Tobacco Documents Online

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?