N, 



37 



Mr. Waxman. Was this in any way illegal for a company, that 

 you know of? 



Mr. Henningfield. I am not familiar with any of the legalities, 

 just the basic science. This was a good basic science study. It did 

 demonstrate that nicotine served as a reinforcer for the rats. The 

 proper experimental controls were done. These included the inter- 

 esting standard manipulations to look at the dose and see how 

 much the animgJs would work for each dose. 



[The following letter was received:] 



Department of Health & Human Services, 

 Baltimore, MD, May 3, 1994. 



Hon. Henry A. Waxman, 



Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, 

 Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 

 Washington, DC. 



Dear Congressman Waxman: With reference to the unpubUshed manuscript by 

 Dr. Victor J. DeNoble, et al., entitled "Nicotine as a positive reinforcer in rats: Ef- 

 fects of infusion dose and fixed ratio size," I made an error that I would like to cor- 

 rect for the record. During the March 25 hearing I stated that I had not cited the 

 DeNoble et al. paper in my own literature reviews. However, I have recently been 

 reminded that I (fid make reference to the DeNoble work in a book chapter that I 

 wrote. 



Upon receiving the manuscript from Dr. DeNoble in 1983, I made reference to his 

 important finding in several papers that I was working on at the time. Later, upon 

 learning from Dr. DeNoble that his paper would not be published, I deleted ref- 

 erence to it from manuscripts that had been submitted (or were to be submitted) 

 to scientific journals for publication. What I had quite simply forgotten about was 

 that I had also made reference to the DeNoble work in a book chapter entitled "Be- 

 havioral pharmacology of cigarette smoking," published in Advances in Behavioral 

 Pharmacology, edited by T. Thompson, P.B. Dews and J.E. Barrett, Academic Press, 

 Inc., 1984. I apologize for this oversight. 

 Sincerely, 



Jack E. Henningfield, Ph.D., Chief, Clinical Pharmacology Branch. 



Mr. Waxman. Do you know any reason why we shouldn't know 

 the name of the company that sponsored that study? 



Mr. Henningfield. I defer to Dr. Kessler. 



Mr. Waxman. Is there any reason why we shouldn't know that 

 information? 



Mr. Kessler. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to work with 

 you. 



Mr. Waxman. If you are going to give it to us later, why not give 

 it to us now? 



Mr. Kessler. I would prefer to present to the committee the in- 

 formation, and then you can do what you would like with it. 



Mr. Waxman. Mr. Bliley. 



Mr. Bliley. Dr. Kessler, in your February 25th letter you state, 

 and I quote, "In fact, it is our understanding that manufacturers 

 commonly add nicotine to cigarettes to deliver specific amounts of 

 nicotine," unquote. 



Dr. Kessler, this statement is unequivocally false. In fact, in the 

 processing of raw tobacco into cigarettes, the nicotine levels in ciga- 

 rettes are reduced as compared to the raw unprocessed tobacco 

 product. In the manufacturing process, there is no replacement of 

 lost nicotine. 



Let's first address the question of whether cigarette manufactur- 

 ers spike or add nicotine to their product. 



Chart two, I would like you to examine this graph which is taken 

 from the 1989 Surgeon General's report. This graph docum.ents the 



