How cigarette additives are used to mask environmental tobacco smoke
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Tobacco Control 2000;9:283–291 283
How cigarette additives are used to mask
environmental tobacco smoke
Gregory N Connolly, GeoVrey D Wayne, Denise Lymperis, Melissa C Doherty
Abstract toxicity. These documents suggest that this
Objective—To understand the tobacco practice is part of an overall campaign to coun-
industry’s research on and use of cigarette ter the decline in the social acceptability of
additives that alter the perception of smoking.
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke Research performed by the tobacco
(ETS). companies revealed that smokers and
Data sources—Internal documents from non-smokers were bothered by ETS, and that
four websites maintained by the major US smokers would prefer cigarettes that made
tobacco manufacturers and company pat- smoking more socially acceptable. A 1981
ents pertaining to the use of ETS altering Philip Morris document summarising two idea
additives obtained from the US Patent and sessions on “beneficial additives”, which were
Trademark OYce online database. attended by senior management, including
Study selection—Electronic searches of chief executive oYcer Hamish Maxwell, notes:
the four industry websites and the US pat- “An additive that would reduce the stale smoke
ent database were conducted using and butt odor, but would be tasteless itself
keywords to identify relevant data. might be useful.”4 These same sessions
Data extraction—Industry documents resulted in the concept of a smoking device
and patents obtained using an exploratory that could be refilled with additives to deliver
snowball sampling method were reviewed “flavours” without smoke. This device closely
and grouped into four general categories resembles Philip Morris’ smokeless cigarette,
according to whether the additive(s) Accord, introduced in 1998.5
described aVected ETS visibility, odour, The tobacco industry conducted extensive
irritation, or emissions. Accuracy of research on ETS altering additives. Internal
isolated findings was validated through code names, such as “Project Stealth”, were
cross comparison of the data sources. often assigned to product prototypes as they
Data synthesis—Results of this prelimi- underwent testing.6 Some were later intro-
nary study provide evidence that tobacco duced to the market as familiar brand names,
manufacturers have conducted extensive such as Virginia Super Slims, Chelsea, and
research on the use of chemical additives Horizon. This research focused primarily on
to reduce, mask, or otherwise alter the using additives to reduce or mask the natural
visibility, odour, irritation, or emission of warning signs (for example, bad odour) of ETS
ETS. exposure, rather than reducing actual smoke
Conclusions—Findings suggest that the emissions. The tobacco industry has never fully
tobacco industry uses additives to reduce or accurately disclosed these actions to either
the perception of ETS. To protect the pub- the public or government health agencies. Fur-
lic, appropriate regulation of tobacco thermore, this review produced only limited
additives should be mandated. evidence of the manufacturers performing
(Tobacco Control 2000;9:283–291) analyses to determine the impact of additives
Keywords: environmental tobacco smoke; tobacco on the levels of mainstream and sidestream
Massachusetts Tobacco industry; additives; masking smoke constituents or smoke toxicity.
Control Program,
Massachusetts Involuntary exposure to environmental
Department of Public
Health, Boston, tobacco smoke (ETS) causes lung cancer in Methods
Massachusetts, USA healthy adult non-smokers, with an estimated This is an exploratory study, using what is
G N Connolly 3000 deaths occurring annually in the USA.1 essentially a snowball sampling method in
G D Wayne
D Lymperis ETS exposure is also an important risk factor which documents culled from an initial search
M C Doherty for coronary heart disease2 and is linked to res- of general keywords and related synonyms (for
piratory illness in children.1 The tobacco example, environmental tobacco smoke, ETS,
Correspondence to:
Gregory N Connolly, DMD, industry has aggressively challenged these secondhand smoke, sidestream smoke, SS)
MPH, Director, findings, and has opposed laws intended to were reviewed and used to develop further
Massachusetts Tobacco
Control Program, protect non-smokers from exposure to second- search headings. Data were collected through
Massachusetts Department hand smoke.3 A review of the tobacco industry an online search of the US Patent and
of Public Health, 250
Washington Street, Boston, documents indicates that manufacturers Trademark OYce database (available from
Massachusetts 12108, USA; employ additives and other cigarette design 1976 to the present, at www.uspto.gov) and the
greg.connolly@state.ma.us
technologies to alter the visibility, odour, and internal tobacco industry documents made
Received 13 January 2000 irritating quality of ETS without necessarily publicly available through the Minnesota
and in revised from 5 May reducing the overall level of smoke or its litigation and the recent Master Settle-
2000. Accepted 17 May
2000 constituents, or testing for alterations in smoke ment Agreement. Comparison of these two
www.tobaccocontrol.com284 Connolly, Wayne, Lymperis, et al
complementary sets of data provided a means smoking satisfaction for personal comfort. The
for checking the accuracy of isolated findings. third is the “personally motivated” segment
Keyword searches under a variety of (10–15% of smokers), who are “personally
headings (that is, additives, odour, visibility) bothered” by smoke and odour in their clothes,
permitted the identification of 300 industry hair, home, and car.
patents. These patents were reviewed for The results of Philip Morris’ “low
claims of aVecting sidestream smoke and then sidestream/low odor” research revealed a high
sorted into four general categories according to overall consumer interest in a socially
whether the additive(s) described reduced acceptable cigarette.8 Females were more
smoke irritation, odour, visibility, or emissions. interested than males, as were smokers who felt
The additive names and their categorisation uncomfortable smoking around others. Based
were entered into a database for review and on these findings and the results of tests on
analysis. several prototypes, future directions for more
The second source of data, the tobacco socially acceptable products were set forth:
industry internal documents, were obtained “Assuming minimal taste sacrifice:
through online sites maintained by the four + Neutralize or reduce lingering smoke odor.
major US tobacco manufacturers (www. + Reduce/mask ambient smoke odor, visibil-
pmdocs.com, www.rjrtdocs.com, www. ity, and irritation.
