Document vbOa57ZmjbmV8RgJ7rnn1xJZ
FILE NAME: Kent (KNT)
DATE: 1957 M ar DOC#: KNT153
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Consumer Reports - Nicotine and Tars Cigarettes
CO NSUM ER
MARCH 1957 35 CENTS
NICOTINE AND TARS IN
CIGARETTES
LABORATORY TEST REPORT THE CIGARETTE INDUSTRY THE HEALTH HAZARDS
POLAROID CAMERAS KNIFE SHARPENERS TIRE GAUGES REAR-VIEW MIRRORS TWO RECORD CHANGERS EASY-TO-USE SOLDERS TEEN-AGE CONSUMERS
ROAD TEST REPORTS ON:
THE HILLMAN MINX THE MERCURY MONTCLAIR
The cancer scare ha Have the new filters and net
present medical view Oj
TESTS FOR NICOTINE AND TAR IN THE SMOKES OF 33 BRANDS
c u tested 33 brands of cigarettes for the nicotine and
tar content in their smoke. The results of these tests, when compared with the results of previous tests, shed some in teresting light on the reaction of the tobacco industry to the charges over the past six years that cigarette smoking is a cause of cancer of the lung and of other diseases. Have the companies found ways to reduce the nicotine and tar con tent of the cigarette smoke? Have filters and new sizes reduced the hazard?
A number of interesting facts stand out from a study of the data obtained in this and previous tests:
* King-size cigarettes produce more nicotine and tar in the smoke than the shorter '`regular-size" cigarettes do. if both are smoked to the same butt length.
* As between filters and no filters, there's very little to choose so far as nicotine content of the smoke goes.
While the nicotine content is about the same, the average filtered-cigarette smoke contains somewhat less tar than unfiltered smoke.
* So-called low nicotine cigarettes do show low nicotine content as compared with others-- about a third as much, on the average, as the ordinarv brands.
Unfiltered cigarettes, both regular and king-size, are remarkably similar in nicotine and tar levels to their levels of two years ago. In contrast, the average nicotine and tar levels of filter-tip cigarettes have risen.
The brand-by-brand comparison (see Table on page 1011 reveals some facts worthy of special mention:
* Among popular regular-size, non-filter cigarettes, Chester field was lowest in both nicotine and tar levels.
Among popular king-size, filter-tip cigarettes, Tareyton was lowest in nicotine level and about average in tar; L&M
100 MARCH 1957
was lowest in this class in tar level and second only to Tareyton in nicotine.
John Alden, a cigarette made of tobacco especially bred for low nicotine content had. indeed, the lowest nicotine level, but it was among the highest in tar.
Sano, made of a denicotinized tobacco, was lowest of all the cigarettes in tar level and higher only than John Alden in nicotine.
The lowest in both nicotine and tar levels among cigarettes sold with no special claim to low nicotine con tent was Yorkshire, a brand distributed only by SearsRoebuck retail stores.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. held the dubious but indisputable distinction of supplying more nicotine for the money than any of its competitors. Its Winston (" tastes good like a cigarette should" I and Cavalier brands edged out its mentholated Salem by an insignificant fraction: the fourth Reynolds product. Camel, exceeded all other regular-size cigarettes in nicotine level. Cavalier was also the tam est of all cigarettes tested.
The case history of Kent cigarettes provides a rather illuminating sidelight on the cigarette industry's reaction to the health problem. First put on the market in 1952 as P. Lorillard's answer to the raging cancer-of-thelung scare, the Kent cigarette did a creditable job of filter ing out a high percentage of both nicotine and tar from tobacco smoke. But Kent's "Micronite" filter (" developed by researchers in atomic energy plants" ) was, it would appear, a shade too effective. Smokers complained that it was hard to draw smoke through the filter and that all they got for their effort was a mouthful of tasteless warm air. CU's 1952 tests showed that the original Kent contained, in the smoke of one cigarette, % milli-
brought many changes to the industry. sizes affected the nicotine and tar content? What is the the effect of smoking on health?
gram of nicotine anti 2 milligrams of tar. Bv 1955 the filter had been loosened up and made easier-drawing, and Kent's nicotine level had about quadrupled while its tar level had increased about six-fold. As of CU's current investigation, Kent had. without fuss or furor, abandoned the original Micronite completelv and substituted a filter tip which appears similar to the almost universalis used cellu lose filter tip. And its nicotine and tar levels had risen so that it had about five times as much nicotine and about eight times as much tar as the original 1952 Kent.
CL shoppers in If! cities front coast to coast bought 16 packs of each brand, and. as in the earlier tests, one cigarette from each pack was mechanicallv "smoked" with the apparatus shown on tage 105. Since neither the true medical significance of tars nor the permissible level, if any, of nicotine in cigarette smoke is known. CL does not rate the brands, but simple presents the results of its tests.
No attempt was made to gauge the effectiveness of filters as such nor to measure the quantity of nicotine and tars in the tobacco of the cigarettes. The tests were confined to the smoke, because this obviouslv is the smoker's only real concern.
Significantly, brands which have appeared in all three of C L 's projects have ranked, within type, in roughly the same order of nicotine content in all three. As before, John Alden, made with low-nicotine tobacco, produced the least nicotine of any brand in the latest tests. Next in line this time came denieotinized Sana (also low in the earlier projects) and Lords (included for the first time >. both made with tobacco from which a large part of the nicotine had been extracted bv processing.
L&M filter regulars took the biggest jump in nicotine from 1955 to 1957. Of the ten filter brands covered in both 1955 and 1957, six--led by Parliament and Old Gold-- were somewhat higher in tar content in the latest tests.
In contrast to the variety of filter materials--absorbent cotton, paper with activated carbon, cellulose-acetate fiber, creped and uncreped paper, asbestos fiber, and combina tions of these-- that turned up in the 1955 tests, most of the filters encountered this time were made of a cellulose derivative. Regardless of their effectiveness as filters, all appeared to offer two advantages: they help to keep bits of tobacco out of the smoker's mouth, and they provide a firmer butt for his lips to grip.
C ontinued on next page
RESULTS OF TESTS FOR NICOTINE AND TAR
The listing: is in order of increasing nicotine content of the
smoke. Small differences in nicotine and tar content are of no significance.
