142 



Second, it was suggested that there was something sinister or se- 

 cretive about Y-1 because it was patented in Brazil using the lan- 

 guage of Brazil which is Portuguese. In fact, it was grown in Brazil 

 to prevent our competition from using it and because the growing 

 conditions in Brazil were very good. I'm told that the Brazilian pat- 

 ent application file contained a certified copy of the American pat- 

 ent application in English. So Dr. Kessler didn't have to go to the 

 trouble of obtaining an English translation as he asserted. 



For Dr. Kessler to suggest that thev had to uncover this secret 

 by translating Portuguese into Englisn, in my opinion, is nothing 

 more than grandstanding. 



B&W has never attempted to hide the existence of Y-1, and in 

 fact, we sought to have a U.S. patent issued which would have 

 made the existence of Y-1 a matter of public record. 



Third, Dr. Kessler not only misled in my opinion this committee 

 by what he said, but why — ^but by what he failed to say. He made 

 absolutely no reference to the actual nicotine deliveries in the B&W 

 brands which use Y-1 in the blend. In fact, as we told the FDA, 

 the brands that use Y-1 delivered essentially the same nicotine as 

 the products they replaced. Some of the brands contained — contain- 

 ing Y-1 actually delivered less nicotine than the non-Y-1 blends for 

 those same products and some delivered a little higher nicotine. 



Fourth, Dr. Kessler stated that B&W authorized DNAP to state 

 that Y-1 had not been commercialized. This is false. When DNAP 

 called Brown & Williamson earlier this month and asked if it could 

 discuss Y-1 with the FDA despite his confidentiality agreements 

 with my company. Brown & Williamson gave permission to do so. 

 We never told DNAP what to say. 



In Wednesday's Washington Post, Mr. Evans at DNAP is quoted 

 as saying that his company assumed Y-1 had not been commer- 

 cisdized. Now, that's a far cry from Dr. Kessler's allegation that 

 Brown & Williamson told them to make any such statement. 



Once again. Dr. Kessler's exaggeration, in my opinion, of the sit- 

 uation fits his personal or political agenda. 



Fifth, Dr. Kessler has attempted to dramatize his investigation 

 by stating that he uncovered the Y-1 story through, "investigation 

 work over 3 months," which took him to Brazil to find, "a needle 

 in a haystack." Again, this is nothing more than grandstanding. 



If Dr. Kessler had been sincere or sincerely interested in getting 

 the facts, all he had to do was ask Brown & Williamson. In fact, 

 the FDA never asked Brown & Williamson a single question about 

 Y-1, and never asked Brown & Williamson to produce a single doc- 

 ument about Y-1. 



When we learned through a third party that the FDA was inter- 

 ested in Y-1, Brown & Williamson contacted the FDA and set up 

 a meeting which took place this last Friday. The FDA did not 

 confront Brown & Williamson with its evidence of Y-1. Instead, 

 Brown & Williamson took the initiative to set up the meeting to 

 discuss Y-1. 



Finally, Dr. Kessler and one of his staff members made the high- 

 ly offensive misrepresentation that a Brown & Williamson em- 

 ployee falsely answered questions about crossbreeding during a 

 meeting between the Brown & Williamson representatives and the 

 FDA. 