bwdocs.com, and www.lorillarddocs.com). + Light, pleasant (detectable) aroma.”8
Documents obtained from the initial keyword The growing importance of the social
search, supplemented by documents from the acceptability issue is elaborated upon in the
search of industry patents, were used to iden- Philip Morris 1993-1997 strategic plan, which
tify the names of key additives, the impact of notes: “ . . .an increasing number of restrictions
additives on perception of ETS exposure and is imposed on smokers in the work place and
smoke toxicity, names of individuals who con- public facilities. Anti-smoking zealots are
ducted relevant research, and project names or applying social pressure on smokers in a variety
codes directly addressing sidestream issues. of ways.”9
Further research followed from documents Two approaches to addressing this issue are
unearthed through exploration of these identi- recommended: reduced sidestream odour and
fied names and codes. This resulted in the irritation. “Consumer research indicates that
selection of approximately 250 documents, odor is a significant issue. There is substantial
which were also categorised into four groups opinion that sidestream irritation may also be
according to the purpose of the additive and an issue. These topics must be addressed as
analysed for content. These documents are they are among the remaining possibilities for
identified by the Bates number assigned to all improvement of the social acceptance of
documents produced in litigation. smoking.”9
The five year plan indicates that Philip Mor-
Results ris intended to explore three strategies for
INDUSTRY RESEARCH ON CONSUMERS AND ETS developing socially acceptable products. The
Tobacco manufacturers conducted extensive goal of the “reduced sidestream visibility”
consumer research involving both smokers and project was “to obtain a full circumference
non-smokers to determine if cigarettes that cigarette with approximately 70% visible
produced less smoke and odour would reduce sidestream reduction”.9 The use of two
concerns about exposure to ETS and make cigarette paper additives was being explored:
smoking in public more acceptable. A 1991 “Completion of evaluation of magnesite as a
Philip Morris report on “social” cigarette sidestream reduction cigarette paper additive is
brands introduced to the market to address scheduled for second quarter 1993. Develop-
these concerns revealed that: ment of calcium carbonate papers for reduced
+ “Low smoke/low odor concepts g[e]nerally sidestream is scheduled for completion third
receive positive response from smokers. quarter 1993.”9
+ About 1⁄2 of non-smokers feel that people Two additional projects focused on the
smoking around them is a “real annoyance”. reduction of sidestream irritation and odour:
+ About 1⁄3 of smokers say the[y] are bothered “The goal of this program is to reduce
by smoke and odor.”7 sidestream irritation with special emphasis on
The report notes that despite evidence of an the smoker. Analytical studies combined with
“unmet consumer need”, past “socially- subjective results will be used to investigate the
oriented” products, such as RJ Reynolds’ relationships between sidestream smoke
Premier (a novel nicotine delivery device), composition and irritation.”9 “Conditional
Vantage Excel, and Chelsea (reintroduced in approval has been obtained to use CR2978 as a
1990 as Horizon), have not succeeded in the sidestream odor modification additive for con-
marketplace. It also calls for promoting future ventional cigarette papers.”9
“socially acceptable” brands to three potential However, the plan does not call for reducing
smoker population segments. The first is the ETS particulates, nor does it state the need to
“socially motivated” group (42% of smokers) test the smoke for altered toxicity.
who are interested in a product that will “help Philip Morris’ research on socially
ease tensions between smokers and non- acceptable cigarettes included studying the
smokers”. The second is the “socially and per- role of the trigeminal and olfactory nerves in
sonally motivated” group (22% of smokers), the sensory perception of secondhand smoke
who are concerned about how they are in order to develop “improved” products that
perceived by others and are trading oV contained fewer and less potent trigeminally
www.tobaccocontrol.comRole of cigarettes additives in masking ETS 285
active substances.10 This research involved a explicitly state that they reduce only the
collaborative eVort with Dr Robert RH Anholt particulate matter. With other additives, the
and Dr Sidney A Simon of Duke University eVect is stated more vaguely. It appears that
Medical Center.10 11 According to a draft of many of the additives claimed to reduce ETS
their research proposal, one objective was to generally are, in fact, designed to reduce visible
develop electrophysiological techniques to ETS only, apparently by converting it into gas-
measure sidestream smoke induced trigeminal eous invisible sidestream smoke. Two industry
nerve activity.10 The eYcacy of ocular, nasal, patents for double layer cigarette wrappers
and oral stimuli in eliciting trigeminal containing sidestream reducing additives
responses would be determined, as well as the provide examples. The first is a 1985 RJ
relative potencies of defined cigarette smoke Reynolds patent for a wrapper that contains an
components in eliciting olfactory and alkali metal salt burn additive, such as
trigeminal responses. The proposal states: potassium citrate: “Here, the total amount of
“These studies are likely to facilitate the devel- material released into the atmosphere during
opment of tobacco products that generate static burning may not be aVected, but the
sidestream smoke which retains desirable droplets which constitute the particulate phase
fragrance, but elicits minimal trigeminal are reduced and the resultant stream is
sensations.”10 rendered invisible. The resulting smoke is
Lorillard also conducted research on thought to be less irritating, and thus less
consumers and ETS with an eye toward prod- objectionable to consumers. This approach has
uct development in mind. A November 1979 yielded several candidates for a practical
company memorandum states that “ . . .smok- reduced-sidestream cigarette.”15
ers are increasingly sharing the non-smokers’ The second is a 1990 Brown & Williamson
perception of smoking as a negative, irritating patent describing the use of several sidestream
habit”, and that the smoker is “more reducing wrapper additives (for example,
self-conscious about smoking”.12 The sug- aluminum and other metal hydroxides,
gested solution: “It is felt that the best ‘first alumina, and Attapulgite clay) that can be used
step’ product would be one with a significant singly or in combination: “The sidestream
and obvious reduction in the sidestream which reducing compound is eVective to reduce
seems to be one of the non-smokers’ main visible sidestream smoke components without
complaints. This would give the smoker a feel- eVecting a marked, if any, reduction in gas
ing of being less oVensive and an obvious ‘con- phase components of sidestream smoke.”16
versation piece’.”12 The goal of reducing the “annoying” eVects
RJ Reynolds conducted consumer aroma of sidestream smoke, rather than actual
testing with the goal of developing a product emissions, is also apparent in a 1989 RJ
with a pleasant sidestream aroma targeted Reynolds document that summarizes two
toward young women (YW) smokers.13 A total brainstorming sessions of the “Sidestream Irri-
of 54 aromas delivered in sidestream smoke tation Team”: “Most smokers find the eye/nose
were screened. Qualitative research revealed irritation more annoying than the sidestream
that the key perceived “benefits” of this itself. Therefore, if the irritation was eliminated
product attribute most relevant to YW smokers there would be no need to eliminate or reduce
were: sidestream.”17
+ “heightened and improved smoking sensory While some additive patents specifically state
experience/smoothness; an aroma masking eVect, others refer to
+ reduced cosmetic concerns (that is, less “improving” or “enhancing” the aroma of the
negative stale odor on hair and clothes).”13 sidestream smoke, as shown by the example in
This project led to the development of the box on page 286. Note that in this patent,
“Project TF” (“Tomorrow’s Female”), which the eVect of the additive on sidestream aroma
was targeted toward 18–34 year old women could be viewed as incidental to flavour
smokers “who want a fresher, cleaner smoking improvements in the mainstream smoke.