BRAN D AND TYPE
AVERAGE NICOTINE IN
SMOKE PCX CIGARETTE
(MJU.ICRAMS)
AVERAGE TAR IN
SMOKE PER d C A RETIE (MILLIGRAMS)
J O H N A L D E N Low nicotine toharro, regular 0.7
S A N O D e n ie o imixed. k ir tii- d z e . i i I t e r - t i |
1.0
LO R D S Denirotinizeri. regular
1.2
YO R KSHIR E R e g u la r
1.0
M U R A D Regular
LK
C H E S T E R F IE L D Regular
2.1
T A R E Y T O N Kmji-rbze. hlter-tip
2.3
l & M Regular size, filter-tip
2.6
L & M Kiriii-size. filter-tip
2.6
t U C K Y S T R IK E Regular
1.6
K E N T Regular size. filter-tip
O LD G O LD Regular
> -
V IC E R O Y Kiny-size. filter-tip
1A\
K 0 0 L Mentholated, regular
2.8
M A R L B O R O Lon", filter-tip
2.9
P H I L I P M O R R IS Regular
2.9
H E R B E R T T A R E Y T O N King-size
2.9
H IT P A R A D E Kinir-size. filter-tip
3 .0
C H E S T E R F IE L D King-size
3 .0
P A L L M A L L Kinp-size
3 .0
K O O l Mentholated. king-size. filter-tip
3.1
S PU D Mentholated, long. filter-tip
3.1
O L D G O LD King-size, filter-tip
3.1
P H I L I P M O R R IS Long
3.L
R E G E N T King-size, filter-tip
3.1
F A T I M A King-size
3.1
C A M E L Regular
3.2
O L D G O L D King-size
3.2
P A R L I A M E N T Long, filter-tip
3.4
S A L E M Mentholated, king-size, filter-tip
3.7
R A L E I G H King-size
3.7
W I N S T O N King-size, filter-tip
3.8
C A V A L I E R King-size
3.8
2! ! ! 16 ,
13
17 17 19 15 15 19
16
IK
18 20
IK
18
v>
20
.VI
24 16 17 19 21 21 24 17 19 20 19 23 22 26
CONSUMER REPORTS 101
oontmufi
Although the king-size brands, on the average, had more nicotine and tars in their smoke than the regular-size cigarettes did, these results should be viewed in the light of the fact that all samples, regardless of size, were smoked to the same butt length (approximately one inch I. Con sequently, more tobacco was burned in smoking the kingsize cigarettes. Whether or not " fine tobacco filters best.''
as the Pall Mail ads claim, it is a fact that if you leave a proportionately longer butt when you smoke a king-size cigarette (in other words, smoke the same length of to bacco as you would with a regular-size cigarette), the extra tobacco left in the butt will act as a filter and reduce both the nicotine content and tar content of the smoke.
NICOTINE AND TAR LEVELS
A V E R A G E N IC O TIN E IN SMOKE OF ONE CIGARETTE
(MILLIGRAM S)
BY CIGARETTE TYPE
A V E R A G E T A R IN SMOKE OF ONE CIGARETTE
(M ILLIGRAM S)
1S7
19SS
ISSI
L957
19 55
1953
CO
REGULAR SIZE NO FILTER
2.S
2.6
2.0
REGULAR SIZE WITH FILTER
2.7
1.9
2.1
KING SIZE NO FILTER
3.2
.3.3
2.5
KING SIZE WITH FILTER
3.1
2.7
**
SPECIA L LOW NICOTINE
1.0
0.7
an
18
18
17
16
12
14
oo
23
18
16
**
16
14
13
* Pifjerent methods were used for tur cmturnon in the 195s tests than in the 1955 tint! current tests. The 1953 figures June hern increased by 20f/r in an attemfit to mule them directly comfiarahle. * * This type oj cigarette it as not among the popular brands an the market at the time of the test.
THE INDUSTRY I NEW BRANDS AND NEW TYPES HIT THE GROWING MARKET
I n a recent issue of a tobacco trade publication, the editors, speaking of the research that has indicated a relationship between cigarettes and lung cancer, tossed off this seem ingly lighthearted comment: "The only certainty that has emerged is that mice shouldn't smoke!
The editors' flippanev mav have been inspired b\ the apparently complete recovery of the cigarette industry from the staggering punches medical investigators landed on it a few years ago.
Last year, according to authoritative estimates. Ameri cans broke all records by spending nearly five billion dollars for 395 billion cigarettes. This was 170 million more dollars and 13 billion more cigarettes than in 1955 and 570 million more dollars and about a billion more cigarettes than in the previous record year: 1952. the year before the full impact of cigarette-cancer publicity hit the cigarette business.
Obviously, 1956 was a banner year for most big cigarette companies and their stockholders. So it is not surprising that industry spokesmen now appear to be taking the health problem considerably less seriously than they did a year or two back. In those days, president Edward A. Darr of R. J. Reynolds {Camel, Winston, Cavalier, Salem.) accused the American Cancer Society of " trying to destroy the tobacco industry." Last December in Printers' Ink, an
102 M ARCH 1957
advertising trade magazine, tobacco-business consultant Harry M. Wootten wrote that " the smoking-and-health con troversy . . . may be collapsing for lack of nourishment." Even the Department of Agriculture concedes that many people who had reduced their smoking or cut it out entirely in 1953 and 1954 " probably have resumed or increased their consumption, mainly using filter-tip cigarettes."
At least a million and a half of this country's 38 million smokers (oTC of all men and 24r7 of all women over 18) gave up the habit between the fall of 1953 and early 1955. a Census Bureau survey for the National Cancer Institute indicates. How many more simply cut down, the published findings do not reveal, but it must have been a sizable number, because in 1953, after 21 years of uninterrupted growth, cigarette sales dropped by 7.3 billion cigarettes. The slide continued through the next year, to bring the total drop for the two-year period to 25.4 billion cigarettes.
