446 



-♦- 



includins tb« product! of Cb« ImpcrLal Tobacco Coopanj. The aarkeC 

 leaders currenCly give nlcocine dellverie* o£ 1.2-1.3 ng, aivd chert Is 

 s diversity of brcod* delivering less than 1 ag (2, 3). Siailar reductions 

 in delivery hav«^eea evident in other countries, notably in the O.S.A. 

 and Germany; in fade one of tbe^striking features of the German market 

 ha« been the groving popularity of "low nicotine" brands. When attemptiog 

 to understand the reason foe theso trends, one is left wondering whether 

 the present-day smoker actually prefers the saoking characteristics 

 associated with reduced deliveries or whether he has been influenced by 

 his concern for the possible health risks of sanking and by the inplication, 

 or even the direct allegation, that cigarettes with reduced deliveries 

 are safer. One also wonders whether Che apparent attraction of reduced 

 deliveries is true for all smokers or whether it is confined to specific 

 segmeats. ^r\ L* 



These questions coctceming preferred nicotine level seemed so 

 fuodaneatal chac Ic was decided Co Cry and answer Chea first, by direct 

 consumer Cescing, beforo proeeeduxg Co consider ocher feacures of che 

 cigarette. The argument here was that, unless the consumer was being 

 offered approximately the right nicotiti^ level, it would be difficult 

 to draw valid conclusions froa tests designed to explore his reaction 

 to different taste characteristics, different degrees of draw resistance, 

 and so on. 



Raving decided to investigate consumers' nicotine preferences in 



'' OB 



the first instance, and allowing for the possibility that dLfferent c 



'-• - c 



categories of smoker might prefer different levels of nlcotlo^, ,tbe ** ■• 



findings of McKennell (4, S) seemed particularly relevant. In bl*l«f , tji 



o 



