SOUTH C:. <nLI'r;l~. Senator l r^ nr• '. l ~ -• .. ,. •a~d ~ 1• 0~' ~' ~ ~ ~. i r. ~' l~iur.~. ,~,,..a r~l _u re ry r: ~..;z , I 'r . C~l L :r, ._ d gentlcmcn of ti:e Committce. I undere,tand at Lhese hearings befo_-e your :ubcom~ri;::ae are primarily ('esig,aed to proclucc legislation to set ma<:i)~=.limits for "'tar" and nicotine content in' cig,arett:es. To acco-llplish this ~~:urpose, S. 1454! 43 before the ComMittee for consi0.ers aticY:. . Of c.^)u'rsc, I am c.;):,earlncJ in the inC:yrest ancl' ['G1f4Y~'- ofi my people in South Carolina;. I also suggest that I am sil-,lilar1_ uhpE i3ri.ncJ on 1):11c11f' Ci tlle L.fr'OJI'E' of t11e L'21'lted' St<7tCS, as a United States Senator, I r.enresent just as surely as e'oes each of us in the Senate. Tlie r:ayit is hronosed, as is in the case in S. l~'~54, that the Congress exploit the v:elfare and th'~e~ rights~ of each const~i:~tuc~n~~cy, I r~,ulst prot~cs MAr. Chairman, I am au'vised that the legislation before I this Subcommittee wotild' establish a sort of mit:'i-Pro?iib=tio:1 la~:, anei~ I think the public should know it. 2015045092 Particul,~.rly, T am conccrnrc3 abUut two things: First, the im;)act of sucA restrictive legislation u'hon the people zlnd e:,o+1o:iiy of llly Gtate of "Quth CiiZolini:; ' and £'iC'.'conCli, the t:'1'rl?~.:.C:::.

483 nb-2 1 2 3 4 5 8' 10 abuse to our traditional way of life in this country and our constitutional prerogatives. In the first instance, I am haPny and proud to associate m%Fself with the interest of more than 250 thousand people in South Carolina, a,part of all of whom's livlihood depends upon tobacco. It is the nu,-.Lber one money crop in South Carolina and in 1971 had a crop valuc in excess of $101 million. It directly affects the lives and well being of more than 25,000 farm families in South Carolina. The manufactured product is distributed through 59 wiiole- 11 i sulc and over 19,000 retail outlets in our state. South Caro- 13"' ,_ ,~ for I1?oro i:hi:lli one' half a billion dioilni:s per year in the 14!1 12 lina has 37 warc}.ouscs for the sale of the leaf, and altogether it is conservativel~r estil,int.ea that the crop is responsi.>>le 15 16 17 economic life of South Carolina. t•ir. Chairman, it seems to me that no one }:nows the exact relationship betwecn~ smoning and health. There have been many 18 studies and much research in; this_area, and I hope it will 19 continue. The result of this research only proves that this 20 is an uncertain al^a, at least that is all it seems to have 21 22 ~ proved today. ' 2015046093 ~ To reach any conclusion, and'in fact to enact legislation 23- on the basis of the incomplete research and predetermined fact_ would not be in the best inj,~erest of this country. At best, all that can be said of fiI:c3.i:ngs today is that they are 24 Ace - Federll Reporters, lhc. 25

484 nb- 3 2 inclusive. At worst, they can and are being presented!to the public in an excessive form that often.creates only confusion and anxiety. I strongly feel that the tobacco:industry, along with~all of us, is interested in conquering cancer -- the dreaded diseas, whicli~ we still know so little about. On fragmented information, however, we should' not enact reprisals upon such an important segnient of our economy, whiicn provides a liv2vihood for so many thousands of people. S. 1454 seems to give to the Federal Trade Cozraisaion authority to promulgate standards, Mr. Chairman, which are rc:Juircd to 1)e excrcised h:y an agency which has no expertise in 3 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 .14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21. 22 23 F:~~-Fedefal RcpUi~ters, 24 25 li Additionally, the very process relieves the citizens of rv state and'country of the privilege we all cherish -- namely, the privilege to choose on our own and not have the govern.lent choose for us. tw'e cannot stand idly by and see these time- honored rights snatched away before we really know what we are doing, even though the objective may be a noble one. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that it belongs to the govern ment to enlighten people as to their choices in an objective ~:ay and without emotional appeal. To accomplish this purpose, I%-:e must: bend evcry effort to deter.nine facts and not fiction, ; o fin0 tilC: cau.ae vi c~i:.et1_and not cJucss. 201~ 046094 I:.•n't it 'posccible that fc:lse as:,tun~~tions can set bac:.

485 nb-4 111, great research programs into the true causes of cancer a. C: l:edr 2 3' 4 6 7 8 9 10 ! 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporders„Inc. 25 c:isease? We should deci:icat.e ourselves in such a way that no scientific inv:,stigatioa is inhibited, and no respoi:sihle aouater is igno.:`d'. Having enlic;liten~d; our people as to their c;'loices i,a~ an is it not t i'L` ci1i.^, and ' C:u'ty of Cj'over:n'a^;1e:?'t to ; erP.lit i to ClG~cidC freely io:r the:~selvt'_3 `rl~lat use to I.~Z}:e of al). thing s put at their disposal? As I previously stated, the relatic:ls/hip ~ et;;cen sro;cing . and! l,o:.alth: }zas not l)er.n definitely ascertained. No such, reguillations are imposed on the alcohola:c beverage industries far g.'-~~.ten car.-1 7_'nsl?lt?.ng, from thfe ;~se of alco:r.olic hcvc:racges. We must not assuine the role of protectors of 50 million Pmericans as S. 1454 contemplates. The Senate and the Congress have a higl:er obligation. I wish to than}: you, ilr. Chairman. Senator .;oss. Thanlk you~ very much, Senator Thurmond, for your stateN:ent. We are glad to have it in the record for this Committee to consider. I have no questions. Do you~have any q,uestions? Se11zator Cook. No. "ihan;c you vcry raucli. SenatoL ?:oss. you. Gle appreciLat.c it. I Senator Coo%. fir. Cii~iiirn~::n, t}ie gcntlcnLan in the unif:orm

1 nb-5 2 r13 3 4 5 6 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Fedeial Repoiters, Ihc. 486 over here has been trying to find to the best of his ability a :lr. Royun in here. Is there a Mr. Royan in here? (Di5cussion off the record.) I I 25

jonl ft14 ~004 Ace - Federal Reporders, Inc. 25 487 aealator .;o~J~ . 1~: a/lt to cc:lt .:~ .:3ruce ;:ilso:~, the :~c-)utl~ i~,:i:ilf:ti.~S't: i,ttor:l.^"~~ CCT:crc11• i'.~'o, has a preSSL1Z'f.' of t:i::'.C E"'ici 1^.'c~U at .1.0' to ;:,^. a Varv :.YL.,.^G .i ::i:r ai{:c.:. ..r • T'I,1.1JU71 .'•) •ii., lN i1... J.. r.L. ,~ l"1ft ...,.~U 11: .~1:.,~ J~+.G.~.,~'t~ti.~l` Va~1L~~ (~~U~.ll" .~..t 1 ._. ..r.:J ~.C~. ..._...~~1+~ 1..a. -:,L ~c C. iC? if i:'1 •~ of •Ju wclli u to C' L) :lo'r1 C1oR: ii j:.o thf: ~ ._i . . 1. .~, C,,.._i+.. J- 1 JZ t..` ol. 411l.uJ ~•i-,l~a.l~l.~....ta`_~' and , i~c0i:r:r.; ' o:'].r_ on c_s a,._:t_;: 01,:u::, for . '::F'.:7t to a:YCau of :?.,•,L: i~: tilc:"Y, Ii1TC'.S t:`SCre, ctct U- 2 3 4 5 7 8' 9 1'0 11 <':. JJ/' ~Z~./;. J:ci(~, ~.~..,i.:-Jr~ +~~_.... n.... .~~.'., ~ .. -;;r:.r..'1.L~ .: i J17. ..?" • 7:~.1: ~, rr.-+tr,,..r~ /~ •, - r?.T-.(, ,r r~nr. +1ar•r-Yf'~ -Tira i r~,rnr,.•~......-.?~:,..,,- :, ~..., ~ ~~r ~:.,t:c~ ~. .. _:_J.)~:,, :~ :n~;l _ , .J.).~~ rl~. _ ,_ ~,... 1• .r , •,'rn ' ..'T 0 :' JUSlX~:,• r , . '.:, .a. c,rs cf the ;S_,.) cor.;.7ttoe. T a'^r,rcci•.z te the opl;or tun;-t V to ar)rcar ,)cf(,,re you toda,, to' cL'_:'cus:; the experl.cl:c3 L::-jG v:ie'.,,'s of ti:` llC~?rlr ~.• n`.: of t.-_+ a ~-e~_ ect to ~eraa cttc I~a: c~ ane: :uiv:~rt 1-1110 1'L:!iZ:.C lF vc ~~t1' (:.'-.(y ili Ott.e :7.7't: , ~ .. :+., 1 • r1J. ~ _.1C.' ., _L ~... .` C).. ~•L... ,.iC~. ..~ C....1" i..c: .. ti1C. t, I 12 131 14 1:5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3' 24 ,, c, C)? 1:eC1, ?, I W

M 1 2 3' 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13' 15 16 17 r- rr,.,_^n r,'.f o'f Fc.:rG1 Tr~.cc Co::r,i.<:rion, re„''oraJ ~'!7i:_'1:11Cc?~.lO1S ~'Od' i:SS1C':1 .::1C: the Iati'_r::ZLVGnl1E'' J^rV1C ~ to CC`::'y)._;l?C:1~ in t1C' t.^ )C rC li •t t S11:;C,'or:u.,ii:tC°_n' i S 7_;1 _s t.a^ of ',.'.1'' l].{,•tiC Ci . . 2 L ~. . ~ - :i. ',-, ,., C .. ~ .'.:~ lla - C' CL;:"r r_: 1 ~.a r ~ cl~~' -~~^ . : c}1 l _ afl-G:r ,a--'rC cf t::"J' lJ69 o1mC'_I.C;;-.'r'ilti ]:`'i~ x . ~ _. . _. ..., .. ._. . _ - . . - 1~ 2-, ,ti t::c 1965 :%,.t 1'~.f ;tren;'-hem.in3 .<^:'ctto on C:•f. I ..;,v iit,'. ,-t:;:::c- r~:, . . 1_.. zc r,-c3i._. suJ~j^ct to t.:c ju~-_sctictinrl of tlle it C ~"..~~~ _ta! YiC:r''aJ',:! to Cn)_17' o31-^_ i;t);`cicco t7rC7i1'1cVl and t iat was ci^ :rct_~- , ,. ~~..~ . ^.t a l~Zt•-,Y I~,;o.z~ c? ).i::c to raa%e an obscrvatz^n of ttl~2 effeCt of t'j]Ss i^2'(7 C.ri.~tl'Jt^. lC'.CC.I.:;l.ati'on as it has c :., :'Ct[1'..T. C:.:.C'aXC;ttC' ::CC' _:tc :1Gc: anr' Co::'3uI'.;y^t.tOll. Eut 'VO ~ would l'i }:o to c,utli-7c certain otrrerr probleme of UI to th'i:~ :i^.t. Q Q9 I I1!Q''`(::!, t.'i:? :lCt l:i li^..1 O G to C1C,'ai:CttE' 17r0OLCta Q !A V/ 'w;-c.~ '.led tilc7 clu~~ct3:or ~ ~ "',roic tS .;c i:i7..rc:- ~ fjf nc4 i;i~ 18 19 20 21 22 ' 23 24' ~~.:r .,Ia ~:lii( its a4•4)1: Ace-Fedcret Reporters„Inc• 25 '~:1 .^. 7 t1C; ~~ 3.11 3; {,:?:1 t a' Ciat.32 Ct ~.^ I ~ . I C_

jo:O 489 c?afincd i n Sectior. 3. t1o:-i<, this issue first co.1:es up as a ta.: raattcr irr that 1; tt1'e eiclars arc ta~:.:l at a ra.~'.•~ ~'.•~~ rE,uc,',.1y onc+_fifth of that a .:Qr C.: ; ytG'^.,, +•`.(, ,• ,YC)CeC.~;r;~r c..C~ -C•'`-' ~ ~.,~.-, tOi cji=2".C . i^:.,..C. ..]aCCO COJ^.'~~3 . :iG:; :~nr• a c1.C'??' CJ.; tC'.z:''.].?:.'i.lC~n 3i ::;E.'cn to Pres::1T~ pIiC>ia;.~^,t to thE' t'.7C^.^'101 F :.~C`bc:.CC'J: c?''1C1 t•'irec?;'_:.:i UIVa: 1on ViC a?:a1yz(': Z2:E: tiliC. L:J:C!I'.ICtlr t.^..::aCC:o' cOI?tCi:t i..nd lti?Zct::n{?r c?lonC :itl: it:, Pnd unc1' %;i:.tevox- eLse the r.F.nu-_FUct:,;;ox to ~u' .,..t. z::S, 1Col:1T1Gy to tlie s tF.'::L'.i:orl Cieri2:j t].C„3:s Or nclG'112:, tr 1 2 3' 4 7 8 9 10 11 I 13'',~ c:.. . .1_. .2 ~cl~ in 5 7~:)~' U I F 14',I'I1I 12 l7'~J1 (a) of {i, l:Y'c',_„ :t':3 t:iC I17to`n'n i .L CoCIC r;: Ci.^.{1nltiCn of a F 15 C~'C]`'C`~tC :Icis traimfE::=C'd in haC?c `J;3rb'il t:o, th^ C1.'g'd1:.E.'ttE3 16 ~ 'i ":~_ 1.r e LLl'!"; i" ' T.C} ~ j ~ll~...: );.,tt :~~. l:eall_' .'~-t1 ~ .. lin . ~ 1 ;v i ~'c,. ~z:~ <zr,c~ zcc ~, t ~ I ~1 S.tC.':inr,, i'ct. ConScc:u6?:1tla, w21: n t1:e Internal 17 18 .'^terr. _.: es ti7'r~ a),:,c-):-i<~tc~ c~.tec~;or~~ for a I O on is relie.l' urcn },1, the C11 c'.71i~.t'ar- j.;~tC:.L''.:`-.'_'eto.t1.C7:1 ~.:y t~l~ O ; OCIN .:^.y :~C IIZCIC? On' cTU.`,;t:.C.^. ;10L11Ci, ...t sC:e'f-:i to I 1.. C._!s'"':, C7f G1C.''.L" errC:'L" !'?y tac !:I:... W 19 20 21 22 23 j ':2it t.i:~'. -l~i.l::.u 24 Ace-Federal Rc;?o.tors, Inc. I1 25 rI c1ny roll O'i Lh~)i1C:C0

jon4 2 7 8' 9' 10' 11 13 14' 15 16 17 18' 19, 20, 21 22 23 2 `t', Ac' Fedeial Reporters, Inc. 25 490 in n4?Cr o~ in any ~ o ul : t z .:ccc- no } c7rt:; to;;~cco, a::(1' ?: _ roll or tobacco wrn::i)(:cd irn any su~_>trr.c:~ containing to.j accc of -.i:3 c!llcE..' , t:1G h.,` C? of t:o`.:ac^o in t.ITC S:1l1Cr, or ii_ i L%c C}:?'Cy:':1 j, ci:1(•' is likel- to we l~~_._, o :~, C. CZ(:C?.Z:C:t~-.4E (wCrC~~..tJc4' CJ 1. L.l Y' ~ r~..r~.a •, ~ t;'C'l.rr'._C;,l :'C''' : 1"c- . iOn ts ' I t:1 ~ nJi f to G>JS1'Z'[YS to (tGVClo1~ a a 'rac`~aon o` t'_.e rate i(:r rv c, ^ e1;cic. ~'1lS :•3a1I, ' ..::. j ?1'Je` C 1:..':.d': 1 2.i1C. G; n litJ.l:u :C9 c711 Oi tac r.a : f' mE:Clla' for its prOLiO,tlo:7 (~:... CF;'S( i'.? tCU ,:.;11"" l ,'.~ 4.C',r, u a :O~C:i , ^{: ~ L;.. .J rJr ?C~'„1C 1:i3 10~''~.CCO r^.-': aa-.'. +lf tCr '_i:'Ltl.aii'1y failing to C: ~c ' 1` a(:1C~;a'r ,'+ta ti1S r'.l 14 ?~ ~-oI" froTi, ti1 e 1'-iltcl".':i..'l 3'cven,.c c „ rv;c(_ ~, ri,_ ~ t'ae acc`~~^:-~~~'r<, <rdju~- ~ " ~•. ~...~ •, ,.ti„' ~n .. at;[: ~s 5ie3 j,-c a cic-ai om Jan::„r1r ~ 1.2', 1971. c::ort:1y tll(.'?"<'_a+`-_'t'..'.l.°, tC`'.'t in D~Z~'{:Cn c nC.' :.or"'t^t':, ,'",c .^.,,r.::G'- 7n'(- Ctr At:_''cy J.nCluc'.oc?' rc'.ciio a:2EI telc:vi:+ ion ' c' '„'+,=j _oC'.ll'Ct .Cic~ (r`~iCj.3.r...:tt.. . _tt: t: l..r.. ci;;i•r tI .l::.tJ_r t.':':L i ~ r t (i_Q? not :)cnr t'`,, _ - lt 2015046100 '2.:~rn~ Cfi~. ..T;,. -.L.C''.:~ n,~'...... a ~ {:Ci.i..i.~iC:~Lt rCv4- Ft~.~' [!>r, t:1(:.

491 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1& 12 13 14 15 anJ ci ~t-_ .~'.;ncd t.'lat it coulc; not, in %lic,: of t:1'C' 71 .~n t~:.c tc::: ccdc, a::d r?C•;~.:i_ca~l `_' :ZClttC'_ c:C; 'C rC.„°+: `~ ~ J: le.~J.1;iL'c oll'~ C i C, Ip t c,r: i"(,v" ': uc cr~~~c:,, i nitial1~y i; ^.:3 igar c4t c~, .7':zei:.lcY 03" :^ot : te, ;ac:co p,-. c;uc * ~ i c a c cr~:C1~' . r c1C'.w-'1; in )i to ~ w..i.. . . 1.. ~ .1..t i:i. CU;. t t:1 ~;lrl ; E..'C~lo c?:~~zC'lt]. .:i.^11t O- ]._.tt1C c.. 1 :' :I l.l.la J_ cJ pCC+ t i...C' all J.:- ...{^. 0 1^r,~ :i1o:1: 'c necescar1. r ' ~ F 11 ::>{: .:.C St~'C'~.cjiCCj to CQ'~'Gli '..ilr' S' "J ::1 ~:C C L C'c tiiE.' {" J.::1?. ()f or i ~'L..Fi i.C{.:. ... .~~.i . ... ~. ....c...:J_ r. .,. .. .. . . . ~--:1PS col:i',..3-i.^_:7 i=tTC C.-vdX I 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 .1~':r :LC<<.._C ~:.ti~ n~ '~`,. t •~ cic; ;rs are f^_lc:;~_c.. of this unl.r-'C::r: 7 C:`iC 7C:`i and '1 tGCl , iX" ,, C1C.PrC:t'GC~' VEIIC~LIIC. I°.~tC:1~1 ' C c.iC'3 c. 1.:C .ri: ., r lil C1C1~Tr~~? ~' r<1'C:: '. ~:1Cj~ dl:~ 5oI1C3'~lac.lt S`.: 11dY .'.Il I ~c~-: -ancc to c~.ra:'ct; Cs for l,ro::i: tobacco J ~ i n, as T.'.'c?t{.C:Z' o~ c~' Ci: II lii1C1 :Tt, il 1 ::iC'-1 C:C i i::°:a:C1li~tj On 4nC:-'r t;,lr-- . ~~ Of ti1C' 201504610l Ac Fedefal G.pordcrs, Inc. ~ l~ c ~ - I Ill^ cZ ~` 25 1 I r~i.cJl!] .-?.Ca:ilt.l~-' c7 ~[~ .`iO f:1: c: i

492 1 3 4 8 9 ,14 CaC{virS arc .:rar U''':" ~i ~.. . '.ai ... ~...c;.~. ,~.~ ~ 111J- Juen 1)L o(3uc ts are nG:. not ciaai-cttc ~:ar~r. el^ >>-11~ E: .:ig.,atc..:u' ~:: ~littlc ci~~ars in their 1~acl,agi^g a'; u 1 ~:11 and Lurn like t~-~.uitioni: u::.^.lln~f ~=5E= ,iC:~l1C.tS {i ".::.S , la ot~; ~ . a CiCnc~r=i. ~ =Ii'!:, • C!ni.f .-- i;: , of .:ct c'c: s not i^cl~~ ;c: r•.ark~'cit.g or a re.'+ is in ..cc'~i^ , rnL ._ . : ;~t< :CciC`:~•``:, t!iCZn can 1)L' n6, CCJ"1;:iCGCrattOn of C'i :)`.. .a jprC,'.7L1C:: 13 ;,•Q>> _ oZ uttili ,,•. C'a_ 'al: d ' ~1Se7 , n~ , .:e ~:.c f ~l ;iJ +..'....~. 11tt1C ~: 41'JC -i1C)i c ;:lt~ ?~l-oi ._5CS of j.~O'llc7i'J t-; ~.'I.C: rC7i: in't1.C ,' , J j... 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22 2 3' L•_C (_f ....„.-. ~_..._........_. ~- L'J r ~~ ~ c:e~i;iaii:io:r o~, a ci;~rettc. - v:'' lAC 0 ,, .11 i1 ~aiC.' i'~.`..:tli~.c:~' ::Ei11 CvE,', !1'C7ilGV'C I", t;lat t::'F' C11 it1nC,:. ::aa on C1gdrCttC 7 ('Un ~rr' SS if ~ it so C1::,a1L'C aa1L'Ca i:O lle f~'i:~JT1CiCC. 3Jw7 . ;C .';'~ `'~ :1'~( COl:_.7_ ~ all to:,.:eco 2M504610.2 A5 this .~Ui 13 ~,':ii),l:e^., t•fl~^.• GoIl3titUtlOi~c711 ~~ or tS:te c:::C1S{:111g S{,;c.+•lltE.' 1S pl-CSent]..y :)E:i;iCJ Ci:all^nGE:d in z. f `,,s of ccrt:,-lin k:zoa:'.E:a'stir.r ;.E:a'stir.r; a'stir.r; i:ztcr ~tc. ~ in 0;1 . ~':l~a~ ~ ar t ror 1:.:1': D1StriCt Qf Co; :1:'~~1~~. ,, •~ C \/ c , ~' ,3: ~ Lt..~ L•... . E~ •l l.G:l.•..) .- J'4.~ E.. i~'. . tllc Cl-SC is L. ~ _.. hi1~ 'J ll. 0 C)I7~: Vi()~.at1G;3 ,_ ,I~ ...J,.,....~.. :)c. a V1'Olo`.i iU:li CJ•- . ,.-.i ~? . . ~....._L:1 ~ .. _ ,. C i .... .. • . t:•. to C. ~,'1.:1 S l :i':.C'C; } 1J11. ~ .., 24 Ik -Fedcral Reporters, Ihc. i 2 5 i`

j'or7 493 Co:i::.tltll't A:! ll-..~ 2 3' 4 5 7 8 9 1& ll 12 iC3T. jnjul'.Ct1V'C= and .i'.,1aCd t:1C pic: .'lri L• :i t. ila~ ..... 1n~.1CG. r.i at CCLJh l `C t.:c ~ l';i:uCt ~ .~L'i:~'.;.' S ~ d C•:~ u'!: Ir „':e st,tut:c is ultiJr- E.. t c ~ ~ ~' GI ". t o Lta!l. is L1.~-~'~~.. -)ti1elE-,~ lE- ~'d r` iL1ZC~ ~ ." ` :, << ~ rG l ;h,tr ~'c_.e ~;s c,,.z~'c? not 1c( r,.~l I-:ore no 1 'ZiaG° of LG:.)?? :CO ;1C1 , VE'7~.'-~ ' ~- it to c',n : o. to ]"CtaYa to 'i z?o:~llt f:o' ~'!:'~1C}1 I ..~. •r T j1: i:t.?.`i. t1:Ctam.rl?~.. .. i:S a 131i . . . ._. :; . .,.r,:..._. . _ ..~...,,... . .. _. ,.__ . II 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 -Federal flcporters, Inc. 25 }'}` :l. . In ' .._.... , "`:~ T ? ~ ntr i 1;?t ._r,C' 1 rJ t;:~' ,r.. _ai c' ~ a r' G _1~'.:y i. Ic:^cnL c °' C-~i 11 CS ~. ~ cou^':• _. . 02 a' .'.. t.t1G c'i!'3I". L'ttC C.1;`,'.C-' nff t}:e air a r+ c'_~ -c~o; llt t:?c t::at t:1c Z..:*y-C.lt'-1Z'Ctt=: CG ..,`.^1C' ..- 5 ~:. .._:]. . ~ t'n C' L.O ..;,UI.:J.C'c3 t1c) n ... C.^:`:'=tJ ~-.... _ : f r . 2015046103 :~CC ,l: o ~ t :~t:4 :r.~r' .L'c . ~a . ~ ..! rl:,, ..::Gl~ bf f :. ~ C . .. . .. . ~ 1 :Tn't- ' ( :1- _,. .....i'a•' cZ.'