Sales turned upward again in 1955. however. That year's total, although still w'ell below 1952's, bettered the 1954 mark by some 13 billion cigarettes. Then came 1956 -- and joy was complete again in the hearts of the men
who know tobacco profits best. Last year's cigarette sales and profits records (and
1955's partial recovery) were largely the result of the soaring popularity of filter-tip cigarettes, and the upsurge
of this once-minor cigarette breed has wrought some top filter for the second straight rear, but lifted it to fourth
fairly startlin'; changes in the cigarette business. The place among all brands, well ahead of such oldtimers as
major ones are: a spate of new brands, new versions of old regular-size Chesterfield. Philip Morris, and Old Gold.
brands, new packages Iin the face of a traditional, virtually Viceroy, the filter leader until 1954. came in second again,
industrv-wicle reluctance to make any change in the prod with L&M hot on its heels and coming up fast. Marlboro's
ucts for fear of spoiling a good thing I : an upheaval in the. 1956 gain <120U i was the biggest of all, and bv the end
tobacco market Iresulting from the fact that filter cigarettes of the year, it had shot past seven older brands to become
not only require less tobacco than nonfilters, but are being the fourth-rankina filter.
made with lower-grade leaf and. in some cases, with parts of the tobacco plant that used to be thrown away I : the
New brands appear
highest profits in years (because most filter cigarettes cost
Not since the emergence of lOc-a-pack cigarettes during
less to make than non-filter cigarettes, hut have sold at the Great Depression has there been such a rash of new
premium prices I: and. finally, a marked weakening of brands and changes in old brands as the last few vears
the time-honored sales dominance of three or four top have seen. As a result, the industry's take is being split
brands.
more ways, and three or four brands no longer dominate
Filter-tip cigarettes are far from being a new product. sales as they once did. While the four leading brands of
Handmade ones were on sale in Europe at least as far back as 1900. and such brands as Obak and Imperiale
six years ago, for example, accounted for 8091 of total ciga rette sales, last year's top four did only 5791 of the overall
r
turned up in the United States a few years later. Benson & business.
Hedges' Parliament, introduced in 1931. and Brown &
Every one of the industry's giants sent a new entry into
Williamson's ' Viceroy, which appeared five years later, the filter race last year-- including American Tobacco, the
were the first major domestic brands, but they made no last of the Big Three (the other two being R. J. Reynolds
dent worth mentioning in the American market. As a matter and Liggett & Myers i to bring out a high-powered con
of fact, a mass market was the last thing their manufac tender. Perhaps because its Pall Malls and its Luckies
turers had in mind at the time: the advertising pitch was had held their combined sales volume against the filters,
aimed at snobs only.
American didn't get around to launching its king-size
In 1952, P. Lorillard Co. trumpeted its new filter-tip filter-tip Hit Parade until last October. Hit Parade was
Kents onto the stage with full-page newspaper ads describ not expected to achieve national distribution until earljr;-;-
ing the virtues of the " Mieronite" filter (``developed by this year, but even without this it had scored sales ofgKiU*
researchers in atomic-energy plants"' I.
billion by the end of 1956.
Since 1952, sales of filter-tip cigarettes have shot up
The nation got its first mentholated filter brand iwSgp
from 5.2 billion a year to a 1956 record of over 119 bil Reynolds trotted out Salem last May. A few weeks fatprjs .
lion, from a relatively insignificant 1.491 of total cigarette Philip Morris reintroduced Spud ( a mentholated bran&Spfiy
sales to nearly 30'/! Not oniv were they the only cigarette had acquired in the liquidation of the Axton-Fisher Tobac
type to sell better in 1956 than in 1955: their gain co Co. some years back) as a filter-tip, mentholated,
amounted to nearly 6091. In achieving it. they passed the king-size cigarette. Then, in August, a new filter-mentho
king-size group for the first time and captured second place lated-king (Brown & Williamson) Kool hit the market,
among the three major cigarette types. By the end of this replacing nonfilter king-size Kool.
year, they are expected to have 4091 of the market.
So-called brand splitting (using the same brand name
The chief loser in the shifting cigarette market has been
C ontinued on next page
the erstwhile mainstay of the business, the regular-size
nonfilter cigarette. As smokers turned to filters, sales of
regulars have fallen off-- from 319 billion cigarettes in
1952 to 182 billion in 1956. a drop of nearly 43 9v. Reg
ulars still hold the top spot, but in contrast to 1952. when
they were in command of four-fifths of the entire cigarette
market, their share last year was under 4691. Kings have
slipped too, but their decline last year was only about 6 .
compared with the regulars' 10 9 i.
Within the general pattern of a rising filter-tip market
and a shrinking market for regulars and kings, individual
brands have been having their ups and downs.
Camel, the best-selling brand since 1950. is still on top.
despite a sales drop of 349i since 1952. Pall Mall, top
seller among kings and third-ranking among all brands,
was the only king to buck the filter tide successfully last
year. Hardest hit by the filter competition were Chester
field and Old Gold regulars, both down about 2091 in 1956
sales from 1955.
Winstons 1956 sales of 34 billion not only made it the
co n tin u e d
for tun or more cigarette type?I has grown apace. Liggett & Myers was the first of the brand splitters Iwith king-size Chesterfield in 1952 I. Later. P. Lorillard took the process a step further, splitting Old Gold three wavs (regular, king, and filter I, and last year both Philip Morris and Liggett & Myers went three-way too (regular, long, and kingi.
Other recent cigarette-business debuts included the advent of the " long" -size cigarettes tMarlboro. Philip Mor ns. Parliament. L&M. Regent. Spud i. fid mm in length, as compared with 70-nnn regulars and i!5-nim kings, and Philip Morris' introduction of formerly premium-price filter-tip Parliament in a flip-top box. to sell for only Ip to 2<i above `'popular' filter prices.
Although the tobacco crop-- at least four-fifths of which goes into the making of cigarettes---ranks near the bottom of the list of United States crops in acreage (1.366.000 in 19561 it stands near the top in cash value. In 1955. it brought its growers about one and a quarter billion dollars (about 9 Li of total L. S. farm income for that year I.
Tobacco is grown from New Hampshire to Florida and as far west as Minnesota, but as a result of differences in soil, climate, and plant varieties, nearly every region pro duces a different kind and qualily of leaf. Some cigarette tobaccos are flue-cured: others are air-dried or fire-cured. Flue-curing, in which the leaves dry quickly in a heated barn, results in a light brown, almost yellow, leaf, while fire-cured leaves, dried in the smoke of wood fires, are verydark. Maryland tobacco, and Kentuckv and Tennessee burley usually are air-dried in unheated barns.