experience.”14 The benefits of this product RJ Reynolds highlighted its odour enhancing
were: technology in a 1989 advertisement introduc-
+ “smooth, satisfying taste; ing Chelsea, “the first cigarette that smells
+ light/pleasant aroma and aftertaste; good”, which was marketed as a “women’s”
+ less sidestream smoke.”14 brand (fig 1).18 The pamphlet features a
“scratch ‘n sniV” strip that releases the
MECHANISM OF ACTION OF ADDITIVES THAT cigarette’s aroma for the reader to sample.
ALTER ETS
The industry documents and patents suggest ADDITIVES THAT REDUCE/MODIFY SIDESTREAM
that many ETS altering additives reduce or ODOUR
mask the visibility, odour, or irritation of side- A 1981 Philip Morris memo summarising two
stream smoke without reducing its overall “idea sessions” on reducing sidestream states:
amount. While some additives are claimed to “It was suggested that we determine the
reduce ETS emissions, the question is, what is chemical composition of those compounds
actually reduced? Many of the patents for these which are most objectionable in sidestream
additives claim a reduction in ETS as a whole. aroma. Once identified, they could either be
But ETS has two components: a particulate masked through additives or reduced.”19
phase, which is the visible smoke emanating A 1988 Philip Morris memo lists 11
from the lit end of the cigarette, and a gas additives (for example, acetylpyrazine, ane-
phase, which is invisible. Some additive patents thole, limonene) that were selected for testing
www.tobaccocontrol.com286 Connolly, Wayne, Lymperis, et al
Several 1991 RJ Reynolds documents
Typical patent language for additives describe “aroma precursors” that were
that aVect the aroma of ETS evaluated by a smoking panel.25–28 The panel
+ This invention provides smoking compo- reported that one of these compounds,
sitions which contain a â-hydroxy- polyanethole, provided “a noticeable fresher,
gamma-ketoester compound as a cleaner and less irritating cigarette sidestream
flavorant-release additive. aroma”.27 Another compound, cinnamic
+ In one of its embodiments, this invention aldehyde pinanediol acetal, produced an aroma
provides tobacco compositions which that was “slightly sweet, spicy, clean, fresh,
contain a flavorant-release additive such dried fruit-like, piney-woody and less
as dodecyl 3-hydroxy-2,2,3-trimethyl-4- cigarette-like than that of the control”, and
oxopentanoate: [see original patent for oVered some improvement to the sidestream
chemical structure diagram]. aroma.25
+ Under cigarette smoking conditions the Industry patents describe the use of several
above illustrated â-hydroxy-gamma- food derived substances for modifying
ketoester pyrolyzes into 2,3-butanedione sidestream odour. Four separate patents cite
and other products which enhance the the use of vanillin for this purpose,29–32 while
flavor of the mainstream smoke and the other patents suggest the use of
aroma of the sidestream smoke [emphasis benzaldehyde,29 31–33 bergamot oil,29 30 33 cinnamon/
added]. cinnamon extract,30 32 coVee extract,29 33 and
*US Patent No. 4,701,282. “ â-hydroxy- nutmeg oil29 33 among other additives.
gamma-ketoester flavorant-release addi- Table 1 provides a listing of industry
tives.” Philip Morris Incorporated documents pertaining to additives and
(assignee-at-issue), October 20, 1987. technologies that reduce sidestream odour.
ADDITIVES THAT REDUCE/MASK SIDESTREAM
IRRITATION
to determine if they would modify sidestream A 1987 Philip Morris memorandum notes that
odour.20 Of note is the fact that these eVorts are in progress to minimise/mask
compounds were selected because they likely sidestream smoke irritants, and that the levels
had low odour thresholds and few or no com- of specific irritants, such as acrolein and
ponents that would elicit a trigeminal nerve ammonia, will be determined.34 Sidestream
response. Another memo from that year flavorants that could mask irritants, such as
describes a deodorising additive developed by anethole, were being developed.
Union Carbide called “Smellrite” as “a highly In 1988, RJ Reynolds conducted a review of
eVective adsorbent for odors.”21 Smellrite was the literature on the influence of additives and
subsequently evaluated by a smoking panel, flavorants on ETS irritancy.35 The review
but was found to have no eVect on sidestream covered nine flavorants that had masking abil-
aroma, although another experiment indicated ity, four humectants, casing materials, as well
that it did produce a marginal decrease in the as organic and inorganic acids and salts.
overall intensity of cigarette butt odour.22 Other Experimentation on lowered levels of casings
Philip Morris odour altering compounds and tobacco sugars in reducing sidestream and
included “CR-2978”23 and “Aromatek 245”.24 ETS irritation was advised. Masking was
The chemical nature of these cigarette paper recommended in conjunction with other
additives could not be determined, since they means to reduce irritancy, since its eVects
are likely treated as proprietary compounds. alone were judged to be not significant.
A 1984 Brown & Williamson report
indicates that the addition of aluminium
sulfate to commercially manufactured “VEL-
VET” cigarette paper considerably reduces
sidestream irritation.36 The report also
describes an initial evaluation of three other
compounds, NaH2PO4, (NH4)2SO4, and citric
acid, which revealed that only the first two
appeared to reduce sidestream irritation.
Table 2 lists documents describing additives
and technologies used by the industry to
reduce sidestream irritation.
