From: afoxland@starband.net
Date: Tue, 01/13/04
Anne LandmanPosting Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Puff Profile Paper.
Company/Source: R.J. Reynolds
Document Date: 19710501;19710531
Length: 2 pages
Bates No. 500286135/6136
URL: http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/500286135-6136.html
PDF Version:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=dse89d00&fmt=pdf&ref=results
This handwritten letter is the perfect example of how the tobacco
industry prevented any information that might reflect poorly upon their industry
from being made public. The document discusses a study, apparently done either
in-house or commissioned by the tobacco industry itself, whose results were
adverse to the industry:
"This paper is well-organized, professionally written, and describes
highly competent work. There is nothing wrong with this paper as concerns work
quality, scientific merit or written preparation.
...At this time, contents can be interpreted to be contrary to
Corporation interests...the results of this study may be interpreted by
adversary forces to mean that smokers received much more 'tar' than FTC numbers
indicate. Such interpretation would be damaging to our already besieged industry
even if it were later shown to be untrue.
...3. Because publication of this paper might raise further controversy
over the issue of 'tar' delivery to smokers, publication is deferred."
This document is part of a larger collection (500286124/6151) that
seems to indicate that, had the results of this study not been inimical to
industry interests, it would have been presented at a 1971 Tobacco Chemists'
Conference.
-----------------------------------------------
Notes
Thank you to the legal assistant who forwarded this document and
analysis to Doc-Alert.
---------------------------------------
Quotes:
Puff Profile Paper
1. This paper is well-organized, professionally written, and
describes highly competent work. There is nothing wrong with this paper as
concerns work quality, scientific merit or written preparation.
2. At this time, contents can be interpreted to be contrary to
Corporation interests.
a. Puffs taken by human smokers are depicted as being much
larger in volume than the generally recognized "FTC puff volume." In the
absence of puffing frequency data for these same human smokers under free form
smoking conditions, the results of this study may be interpreted by adversary
forces to mean that smokers received much more "tar" than FTC numbers indicate.
Such interpretation would be damaging to our already besieged industry even if
it were later shown to be untrue. As it now stands, we do not have any means of
disproving or challenging such interpretation.
b. It is indicated by these data that smokers compensate for
low "tar" deliveries by taking larger puffs. This could be interpreted by
adversary forces to mean that the industry is failing in actuality in its
present approach toward reduced "tar" delivery to smokers. Our own approach --
higher filtration and/or air dilution -- is make to seem self-defeating by these
data.
3. Because publication of this paper might raise further
controversy over the issue of "tar" delivery to smokers, publication is
deferred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company: R.J. Reynolds
Author: No author stated. Found in the area of
Laurene, Anders H. (Director for RJR Tobacco Co. 1977-1980)
Manager of RJR's Chemical Division, c. 1970-72
Recipient: No recipient noted.
Region: United States
Type: HANDWRITTEN
REPORT
Named Organization: Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for
laws against deceptive advertising) Enforces laws against false and
deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper
display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports
to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising,
sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of
cigarettes.
Subject: industry sponsored research
industry strategy
industry activity
research activity
Research Studies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This service is provided by The American Lung Association of Colorado and
Tobacco Documents Online and is funded by the Tobacco Technical Assistance
Consortium, www.ttac.org.
To subscribe to Doc-Alert, go to http://smokefree.net/doc-alert
To unsubscribe send any email to [***] (You must unsubscribe using the
same email address under which you originally subscribed.)
To search the Doc-Alert archives, go to:
http://smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages
The archives are contain over 850 past postings of Doc-Alert and are
searchable by keyword, a very useful feature for quickly locating document
information on virtually any topic.
Send comments, questions, corrections, or complaints to:
Anne Landman, Tobacco Document Research Specialist
American Lung Association of Colorado
Tobacco Document Research Annex
P.O. Box 23105
Glade Park, CO 81523
(970) 263-9199
Fax (970) 263-9799
afoxland@starband.net
| 
