Women's Collection from Marketing to Counter-Marketing
Subject: Review of Transcript From April 14, 1994 Oversight Hearing on Tobacco Products
Abstract
Summarizes transcript testimony from April 14, 1994 Waxman hearing on tobacco products. Capsulizes opening remarks made by tobacco company representatives, Congressional representatives, and other government officials. Discusses topics concerning youth access, advertising and promotion, nicotine concentrations and addiction, fire safe cigarettes, tobacco reconstitution and flavoring, DeNoble study findings, smoker behavior, and tar and nicotine yields. Includes references to page numbers in transcript document.
Fields
- Type
- Memorandum
- Company
- Philip Morris
- Gender
- Gender mentioned, no differentiation possible
- Author
- Nicoli, D.
- Named Person
- Wyden
- Benowitz, N., Dr.
- Bliley
- Bryant
- Campbell, W.
- Charles, J.
- DeNoble, Victor J., Ph.D. (PM Behavioral Research (1980-84))Associate Senior Scientist at PM Behavioral Research (83). Senior Researcher at Philip Morris from 1980-1984. Performed in-house PM rat studies on nicotine and addiction; was later fired by PM because of sensitive nature of what studies revealed about nicotine addiction.
- Ellis, Cathy Lynn, Ph.D. (PM VP of Worldwide Scientific Affairs)Director of Research at Philip Morris U.S.A. in 1994. In 1997 was Senior VP of R&D at PM (2505370877). Osdene protégé.
- Ellis, Cathy Lynn, Ph.D. (PM VP of Worldwide Scientific Affairs)Director of Research at Philip Morris U.S.A. in 1994. In 1997 was Senior VP of R&D at PM (2505370877). Osdene protégé.
- Gori, Gio Batta, Ph.D. (Tobacco Consultant, formerly w/ NCI, Industry Expert)1993 Started career at NCI and then went to work for the industry. Believed a safer cigarette could be made, and that there were safe threshold levels for exposure to the chemicals in cigarette smoke.
- Johnston
- Kessler, David A., M.D., J.D. (Former FDA Commissioner)appointed FDA Commissioner by President George Bush in December 1990.
- Kornegay, H.
- Kreider
- McMillan
- Panzer, F.
- Speers, Dr.
- Suber
- Synar
- Taddeo
- Tisch
- Waxman, H.
- Named Organization
- American Lung Association
- United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S. Federal public health agency)Estimated the costs of smoking to society in medical expenses, estimating in 1994 that about $2.06 per pack of cigarettes was spent on the associated medical care costs for smokers.
- Centers for Disease Control
- CNN
- Department of Justice
- EPA
- FDA
- 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.
- HHS
- London Times
- Lorillard Inc. (American cigarette manufacturer)American cigarette manufacturer
- National Cancer Institute
- National Institute of Drug Abuse
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Quick Trip Stores
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
- Roper Organization
- Smokeless Tobacco Research Council
- Tobacco Institute
- U.S. Tobacco Company
- University of Rochester
- US Dept of Agriculture
- UTS
- American Medical Association (physicians group)Professional trade group representing American physicians.
- Operation/Project
- Marlboro Express
- Project Hamlet (Fire Safe Cigarette)
- Region
- Canada
- United States
- Brand
- Merit (PM)
- MERIT ULTIMA
- Virginia Slims (PM)
- Thesaurus Term
- Hearings
- Youth
- Advertising
- Fire Safe Cigarettes
- Addiction
- Tar Level
- Nicotine Level
Document Images
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT - PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIF~ INC. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
1341 G STREET, N.W., SUITE 900, WASHINGTON, DC 20005
To:
From:
Subj ect:
Fries Date:: April 22, 1994
David Nicoli
Review of Transcript From April 14, 1994 Oversight
Hearing On Tobacco Products
Waxman states that the Subcommittee will soon act on H.R.