ADDITIVES THAT REDUCE SIDESTREAM VISIBILITY
Several cigarette variables, including tobacco
weight and blend components, wrapper poros-
ity, and chemical coatings and fillers added to
the wrapper, aVect the visibility of sidestream
smoke.37 A 1983 Philip Morris report describes
the results of a study in which the amount of
visible sidestream smoke emanating from a
statically burning cigarette was monitored
Figure 1 A 1989 advertisement introducing Chelsea, “the first cigarette that smells good”. using light extinction techniques.37 Percent
Courtesy of John Slade. light extinction values were assumed to
www.tobaccocontrol.comRole of cigarettes additives in masking ETS 287
Table 1 Additives/technologies that reduce sidestream odour Philip Morris also had a “reduced
sidestream program” whose goal in 1989 was
Document
Additive Bates number Company to develop proprietary wrappers that reduced
sidestream visibility by at least 50%, according
Acetylpyrazine, anethole, beta-caryophyllene, 2001300448 Philip Morris to a programme outline.38
cedrol, ethyl 3-methylvalerate, furaneol,
limonene, p-anisaldehyde, patchouli alcohol, Table 3 lists several industry documents
phenethyl alcohol, vanillin describing additives or technologies that
“Aromatek 150”, “Aromatek 245” 2023356341 Philip Morris reduce the visibility of sidestream smoke.
Other claims for additives that reduce ETS vis-
Table 2 Additives/technologies that reduce sidestream irritation ibility are found in the patent literature, includ-
ing seven separate claims for the use of calcium
Document carbonate,39–45 four for magnesium carbon-
Additive Bates number Company
ate,39 43 44 46 and two each for sodium acetate47 48
Aluminium sulfate, (NH4)2SO4, NaH2PO4 566001816 Brown & Williamson and sodium citrate.42 47
“XLF-636” 505005495 Brown & Williamson
“XLF-662”, “XLF-680”, “XLF-755” 566001836 Brown & Williamson ADDITIVES THAT REDUCE SIDESTREAM EMISSIONS
A 1990 Brown & Williamson report describes
correlate with the rate at which visible smoke testing results on coating solutions for reduced
was being emitted. sidestream cigarette paper composed of a film
Large decreases in visible light extinction forming agent, such as ammonium alginate or
sodium carboxymethylcellulose (NaCMC),
occurred when magnesium oxide and calcium
and a burn additive, such as potassium
carbonate fillers were both added to the wrap-
succinate and/or potassium citrate.49 These
per. The greatest decreases in visible solutions lowered the permeability of the
sidestream were achieved by making modifica- paper, preventing the sidestream smoke from
tions to the wrapper by substituting alternative escaping during smoldering. The report notes
non-soluble fillers, coating it with solutions that, in general, for hand painted papers, the
containing water soluble substances, or chang- use of 1–1.5% of ammonium alginate and
ing its porosity. Wrapper coatings of sodium 2–6% of potassium carboxylates on a heavy
hexametaphosphate; malonic, glutaric, and cit- basis weight cigarette paper can reduce
ric acid; potassium citrate and acetate; and cal- sidestream emissions by at least 50%
cium chloride also reduced visible sidestream compared to a control paper. Further study
levels, as did a low level of calcium carbonate revealed that ammonium alginate was a better
filler in the wrapper, and the inclusion of high film forming agent on cigarette paper than
levels of reconstituted or expanded tobacco in NaCMC and also resulted in greater
the blend. Future plans for lowering sidestream sidestream reduction.
visibility focused on three approaches: using A 1991 Philip Morris document highlights
either of two commercially available wrappers the features of a sidestream reducing mineral,
(with modifications and flavour work to mask sodium magnesium carbonate [Na2Mg(CO3)2],
oV-taste and harshness), or using a non-porous also known as “eitelite”.50 Eitelite easily leads
wrapper in combination with coatings such as to a fluxing (dispersing) action during
an acetate burn accelerator or substances for smoking, creating a smoke impervious
improved sidestream aroma. Blend changes “ceramic sheath” around the burning cone that
and flavours would be incorporated to produce reduces sidestream emissions.
low sidestream visibility with “subjectively In September 1992, Philip Morris received a
patent on a cigarette paper for reducing
desirable” mainstream and sidestream
sidestream emissions composed of a single
smoke.37
sheet formed from several layers (preferably
Table 3 Additives/technologies that reduce sidestream visibility two) of cellulosic material.51 The outer layer
has a higher basis weight than the inner layer
Document and also contains a higher level of calcium car-
Additive Bates number Company
bonate filler. The relatively low level of filler in
Albacar chalk, multifex chalk 2021354113 Philip Morris the inner layer helps reduce the burn rate of the
Alumina sol-gel, MgCO3 sol-gel, phosphoric acid, 2020288104 Philip Morris paper, thereby aiding in sidestream reduction.
potassium pyrophosphate
If an alkali metal burn chemical (preferably
Calcium carbonate, Na2CO3 2022177532 Philip Morris
potassium succinate) is added to the paper, it
Calcium chloride, citric acid, magnesium oxide, potassium 1003638777 Philip Morris
acetate, potassium citrate, sodium hexametaphosphate
acts as a fluxing agent for the calcium carbon-
Glutaric acid, hydromagnesite, malonic acid, potassium 2020326633 Philip Morris
ate and also combines with the filler, forming
phosphate an impervious ash that contributes signifi-
Magnesite, potassium succinate 2023398178 Philip Morris cantly to the reduction of sidestream smoke,
Magnesium carbonate, MgCO3 sol-gel 2021327427 Philip Morris similar to eitelite. The addition of NaCMC to
Magnesium hydroxide 2021553268 Philip Morris Brown the bilayer sheet contributes to the
505005325 & Williamson imperviousness of the ash, enhancing
Monobasic potassium phosphate, calcium carbonate 2023394961 Philip Morris sidestream reduction. The patent claims that a
2020288066 17 mm circumference cigarette made with this
2020288104
2020326633 paper produces about 40% less sidestream
Monopotassium phosphate 2021354113 Philip Morris
smoke than a conventional cigarette of the
Phosphate, malonic acid 2020326629 Philip Morris
same size.
