Product Design
Barclay Cigarettes Executive Summary
Abstract
Public statement by B&W addressing Barclay controversy and use of Actron filter. Claims that the Actron filter improves taste delivery through unique smoke swirl impacting a large number of taste sensors in the mouth simultaneously. Discusses deficiencies of FTC machine testing system, and argues against singling out Barclay cigarettes for exclusion from this test methodology given the many modes of compensation possible among brands for human smokers.
User-Contributed Notes
Fields
- Hypothesis
- CompensationIncorporating knowledge of compensation and effects of human smoking behavior into cigarette design.
- FTC machine testing and ratingsDesign changes to achieve altered FTC smoke machine tar and nicotine ratings, with or without measured changes in human intake.
- Introduction of new/unconventional productsResearch and development of novel nicotine delivery devices and experimental tobacco designs.
- Low-yield cigarettesModification of low yield products to assure that adequate levels of nicotine delivery are maintained, and effects of yield changes on toxicity and dependence.
- Nicotine transport, transfer, and uptakeDesign changes which alter nicotine delivery or effect how the product causes and maintains dependence, including transfer of nicotine from tobacco to smoke, and uptake into the body.
- Use of filters, paper, and ventilationModification of tobacco products through use of filters, paper, and ventilation, and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity.
- Elasticity and Product Control
- Smoke Control
- Sensory effectsTechnologies used to measure, control, or alter sensory effects
- Keyword
- Smoker behavior (Human smoking behavior)Puff parameters, daily intake, etc.
- Smoke swirl
- Intake (Smoker yield)
- Design Component
- Actron filter
- Filter ventilation (Filter vents, air vents)
- Filter efficiency (FE)
- Named Organization
- Federal Trade Commission
- Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for laws against deceptive advertising)Enforces laws against false and deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising, sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of cigarettes.
- International Standards Organization
- ISO (International Standards Organization)International Organization for Standardization - AN international federation of national bodies covering stadardization in all fields except electrical and electronic engineering standards. The largest non-governmental system of industrial collaboration on standards and technical regulations.
- TC 126
- Technical Committee 126
- Technology/Method
- Cambridge filter method
- FTC smoking machine
- Subject
- Bioavailability (Measures)
- Compensation (Measures)
- Smoke Delivery/Transport (Measures)
- Experimental Technology (Technology)
- Test/Inhalation (Testing)
- Low Yield Cigarettes (Products)
- Pressure Drop (Design)
- Puff Parameters (Measures)
- Sensory Effects—Taste (Effects)
- Smoke Nicotine (Measures)
- Transfer to Smoke (Measures)
- Ventilation (Design)
- aerosol (technology)
- Brand
- Barclay
- Cambridge (PM)
- Carlton (ATC)
Document Images
BARCLAY CIGARETTES
EX CUTIVE SUMMARY
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation
March 24, 1987
I. ~ACtron Filter
Bro~ & Willia~so~s Barclay brand was introduced
in the United States in the beginning of 1981. Barclay
features low-tar delivery without sacrificing taste to the
smoker by incorporating a unique ventilated filter called the
Actron Filter. M~st low tar cigarettes achieve ~t least part
of their reduced tar rating by means of small ventilating
holes punched in one or more bands around the periphery of
the cigarette filter. When a s~oker puffs on such a
cigarette, air is draw~ through these ventilating holes and
mixes with smoke in the cigarette filter. The presenoe of
diluting air reduces the proportion of tar- and
nicotine-bearing smoke in any given puff on the cigarette,
Barolay, too, achieves a low tar r~ting i~ part by
~ea~s of ventilatiQn. BarGlayts patented Actron Filter,
however, prevents diluting air from mixing wi~h smoke inside
the cigarette filter. Instead, ventilating air in Barclay is
conducted through four channels along the length of the
cigarette filter. Because the ventilating air drawn through
these channels and the ~Dke drawn through the filter move at
different speeds, they collide and create a swirl of s~oke as
they exit the filter. This smoke swirl contrasts with the
thin pencil-like stream of smoke characteristic of most low
Z.%77
t~r cigarettes. Studies indioat8 that Barolay's ~nique smoke
swirl impacts a large number of taste sensors in the mouth
simultaneously, and for a relatively long time interval.
This enlarged and protracted i~pact gives the sensation of
stronger taste. Ordinary filter cigarettes, on the other
hand, direct the smoke directly to the back of the mouth and
throat and produce a weaker taste.
II. Ci arette Testin
The scientific issues involved in measuring the tar
and nicotine content of cigarettes can he intelligently
addressed only after agreeing on the scope and purpose of the
cigarette testing procedure -- whether it is intended to
provide data that reflect automated analytical machine
yields, or average in-~o~th delivery to actual smokers, or
average internal i~t~ke of ~ctual smokers. The testing
procedure used would be very different for each of these
three options, and the data sbtained with any one of these
procedures would be useful only in light of the purpose for
which it was intended.