3434, "and it will consider other measures as well." (p. 3)
McMillan states "that several members of this Congress in the
North Carolina delegation, who are extremely affected by this
issue, were not allowed to testify today." (p. 7}
Waxman states "I do want to note that our colleagues from North
Carolina were here to testify at our last hearing. We will have
their statements in the record." (p. 9)
Wyden states "In a few years, all of you, the executives that are
sitting at the witness table are going to be using advertising --
like Joe Camel -- to try and hook my kids and addict them to
tobacco products... I just can't understand how each of you
engage in an enterprise that is sure to kill some of our children. I
hope today that you will tell us how you all can live with such a
killing record on your conscience." (p. 10)
Wyden refers to a letter from the Centers For Disease Control
concerning ingredients that he says states as follows: Wv'e cannot
categorically state that any of the ingredients are either safe or
hazardous without a reference with specific doses, and we are
unable to determine hazardous risk for any of the substances."
{p. 11)
Representative Waxman places the industry executives under
oath. {p. 15)
Waxman notes for the record that he has agreed to allow Mr.
Campbell and Mr. Johnston an additional five minutes to
complete their oral remarks, because of a request from Mr. Bliley.
(p. 17)
Waxman notes that the Subcommittee received a number of
requests from other Members who desired to present oral
testimony -- but that the schedule prohibited expanding the
witness list. Therefore, Waxman said that the record would be
held open to receive testimony from those colleagues who
requested to testify. (p. 17-18)
Bill Campbell extends an invitation to Waxman and other
members of the Subcommittee to come see Philip Morris'
manufacturing process first hand as the FDA has already done.
(p. 31)
Tisch states during his opening statement that "The level of
nicotine in products manufactured and sold by Lorillard is solely
determined by the tobacco that we buy and the blending of the
different tobaccos used in our manufacturing." (p. 46)
Waxman states as follows: "In my view at the center of this entire
debate over tobacco is nicotine. This ingredient in tobacco has
an enormous impact on humans. At our last hearing Mr. Speers
told the Subcommittee that nicotine is an important flavor. In
contrast, Dr. Kessler said the taste of nicotine is actually bitter
and can be replicated through the addition of pepper. Dr. Kessler
also told the Subcommittee that he was unaware of any purpose
for the inclusion of nicotine in a tobacco product except for its
addictive effect. (p. 79-80)
RJR presents data to refute the Kessler nicotine yield charts from
1982-91. (p. 86-87) Note, too, that RJR says that they "went
back and calculated for that 10-year period every single one of
the 500 brand styles times their exact tar and nicotine numbers
times their exact sales in the marketplace."
Dr. Ellis from Philip Morris tells Representative Wyden that she
does "not believe that there is a consensus in the scientific
community on the criteria necessary to classify a substance as
addictive." (p. 101-103)
Dr. Ellis offers to Representative Waxman to supply a list of any
major health organizations that agree with her opinion on
addiction as well as other information that's in the scientific
literature that supports the industry view. Waxman also states
that '%Ve specifically want you to submit to us your research data
that indicates this is not addicting." (p. 105)
Waxman also asks for "your research data, showing it's not
addictive.., and any research data from you that shows it is
addictive." Campbell says he sees no problem with supplying
material, and that he will get the appropriate people together
-2-
from our side with the appropriate people from Waxman's side to
see how it can be handed over, (p. 106)
Representative McMillan asks "vVhy was nicotine not included on
the list of 600 items that were disclosed?'': Significantly, Johnston
apparently answers as follows: "it's because nicotine is a natural
component of tobacco. Nicotine sulfate was on the list." (p. 108)
[Should we speak to RJR on this point?]
Johnston also states to McMillan: "A prior Chairman of this
company testified before Congress in 1964, and offered our
ingredient list to Congress thirty years ago this year." (p. 109)
Johnston claims, in talking to McMillan, that RJR's nicotine yield
chart "shows that tar and nicotine has admittedly slowed down in
terms of average consumption, but it's still going down and
nicotine and tar are going down together, as they always have."
