67 



major contributor to the taste and smell of smoke, is the most im- 

 portant pharmacologic principle in the complex relationship be- 

 tweerf the smoker and the cigarette. Most commercial cigarettes in 

 the United States have maintained a ratio of approximately 1 to 

 10 between nicotine and tar delivery in cigarette smoke. 



But in the last few years, new generations of cigarettes have 

 begun to appear on the market where the ratio of nicotine to tar 

 has been pushed to as low as one to five or less. 



Thus, it may be possible to reach levels of nicotine concentration 

 in the smoke that are still pharmacologically satisfactory but so 

 low as not to pose significant concern. Dr. Grorey then went on to 

 explain exactly how this change in the nicotine to tar ratio might 

 be achieved. The progressive reduction of nicotine to tar ratio in 

 commercial cigarettes is a feasible but not a simple proposition. It 

 may require changes in tobacco varieties, and agricultural practices 

 in the field of tobacco processing and blending and fine tuning of 

 filtration and ventilation practices before the ratio could be favor- 

 ably altered for the majority of cigarettes on the market. 



In other words. Dr. Grorey was explaining that perhaps it would 

 be useful to increase nicotine delivery relative to tar delivery an- 

 ticipate that it might be useful to try to do that by changing to- 

 bacco variety which, as I understand it, is exactly what B&W ap- 

 parently did. 



My question to you. Dr. Kessler, do you believe that it was wrong 

 for the Federal Grovemment through the National Cancer Institute 

 to encourage the tobacco companies to try to change tobacco vari- 

 eties in order to increase nicotine relative to tar delivery? Do you 

 believe it was wrong for NCI to work on these sorts of things with 

 the tobacco companies in the 1970's before Secretary Califano 

 pulled the plug on the government's less hazardous cigarette pro- 

 gram, and do you believe it is now fair for you to accuse these com- 

 panies of some type of insidious manipulation when all they were 

 doing was precisely what the Federal Government suggested that 

 they should do to yield a cigarette that still had the taste and smell 

 of smoke produced by nicotine but had somewhat lower tar deliv- 

 ery? 



Mr. Kessler. Mr. Bliley, I am not here to say what is right or 

 what's wrong. I am simply here to say that if what Dr. Grorey said 

 in fact was what was going on, then I believe that is evidence of 

 manipulation and control of nicotine. If you are doing what Dr. 

 Grorey is suggesting and you understand the pharmacological ef- 

 fects of nicotine, then I believe that is relevant to the Food and 

 Drug Administration's determination of whether nicotine is a drug. 



It may well be that people addicted to nicotine need nicotine in 

 some form, but if you are going to have a nicotine delivery system 

 and you are going to have what Dr. Grorey is suggesting, then the 

 question for this Agency is whether that system should be regu- 

 lated as a drug. 



Mr. Bliley. You apparently, Dr. Kessler, have not read your Sur- 

 geon General's report before claiming that the FDA has made a 

 "startling discovery." Let me read to you from page 50 of the 1981 

 Surgeon Greneral's report which clearly stated that scientists were 

 actively involved in the genetic manipulation of tobacco plants to 

 yield a wide range of nicotine levels. 



