335 



92 



cigarettes and oral contraceptives can Increase risks to health. No such 

 labeling appears on low tar and nicotine cigarettes. 



The consuwr has a right to know whether or not a product Is effective for 

 Its Intended purpose. Does It really reduce risks to health? If so under 

 Mhat conditions? There Is evidence to suggest for example that some 

 smokers who switch to the low tar and nicotine brands Inhdle wre dtoply, 

 take more puffs and smoke more cigarettes to compensate for the lot;., tar 

 and nicotine levels. There are also Indications that the filtering 

 systems are alterrd when cigarettes are smoked by a person as opposed to a 

 testing machine, also resulting In higher yields. 



As the 1984 Surgeon General's Report on "Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease" 

 succinctly put It; 



"Low tar and nicotine cigarettes have gained considerable 

 popularity among the smoking public, partly on the premise that 

 a reduction In the nominal tar and nicotine yield results In a 

 proportional reduction In the health hazards of cigarette 

 smoking. The validity of this approach to cigarette smoking 1s 

 contingent on th« accuracy of smoking -machines In reflecting the 

 actual aanner of puffing and also on the smoker not altering 

 smoking behavior to compensate for variations in nominal tar and 

 nicotint content. Should smokers develop compensatory 

 alterations In their smoking behavior, this would not only 

 reduct tiM relevance of the smoking -machine assays but might 

 also alter the proportionate delivery of the different toxic 

 substances In cigarette smoke and expose the smoker to 

 concentrations beyond those predicted by the smoking -machine." 

 (p. 341) 



See also Surgeon General's Reports of 1981, 1982, 1983 which reached 

 similar conclusions. 