(p. 11o)
Waxman reiterates to Campbell a request for documents on
nicotine and addiction as follows: 'XVhat we are requesting of you
is any report, memorandum or other document describing
research conducted by Philip Morris on nicotine and addiction,
regardless of whether the document shows nicotine is addictive or
that it is not addictive. If you need to have our staffs meet about
that, we'll certainly make our staff available." Campbell responds
that he has no problem giving the Subcommittee any of the
material "if it,s not in some way involved in active litigation at this
time." Waxman states "that litigation is not a reason not to give
the Congress of the United States information. We expect to get
it." (p. 1 14-1 15) Interestingly, Synar followed up Waxman'S
statement by saying "Your lawyers are familiar that proprietary
information provided to Congress does not make it public. It will
be handled in a confidential form." (p. 115-116)
As Synar questions Campbell, Synar states "I don't think any of
us are ever going to fmd, Mr. Campbell, a study that shows rats
or any other animals will self administer saccharine or water
intravenously in the way they do nicotine." Synar says this in
response to the Philip Morris press release concerning
Dr. DeNoble. (p. 117)
Synar then refers to Exhibit 7, and tells Campbell that it's a letter
from the Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse
regarding the DeNoble study. Synar says that the letter states as
follows: "I'hese findings from the DeNoble study indicate that
nicotine has reinforcing properties, one of the hallmarks of
addictive substances." (p. 117-118)
-3-
Synar asks Campbell whether Dr. DeNoble's work was part of
"your company's effort to develop a nicotine analog, which are
chemicals which would have addicting or reinforcing features
without any of some of the nicotine side effects? Yes or no?"
Campbell responded: '"Yes." (p. 118)
Synar then refers to Exhibit 8. He describes it as a "1980
internal memorandum" written by J. L. Charles. Synar claims
that the memorandum describes nicotine receptor research that
Philip Morris was funding at the University of Rochester. He asks
whether this was related to DeNoble°s work -- and Campbell
states that it was after consulting with Dr. Ellis. (p. 119)
Synar says "My question to you did Philip Morris, its attorneys, or
any of its employees, threaten a court injunction that would be
sought against Dr. DeNoble if the journal or the article was
published?" Campbell responds: "Not to my knowledge, sir, and
I have investigated to some extent." (p. 121) Synar follows up
that response by asking whether Philip Morris had a "written
memo on that investigation from" its staff. Campbell responded
that he did not think so and Synar asked if Campbell would make
it available for the record and submit it. Campbell did not
respond orally. (p. 122)
Campbell states, in response to a Synar question "that in early
1984 Philip Morris abruptly closed down the research laboratory
of Dr. DeNoble and his colleagues and the employees were told to
I'md other jobs." Campbell then denies that "Philip Morris took
that action because of the adverse research findings that were
being found in the laboratory." (p. 122)
Campbell agrees to Synar's request that Philip Morris provide to
the Subcommittee "copies of any of Dr. DeNoble's studies,
reports, notes or any other documents I~erta, ining to the work he
performed or any other documents p__ert_ainin~ to his animal
research." (p. 122)
Campbell agrees to release DeNoble from his confidentiality
agreement with the company so that he can appear before the
Subcommittee to testify. (p. 123-124)
Synar asks Johnston whether RJR currently has animal research
going on its laboratories and Johnston responds in the
affirmative. (p. 125) After a colloquy, Synar asks Johnston and
each of the other tobacco company representatives with the
exception of Campbell to provide the Subcommittee with "all the
tests, reports and notes from all animal laboratory testing that
you are presently or have formerly been involved in." Johnston
squabbles with Waxman and Synar and does not give a clear
-4-
commitment -- although Waxman states that '~rou will submit the
data."' (p. 128) Synar and Wamnan then get commitments from
the other companies to turn over such documents, to extent they
exist. Note, too, that Synar again says during this colloquy that
"The providing of proprietary information, does not constitute
making that information public, therefore violating any formulas
or particular private information that you may have.": (p. 127)
Representative Bryant asks whether one of the defenses the
tobacco companies always assert in product liability litigation is
that people smoke as a matter of free choice and that they
therefore assume the risk of diseases which are associated with
smoking. Johnston admits that "that is part of the litigating
these issues." (p. 131) Johnston goes on to say that it is part of
the usual defense that tobacco companies are not responsible for
any damages suffered by smokers because of these facts. (p. 132)
Waxman asks Johnston whether he believes "that nicotine
administered through a patch is pleasurable?" Johnston replies
that he does not know, but that "it has a mild, pharmacological
intent. Those products are marketed as a drug. And the reason
-- this is very important, Mr. Chairman -- the reason that many