494 3' 41 6 7 8 7;r ~~T:;~'Er t~:3t~~:.'.f1.CC: c~.rlicr t:?~i- .. r~~or.r.inc-,inc-, t::e rcar. Dr. ~ • . l~.Q .Ll l.n, anU I Ca'..l r.nclr,l~'.cd to iJclJ.cve that J.t CQI..nJ vVcn ;f ~ :;rn't t..l~°in': ,~ ,•t ~-. ~1•.a:. : ;c are do :~1g. , , ~.~,. I t::i7:: th, anti -c_ ;.r:r.^ttc cc.,.:,crci.als ^':acic E-e^plc t::ink 7-, i., t {:.llC.° ~:1^ ronson ~.'}ly, I .. :. , _. , • •._ ~~~:,: t=c:. ,?:et~~::~ • s_.•.n ]!~, ?.cnn:~r~c t`.:c cc,,: erc~.als in `..c _ r~ ;• ~~. o.f _'Ct:J.IJG' t_:1f. ~; 1~ti•,e !3 .. r. __ r..l, C 't"_ J. ~ . L C'.Cili^.11TcT cI ;•-r+ t:.' s'l^;;.li' :1 3 c'Ju:1try .:L . ;;r:,;{,,, , t:;,-:.t, concludcs my statement. 13 14' 15 16 17 18 A, 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~I -Gcdeial Roportcrs, Ihc. j, 25II

495 FT 1#15 ty 1 Senator Moss. Thank you very much for your statement 15 16 17 21 and your explanation of the problem~s surrounding the adver- I 3 1 tising andi la`.-)eling of little cigars. 4 You indicatedithat when the Winchesters were first 5', offered in this ce~:.:~ittee, I suppose, on which you served, I 6li r:quired some adjustments to he made before they got the 7 i clearance as little cigars. I don't know what those adjustment , ' wer.e,but what would you have done if the adjustments were,not i 9' j made? ~ 10'i Mr. Wilson. That was not the interagency committee which 11~"Irequired those adjustments. That was the Internal Revenue 12'" Service vzhich required them, and I believe they are somet.;hat ~ 13'I, technical, andin that area, I would have toldefer to the IRS. 14Ii i~ Senator Moss. You are not a%:are of what adjustments they I required? Mr. Wilson. I am, sir. To some extent there was an adjustment of the filler, which is used in the Winchester 2211 i do t-Jith the alkalinity factor i 23'~j earlier this,morning. 18'; little cigar. 19~I' , ~I Senator .>,ioss, And that app, ~.rently c.ould have to do with 20iiinhalability as you understand it? 2111, Mr. Wilson. As I understand it, Senator, it did1have to which Dr. Wynder testified to 2015046105 2'4Senator t'oss. Do you think in defining, if the Congress Ae- -Fuc!eial Repoitc~s, kc. il 25j~should undertake a rcdefinition of cig,arette and cigar, that

496 ty 2 n the definition of a cigarette ought to have its in-use 2 definition some way that vould take into account this inhalability whicrh seems to be coupled with acid rather than 4 an al}:aline type of tobacco? Mr. Wilson. I think that is a possible way to do it, 6 Senator. I think as scr.»one said earlier this morning, there 7 are some very strong souJ:s who even inhale uipes, and so I query ;,rhether if ~-re had a statute like that whether we 9 10 wouldn't have the same enforcement problems that we have with iti th t d fi ll e on. e presen n Senator Moss. I am sure it couldn't be precise, because 12 I suppose as long as smoking of tobacco is carried on, there 13 I will be some degree of inhGlation, be it very slight or full, I 14 but the other r;itnesses have testified, and I g,uess it is the ~ ! 15 general observaitions that g,~eneral smokers generally inhale, and 16 ~ inifact when we had the cigarette adds on the television ( 17 it was often shown how deeply they would inhale the cigarette, 18 andd that isn't characteristic of cigar smokers from 19 observation, anyway. 201 Have you ever triedyour hand at a redefinition of 21 cigarettes and cigars thalt might be helpful to the Committee 22 Il if we want to think about that? 23 Mr. Wilson. I have thought about it, Sneator. I haven't 24j co;ae up wi th a real gcoelT c:ze yct. 2p15 + 046106 I ;c Ace-Federal Re or4crs . „ p 25 1 Senator Moss. If l~ou get a good one, ~:•ould~ you, send it

ty 3 over and looking at it? 497 2 This is a perplexing problem as you~pointed out, and be- 3 i sides the factor that sides this might be an inhalable product, and i 4, therefore subject to the same criticisms that we leveled 5 against the cigarette, it is also;.a considerable economic 6 i d f actor, as you po nte out. 7 ti thi t i b Th t -fifth e axa on on s s a . ou one Mr. Wilson. Rouahly one-Lifth, sir. 9' ~ Senator M.oss. I said half before. One-fift h. I have 10 i corrected. That is, a15to what it is on cigarett e, and yet 11 in si:ze and di meter ever thin lse it looks j t like y , a , g e , us a 12 13 cigarette to rie except that it is bro,•:n. I . Mr. .Wilson . In r.,eneral, Senator, as a draft i ing problem, 14 ! and the problem of preciseness and so on, may I m ' ake this 15 suggestion: V;e have here a statute which is qu~it e precise and 16 I' therefore very easy to design around, so to speak ' , to the 17 i extent that we go to less precise statutes which give the 18 courts more discretion. I would urge that the remedies be 19 lii:rited~to the civil side rather than including the criminal i 20 i side, and we will have a lot better chance of getting its 21 'constitutionality sustained. 22 Senator Moss. In this agreenient that Reynolds entered 23 into, did it have anytY:ing, to ci'o t;ith the 1ahelingi of the 24 ~1 pac}:cge, as far as you know? 201,5046107 4c Inc -FedeiaIlRepor leis ' , . 25 i ~ Mr. Wilson. No, sir. That was their agreement withius. l

ty 4 1 2 3 5 6 10 11 12' 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 11 Ar- - Feddrall RePOiIcrs, Inc. II 25 ~i 49 8 Let me go back and expand~ a little bit on this history. Since we had a determination initially by the Internal Revenue Service that the product was a little cigar, I concluded rather early in our investigation that it wouldn't be appropriate for the United States Government to proceed on I a criminal basis in this case. Once you have had a deter- mination mination by one agency, I don't think the government of the United States ought to go around~indicting people who have ~ relied upon that determination.. I concluded that the only possible case we would have would be a case for injunctive relief. That being true, ~ had we sued, the co:;lpany could have made certain changes in its ~ lay poiint. The suit would have had to be based, in my ~ , opinion, on the labeling of Winchester, because in its `' appearance, as you know, it is a brown cigar, brown 16,1; paper, and most cigarette Emokers, the consumers who are going to smoke anyhow, aren't going to mistake that thing for a cigarette because of its appearance. 2015046108 The filler, as Dr. P7yncler testified1this morning, according to the nets that I made, he said it conforms in I qualitative terms as a cigar. So we couldn't get it in the second area. So the only way that it might possibly be argued to violate the statute would~ be in its packaging, and labeling, and if we sue for aniinjunction, then on that basis, the company simply could h,-:ive mooted the case by

ty 5 2 5 6 7 10 1l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - fcderal Repoiters, Inc. 25 499 changing the packaging, or labeling. It seems to me this status is one wh~ich is phrased in terms of whether the product is likely to be offered to or purchased by the consumer as a cigarette. Since we hadthis situation where they could moot the laersuit by changing the labeling, I requested the company come in and suggested they make some ch~ang,es in their labeling so the product could clearly and conspicuously be designated as . a little cig,ar. I believe those chavges have been made. At least, I have no evidence that they are not. I understand'the company has moved into the Now York marketing~ area and is marketing the proeluct c:here the labeling is in conformity, I believe, now, with the statute, sir. Senator PlosS. I notice in this advertisement that.I held up once before that it says down near the 'bottom of the ad, it is not a cigarette, not just another little cigar. It seems to me they are d'isclairning that it is not just another little cigar, so I don't know what it means. Mr. Wilson. Under the statute, S-nator, I am afraid it has to be a cigarette or a cigar, and if it is not a cigarette, we can't get 2015046109 Senator P-ioss, They say clearly it is not a cigarette, but i they say it is not just another little cigar. Senator Cook?

ty 6 1 2 3 4 5 7 8' 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21! 22 23 24 500 Senator Cook. Mr. Wilson, you said just a minute ago that it is wrapped in.brown paper. Now, you know that isn't so, ~ and you know that the internal Revenue department has statutorily through~its regulations under the statute has said' that that paper, ~;,hich is not a paper, must contain 60, ~ percent tobacco leaf. i rir. jlilson. Yes, SEnutor. I misspoke myself. it is ! wrapped in brot•~n tobacco, reconstituted tobacco, with certain binders. Senator Cook. That is the same thing that Tipperillos are wrapped in, that is the same thing that Tijuana Smalls l are vrd ap~.ned in. The rcal perplexing problem~is that if you can stop this as a cigar, whichlin fact it is, and Dr. Wynder said that it was, then you are gettingir.to the cigar business, and then you get to the next cigar and the next cigar. That is what the real perplexingiproblem is, at least the way I look at it. Isn't it funny that we are going to take away the r 1911 iingenuity of business to come up With something, because now it is even badif it looks like a cigarette? If that doesn't meanithat you want to prohibit cigarettes, then1I don't really ~ know what the key question that we are discussing is all about, ,je becaLlse in your analysis of vhat it was, you first called it a il brown paper. In essence, you were wrong, and you corrected Ar -FedcrallReporteis, Inc_ !! '~ft~~sI.~ ,~ , ~2J Ij it.

ty 7 501 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 Let me tell you a couple of other things that you rec:ll in your department vere wrong at. And that is that when you answered the case in the Supreme Court of the United States of the Central Broadcasting Ccmpany versus John Mitchell, you, yourself, made a couple of serious mistakes, in the pleadings, and let me give tre.m to you. You said, and I quote, this is paragraph 4i of the state- ment ~ ment -- that is it, you got it there -- ar,lonq, its provisions, Section 3' of the Cigarette Gnd Labeling and Advertising Act, 15 U.S.C. 1333, required cigarette manufacturers to place conspicuous cautionary labels upon cigarette packages, and' 1211 then you nroceEC?ed to say, and! I emphasize this, such labelincr 1:3 14 15 16 ;,:as inter.<;ed to inform the purchaser of the health dangers 1 found to be inherent in cigarette smoking. I In another instance in your pleadings, you said, the sole issue is whether there is a reasonable basis for the 17'+ Cong,ressional conclusion, that the commercial promotion of i 18~i cigarettes by any medium of advertising contributes to the 19 20 21 22 23 24 baleful medical effects of cigarette smoking.2015046113, Let me read you exactly what Congress said, not the Surgeon General of the United' States, Mr. Wilsoni, but the I i Congre;s of the UnitediStaites said: Zt is the policy of the ~I Congress and thc purpose of this Act to establish a compre- hensive fee?eral program to deal w:ith cigarette labeling and Aee - Fcderal FZcporters, Iiic. 25 1I advertising with respect to any relationship bet~•~een sntoking ~~

ty 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 kce-Fed~iallPupo,tets, Inc. 25 502 and health whereby, (1) the public may be adequately informed that cigarette smoking may be hazardou~s to health by inclusion of a warning to that effect on each package of I I cigarettes. That isn't the policy that you -- this isn't what the Concrress aid, the policy that you enumerated. The Congress said it may be hazardous to your health. In the pleadings of the Attorney General, he said such 9 labeling was intended to inform the public of the health l0l1~l danJers foundo to be inherent in cigarette smoking and the baleful medical effects of cigarette smoking. This wasn't the intent of Cor_crress. Now, it is the intent of the Surgeon General, there isn't any question about that, and it is the intent of the Chairman of this Committee, and there isn't any question about that, that they have the right to have that intent, but the Congress didn't have that intent. It hasn't established that intent to thi s very d'~ay. . Mr. Wilson. Senator, I think in the passage fromithe statute which you read the Congress, certainly recognized that this is a controversial issue. I 2015(Asu2 Senator Cook. So right. ~ Mr. Wilscn. There is no doubt about that. Indeed, this L hae'd bcen reco~Jnized befc~rc thatt by the Coi,-jiunications Con),miis.sion and by the courts.

ty 9 503 Now, the Department of Justice is charged with upholding 2 the statutes which the Congress passes, Fnd upholding their 3 constitutionality when it is tacked, and as I read those 4 statements in -- I presume in the answer -- is that in the 5. district court, sir? Because I don"t believe we have yet 6 1 filed our respon se in the Supreme Court ~ . Senator Cook. Thcse are two excerpts from the pleading,s 8 + that have been filed by the Justice Department. ' Pir. .Wilson . Perhaps ourr advocate, in~ our advocate' s 10 desire to uphold the statutes'constitutionality, we don't I l ~ be precise as perhaps we should be, but we try to be. 12 Senator Cook. I can~ understand that. 13'~ Mr. ;,q'ilson. The mere e.;iste:~-:ce of the controversy, it 14; would seem to me, SEnator, is sufficient to unhold that I 15j constitutionality. 16i Senator Cook. I am not arguing that point. Because, 17l1I1you see, the point I am trying to make to you in-this type of 18' 19' 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Fed?raI Reaorwrs,lnc, interpretation, and I say this in all fairness, and I don't mean to be argumentive about it, but we went through day after day of dealing directly with the industry. 2015046113 The Chairman of this Committee, myself, the entire Subcommittee, about radio and television, and as a matter of ~ ~ fact, we came to an acJrec.uent with the industry long before ~ i that statute wen t into effect that the ind'ustry wanted to go 251 off of radio and televisicn. The only reason that a statute

504 ty 10 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 was passed by the Coi:gress of the United States was because the industry itself did not want to be accused of violating the antitrust laws of the United States, because I want to say for the record right now, Mr. <<;ilson, that the advertising people, the radio and television, wanted us to enter into an agreement :-ith the to'--acco industry that they wouldn't be forced off radio~ ar:d televisicn for three or four years, and th,-,t it r~ould be a e?ecreasinq thing~, and I was amazed one day ;;hen I sat at a meeti ng ba:c): in this very room whcn the l0 i! presic?ent of tt:e r aticnal Association of Broadcasters said, 11 12 if you will decrease this revenue so we can stand it year by year, we will increase our ncrs»r:okinq advertisements and we 13~11 may reach what you ~•la:i~c., convince more people not to smoke, 14 1'S while we are ta}:inct the indus try' s money to keep them on the air and keep thcm on television over a 1ong,er period of time, and I was absolutely amazed, that we want your money, but ~•r,e want to gut you at the time we are doing it, and'if you give it to us over a longer period of time, we ~-aill phase you out I 16 17 18 ' 19 20 21 22 ! 23 24 kc -Federal FBepcrtrs, Inc. i 251 faster. So I just really want you to~ know that it was the industry that set its date to get off of television, and vranted' to get off of television faster th<in the statute took it off of television. 201.Sn46114 Mr. Wilson. I recall tt:o:>c, sessions, Senator, and I think Iw«s one of those e:ho was r,.uesti oning th:: ti.risdom of the

505 ty 11 5 6 711 9 End tt'15 16 17 18 1'9 20 21 22 23 24 , antitrust exemption at that time. Senator Cook. That is correct. Thank you, 2-Zr. Chairman~. Senator :Ross~. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Lle appreciate it very much. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator rioss~. t';e will now take a 30-minute recess. We ~aill resume at 1:30. (?~7hereupon, at 1 p.m. , the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 1:3'01 p•m'•, this same day. ), Ace - Feddral Reporteis, Inc. 25

506 dw 1 CkJ004t16 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1,6 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 ~te - Fcdeial Reponteis, Inc. 25 AFTERNOON SESSION (1: 30 p .mi. )~ Senator Moss. The contmittee will come to order. Senator Cook is on his way «nd should be here any minute. We will hear now from Dr. Ronald Okun, Director of Clinical Phar,,,,acology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. We are very glad to have you, Dr. Okun, and you may proceed. STATED1i;wT OF DR. RONALD Oi:UNA', DIRECTOR OF CLINICAL P'HARNIACOLnGY, CEDARS-SINAI P.:IEDICAL CENTER, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA. Dr. Okun. Thank titoui, Senator, ladies and gentlemen. I am Ronald Okun, M.D., and Associate Professor of Medicine and Medical Pharmacology and Therapeutics at the University of California, California College of Medicine in Irvine, California, and president-elect of the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology. I am a graduate of the University of California where I received degrees of M.D., and ::.S., in Pharmacology and TaXicology. • 2015046116 After having completed a Fellowship in Clinical Pharr.:acology at Joh ns F-ioi kins School of Medicine, I became Tiss1Stant Professor of NleCi1C1I:c and Ph,1rmacoloCJy at University of C,1lifornia, Los Angcles, School of Medicine and'Director

5 0'7 dw 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9' 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20, 21 22 23 of Clinical Pharmacology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. rSy curriculum~vitae is attached. I come here at the invitation of people representing the tobacco industry, and I want to make that clear at this point; how-.ever, the views I express are mine derived from over 10 years of research and training after medical school, including, research on effects of enviro:mental stress in toxicology, which have effects of convinced me that scientiiic research and not should settle q,uestions of physiological and medical various pharmacologic agents. These views, onithe general question of smoking and health, ~r;ere presented to the Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Rcpresentatives in 1969 (Serial No. 91-12, pp. 1115-27), and I will not repeat them here. Rather, let me simply note that I do not believe that any research since that ti.r„e has succeeded iniestablishing a causal relationship between smoking and health, and turn directly to the questions of possible harmful effects of cigarette smoke constituents presently before this committee. The rate and amount of absorptionlof cigarette smoke constituents from the smoking of a cigarette probably depends upon at least the following, factors, not listed in any order : 24 Ace - Federnl Raporters,Ihr. 2511 i i of impor t ance : 201S04611T 1. The nu:r:ber, size and frequency of puffs.

5&8' dw 3 2 3 5 b 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 2. The length and~tirre the smoke remains in contact with the mucous membranes. 3. The acidity of the body f luids with which the smoke comes in centact. 4. The depth and degree of inhalation. 5. How accustomed the person is to smoking. 6. The chemical content of the tobacco smoke. 7 The moisture content of the tobacco smoke. 8. The charactE `istics of the tobacco. 9. The use of a f iler . 10. The acidity of the tobacco smoke. 11. The aggl.:omeration of smoke particles. 12. The amount of moisture over which~ the smoke travels. All these variables must be carefully studied and held constant before a scientist can accurately predict absorption. How then is a person going to be able to predict the effect of any smoke constituents in himself with all these variables? There are many different chemicals in tobacco. This complex subject is made even more difficult to understand by the varying levels of these chemicals, depending on the types of tobacco, the way it is grown, the part of the plant that it is taken from the i-:ay it was cured, et cetera. 2018046118 Inlc.ddition, no one has iucntif:ied disease producing

dw 4 1 2' 3 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 1'5 16 17 18 19' 2& 21 ' 22 2'3 509 components in tobacco smoke in s ignif icant amounts or f orms available to the hu.man bodv. Fromidiata in the literature, it appears that there are many ways to vary "tar" content of cigarettes by filtration,, the use of tobaccos low in "tar," by using less tobacco per cigarette, by the us` of tobacco sheets and stems, by the use of porcus paper, chemically treated tobacco, et cetera. Further, of course, if cigarettes are smoked doz,.,n to, the samcbutt length, an increase in the numbier of puffs causes an increase in "tar" yield. And', a recent study has failed to show any statistically significant differences in animal effects between "tar" from ~ one type of cigaret.te with a normal "tar"-nicotine content and the "tar" from filter tipped cicJ,arettes made frcm other ~ ; types of tobacco ~aith reduced `tar"-nicotine. I These many considera-cions show that there wouldinot appear to be sufficient reason at this time to advocate the . manufacture of cigarettes with certain "tar"' content. I There appear to be too many vairables besides a laboratory II determd.nation of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide to say i,:hat e}:posure a smcver gets. 2015046119 The many reports available in the literature do con- sistcntly poi nt out that there are many other variables, not 24II cont,°olile.c :le.c: by thc c••peri_m,c•iitt,m,c•iitt, and t}::.t each individual smoker %ae-Federkil Reporters, fnc. ! 25 i scoir.s to be a spccial ca:-o unto h:r.;sclf, , quite different fr om

dw 5 2 4 5 6 7 510 the smoking machines used in the laboratories. The smoking of different tobaccos may result in different amounts and types of tars. Human being.s do r.ot smoke tar and no signif icance of laaoratory repor ts on tar yield to human health has been established. The claims of cause and effect relationship of cigarette smoking to various.disea~ses tend to pool all smoking data into one questior«ble co:nclusiori. M Since the type of tar is qualitatively and quantitatively 11 different, it folloas that we cannot pool all this information 12 into one big pot a:ne? i-:,pl:y that all tar is the same. 13 , If a disease producing su::stance is pr esent in! the 14 tar, it may be present in a very sm all part and the amount of 15 total tar may be irrelevant. 16 A great deal of data is availa ble concerning ni cotine in~ 17 man. in low concentrations, nicoti ne stimulates the 18' sympathetic and paras~-mpathetic ganglia and~in high concentra- 19 th ti l em. ons, para yzes 20 Thus, nicotine can ca use liberation of catecholamines 21 I f r_ om the adrena l g lar.d . 20150461240 22 There are many other oaservations, which~I need not 2 3' i ' detail hEre. F?o:,;evcr, the net results 1re transient, non- 2 4 cumulative andireversible ircl'clrst,, in heart rate, cardiac Inc: orters aee - Federat Re „ p 25 output, and so forth.

511 drz 6 2 6 9 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Acc Fedeial Repoirtcis,inc. 25 That is why the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee, in its 196:4 report, refused tolfind that nicotine represented a significant health hazard. Since that report, the medical literature, again, does not allcw a person to make any other conclusion in relation- ship to nicotine. At the present state of our }:noa:ledra, it is possible to hypothesize that the release of endogenous catecholamines through nicotine absorption may p-roduce transient increases in platelet aggregation in some peoole. However, even if this turns out to be true, it is not likely to be r,,.eanin5ful in terms of disease causation. It is well kno~an that endogenous catecholamines can be released by virtually and stress, examples of these include running, walking, up stairs, emotionally agitating situations, andso forth. It has not been shoc:n that catecholamine release in this fashion causes disease. Superficially, one might assume that because large doses of nicotine can be harmful, any dose of nicotine is bad -- this is scientifically not correct. ~15~~~1L First many commonihousehold' malterials are harmful in large doses but quite acce~.~table and perhaps even necessary in small'e?oses; for elample, table salt in large amounts can kill n;,-.ny I-oople, but in sma11 amounts is acceptable by almost every person. r!Io,•rever, small doses of salt may be

dw 7 1 2 3 4 , 5, 6 7 lo' 11 12 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 512 harmful to certain people, such as those with heart failure or hypertension:. But this is a problem of an individual patient which must be determined by the physician for each patient ' and no general rules cun be made. i Second, there are data which indicate that the effects of nicot ine upon conciitioning and learning are towards ii:~provement of various types of performar.ce; even here, ho~,.7c-,-er, the effects are complex and vary between individuals, et cetera. Again I e:~:phasize that no general rules can be made regarding nicotine content and physiological effect. Studies hiave sho~•;n that carbon,monoxidz present in cig«rette smoke does increase the level of carboxyheirtoglobin, when heavy cigarette smokers and non-smokers were compared. In essence, this causes displacement of oxyhemoglobin and in total results in a dCcreased~release of oxygen at the tissue level. While there are very few clinical investigations bearing on this finding, there is no indication~ that the carbo:yhemoglobin levels observed in smokers are harmful to their health. 2015046222 Several points sY,ould' be notcd : 2211 23i ~ ~~ 24 Ate - Federal Reporteis • Inc. ' jl 25 1. Smo}.ing is only an intermittent activity, so that carUc~:;,'~c:~c c~Icbin 1EATe1s are rcauced when not smoking. 2. Peoplc develop inc~:rc:~scc? tolerance levels to

2 4 carboxyhemoglobin over time. 3. There appears to be a significant difference between individuals in terms of carbon monoxide uptake after cigarette smo:%-ing, but there does not appear to be any 5difference when sr..oking different }:inds of cigarettes. ~ 61 4. There is also a significant difference in carbon 7'I'I monoxide upture at different times of day. 81~ 5. Pulmonary function and inhalation practices may be 9'i more important to carbon monoxide intake than the type of 10~ cigarette. ~ 11 For these reasons, one must question the significance I 121, of limiting the carbon monoxide output of cigarettes. 13We are all e}cposcd acutely to high levels of carbon 14 ' monoxide for short periods of time if we stand by a fire- 15, place that is operating,, if we burn candles at our dinner 16 i table, and so forth, and yet, while we may get much higher M 17+~ exposure fromithese situations, neither cardiac disease nor 18 other human ills have been so associated. 1!9 The Surgeon General's 1972 report relating to smoking . 20 and health concerned itself at length with the effects of 21 cigarette smoke inia small room. 2015O4s-123 22 23 24 Ace - Fcdcrall Repoctcrs, Inc. I 25 1'I I~ In terms of long tcrm e:q)osur.es, concern with industrial s'itua~tions would be more pertinent. This is particularly so because, as a practical matter, the levels of carbon r.,ono::ide from cig~,rette snio3:e considerecd in the 1972 report

514 dw 9 1 2 3' 5 6 s' do not rise to extraordinary concentrations even in the artificial situations presented. Even,according to the report, the high concentration, long term animal experiments are of limited significance ber.a,ase ". ..it is presently impossible to be certain from anirr:DI experimcntation about the extent of the damage that may occur during long term interr,tittent exposure to lower concei.trations. " From what I::ave said above, the data as to the inter- 10i, mittc-nt e::posures to~carbon.monoxide of smokers and! non- I I 1' 1 smo}.ers simply dces not establish such exposure to~ be i ~~ 12~1I, sufficie:nt to~aairranit implication as a health, hazard. 13i Since the constituents of cigarette smoke have not been I 14'~ established as health hazards, the reduction.or elimination 15 of these constituents for reasons of healthlis not justified. 1'.b ' Again a,uoting: from the Surgeon General's recent repol. t: 17', "Until there is a better understanding of the relative 18, 19' 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Fcderal Reporters, Inr. 25 i importance of the interaction of the constituents of cigarette smoke and the development of the diseases associated~with cigarette smoking, it will be dif ficult to assess the significance of reduction or elimination of one or several of the constituents named in this report," The report goes on ho;,:ever to take the position that unless there is positive informat.ion~ to t e contrary (being ~Ms+a4sU4 considered guilty until provc.n innocc:nt, in my opinion)

515 dw 10 2 8 10 11 12 131 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 cigarettes in which the tar and nicotine levels have been reduced present to the smoker lower concentrations of the harmful substances in the particular phase. I find this latter remark to be inconsistent with good scientific principles and judgment. From my experience and review of the scientific literature and' the recent Surgeon General's report, I cannot tell the significance of nicotine content, tar content, and potential carbon monoxide levels derived from cigarette smoke on health. Ho~-:ever, a:false sense of significance, if not security, can be derived by the nonscientific public from government establishment or approval of maxi:um levels of these corlstzt.ue'nts • I^]e should not foster meaningless limitations. Therefore, I see no needl to set these levels to mislead the public. Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Dr. Okun. Your vitae and the bibliography that -,:,.7e appended to your statement will all be printed inithe record in full and we appreciate having them. (Curriculum Vitae andBibliog,raphy "fellow: )O N C!t O ~ N N kce-Fcd ial!Reporteis, Inc. 25.

