Tobacco Documents Online

i < <ab1 w G-6 THE FOLLOWING IS THE VIEW OF DR. GI0 GORI OF THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE, WHICH WE F EL IS PART'I UL 'RLY RELEVANT TO THE - Tihe FTC-CORESTA methodology.was adopted for the purpose of informing smokers about the relative safety of cigarettes. Evenithough these, methods cannot measure actual intake, this is the meaning that their res!ul ts have acqu i red i n the mind of the genera l i puibl i c, and i n countless scientific publications over the last 20 years. The public and scientists alike interpret FTC-CORESTA data as relative predilctors of actual smoke~iintake. The accusation is that BARCLAY deceives the smokers, who are ledlto intakes far iin excess of BARCLAY's posted FTC yields. The a~ddiedl implication is that other cigarettes in, the.same FTC class do no deceive the smoker. The accusation must therefore;be tested in free smoking individuals, without the imposition of stressful laboratory techniques and experimental bias. The accusation has also am iimpJ!ilcat'ion of contiinuity,1 andl therefore it cannot be tested by measuringi momentary experiences only, such as those that may dlerive from smoking a few cigarettes in a laboratory setting. Any valid test must take into consi~deratiion the hourly and daily fluctuations of behaviour, metabolism and environment,, knowni to modify the momentary experience of each smoker. Only a measure of intake that integrates smoking experiences over a time of at least a few days ils a valid test of the charge. Also, smokers smoke through their lungs., The mouth is only a mechanical device.to dlraw the puff, but the important pharmacologic effects of smoke occur after reaching and crossing the lung barrier. In regard to internal smoke intake, the mouth is virtually, irrelevant, and the true smoking experience of individuals must be measured on the basis of inte.rnall intake.

-2- For these fundamental reasons, we.reject: Machine tests that presume t& determine the internal intake experience of free smokers., Human tests which impose procedures that distort natural' conditions of behaviour,, metabollism and environment in free smokers. Tests of whatever nature that measure only isolated and temporary experiences in either man or machine, and that are incapable of i'nformAngiabout the integraT or cumulative experience of each smoker over time. Specific criticism of the methodology of mouth sampling that have been carried out*by our competitors and other institutes, e.g. Fresenius, Neurath and Aubort, is as follows: 1. The procedure at best informs about momentary smoking experiences. It is incapable of reflecting the daily and intra-daily variations of behaviour and individual pharmacologic demand for nicotine.. 2. The procedure imposes on smokers an experimental stress that distorts natural smoking conditions of the subjects. 3. A procedure that calls for simple mouth smoking, avoids and ignores all the complex feedback reflexes that are generated by various air, way chemosensory receptors, and that are known to modulate smoking mechanics,, puffing profiles, and ultiimatelly the inhalation dynamics of indiividual smokers..

-3- 4. The methodology ignores that individUal smokers have personal tiiresholds of orgainoleptic satisfaction, and that it is not permissible to ask smokers to switch toinew brands without gross distortion of their natural smoking patterns. 5. Data, generating from the proposed procedure are subject to large sources of variance from the uncertainties connected with sample timing, interactions of smoke with saliva, internal chemical conditions in, the mouth, smoke aging and particle aggregation in relation to timing, humidity, temperature and pH conditions in the mouthA'tself, and selective absorption,of smoke particles in the mouth and in the sampling devices utilized in the procedure. 6. The procediure is total'lly inadequate to measure the central' question, namely, what is.the actual smoking experience andd internal intake of smoke iniilndividual smokers. Ilf the accusers wish to advance a serious proposal for testing their thesis, we submit that only the most rigorous tests of actual smoke intake in free smokers shouldibe utilized.