people do not stay with nicotine patches, which provides nicotine
just like a cigarette does, is that there,s something more to
smoking than lust nicotine. It's the ritual; it the way we associate
it after a meal, or with a cup of coffee so to say that people take
nicotine through gum or patches, if it was only nicotine, they'd
stay with it. But there is something more to smoking; there is
pleasure and enjoyment out of smoking." (p. 141)
Representative Kreidler asks Campbell whether he would want a
loved one to take up smoking. Campbell stated, among other
things, that "I think the important thing is that our children --
everyone -- get as much information as possible." (p. 145)
Kreidler then pursues a line of questioning on nicotine. First, he
says that it is not true that the FTC nicotine yield has been
dropping for the last 10 years. Second, he says that the grC's
nicotine yields are an unreliable measure of how much nicotine is
"consumed in smoking a particular cigarette.''~ (p. 146) Kreidler
claims that the government, independent experts and "even the
industry's own consultants" have concluded that there is virtually
no relationship between the measured FTC: yield and the amount
of nicotine actually inhaled by smokers. (p. 146)
Kreidler then questions Dr. Speers concerning his chart on FTC
nicotine yields. Speers" chart is Exhibit 16; the Surgeon
General's 1989 chart is Exhibit 17; Kreidler then says that he has
an exhibit and a poster that is taken directly from the 1989
-5-
Surgeon General's report and from the chart Speers submitted to
the Committee on March 25, which is Exhibit 18. Kreidler then
makes the claim that Speers' chart is incorrect. Speers enters
into a colloquy with both Waxman and Kreidler to try and explain
what appears to be discrepancies between Speers' March 25
chart and the chart Kreidler prepared. (p. 153)
Waxman then turns to Speers'~ 1981 article where he writes as
follows: "higher nicotine levels can be achieved by decreasing the
stem and tobacco sheet and increasing the burley and upper
stock position of both the flue-cured and the burley tobacco."
(p. 154) Speers then responds by reading a statement into the
record where, among other things, he makes the point that
nicotine concentration in tobacco should not be confused with
nicotine smoke yields as measured by the FTC method. He states
"Ultra low tar cigarettes are also ultra low smoke nicotine
cigarettes. The nicotine concentration in the tobacco is not
correlated to FTC tar and smoke nicotine yields; that is,
differences in tobacco nicotine concentrations are not correlated
to the smoke nicotine yields in cigarettes. The filter, the f'flter tip
ventilation -- tobacco are the principle factors that control the
nicotine smoke yield." (p. 1561
In Speers' statement, he also states "Cigarette tobacco blends are
formulated to try to achieve taste acceptance, brand distinction
and preference within the smoker franchise. The fact that
nicotine concentrations vary among the compounds and
components used to formulate a blend has been discussed in the
Surgeon General's report, and many other publications beside my
1981 paper... This centuries-old practice is well-known, and
cannot be construed as a manipulation of nicotine, for the
purposes of this Committee or those of Dr. Kessler." (p. 157)
Speers also responds to the staff report accompanying his 1981
article and says that the staff report indicated that he noted that
there was ongoing research in the industry to raise the nicotine
level of tobacco so that nicotine would be higher than tar. He
stated that it had "nothing to do with the manufacturers or this
industry" -- rather he believed that it was work that came out of
the tobacco working group of the National Cancer Institute,
which was being conducted by the USDA and the land grant
universities in the tobacco growing states; (p. 158)
Waxman asks Speers whether he agrees "that cigarette makers
can adjust the level of nicotine in cigarettes through the process
of blending different types of tobacco." Speers responds by
saying that "People will get different nicotine concentrations from
the tobacco, depending on the specific blend, yes." (p. 159-60)
Waxman asks if everyone else on the panel agreed with Speers'
-6-
statement. Everyone on the panel agreed with Speers' statement.
(p. 160-61)
Waxman next refers to nicotine concentrations or levels through
blending. He then says he wants to know from each panelist
whether or not their companies actually exercise control over
these two factors. (p. 161) Waxman first turns to Johnston, who
attempts to explain that the issue is not that simple. Waxman
then refers to an appearance by an RJR official -- Mr. Suber -- on
CNN the evening before. Wamnan claims that Suber stated as
follows: "In order to deliver to the consumer a product that he
wants, a consistent level of nicotine, we have to blend the
tobaccos accordingly. So we do controlling." Waxman then asks
Johnston whether he agrees with Suber's statement that "you do
control nicotine levels." Johnston states that he disagrees with
the wording of Suber's statement. (p. 163)
Waxman continues a colloquy with Johnston and Speers
concerning whether nicotine follows tar or whether in fact the
industry, through articles, statements and otherwise, had
indicated that those two factors can follow different paths.
