Chapter 1 
advertising {Federal Register, 1970). The rulemaking was suspended 
indefinitely a short time later, when five of the major cigarette manufacturers 
and three small companies agreed voluntarily among themselves to include 
the ratings produced by the Commission's protocol in their advertisements. 
That agreement, modified to reflect the discontinuance of the Commission's 
laboratory, remains in effect today.^ 
There are a number of ways to lower a cigarette's tar and nicotine rating, 
including adding filters that literally trap some of the constituents of the 
tobacco smoke before they reach the machine, wrapping the tobacco plug in 
paper that burns relatively quickly, and placing ventilation holes around the 
circumference of the filter so that when a smoker or smoking machine puffs 
on the cigarette, air is drawn into the filter and the resulting diluted mixture 
of air and smoke yields lower tar and nicotine ratings than an undiluted puff 
of smoke would yield. The last technique is often referred to as "aeration." 
These types of changes in cigarette technology have focused the 
Commission's attention on its protocol on two separate occasions since 1970. 
In both cases, the Commission solicited public comments on certain aspects 
of the FTC method. However, in neither instance did the information 
received by the Commission form a sufficient basis for changing the protocol, 
even though the limitations on the predictiveness of the FTC method caused 
by compensatory smoking were clearly recognized by the mid-1980's. 
("Compensatory behavior" is the tendency of consumers to offset the benefits 
of a positive change in their behavior by making a second, negative change. 
For example, a smoker who switches to a brand with lower tar and nicotine 
ratings might smoke more cigarettes each day or smoke each one more 
intensively, that is, inhale more deeply and/or take more puffs per cigarette.) 
Following is a review of the two events referred to above. 
Aeration first became an issue for the Commission in 1977, when 
Lorillard, Inc., suggested that the depth to which cigarettes were inserted in 
the Commission's smoking machine be decreased when the standard depth 
would block some of a cigarette's ventilation holes, thereby impairing its 
filtration system and resulting in higher ratings than if the holes were open. 
The Commission solicited public comments on this question and also on 
whether the insertion depth should be decreased beyond the point where 
consumers cover the cigarette with their fingers or lips {Federal Register, 1977). 
Of the seven cigarette companies that commented, only Lorillard 
supported varying the standard insertion depth. However, none of the 
responders addressed the question of whether the new insertion depth 
would be more consistent with actual smoking practices. After reviewing 
^ The American Tobacco Company did not sign the voluntary agreement, but similar disclosures have been 
contained in its advertisements, pursuant to a 1971 consent agreement with the Commission. [In re American 
Brands, Inc., 79 F.T.C. 255 (1971).] 
3 