The original purpose for measuring the tar and
nicotine constituents of cigarette smoke was merely to rank
cigarettes in order of their delivery of those elements
according to an automated analytiaal machine. There has
always been general recognitio~ among cigarette manufacturers
64013%Z378
and testing agezcies that the ~easuring devices would not
replioate human smoking behavior.
The "FTC method" of measuring tar and nicotine
refers to a standardized testing methodology agreed among
United States cigarette manufacturers and the Federal Trade
Co~imission ("FTC"), an agency of the United States
government. The FTC smoking machine is designed to take one
puff of two-second duration and 35-milliliter volume every
sixty seconds until the cigarette being tested has been
smoked to a specified butt length. The smoke collected on the
Cambridge glass fiber filter pad is then analyzed. The FTC
established its own testing laboratory employing this
procedure, as did each of the cigarette ~anufact~rers.
Since 1967, the FTC has periodically tested randomly
selected samples of all cigarettes available for purchase in
the United States for tar and nicotine. The results of these
tests are published in official reports provided to the
public and to Congress. By mutual consent (not regulation),
cigarette ~anufacturers disclose in all advertisements the
tar and nicotine figures for their cigarettes as published in
the most recent FTC report.
When the FTC method was instituted in 1967, the
Commission acknowledged that it did no more than provide a
uniform way to ~easure amounts of tar and nicotine delivered
to a machine under standardized norms. The FTC method, like
4051Z.%79
any standardized testing procedure, was not designed to
replicate human smoking behavior: the numbers it produces
say nothing about how much tar and nicotine the brand tested
actually delivers to a real s~oker. In the Co~u~ission'~ ow~
words:
The Cambridge Filter Method dDes not and cannot
measure [the] variations in human smoking habits.
It does not measure tar or nicotine in smoke
generated while the cigarette is not being puffed,
It does Rot ~easure all of the tar a~d ~icoti~e i~
any cigarette, hut only that in the smoke drawn in
the standardized machine smoking according to the
prescribed method. Thus, the purpose of the
testing is not to determine the amount of tar and
nicotine inhaled by any human smoker, but rather to
determine the amounts of tar and nicotine generated
when a cigarette is s~oked by machine in accordance
with the prescribed method. (Federal Trade Commission
"Statement of Considerations," 1967).
The task of acaurately reporting the tar and
nicotine msasurements of cigarettes is an inherently difficult
one. The tar and ~iooti~e content of cigarettes cannot be
conveyed to Consumers in the way the nttmber of calories in a
can of d~et sodat for example, is reported. There is no way
that a consumer of a diet drink ea~ get more calories tha~
the number stated on the label. But recent research shows
that it is possible for smokers of ~ low tar cigarette
brand ~o get many times the amount of tar predicted by its
FTC ratlng and that the reverse can be tr~e for s~okers of
middle and high FTC rated cigarettes. The current system Of
G405 [ ,3 0
reporting tar and nicotine nua~0ers alone thus suffers from
inherent limitations that must be addressed•
IIl. HumaD S kin~
It has been theorized by s~me that smoker~ of low
t~r cigarettes may autom~tically compensate for the reduced
delivery of tar and nicotine by oversmoking, e.~., by puffing
more often or inhaling more deeply, by smoking each cigarette
closer to the filter, or by smoking more cigarettes.
Blocking of the ventilation holes is only one of many potential
maneuvers smokers may perform to obtain higher delivery.
Recently, a number of scientists have questioned whether
standardized test results on cigarettes as currently reported
bear ~ny re~l rel~tlon to what any given smoker of ~ny brand
gets from his or her cigarette.
In l~ght oZ the v~ri~ty of compensabory techni~p/es
the s~okers of all cigarettes may use to increase (or, as it
now appears, decrease) their smoke intake, it would be
scientifically unjustified to single out f@r exclusion from
the testing methodol~qy cigarettes employing a particular
~ilter design. Any modification of the testing precedure to
subject certain brsnds to ~ speci~l test b~sed solely on one
possible variable of human smoking behavioz, while ignoring
the e~fect of the multitude of other possible variables on
other brands, would result in inaccurate relative rankings.
i •
G4051;'., @I
Further, no reliable means exist for determining
aotual ventil~tion praduced during hu~n s~oking. Attempts
to derive tar numbers from such ventilation rates are fraught
witb diffioulties of interpretation. These include:
--Differences between machine D~D~ventilation
rates and eonstaDt f~w r~e ventilation meters
which are the normal quality control instruments;
--Differences between lit ~nd unlit ventil~tlon
rates which chanqs as the cigarette is smoked;
and
--Differences between standard and h~an p~ff
volumes, puff durations, puff intervals, and puff
co~ts.
There is no justification to modify the current
testing methodology in such a manner as to rate olgar~ttes
employing channel ventilated filters w~th numbers that
reflect how people p~rportedly smoke them while retaining
theoretical nu~bers for every other brand. The q~/estion
considered by testing authorities should not be how to
develop a procedure that will give "actual~ ratings to
Barclay cigarettes while giving theoretical ratings to all
other brands. Rather~ any proposed modification of the
testing methodology should be viewed i~ terT~s of whether it
will result in numbers that correctly represent the relative
amount of tar and nicotine delivered to smokers of
brands.