Speers repeatedly tells Waxman the conclusion that he,s drawing
from his article is incorrect. Waxman indicates severe confusion
on this point when he states as follows: "let's not confuse it any
further. When you say the nicotine content of the smoke is
separate from the cigarette, that seems to me a very strange
notion." (p. 170) Waxman argues that: "it defies any body's
understanding of a concentration of a higher level of nicotine in a
cigarette. It may or may not be reflected in the smoke; it could be
different in the FTC numbers as opposed to the concentration in
the cigarette, and both of these can be different than what the
smoker in fact inhales." Speers then proceeds to explain the
fundamentals surrounding this issue -- that one has to
understand the distinctions involved with the concentration of
nicotine in a cigarette; the actual weight level of the filler in the
rod and how that affects the absolute amount of nicotine in the
cigarette; and Finally the actual nicotine yield in the smoke to the
smoker. (p. 171-172) Speers' explanation is undoubtedly
correct, the question is only whether the explanation was
communicated clearly so that people could understand his point.
Waxman then shows the panelists Exhibit 21, which was an
article by Dr. Nell Benowitz and others entitled "Smokers Of Low
Yield Cigarettes Do Not Consume Less Nicotine." Waxman stated
that the article is from the New England Journal of Medicine.
(p. 171-172) Speers disputes the points Waxman is trying to
make with the study, saying that how people actually smoke
cigarettes, is separate from the average or standard numbers that
are reflected by the FIE method. (p. 173)
-7-
Bliley raises confidentiality concerns with Waxman as follows:
"I'd like to demand that any documents that this Subcommittee
has requested be subject to strict confidentiality procedures by
the Subcommittee and its staff, and the receipt, review and use of
the materials which have been requested, by all Subcommittee
members. There are obvious proprietary concerns, and others
that we request that these procedures be strictly followed."'
Waxman responds by stating: Wv'hen we get these documents
and there, is a request for confidentiality, we will review, that with
the members of the Subcommittee, but I'm certainly not going to
agree that eve~g's going to be kept confidential because the
tobacco industry wants to keep it confidential .... So I will not
agree to that proposition, but we can discuss it when the time
arises." (p. 174)
Representative Bliley and Johnston and Campbell engage in a
friendly colloquy on underage smoking and what the industry is
doing to curb that phenomenon. (p. 177-180) Bliley asks
Johnston to submit for the record how much RJR spends for
such efforts. (p. 178)
Bliley then proceeds to ask the various manufacturers whether
they use. any of the patents that Commissioner Kessler referred to
in his March 25 testimony. Campbell responds that Philip Morris
does not use any patents which describe processes that would
maintain or increase the level of nicotine in cigarettes. He did say
that Philip Morris has used the patents that relate to the
reduction of nicotine through the denicotinization process.
(p. 181) Note as well that Johnston says RJR does not use any of
the patents Kessler described. He goes on to state, however, that
"there wouldn't be anything wrong with it if we did use those
patents. There have been calls from governments, from
scientists, all over the world, including the United States, for the
industry to provide lower tar cigarettes while maintaining nicotine
yields. The theory behind that being people -- the tar is the risk
factor here, that people will smoke fewer cigarettes. Our
company is being actively encouraged outside the U.S: to produce
those products and look what, s happening in this room today.
(p. 181-182)
Bliley then engages in a colloquy with the panelists to ask them
whether any of them spike their cigarettes with nicotine.
Everyone on the panel uniformly denied this fact. (p. 183-184)
Synar then pursues a line of questioning concerning advertising
to youth and Joe Camel. (p. 185) Synar's questions begin with a
reference to focus group data from RJR. [This may be an
indication, that Synar has received documents from the FTC that
RJR provided to the agency.]
