Chapter 1 
Cigarette Xesting and the Federal Xrade 
Commission: A Historical Overview^ 
C. Lee Peeler 
Cigarette manufacturers began advertising their products' tar and 
nicotine content before there was a standardized procedure for testing 
cigarette output. In 1955, after a series of cases challenging a variety of 
claims made for cigarettes (including tar and nicotine claims),^ the Federal 
Trade Commission (Commission or FTC) published cigarette advertising 
guides. Among other things, the guides prohibited claims that a particular 
brand of cigarettes was low in tar and nicotine or lower than other brands 
"when it has not been established by competent scientific proof . . . that the 
claim is true, and if true, that such difference or differences are significant" 
(Federal Trade Commission, 1988a). 
However, cigarette manufacturers continued to advertise tar numbers. 
In the absence of a standardized testing methodology, their claims resulted 
in what is often referred to as the "tar derby" — a multitude of inconsistent, 
noncomparable claims that did not give consumers a meaningful opportunity 
to assess the relative tar delivery of competing brands. The tar derby ended 
in 1960, when discussions with the Commission culminated in an agreement 
by the industry to refrain from tar and nicotine advertising (Federal Trade 
Commission, 1988b). 
In 1964 the first Surgeon General's report on the health risks of smoking 
concluded that cigarette smoking was a cause of lung cancer in men (U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, 1964). In 1966 the Public 
Health Service stated that "The preponderance of scientific evidence strongly 
suggests that the lower the tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke, the 
less harmful would be the effect" (U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, 1981, p. v). 
It was in this environment that the Commission initiated two major 
steps in 1966 to encourage cigarette manufacturers to provide consumers 
with comparative information about their products' tar and nicotine yields. 
' These remarks are the views of the staff of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. They do not necessarily 
represent the view of the Commission or any individual commissioner. 
^See, e.g., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FTC, 192 F.2d 535 7th Cir. (1951) (claims that Camel does not impair the 
physical condition of athletes and aids digestion); American Tobacco Co., 47 F.T.C. 1393 (1951) (Lucky Strike 
cigarettes advertised as less irritating to the throat than competing brands and containing less tar than four 
other leading brands); P. Lorillard Co., 46 F.T.C. 735 (1950) (Old Gold cigarettes advertised as lowest of seven 
leading brands in nicotine and throat irritating tars, and Beech-Nut cigarettes as providing "definite defense 
against throat irritation"). See also, e.g., Leighton Tobacco Co., 46 F.T.C. 1230 (1950) (Phantom cigarettes 
represented as causing no irritation of any kind). 
1 