CURRICULUM VITAE Ronald Okun, M. D. 516 Date of I3irth; August 7, 1932 Marital S+.atus: Wife, hatherine G. Okun -' 3 Chilciren Soci a1 Secu rity: 55 G- 34-. 31!7;i I,DUCATION ~Univer.siity of California, Los A~ncele~s, Cali,fornia 1950-1931T I3. A. Ujsi~vc{~irsity of C::liformi1a, San l'r, :;cisco~, Califo~rni~a~ 19511-1J58~ School of .Ficclicine 195S h1. D. Pha'rrnacoloU`~ 1958 M. S. TRAI`rTING Te3clring Assist:+nt,, University of California Feb 1cJ' 53-JuJL3 1953 San 1'ranci<'.:co, California Intern, Gener; l.ldedical 9, SuiY.;iical l;osliital 1955-1959 Vctorans Aclli»inistration I Iospital L•os ~ ll~~i;~;c~lcs, C'~rlifornia R~osioib~r~t~, ~!~etcr::i~s .-V'1mir.~i~,s tr>Lio~n Ilo'spital' 1959-1961 LoSA,ni,rel;es, Fcllo~°., Cli'nic 1 Pharniarole?t;, „ Jol-jjs Ile,pl:ins lioshit:l 19G1-1JG3 I3altinzore, Maryland PRF:ST;N'1' APPOl1TMFNTS I)irector, Clinical Pharmacology, Cedurs-Sinai Medilcal Center Los Angeles, C:clifornia Assi ~t::nt Professor of 1>hzrisl~colc~oy (in Rc.si(lcnce). L'n;ivcrsity of California, Los AnLgreles, California Assistant Professor of Medicine University of Califoarni,a, Los Ant;el'c5, C11iforni.a AssoCi:cte Professor Medicine &'ltedic;il! I'harm;iicoloG~~ & Therapcutic.s July 1963-Prc.scrnt Sept 19G3-Preser.t Scpt 1f1G3-Jt.ne 1970! July 1970-Pre scrt. ee University o, California, Lrvine.-California Colla•t;c cf :,,c.lic.iro R~ese:rrcli L''hartuacolia"ist, V~ete'ra~ns~ Admiiii::tr;;~~t~ioio I~1o:;hit~al Sepulveda, Cali,forizi.! Con5-'vltzi:t in Pllnrmmcolo<;v State of Cnlifoinlia, t)c:partment of Public Ilcalth Atlenciin;. Phy:,ilci'an in Cnrdioliol;y, Veterans Aciniini'sta•.:tion lioslxital Los An~clc5, C'al ifo~-ni.c~ 2015046R6 t k ~

517 CURR1Ct.ILL'M VtMAH Ronald Okun, NI. D. PRI;Sh'i`T AP1?O1!\"I'M7?;?ti')'S (continltecl; Scientific Advisor to the Toat-cl of I)ir:^ctors, Cc[!.zirs-Sin~ai, ''ladical Ccntex~ 1!9GJ~,- Pi•esent A~ssoci!atc I+,d~itor o~f~ .1a1iau[;l Rcvicw of L'i lz~rm:; co~Yo,ny~ 1970 Atten{iinr; S't:rff in l ,. ~.:~c~~Lici~~la~e (.~ti~~, ~i°ol~c'; )1970 ,itc~rn:~~l;~1..-~~~ )~ ~ Cot[nfJ~' of Los A~nt;c 1e~s/ bi1mrlhor Genc+ral IIo -,hit31 Los An;;clc,5, Caliiorliia rel~1oti.,!, A~m~ei icZn~ C'o1ler.e of C"li'l]i'c.:"l P~hm col~i,h.;~~ June S, 1,07~1 PROF}:S` IC?~' ,L SO('1'I'"F1' MI;."v?RF.RS?iTPS Sigma Xi Americam Fedc[ation for Cl;nicaI R'esiarc4 AmericZn A;soci.A;on for Aclivanc•et»ent of Science New 5'orlti Actlclonav of Sciences An]criv:.nSt>cietY fur Pllc~rmcncolo,,;.v t';E,:incrim ^[]tzl 'lihe:raE]~,t[tics A!]Yf:r}C'::rC i~C' tt;{ l ",f C'I'i1?iC_0 Tw;1CVIt':;y Anl(;1'1c<I9] for TI?elY:j%i_'l;tLCs S I' Ic C_ IAL. A\t',1 R D S F' I 1 C~ ~~ C? It 4 Let;f;r> Prcventive Mcdiciine 11warci FelrJr.ne 1'O ig I tJniversity of t'aliforuia A-IedicaI Center f 1 Y r

I3IT3LIOGRA I'II1' Ronald Olcun 1. Oi;un, R. , and 1Glliott, lP. W. : Acute Pharm~,nc•olol;ic•al Stuclies of Some New AInrl,hi>;e Derivatives. J. 1'h;trnncul Exp. &., Tlier. 12-1:225-2:;~, 1:It,i3. 2. O1.vn, R, , Liddon, S. C. , and Lasagna, L: The Effircts of r1gf;rei;ation, Dlcctri~c Shc,;:':; and Aclrvnc~riyic Pl!Ucl;ini; Drtirs on Inhibition of the «'i•ithiinE; SYiPclrome. J. l'harmaicol. l;xn. g~ Ther 193 (1):107-1U9, 19613 \Vilson, R. , Ol;un, lZ. :'D'he Acute lIemod'ym:rmic I;ffccts of Dia:zoxidc in Afan. C'ircfflztion 4S:89-J3', 1~9C,4`3' I}„ Wolff, F. W. , Pr,rmlcy, W. W: , Wlitc, K. and Okun, R. : Druh Induced Diabetes. JA\I A 1," ';a:56S'-57-1, 1963 Wilson, W. R. , Okun, 11'. , Tetreault, L, , and Fallils, N. : Methlydopa and lT)clruchlc~: tl~iazi~lc in Primary lIypc:rtcnsion; Controlled Clinical Trial of 1)rugs and in f'onibin:tion. J:MMA 1,55,~1'll-F2'J, 1963 518 6. Wenn?,erl;; .1'. E. , Ohtin, Ii. , Iii rrnln, E. J. , Northcutt, 1Z. C. Griep, R. J. , and \i':r1ke r, W. G. : Ren,:U Toxicity of Or,-,l C.'holecvstof;raphi'c 'Media. ,fA',%1A. 1fiG;461--167', 196'3 7. Okuis, R. , I"+.asscl1, 1? P. 1-ncl %','ilson, W. R. : Use of Dic:zoxicl'c \-.i.th T;.•ichlor- mcthiazi<ie foc~~ 11}'.pcrtensiun. .1rch inter.n. 1]cd 112:8F?-SS!$, 19163 Okun, R~. , Wi1'son~, W. R~.~, and, C;c;lf,-,ncl, M.l)~. . Thc~ IIyperglyce~inic I+;ffect of 1I,1'1?otcn~5i%•e,D~ru;s J. Chron. D~ils. 17~:3~1-39~, 1f3G,4 ~ 9. Carliner, h. IT. , Schcllin;;, J., I?o1ssr:11, R. P. , Oktu~, I~. , and Da~~is, 1]!. : Tloiazidc ;mcd! Phtllimidine Inchuccd 11ypcrl;;lyccmizi in H11)ertensive Patients. JAMA I,91:535, 1965 10. Ol;urn, R. : Principles of Clinicrcl Drup L%-'Lt alion. Proc West. Pharm. Soc. 8':23-32, 19G5 11. Winters,~' ld', 11., Lcvy, L. ,'I'lrur»>an, W. , 1nd Oh-1ua, R. : Studies on the Aletaholis»> anci, Ui'stribuUion' of Itacf!ioactiVc An)Phctaminv. Proc. of w'est. Pharm. Soc. 9:1-3, 1966 12. Olauv, 11, , l;oth, S. 1:. , Gordon, A. , and '\ia~~rclj, 'M. II. :"1'he Long Term 1:ffccli'veness of MLetli;Jd'opa in UIylac-rtensic.:a. Calif. fiicd~. 10-5:•1G-a0, 1JGG 13. iacc mtcn, ('. R. , ancl Cihum, lit. ,<uu? Ilellel; It. J'. :'('hc Rc>nal Ilc;;l;l::ti!on of So'li'utn ;;;~ 1 l?ot;r::: iti;.; in 1?;jti'cnts ~~itll C'hron,ic ll0ncil Fai'lurc ancdl the l:ffcct of Ul;cP::•:crt.tion of th:~sc11nns. An1. Nc+%1• York :1e•ademy Scil. 139•;>:0-52'1 ", 1966 20150461,28

BIBLlvGRAPiTY 519 Ronald Olmi , 14. Sol;ol, t1., Bashner, h1.1i. , Okun, R. : NcPhrotic Syndrolne Causedl by Pro?1 cnccid. JAM.~~~ 190:~_~-•, , ~~-11, 1GG7 15. Baltcs, I;. , E1Qi,o.1, 7'.. , Levy, L. , arld Okun, R. : The 1lctabolic Fate of G-t~illr~l.^i17:iille-iI S1Llfu'te. Th3 plIar1i1:1cUlU`ist 8:220, 1JGG 1G. Olnul, R. : Ditlrctics-Usc and Tlie 11cdic2l Television Network, U~CL11, Center for the I-leailtli Sc,iJcnces. 1GG7 17. Olain, R. aladIillce~;n^I7, C. R. : IR~,en:zl D~i~~se,-s~e SecondLary to~ \Jetah~olic~ Disorders or~ P11ys~~iollo-ica~ll Drs~fii~cicn~~cyt~ S;ates. Calif. 'MedJ 1!07:8~-~110, 1G~67 18. G'ers~toini,, A. R~~. , O':un, P,~.~, Go~.lit'~:, Ii. C. ; %Vi~1~I:er, 11.I~. , K1cemia.as, C. R. and M. II. :~ Pro1~eTM~ccl' ~~ Use, of~`~Ic~tl~~^~:~z:.runc Idi~hptl~ira~~te~ in Treatinrrent of*Urillary 7'),act Infection. J. Urol 100:7G7, 19G°, 19. • Siegel,i Elllsolr, T. , Silverman, A. G: , and Okun, R. : Tissue Distribt:ltion of dl- I~ICl in~'1 olc~r:nt~ ald! N~~onto~lc~rznt Cats. P7~oe. West. Pharnle,col~. Soc. 11:00-0-I, 1JG8' 20. Ellisoil, '17. , M., S1lvcT]Tii:~ny, A. C., and 0l1ll1, IZ. : CoI17pfU)':1tivC'- ~ 11~Ci~<,111~I l=~~1? of dl- in ~~ (~.1 CI': nt and ~1C ~r~1 pii:2' 1?t Cats. Proc. West. Pi'Qu;;n-ra~col 11~oc~. 11:7~5r~77~, IOGa~~ 21. Silvcr111;':Il, A. G. ,a7:'-1 O,:LI?l, R, , : Isol)ro;.ernCol : nd' Doi):inline ini tl]('. Treatment of hIeh~irobanftaite Ovcrdosa~~e~ in Cats~.~ Proc. ~~'est.~ Pil~a~rrnacol Soc. 11:J~1'-J8!, IOGa~ 22'. Olcun,Il'.: il;edilcal Pain Reliic.. J. Ilospa. Dcl.t:.1 Practice 11:32-3G, 1063 23. Ol.u.n, l1'. : Use and Abuse of Antibiotics. J. ilcsp . Dz!ntal Practice 1I:GS-G2, lJGg . 24. Silverln:m, A. G. ,Wilncr, II. I. , and Ol:un, ?;. : A Case Report of Gastro- intesGillall1)l.cediin; I'ollowing , tllc Use ofTolazolir:e.To}. and App1. Pllarnn. 16:3118-320, 1970 ' 25. Silvermc:n, A. G. , 1C'illncr, H. I. , and Okuul, 11.,: A Case of Accidental Parent.cr..1 Injection of Povan. Tot and Ahpl. Pharni. 1G:7•10-7-1?, 1970. 26. Silverlnzn, A. G., and 0'mn, R. :A Loo'.c at Some cf the Common AdVerse Dr.ug, Reactions. Jl. Iilospit:lli Dental Pr:uc t.ice . April 1'..'70, p; s-G0~-5G. 27. Elliso::, T., Lcvv, I, , I c,l~;cr, J. aac', C'':~m, R, . Thc Metal;oli.c'F~ntc of - `.3~1I-1''(''i1C.'l!vl1111C' In~~ 1:)/~~0:'. 2015046129

520 13II3LIOGFA1'ITY Itouuld Ot:un 28. Elllson,T., Snyder, A., 13nlger, J., rsnd' O?:un, R. : Mctr>>ol(sm of Oi-pJienF:c'rine Citrate !n ML&n. J. P1aArm & Ezp, 'i'her: p. 1'IC (2):284- 2J5, 1971 29. Ellison, '1'. , Oln»n, R., Silver:n^::, A., F.i:d SieTo1, M. :N4etFbolic Fate of hn;i,het;i:rnino in thc Cr:t Dvri:~; Davelc~):ncnt of Tolerance. !'Sr:ch. Int. Phlrmncc<yn 190:135-1:°, 11970 30. Silv,erm.;n, A. G. a>>d~ O'a::-~, RZ. : A Dou`).e I31?.;-,.d' Evalu::tion of C.:puride in Trrr,:tini; I~ios;~it.tll~~~;cci 1''~:tfcc.n+ .s.s Suftori_n,p frc,n Loss of S1cep. J. Clin. P;ir.i?m. 11 (: ),:215--2 1'9, 1971 31. Ol:un, R. : Tl:cz-apy of L':»rlalt»ir:,tc Ovcrciosc. Gori 'trlcs ?G:113, 1971. 32. Sllverm~..n~, ,A. end OF-un, lZ.: T,1:^~ Use of~ an h;,~apettt3 Suppressant (D~ic~t~ityli;~roprioa ~ I/y~dcrci:lo~r'id'e) lluir:n- PrcSIn°-,nc3r. C»trr. Thez-ap. Res. 13: G4II~-G:i3, Octob^r I9'i1 33. Sil\'erYl?onw M. and 0!aJ?L,IZ.. 0?:}'~:'`.r".'C)'Eiiu;U-!\~~ti'lt":~iI1 in ti13 P1"Cv.^•lu.iCa of Cnndid..I V~:Flnitis. Anz. J. G;I" Gi'N 1371 34~. . Mnn, R. : Cliniccl S~ttadies in ,',cl'z ti l Cortic: 1 C<;rcin o:n:.: Current St udics. Proceedin,,s of the Cl,:tncthera~ti Co:•dcron!cs on Or.tho,Parz'DDT). Ed. 73roder, L. L•'. and Ct:rtcr S. K. - llNtior. : Ce.acc;r I'nstit:atc. Pgs70-79, I:ov.1970. 35. Rot;s, J. F. , Hewft, N,'. L. ,«'..}rl', C. W. , O'.-afn, R. , Shapiro, F3. J. , Slawson, P. F. , and Shne1'drnaar, i;. S. : Tr.p M,,Llip.;;c7nent of the Pz•t:sutcidml, Suiiciel: 1 r.T~d Post suic!d.;l Pt:ticnt. liCLl'~ Co:I:fcrcilce. Annals of Int. 1,icd. 75:441, S~ptcmber 197i 3G. Paulus, I-I.. E., Sicf;cl, Ici., h7on~;;:n, E., Ol:»tn, P,. , nnd Cf,lizbro, J. J. ; Varip-.tions of S;•z-Um Coac: ILtr:»tio-is v.nd IIF1!f-Life of S.lldcylato in Patients with P,hcurziatoi'd Artliritis, 1%rtliri'tis Fl R,':eunzc_tis in 14:527, 1971 37. Okun, R. : Principles of Treat:ncnt: ,'~~1ctai5olisini and' Excrctilon of Toxic Substanccs. - Clin. '1'o xCcolojy I3»:llcti3i 1971 38. Kaufm,ln, J. J. ,jM:mvc11, , C'raven, J. I). , and~ Oleun, R. : UCLA Confcrence, Ilyp: rtension- Pr;»:azy-and See;o;rc3nry". Ann. Int. Mcd. 75:'lGl- 77G, 1971. :201.5o4s1.30

521 BIBLIOGrA PIIY Ronalcl O.:lui , 39. 0~k-un, R., 'M1i',^ch, II., ancl Gates, T. :Acute Ac r,c::; -m rruptio7. SeeoncJa;z•y to MIi-G72. Arch Dcrm. 104:;.G2, P;ov. 19711 40. harpman, H'. L. , ama Ol:un, R. : The Place of Vaso:1:!l.:or Drugs in, Periphoral Vascular Di scase. Gcriatrilcs IN PRESS 41. Chai.npion, G. D. , Paulus, I'I. I:. , Mon~; .n, E., O'.,:Ln, R'. , Pcc.r::on, C. :J. : The Effect of .'i.,.7I,ir;n oi, SPru: i J}Zdom<"L cin. C')i]. Ph:a.rrn Fz Thorap. 11,11 PRESS 42. Okun, II.: Tre,~f~ment: of S;~-u«tive Dxu; Overdose. Clii:.. Tox. rt PRESS . r

522 13IT3L 1OG11:11'IIY Ronald Okun Chnpt'crs in a Foolc Ol01n, Il'.Tevelc,pmen~+ ofNe1v llrt.gs. Chnj~tcr in)~scr,tia~l~s of Pltarn~:~col~c?;~EcJito~~~• J'onn A. 1>evali. Publisher liiocl5er Mcclicali Uivision, llci:rper &- ltoW, 19 69 , pP. ?9- 3,. Plrtirm_~colc-l;-y ~ of Placebos. Ch:tptcr in 1'sF,cn~bi:ils of Ecl'ite,r: .,io~h~,n A. ilm3m P~ubli~-h'cr IIocber :,,lcaical Dh~i5~ion, INrpcr & Row 1969 ~ppp 3G--12. O1'uni, 1)~rlig I)chcn('lU.iLce. ChapLer ~ ln l,sseln'tii3ls~, oi~ Ph:11'Il?~'. TCiitor: Jolui A. T3z;~~va~n. PNAd ii~c~r IIoeber ;;iecl~~iiral llTvision; Harper i: lto« 13G1, pp 5t1-G3~. Olatn, 1-t. : 11~c:ulc Di ui; Poisc:r.i'a ,. ChaPt.cr in Essr~,,, as of Pharmaco12:'~L. L~t3itor: John A. ~ Bevan. Publisher~ H~oobcr~ M~eclicil-Div~isibn, IDawpcrr~ & It~~ow, 1969 pp i;i-54. Ol:um, R. : Psyvhupharinacclo;ic Agents. Ch..pter in ]`:;scni_ti;tls of Pltarmacolo.`-y i:;li!tox: Jc'.~~z A. Pwl;hlishc;r Iloei>cr 'Mc•.diczl IDivisicis, llaijrcr & 1R'ow', 1969, pq 1t i - 212. Olkutl, R~. :Alcoho1 (~Fti:anoll a-ndOetractlt;aMtira-ni 17Mificit:~.~ Chapter in Essent;; ~Is oI~ Ph;i~rm~ac~olyn E<litaP: Jio'.~~.m 11. Bevan. 1''uUl'ishor I,ocbc~r Nlcdical' Division~, Harper~ & Rbw, 1969, 1>p 5J7•-5~J9. ~ '. F,ditor John Ol;tm, R'.: Antii'ipic] Agents. Chcptcr in rsscaltiial5 of P1h<armacolo,, A. 1.3emn. Publishc:r lioebcr Mecf'i~cal MOic,:r, Ii;lrl1r t; 1;'ou', 1969, ~~1pp (;~U~0~-G0!3~. Oi;un, ]Z. : Gencrali Principles of Cl inicr:l Pharmacology and P's~ ehohharmacolo and Ezrb, Clinical 1)rtug Evall.ations. C1;.^picr in Princit,les of Psychopliarm::uolo:,, Editors: W. G. Cla.irlc and J. dcl Civdice, Pcblishcr .;c::cle:n:ic Pross, Nc\v `,'orh, New York, 1970 plx 3SI-39U. Olillll, R, : Use of l)iurctics ih bhe Almn,:g;,;me:nt of IQeOeslsion. Mpt'er WDItu•ctics in tlle \iana''C'fll('lli of 1'lUid IlG'1C:1]Uiony l,ilito" 1'it:ril•V' (). I1ci2T(:n]iU171', M. 1). , in 1v1oc#~c1_ nc1_n ''rc,rt~n~c~~~~t, ~~'olu,~rc 7, ;~~~in1)~er 2, A ;nrch 1970, l~uh'l'isl~tel. Itoeher 1~lcclic"t'l ~ 1!I:rri1cr ::nd K'ow, \c«r York, NcN;. York. ~..i Stlverrn:in„ /1. C;. , :urei Min, IZ, : 1)epressan? 1>> ug C)vc,rdk,:;e. Chapter in'C'+It-r0i1t ~ '1'licr; 'i't Sccti,;,n15, l,r,qes 7??-7'i-t. lRlAislrcr 11'. 13. S;icuicicrs C'ompany, Qy Pcnir,?,•;vanim, N W EN

B I 33' L I O G It A P I I Y Ronald OI;un Chzpters in a Book . 523 Silverman, A. G., and Ol:un, R. : IDepressant Drug Ovei~Iose. Chaptor in Current T'hcrlpti~ 1872, SecCion 15, pas;es 835-S3G, Publisl.er Vr'. B. Satmdcrs Company, Puiladci.phia, Pennsylti~~ai.ia . . .

524 B11'1LIOGI1s':3'Ii1' Ron'::ld Oi.ull ABSTI;AC'I'S' 1. Siei;cl;, M. ,'\Sc>ngrcaal, E., Ol-un, R., C<la>firo, J. J. and Paulus, Ii. E. : 1'hc Self-SLI:a:;nir.t; Stlrv'rval of Ifiti;}l S::1-u:m' Ss1ic)~~i:it'c LevcU.s in P.:'tients with 1tJ:eul,~t:~icJ A1•thlrflLii:,. Artliritls anc}~ RheuInaiti.~-;In. pI;: 07, Dec. 1969 2. P:.ulu's, 11. I,. ,,std O;:ur., 13. , and C,~',rL• ro, J. .I. : Cl r<lnul'oc;ytc I;esponse to Prodili5or;e Clini. J;es. 13:13 z, 1'J70. ~ 3. Paulus, I'~I. E. , Olktan, R. , and Calabl•o, J, J. : De}~ression of Ilone tiiarro%~ Grcdnu'lopic 1?e~=c rvcs in L,.:~p..~s Erythematosus ['Ldf')., MUitis~ and lZ}ieum~;,_W~ln. 13~(~3)~:2~t-I,, M<y~ llq~7~0 gcl, %I.', OJ;iiny R. , rmd hea rson, C. M: 4. Patllus, 11. 1., MoT:gan, I. S. , Sicg Persi~stencc c,y~ S, runuR S:~1:'cyJ::Le L.e~v,-'~J's in' Patiel,t; with Chronic R~heLrmat'o~id: Arthritis. The I'ha:nrt;celanist 1`l':(:'.): 293, Fa1l 1970. 5. Clhampi'oin, I). , 11owr:;I:, E. , Paulus, II. SarJ.issian, E. , Ol;un, R. , wnd' Pefll'soLl, C. : Meet of Co;Icurrt'.lit M}71]'In (`tS :1) r'1d!141I11St rl;i:ICill on S;:ll1n?: Co;n^Cl:tr iIG;::,; of LiClo11]'i'.i'lli?Cin (1). Wlhirii2's . Arthritis Q" Ith(.'1I111atis1Il1. 14:375, 1971' 6. Kaiha~,an, 11. L. , and O'.;lm, It. :V:lse,e,!il'nting Ilgents in the Prevention of Acute '.Syocm-dial 1nfarcti_ons. Car%-Wascul«r Research. ~: 182, SepU.1070.

525 IIIJ3LIOGRA PITY Roaiald Okun Articlc.s in P:~eo:zr;:tio,i Kai-hman, Id. L., an~.l O'cun, R. : The P1ac•e of V:asod'ilator I) ruos in Peripheral Vascular D~isease Karpman, Ili. L. , and O'..un, R. :,Arlii!dcn Vs Pl;ice?k) in the 'rreatment of Ctludli,cation hcrt~, 1S. <I~ ,'I'arr, L, 11'. , l;'ran!aiil, S. , Cold, ]i. , Olcun; R. ,A5,LX~vell, 'i[l. andh1'eeman, C. : Experie>>c°c with t1:a Usc of an /;!c3'ost~ei'oue :1nt<aaoniist in~ ScI'(!eted ' Iiyhertmjsive Patic:,ts.

526 dw 11 l 2 3 4 5 . 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .ce - Federal Repor ters, Inc. Senator Moss. I note that as well as being an associate professor of medicine, you are attending physician in cardiology at the Veterans Administration~Hospital, and so I assur.ie that you advise patients. Do youlever advise any of your patients not to smoke? Dr. Okun. I don't think I ever have. I think I have poiint.od out to them the evidence as I see it for smoking and the evidence that I think is consistent and~point out to them some physicians feel that to stop smoking abruptly is to cause anxiety andla provoking situation and a great deal of stress. And so I leave it up to themo to make the decisio n. I have remained~unconvinced that cigarette smoking relates to cardiovascular disease, so I do not feel strongly they should discontinue it. Senator tiioss. Your answer then is that you do not ever sc advise them? Dr. Okun. Yes. Senator D?oss. Thank you,". O Senator Cook? ~ C1t O Senator Cook. Yes. ~ ~ Thank you, Dr. Okun. I wasn't very late and I caught GJ Q) up with you. Doctcr, do you navc an honc~si: c?isac~rerment with the 25 1j Sur. geon Generl al of the United St.ate s in, rcqard to the 1971

527 dw 12 1 2 report? Dr. Okun~. Yes, sir, I do. Senator Cook. Does that make you some kind of a bad 4 6 7 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federal Reportcrs„Inc. 25 creature? Dr. Okun. I hope not. I don't think so. Seantor Cook. As yow, know, the bill that we have got bef ore us, and the one htat you have addressed yourself to, proposes to set mandatory limits of tar and nicotine. Now, first, is there any such thing as tar, as we know it, tar in cigarettes, or is it, as I understand it, something that is produced by laboratory methods? Dr. 0}.un. No. ~, I Even the name tar is very unfortunate. it implies something from petroleum or some such derivative. Senator Cook. Didn't that phrase really come as a result of the first experimentations that were made and the fact that they extracted the substance out of passing cigarette smoke through a very chilling operation and it wound up with the substance? O Dr. Okun. Yes, and the substance looked dark, and it ~ CJl ~ was called tar, and it is an idiomatic phrase, that is all.~ It has no other meaning whatsoever. tj 41 Your que stion~, people don't smo::e tar. Tar is purely an ~ arbitrary narc.e. It is dcrivcd in the laboratory. There is ~ ~ no such ~,bi 1!.ity of peoul e to st„oke it.

dw 13 528 People don't inhale tar. They don't ingest tar. 2 The tar that is produced is a function of the laboratory 3~ tech niques, the machinery used in the laboratory, and the 4 temperature drop, the cooling temperatures used to get the 5 nicotine and carbon monoxide removed, and that derivative is tar. It bears no sig,nificancc to smoking. 8' Senator Cook. Do I understand that they both~may be 9 quantatively and qualitatively different from~that in another 10 I I cigarette? Would you explain that? 11 Dr. Okun. That is quite correct. 12 There are many t:^ing,s that bearr on tar content of a 13' cigarette that have ~o do with more than just the grams of 14 tobacco that sit in a cigarette. 15 Tye type of tobacco, where the tobacco is grown on the pl'a .t 16 ; and whether sheets are used, stems are used, et cetera, or 17 whether it is chemically treated. 18 f t Y h li l ou may e qua ar.- t y o these things bear on t Al (I 19 I I find that the weight of tar between a cigarette is the same, 20 but qualitatively quite different. 21. Senator Cook. Pj1 I correct that this tar is then tested 22 by painting it on the skins of mice? Now, what can we tell 23 by t.hi s e}:per iment? 24 I 201.S646i38 Dr. Okun. Well, it is rlot good paint. Ace-Federal Repor!crs, lhc. II 2 5 I don't think you can tell vcry much in all honesty. 11

529 dw 14 3 7 8 9 10 11 .. 12 13 -14' 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 4ce-Federal ficportcrs, Inc. 25 I think that bears very little relationship, if any, at all to the human lung. I think that painting on skin is an exercise that is done because it is easier to do inithe laboratory than an attempt to devise the rigorously controlled exper im.ents tha t need to be done. I think it has almost no validity whatsoever. Senator Cook. Now, we have heard it said by a number of people, the percentage of nicotine, and we get down to point 8 and point this, and as a matter of fact, it has been sugg,csted that a norm might be 1.2. Now, it is my understanding that because there is so little zricotinL in cigaiettes and that these small amounts are so quickly eliminuteci by the body, that nicotine as such has not been determined to present a health hazard'. Is that correct or isn't it? Dr. Okun. That is correct. Senator Cook. Can you elaborate on this at all? Dr. Okun. Well, there are several factors involved. Small amounts of nicotine are generally -- first, nicotine from cigarettes is absorbed very poorly, because it tends to require more alcolline. So while there is some absorbed, it is a rela~tively small amount. 2015046139 It is handled very quickly by the body and' excreted in!tt;e air. S•1e commonly see it ~,;hen %..e are anyal zing for other pcople, a very small trac.c of nicotine n:etwholy. It is

530 clul 14 1 deactivated very quickly. 2 Senator Cook. But in large quantities, it can be dangero .3 i though, can't it? .b 7 Dr: Okun. Yes, yes, certainly. Aln:ost anything,can. Senator Cook. Doctor, do you believe that with the work thaa you have done an-.l the e1.perimentation that youl have been a part of, do you belic%-e that the Surgeon General's Report 8 gives a fair and complete report to not only the United 9 States but to the Congress, which he is.empowered~ to do? 10 Dr. Okun. No, sir, I do not. 11 Senator Cook. Could I ask you to discuss with us a little 12 bit of your k-nowledge -- because we are discussing tar and 13 ~ j nicotine in cigaretti--s and we are talking about its con- 14 sumptive suMptive abilities -- about the study that was done in Great 15 Britain by doctors on smoking habits? 16 Would you enlarge on,what that report really purported 17 to say and whether it came to any conclu 7ions that could 18 be substantiated? 2015046140 19 Dr. Okun. I am not sure I am referring to the same one. 20 you mean. If youlare referring to the one which poiiztedout 21 I the British smoking habits,for example, where there is a 22 higher rate of' lung cancer as a lower rate of cigarette 23 smoking, this data iss entirely inconsistent with the tesis 24 that the r;lorc ciyar.ettes you the higher the incidence Ace -Federal Reqor;crs, Inc. ~; ' 25 1 of lung cancer and the r..orc likc ly c1 ~1nce there should be 1

531 dw 15 1 of developing lung cancer. So this kind of data, which I think seems to me to be completely inconsistent with the thesis taken by the Surgeon General and the people who support his point of view has been rather neglected, to put it mildly. Senator Cook. Do~you think there is some merit to the argument that if you reduce tar and nicotine that you may increase the individual's desire to smoke more cigarettes? Dr. Okun. S~ell, this study sho-,aed that a person might take more puf.'s, for example. I think this is quite possible. I can only say in all honesty, I do not know, and I don't believe that arayone knows, that effects might occur from lowering nicotine, carbon monoxide and tar content from cigarettes. Senator Cook. If this really occurs then and people take more puffs and smoke more cigarettes, then-this is absolutely contrary to what Dr. Horn, under the auspices of the Congress of the United States, has been instructed to tell the American people for years, smoke less, don't smoke as far down. This just runs totally contrary to that, doesn't it? Dr. Qkun. I would thiiak it does, yes, s 201 ,5046141 Senator Cook. You kno:r, it has ju:ct dw,,ned on me, we 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12' 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 twe - Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 have been listening to, the Chairn-,z:n t•.al}. :•.:;out the Winchester ~ral.l ci gar, and he tall.eci to Dr. .;qym.dc,r about it, and they

532 dw 16 1 3 4 6 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 talked about the fact that most cigars are higher in content and nicotine; and apparently what we have got to do is get this back up, the conter.t of tar and nicotine, instead of lowering it so that we can honestly call it a cigar instead II of something else. ( But Dr. S•3ynder s tated that he thought the tar and i nicotine was corning d'own in smalllcr cig,ars. But in this instance, we find ourselves meeting oursel~ves co;r.ing back, because if it were higher in, tar and nicotine, then we could honestly call it a small cigar and we wouldn't be arguing about whether people ought to smoke it or not. Does -chat ma-J,e some sense? Dr. 0kun. Yes, sir. Senator Cook. It doesn't make a great deal of sense to J~ 13~ii 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 Ace - Federat Repor tnrs„ Inc. rac. Seantor Moss. Or me, either. Senator Cook. But I have noticed that one of the points that has been made to the gentlemen,who testified is that they have lowered the tar and nicotine in these small cigars, ~ ar.dthat this kindof makes them bad, and maybe if they would raise'it a little bit, they could }:eep, them in the category of being,cigars. 2015046142 Scenator :;oss. If I may interject. I think the testimony was that the tar and nicotine in cicjaiettes hals been dccrcLFec1 ~ ~~cry mar}:ccily in, the last 15 ~ or 20 yc.ars. 2 5 I''

533 dw 17 1 2 :nc. ,,'16 '3 '4 '5 6 ,8 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2411 Aee-Federal Repofters, Inc. ,~ 2 5 ~I I Senator Cook. We have hadia discussion on the tar and nicotine in the little cigars quite extensively, and I think the record will show that. Doctor, thank you very much. Dr. Okun. Thank you. Senator rioss. Thank you, Dr. Okun. We appreciate it very much.