“Studio 26 blend,” “XTH Studio blend” 2020397399 Philip Morris
A 1985 RJ Reynolds patent cited earlier for a
double cigarette wrapper containing an alkali
www.tobaccocontrol.com288 Connolly, Wayne, Lymperis, et al
metal salt describes how these burn additives odour were considered important, it was not
can be used in combination with other chemi- viewed by smokers as significant enough to
cals to reduce sidestream emissions, but allow them to feel comfortable smoking
cannot eVectively do so alone.15 The 1990 around non-smokers.55 Rather, smokers saw
Brown & Williamson document on cigarette Stealth as a way to help reduce the lingering
wrapper coating solutions also discusses the cigarette odour in their clothes, home, and car.
use of burn additives with film forming agents Therefore, Stealth’s positioning was changed
that reduce sidestream emissions.49 to “the first cigarette that doesn’t leave a stale,
RJ Reynolds conducted several research lingering odor after smoking”.54 The Burnett
projects to develop reduced sidestream report notes that this marketing strategy still
products. “Program RS” (“reduced side- had an implicit social benefit, since smokers
stream”) investigated the use of carbonised would receive fewer complaints from
tobacco as a filler to dilute the blend and non-smokers about lingering odour.55
reduce sidestream smoke.52 The product for Interestingly, a 1991 Philip Morris brand
“Project CC” (meaning unknown) was being review of new products describes the beneficial
developed using two diVerent delivery systems: marketing implications for Stealth as a result of
a double wrap and a single wrap.53 the US Environmental Protection Agency hav-
Table 4 lists several industry documents ing classified ETS as a group A (known
describing additives that reduce sidestream human) carcinogen:
emissions. + “More smoking bans in public places as well
as in private business.
INDUSTRY SIDESTREAM “BRAND PROJECTS” + Anti-smokers group will ensure maximum
Cigarette manufacturers conducted various publicity, new powerful tactic to increase the
projects in which ETS altering additive guilt of smokers.
technology was incorporated into product pro- + Heighten smokers’ awareness of second
totypes. Table 5 provides a partial list of these hand smoke.
projects. + Potential opportunities for more socially
acceptable cigarettes.”56
Project Stealth
Two 1990 Philip Morris documents describe Project Cosmo
Project Stealth as a product with low tar, low A 1987 Philip Morris report on Project Cosmo
smoke (70% less smoke from the lit end, which states that the product will be positioned as an
was later changed to 50%), and low odour.6 54 “ultra slim” cigarette that contains less tobacco
Project Stealth, which was to be marketed than conventional cigarettes and generates less
under the brand name of either Select or sidestream smoke, with a “stylish and fashion-
Choice, eliminated odour by producing less able” consumer perception.57 In developing
smoke and employing a “natural screening sys- brand names to communicate this positioning,
tem” in the filter that absorbed odour, a Philip Morris explored three alternative
technology known internally as “Aromatech”. concepts: “A la Capri,” “Cartier”, and
Stealth was initially to be positioned as “Socially Acceptable”.57 The first two
“help[ing] smokers feel better about smoking categories would be targeted toward sophisti-
in social situations,6 which was viewed as a cated, stylish young women, with Cartier being
“social benefit”.55 more “upscale”, like the famed jeweller. The
However, consumer research conducted by “Socially Acceptable” concept would encom-
Leo Burnett USA, an advertising agency, pass any one of the following three more prac-
revealed that while the reduction in smoke and tical avenues: a Benson & Hedges “flanker” (to
Table 4 Additives that reduce sidestream emissions be more “gender neutral” than A la Capri or
Cartier, in order to ensure a broader appeal), a
Document Merit line extension (emphasising a “techno-
Additive Bates number Company
logical breakthrough”), or a “free standing”
Na2Mg(CO3)2 (eitelite) 2022939206 Philip Morris product (also gender neutral) to be portrayed
2022939207 as: “ . . .[A] diet smoke, emphasizing less
Ammonium alginate with potassium 575103432 Brown & Williamson tobacco, low tar, and low sidestream smoke.
succinate as burn additive
This aggressive positioning is likely to open up
Ammonium alginate, sodium carboxymethylcellulose 608002369 Brown & Williamson
(NaCMC), with potassium carboxylates (citrate, a new category of smoking.”57
succinate) as burn additives, MgO The report indicates that for the “Socially
NaCMC with monoammonium phosphate 620692855 Brown & Williamson Acceptable” category there would be no direct
and potassium succinate as burn additives mention or pictures in the advertising concern-
ing low sidestream emissions. Instead, copyline
Table 5 Industry sidestream “brand projects” would be used that implies product “benefits”
in a “subtle, ‘soft-sell’ manner”.57
Project name Company Additive/technology Altered ETS attribute
Stealth Philip Morris “Aromatech” Visibility/aroma Project Aquarius
Cosmo Philip Morris Less tobacco Visibility According to a 1989 Brown & Williamson
Aquarius Brown & Williamson Expanded tobacco, Emissions/visibility product development report, the objective of
low sidestream paper Project Aquarius was: “[T]o develop a low
YW (Young Women) RJ Reynolds Vanillin Aroma sidestream 100 mm cigarette with a main-
Ambrosia Philip Morris “Aromatek 150,” Aroma stream delivery of 10 to 12 mg of tar, and to
“Aromatek 245,”
vanillin
out-perform VANTAGE EXCEL 100 in both
sidestream reduction and taste.”58
www.tobaccocontrol.comRole of cigarettes additives in masking ETS 289
Brown & Williamson outlined a strategy for A 1992 memorandum describes the results
meeting this objective: (1) reduce total of an evaluation of two types of Ambrosia
sidestream emissions by using high levels products for sidestream odour acceptability as
(> 70%) of expanded tobacco (thereby reduc- perceived in a room environment.64 “Ambrosia
ing the amount of tobacco burned); and (2) I” altered the aroma of the ambient air by
use a low sidestream paper that reduces visible releasing a vanilla like odour, while “Ambrosia
sidestream, but does not contribute an oVtaste II” reduced the amount or odour of the
to the mainstream smoke.58 However, the use sidestream. Although all Ambrosia I and II
of expanded tobacco resulted in diminished products were found to improve the character
mainstream smoke quality and reduced puV of room aroma, the overall change, while statis-
count. To improve smoke quality, Brown & tically significant, was small. Furthermore,
Williamson evaluated for expansion new none of them could be termed “low odour”
blends containing high concentrations of glyc- when compared to a fresh air environment.
erin. After expansion, magnesium chloride They were, however, viewed as representing “a
and/or ammonium chloride were added to step in the right direction”.
reduce the burn rate, thereby increasing the
puV count. Testing of crude prototypes that ETS ALTERING ADDITIVES AND SMOKE TOXICITY
combined the best low density blends and low Industry documents reviewed pertaining to
sidestream papers were judged to be “highly additives that alter ETS show little evidence of
competitive on both sensory and sidestream testing for changes in mainstream or
reduction”.59 sidestream smoke constituent levels or toxicity.
