600 



the absorption by humans of nicotine from snuff and chewing to- 

 bacco. The Pennsylvania State researchers submitted a proposal for 

 a 3 year study to pursue this matter. 



Several tobacco companies, including U.S. Tobacco, funded this 

 research during the period 1978 to 1981. The document relied upon 

 to support this allegation and testimony relates to the research 

 conducted at Pennsylvania State and was prepared by those re- 

 searchers. The results of that research are reflected in a 1983 pub- 

 lication by the Pennsylvania State researchers in the journal Phar- 

 macology, therefore, available in the public domain. 



And this project, the funding of this research, was part of the 

 smokeless tobacco industry's ongoing funding of research by inde- 

 pendent investigators into questions relating to smokeless tobacco 

 and health. Over the years, such funding has totalled more than 

 $25 million and has been acknowledged in nearly 800 scholarly ar- 

 ticles and abstracts in a wide spectrum of scientific publications. 



As to the allegation that U.S. Tobacco products are developed 

 based on a graduating levels of nicotine, that allegation is false. As 

 indicated in my written statement, the assertion that U.S. Tobacco 

 manipulates its consumers and dictates which of its smokeless to- 

 bacco products those consumers ultimately choose to use are totally 

 false. 



The key to our product development process is developing prod- 

 ucts which appeal to the taste preferences of our consumers. The 

 taste characteristics of our smokeless tobacco products, as with all 

 tobacco products, are inherently complex. A number of factors 

 interacting with each other affect the ultimate taste, including leaf 

 blend, cut of tobacco, moisture, PH, flavors, and undoubtably nico- 

 tine in the tobacco leaf 



U.S. Tobacco's success is based upon its unique ability to develop 

 a wide selection of flavored products incorporating blends of tobacco 

 that have been developed over hundreds of years ago. 



What would I tell someone who said, you are using the gradua- 

 tion strategy to entice consumers to begin using low nicotine start- 

 ers products, either through advertising or through nicotine de- 

 pendence to graduate down to products of higher levels of nicotine? 

 I'd tell them that our consumers do not conform to any so-called 

 graduation theory. 



The oral tobacco market does not work that way. There is no set 

 pattern of brand switching among smokeless tobacco consumers. 

 Smokeless tobacco consumers remain loyal to a single brand, or 

 switch among a variety of brands according to their taste pref- 

 erences, cut of tobacco, form, and packaging. 



U.S. Tobacco's line of smokeless tobacco is based on the apprecia- 

 tion that we can not make any part of the public like and use any 

 one of our products, if it does not appeal to their taste preferences. 



Finally, Mr. Chairman let me address the general concerns 

 which have been raised about the ingredients added to tobacco 

 products. The identity of the ingredients in U.S. Tobacco's smoke- 

 less tobacco products is proprietary information. I can assure you, 

 however, that U.S. Tobacco has a procedure in place for the evalua- 

 tion of all available scientific information regarding the ingredients 

 added to the tobacco in the manufacture of our products. 



