717 



man, raised at a press conference yesterday. 1 have four specific points that will be 

 addressed. 



No. 1, I stated in my earlier testimony that nicotine follows tar, and used the lat- 

 est FTC tar and nicotine yields to prove this point. The correlation coeflQcient be- 

 tween the tar and smoke nicotine data for all commercial brands measured was 

 0.975. This, of course, includes ultra low tar brands. I also showed the changes in 

 sales-weighted tar and smoke nicotine values of commercial brands from the 1950's 

 to 1990. Reductions in tar were followed by reductions in nicotine of similar percent- 

 ages. Dr. Kessler showed charts at the March 25 hearing indicating that sales- 

 weighted smoke nicotine has been increasing since 1982, and that tar has under- 

 gone little or no change. My staff cannot duplicate the data used to construct Dr. 

 Kessler's charts, and I stand by my prior charts and testimony on this subject. 

 Smoke nicotine follows tar to a very high degree among the commercial brands. 



No. 2, Nicotine concentration in tobacco should not be confused with nicotine 

 smoke yields as measured by the FTC method. Ultra low tar cigarettes are also 

 ultra low smoke nicotine cigarettes. The nicotine concentration in the tobacco is not 

 correlated to FTC tar and smoke nicotine yields because the amount of tobacco in 

 the cigarette, the filter and filter tip ventilation are the principle factors that control 

 nicotine smoke yield. Mr. Chairman, you told the press and the public yesterday 

 that a 1981 publication of mine which reported higher concentrations of rucotine in 

 the tobacco of very low tar cigarettes meant that smokers of these cigarettes re- 

 ceived high fields of nicotine. This is not trae. The ultra lew tar cigarette brand 

 segment of market was defined by my paper as the 0.6 tar segment. The FTC nico- 

 tine yields of this segment are also the lowest among commercial brands. Smoke 

 nicotine follows tar. 



No. 3, Cigarette tobacco blends are formulated to try to achieve taste acceptance, 

 brand distinction, and preference within the smoker franchise. The fact that nicotine 

 concentrations vary among the components used to formulate the blend has been 

 discussed in a Surgeon CJeneral report and many other publications besides my 1981 

 paper. The fact that commercial cigarette blends vary in nicotine concentration 

 should not be treated as a revelation by this committee. The practice of using to- 

 bacco blend differences to establish unique taste characteristics have given rise to 

 the all Turkish cigarette, the American blended cigarettes, the black tobacco ciga- 

 rette of France, etc. This centuries-old practice is well-known and cannot be con- 

 strued as manipulation of nicotine for the purposes of this committee of those of Dr. 

 Kessler. The suggestion that my 1981 article provides evidence of nicotine manipu- 

 lation as stated in your press conference, Mr. Chairman, appears to result from a 

 total misunderstanding of the data, design, and manufacture of cigarettes from an 

 agricultural commodity with varying composition. 



No. 4, The last point relates to your staff's analysis of my 1981 paper. They indi- 

 cated that this paper reported that the industry was doing research to increase the 

 nicotine level, wrdie keeping the tar level constant. The reference to this in the 

 paper relates to an idea that came from tlie Tobacco Working Group of the NCI and 

 others. It pertains to research toward the development of new varieties of tobacco 

 at the USDA experiment stations and the universities in the tobacco growing States, 

 it v.as not research being conducted by the manufacturers and cannot be related to 

 manipulation of nicotine by the manufacturers. 



Mr. Waxman. Thank you. Without objection, I'm going to start 

 my time from the period at which you've ended. Dr. Spears, your 

 article said that increased nicotine is in the lowest yield cigarette. 

 It's indisputable that there is more nicotine in the cigarette. 

 There's more nicotine in the sm.oke, as well. Furthermore, you're 

 relying on FTC numbers which, I would submit, are not meaningful 

 because they don't relate to what the smoker actually takes in. 



I have a line of questions on that point and I want to get to that 

 in a minute, 



Mr. Spears. May I say something? I disagree with w^hat you just 

 said, that it's indisputable that the concentration of nicotine in to- 

 bacco relates to what's in the smoke. The question is does the con- 

 centration of nicotine in tobacco relate — differences in that con- 

 centration relate to what's in the smoke. 