CR-5004 T 17 2-10-72 sw-L 1 14 15 19 2 9 10 11 12 13 534 Senator Moss. Thank you. Dr. Edwards, we are pleased to have you, sir. STATE:•1E:1T OF DR. CHARLES C. EDWARDS, C0:1MISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUG AD:•LINISTRAT'IOV r ACCOIMPANIED BY PETER B. HUTT. Dr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opporcunity to be with you today and discuss the basic question of the Food and Drug Administration's jurisdiction over cigarettes. We first of all, recognize the hazards of cigarette c:aoking and favor any realistic means of minimizing it. Indeed, we strongly support control of cigarette «c3vertissing to reduce its psychological impact on our youth, and~I bclie:ve we should,continue to disseminate information on the hazards of smoking. 16 17 18 20 subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act if But, the question of the Food and Drug Administration's authority over cigarettes involves two l&,as which we administer, namely, the Food, Drug and~Cosmetic Act, and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Cigarettes and other tobacco products would be drugs N, O 0 21~ mcdical claims are made for the product. 22 I'I We have on occasion~ proceeded against cigarettes 00 23 rccommended for use in controlling appetitie or otherwise 241 Fciic,al f o, or;ois, Inc. 1! 25 rcconamenc3ed as a weight recitrcing aid. However, cirarcttes recommencled~ for sr1loking pleasure are

535 sw-2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15 16 17 18 19 20 2'1 beyond the aegis of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In Federal Trade Commission versus Liggett and Myers Tobacco Co:lipany, (l08 F. Supp. 573, 1952), it was held~that cigarettes are not drugs within~the meaning of the Act unless a therapeutic purpose is claimed. Indeed, if cigarettes were to be classified as drugs, they would have to beremoved from the market because it would be impossible to prove they tiaere safe for their intende,! use. Federal Hazardous Substances Act. It has been suggested from time to time over the years that cigarettes are subject to the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. A copy_ of' a May 23, 1963 FDA memorandum concluding that tobacco is not covered~by the FHSA is being submitted' this afternoon for the record. Former Senator Pdeubcrg,er stated during House hearings on the Federal Cigarette Labeling aMd Advertisin Act in 1964 that the definition of hazardous substances as any substance which has the capacity to produce illness to man through inhalation "clearly encompasses the cigarette. 2015046145 The Department of Health, Education, and''Welfare rejected this position on the basis of the legislative history of the Act, which sho'as that Con(.3ress ~,ras primarily intent upon regulating housclaold chemicals and did not contemplate regulating cigarettes.

sw-3 1 2 3 4 5I bi1 7' 8 LI 9il ' 10' 1!1 12 13 I 14 ~ i 15: 16 i 17 18 19 20 ~~ 21 ;I 22 i i 23II 24 F'rduiil'. RCporhis, IriC., 25 53'6 A copy of an exchange between Congressman Roberts and FDA Deputy Co4mmissioner PIarvey during the 1964 hearings on this subject is also being submitted for the record. Subsequent actions by the Congress on this subject -- namely, the enactment of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 and the Public Health Cigarette Sr.loking Act which became law in 1970 -- clearly demonstrate that the Congress had not intendedto subject cigarettes to the Federal Fdazardous Substances Act. The following statement by Representative Oren Harris, then Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce during h•~arings on the 1965 Act bears on this point: "Only four years ago the Hazardous Substances Act was developed and there was no thought and I believe it was not even mentioned in the hearings or in the legislative history, yet here four years later arguments are made that the Act covers cigarettes. That is the sort of ting that does cause me some concern with the regulatory agencies of Government interpreting language so that it extends their broad general authority. " 2015046146 The Federal Hazardous Substances Act has been substantial amend'ed since 1965 -- once in 1966 and again in~ 1969. Ilowcver, ncight set of amc:nc,inents indicated that theFood and i

537 sw-4 1 Drug Administration was intended to have any authority over 2 cigarettes. 3 In particular, the 1966 amendments gave FDA authority 4 for the first time to ban certain hazardous substances. It is inconceivable to us that Congress could have intended that 6 authority to apply to cigarettes without any discussion whatever of that matter. consideration or 8 On the other.hand, Congress has clearly enunciated its 9 policy on cigarettes in Section2 of the Public Health 10 Cigarette Smoking Act. This provides that the public.should ll ~ be adequately informed about the hazard's of smoking andthat 12 commerce and the national economy should he protected to the I I 13 maximuqn extent consistent with this declared policy. 14 As the latest Congressional statement on this subject, 151I it clearly prevails over any earlier statutes and reinforces 16 i once again that the FI3SA was not intended' to apply. I 17 This Act also we believe demonstrates that the regulation 18 of cigarettes is to be the domain of Congress. No statement 19I I'I relating to smoking and'healt.h can be requiredon cigarettes 20 ' except the warning prescribed by Congress. 201504614'7 21 Before the FTC can issue trade regulations governing 221 i 1 cigarette advertising the Agency must submit the trade ~ 23I 1 regulation to the Congress. Reports to Congxess are also 24 required to be suh,,littccZ annually by ticnr and FTC. Ac, - Fe;}brall Reportv,rs, Inc. 25 i I sum, labeling or bannin 1 cic;arettcs is a step that can

4 5 3'8 5 7 be take only by the Congress. Any such move by FDA would be inconsistent with the clear Congressional intent. As you have heard, Mr. Chairman, from Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs, :•ierlin K. DuVal, during your hearings last week the Deparument of Health, Education, and j%Ielfare is actively ciissemin ating information on the hazarc:s of snno}:ing and is strongly discouraging smoking. g'~i Many research~ progr~.ms are und=•ray in the Department in 91 an effort to control the diseases associated with smoking, 10'j and I wholehearted1y support these efforts. The gravity of ~ 12 16 17 18 1'9 20 21 22' 23 2 44ccFed1cral Rcacrt.^ns„inc. 25 the problem dc.mand's that it receive this attention, and I believe every feasiblc moans of reducing the ha~zards of' smoking shouldibe undertaken by appropriate governmental agencies. I f you have any questions, t<Sr. . Chairman, I wi ].l be happy to ans%•~er them. Senator t-ioss. Thank you very much, Dr. Edwards. We appreciate your stateraenL- and explanatiom. One of the things that is used is that we have a bicamera legislation and we can have hearings in either body. You selected the 19G4 I]ouse interpretation of the Health Hazard Act, what it didcover and what it didn't cover. I would li)te to read from the 1965 Senate hearings the Samc qucStion. ~V1504614$ on Senator ltartke said, "I ,n't it true that no one ever 1L.

539 sw-6 1 3' 41 5 8 9 10 l li 12 13 14 , 15 17 16 18 dreamed that this Act would apply to a lot of items that were not considered at the tiem because the fact of the matter was that it wasn't kno:an~ that there were hazardous substances at the time, and..ir. Ellenbroke from Hi,W said there are many products being devcloped day after day which were not even~ in existeiace when this Act was enacted. I would say in a broad view, they come within the general purview of the intent of those People who developed'the Act at that time." And then further during the course of the hearing, Senator liartke, Senator heuberger, Senator Magnuson, all went on to say that the Ilazardous Substances Act would apply to cig,arettes. 2015046149 I thin'•: particularly pertinent arc the comments of Senator Hartke who chaired the hearings in the summer of '59, and the comments of Chairman Magnuson, who said that with~ regard to the application of the Hazardous Substance Act of I cigarettes, and I quote, "The Act is broad and it might apply. This is not unusual in the Congress. We have many acts which 10some people think is authority to do certain things but for 20i some reason or other hecause they think it is not clear, they 21 doni't do it. And this Co:~lc^i',•.tce's time is taken up quite a 22, lot with giving Congressional directives on these matters. 23' One~ of t1iL' ~ reasons~ iar"t tln~c,~,e bills,~ cigarettc laheling, 24 i! %-.,r`:re introduced is if thc:rc~%:z:, any dues;tion as to the A -Fedcral Repon;ers„Inc. Ii ') r .>> 1, --; '„ h mn " r,r T tniI 1 r1l 4r}v, n, 1-onrl i rt f-hn (`ntiY}'^ Otir

540 sw-7 1 2 3 ilI 4 i 5 0 object is getting at this problem." Now, if we are going to use the legislative history as for not acting on cigarettes, we might also examine how the Food and Drug Administration interpreted the Hazardous Substance Act to permit the establishment of maximum limits of sodium hydroxide in liquid drain clieariers. 7 8' 10 12 13'. 14 15 1!6 17 18 19 III III 20 ~ i 21 I' ~ 22 ~i 23 ~ I ~ r,C 2 4 j; -Fcde il Rnpor!;;rs, liic. I 2 5 1I I am not referring to the poison prevention packing, because t}ze original proposal set a ceiling, on the quantity of sodium hydroxide and liquid drain cleaners r:as publishedin the Federal Register a full seven weeks prior to the enactment of the poison prevention act. The insert used an authority the Hazardous Substance Act. My question is, where inithe legislative history of the Hazardous substance Act is there any indication that you hav this authority to set maximum levels on sodium hydroxide in liquid drain cleaners? Dr. Edwards. May I ask the general counsel, sir? Senator P•ioss. Yes, surely. Mr. iiutt. Mr. Chairman, as you know, there is a definition in the Hazardous'Substances Act which was addcd' to the Act on~ 1966 , to define or' b~-in hardous substances. That is in Section 2(q) off the Act. 2015046150 We hiave int.crpr_ctedtliat to give u sauthority to sett limits above which a sub:: -kancc wou].ci be banned and below whiclr

541 4 6 7 8 1'0 1'1 12 131i1 i 141 151'i', kind, you might say, household products, with a history of 1, 16 17 18' either labeling or adequate packaging would be sufficient to avoid banning. There is no question, and never was any question, about the applicability of the Act itself to liquid drain cleaners, which are obviously a packaged householdisubstance, andwhich I believe all of us will agree can be hazardous. Senator Moss. My question was, where in the legislative history was anything direcl,-ed to substances and liquid drain cleaners, since Dr. Edwards testified that there is no legislative history on tobacco, and for that reason, you~felt there ~-:as no jurisdiction? Mr. Iiutt. Senator, I have not read the legislative histo 'y of the liazardous Substance Act to see if that substance was specifically mentioned', but I do know that substances of that ingestion by children that burn or corrode their esophogus, et cetera, were one of the prime -considerations of the Congres! in enacting this law. In short, it falls within the broad category to which Dr. Edwards referred as being household chemicals used where childreii are present, wherc thu children might misuse them. Senator :'loss. You vory well construe that so that you ~K, can sclU. maximum levels, but you can't do that as to tobacco, is that ~•Jhat you are saying? 25 16 Mr. iIutt. ~ycl.l, no, I would not 2015046151 say tliat, Senator, ancl I

542 sw-9 1 think we should make it clear first that neither Dr. Edwards 2 nor I were in the Food and Drug Administration in 1963 when 3 this policy was initially enunciated. 4 This is a contemporaneous, what we belive, a contemporan 5 ~ eous construction of the statute from its inception, which I ~ 6 has been applied up until the time that both Dr. Edwards and 7 I arrived on the scene. 8 The question that we are now faced with is whether the 9 statute clearly requires us to overturn this longstandingg ~ 10 ~ in(:ernretation in history, and in reading the statute, ~ 1 1' particularly in conjunction with the recent Congressional 1,2, enactments, we do not feel that v.,e can ovt:rturn that position. 13 Senator Moss. Well, I ag,ree that the legislative history 14 doesn't show that you are directed to do it in cigarettes. 15 I donl't think youicanifind that in there. 1!6 But there seems to me that it does have a broad area of 17 jurisdiction, and that you might well use it, and I realize' 18 you have many priorities, but it seems to me cigarettes also 19 have.a high priority on public hcalth. 201.50461S2 20 ! How would you feel about taking this matter to the 21 I Court for test to see if you had jurisdiction? 221 1 Mr. 31utt. Iwould1have to think about that, Senator. 23I I It would r;c~:nnthat the Dc_)ari-^;^nt vould have to reverse this 24 101-year position which it has tar:un, and I am not certain that 4cc Federal Reportcis, Inc. ') r, T•Tnttlr7 t,r, ; n a pnsiti'on to elo that. I will he happy to

543 sw-10 1 2 3 4 5! 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 22 23 24 Ar^ -fedcraI Frepost:is, Inc. 255 consult with the general counsel of the Department and determine whether he would wish me to do that. Let me perhaps go into the ramifications that this would have so we understand the problems that we face. If cigarettes were placed under the Hazardous Substances Act by thc Congress, and certainly that is within the province of the Congress to make that determination, I think Dr. Edwards and I vouldagree that they would then fall within the definition of toxic in Section 2(g) of the Act, in that they would produce illness as a result of inhalation. This would then require us to make another series of determinations under the Act. It is quite clear under the 1970 legislation of the Congress that we would be precluded from putting any type of a warning statement, or requiring it, on the label, because the Congress has preempted that. I The only determination we would then be in a position to j make as a matter of law would be whether cigarettes would be required to be banned under the banned hazardous substances provision. Now, that is in Soction 2' (q) of the hct, as I mentioned earlier. Under there the legislative standard is whether cautionary lanc;uag,c is sufficicnt. to protect the public from the particular hazard involved. 2ul-504G153 Now, Dr. Edwards and I havediscussed it as we undc1r!:t.znd

544 sw-11 1 the situation, though we are not experts in this field, and there is no one who knows what a safe level of inhalation of cigarette, either the smoke, or the components, or whatever 2 4I 5,1 6 7 8 is. As a result, if the Congress did place cigarettes under thc FI:SA, we would have no alternative but to declare them as hazardous substances and to declare them~illegal. Congress decie?ed in 1970 that cigarettes should not be bannc:e3, that they should! be allo,,-ir-_d to remain in commerce 10 IiI with the wurninc;,s deci c?ed on by Congress, and we therefore III 11 feel that we have no basis for making any kind of determinatio~~ 12'~ litcrallh conf;Yury to th~~.:.~ Congressional determination. ~ 13, ' So, to return to your question as to whether we would ~ start a Court case, my own personal belief is that we would be 14' 1,5 ,) on no ground whatever for doing that. 16 17 18 19' 20! 23 2,1411 -Fcdciai fteporteis, lnc. !I 11 2511 But once again, if you wishi, I would be happy to take it up with the general counsel of the department. Senator Moss. I wish you would discuss it with hirn. In reading those '59 hearings, I noticed that this is on hazardous suhstances. Commissioner Larick said, "I would' strongly urge the Congress not to leave a loophole in a Measure which~ deals with public health. " 2015a46154 Do you think we left a locpholo as to ciqarettes? Mr. Ilutt. I would not prersti,~c, Senator, to spc:ak for the

545 sw-12 2' Congress on that issue. I believe that the Department of Health, Education and '0%'elfare's position on the hazards of cige;rette smoking are well-known and have been set out by Dr. DuVal. Senator iloss. Do you think cigarettes ought to be eaempted from proc?uct safety standards und'er the omnibus product safety legislation which the Committee is now considcring? Mr. Hutt. We haven't considered that issue, Mr. Chairman. I don't feel that I would be in a position to co^,ment on that. Dr. Fdwards. :Ior would I. Senator rfioss. Well, Dr. Edwards, if a cigarette 3 41 5 7 gl 10 11 t I 12 i' 13 14ij manufacturer were to wrap his product in some sort of I 15, .~ defective paper that wou)_d give off toxic gasses, say, I 161 chlorine, or if N,rhen it is lighted it was suddenly very il 1711 flammable, bursting into flames, do you think you would also igii be powerless to move against that? 19 20 21 22 ' 23 2 4 Ac -Feder3l Rcport:rs, Inc.'' 25 !, Dr. Edwards. ~io, I suspect in such a situation, we could. 201-5046155 Mr. IIutt. Thcre we-~•.ould be dealing not with tobacco -- Senator t•.oss. So.me:,t-hing else in the cigarette? Mr. Hutt. The h!d'lo.:'rCl -l Clf pap(_'.r as a hoa: Tardou;' subsi.cZnc(:. I would put it t.lais ,-,lay : Eithcr the Fooc3' and Drug Administration or the Fcc?!cral Trade Commission, one or thc

5 45 sw-12 Congress on that issue. I believe that the Department of 2 Health, Education and Welfare's position on the hazards of 3 cigarette smoking are well-known and have been set out by 4 5 Dr. DuVal. Senator ti.oss. Do you think cigarettes ought to be 6 exemptedifrom product safety standards under the omnibus,. prod^act s7.fety.legislation which~ the Committee is now considering? Mr. Aiutt. 11e haven't considered!that issue, Mr. 10 Chairman. I don't feel that I would be in a position to 11 I comment on that. 12 Dr. EdWard's. Nor would I. 13 Seniator ?-9oss. j•,'e1l, Dr. Edwards, if a cigarette 14 ' manufacturer were to wrap his produc t in some sort of ~ 15~ ' I ! I defective paper that ~iould give off toxic gasses, say, 16 17 18 21 22 kc -Fedeial Rvpoi,-s, Inc. 25 chlorine, or if when it is lighted it was suddenly very f lammable , bursting into f liames ,-do you think you~ would also be powerless to move against that? Dr. Edwards. No, I suspect in such a situation, we could. 2ft5O4fd5G Mr. IIutt. Thcre -v;e- ~.:ould be dealing not with tobacco - Senator t•ioss. Some:thingelse in the cigarette? 23II' Mr. Ilvtt. The hazards of paper as a hazardous substance. 24 i~ I srould Uut it this way : I.ither the Food and Drug T+dministrat-ion or the Federal Traac? Commission, one or the

sw-13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 e 17 1 2311 241 1 546 - other, or both in concert,.I-would hope could find legal authority to do that. Senator Moss. About a year ago, Thomas Whiteside published in the New Republic an article on the application of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to cigarettes, and my staff did some checking and found out that Dr. Albert Cobi or Cobie, of the Food and Drug Administration, who I understand is both an attorney and a physician, prepared~a brief discussing,ho7.a the Act could and should'be applied to cigaretf:es, yet, we have been unable to obtain this dbcument. Could you make available a copy of that brief for the Committee to read? Dr. Edwards. Yes. I am not aware of the document, Mr. Chairman, but we will certainly look into it and, if available, provide you with a copy. Senator 2•ioss. We would appreciatn that very much. We would like to reveiw it and see what was said. The article that I referred to that I quoted fxom we can insert in the record at this point, so you can plainly see it ~:Thc:n you get the transcript. 0 N (Insert follo:as. ) p . ~ N ~ LI A, - Fe~eral, Rcportcrs, Inc.. 25

ib smokers who succumbed'' to lurng c: ncer alone' in the course of an average weclr, it would necd not z.1; pictures, but at least four times that nulnber. 1-Ibnv can any publisher - anyone - n:a:c raloney out of seilinb advertisements for a product that is known to cause death on a disastrous national scale year after year? The record of Tie?aeis no more en,_-c,ur;.~;':n:- than Li f'e in this respect. The f;rst three issues of Tiute for , i97o carried ci ;'.-it pa-es of cit arette iuvertIsinn. The first three issucs of the same magazine for 1971 c:zrried a, little less tlian 21 pa^;es of ci~arett'e aa ;•ei4isin-. Ancl \'erusta~~'ta: is not mu:.ar 1SetUer tiiasu Ti?.:^: In the first three months of -:io-o, carricJ z3pnges of cig<:rette acl~ er;isin~ and for the' first ci?arter of 1C'~j,l, ~~Cii~si('!'Cr.` }ta5 90'.l£-JlilE?d 50~ !!Oic1?;arett'eaclvcrtisiu;;- an ~crease of 1103' hercei;t. ".Itd :io,oodycan accuse' the editors of l~`~~s,ece:; any -more than one could acctae the editor;of Time an,i Li f'e; of not , knowina the fects about the eat:s:zl' rcl.-tion''"iip tic- tween cigarette snio!<ing ,.n d lung cancer and other fatal disca scs. N'orcan the c,?itors ofLoc:;ccJai:ninno- een.ce aLout the facts cenl-eraing cig.3re:;e smol.iii g and disease. Thef'act that Li!! cai;(i Look are in financial troublc can ha'ru;y be vii'we:1 as an accept: ~,:.le' excuse for their trying lu prop up ti°,cir ci,rporate )iealthi at the expense of the 'i:.2Ith of their readers. With c£rt~,:Il honoratJ!e etiCeptl^on5,, sUCll 'S ~a1fC~7dii O SC ?C and iSi:o CGGtit: Nast Y I!`"{C ..;011 that, .J 4.7i THE h:E]:V' hE'I'UULlC , I~ tobacco i'niIa'ry from n.:` e advertising can;uci`;ns in Q tlic furthcrance of what can unly be regli..a.e:r-con- ~ ~ . O so:llc' measurc' of governmental control over ciga.etite advertisi:lj ::rc altozJether insufficient to restra~n the because they are meant' to appeal to youn~; V:omen, have decijc,l against taking civarette adverti_:inn, the i:omen's ma,,u:iics as a v:holc are so!ic:'ir. ;vd ac- cepting & new flood of cigarette advertis'.,: ;. What makes the use of this medium of advertising so par- tirularly detestabie is the knoNwledoe that a1,'hough women are less prone to lung cancer than mcn, the lung-cancer rate among women smokers in the last fift:?en years has shown an alarming rise. Furtherr,. women, v:hen tL•cy try to stop smoking, aopear to have t;re3ter difficulty t}`~an men in breakinb t^::~~~el~'es of tne habit. To cc::r.teract the trend among the sm.o.L•ing population ~cner'aliy toward cutti'ng, dovvnon cisirette consUmr',ion, tobacco manufact.Irers are makin_; great e;rt rts to :Ieveic.~p' the market' annong tixom,en - in par- t:cu1a: bv' a.ut::n~ out neV: brands of c:~3rette ,ar',yat- "i;olged"~ in such' a way ast'o seem: particu? tractive in' the' female market. Hu ge sums have been po.?red'~ intothcpromotioni of new "women's" ciga- r2tt'es such as Virginia Sliins, put out by ap ,.iorris,. ; n,i Eve, wh,ich Li--,ett & Myers has intro,.t:ced this year on ainational scale with hut;e' double-pa~c' color spreads in the major mag: zines of ceneraI circulation znd in the womrn's magazines. The introauctory ads for %';omen a rc headed, "Farewell to the ual~1, ci`r.rette. Smohe pretty. Lve." The acccmpanying copy voes on, "}'Iello to Eve. The first truly feminine cilg; rctte - it's al'r.o=t as pretty as you are. With pre.tv filter tip. I'rettyy pack. Rich, yet gentle flavor . . . Womcn have been ferninine since Eve: Now ci;arettes are ferninine. Since' Eve." The ~:di is illttstrated `°rith a color picture of a~ woman's hand, amid wild ,, flowers, holc:ing a pack of Eve, and the pack desip n shows the head' oi an inno- cent', lool:ing woman gazing o:,.t from a prof usion of flowers and oreenery,depicted in n:ock-tapestry style.. The deliber.:tely contrived themes in this par'~icular advertisement of innocence and of temptati'on,, and an equally del:10erate concealment, by the' hand that is shoa•,-n hol din; the package, of the message printed on the side, "ti'rarning: The Surgeon General Has Det!ermined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health," surely make this o ne of the most deceitful ci-;rct'tc advertising can;paigns yet devised. ~^ti'hnt' is perfectly clear from all this is that the Ic>-1 r-reasures that have been t al:en so far to bring }Pb sidcrin ; ti•rh.a is known about the rei',:tion_.hil; bctr.een `1flii V/ C1t ,lrC :'C SC', i ln~ and vaIlOt:S di°eases - a3 nl n ~` ~ ter on a scale. And the press as a`vhole has . ,...,. ,.. , _.. ... ~•u.._,..~,,,. "'I'jlcy jjdt? fll."~f off cJi'iii't,Pt"! .^.ll' Ir11' hc,cn unuct,rrcl fronl acting as co-con<~.ri;,,tor iiti, t'his. 1?! r f( r the s.:iie 7 V:hatt'vl': ...',,ICt,^atll'i li.ive been aa,'c to seize as a rc_uit oft'..ehaaron ci;~: rct'tc comrnezci~ils oIl tl~e :.,.. Uil- V°jt'ti9~~1~'~ t.hl,-t•,tl1C actl:ln. ha'> tti) . he t:lla'itt(1 C.r`r.reCt ti::':I ;ItllatlJ:t. Uilili'r thC'Pul`ilc I IC.llth C1,'.lI'L'itC a:nOl:-

NInkCx 27, 1971 1 7 ing Act of 197o the Federal Trade Commission is pre- emhtea until 'Jul:Y i, 1971 f>om prohibiting ci-arette advcrtising or even from reziuiting that he:ltil~warn~ in~s be pllaiilly visibl'r in all ci garettc advert'ising;; thereafter, if the FTC wishcs to act in these respects,, it must ~i~~e Can,ress six months' notice of its inten- tlion to d'o-o. This preemption was in serteu in the Act tllrouUh t!he I rossure of tobacco industry lcbbvists, whocalCud.ItCd' t'+at anvsu,:h~ moves bv.'theFTC mght be forestsllc~' in Congress v.ith the hcih of tlle tobacco indust~ry and itscommerci :l and poliflical1 allhes. Even, if Such mo%.c ; ~ainst ci ,r ::e a d~,crtisihir- tb- the FTC , ,j were pern~itt,-d 1by Con~nc_.=-, tne c,io:ay,:ay of , aphrot matelv one ti~esrin cc~ntnoil.:rng or prolribiting cit-arcttc wou:d' ccrtainly have a contribu, tOr)". eHCCt C':', tlle sCCULE's.oi', t11Yi'l!`.711C~S Of hUi7lan f3talL- tiesthat occui in this eo,aiut'ryeac}k year isa result', ofeit'~lrette siOtC-1 1l~nll~I` :'ll:^' circumstances, it dOE9not seem to r,,ic that! the F l C isin al position to bring an effectlvec t_IY.1 tot}le systClnatlc promotion forr profit ofthis cleaaiy' IC-thatpro.:I:_t. ConseG,uently, 1 suggest that the problem of ci,,arette advertising be placed undcr the luri:,;l;ction not only of the FTC but also of the Food and Drug Administration, and that all cig, - arette adver.ti sin g in this country be banned under the provisions of the Federal' Hazardous Substances Act, which autlwri'. cs the FDA to ban or control the sale or promotion of substances that because of their toxic- ityy are haz:~:,ious to public health. The toxic sub- stances covrreCl by the terms of the Hazardous Sub- stances Act include those that~ are capable of causing harm to huln ins "through ihh alation." This deiini- tion fits ci'garett'esandci'g;iret~te smokingc3uii~te pre- cisely, and I Leiievethat ift1heTood and DrugAd.nan- i'htrat'ion does r:;ove promptly to place cigarettes d nd ciLarette smo3cin` under the provisions of' the Haz- ardous Subcl~.inccs Act for the purpose of brin;:i.c- , he pro.Ynotion of cigarettes under adequate fedcral m~ula- tIion, the Federal' Trade Commission would' then `also be able either to ban all cigarette advertising or to require that stiong health warnings be prominently di5played in tile cigarette advertising that is allowed.