For many years, flue-cured tobacco, which comes mainly from North Carolina, was used straight in American ciga rettes. but now nearly all the leading brands are made with "'blended" tobaccos. The mixture varies, but " popu lar" nonfilter rigarettes are said to contain 4 5'c to 75 W flue-cured leaf. I5 rV to 45r7 burley. 5'7 to 13f < Turkish, and 5 '7 , more or less. Maryland. Other ingredients include a " humectant." or moistener. and one or more of such flavoring materials as rum. wine, brandv. honev. oil of cloves, oil of cinnamon, oil of peppermint, and licorice.
What kinds of tobacco are going into filter cigarettes these days seems to be largely each company's secret. Manufacturers are reported to be switching from light-
TOTAL CIGARETTE SALES*
1952
19 53
1954
1955
B ILLIO N S OF CIGARETTES
394
387
369
382
19 5 6
395
CIGARETTE SALES BY TYPE*
REGULAR
80.3% 69.8% 61.8% 53.2%
KING SIZE
18.3% 26.9% 28.1% 27.2%
FILTER
1.4% 3.3% 10.1% 19.6%
45.8% 24.3% 29.9%
*Figu res are from Printers' Ink magazine
colored, light-bodied, flue-cured tobacco to darker, heasierbodied leaf in an effort In compensate for a loss of flavor that occurs as the smoke passes through a filler. In mak ing this switch, they are turning the tobacco market upside down. Tlie price of "low-grade ' darker leaves, which used to he much lower than that of flue-cured leaf, is climbin rapidly, while " high-grade ' flue-cured tobacco is bringin bids below- government support prices-- and going beggin at that. At the end of last year, the supplv of flue-cured leaf on hand had mounted to a record 3.5 billion pounds, enough to last almost three years--even at the old rate of consumption. As a result, the government, which, in con nection with the price-support program exercises strict control over tobacco acreage, has ordered a 20/7 cut in flue-cured growing for 1957.
Growers not happy
For the growers, the "tremendous switch." as Business Week magazine calls it. is only one of three setbacks they have suffered at the hands of the cigarette and cigar makers during the last few rears. In the first place, the growers are somewhat less enthusiastic than the manufacturers about the filter-cigarette boom, for the simple reason that filter cigarettes take less tobacco than plain ones (7'<- to 20'7 less).
Not only that, but some manufacturers have taken to buying and using parts of tobacco plants that used to be thrown away: stems, broken and inferior leaves, and frag ments. These are ground into small particles, mixed with a binder to form a paste, rolled out into a sheet, dried, shredded, and then blended with higher-grade tobaccos and made into cigarettes. The use of such " homogenized" (or "reconstituted" or "svnthetic" or " processed," as it is variously called) tobacco could cut tobacco costs by up to 50 h . according to some estimates. The companies are said to be ready, after eight to ten years of experimenting, to begin using the homogenized product in a big way'.
When a Senate-House agriculture subcommittee tried to look into the matter last May, it found the manufac turers pretty close-mouthed. The reason for this reticence, Business Week guessed, were the companies' uncertainty about the public's reaction and fear on the part of manufac turers who are using or planning to use homogenized leaf that the competition might begin boasting of its " 100/c top-grade" tobaccos. However, a spokesman for R. J. Reynolds, which is said to have been using homogenized tobacco for several vears, insists that its man-made leaf, being a controlled blend, is milder and more flavorful than natural leaf.
Even though homogenized tobacco does not appear to have come into general use yet, filter cigarettes are proving considerably more profitable than plain ones. Value Line In vestment Survey credits them with an important role in the 6% rise in the tobacco companies' net income last year. The reason is clear: Three-quarters of the cost of making a cigarette goes for the tobacco, according to Forbes, a business magazine, hence filter cigarettes, which take less tobacco and can be made with lower-grade leaf, can mean an appreciable saving to the manufacturer. At the same time, the filters have been selling for up to 5b more
ttj tb fc|.
104 MARCH 1957
A
HOW CU TESTED CIGARETTES
c
Two cigarettes at a time were fitted into glass holders and then
''smoked' by the laboratory apparatus ( a ) . Raising and lower
ing the leveling bottle at the right raises and lowers the level of
the water in the vertical glass tubes Ibelow technician's hamli
D
at the end of the "train." When the water level in the tubes
falls, air is drawn through the cigarettes. The smoke is collected
in acidified alcohol in the flasks (left l ; any smoke that escapes
the flasks is trapped in the vials between the flasks and the end
of the train. The apparatus took one puff a minute, each puff
lasting for two seconds and containing about two cubic inches
(35 cubic centimeters) of smoke. The cigarettes were smoked
down to a butt of just under an inch (23 mm.) Sixteen sam
ples of each brand were smoked in two runs of eight cigarette;
each, and the results of each run were determined separately and
averaged. After each run. the washings from the vials were
added to the smoke solution in the collecting flasks. One por
tion of the solution was steam-distilled to isolate the nicotine,
which was measured with an ultra-violet spectrophotometer
iB ). Chloroform and water were added to another portion of
the smoke solution (c and then the tars were separated out in
a series of steps ami weighed on a chemical balance ( D ) .
per pack than the nonfilters. Small wonder, then. that, as Mr. Wootten has said, filter cigarettes, once " reasonable unit volume" is attained, " are, in most instances, the most profitable end of the tobacco business."
Cigarettes probably are sold in more places--and more kinds of places--than any other manufactured product: cigar stores and stands, drug stores, grocery stores, restau rants, bars, liquor stores, newsstands, and just about anv other place where they can pay, in cash or good will, for the space and trouble they take. However, such tradi
tional retailers as tobacco shops, cigar stores, and drug
stores are gradually yielding ground to supermarkets, which now have become the principal outlets. Self-service merchandising (via supermarket and vending machine! is supplanting over-the-counter sales. The latest available statistics, released in 1952 by the National Association of Tobacco Distributors, show food stores making 329c of total sales, followed by vending machines with 16%, drug stores with 13%., and cigar stores and stands with 12%. Along with the shift of business to supermarkets has gone a shift, on the consumer's part, from buying packs to
C ontinued on next page
CONSUMER REPORTS 105
continued
buying cartons. At least half of all cigarette sales today are said to be by the carton.
