New measurements indicate that many smokers may be getting about twice as much tar and nicotine per cigarette than the amounts estimated by using current Federal Trade Commission (FTC) machine-smoking procedures.
This conclusion is presented by Mirjana Djordjevic, Ph.D., and colleagues at the American Health Foundation, Valhalla, NY, in the January 19 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Tar and nicotine in cigarettes are widely reported on the basis of an FTC machine-smoking protocol, which specifies a 35-mL puff volume drawn at the rate of one puff per minute. This smoking pattern may have reflected habits of people who smoked nicotine-rich, nonfilter cigarettes in the 1930s, when machine-smoking methods were first standardized. However, it was important to measure the smoking patterns of current smokers of low- and medium-yield cigarettes.
The measurements involved 133 smokers. Fifty-six of them smoked low-yield cigarettes
(defined by the FTC as 0.8 mg of nicotine per cigarette) and 77 smoked medium-yield
cigarettes (0.9-1.2 mg of nicotine per cigarette). After detailed interviews concerning smoking
history, participants were given a 4-day supply of their usual brand and asked to return all
cigarette butts to the laboratory. The butts validated self-reported amounts of smoking,
established a length of cigarette usually smoked, and showed, through observation of the
"tar" stain pattern in the filter, whether the air vents on filter tips were blocked
during smoking.
Each participant also smoked two cigarettes using a special apparatus that determined the flow of smoke, including puff duration, number of puffs, and total volume of smoke per cigarette smoked. The values for each individual were then used to program a piston-type smoking machine to "machine smoke" that person's usual brand of cigarette. The smoke generated in the machine was analyzed for tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, and certain cancer-causing constituents.
Compared with current FTC machine-smoking protocol values, smokers of low-yield brands took larger puffs (48.6 mL versus 35 mL) at shorter intervals (21.3 seconds versus 60 seconds); smokers of medium-yield cigarettes had puff volumes of 44.1 mL and took puffs every 18.5 seconds. These results indicate that smokers of low- and medium-yield cigarettes received, respectively, 2.5 and 2.2 times more nicotine and 2.6 and 1.9 times more tar than FTC-derived amounts. The authors say that these data strongly support the contention that the FTC listings of tar and nicotine do not offer sound information on which to base decisions regarding health risks and should be revised.
Judith Wilkenfeld, J.D., and colleagues say in an editorial that the FTC method of testing cigarettes for tar and nicotine provides tobacco companies the opportunity to mislead their customers. Thus, Wilkenfeld and colleagues say that it is time for changes in both the manner of testing and reporting of tobacco constituents and in the way cigarettes are regulated and marketed. They maintain that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should be responsible for setting standards in this area, as the FDA would have the authority and expertise needed to make cigarette manufacturers accountable for accurately describing their products to their customers. They go on to conclude that, if an ongoing federally sponsored review finds that the current testing method misleads customers and that so-called low-yield cigarettes are no safer than higher yield products, then change is needed quickly, regardless of where jurisdiction lies.
Contact: Dr. Anthony Albino, American Health Foundation (914) 789-7158; fax (914) 592-6317. Editorial: Dr. Wilkenfeld, (202) 296-5469, ext. 3053; fax (202) 296-5427 or Dr. Jack Henningfield, (301) 718-8440, ext. 209; fax (301) 718-0034.
Note: This memo to reporters is from the Journal staff and is not an official release of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) or Oxford University Press (OUP) nor does it reflect NCI or OUP policy. In addition, unless otherwise stated, all articles and items published in the Journal reflect the individual views of the authors and not necessarily the official points of view held by NCI, any other component of the U.S. government, OUP, or the organizations with which the authors are affiliated. Neither NCI nor any other component of the U.S. government nor OUP assumes any responsibility for the completeness of the articles or other items or the accuracy of the conclusions reached therein.
![]() |
||||
|
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement |