Tobacco Documents Online

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE RICHMOND, VIRGINIA To: . Dr. H. Wakeham From: • C. V. Mace Subject: Physiological Effects of Smoking Date: February 22, 1960 Now that the F.T.C. and the tobacco industry have agreed to surpress all cigarette advertising in which it is claimed that a brand has a more efficient filter, delivers less tar or nicotine and soforth based on statistical significance unless the changes can be shown to have a physiological significance with respect to the smoker, I think we should proceed as rapidly as we can to develop a cigarette which can be shown to be dif- ferent from our previous models or from those of our competitors in the physiological sense. Since it is probable that numerous difinitions could be alluded to when speaking of physiological significance, I think we should get some help on it. Probably the best way would be to retain an experienced consultant in the field of physiology and psychology. I am not too familiar with Deichman at the University of Miami, perhaps he will do; but I think we should also consider Dr. W. G. Kubicek, Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at the University of Minnesota Medical School. It is r;y understanding that he is a former student of Dr. M. B. Visscher, a foremost authority on physiology. I think we should consider inviting him in to talk over the kind of program~we have in mind. Attached hereto are several of his publications which will give you an idea of his work. He has a nice write-up in the American Men of Science. In connection with the program it seems to me we should follow some of the leads already developed by Bill Danker over the past year. Bill reports that there is a good chance that we could show that the decreases iri+acrolein, isoprene, and acetaldehyde in the smoke resulting from the use of the carbon plug are physiolog3;cally significant. We might be able to demonstrate this.by means of smoke perception and smoke symptom tests on the smoker. Let me explain. The smoke perception tests would have to show that the carbon filter reduces by a significant degree the dystastefulness and/or the irritating quality of the gas phase smoke perceived by the smoker; and we would have to get the F.T.C. to accept our conclusion that this is a physiologically significant change in the broad sense. The smoke symptom tests would show that the hi-fi filter or the denicotinizedfiller does not reduce the skin temperature or increase the blood pressure (resulting fr=con- strictionof blood vessels) which arises when the human body absorbs nicotine from smoking a standard cigarette. Because of

j Dr. H. Wakeham -2- should be able to advise what the chances are that we could get the F.T.C. to acknowledge these as physiologically significant February 22, 1960 the absence of these symptoms we would have to get F.T.C. to accept our conclusion that this also is a physiologically signif- icant change, but in the narrow sense. A consulting physiologist changes. to the smoker, then I think we should go after this right away. we can show that it is physiologically significant with respect : the board, and for that matter eliminating altogether any specific ingredient, will not suffice with the present F.T.C. ruling unless Inasmuch as lowering the tar and nicotine numbers across I would like to have your comments. CVM/nl cc: Dr. R. B. Seligman Dr. L. S. Harrow Mr. W. H. Danker