576 



that give it meaning. Further, what is relevant is not what is present in the cigarette, but 

 what is present in the smoke. 



Dr. Kessler has made much of the fact that the FTC numbers do not necessarily 

 reflect the precise "tar" and nicotine yields for every smoker. This is certainly true, just as 

 EPA mileage estimates do not reflect the precise fuel economy that will be achieved by 

 every automobile driver. The important point is that in spite of broad variations in how 

 individual smokers may smoke any given cigarette, the fact remains that the lower the yield 

 by FTC numbers, the lower the yield will be to any given smoker. The yield for any given 

 smoker will probably be different from the FTC yield; for some smokers it will be higher, 

 for some it will be lower, but overall, the FTC yields are generally predictive of the yield 

 to smokers as a group. The statement, however, that "in reality" low yield cigarettes do not 

 yield low "tar" and nicotine, is not true. In work published by members of the Swiss Federal 

 Institute of Technology, lower yield cigarettes were associated with reduced smoke 

 absorption." 



Another indication of Dr. Kessler's misunderstanding of cigarettes relates to his 

 statements concerning low "tar* cigarettes. He stated that from 1967 to 1978 eighteen 

 brands of filter cigarettes underwent increases in overwrap width, resulting in less tobacco 

 being smoked by machine smoking in accordance with the FTC method. Since the FTC 

 method specifies that the cigarette is smoked to within 3 millimeters of the tipping 

 overwrap, and Dr. Kessler stated that the tobacco within the overwrap was still smokeable 



" Hofer, £t ai., "Nicotine Yield as Determinant of Smoke Exposure Indicators and 

 Puffing Behavior." Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior . Vol. 40, 139-149 

 (1991). 



-15- 



