Tobacco Documents Online

C C RJ~1 a !}^. 'r :;`~. CONFr~r~'T';~ ~ RESBA,RCR PLANNING HEMUgAND(1ti ON SOME TIiOUQiTS ON TOBACCO SMOiCg FIaaORS AND ZpuM:g=

D R A F T SO}tE THOUGHTS ON TOBACCO SMOKE FLAVORS AND `IOGTfi-FEEL C When we talk about tobacco smoke flavor, many of us are really referring to the over-all response, excluding nicotine satisfaction, we perceive when smoke comes into contact with the mouth, nose and throat. Thus, in addition to flavor (taste and odor), we are really talking about other "mouth-feel" factors such as irritancy, harshness, blandness, astringency, and the like which are important in determining over-all smoke quality. H-wever, we tend to believe that adjustment of flavor alone will somehow overcome all undesirable mouth-feel sensations, hence we devote a large part of our energies and resources aimed at imrroving over-all smoke quality, to work on flavor. This may largely ignore the other important mouth-feel factors, and may not be very realistic or prudent. Thus, it will be useful to consider tobacco smoke flavor alone and as a part of the over-all mouth-feel response to tobacco smoke. T..is will lead to: (1) some conclusions about the role and importance of flavor in deteraini_ng smoke quality, (2) some conclusions about the role and impor'ance of other mouth-feel factors in determining smoke quality, and (3) some conclusions about flavor and other mouth-feel factors desirable in products for beginning smokers, in exivting products used by brand-loyal smokers, and in producls designed to attract and hold brand-switching smokers. This in turn will lead to some thoughts about how some present research and development activities may be altered to become more meaningful. Soce thoughts on tobacco scs3ke flavor and mouth-feel fo12cK;: 1. T°nere is no universal, innate liking and desire for somz one, ideal tobaccc smoke flavor delivered at some one, ideal level of intensity. All tolerance or liking for tobacco 'iQoke flavor is learned.

2 C 2. To a person who has never smoked, all tobacco smoke flavor is C initially perceived as being unusual or foreign, as is all other smoke mouth-feel. 3. It takes some time for the beginning smoker to learn to be "comfortable" with the smoke flavor and mouth-feel of the product he is using. "Comfortable", as used here, does not necessarily imply an actual liking, and may imply only a tolerance. 4. Once an individual learns to tolerate or like a given smoke flavor and mouth-feel, he will not readily accept a recognizably different smoke unless: (r) the new smoke is lower in undeairable flavor or undesS-able mouth-feel, or (b) some other factor, e.g., smoking-health anxiety or nicotine satisfaction, motivates him to change. 5. A smoker using the same (unchanged) product over a period of time becomes saturated and gradually loses ability to perceive the smoke flavor of that product, except that he continues to perceive undesirable aspects of that flavor. At the same time, his ability to perceive differvnces-betveen the flavor of his customary product and that of other products increases. 6. A uniformly blended cigarette gives less perceived flavor than a non-uniformly blended cigarette. T':e smoker perceives flavor changes more strongly than uniform flavor, hence may li':e occasional bursts of smoke from burley, Turkish and flue-cured, but may find a burst of stemmy smoke very disagreeable. 7. A smoker using the same (unchanged) product over a period of tim.e may develop some tolerance for other, urpleasant mouth-feel factors, e.g. irritancy, but in many cases sensitivity and dislike for these fac!ors may actually increase. Q r 8. Unpleasent smoke flavors over-ride pleasant smcke flavors, and _j other cnple3san*t r.outh-feel factors over-ride pleasant f?avor and pleasant ~ . v+ ~.outh-feei factcrs (a Cresham's Lav for sroke ^uality).

3 C C 9. The way in which the smoke is presented to the amoker's mouth, e.g., geometry, draft and velocity, influences the perception of that smoke. 10. The more distinctive and intense the flavor of a smoke, the 4Ow more intensely it will be liked by a few and disliked by a few. 11. Most smokers are most "comfortable" with a moderate level of bland-flavored smoke, free of undesirable flavors, with a relatively bland mouth-feel. 12. Menthol in smoke, liked by many and disliked by many, serves to mask unpleasant flavors and mouth-feel factors, and tends to give over-all blandness of flavor and tauth-feel, while not imparting an intense flavor of its own. In suamary of this part of the discussion, we may tentatively conclude that most smokers learn to like or tolerate any natural tobacco flavor so long as the flavor Is relatively bland and free of intensely distinctive or unpleasant components. And with continued saturation, the smoker soon loses much of his ability to perceive any of the pleasant aspects of smoke flavor but tends to retain ability to perceive unpleasant aspects. With this decreased ability to perceive the flavor of smoke from his own brand comes increased ability to perceive changes in that smoke and differences between it and smoke from other, dissimilar brands. I1 essence, this says that smoke flavor cannot be good -- only "comfortable" - but can certainly be increasingly bad. This also says that even a"cors.fortable" smoke flavor may become relatively imimportant to u, the smoker so lozg as it is relatively bland in flavor and level and so long ~ 0 v as it does not abruptly change . ~ T rn