550 F T ;; 1 & ty 1 1 2 3 Senator Cook. Dr. Edwards, i-rhile you are at it, do you think you might ask the Surgeon General if he can get us a copy of the study on Chapter 4 ; 1971? ~ 5,11: V'e might be able to accomplish two things at that time. ~' Dr. Edw«rds. Iwi11 bring that to his attention. i 7i Senator Cook. Legislative intent and history is very I 8'1~ int`rest_ing,, and we went into this same thing. For instance, I; 9 1 , we t-,cnt back to the 1965 debates in the House, and that legis- 10 ii latioir originated in the House. For instance, one of the spon- 11 i 9 in the report that he filed for sors of that bill, Congressman Roberts, said~that he agreed' 12 i, with then John Idarvey, :aas Deputy Food and Drug 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Cor;siissioner, that it was never the intent under that bill I to include cigarettes. I Now, theC1yairman has referred tothefact that Senator Hartke in these com:~-nittees made statements, and Senator Magnuson, but, Dr. Edwards, let me give you the best legi slative intent of all. In 1965, when the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act was before the Floor, there was an amenciment proposed by a member to place cic?arettes under the FIiSn, and'that amendment I was defeated. u 2015046160 Now, don't you thint: that is the best legislative record, 2 3 ~I i 24 I ,ce- ~ec+erai Reportcrs, Inc.~~ rather than to tur:e out of context what a Senator may have 2511 said during the course of t.lc:~e hearind,s? I3Ccause if you take

ty 2 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20' 21 22 ' 23 2 41 Ace - FederM R,;,crters„Inc. 25 551 the legislative intent of the hearings that are going on right now, and use that as a basis, you have got one opinion, if you quote Senator Moss, and you have got another opinion if you I.quote Senator Cook, so that doesn't make good legislative I history, does it? Dr. Edwards. No. There are some problems there, yes. , (Laughter.) Senator Cook. So in effect when you quote Senator i Hartke, you quote Senator Magnuson, and you quote Senator Neuberaer, and you didn't quote some of the other Senators at that same time, you get into a little problem, don't you? Dr. Edwards. I think it does certainly demonstrate the differences of opinion on this particular subject, but I think as both youlgentlemen know, you can rest assured that if the Congress were to want to give us this responsibility we 161; would certainly carry it out. Senator Cook. As a matter of fact, when that amendment was defeated in 1965, they have specifically taken control and legislated on the subject exclusively ever since, have they not, under their ownimandate? Dr. Edwards. That is correct. 201.5046151 Sen~ator Cook. Now, I think this is the point we ought to make clear. I merely t~:ant to d'o it because I think many of us are experts in one field or another, but I think as we revie,. this suibj'ect legislatively, ift the Conr,ress has repeatedly

552 ty 3 1 2 3! 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federal Repor ters, Ir,c. 25 failed to take this position on the floor of debate, then I think this speaks quite well for its legislative intent, and I might say to both~of ycu~that I was very interested to hear this line of debate because ever since we started these hearings, theChairman has made it very clear that he doesn't want a prohibition, a:,d he feels that politically this is wrong and can't be accomplished, and I was very delighted to hear him go into this in detail with you on %•.That exactly the FDA wouldhave to do if it had jurisdictionlof this, and you said under terms it v,ould have to be banned and! you~ would have to I I ' prohibit its sale or its passage in interstate conlmerce. So I might sugg,est to you that what we have been talking about all along has been pr.ohibition. I Thank you, Mr.Chairman. Senator Nioss. Just so it isn't missed, I should point out that since the witness quotedwas over on the House side, I was quoting somebody on the Senate side. Senator Stevens? Senator Stevens. I am sorry to come in late. Let me ask you just a couple of questions. I am continually pressured by the young people in my state to join those who seek to legalize the sale of marij~uana. 1iost of that is usee! in cigarettes. 2v15a4616Q Pardon me if this has boen belabored before I came in, I I i'jl hut have you done any stuCy to scr_ whether or not nlzrijuana

553 ty 4 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1! 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 t.cc-Feclcrnl Reporto(s. Ir.c. in cigarette form is dangerous? Dr. Edwards. No. We are involved~ to the extent that we work very closely with~the National Institutes of Mental Health, and in those studies where marijiuana is being used experimentally as a drug, we, of course, are involved in those, but ~•;e are doing no studies ourselves. Senator Stevens. I was sort of alarmed and shocked to come back into town after a trip home and see that a former member of the Department of Justice hadthe job of enforcing these laws and suddenly decides to shift over to the other side and while on the one hand~, we seem to be belaboring those Urho smoke tobacco, and you will notice that I am one of the deviltries of the pipe, at the same time we seem to be rushing pell-mell into legalizinc+ the use of a drug in~cigarettes, and I just wonder about the ~-,,orkloaa of your department as to whether there isn't a more prolific field in terms of trying find out what effects marijuana ~ opposed~to cigarettes. has on the human body as 201.5046163 Dr. Edwards. Well, I think, as you probably know, there i a national commission whichihas been very actively involved in trying to both find out what is going on in the field~ of research in the marijunina field, and iniaddition trying to stim.ulate additional research in, this area, and~ I know, speakin for Secretary Richardson, he is very r,iuich interested in this, i 25 ~; and the 'National Institutes of 1i:::alth is working very harei to

554 ty 5 2 develop new research programs, and we are trying to cooperate as best we can. I think that some meaningful results will be seen from 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22' 23 these research activities in the not too distant future. Senator Stevens. Maybe I am belaboring the point, but this seems to me that Congress has taken action in terms of labeling or requiring cigarette, cigarettes to be labeled, and we seem to have on the other hand a situationregarding marijuana, since they are all produced illegally, and~the question comes down as to what we are doing to warn the people that not only if you are right about cigarettes, not only are they involving,themselves in that danger, but also unknown dangers as far as the use of marijuana as a substitute for tobacco~. hm~I wrong to have the impression that you are dealing with trees and not with the forest as far as the problems of smoking are concer.ned;? Dr. Edwards. I don't think that is necessarily true. I can't speak officially for the department. As I indicated! earlier, the only responsibilities directly that the Food and Drug h:d!ministrationhzs as it relates to marijuana, is marijuana k:eing used as a drug in the research that is going on in marijuana. 2015 0A 61COW-4t 2'4li PVIe have little or nothing, to do with the illegal use of l~.er ral Ro;.ertcrs, Inc. ~i -Fedc 2511 marijuan, and anyone ttilat is spu<i::ing from the Department of

ty 6 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 1 1! 12 1!3 114 „15 16 17 18' 19 20, 21 22 23 241 -Retlerai Rc ort is„I, c. i 251 555 Justice is not necessarily speaking for the Food and Drug Administration. Your point is well taken, but I have no official position on it. Mr. Hutt. Senator, there have been two reports thus far from the Fational Institutes of Mental Health to the Con- gress on marijuana. There is in addition, due, I believe, in March of this year, a report to the President fromithe national commission established under the 1970 drug abuse law that will be directed solely and specifically to the problems of marijuana. So that I believe that with the two reports already issued and the one to be forthcoming, this subject will be well covered, and I would second Dr. Edwards' statement that it is beyond the purview of the Food and Drug Administration. Senator Stevens. That marijuana is -- Mr. Hutt. Marijuana is beyond~our purview. It is an illegal drug and hence outsidle our authority except to the extent that a researcher requests us for permission to conduct research on it. Then we look at the research protocol and,determilne that it may safely be used for that particular research purpose. That is our sole connection with it. 2015046165 Senator Stevens. Dut you come C-o~•:n to the point, and i f. we can belicve what is said in, the p;ipcr last night, that about

556 1 one-fifth of our young people are trying marijuana, those that try cigarettes have a warning on the side of the package, those that acquire rnarijuana, don't have any warnings at all from the FDA, could they? Mr. Hutt. None v,hatever. bj! Dr. Edwards. The FDA is not the one that requires the I 7`i varning on cigarettes, either. ~ 81 Senator Cook. If you d'on't mind my adding to that, 9' Senator Stevens, if you don't, I would say to Dr. Edwards, if ~ 10Il we put a limit on the manufacturer of tar and nicotine content i 11 12 14 15 16 17 1!8 19 20 in cigarettes, and neople start buying a can of Half and Half andget the old roll type and take out the paper and makee theirr old cigarettes, I~r:ant to tell you, they are really going, to get a load of tar and~nicotir.e out of that. Senator Stevens. It seems to me, in connection with the research, if you are doing this research on the amount of tar and nicotine in regular cigarettes, there should be some research in the terms of -- Dr. Edwards. I 4:ant to make it clear, that we at the Food and Drug Administration are not doing the research 211I ourselves. Yle are merely monitoring the research that someone I I 22 else is doing. Ho;•iever, the National Institutes of Health coul 23 1' 1 24~~ ~ce ~"cdcral Reportcrs, thc. ~I 2 5 i speak to, this perhaps better than v,,e, because I think they are sponsoring some research. 2015046166 SEnator Cook. Mr. Chairman, may I make one other co,iumc,nt R

ty 8 557 3 4 5 6 I to counsel. Senator Moss. Yes. I Senator Cook. When you talk to the chief counsel relative to any proposed lawsuits, I would suggest that if you want to get a determination, of the Federal Drug and Cos: e tic Act and ho•,a it applies to cigarettes, that this matter ha:a becn 711 in the courts on at least three different occasions that I 19 know of, one is the case of the United States versus Fairfax 9 q' Cigarettes, 113 Fcderal Supplement 330; United States versus 1& ~ Trim Reducing Aid Cigarettes, 17'8 Federal Supplement 347;. 11 and the Federal Trade Commission versus Liggett and Myers 121 Tobacco, 203 Federal Second 955, and in all instances, the cour ~ 10ruled that the FD andC ha& no jurisdiction over the industry 14 unless the industry itself advertised a product to have thera:- 15; peutic attributes, and under those circumstances all three of ~ llb those cases ~ere decided that the FD and C didnot have 17 jurisdiction. 181 Mr. Hutt. Thank you, sir. 20 21 22 23 Senator Moss. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your appearance here and your testimony. We appreciate your furnishing the other information. Our next witness is Mr. John F. Danzhaff, Executive Director of Action on S,.,ohing and IIealf:h. 2015Q46167 24'~ We know Professor Dan:_}:aff fi.-om his work. We are very g kce-Federal Reporters, Inc. I' 25111 to hear from you te;diay, Doc Lor . 0.

ty 9 558 xxxx 1 STATE..EIvT OF JOHN F. BANZHAFF, III, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ACTION ON SIMOKING AND HEAZTH', WASHINGTON, D. C. 3 Mr. Banzhaff. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Comriittee: Senator t,oss, two years ago ycou led this Congress in 6 bannling cigarette co=.crcials on radio and television. The 7 com.m:ercials were banned because the Surgeon General, the Federal Trade Commissionl, the Federal Communications Commission 9 andthe United States Congress -- inlshort, every organ of the 10 j government uhich carefully studied this problem -- concluded i' 1 that these comrnercials %,:ere contrary to the public interest 12 and suhstantial?.y contributed to the nation's Nn. 1 health 13' problem -- an epidemic t,.-hich each year kills more Americans 14 than v:e have lost in all the years of Vietnam. 15 But, Mr. Chairman, these con;.-^ercials are not gone, and in 16 i fact are growing in number because the cigarette industry has 17 found a loophole -- and because the public agencies charged 18 with interpreting and enforcing the law have been engaging in some very qestionable procedures with regard to their 20 respornsibility. Unless something is done very q,uickly, we ,i coul 21 I easily return to the days when,the Marlboro man and Miss N 22 Springtime saturated and polluted our nation's airwaves. F-~ Q ~ 23 If you were watching television not too long ago in ~ 24 Boston, or in Dayton, or more z;eccntl1 in Albany or New Yorkn OD Aee-Federal Reporters, Ine. ; City, you might have seen and heard a new commercial. On the 25 i

ty 10 1 2 3 4 5 559 screen you would have seen a collag,: of chort clips depicting, a rugged looking,outdoor man, a young girl walking through a springtime woods, and other scenes which would immediately i remind you of the cigarette commercials which were banned. In fact, in watching that commercial, I was reminded of our own movie depicting just such scenes. The similarity ~-;ould be even more striking because in eac 61! 7 8 19 20 22 scene people are smoking things that look just like cigarettes. The audio portion of the commercial features a bouncy rock- type song promising "new golden taste," "new easy smoothness," 11~ and a "mild and light" smoke, exactly as the cigarette commerci i 12'~I of old used to. I 13, The P rod'uct being advertised is the same size and shape , 1411 as a cigarette, has the same kind of cigarette-type filter, 15 I comes 2&in a softnack just like cig arettes, is mad'e in ~ k l~ lbi, cigarette-makir.g machines, is frequently sold with cigarettes ~~ 171' in stores, and is now even being sold in cigarette vending I 18; machines. But, say the manufacturers, the R. J. Reynolds Tobac i, Company, they are not cigarettes because they are wrapped in a , substance containing substantial amounts of tobacco, and thus are immune from the ban and from cigarette taxes. The new product is called "Winchesters." i 23l~; When the matter of the Winchester commercials was first , 24 i' brought to our attention in Septer.~Ler of 1971, t:,.e investigatelto ihte-Fedei, I Reporters, Inc. ~' 25, and concluded that Vlinchicsters appcared to us to be a"cigarett i I I

560 ty 11 1 under the second part of the statutory definition of the 1969 2' Act. 3 We promptly filed! with the Department of Justice on 4 October 1 a lengthy legal brief setting ou t our factual finding 5 and legal arguments, and requesting prompt action by the 6 Department. The first thing they did with~the brief was to 7 lose it. Some time later they read:in the newspaper abo ut 8' our filing, and requested additional copies. But th e tobacco 9 industry had also heard about it, and the Reynolds Company 10 immediately requested a secret conference to plead their case. 11 The Justice Department promptly acceded to their request, 12 and on the morning of October 7th officials of the company 13 met wi th rir. . Howard Epstein and his staf f behind closed d'oors. 14 No announcement was made then or thereafter of this meeting, 15 and no effort was made then or thereafter to obtain the* 16 responsive views of the organization which had presented this 17 ;entire matter to the Department of Justice. 18 Nothing further was heard until, on January 18, the 19 Department announced that it had ag,reed1with the Reynolds 20 Company to take no action against the Winchester commercials i 21 I1lin return for some minor changes in the packaging and point of 22 display pror,:oition. No change whatsoever was made in the 23I1,comcrcials, and the adreement, strangely enough, was drafted 24 III by the R. J. Rcynold's Tobacco Company. 2()1!50461,7o Ace - Federni Reportbrs„ Inc. ii~ 25 1i If at any time during its so-called investigation the

ty 12 3 4 8 9 1& 14 15 1!6 17 18 19 20 21 22 561 Department had sought the views of any other government agency or health organization, we have been unable to Learn~about it, and the Department has refused to make public any of the documents in its file. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, this process of investigation by off-the-record meetings and secret neg,otiations reflects no credit on an~ agency of goverrs-Lent designed to protect the public interest and, or so its name j implies, to do,justice. If I may for a moment depart from the prepared text: Since I was here this morning, I was able to learn for the first time something of the views of the Departm,ent of Justice as to ~:,hy thcy did not take action. With all due respect, I think they were wrong in at least four major ways. Mr. Wil,'son~ indicated that the language used in the Cigarette 7.ct of 1969 is the same language as used' in the IRS tax statute, and of course, that is quite ture. One of the first things we teach young law students in statutory analysis is that the same words may be used in many different statutes and have many differe,zt meanings. 2015046171 One cannot take the words from many statutes, because Congress in its wi;scio:n often uses the exact same word s to mean different things. 1,41e teach them in the first year that they must look to tTre purpose of the act. They must look to the lc9i slativc intent. They mu:>t look to the legislative histor,~. 23 II I 241i 1ce-Fedt*raf Report^rs, Inc. il r I~ 2J ji

ty 13 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 562 ; They must look to the evil against which the act was directed. Undue reliance simply upon the words of the act is highly inaperopriate. I suggest very strongly that Mr. Wilson ignored the rather lengthy legislative history behind the 1969 Act with ~i whichyou~arevery familiar. The FCC report and recomsnend.ution that cigarette ; com<<ercials be banned on the air, the FTC report, and recommendation that cigarette commercials be banned on the 10~~1 air, and rather extensive hearings before the Senate and the House committees, all testified to the evil of cigarette 12I co =ercials. ~ i•,ent~ion after mention of the kind of effect that these 151! subliminal messages which~ were beamed at the young people 14~1, had upon young people, the kind of scenes, the kind of almost heard again and again and again. 2015046172 is I might contrast this just for a moment with the analysis and testimony of Commissioner Edwards, where he indicates, I believe, on page 2, that although cigarettes might fall withi the language of the Hazardous Substance Act, nevertheless, he is going to look at the legislative history. I have not examined the legislative history, so I don't know if his 2'3j~detcrr,:ination is correct, but I think his approach is entirely proper, that one must look to thc legislativc history of any Ace-Fed'etal Reporleis, Inc. ; 25 ~i act and make a determinati_on based upon it, and very clearly, (~~,

ty 14 563 1 I think, in reviewing this issue, Mr. Wilson did not examine th 2 legislative history and! the evil against which the 1969 Act 3 was directed. 4I' Senator Stevens. Could'I interrupt right there, Mr. ~ 5 Chairman? b ,Senator Noss. Yes. ~ 7 1 Senator Steven.s. iti'ould you exarli ne that history, and 8' would you tell me whether there is any mention anywhere of ~ 9 cigars and pipe tohacco in the leg,islative history of that + . 10 169 Act? 11 ( If there is, I don't l:now it. II . ~ 1'2 i~ Mr. Sanzhaff. . 1'here 1c, rnaite a bit of legislative hi..tory 13~~' ri--ted to it, but not aimed directly at it. 141, Senator Stevens. There is nothing that indicates __ 15+ Mr. 33anzhaff. The evil to which the act is aimed is II , 161 very clearly the same type as these a~:s that appear on radio an. 17itelevision. 18I Senator Stevens. I doni"t know of any legislative intent 19I that Congress intended to control the pipe tobacco or cigars? ~ 201 Mr. Banzhaff. Congress intended to legislate against the 21ievils of commercials of that type. O2V 22 ~ Furthermore, my obj'ection at this point is not that °~~~lr. ~ O 23 Wilson mi;srec-sd the legislative history. From his statcrnent,41 ~ 241; it appears he never even looked at it. Iie looked no furthcrftj Aee-Federal F~cpanters, Inc. II i w 25 than the E,:cpress wurds of the statutc. II J

564 ty 15 1 Senator Stevens. That is what I am asking. 2 Can~you give me any legislative history that Congress 3 intendedto control advertising in the air media concerning 4 cigars? 5 Mr. Banzhaff. Concern ing cigars as Congress then knew 6 tr:e;,1~, no. I cangive youextensive legislative history that 7 I they inter.de:d to legislate against the evil of advertisements, 8' I articulzrly P onitelevision , particularly ^ relating to children , I 9 I featuring themselves of masculine virility, sexuality, 10i social acceN;ance and so on, aimed at smoking. 11 15 16 18' 19 20 21 Sena~tor Stevens. The same kindlof advertising is used to 12~ !! ad!,.<ertise c%-ine, too. 13 ~ ti-7hat I am mainly asking you, though, as a cigar smoker, ~ i' 14~~, I have smoked these little Bet,.-,,een-the-Acts type cigars for 120 years. Now, you mean toltell me that we didn't know those 17 ili existed that were 100., percent tobacco at the time we passed jthat law that banned advertising a cigarette? Mr. Banzhaff. I am sure you knew about them, Senator. ~ O I don't think that the type of cig;arette we are talking abou 4111 , here, the t',inchester tobacco prod'uct was available then. 4~b M 2211 Senator Stevens. It is absolutely identical. Between-~ 23I' the-Acts has been :;mo}.cd~ by cic;L-;r smokers for any number of ~ ~I 2'4 il'years, and certainly -- I am c4.rtuin that those of us that are 11 Aee-Federal Reporters, trac. i 25 '; cigar smo}:ers that de~n "t 1~~z;n n to believe that there i s the ~i I

ty 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 M 11 1'2~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 565 same problem, if there is a problem, with cigarettes, would have been heard'if there was any indication that we were going to ban those little cigars. Mr. Banzhaff. Do you recall advertisements of that type, Senator? Senator Stevens. Advertisements of little cigars, as jj far as I know, I'have known .for a long, long time. ~ ~ Mr. Banzhaff. Haven't been-advertising them~like that, so far as I know,. I think reasonably men might differ on the legislative history. This is very, very clear, and reasonable men have benn doing it all mor. nir:q . ~ - I ; :'enGtor Stevens. Thank you. That is what I am trying i ;j'i to get you to admit. That the gentleman is reasonable. I Mr. Banzhaff. I am saying he apparently didn't look at it. There is not one %aord in his testimony relating to legislative history. I look at the words, the words seem to be the same as something else, and therefore they must be the same as something else. Senator Stevens. That is my question. You don't have any legislative history that indicates the Congressional intent I air media advertising of cigars? I asked'you that II to regulate i question. You admit there is none. 2015046175 Now you ~,.,ant himto cc:r.e u1~ and go through the legislr~tive Ace - Federall Repoiters, Inc. 25 history for which you have ~ lr~ aci~~ admitted there is none. ~

ty 17 2 4, 5 6 8 9 1'0 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24. Ace-Federal Reporters, lr,c. 25 566 Mr. Banlzhaff. No. I said I think a fair reading of the legislative history ~~rould indicate that Congress directed it at exactly this type of commercial. Senator Stevens. For cigarettes? Mr. Banzhaff. This type of commercial. The whole issue is whether or not it is a cigarette, and I think just by switching the :cords "little cigar," "cigarette," obviates the issue. 1~1hat was it that the Congress was concerned about? What was it that the public was concerned about? It was , commercials of this type. I would! like to sugcest third~, Mr. . Chairman, that the 13 ! ~~ Justice Depart^ent placed a: great deal of unliue reliance upon the determination of the Internal Revenue Service. He categoried their determinations as expert. As I will indicate in almoment, they are far from that. They are by their own admission very s.ibjective. Furthermore, I would argue very, very suspect. Furthermore, the IRS does not in their position -- at least as stated in print -- is that they cannot andido not consider a wide variety of factors which the Department of Justice can and should consider in making its determination as to whether or not co:rmercials for this product violate the Act. 2015046176 , ~ Finally, i:r. Wilson:, :!id tlaa.t on page 8, he cannot include~ I i ~; canirot incluc?e mzrketing or advcrtising as determining factors I

ty 18 567 in making his decision. With all due respect, this is nonsense. The statute says,1i 3 it is likely to be offered to consumers as a cigarette. Now, every bit of legislative history that I know of using 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 ! 13 14 15: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace - Federat Reporters, L c. 25 the word "offered" includes very clearly the advertisement, I sale and promotion. Here we have a vehicle offered with an advertise-:nent %.,here the video is like the cigarette corsnercial, the audio is like the cigarette co::Lmercial, the size is like th: cigarette, the filter is like the cigarette, the package is II like the cigarette, sold in stores with cigarettes, and ~ cigarette vending machines. This clearly is part of the offering of this product. Again, I do not necessarily say that a fairer weighing of this might not produce the opposite conclusion. But Mr. Wilson states tha.t his eyes are closed, that he cannot look at these I factors. I suggest that a fair reading of the statute and the legislative history would be that this is exactly the kind of thing that he should be weighing, and that he should decide whether or not these comxercials and~ this product is more like the evil against which Congress legislated in '69 than the larg cigars, such as the gentlcman behind'~ you is smoking, and~the ads as they appeared at that time. 2015046177 Mr. Chairman, the DcpGrtircnt of Justice relied heavily upon tho. deteYr.ii'r.ation of thc :inter.nal Revenue Service that

ty 19 16 17 568 Winchesters were a cigar and not a cigarette. Although the 211 definitions are the same in the two statutes, the IRS has 3' clearly stated that it does not feel that its judgment has 4' anything to do with television commercials -- which in fact 5! they do not examine -- and'that their determination is sole].y 1 ~ for tax purposes. Nevertheless, had the Justice Department I 6 711 investigated just a little bit, they would have found sorae ver ~ & 1 strange goings on. Although the.Internal Revenue Service has 9'' so far likewise refused us access to its files relating to 10, Vv'inchesters -- while privately admitting that we are probably 1!1~ entitled to~them under the Freedom of Information Act -- we hav 12 been able to~ learn, som,ethingli about the way theServicemiishandl ~-d 13,,: this determinaticn. 14, When Winchesters were first submitted to the Alcohol, 15+~i Tobacco~, and Firearms Division of the IRS (ATF) they were referred for chemical testinq c.zhere certainifactors -- princi- pally ~ pally total ash and ethanol extract -- could be compared with 18 19 20 21 other cigarette and cigar tobaccos. These parameters, as the IRS has stated inlinternal meirroranda, are "the most definitive of the statistical parameters:presently used in the tobacco analyses procedures" for comparing ciaars,and little 2211 cigarettes. The tests slzo~-,ed that with respect to these two 23 criteria, Winchesters were bet:;een the normal values for cigars 2411 Ace-FedcraliRcacrters, Inc. 1~ 25, ar.d cilgzrettea, although thrv were slig,hitll closer to the valut: ~ ~01Sp~.s17for cigars and cief~~~rettes, although thcy were slightliy ~lo::•er.

ty 20 17 18 19 20 21 22' 23 569 ii 1 to the values for cigarettes. 2 ~ In addition:to the laboratory study, the product was 3 submitted to a smoking panel. On this panel the majority con- 4 sidered-the product to be a cigarette and, in light of all of 5 these findings, Reynolds was advised that the product would! i of; be classifiWas a cigarette. Reynolds then met with the IRS 71 te.-Umand presented its case, arg,ui ng that their product was I U~ sim iJ1ar to: the Anthony and Cleopatra little cigar and should 9! not k;;e classificd as a cigarette. Subsequently, the IRS re- 10'I tested and discovered that with regard to these two key 11; chemical criteria, the A&C cigar had values characteristics 12[l of cier:ars whereas S~~ir.cl:esters had values closer to a normal J 1'3II cigarette. The Reynolds people again car,le in and conferred! '~zi,th Service officials, but at the close of he conference on or !~ about November 24, 1970, the IRS for a third time heWfast to 1 their initial determination to treat the product as a cigarette ~1~ ;' and not a: little cigar. Su:bsecuently, for reasons which we dol not know, but in view of all of the facts appear very suspiciou I K the IRS eventually reversed itself and classified the product as a little cigar. 20150461'79 Even giving the IRS every reasonable doubt, their determination should still not he accpeted at its face value, a g,iven any great weight, particu?'arly with regard to whether 24 ij these ceonerciays 7:ould be Mowed t? contiriue on radio and Aoc-6edcral Rcqortcrs„HnAi 25 ~„ l.elevision. In an IRS InLI~:~CT'~!;l.:ru~ llru~ll C~1`;cl:Ss].ing the ~`llnchest~:~"

570 ty 21 2 4 5 7 8' 110 1 11 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 tests and the testing procedure for ]it'Cle cigars in general, was stated that: "To date, these efforts [to develop standards to dis- tinguishicigarettes from little cigars] have not identified suchicritoiia and ~':TI' determiniaticns continue to have a high degree of suhjiectiv:ity. "The problem of classifying tobacco products for tax determinations has becor:e more difficult due to changing 9'~~1 techn~o~logy in~ th~e~ tob~~acco, industry, inzde~quate~ modern instru- mcntaitionis to >;eep abreast of this changing technology, and 12 la)--oratory r~,.cilitier. It a:l:)nears that the tobacco industry I 13 is c?eveloping, many new littlc~ cigars, probably as a reaction shortage of manpo%•rer to fully utilize the present limited to the law barnii:g the advertiser;.ents of cigarettes on radio and television, as of January 2, 1971. "Additional resources~ are r.eedecT, in the ATF laboratory in order to:adeauately cope with the problem of determining whcthc~ rolls of tobacco ~-rrapped in recor.stittzted! tobacco are cigars or cigarettes. rr 2015046180 In short and in summary, Mr. Chairman, the people at the Alcohol, Tobacco, and FireG,rr:•.s D i vis:ion of the Internal I' I~evcnue Ser:,ice adrnit ther"'.se1,.,es that they haveno adequate ; ' criteiia: by which to c:etermi::e the difference between cigar s , 24iia.'nd cigarc,ttes, that they do not have the resources even to Ace - Fed'emil Rwpoi tcrs, Inc ' 25 ~; rn~:kc, the tcsts. whi ch appcar to Le r.ccessary, and, that thE,ir

ty 22 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10, 11 12 571 procedures are highly subjective. All of this still does not explain why the Service eventually caved in to the tobacco interests after their own procedures and testing three times indicated that -- even without regard~ to considerations of ad'vertising -- Winchesters should have been classified as cigarettes and not cigars. Mr. Chairman, what does all of this mean? In a recent article in the Tobacco Journal, cited~by R. J. Reynolds and placed in the Congressional Record'by the distinguished Junior Senator from North Carolina in attacking our efforts, it is reported that the tobacco industry's best analyst has predictEd that "the little cigar is where the action is, and 131i ... this sectionlof the industry could,well be up another 20 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 percent plus in 1971." Further, it`is sho~•:ingi some of the same trends as the I' cigarette industry." Thus, if products such as Winchesters continue to be classified as little cigars, they can be sold with no health warning whatsoever. They can be freely advertis on radio and television with no restrictions. And-because ~ they pay less than one-fourth of the taxes of other cigarettes, ~ i they can be sold for 25 cents less per pack than competing I ; cigarettes. 23h 241 1 a~tP-FederalReportcrs, Inc. ~~ Senator Cook. That just shows you how high the taxes are on cig;arettes. 2015046181 d 25111 Mr. Banahaff. . I am d'ecply hurt.

