Tobacco Documents Online

FEDERAL TRADE COMMI5510N WASHINGTON. 0. C. 20580 1 BUREAU OF CONSUMER P1tOTECTION n n v _ . .. ~ 30 Martin London Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 345 Park Avenue New York, N.Y. 10154 i ) Ernest Pepples General Counsel Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company 1600 West Hill Street P.O~. Box 35090 Louisville, Kentucky 40232 Gentlemen: 0 This is a follow up letter to the letter I mailed to you on June 11, 1981 concerning the request by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company for the Commission to modify the cigarette holder used in the Federal Trade Commission's Cigarette Testing. Laboratory. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the comments and information the Commission's staff has received in response to the June 11 letter and to provide you with an opportunity to comment on the relevance, validity, accuracy and reliability of this material and to permit you to provide the Commission staff with any additional supporting information which you believe should be considered. Briefly, the following positions have been taken. The Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company and American Brands, Inc. have taken the position that the Commission should not modify its cigarette testing apparatus as requested by P.J. Reynolds for the reasons set forth in their attached letters. Philip Morris concurs with R.J. Reynolds that a change in the testing apparatus should take place in light of the construction of the Barclay filter, but disagrees with R.J. Reynolds about the reason why the current holder does not appropriately measure the "tar" and nicotine content in the smoke of Barclay. While Philip Morris also agrees with R.J. Reynolds that the current holder should be replaced, it has recommended that the current holder be replaced by a different holder than is being recommended by R.J. Reynolds.

I ) .0 1 Philip Morris' position and the data upon which it relies is fully set forth in the attached document entitled "Memorandum To The Federal Trade Commission From Philip Morris Incorporated Concerning Barclay Cigarettes And A Proposed Change In The Apparatus Used In The Commission's Laboratory For Testing "Tar" Delivery" dated July 10, 1981. In support of its position Philip Morris has submitted the results of several studies it conducted, each of which is discussed in its July 10, 1981 submission. A copy of the videotape referred to at page 13 of its submission has been provided to the Commission staff and is available for your review at the Commission. Philip Morris has also provided the Commission staff with much of the apparatus it used in the research described at pp. 7-8 of its submission and that apparatus is also available for your inspection. Philip Morris also states at pp. 14-15 that a "Butt Study" it conducted confirms its overall conclusions. A description of this study and its results was submitted separately and is attached. Brown and Williamson disagreed with R.J. Reynolds conclusions-about the performance of Barclay cigarettes and the need to modify the cigarette holder currently in use. Basically, Brown and Williamson asserts that there is no evidence that Barclay delivers more "tar" to smokers than other 1 mg. "tar" cigarettes or that the Barclay filter is routinely crushed by smokers. In support of its position, Brown and Williamson has presented five studies. The first was a visual demonstration about how the mixture of smoke and air in the Barclay filter creates a swirling motion in a smoker's mouth. The second was research in which smokers using a Barclay filter which had a plastic cover over its lower portion so that it could not be crushed were asked to rate its strength in comparison to two other 1 mg. cigarettes. The third was a test designed to measure the amount of pressure an actual smoker puts on a cigarette in comparison to three different mechanical cigarette holders. The fourth involved two components. The first component uses a test to measure smokers' responses to questions concerning strength and ease of draw. The second component was a "butt study" in which nicotine retained in the tested filters was measured. The amount of "tar" and nicotine actually delivered to the smoker was then derived from a calculation which took into account the filter efficiency of each cigarette. The final study presented by Brown and Williamson also had two components. In the first component, the amount of carbon monoxide in the breathe of smokers of three different 1 mg. cigarettes, including Barclay, was measured and compared. In the second component, cotinine levels in the plasma of smokers was measured and compared. Each of these five studies is discussed in the attached material.

) I f Y In sum, not only is there no consensus about the issues raised by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, the scientific evidence presented is contradictory. Therefore, the Commission staff has decided to take the following steps to resolve as quickly as possible the scientific and technical issues which have surfaced. First, by this letter the Commission staff is providing each cigarette company who wishes to do so with an opportunity to comment on the positions which have been taken and the merit of the data which has been submitted. To expedite the resolution of these issues, it is requested that comments be submitted within 15 days. Second, the Commission staff would like to explore the possibility of locating an individual or an organization who all interested parties agree possesses both the exertise and the impartiality to review the material submitted ancd to provide the Commission staff with findings and a recommendation as to the technical issues. Therefore, I request your comments on the merits of this suggestion and your suggestions as to who or what organization fits these criteria. Third, in the event that the above suggestion is rejected or fails, the Commission staff has begun already to seek out an individual or an organization with sufficient expertise to assist it the evaluation of the scientific material submitted. Finally, Brown and Williamson has requested .that the confidentiality of its studies be maintained by you and has authorized their disclosure at this time for the limited purpose of permitting you to file the requested comments. American Brands, Inc. has also authorized the release of its letter only for the limited purpose of permitting you to file the requested comments. In conclusion, the Commission staff believes that the steps it has taken and the process it has initiated will lead to as rapid a resolution as possible of the issues raised by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris, Incorporated. I appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, ~ 0 Matthew L. Myers N Acting Deputy Assistant W Director V1 Division of Advertising ~ Practices ~ CA ~

t 2021574752 H I * ;~