788 



324 GORl AND LYNCH 



FTCTar 

 to Nicotine 

 Rate 





ua nm iia ajo 2U> 

 RC Ttf, tno/cJg 



FiC. 8. FTC Ur-»o-nicotinc ratios as a function of FTC ur >ield of cigarettes smoked. The significance of 

 RisF<Q.00l. 



The small variation of nicotine bioavailability in relation to FTC yield should not 

 have appreciable biologic consequences (1. 22, 31) and, thus, may not be a suitable 

 criterion for cigarette ranking. On the other hand, tar intake is likely to vary over a 

 broader range and can be estimated from the T/N ratio of the smoke inhaled. In the 

 light of our results, a cigarette ranking index should encourage low tar and thus low 

 overall yields, and could be defined as /? = T( 1 + l/N)/5 where T and N are the FTC 

 tar and nicotine yields, and 5 is a normalizing factor. This index would give a range 

 of approximately sevenfold between the lowest and highest yield brands now on the 

 market, probably close to real diSere-'.ces in mean tar intake. 



However, any ranking based on standardized and precise o-.alylical yields is bound 

 to retain a futile determir'stic pretense, given the individual variability in smoke 

 demand and associated behavioral traits. Therefore, a better ranking index would 

 simply give a message of relativity, graded into a few broad categories or bands. For 

 instance, a three-band system would group cigarettes with R values of less than 2. 

 between 2 and 4. and greater than 4. If such an approach were adopted, manufacturers 

 could easily adjust yields to classify cigarettes unambiguously in any of these categories. 



The broad meaning of such banding system has two main advantages. First, it 

 \*ould make possible to change future classification criteria without altering the basic 

 public message, when better methods became available for predicting true tar to nicotine 

 ratios and average intake. Second, its avoidance of numerical pretension will render 

 it all the more realistic, credible, and informative. A\. the same time, consumers should 

 be made aware that cigarette rankings have only relative value, absolute intake being 

 predominantly determined by personal behavior. 