The report also notes that “Project Taurus”, Few studies measured changes in the
which was a previous attempt at making a low concentration of specific constituents, report-
sidestream cigarette, failed because of ing at most the levels of sidestream total
unacceptable smoke taste.58 This was caused particulate matter (TPM). A 1983 Philip Mor-
by the use of a commercial low sidestream ris report described earlier measured the eVect
paper that contained magnesium oxide as a of several cigarette variables (that is, tobacco
co-filler. weight, blend components, wrapper coatings,
and fillers) on the levels of sidestream TPM.37
The report provides the sidestream and main-
Project YW
stream deliveries of selected compounds,
A 1987 RJ Reynolds project summary
including tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide,
positions “Young Women” as “a breakthrough
nitrous oxide, aldehydes, and hydrogen
product with a perfected blend so smooth and
cyanide, upon application of various additives
refined that it even has a noticeably fresher
to the cigarette paper. However, the study con-
aftertaste and pleasant smoke aroma”.60 Of the
clusions are drawn from the overall eVects of
54 sidestream aromas screened for this
these additives on the level of sidestream TPM
product, the preferred scents fell within the
as an indicator of smoke visibility, rather than
category of “edible, tasty aromas”, with the top
on the levels of individual constituents
candidates being vanilla, toVee, milk chocolate,
themselves. One observation is that carbon
coconut, and marshmallow.13 Reynolds settled
monoxide deliveries were increased with
on vanillin as the “only feasible aroma
papers containing sodium aluminate and
candidate”.61 However, after an initial product
sodium silicate.
test, failure to address the issue of fresh
The reviewed industry studies also failed to
aftertaste led to the project being dropped.60
conduct a thorough analysis of reductions in
The work was then transferred to “Project
the levels of major toxic gas or particulate
TF”, which had a similar product concept and
phase constituents in mainstream or
target population.62
sidestream smoke, such as the carcinogenic
tobacco specific N-nitrosamines (TSNA).
“Project Ambrosia” This is of particular concern, since individual
A 1990 Philip Morris memorandum describes TSNA levels in sidestream smoke, the major
the results of subjective tests performed on source of ETS, can be more than 20 times
three low sidestream models of Ambrosia ciga- higher than in mainstream smoke (as in the
rettes made with: (1) low sidestream paper case of NNK),65 and could conceivably
only; (2) low sidestream paper with “Aromatek increase in concentration if the additive
245”; and (3) low sidestream paper with “Aro- technology reduces the burn temperature of
matek 150”.63 The cigarettes were rated against the cigarette cone. A 1981 Lorillard
Marlboro Lights controls for diVerences in memorandum describes a new cigarette paper
smoke intensity, irritation, acceptability, and that was found to reduce overall sidestream
added odour. The test model with low emissions, but increased the mainstream yield
sidestream paper alone was rated significantly of certain toxins, including the TSNA
lower on smoke intensity than the control. The N’-nitrosonornicotine and benzo(a)pyrene,
Aromatek 150 model was rated significantly which are both highly carcinogenic.66
lower on irritation and significantly higher on Although design changes were subsequently
added odour, which was described as “vanillin made to reduce the levels of these
and sweet”. Generally, very little added odour compounds,67 it is possible that some of these
was detected for the models with low changes might actually pose a greater ETS
sidestream paper only and Aromatek 245. exposure risk. This review found no
There were no significant diVerences in documents showing evidence of the manufac-
acceptability. turers conducting standard toxicity testing
www.tobaccocontrol.com290 Connolly, Wayne, Lymperis, et al
(that is, Ames test, mouse skin painting, inha- reports due in December 1997, based on the
lation studies) to determine the potential industry claim that the disclosure requirements
impact of ETS altering additives on health. constituted the taking of valuable industry
trade secrets. The state is currently awaiting
Conclusions the court’s decision on the constitutionality of
This review of the tobacco industry documents the law.
shows how manufacturers were concerned This review provides compelling evidence as
about the lack of “social acceptability” of their to why governmental entities should have
cigarettes caused by negative perceptions of access to additives information and demon-
secondhand smoke among both smokers and strates the need for appropriate regulatory
non-smokers. Cigarette additives were devel- action to protect the public from the dangers of
oped along with other product design changes smoking and involuntary exposure to ETS.
to reduce or mask the aroma, visibility, and Tobacco manufacturers should be required to
irritation of sidestream smoke, and less disclose the name and concentration of each
frequently, to lower actual smoke emissions. additive used by brand and its intended
Many of these additives were incorporated into purpose. Often, the uses publicly claimed by
special “brand projects” for testing, some of the industry are very diVerent from those
which later entered the marketplace, such as revealed in the corporate documents and
Chelsea/Horizon and Virginia Super Slims. patents. All documents on tobacco additives
Very little research was found in this review obtained in discovery from tobacco manufac-
regarding the eVect of these additives on the turers that remain currently under seal should
toxicity of mainstream and sidestream smoke be made available to regulatory authorities.
or the levels of individual smoke constituents. Whether or not this information should be
In addition, there was little evidence to suggest made publicly available is subject to debate,
that tobacco manufacturers sought to fully but at a minimum government entities should
inform consumers of the product changes they receive it in order to conduct appropriate
were designing and implementing. These are research. Manufacturers also should be
important considerations, since the use of side- required to test cigarette additives thoroughly
stream altering additives could increase to demonstrate that they do not increase the
non-smokers’ involuntary exposure to ETS by health risks of involuntary exposure to ETS.
reducing the normal warning signs of exposure Those found to increase health risks, including
to smoke toxins. Another major concern is that the toxicity of the mainstream and sidestream
women of childbearing age are a prime target smoke, should be removed. More research is
group for these brand modifications. Thus, needed, including product testing to identify
women smokers with young children may brand design issues and to warn the public of
increase their child’s risk of developing respira- potential harm.
tory diseases through increased ETS exposure The Federal Food and Drug Administration
if they themselves are not bothered by the (FDA) is the appropriate regulatory agency to
smoke. address the issue of tobacco additives
In 1984, the federal government began disclosure. In 1996, the FDA asserted its juris-
requiring cigarette manufacturers to disclose diction over tobacco products as drugs and
annually a list of additives placed in the nicotine delivery devices under the Food,
cigarette tobacco rod to the OYce on Smoking Drug, and Cosmetic Act, but was sued by the
and Health. However, they are not required to tobacco industry in federal court, which ruled
report substances that are added to the that the agency lacked such regulatory author-
wrapper paper or filter, or the quantities of ity. The appealed decision was recently upheld
additives used by brand, which makes it virtu- by the Supreme Court. In the absence of FDA
ally impossible to study which products authority, individual states must address this
employ ETS altering technologies. Also, the issue through their public health or consumer
vast majority of documents on the industry’s protection authorities.
use of cigarette additives, obtained through
civil smoking and health litigation, are not 1 US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health
available to public health oYcials because they eVects of passive smoking. Fact sheet. Washington DC: US
Environmental Protection Agency, January 1993.
are protected under a Minnesota court order as 2 Taylor AE, Johnson DC, Kazemi H. Environmental tobacco
trade secrets. smoke and cardiovascular disease: a position paper from
the council on cardiopulmonary and critical care,
Since 1988, Canada has mandated American Heart Association. Circulation 1992;86:699–
disclosure of tobacco additives by quantity and 702.
