Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7 
the comments, the Commission noted that the development of cigarettes 
with ventilation holes near the tip had complicated the comparability of its 
tar and nicotine ratings,^ but "that a change in the insertion depth would 
cause a lack of continuity with previous test results" {Federal Register, 1978, 
pp. 11856, 11857). The Commission decided not to modify the protocol "in 
the absence of information indicating that a new insertion depth would be 
more consistent with the manner in which smokers insert cigarettes in actual 
use" {Federal Register, 1978, p. 11857). 
Another controversy concerning the test method arose in the early 1980's 
and involved the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation's (B&W) Barclay 
cigarette, which was designed with a channel ventilation system rather than 
air holes.^ Competitors claimed that Barclay, which had received an official 
FTC rating of 1 mg tar in 1981, did not test accurately on the FTC smoking 
machine because the channels remained open during testing but were 
rendered inoperable in practice. After careful consideration, the Commission 
determined that its present test method did not accurately measure Barclay's 
tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide. It revoked the 1-mg rating, estimating 
that Barclay should be rated between 3 and 7 mg of tar (based on testing by 
independent consultants) and invited comments on a number of issues 
relating to possible modification of its testing method, including using new 
cigarette holders on the smoking machine that would simulate the reduction 
in ventilation that occurred when people smoked Barclay {Federal Register, 
1983). The Commission asked which modifications would yield the most 
appropriate results for all cigarettes and whether modification of the cigarette 
testing method would result in unintended consequences and affect possible 
innovation in cigarettes design {Federal Register, 1983). 
The Commission also took this opportunity to reiterate that its ratings 
were relative; that the amount of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide any 
particular cigarette delivered depended on how it was smoked; and that 
in the case of ventilated filter cigarettes, delivery would be increased if 
ventilation holes were blocked {Federal Register, 1983). It then invited 
* Quoting its 1967 statement that the purpose of testing was not to determine the amount of constituents 
inhaled by a human smoker but to determine the amount generated when a cigarette was smoked by a 
machine in accordance with a prescribed protocol (see above), the Commission noted that: 
The point of this statement was that the 1-TC's "tar" and nicotine values represented valid 
standards for making comparisons among different cigarettes. Thus, if the consumer smoked 
each different cigarette the same way, he would inhale "tar" and nicotine in amounts propor- 
tional to the relative values of the FI'C figures. A person who smoked a 10 mg "tar" cigarette 
would ingest half the "tar" he would by smoking a 20 mg "tar" cigarette providing he smoked 
the same way. The development of cigarettes with ventilation areas within 1 1 mm of the tip 
has complicated this simple relationship. (Federal Register, 1978, p. 11856) 
' In conventional aerated cigarettes, air and smiAe mixed together as they passed through the filter. Outside air 
drawn into liarclay's channels, however, went directly into the smoker's mouth before first mixing with any 
smoke; dilution was supposed to occur in the mouth, not in the filter. Competitors alleged that because the 
exit holes for the channels were close to the smoker's lips, they were crushed or covered by lips, thus reducing 
dilution. 
4 