Fifty per cent of the 490.000 vending machines in opera tion in 1955, according to a Red book magazine report were run by wholesale tobacco distributors. The same source quotes trade informants as saying that the big cigarette companies pay annual subsidies of S3 to S I2.50 per column per machine to have their brands slocked.
The recent outpouring of new cigarette brands and types has created more than its share of stocking, in ventorying, and pricing problems for the retailer. Some supermarkets, report Printer's Ink, are refusing to carry any but the best-selling (regular, king, filter I of anv brand, and a `'brand survival battle, with weak entries forced out" is predicted. Operators of vending machines, most of which have only ten columns, now are confronted with the fact that it takes at least 20 columns to offer even minimum coverage of the current cigarette crop. Price differences among the many cigarette types on the market today are another headache, because vending machins can handle money in only two or three denominations.
Lntil January. 1955. when Philip Morris brought out Marlboro in a flip-top box. cigarette packaging bail re mained practically unchanged since Camel appeared in the first " cup" pack in 1913. The only intervening packaging developments worth noting were the addition of the cello phane wrapper to the cup pack, the "'zipper" pull tabs (mid-'SOsl. the white Luckies package of World War II i"Lucky Strike green has gone to w ar!" i. and Philip Morris' 1954 " snap-open" pack, with an extra tab that opened the package itself along with the cellophane wrap per. Many observers credit the Marlboro box with a sizable share in the brand's rapid sales growth.
Philip Morris (which now boxes Philip Morris, Parlia ment, and Spud as well as M arlboroI imported its fliptop-box-making machines from England at 830.000 each and had exclusive American rights to them through last summer. Since then Liggett X. Myers has bought some
machines and adopted the box as an alternative package for L&M filters (" Pick the pack that suits vou best . . ." i. Other companies are reported to he experimenting with box-packaging.
In the past 20 years, the retail price of a pack of majorbrand cigarettes has risen from an average of about !3c i two for 25c i to about 25c. Tax hikes--cigarettes are one of the most heavily taxed of all products--have ac counted for part of this increase. The Federal excise tax non- amounts to 8c a pack, while the average of the taxes imposed by 42 states and the District of Columbia is 3:,.|C. On top of these, there is a local tax of a pennv or so in many areas. For the fiscal year that ended last June, Federal and state taxes alone were expected to total about 2.1 billion dollars.
Movement in unison
As they always have, the retail prices of " popular" ciga rette brands continue to move up or down virtually in unison-- despite a 1946 Supreme Court anti-trust case decision convicting the three largest companies IAmerican Tobacco, R. J. Reynolds, and Liggett & Myers I of collu sion to prevent retail price competition. The companies accomplished their end. the court found, by keeping their own price the same and by putting pressure on dealers to prevent any but a few recognized cheap brands from being sold for less. At the same time- the companies were judged guilty of manipulating the tobacco market to hold down the prices paid to growers.
According to testimony in the case, which was begun in 1940. the Big Three dealt ruthlessly with the manufac turers of the 10c brands (Wintis, Avalons, Marvels, etc. I that burst on the scene during the Depression. When these upstarts captured 22rc of the market for a brief period in 1932. the big companies went into action, dropping their own prices and buying up the kind of tobacco used in the 10d brands. To date, the only apparent price competition in the cigarette business is at the retail level, generally between small dealers and supermarkets and drug chains.
It is a popular notion that most of the price of a pack of cigarettes goes to pay for the advertising. Actually,
AMERICAN TOBACCO
TOBACCO COMPANIES AND THEIR OFFSPRING
REYNOLDS
LIGGETT & MEYERS
PHILIP MORRIS
LORILLARD
REGULAR SIZE NO FILTER
REGULAR SIZE WITH FILTER KING SIZE NO FILTER KING SIZE WITH FILTER
MENTHOLATED
Lucky Strike
-- 1 Tarevton ) Pall Mall \ Hit Parade 1 T a r e y t on
--
Carnei --
Cavalier 'Winston Salem
Chesterfield
L &M 1 Chesterfield j F atima
L&M
--
Philip Morris
-- Philip Morris
i Marlboro ) Parliament
Spud
\ Old Gold ( Murad
Kent Old Gold
Old Cold --
106 MARCH 1957
BROWN & WILLIAMSON
-- -- Raleigh
Viceroy Kool
figures published several years ago indicate that the manu facturers of the major brands spend nnlv about a fourth as much for their advertising as lliev do for their tobacco, that advertising accounts for a little over 14'/ of their total cost of doing business. Even so. six cigarette companies
made a list of the 100 leading advertisers of 1055 pub lished in the trade weekly Advertising Age last December.
Through the years and into the present, the three main themes of cigarette advertising have been pleasure, health, and snob appeal, sometimes used separately sometimes in combination. In the '40s and earlv '50s. the emphasis was on health <"Just what the doctor ordered." "Guard against throat scratch," "Safe for vour T-x.one. "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette/' etc. i
Most of the industrv s run-ins with the Federal Trade Commission in the past 15 years or so were brought on by health claims. For example, in 1942. Old Gold ads claimed that impartial tests reported in the Reader's Digest had shown that Old Gold had less nicotine than anv other cigarette tested. The FTC objected to this claim, pointing out that the actual difference in average nicotine content per cigarette between Old Gold and the other two brands tested was 1/177.187 ounce.
At other times, the FTC has ordered an end to claims, all of which it found to be. untrue, that "Camels will never harm or irritate the throat." that Philip Morris "protects against smoker s cough, and that among "independent tobacco experts, it's Luckies Iwo to one!
In September. 1955. the FTC released an eight-point guide for its staff's use in judging cigarette advertising. According to the guide, the following claims are improper:'
" References to the presence or absence of am phvsirul effects of smoking in general or in any brand in particular.
* l nproved or insignificant claims concerning nicotine content.
E References to the effects of cigarette smoking on the nose, throat, nerves, or other parts of the body, or on energy.
Claims of medical approval of cigarette smoking in gen eral or any brand in particular.
* Comparisons of the sales volume of competing brands without substantiating data.
" l nprovable claims to the use of particular tvpes or qualities of tobacco.
E Test imonials that are not genuine and the current opin ion of the testifier.
* False or misleading disparagement of other cigarette companies and their products.
As Business IPeek observed, the guide, if it were en forceable would eliminate " nearlv every sellins point that the tobacco companies have used in the past generation."