3 Glantz SA, Slade J, Bero LA, Hanauer P, Barnes DE. The
brand (although the reported information has cigarette papers. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: Uni-
not been made public), and the European versity of California Press, 1996:391–435.
4 Farone WA. Memo to RB Seligman and LF Meyer. Re: Idea
Commission is currently considering a similar session on beneficial additives. Philip Morris, Inc,
requirement as part of a proposal directive. In February 16, 1981. Bates No. 2026229625/9629.
5 Jones, C. “Low-toxin cigarette created/35 potential hazards
1996, the Massachusetts legislature enacted reduced, Philip Morris says.” Richmond Times-Dispatch,
the Tobacco Disclosure Act (Massachusetts March 18, 1998.
6 Philip Morris, Inc. Project Stealth [brand plan]. Philip Mor-
General Laws, chapter 94, section 307B), ris, Inc., July 1990. Bates No. 2049400355.
which requires manufacturers to disclose addi- 7 Philip Morris, Inc. Review of past “social” cigarettes. Philip
Morris, Inc, September 1991. Bates No. 2045628701/
tives placed in any part of the cigarette in 8718.
descending order by weight and brand. 8 Philip Morris, Inc. Low sidestream/low odor research.
Philip Morris, Inc, January 1993. Bates No. 2021351131/
However, the state was sued by the major 1179.
tobacco manufacturers and enjoined by the 9 Philip Morris, Inc. 1993–1997 Philip Morris USA R&D
strategic plan. Philip Morris, Inc, March 2, 1992. Bates
federal court from receiving the first additive No. 2021522925/3041.
www.tobaccocontrol.comRole of cigarettes additives in masking ETS 291
10 Anholt RRH, Simon SA. Proposal for Collaborative 39 US Patent No. 3,744,496. “Carbon filled wrapper for smok-
Research with the Philip Morris Company. Development ing article.” Olin Corp. (assignee-at-issue), July 10, 1973.
of trigeminal bioassays for the quantitative measurement 40 US Patent No. 4,420,002. “Wrapper for smoking articles
of sidestream smoke induced nociception. Philip Morris, and method.” Olin Corp. (assignee-at-issue), December
Inc, 1988. Bates No. 2022945748/5772. 13, 1983.
11 Seeman JI. Memo to Distribution (J Charles, et al). Re: 41 US Patent No. 4,450,847. “Wrapper for smoking articles
Trigeminal studies in conjunction with Professor Robert
Anholt. Philip Morris, Inc, January 26, 1988. Bates No. and method.” Olin Corp. (assignee-at-issue), May 29,
2024770079. 1984.
12 Hudson AB. Memo to Dr AW Spears. Re: Socially 42 US Patent No. 4,461,311. “Method and smoking article
acceptable cigarette. Lorillard Tobacco Co, November 8, wrapper for reducing sidestream smoke.” Kimberly-Clark
1979. Bates No. 00360191/0193. Corp. (assignee-at-issue), July 24, 1984.
13 Cranford JM, Jr. Letter to Mr Jordan Stanley, Young & 43 US Patent No. 4,721,120. “Smoking articles.” British
Rubicam, Inc, New York, NY. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, American Tobacco Co, Ltd. (assignee-at-issue), January
February 21, 1986. Bates No. 505217742–7745. 26, 1988.
14 Miller JH. Memo to Dr MF Dube. Re: Project TF—next 44 US Patent No. 4,805,644. “Sidestream reducing cigarette
steps. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, June 10, 1987. Bates No. paper.” Sidestream reducing cigarette paper.” Kimberly-
505618412–8413. Clark Corp. (assignee-at-issue), February 21, 1989.
15 US Patent No. 4,561,454. “Smoking article having reduced
sidestream smoke.” RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. (assignee-at- 45 US Patent No. 5,092,353. “Cigarette.” RJ Reynolds
issue), December 31, 1985. Tobacco Co (assignee-at-issue), March 3, 1992.
16 US Patent No. 5,107,865. “Smoking articles.” Brown & 46 US Patent No. 5,092,306. “Magnesite composition filler for
Williamson Tobacco Corp (assignee-at-issue), April 28, smoking article wrapper.” Philip Morris, Inc (assignee-at-
1992. issue), March 3, 1992.
17 Cohen PS. Memo to Ms MR Savoca. Re: Sidestream irrita- 47 US Patent No. 4,231,377. “Wrapper for smoking articles
tion team brainstorming. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, July containing magnesium oxide.” Olin Corp. (assignee-at-
25, 1989. Bates No. 506902914–2917. issue), November 4, 1980.
18 RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. Chelsea advertising pamphlet, 48 US Patent No. 4,624,268. “Smoking articles.” British
1989. American Tobacco Co, Ltd. (assignee-at issue), November
19 Farone WA. Memo to RB Seligman and LF Meyer. Re: Idea 25, 1986.
session on reducing sidestream. Philip Morris, Inc, Febru-
ary 4, 1981. Bates No. 1003225256/5262. 49 Chao LC, Tang JY, Houpt ST, St. Charles FK. Memo to
20 Southwick R. Memo to E Gee. Re: Odor modification of Distribution (J.S. Wigand, et al). Re: Low sidestream ciga-
sidestream smoke. Philip Morris, Inc, March 3, 1988. rette paper development/269. Brown & Williamson
Bates No. 2001300448. Tobacco Corp, December 17, 1990. Bates No.
21 Tafur S, Ferguson R. Memo to Patent Counsel. Re: 608002369/2375.
Invention record. Preliminary disclosure for consideration 50 Philip Morris, Inc filename: eitelite.patent.910514. Philip
of patentability. Philip Morris, Inc, December 23, 1988. Morris, Inc, May 14, 1991. Bates No. 2022939207/9218.
