117 



Mr. McMillan. And the language — the reason for the rejection 

 was that it was not remarkable? 



Mr. Kessler. I have read the appeal. I have not read all the pat- 

 ent documents. The issue, I believe for the patent examiners when 

 they ran the computer searches, they had seen that there were cer- 

 tain crosses made back in the forties and fifties. 



What Brown & Williamson appesded and what they said was 

 unique in their appeal was the fact that for the first time, this 

 plant could be agronomically viable; that it could actually be 

 grown. 



Other people had done some genetic breeding, but no one, to my 

 knowledge — according to the company, this was the first time that 

 anyone was successful in actually being able to grow a plant. 



Mr. McMillan. I thought when they turned something down 

 that was not remarkable, that it really offered nothing significantly 

 new. 



Mr. Kessler. Again, I am telling you what was in the patent ap- 

 plication and what Brown & Williamson appealed. Brown & 

 Williamson made the case that this was the first time that this 

 plant was successful, could be successfully grown. 



For example, when we talked to Dr. Chaplin, Dr. Chaplin said 

 yes, there had been crosses, but he couldn't get the plant to actu- 

 ally stand up. It just didn't grow. It was not agronomically feasible, 

 and so the real value, according to the company and Dr. Chaplin, 

 was the higher nicotine that could be grown that was 

 agronomically viable, sir. 



Mr. McMillan. Is there anything wrong with experimenting to 

 find out how you could deliver a nicotine product witn less tar? 



Mr. Kessler. There is nothing wrong with research at all. 



Mr. McMillan. Isn't that in fact why the industry, through re- 

 se£U"ch, developed filter-tip cigarettes, for example? 



Mr. Kessler. The issue. Congressman — I think the question is 

 still out. What I have asked experts in the area is does low tar, in 

 fact, reduce your health hazard compared to a regular cigarette? 



There are different opinions. The evidence is not concrete. There 

 may be 



Mr. McMillan. This is a lot of legislation on the assumption 

 that is the case. 



Mr. Kessler. Again, the issues — ^you need to inquire about com- 

 pensatory mechanisms. How people smoke, elasticity of nicotine 

 and tar, and what actually gets into the smoke, before you can con- 

 clude that, in fact, the low tar cigarette is any less hazardous. 



There are certainly those who believe that there may be a small 

 benefit for the low tar cigarette if you are addicted and you have 

 no other choice. But on the other hand, there are certainly those 

 experts who say that in the end, you are going to get as much, and 

 in fact, there is no benefit to you from a health perspective. 



What could be of use is if vou want to quit smoking, how do you 

 do that? What information do we get? And perhaps shifting — first 

 of all 



Mr. McMillan. I understand that very well. I have done it a 

 thousand times. 



Mr. Kessler. As far as quitting smoking. The question is did 

 that— do the very low tar, are they helpful in getting you to quit? 