But 1954 brought a new look in cigarette advertis ing. Business Week summed it up this wav: "The FTC couldn't do it. The tobacco growers couldn't do it. Warn ings from marketing experts went unheeded. But eco nomics did the trick. Faced with dropping sales, cigarette manufacturers have pulled an abrupt about-face in ad vertising tactics. . . . Today there is no word of fear, no talk of throat scratch-- just comfortable, reassuring phrases about how good a cigarette tastes. Smoking, it seems, is no longer a health cure: it's pure pleasure."
MEDICAL ASPECTS ITHE CANCER LINKAGE IS STILL NOT CLEAR
A lth o u gh smoking has been a human aclivitv for hundred? of years, it is only in the last decade or so that it lias become the subject of intensive scientific studv. Occasional reports of the effects of smoking on both budv and mind have ap peared since the middle of the last centurv. when a famous Irish physician. Dr. Robert J. Graves, found heart disturb ances in heavv smokers. However, most of the studies on living subjects were made without adequate statistical con trols. diagnostic precision, or the benefits of chemical and pharmacological analysis. Often the emotional attitude of the observer toward smoking would result in either exag geration or underestimation of the effects of tobacco. The development of improved medical, biological and statistical techniques in recent decades has made possible more re liable studies of the properties and effects of tobacco smoke.
According to present knowledge, tobacco smoke contains tars, nicotine, carbon monoxide, arsenic and a miscellane ous group of acids, phenols, aldehv des. and other chemicals. The relative amounts of these chemicals vary in different tobacco leaves. The ingredients wbicb are introduced bv the burning of the cigarette paper are not fullv known, hut
current research efforts should provide useful information in this neglected field. Physical factors associated with smoking--holding a hot pipe stem in the mouth, or holding hot smoke in the mouth and the respiratorv tract---may have irritating properties independent oi the chemical com position of the smoke itself.
Sm oke is absorbed
Because manv of the chemicals in tobacco smoke are absorbed from the mouth and respiratory tract into the blood stream, smoking probably affects all the organs and tissues of the body. The most important: known effects are on the gastrointestinal tract, the. heart and blood vessels, the respiratorv tract, and the nervous svstem. People vary a great deal, however, in their reaction to tobacco. For one person. 15 cigarettes a day constitutes heavy smoking: for another, heavv smoking means 40 cigarettes a day. British investigators usually term more than 25 cigarettes a day as ``heavy smoking." In American research the term " heavy smoking" means from 20 to 40 or more cigarettes daily.
Notwithstanding the testimonials of movie stars and fa-
C ontinued on next page
CONSUMER REPORTS 107
co n tin u e d
nious sport? personalities retiardin" the mildness or nonirritating properties of the cigarettes they are paid to adver tise. tobacco smoke does irritate the mucous membrane. Dentists are familiar with the stains and tar deposits on the teeth and gums of habitual smokers, and some believe that heavy smoking aggravates gum diseases. " Leukoplakias"'-- pre-cancerous. localized surface thickenings of the longue, cheek and other parts of the mouth-- are seen predomi nantly in heavy smokers, and thev usually disappear if smoking is discontinued. " Birdcage mouth."' the flat, morn ing taste well known to heavy smokers, is in part due to the local irritative effects of tobacco smoke.
The nausea-producing action of nicotine is well known to almost everyone who remembers his first attempt at smoking. Fine discrimination in taste sensation and smell are known to be impaired by smoking, and gourmets make a point of never smoking before dining and wining. Even in some habitual smokers, hunger contractions of the stomach are suppressed by smoking, and it is a common complaint that there is a great increase in appetite after the smoking habit is broken.
While smoking does not of itself cause stomach or du odenal ulcers, most doctors prohibit smoking in the pres ence of active ulcer symptoms. The apparent effect of the after-breakfast cigarette in promoting a bowel movement is believed to be due to the stimulating action of nicotine on the autonomic ganglia supplying the colon. Because of this effect, persons with diarrhea or with acute or chronic colitis are sometimes advised to avoid tobacco.
The effect of smoking on the heart and blood vessels was perhaps the first aspect to engage the attention of physi cians. Smoking accelerates the heart rate, raises the blood pressure, increases the work of the heart and constricts the blood vessels of the extremities. The degree to which such changes occur varies a great deal in diff-rent persons. Per sons sensitive to tobacco often complain of "extvasvstoles" or other irregularities in the heart beat.
Nicotine tolerance
Although the habitual smoker acquires a certain toler ance to nicotine, and can absorb amounts of the drug that would kill a non-smoker, he never gets over the vascular effects of smoking. Elevation of the blood pressure and the heart rate, and constriction of the peripheral arteries, does occur after one or two cigarettes even in the heaviest smok ers. The studies of Dr. Grace Roth of the Mayo Clinic, among others, have made it evident that nicotine is the agent chiefly responsible for the vascular changes induced by smoking. About 2V3 milligrams of nicotine are con tained in the puffed smoke of an average, regular-length cigarette, somewhat more in the smoke of a king-size cig arette. About 90' ( of nicotine in inhaled smoke is ab sorbed. compared to about 25' f to 60' < absorption when the smoke is simply drawn into the mouth and then ex pelled, as is usual in pipe and cigar smoking.
Some investigators believe that the vascular d istu rb an ce s occurring after smoking are little influenced by the nicotine
content o f (he tobacco or the extent of in halation of the
sm o k e: o th ers co n sid er that in d iv id u als sen sitiv e to the
nicotine effects of ordinary cigarettes nun be able to tol
erate a low n icotin e to b acco (su ch as John Aldi'n\ or a den icotin ized tobacco (such as S a n a with few er h arm ful
vascular effects.
Appreciable amounts of carbon monoxide are present in tobacco smoke, and in the heavv smoker as much as 5'< or more of the circulating hemoglobin may be converted to " oarboxyhenioglobin. ' Whether this concentration of car bon monoxide in the flood impairs physical and menial cllu-iency under ordinary circumstances is not known, hut it has been speculated that heavy smoking may he a con tributing factor in impairing judgment and nervous reflexes in auto driving and other activities requiring physical and mental alertness. At high altitudes, where there is a tend ency to oxygen deficiency, a concentration of 5% carbon monoxide in the blood may have serious effects.