4 C ` I \ Other mouth-feel factors may be more important than smoke flavor. Here again, there may really be few pleasant mouth-feel factors, but there are clearly many unpleasant ones. And in contrast tc flavor perception, the smokers aensitivity to unpleasant mouth-feel factors, e.g., irritancy, may increase with continued smoking. The smokerof a given brand is aware of changes in the mouth-feel of his brand and is aware of differences between his brand and other brands. Further, he is iamediately receptive to changes in mouth-feel factors which go to reduce unpleasantness. Thus these other mouth-feel factors remain strongly perceived and important to the smoker, as opposed to the flavor factor which gradually becomes extinguished. What we have said, then, is that smoke flavor perception decreases rapidly with time and saturation, and does not play a very important role in smoke quality so long as the flavor the given smoker has learned to like or tolerate is biond, In view of the above, let us now consider how wr might design cigarette products, in terms of smoke flavor and other mouth-feel factors, with partir-lar appeal to beginning, brand-loyal and brand-switching smokers. constant, moderate in level, and is relatively free of distinctly unpleasant components. On the other hand, ocher mouth-feel factors rev`in strongly perceived, may over-ride and extinguish flavor and, in the final analysis are about all the confirmed smoker really perceives most of the time. What we have said, too, is that there is no really universallp good tobacco smoke flavor or other mouth-feel factor, only degrees of badness. The smoker likes or tolerates what he has learned to smoke; and, there being no way to cause him to affirmatively like something else other than by causing him to re-learn, the only way to increase his liking for his smoke is to reduce some of the things in it he does not like.

5 C Fo: the Beginning Smoker: Flavor and other mouth-feel factors should be relatively bland, moderate in intensity, and as free as possible from unpleasantness. For the Confirmed Smoker of an Existing Brand: Flavor and other mouth-feel factors should be about the same as for the beginning smoker, except the levels or intensities of desirable parts of these factors should be higher, to compensate for loss of perception. Emphasis should be upon maintaining flavor and other desirable mouth-feel factors relatively constant; and changes, if rade, should be made slowly enough to be imperceptible to the smoker and should be made to reduce unpleasantness. For the Brand-Switching Smoker: Again, flavor and mouth-feel factors C : C should be about the same as for the beginning smoker, except that levels or intensities of the desirable parts of these factors should be higher. The emphasis here should be upon reduction or elimination of unpleasant or undesirable flavor or other mouth-feel factors, the presencE, of which may have motivated the search for a different brand. This smoker, having once lea~ned to be -ocifortable with a certain '.ype and level of flavor and other raouth-feel, will likely choose a new br.,ud as similar as possible to his initial brand but with reduced unpleasantness or irritancy. This assumes that the smoker is switching because of dissatisfaction with the flavor acd/or other mouth-feel factors of his present brand and nor for other reasons such as nicotine satisfaction or health anxiety. In suum:ary of this part of the discussion we conclude, perhaps surprisingly, that products for new smokers, c~nfirmad brand-loyal sraokers ar.d brand-switching smokers should be essentially the same with respect to flavor and other roufh- ~„ 0 feel factors. F v r_ ~ m

6 Over-all, then, we have arrived at the following general conclusions: 1. Tobacco smoke flavor is not a particularly important factor to rIX smoker so long as it is relatively bland, non-distinctive, free of disagreeable flavors, present at moderate level, and is relatively constant. Therefore our efforts with established brands should be in tha direction of maintenance of the same constalt flavors at the same levels, while reducing any undesirable flavor components. 2. There being substantial differences In flavor perception between beginning and confirmed smokers, ideally each brand should be presented in two versions with identica?. flavor, differing only in flavor level; that is, s"light" brand for beginning smokers and a full-strength version fer confirmed smokers. 3. Other mouth-feel factors may be more important to all smokers than flavor, and may be primary causes for brand switching. 4. There is not a great deal of difference betveen major established cigarette brands, excluding "health" brands, in tobacco flavor; the main differences are in other nouth-feel factors, level of flavor, and amount of unpleasant flavor. If most of what has been said above is approximately true, then there are some indications for change in emphasis in some of our thinking and some of our technical programs: 1. Lle should develop better capability for making full analytical compzrisons of smoke flavor from different products or product changes, to tell u., whether, when or how smoke flavor changes. 2. We shoutd place greater ernphasis upon identification and :ontroi of -Jisagreeahle flavor conpcnenta of tC'1naccJ smoke.

7 3. We should place much greater emphasis upon definition, measurement and control of other positive and negative mouth-feel factors. Menthol at very low levels may be a~.ary good control agent in this respect, and should be investigated further. 4. Our quality control efforcs, now mainly directed toward physical qualities and a few leaf and smoke components, should emphasize t::easuresnents and control of product smoke flavor and other mouth-feel f3ctors. Claude E. Teague, Jr February 12, 1973 : jhb 1