Bates No. 2026343583. 51 US Patent No. 5,143,098. “Multiple layer cigarette paper
22 Tafur S. Memo to RN Ferguson. Re: Evaluation of “Smell- for reducing sidestream smoke.” Philip Morris, Inc
rite.” Philip Morris, Inc, July 18, 1989. Bates No. (assignee-at-issue), September 1, 1992.
2022177532/7535. 52 RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. Program RS: reduced sidestream
23 Comes R, Seeman JI, Yatrakis G. Memo to Distribution cigarette. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 1985. Bates No.
(Flavor Committee, et al). Re: Smoking studies on 504655958–5963.
CR-2978. Philip Morris, Inc, January 1993. Bates No.
2057772000/2001. 53 RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. Reduced sidestream technology.
24 Izac RR, Core M, Houminer Y. Memo to RN Ferguson. Re: Project CC—background. Project CC—research. RJ Rey-
Analysis of mainstream, sidestream, and butts from nolds Tobacco Co, January 6, 1988. Bates No.
cigarettes coated with Aromatek 245. Philip Morris, Inc, 506685030–5038.
August 3, 1989. Bates No. 2022194616/4618. 54 Philip Morris, Inc. Project Stealth: focus group topline.
25 Lawrence BM. Memo to Dr ME Stowe. Re: Weekly Philip Morris, Inc, August 30, 1990. Bates No.
highlights. Flavor Division. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, June 2049400339/0340.
18, 1991. Bates No. 511619744. 55 Beardslee W. Letter to Mr Louis Suwarna, Philip Morris,
26 Redding JW. Memo to Brian M Lawrence. Re: Propenyl Inc. Re: Project Stealth strategy. Philip Morris, Inc,
guaiacol glucosides. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, March 5, September 25, 1990. Bates No. 2044124149/4151.
1991. Bates No. 511334080. 56 Philip Morris, Inc New Products Brand Review. Philip
27 Redding JW. Memo to Brian M Lawrence. Re: Poly anethole Morris, Inc, September 19, 1991. Bates No. 2043982807/
evaluation. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, April 25, 1991. 2850.
Bates No. 511334075.
28 Redding JW. Memo to Brian M Lawrence. Re: Sidestream 57 Interbrand Corporation. Naming strategy report prepared
evaluation of cinnamic aldehyde methyl glucopyranoside for Philip Morris, USA. Project Cosmo. Revised—July 14,
acetal. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, August 1, 1991. Bates 1987. Philip Morris, Inc. Bates No. 2049434829/4846.
No. 511334047. 58 Templeton LK. Phase I development of a low sidestream
29 US Patent No. 4,076,853. “Flavoring with substituted nor- cigarette. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, October
bornane derivatives.” International Flavors & Fragrances, 20, 1989. Bates No. 570243847/3853.
Inc (assignee-at-issue), February 28, 1978. 59 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. Status of Barclay Y1
30 US Patent No. 5,144,964. “Smoking compositions contain- Conventionals; Capri; Ultra; Sunbelt; Zircon; Aquarius.
ing a flavorant-release additive.” Philip Morris, Inc Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, April 19, 1990. Bates
(assignee-at-issue), September 8, 1992. No. 562503093/3096.
31 US Patent No. 5,320,131. “Method of providing an aroma 60 RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. Project YW. RJ Reynolds Tobacco
and flavor precursor for smoking articles.” RJ Reynolds Co, 1987. Bates No. 505936285–6292.
Tobacco Co (assignee-at-issue), June 14, 1994.
32 US Patent No. 5,494,055. “Aroma mixtures for incorpora- 61 RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. YW product development. RJ
tion into coverings for smokeable tobacco goods.” H F & Reynolds Tobacco Co, 1986. Bates No. 505217753–7762.
Ph F Reemtsma GmbH & Co, Hamburg, DE (assignee-at- 62 Miller JH. Memo to DN Lauco. Re: Project YW
issue), February 27, 1996. quantitative concept test—revised brand perspective. RJ
33 US Patent No. 4,627,449. “Process for augmenting or Reynolds Tobacco Co, August 4, 1987. Bates No.
enhancing aroma or taste of smoking tobacco and smoking 507372369–2370.
tobacco article using aldehyde composition.” International 63 Smith AD. Memo to Ms Linda Wettle. Re: Subjective test-
Flavors & Fragrances, Inc (assignee-at-issue), December ing of low-sidestream Ambrosia models in the PACT
9, 1986. room. Philip Morris, Inc, June 14, 1990. Bates No.
34 Gauvin PN. Memo to Distribution (Bates K, et al). Re: 2023356341/6343.
Sidestream smoke aroma. Philip Morris, Inc, August 25, 64 Jeltema M. Memo to L Suwarna. Re: Sensory testing of
1987. Bates No. 2020090105. sidestream aroma. Philip Morris, Inc, January 6, 1992.
35 Perfetti TA. Memo to MS Savoca. Re: Influence of Bates No. 2029252370/2375.
additive[s] and flavorants on ETS irritancy. RJ Reynolds
Tobacco Co, November 22, 1988. Bates No. 506798695– 65 US Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing
8706. the health consequences of smoking: 25 years of progress. A
36 St Charles FK. The eVect of aluminum sulfate on Ecusta’s report of the Surgeon General, 1989. Rockville, Maryland:
velvet paper/325. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. File Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, OYce
note, March 14, 1984. Bates No. 566001816/1819. on Smoking and Health, 1989. (DHHS Publication No
37 Gunst KW. Sidestream visibility of a statically burning ciga- (CDC) 89–8411.)
rette. Philip Morris, Inc, August 19, 1983. Bates No. 66 Jessup TD. Memo to AB Hudson. Re: reduced sidestream
1003638777/8804. cigarette. Lorillard Tobacco Co, February 25, 1987. Bates
38 Ferguson RN. Memo to Dr EB Sanders. Re: Outline of No. 80641174/1175.
1989 plans for reduced sidestream program. Philip 67 Hudson AB. Memo to FJ Schultz. Re: Reduced sidestream
Morris, Inc, December 29, 1988. Bates No. 2057772366/ [smoke] cigarette. Lorillard Tobacco Co, June 25, 1987.
2368. Bates No. 87091446/1448.
www.tobaccocontrol.comYou can also read
