It's Time for a Change: Cigarette Smokers Deserve Meaningful Information About Their Cigarettes

Extract

The study by Djordjevic et al. (1) in this issue of the Journal elegantly demonstrates that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) method of testing cigarettes for tar and nicotine provides tobacco companies the opportunity to mislead their customers. The study provides fresh insights as to the means by which human biology and tobacco engineering interact to cause the problem. The article reveals that smokers adjust a variety of their smoking behaviors, such as puff frequency, depth of inhalation, and ventilation hole blocking, thereby ingesting high levels of nicotine and tar irrespective of the advertised yields of the cigarettes. Moreover, the results show that cigarettes branded as “lights” can provide deliveries of tar and nicotine that are similar to those of the regular versions. It is highly unlikely that the small differences in tar and nicotine deliveries found across brands have any toxicologic significance.

A few observations about the FTC method may help to understand the importance of the study by Dordjevic et al. as well as its implications for regulatory actions. The FTC method was actually adapted from methods developed and used by the tobacco industry in the 1930s as a means of objectively comparing cigarettes for developmental and manufacturing purposes (2). The FTC's intent was to bring order to the chaotic tar-derby advertising claims of health benefit in the 1960s. Furthermore, the FTC method was intended to provide the basis for advertising that could enable consumers to select cigarette brands on the basis of tar and nicotine yields. As reported by C. L. Peeler, Associate Director, FTC, the latter goal was consistent with the conclusions of the 1964 Surgeon General's Report that urged that smokers who were unable to quit should make every effort to reduce their dose of tobacco smoke (3). This recommendation flowed from a robust scientific literature that demonstrated a dose-response relationship between tar exposure and cancer risk (4,5) have since reconfirmed the dose-response relationship, even though it is also more clear than ever before that tobacco smoke is so toxic that there appears to be no safe level of smoke exposure.