ty 23, 572 As a result, the Federal Govern.ment finds itself losing a 2 3 4 5 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 large amount of tax dollars which are in effect subsidizing the growth of a product %.rhich has all of the potential for causing death and'disability as conventional cigarettes. According to the argument a0vanced by the company and apparently bought by the Department of Justice, there would be notriinq to prevent a"'Sdinchester, " so long as it was wrapped in a paper-like tobacco product and clearly carried the word i'' "little cigar." These they could then freely advertise on i televis ion andgive t'r.e or i giinal 11inston cigarettes a free ~ ~ ' ride. The danger. Mr. Chariman, is not -- as the Juistice ~ ~ , ~' Depr-:rtr.:ent a.nparently believes -- that someone will buy these new products by mistake, but that a highly emotional and all ~ too effective pitch for smoking in general will be able to ; return to the nation's airwaves. Moreover, according to the IRS criteria, a tobacco co:r.pany would'be free to market a so- called little cigar like I•?inchester even if they colored the wrapping white so that it looked exactly like a cigarette. In view of their tremendous advances of technology, I thinl: this is certainly within their limits.2015046182 Mr. Chairman, if the little cigar is where the action is, tha tis also v7hcrc the hoaltr hazard is, and where the tax ;; dollars should be. Why shou7ld our young people again be 241! subj ccted to tlae sa1r:e seOluc tive a~i~~peals that lead so many of Ac-Fe;tral'Rcportcrs, Inc. ii 251, tliosc before t'.Ziet;i to tc:;:e up zhcibit %•,}ilie;h leads to dcath, and

ty 2 4 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 12. 13 14 573 disability. Mr. Chairman, in the very strongest of terms I ask you~an call upon you and your CoTMamittee to~ take the following steps ' without further delay: (1) Carefully investigate the decisions made by the Internal r,'evenue Service and'I the Department of Justice concern- ji ing, the ;•rinchester tobacco prcduct, with particular attention to the manner in which these very vital decision were arrived at. Assure yourself'that these agencies have done everlthing within their power to protect the public interest with regard to this matter and, if they have not, see that they do. (2) Iniany event, this loophole must be closed. If this where the action is, it should be where the tax dollars are collected. Iwould urge you to~introduce legislation 15taxing all small cigars at or above the tax rate applicable to 16 ~~ cigarettes, unless your staff -- in conjunction,with repre- , 1711 sentatives from the tobacco industry and knowledgeable health 1811 organizations -- can draft the bill so as to exempt only those 19;1 products which are clearly little cigars and not just cigarette; I 20111 inibrown coats. 201504s183 ~ 21 i (3) If the little cigar is where the action~ is, it also~ i 22' is ~,,here the healthl ha.zard' is. I therefore urge you to 231! introc?uce legislation banning all radio and: TV commercials for ~ 2411 such littlic cigars and recluiri r.g, a hcalth: warning on, all such I t R t t~ F' d crs na: C, etA Por ae - O 2'5 I packag;cs, ur.lc„s z.ciain it is possiblo by careful draftswanship

ty 25 1 2 3 4 End 4,19 10 22' 23 ~ ~ 24 II ~ Aee-Fcdctal Re;.:,ttr,rs, lar.' 574 to exempt genuine little cigars. Mr. Chairman, the will of Congress is being flouted and the public health endangered. The cigarette industry has too long been~ al lo,ced to get away wi th too mu~ch. Now is the time to act. The health of our nation's youth is at stake. ZvroulcI be c:elightcd to respond to your inquiries. 25

575 c :5004-T20 dw 1 1 2 3' 4'~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fcd'eral Reporters, Inc. 25 Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Banzhaff, for your statement. You say about exempting genuine little cigars. What do you consider genuine little cigars? Mr. Banzhaff. I would consider genuine little cigars I the ones which~ are clearly distir.guisha:ble from cig,arettes by all the criteria ~~.hich have been discu ssedhere today. Somebody was asked before -whether he could draft such legislation. I haven't had a chance to~sit down and try my hand', but I would~do something like this, and I suggest a far better i job could be done by the industry itself, because I think the manufacturers of the genuine little cigars are just as concerned about this as we are. But I would say that these products should be classified as cigarettes except and unless by every one of these criteria they are clearly d~istinguishable from cigarettes: appearance, color; size, shape, p7Lckage, advertising, pro- motion, et cetera; and that the burden:of making this proof should be on the product seeking to exempt itself from the ~ ~ ban on cigarette cor,u-ncrcials, from the statute requiring ~ hcalth warnings, ar.d the high tax rates. Q~ N I think such legislation could be worked out. ~ If not, I sce of fhunu no r.cason why these things should, bc escapir.,: the tax bttrden, 1,li-. Chairman.

dw 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~se - Federal Report^rs, Inc. 25 576 Senator t~~ioss. Would you include in the definition the question of the inhalability which seems to be the breaking point in many ways between cigars and cigarettes? Mr. Banzhaff. I think that would be one of the many criteria ~•,hich it would have to meet, and I think we could design standards here to exclvc:e the unusually hardy person %•; ho wi l l i rl-ia l e any th i n g. Senator Cook. How do you exclude him? You are getting into a field -- I got a notion you and the Chairman are going to be swimming pretty deep in a minute. Senator .•Ioss. Youigot us off the hook, youlintervened ri(-hit there. Senator Cook. I.et's say a man comes before the federal gov2rnment arrd says, "I smoke A and C Grenadiers, they are about that long and that big around, and I inhale all of them." By your criteria does the government automatically say it is a cigarette and it is taxed as a cigarette arid it will be qualified as a cigarette now and henceforth: and forever- more? N A, No, Senator. I would start by giving the man a ~ C11 me d a 1. Q ~ This is a problem that the law deals with all the time.~ ~ t•'e talk about the reasonable man, the average man. We couldO) talk about ccrtain standards. We could say a panel of reasonable people. S,Jhat ha.ppens

dw 3 1 3 4 5 7 8' 9' 1& 11! 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . 24, cc-rederal Rcportors, Inc. i 25 ~ 577 when a panel of reasonable people inhale these? I point out to you, Senator, with respect to Winchester, just such a panel, the majority regarded them as cigarettes. Senator Cook. I did~ni't mean to interrupt you, t'Ir. Chairman,. I just wzntec: to know %•::,at you were going to do. I was alittle bit ~,;orried. Senator A,oss. Now, I thinJcu you documented the number of times that the IRS considered this matter. Over what length of time do they carry on these considerations where Winchesters ~,7ere recommendedto be classified as cigarettes? Mr. Banzhaff. I am not sure I have all that information. As I say, the IRS has not been very kind about letting us in on~ these things. Their eventual determination was January of 1971. I am not sure 4:hen they initially submitted the product, although I think that information is contained in Senator Cook's submission in the Congressional Record. I don't see it in g,lancing through~it. The information that I have is that as late as Nlovem,';er 24 of 1970, the IRS had advi;sed~ Winchester that they were classified as a cigarette rather than a little cig,ar, so that sometime bc?t~,aeen~ No~=ember 24 of 1970 and Jan•aa::yof 1971, something, c}:1rilgead their mind. I don't }::zow what it w,7:s that changed' theirr mind.

578' dw 4 2 3 .4 5 6 7 8 9 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Senator Moss. Have you in your observation observed other brands that you~would think deserve that classification of cigarette, the new called little cigar, other than Winchester? We have i:ad names like "Between the Acts." Mr. Banzhaf f. This one is called Omega, little cigars. Again, they seem~ to:be very, very sir~,ilar to cigarettes in all of these criteria that I am abel to apply by eyesig:'-',, by the fact that vhat «ppears to be paper -~ - and I notice c•:,en Mr. Bruce Wilson, by perhaps a Freudian slip of the tongue, referred to it as "'paper'.' -= is brown, and does contain substantial amounts of reconstituted tobacco. Senator Cook. Excuse me. From a legal standpoint, a Freudian slip~of the tongue really doesn't make any difference, does it, Professor? Mr. Banzhaff. No, sir. I would not hold'him to it in court. Senator Cook. All right. Senator rioss. Your answer is that you think there are other little cigars on the market that would come under this criticism? N 0 N Mr. Banzhalff . This a.ppears to be one. Winchester is UI the only one about which I have kno;aledqe that they are ~ ~ ~ bc:ing advertiscc?' on t(.lc-vi-ion and the only one about which Ace - Fcderai R-~p3r;brs, Inc. '1I 2'5ll I can assert w1.th rec?sonl-b1e certzlinty that th'E.' cUTTIIl!ercial I . I I

579 dw 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I' 16 17 il is a virtual copy of the kind of commercials that you legis- lated against in.1969. Senator Moss. Well, I call on Senator Cook, now. Senator Cook. Mr. Eanzhaf, f, I want to say this : I say this in all due reopect to the Chairman and to the staff on the majority side. It is apparent to me, and I say this with all due respect to the Chairman, and I hope he unc'erstands, with~ a I degree of humility, as the ranking ininority irember of this subcorr:ni'ctee, it is apoarent to me that you knew more about the tenor of these hearings than I did. I had no, idea the duythat we started~ thase hearings that little cigars were cven to be considered or even to be discussed. This bill deals with the right of the Federal Trade Comniission to determine the tar and nicotine in cigarettes. You have not spoken one word to the merits or demerits 1 j of the bill that is before this committee. O 19 Now, I am going to ask youiguesti.ons relative to your ~ 20 ~ statement, but I must say it is disappointing, and I am ~ 21 ~ sure it is dis:ppointing to the minority staff, and it is ~ 22' 1 I CO certainly disappointing to this Senator, that these hearings 23 I II vreLe called for the ose of considerin Senator Moss' ur (I g p p f 24 i bill to allow tthe I'euc l '1°raue Cor,,nission to detcrmine tar ,ce--ccderal Repoiters, Inc. !i , , Ya 25' ~, and nicotine lievcl!s for ~ c°ces;,iaility to the public, and yet,

580 dw 6 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19' 20 21 22 23 24 4ce - Fcderal Repor'ors, li c. this entire statement says not one word about that bill. AndiI amisure you must have talked to individuals on the majority side of the staff, relative to what your testimony was going to be. It was not made available to me. I did not see it until it was hiand:cd to me when I came forward, but I mus t- say to you in all respect, that although the little cig;r issue was interjected the very first day, this is the first knowledge that this Senator knew about it, and I must say -- Mr. . Banzhaf f. Might I reply? Senator Moss. t^7ould you yie.ld' for just a moment. I wocil!d like to nlace inthe record my release dated the lst of February, ~:hich also is repeated in t; e opening statement, and call attention to the fact that there were other thir.gs that had come to light and were going to be heard, and one was the marketinglof little cigars. (Committee insert. ) 25

581 dw 7 1 Senator Cook. I can~only say that is fine in a personal 2 release by a Senator to the public, but the issue that was 3 submitted to my office from the committee said that we were 4 to have hearing,s on this bill, and I must say to you in all 5 fairness, that I am delighted to~he ar about this, because, you 6 know, if you can succeed in your case, that is fine. 7 Let me ask you something. 8 Mr. Banzhaff. Could I reply to your initial comment? 9 Y t C k S oo . es. ena or 10 Mr. Banzhaff. In Senator Moss' initial letter to me 11 I he indicated that he would invite me to come and testify 12 because we had been involved in lcgal matters relating to 13 the winchester controversy. 14 We have, therefore, come before this subcommittee strictly 15 on that matter. 16 Senator Cook. Well, I can only read -- 17 Mr. Banzhaff. Could I furthermore state, Senator, that 18 appears to me if you are going to be considering a bill 19 to possibly limit the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes , 20 and if it further appears that things coming out having the 21 same health properties as cigarettes would escape that, I O 22 would think a very logical amendm:ent and thing to be ~ 23 considered along with that would be whether or not to expand ~ ~ ~ 24 the diefinitioal. CD Ace - Federal Repor.tcrs, Inc. 25 Senator Cook. You have alluded to that in your

dw 8 582 statement. You have not discussed one iota of the tar and nicotine of cigars. We can build all the reccrd we want to, but here is the release that ~.:e received from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Subcomunittee for Consumers, Witness List, Hearings on S.l4'5,11, to amend the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act to require the Federal Trade Commission to establish acceptable levels of tar and nicotine content of 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 cigarettes. . Now, that is the purpose for which these hearings were called. And I must say to you, if you received a letter from 10 11! 12 the Senator that outlined to you that he would like to hear 13 from you on the subject that youidiscussed~ and that you testified on today, it would have been very easy for the 141 15 majority side of the committee.to have added a second sentence, to let at least the minority members of this committee know what is going on before a comnAttee hearing. Mr. Banzhaff. Might I further add, Senator, that I have not discussed my testimony with the Senator, withihis aides, with the aides for the subcommittee, or any Senator on the 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 majority or minority side. 2015046192 Senator Cook. You didni't feel that your testimony was in any out of line in, relation to the subject matter that the ccm,:,~ittee was hearing testimony on, did you? 23 24 4ce Federal Reporters, Ihr. li 251 I ~ i

583 dw 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2& 21 22' 23 24 ~I Aee-Federal Reaorters, Inc. 2 r ~ Mr. Banzhaff. Senator, as you just said~, you have been hearing testimony on the Winchester thing ever since the hearing started. Senator Cook. That was last week. Mr. Banzhaff. . Is this week a different week, a different hearing? Senator Cock. May I say to you, really and truly, 2,ir. Banzhaff --let me ask you something: ~%'hat do you teach in law school? Mr. Banzhaff. At the moment, I teach torts and administrative procedure. Senator Cook. When you teach administrative procedure and ever.1~body comes to your class prepared for it, do you teach them criminal law? Mr. Banzhaff. No, sir. Senator Cook. I think I made my point. Mr. Banzhaff. I do teach~ them when hearings have been opened on one subject, they are u::ually opened~on that subj'ect, that wilen hearings are adjourned fr=week to week, one would normally expect they would be the same hearings. Senator Cook. Would you tell us the names and addresses of the present antismoking organizations with which you are involvcd? z015045193 Mr. Ban:~haff. V,hat do you mean by involved, sir? ~ i :;enatoL Cook. Involved. I l`:ope you don' t consider that I~ i

584 dw 10 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 24 that is a bad word like somebod'y had a closed door hearing or something in a secret meeting, I think you said. V,'hich ones are you associated with, if that is a better ~:Yo r d? Mi. 33anzhaff. . I am Executive Director of an org,anizatiorn called'Action on St;:ovingi andi Health, 20100 H Street N.W., [•,as1.ing,i.oli, D.C. 20006, Senator Cook. Do you have a tax exempt status? I,ir. Banzhaff. 1'es, we do. I am also associated~with an organization called Legislative Action on Smoking and Health. That organization d'oes not have the 501-C3 tax exempt status.. It is free to lobYjy. That is the purnose for which it was, created. ~ Senator Cook. Let me ask you something: As an instructc on a colliege campus -- I have three children in college, and extremely proud of it -- are you~rather enthused about the activities on college campuses these days in regard to the freedom of the student and'his ability to learn and to study and be a free individual within the institution? Mr. Ranzhaf f. I am enthused about some of' them. I am not enthused about others. Senator Cook. Do you allow any of your students to smo'xe in your cl<<ssroom? i1;r. banztilic,ff . No, sir. 2015046194 Ace-Fedool Reporicrs, loe. !I 1JI~ Senator Cook. [~;oul.d y ou think it c~:ot~~:d be wrong, if those {I

585 dw 11 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 1!0 1! 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22' 23 decided that they would like to smoke in~a college classrcom, that they have paid almost $4000,a year to attend, if they took over your classroom, so they could decide to exercise freedom of choice? Mr. Banzhaff. I think that would be wrong. Senator Cook. You don't want people to smoke in your room? Mr. Banzhaff. ho,, sir. It is an illegal act. I would regard it as being illegal. Senator Cook. Where is it an illegal act, Mr. Banzhaff? Mr. Banzhaff. Taking over classrooms is an illegal act. It is trespassing. Smoking is banned in our classroom by k action of the faculty. There are no smo'.ing,signs in all the classrooms. Senator Cook. Would you allow smoking if the students decided they c•ranted to change the rules and the majority decided that it was perfectly all right to smoke in~classes and therefore a majority of the students think that this rule should be overcome? Mr. Banzhaff. At the moment, sir, the laws and rules and regulations relating to the campus arc made by the faculty subj,e.ct to the approval of the board of trustees. The students are not yet making the rules. 2015046195 2 4 1I'I •eP.'-FCdcfJl ReQrll^is, Ihc. !~I 25 ~ Senator Cook. You think they shouldl:V t ma:;e any such rules on~ collcc;e.

586 +ee - Federol dw 12 1 2 4 6 7 , ji 8 9' 1& 1U 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20'i i I 21 ~ 1' 22 23 II , Mr. Banzhaff. At the moment, they do not have thee power to make such rules. t Senator Cook. tti'ould~ you~ give them that authority? Mr. Banzhaff. To make all rules, no. Senator Cook. I think we understand each other. Mr. F3anzhaf.f. . To decide ~•,hether or not to smoke in the classroo::? Senator Coo:-. Yes. Mr. Banzhaff. . I doubt it. Senator Cook. In other ;•zords, your activities in filing a petition with the Justice Department were to advise the Justice bcpartment of what you thought was wrong and that they ~;'ZC~ui]!d r~t~~-sue to, vour sati;sfaction what you thought was ~ _. , incorrect and improper? Mr. Banzhaf f. I advised them what I thought was wrongg and asked them to make a full investigation of it and take appropriate action on it. I believe they went about it in: an improper and i;nappro- priate manner. I believe they reached the wrong conclusion. Senator Cook. Why d'idn't you file a suit against them? 11r .Banizhaf f. we are now in the proces s of trying to get discovery fro:n thein. V.e may eventually seek legal remedies. 2015046196 Senator Coo":. And that is really your recourse, isn't it?

587 dw 13 Mr. Banzhaff. When you say my recourse, yes. I do~not legislate. However, I believe that as long, as 4 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 :n r20 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 this subcom.r~ittee one way or another is considering the matter, and since it has heard testir:;ony fr= Mr. Wilson as to his decision, it should be advised of all the factors going into that decision, and I believe it should make an investigation of the procedure by which these decisions are rlade. If the decision~ as to whether or not these commercials can continue to be made on the air is madle on the basis of very subjective criteria of who on a smoking panel happens to think this is a cigar or cigarette, to my way of thinking,, that is not a very good ~,,ay to make that decision. .ce =ederal Reponters, tnc. 25

FT #21 I +' 588 ty 1 1 Senator Cook. Hou lor.g before you will be back before 2 this Subcommittee if you are successful with Winchester and 3 try to take off Muriel because she walks across the floor 4 sexy and says, "Hey, big spender"? Nir. Banzhaff. I«mnot presently contemplating that, sir. 61 Senator Cook. Arc you 3ure you aren't? 7 Mr. Banrhaff. Yes, sir. 8 Senator Cook. In other ~-:ords, that is going to be okay? 9 Mr. Banzhaff. I haven't 5een the ad or I d'on't know any- , 10 ' thing about it. 11 Senator Cook. Are you telling, me that you have seen - 13';j bucrqee~'~ you~ ai:d you ha~~en't sec~n any Muriel cigar ads on i1 12I! Vljinc~7ester c-id:s and thcy really ca lled you and they have really 14 15 16 17 18 television? Mr. Banzl:aff. I saw one ad because I visited Boston in part for the purpose of' seeing it when it was advertised only in Boston and Dayton, and Dayton was a little bit too far away. 19 So far as I know, they are not advertised on television 20 in V;ashinctcn. 21 ~ Senator Cook. if you had come to my office and asked to ~ . 22 see th~e ads, I don't kzc1,., anybody in the company, but I would 23 ; have sure said, you have crot an ad that is kothering somebociy, ~ 24 11 %-:c: will send it down ruLo <<i:e: sro%:, it to you. 2015046.198 Ace-Federa9 Reportrzrs, InG. ~ ~25 I! Mr. Ban::haf f. I thun}: ~.i.~~ Senator for his offer.

ty 2 589 Senator Cook. I am;del;ighted that you are that limited 2 a television watcher, because at least, if we could make more 3 i i like you, we wouldn't have to worry about taking cigarettes 4 off, t,:ould we? 5 Seriously, I must say to you, I read your statement, with ~ all due respect, and I wone:er whether you think you can be 7 ~ I everybody's bigbrother out at that law school that you are 8 I teaching~ in. Really, I say this-in all seriousness? i P4r. . Banzhaf f. My testir„ony here has nothing to do with~ ~ 10. the law school. 11 Senator Cook. I am not talking about that. Suppose the 12 i ! sam.e ads and the salme pretty music and the same pretty girls 13 an and the guy walks across there smoking start tomorro;•r ' , . , ~ I I 14 i El Producto cigar. Are we going to be back here, the same I II I 15 sweet music, the same Miss Springtir,le as you put it? 16 ! ! AZr. . Banzhaff. I doubt it very much, Senator, because that 17IIIeven from here does not appear at all to be a cigarette. 18II~It doesn't look like a cigarette, doesn't smoke like alcig,arett 191!,doesn't havc a filter, it is not 20 to~a pack, it is not I I 20 iiadvertised like cigarettes, and you can't put it in a cigarette 1V 21i vending machine. You are singling out one factor out of a II I 22 Ii g~reat many. 2015046199 23I1 Senator Cook. You can't put this in a vending machine. 24 ,! sugc;est to you, sir, ~~~:err you leave here, you go straight i:o Ace-Federal Reporb,rs, l,1a. i 2':il; thc ba:,e;::onit of this luuilciing and wa1!': through the tunnel, and

ty 3 1 4 5 6 7 T0 I 1 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 590 ; the second machine that you will see on you right as you u..alk through will be a vending machine which dispenses six types of cigars in packages. Mr. Banzhaff. That is right. It does not dispense them in a form~of 20 to a pack as the conventional cigarette dis- pensing m•uchine. It is a cigar dispensing machine. Senator Coo.:. Suppose they make one big enough to put 201of these though, is that all right? Mr. Banzhaf f. If you take that one, you shrink it down , youiput 20 to a pack, you advertise it like cigarettes and do a few other things, then I might be back before you and suggest it is a cigarctte. Senator Cook. Suppose I turn this into a cigarette. Stzppo. e I make this a cigarc~tte instead of a cigar and I ao back to television,, and I tell everybody this isn't really a cigar, but you are going to think it is a greater cigar when you smoke it, but it is going to remind you of those good old days. What arc you going to doithen? ZOI'I Mr. Banzhaff. I would ask the Justice Department to I I 21 ii prosecute you, sir. 201504s2w 22 ~; Senator Cook. You kno%: what you arei-rorried about, you 23 !( are worried about railli'rrar;s and millimeters, and you are, not 24 i; really ti-ying to mal:e a, di stincticn betwr,en cigarettes and ~ Ptce-Fedenal ftepoiG:~s, Inc. i1 25,1' cigars.

ty 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11. 12, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A•' -Fcdcrai Reporters„ Inc. 25 591 Now, if you are talking about cigar smoke, as Dr. Wyndcr did this morning, and he said we haveno reason to believe that that is not a cigar, although they have lowered the the nicotine andtar content, that got into a; discussion bett•re the Chairman and Dr. Wynder, and I was %-,onderina whether the Chairman really wanted was for him to raise the tar and nicotine in them!so they would be more acceptable a~s little cigars, because Ithoug,ht this whole argument was about a bill that ought to limit tar and nicotine in cigarettes and relate to the v,isdom,of the Chairman. ~ Mr. Banzhaff. It did occur to me, if you do~want figures ~ on tar and nicotine and other criteria, the best place to:get ~; them would be the Internal Rev enue Service. They have been I makings this test for years. ! ~ If youlare going to -- 'I Senator Cook. We have got them. T,;e can Put them in the record. I think they have already been put in the record, in relation to many people who have testified. Now, in your 19G9 test you expressed a belief in providing people in a free society a choice to take various ri;}:s and said that Congress should not prohibit cigarettee smoking any more than~ it might prohibit s:;ying, or skydiving or anything else which might be dangei:ous. 2015046201 Is this still your position or would you now deprive t.iie kcople of a free choice? .n

592 ty 5 1 2 3 5 6 9 1!0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Banzhaff. I would not suggest to Congress that it ban cigarette smoking. Is that your question? Senator Cook. Thatis what I amiaskir.g. Mr. Banzhaff. I would not suggest to this Congress that I it ban cig,arette smoking. Senator Cook. In other words, you are here for the purpose of testifying as to what you refer to as the little cigar, as to VVIinchester? Mr. Banzhaff. I always have been concerned with the problems of pi_omotion and advertising of cigarettes. I think a person has the privilege to smoke a cigarette if he wants. The only objection I have is when he smokes it too near to me. I have been concerned auout getting reply time so that the othe side would be heard. I have been concerned with misleading pro.r.otions. I have been concerned with the tobacco industry, spc-r.ds money to get an article put into a magazine, advertising their products, and doesn`t tell you. I have been concerned with a wide variety of deceptive promotions. I have not come before this Congress or filed a legal action which would~ seek to ban the sale of consumFtionlof cigarettes. 2015046202 Senator Cooke. You were here this morning when Dr. Furst testified that he vas told! that his paper Was of no value 24Jj becaulse of his present reseurch and because of his present Aec-Federal Re;,oi,ers, Inc. i, 25 11' r-.mplols:nent. Would that concern you?

ty 6 I 4, 5 6 7 8 9 10 1' 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1!9 20 21 22 593 Mr. Banzhaff. Does it concern me? Senator Cook. Yes. Mr. Banzhaff. in what way? Senator Cook. Does it concern you that he was told at a meeting that had something to do with the Surgeon General's report on cigarette smoking that because of his present involve ment, i; . e. , with the tobacco institute, that what he said befor is all right, but now that he isd involved with the insti 'ute, what he says is no longer of'any value? Mr. Banzhaff. I don~'t understand quite frankly what you mean~by concern. I I I Am I going to do scme;:hing about it? Senator Cook. You arc saying what you are concerned about i within the framework of the industry. Are you concerned when ! your government in effect says to somebody we are not concerned i i about what you say or whether you disagree with us because you ' do disagree with us? Mr. Banzhaff. Concerned in what sense? That I would go I out and do something,? That I am outraged? I don't know what I'Iyou mean, Senator? Scn~ator Cook. It seEmis to me we are playing games with each other, and let me get it down real cold. 2015046203 Would you have any objcction if your government subjected a derree of cenisorship on :,<oi„ebod'y f oi- what they wanted to say if it was contrary to ;o:<<cthing, th'at you belicved in? 2'3 .24II A -Federal Repootcrs, Irc I u

ty 7 1 3 7 8 594 Senator Cook. 0}.ay. That is what I was trying to get t. Senator Moss. If you would yield. I don't think there was any testimony that the government was in any way involved inthe exchange that was recited there by Dr. Furst. Iie saidlthe chairman of the meeting, and later he na.m~ed him, made some statcment similar to what you sai~, 1 but it wasn't the government that ~•,as telling the man that. Senator Coo}:. f•Zay i say to you that in my colloquy with 10 il 16 17 18 19 21 22 2 3' 24 Ace-Federal Reportcrs, I;,,c. 25 ( 1211 , that I am afraid that many people have submitted research 13papers in the United States that have been ignored'by Dr. I-:orn I 14',i in relation to giving a f:all-fledgcd report to the American! I 15,people on all of the hazards of smoking. i Dr. Horn the other day, I can tell you with all fairn:ess,and ; ~ I hope Dr. Horn will accept this in the best intendedway, Now, Mr- Banzhaff, you filed a petition for rule making before the FAA asking for a~separation of smokers and non- smokers on commercial passenger aircraft. As a part of your petition, you~said, and I quote, "'Unregulated cigarette 20~i',smoking on airlines creates a significant health hazard for all (nonsmoking passengers who are to be forced to inhale the smoke I created by other passengcrs." 2015046204 1 Have you seenthe F1~A report that cxonerates smoking as a hazard to nons:nokcrs? tlr . Hanzhaf f. r;o , sir, they hi~ve not made it availahl c to

ty 8 1 2 3' 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 16 19 20 21 595 ; me, although, as you properly state, I am a party to the action and I desire to see it. Senutor Cook. I will make a copy for you, because they say it is not a hazard. I might say to you that the way I found out that that t report haGn been made und it was due to be given to HEW was in + the Jack Anderson column in 1970, although-it is not alluded to ! at all in the 1972 or '71 report of' the Surge=General on ~ ; smoking. Mr. Eanzhaf.f. . If I could reply, Senator, the FAA determination standsfour-square to the contrary of the d'etern:ar_ution of the Surgeon General in its most recent report 1.5I;I areas or nonsmoking sections. 14'~ now going to be providing either bans on smoking in certain and EEW's decision-~hnich I just learned about that they are ~ If I could say further, Senator, that if I had a problem 17+;I with my airplane, Iwould'n't go to HEW to get it fixed, and if 181 ; I want to find out whether some things are hazardous to health, ~ I wouldn't go directly to the FAA. 2015046205 I Senator Cook. Let me let you understand the sequence of ; this, so you can understand it, because I think what they did 22 "' wa s logical. They went to FAA bece.use they have jurisdiction 1 2311 over aircraf t, and they said would you do this study. They did i ~ n; ~~ 24 i U a very 7 defi.n .ite anQ a very Jcier.t.irt~~~us~ ~ . 1•Y ~hat you h~ivc~ i' ~f'ic a ~u.. Ace-Fcdcral Rcpcrtors, Ihc. -1 20 + told me that it goes contrary to the Surgeon General is vcry

ty 9 1 3, 4 7 81 I 911 1!0 11 5 9'fi interesting because now obviously everybody knov:s the Surgeon General never read the report that he asked the FAA to make, and now we also kno;a that it would have been immaterial what the FAA said to hirr, because the Surgeon General had already made up his mind what he was going to do basedl on no~ sci entific I; 6 f i basis ~chatUoever. So I am delighted to know that, because it only ad'ds to the confusion within the framework of this whole thing. tir. Ba:nzhaff. For what it may be worth, Senator, we have been doing some research, or exploring the published papers in this area, doing so for quite a while before the Surgeon 121' G?neral qut z:round to it, and you will see a number of 13~~~, c~itations in: ou~r~ petition. For what it may be worth, it seems ti 14i' to me those do indicate a very real health problem. I point 15 1il out particularly to you a great many t"Tlericans with a variety 16 ij of medical susceptibilities who are 1,r,,:mediately adversely End ;;'21 17 St. ;f22 i affected by cig,arette smoking. Senator Cook. We have 30 days, I think, from the close of these hearings to get statements. I will make you a copy of the FAA report with all the statistical analyses in it, 2'1 ;' the type of' tests they ran, the tyre of equipment they had on 22 i; t'r.e 23 aircraft, and I would lil:e you to make a remark relative to this report or ~shether you thin}: it is valid. 24,11 11r. 1;'anzhaf f. I am not sure I will be qualified, but I Ace - FeJerai F;epe ters„Inc. 25 il Wi1~:l try my bcst, ccnator. 201504s2p6 ~

ty 10 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 1 1' 12 !II 13 i fussinc~, ubout it, including smo':ers and nonsmokers, and he I141i said we don' t know what to do, because now we have given up +ce - Fedetal 1 16 17 597 Senator Cook. Fine. I would like your comments on it. I might say to you this is not available to the public, and it was not a part of the Surgeon General's report on smoking and health. Mr. Banzl:aff. is the Senator a;•:are that approximately half of the airlines in the United States are now voluntariiy complying 4rithl that? Senator Cook. I am absolutely aware of it. And I wanted to find a littlz article that I had here, and I am:sorry I can't, where one of the presidents of one of the airlines said we set this all aside, and we made it available for the pcoLle, and they are not even uE~ing it, and nobody is even those available spaces because we are making it available and! ; no one is paying any attention to it. Mr. Banzhaff. The problem is, they are not giving it 18" very much publicity and that contradicts the statements of othe 19 ' airlines -- 2015 ~ 04s207 2011 Senator Cook. If you have any inforn-;ationlin your files 21I of your association thatsays that is contrary and that airlines ~ 22 i have r,laue specific staten;ents that it is absolutely being 23' i utili:zed and that they arc (Ielightc~, they did'it und, thcy %•,ill ~ 241, co.:tinue to c'o it bcc_:i,sc all tr:o s-)::ce:- ; il,ithin those aYeas RC,)U!t'UiS, ins. j 2'1 ~ havo been utilizcd, I would lil:cyou to put it in the record. I

ty 11 598 1 2 Mr. Bar.zhaff. I will give you what I have at the time, Senator. Senator Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Stevens. I would like to ask you a couple of 5 6 ~ questions about this little cigar business. I have been a cigar smoker for about almost 30 years now. I may not make it ~ through the endof the hearing,, says Senator Cook. 8 Let me ask yow this: I assume you are not a cigar 9 smoker, but I also assume that yo u realize that a cigar is to b 10 smoked when someone has some time . I assume you al so agree 11 I that the little Between-the-Acts cigars came out fo r exactly 12 ' what they are calleC, for be tween the acts. I 13 First time I ever ran"into them, as a matter o f fact, was 11 h f l b t t . ay. ween t e ac s o a. p e 15 Do you agree that t he industry has a r ight.t o try and 16 meet a demand for those who want little c ig ars? 17 Mr. Banzhaff. I agree they have a r ig ht to me et that de- 18 mand. mar.d. I am-not so sure that it would go so far as to defeat 19 1 ! the intent of Congress with respect to the commercials. I 20' ;!, Senator, it is the commercials that I am much more concern d 21 i about then the problem. 2015046208 , 22;I Senator Stevens. I uncierstand that, too. ' 23 You-also mlentioned the cost factor. It disturbs you, I 24'~i take it, that a little cigar cost loss than a cigarette k.~c.cause ;. Aen-re;1:ri1 RopOrters„Inc. ~I , ?_5i ,Iof the to:: factor; is that right?

ty 12 599 Mr. Banzhaff. Yes, sir. Senator Stevens. And'your suggestion is that you increase 3 i the tax on little cigars to where they are equivalent to ~ 4 cigarettes; is that right? i Mr. Banzhaff. I see no reason for exempting them from the 6 current tax. I ~,:ouldiargue that they are cigarettes and i ~ 7' ~ therefore entitledito the tax. If they are technically i 8 ~ excluded'.fromlit because of a loophole, I don't see the . 9 tifi ti jus cu on. 10 Senator Stevens. And, therefore being part Scotchmani, 11 as I am, v:hen I buy a little cigar, because I don't want to 12 ~ throw away threc-quarters s of a cigar bec ause I have only had ~ 13 I five n~i?iutes to smoke it, what you reall y want to do is get 14! to the point where it cos t me the same a mount for a little 15 I cigar as it would for the big,cigar, so the Scotchman is 16 I ~ defeated in other words? 17' Mr. Ba!nzha:ff. No, sir. I think even if they were 1:8 taxable, you will be paying, the same amount. 19 Senator Stevens. You said 25 cents a pack less? 201 22 23 24 rIr. . Banzhaf f. That is right. Senator Stevens. Have you priced these cigars that Scnatc 21 j Cook mentioned, six in a box, five in a box? ~ 201504620!) ~ Mr. BanzhaLf. No, sir, I haven't. Senator Stevens. And the price of these t°dinchcsters? A~ce~-Federai Repcrb~is„Inc. !! 25 ~ f. No. ~, ~~

ty 13 2 5 7 13 141 15 t 17 18 19' 20 21 22 23i 24 /'.ra - Fedcral Repor tbrs, Inc. 25 600 i Senator Stevens. And added the 25 cents to it and see what you come up with? Mr. Banzhaff. No, sir. It is not 25 cents. It is about four to one in tax ratio. I meant 25 cents off. In many I cases, that is more than half the price of the pack of cigarett s. 6I~ Senator Stevens. Well, that is my point. Twenty-five I ' cents on a pack of those VVIinchesters, I might as well buy the 81, big cigars and throw it away. I take it you would have no I11 ob7'ection to that? 9 10; Mr. Banzhaff. I would have no objection at all if you I lli want to throw away cigars. 12 1I' Senator Stevens. Iwou1d have an objection. If I had to pay for one, iwoulc?n't e=ant to~ throw it away. Mr. Banzhaff. I object to subsidizing something that causes death. Do you see any reason why they should be exempted from tax? Senator Stevens. Yes. They are cigars to me. Look, I don't happen to smoke cigarettes. It is just my own personal choice. I never smoked cigarettes. But I have been smoking cigars since I started flying, when I was 18. Mr. Banzhaff. Aside from the fact that the tax personally affects you, is there any public policy reason why they should be exempted? 201-S04s210 Senator Stevci.s. That is wrappcd up in 'the current Congressional intent. You want to tax my cig;ars and

ty 14 1 2 601 cigarettes because..they are small. Mr. Banzhaff. I certainly would, yes. Senator Stevens. They are cigars to me. 2•1r: Banzhaff. You say they are cigars. I respectfully 5 8 9 10 15 16 17 18: 19' I 201 21 22 disagree with you,. b!I Senator Stevens. You know %,:hat, you are a lawyer and I I 711 am a lawyer, and we have all g,otten into this business. You say, you know, it looks like a duck, it smells like a duck, andit walks like a duck, and it must be a duck, and I think that soTMetimes the lawyers forget the little story 11~1 they ought to be ducklings, you know, but as a practical f 121! matter, it ain't a duck, it is a cigar. I 13 ~` Mr. Banzhaf£. That is because when it grows up it looks a i l4jl little different. These look the same, no matter how old they are. They look the same. Senator Stevens. But you buy themlbecause they are ! cig,ars, not because they are cigarettes, but because they are cigars? Mr. Banzhaff. They may buy them because they are quite cheap. Senator Stevens. I wouldn't buy them unless they were cheaper than the cigars that I %.:ould have to throw away if I I 23 ~ ~ 2 4 n kee-Fed.rai Ru;;nrters, Inc. i 251: only l:u f f ed on them two or three time.s. 201504 ~~ A,r. Banzhaf f. You mightt cve-n be buyinq them because they are cigarettes.

ty 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 ' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 Acr-Fcacral Re;>ort--rs, Inc. 25 602 Senator Stevens. j•;ell, that is another matter. Now you are getting back to where you are saying you don't have any objection to cigars, but you have objections to cigars that look like cigarettes andito advertising cigars that look like cigarettes. Mr. Banizhaff. And I am also concerned that the American public may be able to get their tar and nicotine at half the price and that the loss is being picf.ed~up s o*r,ewhere by the United States ta;:payer, hcca:use ~-,,here it doesn''t come in one end, it has got to come in some%,.There else. Senator Stevens. j,;ho started that? As al practical matter, you reop1e thafit started the censorship on the American i pt:h,J.i.c i n terms of ~•:::~it goes over the air~-,,aves really startedi ; this, and one of these days you are going to reach the endi, I because really what you are saying to: us now, that if we put the song and dance and put areal cigar on television and on th airwaves and advertise it with the same thing -- and as a ~ Imatter of fact, I have seen so:,ie of them -- I think the White I ~Owl girl is the one that startcd~this business, advertising lin that fashion -- that because there is something seductive 21 !'1 and scmething„ you know, jazzy about the advertising, it is ; wrcng, . . 2015046212 My point is, are you really disturbed about the advertisin I Ior the product? Mr. Banzl:a "f . I~,,,~ concorncc? abou` both aui te franklv

ty 16 - nd' ',2 2' 603 and the way the determinatio.ns are being reached. I might point out to you, Senator,. that the heavy tax on cigarettes was around long before I came around, lor.g before anybody was very concerned about the advertising on television, and if you ~aill recall, my primary fight was simni}- to get the otr:err side heard, that although there may or may not he legiitir.;ate controversy ab: ut the health hazards of smoking, I thin:r: every?Doeiy is going to admit there is a good argumcnt that ^}_crarettes are hazardous, and before 1967, this argument sir.,,ply ~;rzs not hcard! by a g;reat majo ity of American people on rGciio and television, because the tobacco industry 1 3 4 6 7 8 10 1 12'I' ~-,ias ab.le to hlitz it and nrevent one side. I fought for the ~ - ~ 131, other side. 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 N O F, C1T Q ~ C?~ N .N ' . GJ . 2411 A -Federal Rc,»~tors, I!,c. ,~ 2511!

604 a5j04723 dw 1 3 6 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22 2 3' 24 Ace -Fedpral Reponters, Inc. 251 Senator Stevens. You say the action is with little cigars, and I assume you wouId agree with me from what you said, sounding as though you are a very fair man, you would agree with me that if we could package this cigar in a little package like that, that was identical to:this one that Senator Cook ju;t sho,::ed you, in other words, it was wrapped wi th a -- you know, a pure wrapper, and it was in a nice little package, and I could buy it through aa machine that looked like a cigarette machine, that you would have no objection to that, I mean, just my buying it through a machine? Mr. Banzhaff. T,f they were clearly distinguishable, I would have no objiection. Senator Stevens. But you would object if the sexy little girl walks across the screen and tries to seduce me into buying brand X or brand Y of little cigars? R1r. . Banzhaf f. Senator, as you said before,we are both lawyers, and you are using a very common lawyer's tactic of taking one factor and taking it out of context. +I I lLsted a dozcn!factors which I thought ought to~be r I considered, and you are taking just one. Senator Stevens. I amitalking about the little cigarss that look like little cigarettes except they are pure little cigars and tl:cy arc packagedli;;e little cigarettes, except they are put:c little ciqars. 2015046214

605 dw 2 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22' j-;hat I am interested in really is in the advertising aspects. You see, up my way, we have very small television stations. We happen to have the only place in the world where there are three television stations for 70,000 people, 'and they just happen to be getting some of this little cigar i advertising no,1a, and it appears inisome of my favorite i progrums, and I am really r:ondlering %~:'mether you people are ~ no:a goi:rg, to say and try to talk the Congress into the fact i that this adveri tising, money that these national people pay up our .v-ay is wrong because again it is sort of seductive advertising towards little cigars. ~ f;r. . 3anZhaff.. I am not so muchiconcerned with the I problem of seduction, Senator, but could you explain to me how it serves the public interest for these things to be broadcast on these television stations, bearing in mind that they are trustees of the public interest? Senator Stevens. I could give you a lecture on that for a long time, because it brings the shut-ins and people who cani't afford cable television .nd other things free TV. The public enterprise system, the system of private enterprise, has brought something that my country has never had before. 2'3:ar. Banzha~ff . Why not adver.tisc heroin, mairij'uana, and ! 24 all ;:hisstLiff? 2015046215 Aer-Fcd;ral Reprtcrs, Inc• il 25 1i Senator S t:e;,ens. I am g1acl your,7enti.oned that.

dw 3 3 4 8' 9 10 11 12 606 I would like to go into that with you a little bit. As a practical matter, I want to know where you people are going in terms of this sugqestionthat we ban advertising these little cigars because you think they are cigarettes and I think they are cigars. Mr. Banzhaf'f . I am suggesting only that where they are not rcally di.stinguishable from cigarettes by the criteria which has been discussed today, then they shouldbe classified as little cigars, that the procedure currently being used clearly is not an adequate one, andt must be cleaned up. And the process by which these decisions are arrived at quite fran::ly ustoni--hcs me. I 13' !; 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 2 2' 23 24 ii Ace-Fec+eral Reporte's, Inc. Il 25 i I don't thinr, quite frankly, I can sit here with you and d'raf t an appropriate statute which would do it. I could. take a good stab at it back in my office. I think the appropr.iate thing to do would be to have the Pconle who manufacture the cigars come in.and if we can reach some kind of consensus as to alkaline content, total tar, extract, size, shape, and so on, fine. Senator Cook. I am inthe same boat that you are in. I neither smoke cigarettes or cigars. I just happened to have that cigar here as an exar,:ple. 201.5©466216 Mr. Ban :hiif f. Yes. I said the one you hold. Scnator Stevens. V;ell, I am not in that same position. I am more lnterE' sti.F Ci in 41hC1C yQl1 are g,Olncj, because it

dw 4 1 2 5 6 7 10 1l 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18, 19 20 21 22 607 does seem to rae that Senator Cook has made a point. If you are succcssful in your current endeavor, then I take it that the advertising money that the tobacco industry . has available will be directeditowards cigar smoking, and then, obviously, ~ou are c~oing to have to come back and saY, . ~ ., "Hey, they have still got that seductive little wench on the TV and she is still telling people to smoke tobacco," and' I don' t think you ha%,e gotten down to the point of smoking,. ~ You have taken on, I think, the most vulnerable portioni of smoking, and it is just not far before you get to the point where youlare going to be attacking cigars, and then you are going to be attacking those who smoke tobacco in pines, ~•;hen there isq nothinq to support either one. It seems to me that you Fsought yourself into the corner. Youhave painted yourself into a corner. They can't advertise cigarettes any more so they are advertising cigars. Mr. Banzhaff. k'hy do they have to advertise these products on television? 201504021'7 Senator Stevens. I thought it was a free country and j th~eyhad a right to advertise what they well please. Mr. Banzhaff. Unlcss Congress prevents it or unless 23,ji 24 ~o f-cdhral Reporders, I,ic. 25 it is contrary to the public interest as determined by the Pcc?eral Con'r.nuinications Ccrr„nissionc, set up by the Congress to mzt}:e that c.!etermination,

dw 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 10 11 12 1 17 23 24 Ac Federat Ro;~ertcrs, Lic. 25, 60a Hr . Stevc?ns. I am sure the Chairman would like to g,et along with the other witness. I don't think there is anyone in the country that flies as much as I do on cor;~:ercial airlines, and I want you to h:now ( that I have seen the seats set aside for the smoking~ andnon- s:r:o},ing . Have you ever f lown, on those planes that have tho se?' Mr. Banzl:alff . Yes, sir. Senator Stevens. Have you ever f lo,tinion a transcon- for instance? tinental one that has the ::;ovies , i ~ Mr. Banzharf . No, I haven't. I I Senator Stever.s. Do you, kno~•.~ where the nonsmokers are placed? P-Ir. Banzhaff. Yes, sir. Senator Stevens. Up rront. Mr. B'anzhaff. . Tnere is a very logical reason for that. Senator Stevens. TIncy co:ce back and sit next to n;e 1 8' smor:ing, my pipe and! they never obj ect,, because they want to ~ 19 1 see the movie. I 20 i Mr. IIanzhaff. . Isn't thiat freeuom, Senator? They have I the freedom to choose the clean air, they can go back with 21 22 lil you: and ;,7atch the dir tv r,.ov ie . 2015046218 Senator Stevei:,. -.nd the dirty air. t:r. 1,,.n.:haf:f. B.ut with the non,ir:o)cing sections, they c.,n sit in r; place %,7herre t::c"1 ;:or.'t nollutc their lungs, and

dw 6 1 3 5 6 7 &Il 9 609 you, I think, will not have to worry that you may be sitting next to somebody who :•rould be bothered by your smoking, and! either have to refrain~ from sr,.o':ing, during that long trans- continental f li ght or s;,oke and possibly be discouraging the people sitting next to you. So long as %:re don't make the smokers sit out on thee wings, I don't see .,:h~erc, there is a grealt Cliscrimination against it. Senator Stevens. I suggest it is a matter of courtesy l p lj for sc~T~eone to ask whether he obj ccts to ~~moking. If they ~I 11 do, I %,°outd not. 12 ~i hIr. . Ban~zh~~f f. If all peo;~le did' ~that, there wouldn "t be 13 15. 16 . 17 1'8 19 any nc.c1 for tl',e ;e rules. The proi:)1:e:a is, they don't. Sonator. Stcvens . 1ou autor^.atically ]load! us to the point where v.•e have an~ aera sGit aside that is for smoking. I d'on't have to ask an%,o:^,e sittingbeside me, because I am there because I am a smoker. If he is there, he is there because he diocsn''t object to s,:,o};ing. So, you see, the pro?Dlem, is tl at you have defeated 201 yourself by thcse regulations that you are pushing us towards. 21 You are really get-.ti.rg gr.g a::-ayfrom, the ~:•hole concept of 22 i' P"rso:_Dl courtc~-y and perconal cc ;cration v:ith yourr fello%-:r.:an 2'3 2'4 I~ i cn~ _ odcrr+l RCpoI!r'rs~. 2'5 '. and you are g,oing to the place where the goVernment is going to rc~ql~.latc it for you. 2015046213 You c?on' thz%. e tot:},e l~.c tr:~orne,.:t to you a~ny more, I I

610~ dw 7 2 because you got a right to presume he doesn't object to . smolc i:.g . Let ine get to this:one other thing about marijuana. I am interested in that because of the current apparent 5 6 7 1!0 l1 12 13 14 15 1I 16 18 ' 19 2011 21 22 fad of trying to legalize marijuana. done anything about the Now, have your pr_~cole ever I effects of smol-,inr r.,-,rijuana on the F'lmerican people? 2ir. F34nzhaff. . When you: say "my people, "we don'' t do: u:iy basic researc'ri. The people who are sponscrs of our organization and so on are a large number of indivic:•..,a:l.s, some are doctors. I do not knc•.,: at this r;o,-.ent ~ahethe:r they have done any re s-E_;:irch or cthef t~ ey have ta}:en any position on it. Senator Stevens. I am concerned. I read'more about the hazards of smokiing tobacco iincigarettes than I read about the hazcards: of sTnoki ngl marijuana in cigarettes, and I j',ustt wonder why some of your people that are spending the time and the money to orr,aniz:e these nonprofit organizations aren' tworried about r,a:rij',ua'r:a. If %:,e cam~ believe ag;(-'in ;:~hat I read in the newspaper last night, that 20' percent of our young people are smoking, r,-iarijuan:a cigarettes, why shouldn't some of these people be 23'~ 1 %,,orried abou~t tl'~liat? ~ 2015G4~22U 24 ,il ~ '~Sr . han::huf f. The of our organi ration, is to ~ce-Fed^ral F pc tc s„I,,, 25' lcc;:.l action ,:hcrc it :>c-..~s to be anpror)r.iate. i!

611 dw 8 Senator Stevens. Against cigarettes? 2 3 4 5 61 ~ i 7 V' 8' 9' 11 Mr. Banzhaf f. t.o~, sir. S7here it seems appropriate. If the marijuana people %;Tere a(ivertising on television, I wou].d certainly be asking for equal tiMe. If they were violating an act of Congress by -- Senator Stcvens. I saw, as a matter of fact, one of thosc tal:: shoz•;s, cne of those panel sho~vs, ~,.,here peoole t•,ere tal},i::c ~ Gbout marijuana and th~~e fact tlza~t they ti:ought it was not i harmful, et cetera, et cctera. Do your neopl!e ask forr equal tirae on som.ething like that,, to say that it is ecually as harmful as smoking cigarettes? 12 ! Mr. Far.::.~a~ff. . i;c), sir. I~.,,~ould be very h,a,ppy~ to worY~ in elraftimr, a hcrson~l fairnuss doctrine, if you 14 i~ wish. My impression in general is that this issue is presented 18 19 on both sides. I unaers-1-ooG from the testimony this morning that nanyot trie athletes are now presenting ainticrugausor clips. Senator Stevens. This is very effective, as a matter of t 20 III 21 1 22 23'i;~ 2 4'". A'c- -Fcdcinl Repn( t",s„Liu. ' 25I I! f act. I thiac : tho ;e athletes ought to he commended, very, very much so. V;e donit t have the problem, though. The Mr. B'anzhuf f . r.. :ri juana inci sti:y is rot s n:..ing a cluarter of a billion doll,irs to r-:i-orc;)i.(, a i)r.oc".,,:c1L on the lair. 2015(34s221 Sena-.oi Coo~}~ . ;•l~-,Ay'De~ tl~`cy are ef f e~c tiv~e on youl. Do~ you,

612 dw 9 e..3 23 r~2~~4 111 smoke marijuana? 2 11 Senator Stevens. No. Senator Cook. t;'hat I am trying to say to both of you is you think they may be very effective. We have heard 5I testimony that they are not effective at all, that nobody o.li pays a bit of attention to then. i 71 I too?c the arru.ent %•rith the chairman, back when we were ~ 8 fichting ta}cin~? cigaret:tes off television. The first time 911 I learned hoa to sr.^.o?ce a cigarette wasn't becuase I was 101i watching television. There %•;asn't any television. Somebcdy ~ i 11' I~ gave r~:e one in a boys' .rooM in school, or out behind~the barn, I I 12' ± and that is ~-,:os t of the learn to smoke it to&iy. 13 Do you think thev~ r e~-~l7.y buy a pa,ck of S~aler;~s~ becaus~e~ ~ 14 ~ t}'ney~ s a%•: i t o~n~ te~~levi s io~n? 15~ Because, if you thin:: so, I think you are wrong, and I 17 JI have told the chairman he ~•;as %:,rong. 18 19 2011 221 t:r. 13anzhaff . I think it is a contributing factor. All I can say is that both sides are being heard from, which was not the case before 1967, with respect to cigarc-ttes. Senator Cook. If that was such a big contributor, ho::, 22 1 comecigar.ette sales are up? 23'1i Mr. :3an;.ha ff . Do you want the simple answer, sir? 241 ~ s~ n<< lo~- cc~~): .: L:, E~ . 201.504622-4 Ace-Fcdeial Rcp,wtcrs, Inc. !; 1! i<1r. 131~:1~1~~fff . ~"he zs~ t'-he~ broadcastQ.rs have t-'•:en! 2'J!

613 dw 10 2 3 5 7 10 11! 12 13 14 15 16 17 13' 19 the antismoking ads off the air. Smoking consumption in Britainlis going down, down15 percent over the past year. According to the article, the reasons.for it are, num.ber one, that they banned cigarete smoki ng, number t,.tiro, that there government, unlike ours, sponsors a large nuinber of antism:oking messages. Senator Cook. Their gover=.ent owns television,. IDo you want your government to own television? Mr. Eanzhaff. I think they own some of the television, not all of But in any case, those are the reasons attributed for it. I doni't know. I can't give you studies shcwing that takinacigarette Uds •off television will r,rake.an impact. I do sugr,e s ~: to you that t`::eir ir: pact is a long term one. You can't turn it on an'-11 off like a faucet. You can"t turn it ; off on January 2 and look in March and!April and expect a decline. I If there is going to be a decline, it will be in the ~ long run. As new children come allong, who haven't been ~ d t th f l th b b i tt i '7ecte e co.mmerc a s , as e o e arrage o c gdre 20 ~; su I ..ing is being socially acceptable, sophisticated, 21 ~ image of smo: I ~ 22 ; r.izsculin~^ for raon and fer,iinine for ~•,o::Iei:, begins to fade. ~ 23 J~ I don' t tr:ink you can, turn it off January 2 and turn 24 iil it on -- 2015(346223 ~R. FCv^_fl~ ftnr~l!,yS. ~nn. I~ 2: i' Sencitor Cook. i•ir. Bar.Zhaf,`',`', you raised a very important ~ i;

614 dw 11 4 5 6 7 8 ~ 9 ! 10 I 11 i l 12' ! 13 ~ 14 15 ~ 16 17 ; 19 20 21 point, and the Chairman alluded to this before, and I will ask staff if they will contact the major networks and find out howrn,any timcs the anticigaretto ads are still on television, because they are on quite frequently. I see them quite free;.,:ently. And this idea that all of asud'den they have all gone off is just not true. mr. BanLhaff . I thin}. I said substantially decreased. If I did not, I be]iieve I would be in error. My be lief is that they %.;ere substantially decrease.-i. They were being presented approximately in the ratio of one in five, one in six, for every five or six commercials, there ould be an antismo}.ing messE,cye.. j;.:on the ban ;-;ent into effect, r^any of the broadcasters ., interpretea this as an end to their obligation. We pointed out to them that first of all, they had been running these comsnercials for many, many years before they had been presenting antismo:,ing messages, there was still an awful lot of free time o%.:ed. Secondly, to the extent that they had ain obligation to devote time to matters of public interest, the problem of cigarette smo}:ing wa 5 as severe on January 3, 1971, as it t,,,as on December 29. Scnator Stevens. What c?o you mean, there is a lot of f ree t im.e owing? 2015046224 I told you about my thrcc litt.J.e telcv ision stations

615 dw 12 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 up there that are surviving just barely as a result of the act of Congress to take away the advertising that they get from the tobacco industry on the cigarettes, and they were having to run public service free time by edict of the feu:ral govcr:;ar.ent, advertising against the advertising they had'ju5t lost. Now, you seem to have some concept that the broadcasters that took that money and paid their people salaries and pro- vidcd the i,;«rlboro Country type of prograTaming, you think th~:.y have some guilt coiL,.pler or something because they' advertised that all those years? Mr. Ban~zha{f . No, sir. Senator Ste:vens._ i7nat do you.nean they oo:e someting?' r;r. . Banzhaf f. I a^? talking about law. - The Federal i Co:r..~nlnications Cemz-,is,,sion has also said that if a broadcaster presents, v:hether paid or otherwise, one sid'e of a contro- versial i ssue of public ir,.portance, he is obligated by law to make a substantial amount of time, free, if necessary, available to present the other point of view. The basis for it, Senator, is that in a democracy, it is more imnortaint for the peonl.e to be able to hear both sides of i:..portant issues than for one person to be able to dominate the air,.aavs. 2015(}462r25 24 i For m~_-:r.,z~~, r,~«~_~nh ;~r:,rr~, , b ~ef ore~ tl~~c~ 1~ 67 decision, cigarette Ace-Federal Rchoritcrs„Inc. ~, 25 II ~•':;Ot:I.:C; wa"i a C.o::t.rCvC'r.`'.1al l.`".~luF_'e of public 1'.mnortc?nce.

