Chapter 1 
comments on a wide range of issues concerning compensatory smoking 
behavior: 
Should the Commission further examine the implications for its 
testing program of the issues raised by compensatory smoking 
behavior, including hole blocking, when consumers smoke 
lower "tar" cigarettes? What is the evidence that smokers use 
higher "tar" cigarettes differently than lower "tar" cigarettes? 
What is the evidence regarding the extent of hole blocking 
by smokers of different ventilated filter cigarettes? Are there 
problems regarding compensatory smoking behavior which are 
significant enough to warrant further exploration of changes 
in the method, beyond those necessitated by the Commission's 
findings concerning Barclay? What lines of inquiry would 
generate the most useful information if such an examination 
is undertaken? For example, should the Commission explore 
a system of categories or "bands" of "tar" content rather than 
specific numerical estimates? Also, should consumers be 
advised that the cigarettes' actual "tar" delivery depends on 
how it is smoked? {Federal Register, 1983) 
Shortly after the initial comment period closed,® a Federal district 
court issued an opinion in the Commission's action against B&W over 
advertisements that continued to describe Barclay as a 1-mg tar cigarette, 
despite the Commission's revocation of Barclay's 1-mg rating [FTC v. 
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 580 F. Supp. 981 (D.D.C. 1983), affd in 
part, remanded in part, 778 F.2d 35 (D.C. Cir. 1985)]. During that litigation, 
B&W contended that "recent scientific evidence demonstrates that the 
FTC system is so flawed that it is itself deceptive" [580 F. Supp. at 984].^ 
The court recognized that compensatory smoking behavior complicated 
the ratings question but rejected B&W's contention that the system provided 
no benefit to consumers: 
The FTC system attempts only to determine how much relative 
tar and nicotine a smoker would get in his mouth were he to 
smoke two cigarettes in the same manner. B&W has utterly 
failed to show that the system does not do this. Nor has it 
shown that a better method for determining the relative health 
* Comments responsive to the April 13, 1983, Federal Register notice were originally due by June 30, 1983. 
On June 4, 1984, however, the Commission reopened the comment period because certain information 
that was relevant to the questions addressed in that notice, but had been previously under a court-ordered 
seal, was now publicly available (Federal Register, 1984). 
’ B&W argued that all cigarettes were subject to compensatory smoking behavior and thus all tar numbers 
were "soft." The Commission acknowledged that low-yield cigarettes were subject to substantial variations 
in actual smoker intake but contended that Barclay tested differently on the machine from other cigarettes. 
The Commission's position was that the tar ratings provided a rough comparative scale; that is, a 1-mg 
cigarette should be comparable to all other 1-mg cigarettes, if all are smoked in an identical manner. 
5 