Smoking and the heart
Smoking tends to cause a significant rise in blood pres sure in persons with a tendency to hypertension, and some doctors caution against smoking for those who have severe high blood pressure or hypertensive heart disease. Other doctors believe that the tranquilizing effects of moderate smoking on the nervous sy stem offset the blood pressure elevating effects.
In the course of their studies on the association between heavv cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Drs. Hammond and Horn of the American Cancer Society reported that among 187,000 men aged 50 to 69. the heavy smokers had a death rate from coronary artery disease (hardening of the coronary arteries, " coronary sclerosis" or ``thrombo sis' I twice as high as men who had never smoked. Even light cigarette smokers were somewhat affected, according lo the report, though cigar and pipe smoking seemed to have little or no influence on death rates.
The thesis that heavy cigarette smoking imposes a serious burden on the coronary artery circulation and on the heart is not accepted by most physicians, however. An alternative explanation may be that nervous or psychological factors which dispose a person to indulge in heavy smoking also dispose to coronary artery disease. A scientific committee of the American Heart Association, appointed to appraise all available scientific evidence relating to smoking and heart disease, concluded IMarch 14. 1936) :
1. There is evidence supported by clinical observations in a large number of cases that tobacco smoking is harmful in certain dis eases of the peripheral hlood vessels of the arms and legs. This harmful effect was demonstrated most clearly in the condition known as thromboangiitis obliterans (Buerger's disease). It is known that this disease will usually . . . become stationary or even improve if the patient stops smoking.
2. It is recognized that a small percentage of persons with known disease of the eoronary arteries will develop symptoms and will display signs detectable by laboratory tests w-hen they smoke. Such people may be harmed by smoking.
3. The committee believes that the available evidence is not suf ficient to define the effect of tobacco smoking upon the coronary arteries or upon the heart itself, except In the small group men tioned above who already h a v e e o r o n a r y a r t e r y d is e a se . It is believed that if smoking plays any part in the causation of heart disease, it is only one of many factors.
108 MARCH 1957
I. ) \ U tht* lu-trf ol lin* cnm m illcr tha much .urraicr knm\ In l ^ e fiirrih*cj JH chc any rnurliNimi can he cira u n cnnccm iii^ rWalion'i li P h c p w r n smokim: ami i n n r ^ o d heath rai try from fo rem an icart hi>'a>e.
Il ha? been suggested tha sonie of the vascular and other effects of tobacco are the result of allerl;\ to some com ponent of Sohacco. Mam person? with abnormal response.' to tobacco .how a positive reaction when tobacco extracts are injected into the skin. Mure studies are required, how ever. to determine the significance of ai 1erir\ in relation to some of the effects of smoking.
Tobacco "amblyopia" is a relatively rare but serious eve disorder associated with smoking. There is a gradual or sudden decrease of visual acuity, especially fur colored ob jects. If the connection with smoking is not realized, the condition may progress to optic nerve atrophy and per manent injury tu vision.
While nicotine is chiefly responsible for tobacco's effects on the heart and blood vessels, the elements chiefly responsi ble for the effects on the respiratory tract-- the nose, throat, bronchi, and lungs-- are the tars, and possibly arsenic and other combustion products. The respiratory effects are of two ty pes-- irritating and carcinogenic Icancer-inciting I.
Irritating effects
The irritating effects of tobacco smoke on the respiratory tract seem indisputable. Many otolaryngologists believe that chronic inflammation of the larynx and warty growths on the vocal cords can be caused by heavy smoking. Many studies indicate that heavy smoking can result in chronic bronchitis. So-called "cigarette cough'' is believed to be caused by the chronic irritation of the nose, throat, larvnx. trachea, and bronchi. Although tobacco smoke has not been demonstrated to cause bronchial asthma, in most cases asthma is made worse by inhalation of tobacco smoke.
Recent studies indicate-- though final proof is still lack ing-- that inhaled tobacco smoke may reach far down into the smaller air passages of the lung, causing spasm of the muscles surrounding the passages as well as inflamma tion of the mucous membranes. This mav lead to partial or intermittent obstruction of air from the alveoli of the lunes and eventually to "pulmonary emphvsema" --a disease of the lungs marked by breathlessness, and almost aluavs as sociated with coughing. The lungs become over-inflated, the tissues are stretched, the elastic recoil of the lung is re duced. and the diaphragm becomes low and fixed. The disease, which usually begins after the age of 40. tends to progress and to lead eventually to severe respiratory and even circulatory failure. Since pulmonary emphvsema is much more common than lung cancer, if the relation be tween heavy smoking and pulmonary emphysema is con firmed. its public health importance may be even greater than the relation between smoking and cancer of the lung.
So far as public interest goes, the most important ques tion is the extent to which smoking is responsible for the progressive rise in cancer of the lung in recent decades. Last year about 24,000 men and 4000 women died of can cer of the lung--about eight times as many as 20 years ago. Mortality from no other type of cancer is increasing at a comparable rate.
News on cancer and tars
A? we go to press, investigators at the .Radium In.-litutc of the L'niversity of Paris report the dis covery of a chemical in cigarette sm oke--3-4-0-10 dibenzpyrene--"which invariably causes cancer when injected into m ice.'' Although it has long been known that benzpyrene chemicals are capa ble of inducing cancer in mice, the amounts pres ent in tobacco tars have not been fourni sufficient to produce cancer consistently in a high percentage of experim ental animals. The newspaper report does not indicate the relationship between the amount of dibenzpyrene which caused cancer in the mice and the amount of the chemical present in cigarette smoke.
W ithout a great deal more inform ation than is yet available, it is im possible to know whether tlie Paris studies make a significant contribution to previous knowledge based on animal experiments.
There is no dispute among medical authorities that many materials in the air we breathe have cancer-inducing effects and probably play an important part in the rising incidence of cancer of the lung. There is dispute, however, as to the comparative importance of air pollutants as against heavy smoking as a causative factor in cancer of the lung. Heavy cigarette smoking is believed by many investigators-- and bv the American Cancer Societv--to be an important, or even the major, factor contributing to the development of lung cancer. A different opinion is held by Dr. Clarence C. Little. Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee. "Any' possible role of smoking in the etiology [cause] of lung cancer." says Dr. Little, "remains an unresolved question. It cannot be said that smoking has been absolved from suspicion: neither have the charges . . . been proven."