616 dw 13 1 2 3 4 6. 9 1 & 1!1 12 15 16 77 18 19 20, 21 22' 23 Virtually no free time was made available for the other side to be heard. There is still a lot of that free time owing:. The FCC has ruled that ;,;here a fuirncss doctrine obligation is , incurred, it contiliues. It doesn't magically get wiped out. Senator Stevens. I thiz.l: ~-,e should get to this free _ business. I don~' t understand that at all. I undcrstand egual tim.e, and fairness in terms of access to the air%:~.ys, but I certainly don't understand your point that it has to be free, because if it is free, it is going to takca away the f ina>>cial abi lity of these companies to continue to or ovi;ue f r ee over- ILhe-a.ir broadcasting service, 13I~ tci ~-,vi~sion radio;, to the ::r,,~.~rican public, and one of ~ 141 these days you arc going to kill the goose that laid the 11 i gole;en egg, as far as the country is concerned, as far as i' co1,,.-u:nicltions. I These people cannot survive. Because you esttab-lish so:~~::cthing as being a controversial I issue, it doesn't mean they must give av:ay something that is t.heirs. ~ I t1r. L'anahaff. It belonct;s to the Ainerican, people by act I ~! of Cong,res_, sir. 201504622b Sen,:~tor Stevens. Sure, it does, the air~%-ays do, bu~t the 24 ~! ability to broac?c~~~,t coc.sn' t. It costs n:oiiey. It costs I 4ce - Feacral t:cpartacs, Inc. ,~ 2J 11 rr.o::cy tooz~r ; in~_~ tea prcC~~,, , n~or.,,at:tero what it is , you crc,t- to 4, I

617 dw 141 3 4 5 6 7 9 110 li1 12 13 14 15' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ace-Fcderat Report^rs, liic. 1 25 1 pay camerarnen, and you got to pay the people behind the scenes there that run those things, and Congress never told anybody that they have to run the station for free any time, to my kno-,;rledge. Mr. Banzhaff. Congress told thein that they had to obsciTve cer.taincbligations and one of them might be that %•:iiere they present one side, they have to present the other side. i Senator Stevens. I agree with that, on the same basis, and if you %;°ant to go against that, you are entirely free to do it, as f ar as I am concerned~. ~2l:e time is going to come when you are going to have to pay for and not i.ave tax-free corporations on one place where you carn do your rEsearch~ and then come over to a taxable corporation that has no income so youcanlobby. As a practical matter, we are going to have to get to some of these deficiencies on the Am.ericam.scene one of these days. Mr. Banzhaff. S,7ith all due respect, I point out I am not lobbying. I;aas invited'here by the Chairman. My testimony is limited to today. I have made no solicitations to~ ar_y people of the Congress. I certainly do not have any of the financial clout that many of the people sitting here in this room today hi:ve. 2015046227 nnd; I do not h:vc t:,,cir po:-:er. There has been a qrecit

G18 dw 15 1 3 4 5 7 .8 14' 15 16 17 18 ~ 19 20 21 22 deal of talk, where I am going and what I am going to do next, as if somehow I have been g~iven magical powers to pass ' legislation or control committees. I have no powers other than those that the law may allow me as an~ordinary citizen. I can do nothingiunless I can persuad:le Congress or the Federal Trade Commission or the FCC or some agency or court or jt:dlige or legislator_ that my posi- tion is right. I have no other po:vers. Senator Stevens. I apologixe if I misunderstood.• I thought you had testified that youlhave two corporations, onc is ta.x free, and one is a taxable qroup.so it could be in•.'olvec:: in lobbying'. Did I misunderstand you? Mr. Banzhaff. That is correct. But I do want to make it very plain today that I am not lobbying. I•have done nothing more than eppear before this committee in response to a request by the chairman made to me because, as hie states in his letter, I have been involved in a:number of legal activities related to this issue, the issue of Winchester. Senator Stevens. You are obviously a good advocate for your -- 201504622$ 23 ' li 2 4 AcP-Fudeial Rcpnr1cis„inc. ~~ 2 5 ~i. I Mr. B:&nzhaff. j-,ith the Chairman's permission, I would! li):e to suk~mit to the record all the leg,al documents hertaining to tiiis thizlt we ha%,e submitted, our petition to,

dw 16 1 2 3 4 5 8' 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24'1 Ace - federal Rcpwters; lr~c• !li 25I'I 619 the IRS, their responses, and so on. Senator Moss. Thank you. We will be glad to have those if you would' submit them. Thank you, Mr. Banzhaff. We do appreciate your testimony. It is based on a long interest in the subject matter, and so it will be helpful to us. You may be excused. (Committee insert:)

620 dw 17 2 3 4 5 6 8' 9 10 11 12 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 ll 201 + 21 ~ 22 23 24 Ac,.-Fedbral Rcpcir,crs, i-,c. 25 Senator IMoss. I was a little regretful that Senator Cook was surprised that we were talking about little cigars, so I have the transcript of the beginning of this hearing on the first day of February, in~which I, as the Chairman, first of all ackno%,,ledged that Senator Cook was present, and I go on to say, during the course of the hearings, we will discuss several other aspects of smoking and health which have come to light in, recent months. These included, one, the marketing of little cigars. I have consulted with the staff members and the minority staff n,embers I have consulted fully onithis, andthey knew I about it, and in fact, it was discussed! as, to who would be invited in tG;:ing out these other points. But I didn't e.:pect to take the Senator by surprise, but I am sorry if it did. We tried to make it as open as possible. Senator Cook. May I reply to that, Mr. Chairman, and say that I have no regrets about youlhaving intervened into the hearing on S.1454. I am delighted to know that the respective staffs knew about it. I am j,ust sorry that the meri:bers of the cor,unittee di;dn' t know about it. I can, only say to, you aigain that even though you expz:essed that the first day of the hearing, I am quite sure that if an indivi_c'..,ual, c C~t ready for a trial, based on an issue that w'as in front of h1ifll,, and ':;'1G;ni thCe nloolling statement was Illa'dc to 2015046230

621 dw 18 1 on,~ 23 Ac.. -Fcderat' Rcp.rtcrs, Inc.. 25 the jury that his opponent proceeded to say, "and while we are at it, there is another subject we would like to take up," I think that would come as a surprise to him. Senator Mcss. I responded simply because I understood that was part of your complaint, that the minority staff didn't know anything a':)out it. And of course, the other thingis the date. That is 2 4 5 6 I 10 days away that this stater..ent %•:as r.ade, and I d~oni't see I how youI could be very surpri sed tcday. 8' 9 14 15 16 17 18 19 201 21 22 23 ~GJ 0) N 24 I

CR-5004 T 25 2-10-72 sw-1 XXxX},. 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 622 Senator Moss. Mr. Charles J. Mouhtouris, who is Secretary-Treasurer of the Little Cigar Council, will be our next witness. Mr. Mouhtouris. STAT1.E::T OF CfIARLES J. t•:OUIITOU'RIS, SECREThRY-TREASURE'R, LITTLE CIGAR COUNCIL. l-.r . Mouhtcuris . Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcom,mi4tee, the Litt1e Cigar Council is an association of var:Lous Unit:ed States Dianufactu-:crs of tobbaco products, all of whom manufacture and sell lilCtle cigars. In view of the subcommittee's expressed interest in ccrczain aspects of the little cigar business, we askedifor this o~~,~porfi_unlity to be heard~, and we very much appreciate your allowing us to appear here today. In order to avoid duplicating the testimony of each company, and f:herehy conserve the time of this suhcommittee,' the follo%.,ing compan.ies have asked that I' present their views: G. A. Georgonulo andiComnany, Incorporated, the Little Cigar Division of Lorillard, Stephano Brothers and United States To')acco Company. 2015046232 According to the latest published fig,ures (John C. ria::~,,ell Jr. , Oppenheimer and Comipany), t:hcse four companies manu{acture and sell. in e::cess of apnroximately 72 percent of all the lit'k':le ciqzir~; :~old in Unitc,cl States. n,• Mr. Chairman, little cicfars are not crrtirely a new

62 3 sw-2 2 product. Smokers have enjoyed little cigars for many, Many years, and some of the brands still popular today have been continuously available in the United' States since 1877 with substantially the same cigar characteristics as they have tod'ay. . Little caqars have, and continue to have, independent appeal to many srlo kers -- part.icularly those who seek robust flavor and tasre enjiov:nent from their smoking. 9 In~ addition, there are m any %aho enjoy them as an 10 alternative to other toJ)acco proe:ucts . They have long 11 enjoyed, the reputat:i.e,,n off beincr quali ty nroducts, and they 121 1 I are produced by ouf-sta:,ding and reputable manufacturers. 13! 1 With your perrtiss'_on, I-ir. Chairman, and with the 14 understanding that t.hc activities I a m describing are those , 15 practiced by the companies I represen t herc today, I should 16 like to review for the sub commit•cee : ~ 17 1. The manncr in %:•hich our little cigars are O 18 ~ advertised; 19 2. How they are sold; ~ N 20 3. Their content; and' ~ 21 4. Their »anulfact.ure. 22 Let me turn first to a brief description of the manner I 11, 23 in which we aclvertise cur little cigar pro;3ucts. 24 i~li II Our advcr;:i~-inq t~:}la~t tli1cre arc members of thc kce-Fc;,~ral Rcp!mtt:rs, lr"-. ' r 25 s:oo'.::ing nu~)lj:c t:o who:l .l-i_ttLc cicTars have indc.:pcn(icnt ang-eal, ~ I~

624 sw-3 2 3 4 7 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22' il23~ I. 24~I Acc~-Fc,:-,(n1 fir,porters, Ire. 25 and that there are those who seek an alternative to large cigars, cigarettes and pipes. In response to these varying demands, our advertising has been straightforwardland direct in its statements that little cigars are capable of delivering tobacco taste and enjoyment to those who smo}:e them. We 7iavc not, in any way, shape or form, sugg,ested' that our product is anything, other than what it is -- a little cigar. As the Senator for Alaska said, pure little cigars. Our little cigars have heen favorably received in the marketplace as We are of the positive opinion that none of our little cigar customers have confused'our products with cigarettes, as little cigars. They do not and need not masquerade any oi:her product. and we have never atternnted to cause any such confusion. Sle firmly believc that any objcctive review of the advertising for our little cigars clearly indicates that the product which is being offered is a little cigar, that the product v,hich is being offered is a little cigar, that the product offers to smokcrs characteristics traditionally identificd with little cigars, and, in many instances by express sta:tcrr.ent, that tiie smoker need not inhale little cicj,<<rs in orc?cr to enjoy ther1. 2015046234 It i:-, also of not ~- that in ::o^ic instances our

625 4 5 7 9 10 packages add to the messagef of our advertisinq and make reference to the fact that inhaling is not necessary. I.should now like to outline for you some of the practices we have follo;:ed and now follow in offering our little cigars for sale, as well as some of those we avoid. Altho°a^h over 15 percent of the cigarettes sold in the United States are solci' through vending machines, our little cigars are not offered'for sale in cigarette vending mZchines. In ad'di-tion, we do not offer any promotional allowance 11I to cigarette vending machine operators seeking to encourage 12111 thc~ placemcnt of little cigars in such outlets. 13'.~I The little cigars of our production are merchandised 1~'r at retail on fixtures and racks specially designed and ,15f1 traditionally used for cigar products. 16 17 They are not, as a result of either our direction or request, displayed on cigarette package fixtures or on lg'1 cigarette carton racks. I Ac 19' 20: 21 22 23 24 -Federal Renu:r.rs, Ltic. ' 2'5 ii. Our little cigars are offered for sale to tobacco retailers, distributors and!jobaers, only in cases consisting, of 25 or 50 cartons. V1e do not package our little cigars in cither 3'0.1carton cases or 60 carton cases -- as is the practicc in the sale of c:igalrct~c,s. 2015046235 S•,liilc introd'uctory price al ].owances are almo st always offered c•:ith respect to cigarette products, we neither

4 6 7 8 9 110 11 12 13 14: 15 l1 0 17 18 19 20 21 22' G26 uniformly nor universally grant them with respect to new little cigar proc:ucts. We do nott universally offer allowances to retailers for counter or other display privileges, which we und'erstand' is the practicce of the cigarette producers. Some of the companies for whom I snea}. sell their little cigars to franchise cig,ar wholesalers -- an approach ~-:hich has been traditional to the cigar industry for many years. This method is in contrast. to cigarette marketing where the manufucturer sells its cigarettes to wholesalers, retail chains and vendinc] machine onerator s. One additional poizit concerning the pac}.ages for ourr products may also be of interest: Although the style, design and format of our packages vary from, manufacturer to manufacturer, it can certainly and fairly be said that they raeet all the Internal Revenue Service reduire;,,lents applicable to them, and'they clearly indicate that they contain little cigars. I should no:.; like to briefly outline to you how we r.lanufact;are our little cigars, and describe for you some basic information as to t'ieir content. 201504623s Little cigars are trrl-'itionally and principally produced from so-callccl ci(jar to'.)Llcco -- that is, tohacco, which hL':c1ll':>e of lt s OC91eti c characteri 5tics and comrositi_c) 1, is Un1C;uC in tilst.e anCI aroiila~ 1-ATC:n cClmT2a1ed to the to!?<lcco7,

627 6 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 , 15 16 17 1& Little cigars do not, as in the case in the manufacture, of cigarettes, utilize flue-cureditohaccos. If flue-cured to:)accos were used in little cigars, its nresence would affc>ctt the ciclar-lil;e characteristics of the product, and thc:rc.i)v li::cn them to cigare ttes . Little cigars also contain reconstituted or homogenized tol3acco, both in the filler and in the wrapper of the pro.'uct. The ~,vrappers for thc> littel ciqars we produce clearly. distinguish them as little cigars, and they possess neither thc light colorr nor smooth texture which, is normally assoc- ilatcc: c;ith ci:,arette pa per. I would now like to direct our remarks to certain testimony nresunted hcic on February 3, 1972, to the effect that "confusion" exists concerninq the d'efinition and classification of little cig,ars in the Interani Revenue Code and regulations thercunaler. Prior to my present position, I was employed for 32 years by the internal Revenue Service, all of my service having been in the toaacco tax administration and enforce~lent arca, Thc last 10 }~e~~rs of that empLoyment were as Chief of the Tobacco Tax 201504623'7 sw-G 3 used in the manufacture of cigarettes. Branch. llurini.; sei•vicc,, I prlrt:icinatecl wi.t t legislative cot)in ;cr1 of th;: Trc :r:.ury I)uprrrtricn';., the staffs of the Ilouf:c Co:„r111`tC'_C on :1~1;rS -,I1C1 "`Ci~lnS, f-h'.! Fin tncL Co:?41(lltr.ee of

s w- 7 1' 2 3' 4, 5 6 7 8 9 I 10 ~ 11 12 13 i 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22' 2 3 `' 2 4 ~; !',ce-Fcd^_ral Ri•!>>r;+,rs, l,ic. k' II 25 628 Senate, and the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, as well as with counsel of many of the cigar and cigarette manufacturing firms, in the development of the tobacco laws enacted as Chapter 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954', - as well as the amendatorv Public Law 39-44 enacted in 1965, alil of rrhiich are pertinent to thi s matter. In addition, I directed the preparation of the regulation implementing the.tobacco ta.x laws . The definitions of "cigarette" and "cigar" presently found'in Section 5702'of the Internal Revenue Code were very carefully conceived and d'raf ted. Under Public Law 30-44, the definition of a traditional cigaretta., that is a roll of tobacco wrapned in paper or any substance other than tobacco, was retained, and the definition of a traditiona]~ cigar, that is a roll of tobacco wrapped in tobacco, was essentially undisturbed. There was added, however, carefully considered language and criteria to assure that any reconstituted wrapped product, which is not clearly distinguishable as a cigar, whether large or small, is taxcd as a cigarette. This is the reason why the difinition of "cigar refers to the definition of "'cigarc:tte." The two must be considered together. . 201504623$ Thc leg!islative i~ur~~osc J:hich ti:as intended in Public Lz::z H- i.i wa:i clG'ariy C::orF'.ssed in cC:'na:".t'_' I'.C:noLt No. ~2,1I on ;

629 sw-8 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 1 12 Ii. R. 9371, which was enacted as Public Law 89-44. The report states "the definitions of cigarette and cigar are modified to permit a more meaningful distinction to be made bet%~:een the t,,•:o. " This has bc,en, achi eved. During my tenure as the person resnonsible for the tobacco tax program of the Inter. nali Revenue Service, no question was ever raised a'r-)out the clarity or purpose of these dc.finitions. The law is not difficult to undorstand:, and prior to the testimony you heard on I'ebruary 3', I have never before heard anvone call it confusing. To everyone I have l:no;.;n the law is clear: it nreans "if the product is not clearly a 13;; cigar, it is a cig,arette." 14'I' The manufacturers, for whom I sneak today have encountered ~i - 15i1 no prohlems iwth these definit?ions and they oppose any ill- 16 ~i considered or selfish]._y-motiivated changes in the anplicable ~ 17' laws or regulations of the type pr.oposed' to this 18 1: , subcommi ttee . 19 I In addition, :1r. Chairman, and perhaps of more 20 ~i, i7"Dortance, is the factt that the consuming public is not 21 ;; confused . They kno~a what they want, and know what they are 22 ~~ gctting. 2015045239 , The t;.ro classific<ztioas -- snall cigars and larqc: ci.c;ars „ 24 (wc~~igh~ing: not than t-.'_irc:L Rcpo;c-is, Inc. ~; 25 I ~ noun,is pcr t:housaml and ~tic^ic~lri~~ , 1'

630 sw-9 more than three poun<'.s per thousand) have existed since before the turn of the century in connection withitfie application of different tax rates. In drafting regulations to implement the la,.a in this area;, it was recognizedithat some manufacturers were using the term "'little" rather than "small" on their packages. Since the terms are synonyr,!ous, IRS regulations have long permitted the use of either tcrn on the package to identify such product. s. In proposing a change of dcfinitions in the tax laws and req,ulations, one of the earlier witnesses said that his co:r.nany ciid so "'reluctantly. " Our response to his comments is offered with no similar reluctance, and without apology or equivocation. The proposed~ch:angss are unnecessary and unwarranted. They are 3 4 5 7 8 9' 10 1 1! 12 14 but another example of "much adoabout nothing" inthe current cai,iipaign ag,ainst _ little cia,ars._ 2015046240 Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that the information we have endeavored to furnish to you through my testimony will be of help to you and~ your subcc^;^nittee members. I trust that I have dc:ionstratcd1to you by this discussio. of our ad'vc:rtising; tt:e nranner in which our products are soLd, the content of our proc:uct, and something of its inanufacturc, 16 17 18 19 20 1 21 22 23 li I 24 It ~.cc-Fi•u~cial Rcpor1-rs, Inc. ;i 25 t`.:at what ac nroduce ancl se1L are little cigars. They are and should not be confu-c,cd wit;l cic~~;arettcs. not

G31 sw-1D 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 1'1 12 13 14 15 16 171 22 II 23 24' Ace-Ft:dcral 25 I assure you that the manufacturers whose views II have presented, G. A. Georgopulo and Company, Incorporated, the Little Cigar Division~ of Lorillard, Stephano Broghers and UnitedStates Tobacco Company, standready to cooperate fully wi ch this subco::~mittce and any other parties who, are interestcd in any and all matters pertaining to tl:e little cigar busincss as wc unc'.`rstand it and engage in it. Senator tloss., `1^han:'~ you, Mr. Mouhtouris, and we appreciate your testimony, and it does contain iniforr.lation! thatis rather important. You do not reoresent P.. J. Reynolds? Mr. 1:ouliitouris. ao, sir, they are not in our association. Senator ?Ioss. And if their product did not meet these criterion that you set down, then you wouldn't dc.Lendthnm, is that right, as little cigars? tsr. Mouhtouris. I don't knor,a c-,hat their product is like, sir. All I know about their product is what I have he ard . 2015G462~1 Senator t,oss. ;,:ell, you have set down the various ~~oi_nt.s ;.rhich you say <<re met by the companies you renresent, and you consicier thetv that theso. are the disting;uishing fcai'.llrt'.s on w":C'.t1YC,r Ci~jars a!ld! all e1sC: are ciga,rettCs?' tlr. :SOU'rtoarils. k,riic:n t-hcc,c criteria Zre met, sir, they arc very cicfini:t-u- 11' ci(] ,;rs. 11;cy h..vc to hc.

632. sw-11 2 8' 9: 10, 1l 12 Senator Moss. And I believe you coupled that with everything else, they don't meet these criteria? Mr. tlouhtcauris. This is exactly what the law intends. Senator ~,Ioss. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony, sir. Senator Stevens. Do you rebr.esent all cigar manufac:t-larers andidistributors? Mr. Mouhtouris. No, sir. We represent just these four companies that I spo'ke of that are responsible for about: 72 percent of the little cigar industry. Senator Stevens. The fact that you don't represent It. J. Reynolds c:oc>>n't mean they coulcln'tt be making little cigars, too, in your opinion? ,4r. A?ouhtouris. This is quite true, sir. Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Seniator tioss. Thank you, Mr. Mouhtouris. We appreciatc 17 18; 19 20 21 22 it. We have had a long hearing, and all that are now here have been here a long time. I have prepared a closing statemerrt, but I don"t t1iink it is necessary. I will just suhmit it for the record. I won't lengthen the' hearing any further. (Complete statement follo:an. ) I I I I 2015G4s24,Z

STATEh4FNT OF SZEN-ATOR FR ANIf E. MOSS, D-UTAH1 633 CO)??SUhfER SUBCOMMITTEE F EBRUARY 10, 1972 SUBJECT: CLOSING STATEMENT AT FiEARING ON CIGARETTE REGULATIONS We have covered considerable t'erritory in our three days of hearings on various aspects of cigarette regulation. We discussed the desirabilit~y of establishi'ing limits on tar and nicotine content of cigarettes as embodied in S. 1454, and I was pleased to have the support of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health, I;ducation and Z'Tclfare in that regard. We have discussed application of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to establish a limit on the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes, and it''s quite evident from the testilmony presented'that the oniy way this can ever be resolved is in the courts. Thus I plan to go, ahead and bring suit'' so that the courts: can make a final decision in this regard. We have discussed the consent aoreemcnts the tobacco industry has come to with t}ie Federal Trade Cornmisoion to require a conspicuous health warning in cigairette advertising, and we have discussed little cigars, particularly Winchester li,,Ltle cigars. First, let me say that' the tobacco industry has cast aside a considerable amount of the recrimination, chargea and innuendo t'.:at has so frequently marred serious efforts to regu1_ate ci,arettes. lt seems to me that there is a preponder- ance of evidence concerninFrthe desirability of producing lower tar and'i nicotine cigarettes. Thus, with tiri's in r.zind I would' welcome f'urther voliuntary partici- pation by the tobacco industry, to cstablich the industry a ceiling on tar and nicotine and probressively to reduce that ceiling over the next several years until we reach a level which reduces the health hazards of the product. I would be most willing to discuss this furthcr with the industry. I'n lieu of such an initiative it .vould': be incumbent upon the Congress to rnove to achieve the same objective. Now, with rehard to little cigars I have had quite an education over the past ten d~ys. Although it has: L•cen statedi in the hearings that products cannot' be judrycd alike bvcause thcy happen to look a.lill.e, and' obviousl'y the ingredients of the product are particularly important, I don't think the visual aspect should be di _.iisscd too 1'i;,htly. The consumer with little or no technical knowledge concerning the ingredients is the one who makes the judgment of wh,t' t'he product is. To a large degree this is done on a vi'sual basis. (C~her%vise why was there so many millions of dollars spent in advertising on tel.evision rather than radio, a nonvisual media). The re- enforcement of television advertising with packaging and retail display material andi the visual aspects of the product relate even more closely to the "use"' pattern. The consumer is strongly influenced by the manufacturers visual! presentation of the product. It is apparent that when little "'cibarette type" cigars are compared to cigars they are visually more cigarette-like t4ian cigar like. Many cigarette type cigars have filters jiust like cirarettes in appearance. Thi'a visual appeal' of a filt'er is so, familliar to cigarette smokers it would! seem to be an invitation to in- hale. Cigarette type cigars are wrapped'r.,ith a straight seam like cigarettes and they are packaged in a pack of twenty iden~ical to cigarettes. They come out of a pacl:aae at the t'op ready to light like cigar et't'es. Perhaps the most important feature of the product "in use" comes about because of the smokers habit patterns. The two pack a day smoker wishing to quit cigarettes due to his worries about a health problem has developed what i'ls probablly, one of the strongest habit patterns in his physical c_:i'stence, 1-low do other products corrpare? Two packs of cigarettes in New York w.ould cost $11. 2'5 and up, 40 Class B or C cigars: would cost apFroxirnately $2, 40 and up but two packs of the latest cigarette type little cigar costs about' $. 52 a day. I*;ow we've provided'a substitute for the two pack a day zmolccr. Two pacl:s a day at half the cost. But, wc m2ist look at the substitute closely. In gencral, while the little cirar may have many ci,r,zrctte like charactcrist'ics, it does not smokc like a cigarette. It is highly a19:11iney it hal:; a cina.r like oc?hr, it has a high tar and hil*h, n2cotine conceitt, so high i'n fact the averl;;c person would be hardi put to inhale the. prodiict.

-G- 634 But Winchester? True it is alkaline but nowhere near as alkali ne as the other little cigars. True it uses aircured tobacco, but so does a cigarette marketed by American brands, Maryland 100's. If Winchester's were classified as cigarettes, as I believe they should be, then they would be a relatively moder- ate tar and nicotine cigarette nowhere near the tar and nicotine of the other little cigars. And contrary to what the R. Ji. Reynolds represent'atives has said, I have been, told by people in New York who obtained a print of one of the Winchester television ads, that the hero in the advertisement inhales the product. Perhaps the statement in the Winchester ads is wronr;. It reads "it's not a cigarette - - not just another little cigar. "' Perhaps: it would be better to day "its not a little cigar, not' just another cigarette. " For at $. 26 a pack, VJinchester is ay very difflArent cigarette. The Committee will go, into executive session soon to consider what' and how we can deal with the ir.ipending proliferation of cigarette Iike products ma~squerad- ing as cigars. Winchester is the first, but who will come next?

635 sw-12 1 Senator Moss. We had not planned to take any more testimony. I-dowever, the record will be open for 30 clays for various matters that we have called upon to be submitted, and in that period of time, should questions occur that any of the members of the subcor,mittee would like to have answered, I would ask that the witnesses receiving written questions could submit a written ans.ver which could be supplied in the 2 3 5 12' 13 14 15II 16 21 22 23'. 24. Ace-Fedctal RepoiQr.is, Inc. 25 record before the 30!-day time is over. If out of our discussions, it i~s deemed advisable that we have additional witnesses come, it is possible that- we could set another hearing period. But, as I say, at this time, none is contempLatcu', and we will move after 301d'ays to considering this in an executive session. Thank you all very much for you patience andiattenc'.ance. The hearing is adjourned. (Whereupon,, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adj'ournad.)

I