7
IV. The ~cientifi vi once
Over the last several years, various scientific
experiments have been conducted to study what rel~tionship,
if a~y~ exists between actual nicotine ingestion and analytical
machine results. The results of these studies have been
published in readily available scientific literature. The
reliable scientific reports reveal the following f~ndings:
--The r~nkings of Barclay, Carlton and C&~bridge
(two other cigarettes rated 1 mg. tar) obtained from the
current FTC method are roughly identical to their rankings in
terms of actual delivery of nicotine (and thus tar) to the
human smoker (even though this correspondence of the FTC
ratings and actual human intake is likely to be valid only
for ultra-low yield cigarettes). Thus, for this class of
cigarettes the analytical machine ratings seems to predict
actual intake at least on a relative scale, but not on a
strictly quantitative scale.
--Smokers of cigarettes yielding above 1 mg. tar
ingest nicotine at an average level that is only 30 to 50
percent higher th~n smokers of 1 mg. tar clgarette~,
r~gardless of the actual analytio~l yield Of the eigarett~
smoke. Thus, for the majority of smokers the analytical
machine yields do not predict actual intake.
--The actual intake of nicotine varies among
individual smokers from a negligible amount to about ~ mg.
. L
per cigarette a~eraged over a 1-day s~oklng period. The
a~er~ge for all ~mokers is approximately 0.9 ~g. per cigarette.
Thus, smokers of cigarettes with analytlcal yields above 0.9
mg. nicotine will, on the average, take in less than th~
analytical value, and vice versa.
~-The average human nicotine intake actually varies
only by about 60% while the yield variation over the entire
FTC analytical range is in the order Of 1600%.
Regulatory authorities in some countries Feguire
that tar "hands" (low, medium, high) be used on packaging and
advertising to avoid consumer misunderstanding ef tar
ratings.
V. Th~ Barclay ConSroversy
Since its introduction six year ago, Barclay
cigarettes and the Actron Filter have been the subject of an
attack by the competition that has involved numerous court
actions in the United States and Europe, countless
submissions by clg~rette manufacturers, scientists and public
interests organizations, and complicated debate not only
about the Actron Filter, but also about fundamental questions
concerning the tar and nicotine te~ting methodology itself.
The focus on Actron Filter cigarettes is
scientifically unjustified. Specifically, devices employed
to exclud~ Barclay cigarettes from the c~rrent testing
methodology are totally ~nsuited for the purposes of testing
agenoieB. Many Of the proposed testing procedures are aimed
at attaining for Actron Filter cigarettes a predetermined
reduction in ventilation based on competitors' studies using
biased equipment and highly ~rtificial laboratory condltions.
Moreover, these proposals unfairly single out for modified
testing only certain cigarette brands with a particular
filter design and then on the basis of anly one variable of
human smoking behavior -- ventilation rate. The debate has
incorrectly centered on changing the accepted method of
~easurlng tar and nicotine so as to disadvantage only one
bra~d. Rather, the focus should be o~ developing methods for
accurately determining the relative amount of tar and
nicotine delivered by all brands under realistic and
reproducible conditions.
Ubite~ ~tates
The controversy in the United States began in April
1981, shortly after Barclay was introduced on the market.
Brown & Williamson's two principal competitors, R.J. Reynolds
and Philip Morris, complained to the FTC that the tar and
nicotine ratings advertised for Barclay were incorrect.
Philip Morris, currently the largest United States cigarette
manufacturer, led the effort in asking the FTC to alter the
official cigarette testing methodology to increase
significantly Barclayts tar and nicotine rating, while
leaving its own products unaffected. Though neither company
640[11Z385
I0
disputed that Barolay measures i mg. tar on the FTC smoking
machine, they claimed (each based on a different theory) that
Barclay delivers more tar to smokers because of the way huma~
lips interact with the Aotron Filter.
The FTC staff thereupon commenced a confidential
inquiry into these allegations. Pazticipation was limited tD
the six major domestic cigarette manufacturers and three
consultants retained by the FTC to Co31ment on the data
submitted by the companies. %q5iI~ the FTC inquiry focused on
Barclay, it produced considerable e~idence that all s~okers
may interfere with the filtration system of all low tar
brands and otherwise adjust their smoking behavior in order
to obtain substantially more tar and nicotine than the FTC
numbers indicate.
Both R.$. Reynolds and Philip Morris submitted the
results of their own laboratory ventilation experiments
performed on equipment biased against Barclay; and each
proposed testing modification that would adversely affect
Barclay, but not their own brands. To reply to the charges
asserted by R. J. Reynolds and Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson
submitted to the Co~tmission reports by scientists in various
disciplines, all demonstrating that Barclay was accurately
ranked as a I mg. tar cigarette.
In 1983, a federal court ruled that Brown &
Willlamson could continue to advertise Barclay as I'99% tar
64051g. 86