The point of view of the American Cancer Society, de rived from several types of statistical studies on thousands of men and women with and without lung cancer, is sum marized in a recent (19361 pamphlet "Where We Stand Today on Cigarettes and Lung Cancer." published by the American Cancer Society. According to this pamphlet, lung cancer is about 27 times as frequent among those who smoke two packages of cigarettes a day as among those who have never smoked. However, not everyone who smokes heavily develops lung cancer. The man who for many years has smoked heavily, two packages or so a day, has about one chance in ten of developing lung cancer eventually. A man who smokes less than a pack a day has about one chance in 36 of developing the disease. The chances of a non-smoker developing lung cancer are about one in 270.
Two important, large-scale studies on population groups in the United States and England, one by the American Cancer Society and the other by the British Medical Re search Council, though not yet fully completed, appear to support the conclusion that heavy cigarette smoking is one
C ontinued on next page
CONSUMER REPORTS 109
co n tin u e d
of the most important causes of cancer of the lung. 3n both studies, lung cancer seems to occur less frequently in those who have given up cigarettes than in those who have smoked them continuoush . though moderately. The British report considers significant a study of the smoking habits of doctors living in rural and urban districts. The high and closely similar incidence of cancer of the lung in the two groups of smokers could not. according to this study, have been affected by varying exposure to such atmospheric pollutants as industrial wastes and automobile exhausts.
Environmental factors
A different point of view about the relationship between environmental air carcinogens and cancer of the lung is contained in a recent Public Health Monograph hv Ur. W. C. Hueper, head of the Environmental Cancer Section of the National Cancer Institute. L. S. Public Health Sendee. According to Dr. Hueper any final conclusion about the relative importance of cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer should be kept in abevance until more valid and conclusive evidence becomes available. Dr. Hueper be lieves that tobacco smoking mav pla\ a role in causing cancer of respiratory organs, but that it is neither the only cause nor the main cause, nor is it predominantly responsi ble for the rising frequence of lung cancer observed during recent decades. He believ es that exposure to mam indus trial fumes i chromates, nickel, arsenic and others l gaso line fumes, tire and asphalt dust, and radioactive dust is of great importance in producing cancer of the lung. Al though only a small proportion of the 2i!.00l) Americans who died of lung cancer last year were occupationally ex posed to cancer-inciting environmental substances, it is Dr. Hueper's belief that in view of the far-flung pollution of the air. these carcinogenic substances are inhaled by the gen eral population as well as bv those occupationally exposed.
With the expansion of industry in the past 50 years, there has been a corresponding increase in air pollution. Fuel oil consumption is now 31- times as great as it was 30 years ago. Exhausts from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution: motor fuel consumption is five times what it was in 1933. Roads surfaced with asphalt and oils are a source of fine dust which adds to air pollution.
Experiments with different animals to learn whether sus pected substances in tobacco or tobacco smoke or in ciga rette paper can actually produce lung cancer have so far provided inconclusive clues. Not onlv must one be cautious in relating to humans the results of experiments performed on mice, rats and other species, but these experiments have yielded contradictory results. However, recent experi mental work by Dr. Ernest Wynder of the Sloan-Kettering Institute is of interest since it appears to show that car cinogenic effects depend upon the dose of the tar. Tars and hydrocarbons such as benzpyrene are at present among the suspected carcinogenic materials in tobacco smoke. As CU's tests show, all cigarettes contained ap preciable amounts of tars. If Dr. Wynder's work is con firmed, low tar cigarettes should be less likely to induce
lung cancer than cigarette? with normal tar level.
It would be gratifying, says the American Cancer Society, if it could "cut through the smoking lurbuiance and pro duce a neat final answer" to the controversy about the rela tion between various environmental agents, including smok ing. and cancer of the lung. However, it cannot. The Society s policy is this: "It intends to make widely available lad s that bear cm the question of whether to smoke or not to smoke. . . . The American Cancer Society has no plans for a campaign against cigarette smoking. Smoking is a habit which gives comfort and pleasure to millions, sup ports a great industry, and brings millions to the govern ment in taxes. . . . The final decision on whether to smoke cigarettes rests with the individual . . ."
A medical and statistical study of several hundred thou sand veterans of World War I is being conducted by the L.S. Public Health Service to determine the relation be tween smoking and cancer of the lung and other disorders. It is hoped that the findings of this survev will help to clear up important aspects of the smoking controversy.
The most reasonable view of cancer of the lung at this time would relate its phenomenal and alarming rise partly to the diffusion into the air of carcinogens derived from industry and transportation, partly to unusual exposures to carcinogens in many occupations, and partly to exces sive cigarette smoking. The control of lung cancer would, therefore, appear to require a three-pronged effort against l ! air pollution. 2 I occupational exposure to specific car cinogenic agents, and 3 l excessive cigarette smoking. Until more conclusive evidence is reported, it would seem prudent to reduce cigarette smoking to less than a pack a day, or to smoke a pipe or cigars in moderation.
Stop smoking?
For anyone to argue that everyone should stop smoking because of its hazards would be highly unrealistic. Rela tively few smokers adopt the tobacco habit because of a sensuous appreciation of the fragrance of the cured tobac co leaf. In adolescence, smoking is frequently a symbol of emancipation from the fetters of childhood. Heightened nervous tension is the usual explanation given for the tobacco habit, and there is much evidence to support it.
During times of national crisis, as in a war. tobacco consumption rises sharply. At all times, man is exposed to a multitude of stresses and tensions. Smoking is doubt less one of the habits man has adopted to contend with these tensions. Reaching for a cigarette, cigar or pipe, hold ing it in the mouth, sucking on it, lighting it, inhaling it, and blowing out the smoke all tend to relieve tensions.
The stimulating or comforting effects of tobacco may be so valuable to some persons that they are willing to risk whatever physical harm may be associated with the habit. On the other hand, there are many for whom these risks are not worthwhile and who will, without too great a sacrifice, cut out or cut down their cigarette smoking.
It would be. gratifying to conclude this article with a successful formula for giving up the tobacco habit. Mark Twain said that to stop smoking was easy. " I ought to know," he asserted, " because I've done it a thousand times." Modern-day medicine has no better answer.
110 MARCH 1957