-8-
Synar then asks Johnston to submit to the Subcommittee "all the
documents and other materials produced in connection with the
Joe Camel advertising campaign from your company and your
advertising firm since its inception, including internal memos,
reports, presentations of any kind, storyboards, results of focus
groups and marketing surveys, and any material within that
description." Johnston says he will provide such materials to the
Subcommittee. He notes, however, that "to help minimize any
environmental impact, I can direct you to where those documents
are already supplied" to the United States Government.
(p. 187-188)
Synar asks Campbell whether Philip Morris has done research of
any kind on the Joe Camel advertising campaign and its
effectiveness. Campbell states that he's not acquainted with
anything specifically and none of the other companies indicate
that they've done any research on the Joe Camel campaign.
In questioning Johnston, Synar makes the following statement:
"There are 50 million smokers. We know that only 5% of all
smokers switch, which means 2,5 million people per year. So
your spending by our calculations roughly $1,840 per person to
get them to switch." (p. 189)
Johnston states that he will not pull the Joe Camel advertising
campaign in response to an inquiry from Synar. He notes that
RJR has replicated through the Roper Organization research that
the AMA has conducted, only using much larger sample bases.
Johnston intimated that the Roper study indicated that teenagers
are not smoking Camel in the way that the AMA indicated that
they were and he offered to submit this data for the record.
(p. ~191)
Synar tells Campbell that the AMA has found that the initiation
rates increased rapidly in girls under 17 as a result of the
Virginia Slims ads. He claimed that the showed in 1973, the
initiation rates for girls under 17 increased 110% over 1967's
rate. Synar then shows Campbell a Virginia Slims ad and asks
him who the ad was "pointed to." Campbell stated that it was to
attract women smokers over the age of 20, 25, something like
that." (p. 192)
Synar asks Taddeo from UST about studies that UST has funded.
He indicates that he has funded a number of studies through the
Smokeless Tobacco Research Council and agrees to provide those
studies for the record and also make them public in response to
Synar's request. (p. 194)
-9-
Synar reads a letter from a young girl in his district where she
claims that a convenience store named Quick Trip had a "bunch
of cigarettes sitting on the shelf, and a sign that said, 'free, take
one.' " Johnston says that he will investigate this story
immediately and would submit for the record what RJR found
and what actions they've taken if his company, was involved in
any. way. Synar said he had been in such stores over the last two
weeks and that he saw the same thing that the girl who wrote the
letter saw. The transcript is not clear, but it appears that Bill
Campbell may have made the same commitment. (p. 201)
McMillan posits the interesting question as to why someone isn't
producing a high nicotine product specifically to take advantage
of the fact that nicotine is supposedly addictive. Johnston
responds by stating that "if some of the suggestions that have
been offered in the days leading up to this hearing were seriously
taken, that's what we would all be producing. If we just chop up
the tobacco and roll it into a piece of paper, the amount of
nicotine then provided to smokers will go up 300-400°/6. Yet we
have this remarkable record of reducing nicotine and somehow
we're challenged about it. I don't get it." (p. 205)
Johnston responds to a question from McMillan concerning black
market cigarette sales if cigarettes were banned in this country.
Johnston states that in Canada "they found people drifting to
higher tar, higher nicotine cigarettes because of the price.
Consumers naturally m0v¢ that way. saving that 'I can smoke
fewer cigarettes.' "
McMillan then questions Speers, noting as follows: "You were
accused publicly of making misrepresentations to this
Subcommittee the last time you appeared. Specifically, this
charge arose from a 1981 article that you authored, that told how
the level of nicotine in a tobacco product can be changed by
blending different types of tobacco which have differing nicotine
content. This discussion from your article was presented as
conclusive proof that cigarette manufacturers manipulate
nicotine in cigarettes and you stand accused of hiding this
supposed 'secret' fact. Dr. Speers, if you would turn to your
written statement from the March 25 hearing, ff you have it and
read the last sentence on the first page." Speers says that he
does not have it and McMillan reads it for him as follows: 'The
level of nicotine in the tobacco of our products is solely
determined by the tobacco that we buy and blending of the
different tobaccos during manufacturing. The tar and nicotine
yields of our products are determined by a combination of the
tobacco blends and the construction of the cigarette, i.e., length,
circumference, filter, tip ventilation, tobacco density, etc. The
Federal Trade Commission has reported the result of tar and
- 10-
