Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7 
The second thing is, that label must have education along with it. And 
that is part of the program in NCI, the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, 
and others who are involved in a very intense education program — to try to 
be sure that the public knows how to interpret a label like this. So, in a 
sense, that label is more complex and aimed at a variety of types of decisions. 
I would think that a label such as you proposed would be aimed at 
perhaps a single decision, which is whether or not this is a useful thing for 
me to do, trading off whatever my immediate gain might be, and pleasure, 
vs. long-term health effects. Is there a way of getting that onto the label? 
DR. HARRIS: 1 do not know. It also has occurred to me that once more 
dimensions to cigarettes are specifically disclosed, that would be the basis of 
further competition among cigarette manufacturers. So, the manufacturers 
would then be seeing not only whether a cigarette is low or high in tar, 
nicotine, and carbon monoxide, but in other specific components, too. 
That means that while the consumer does not specifically choose among 
high- or low-benzo(u)pyrene cigarettes, the disclosure of such contents 
provides an incentive for manufacturers to try to reduce that component. 
This is the same way that the disclosure of saturated fat contents in certain 
breakfast cereals or other foods, even without consumer knowledge, 
provides an incentive for some manufacturers to try to reduce that content. 
Nevertheless, it provides some incentive on the supply side, not just the 
demand side. 
DR. BENOWITZ: I know that you are not intending to be totally 
comprehensive about your mock insert, or label, and I think it is worthwhile 
keeping in mind the parallel with foods. If you are talking about limiting 
intake, there really are only two contents that we know about that might 
limit intake. One is the amount of the tobacco in the cigarette, which you 
did put down, and the other is the amount of nicotine contained in there, 
which is something that people do not often think about. But the amount 
of nicotine in tobacco limits what a person can get. And the intake of 
nicotine is not necessarily correlated at all with the yield. 
So, I think that when we think about any sort of labeling for content, 
the nicotine content, which is the maximum available dose one could get, 
should really be a part of it. 
DR. HARRIS: 1 noticed that that was in your original proposal, and 1 am not 
an expert on the degree to which nicotine content is very limiting for how 
many smokers. 1 would rather defer that to a later discussion, as to how 
irn[)ortant that is. 
RIJERtNCES 
Adams, J.l)., O'Mara-Adams, K.J., Mofimaim, I). Toxic 
and carcinogenic agents in undiluted mainstream 
smoke and sidestream smoke ol different tyjX'S of 
cigarettes. C«rdr/uxf«t's/s 8(S): 72^J-7 M, 1987. 
Ifaird, D.l)., Wilcox, A.J. Cigarette smoking assrxiated 
witfi delayed conception, loumul of the Amerutin 
MeJiial AsuKiution 251: 2979-2981, 1985. 
Heck, (i.J., Doyle, C.A., .Schacliter, K.N. .Smoking and 
lung function. Arfieriiun Review of Respimtory Disease 
i2A: 149-15.5, 1981. 
Hurgluiber, ().(]., I’un/.engrul)er, C., Sin/inger, II., 
Haber, I’., Silberl)auer, K. I'latelel sensitivity to 
prostacyclin in smokers and non-smokers. Chest 
90(1): .'14-.f8, 1986. 
72 
