Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7 
A PROPOSAL 
FOR MORE 
MEANINGFUL 
CIGARETTE 
LABELING 
One approach to more meaningful cigarette labeling is that described 
by Henningfield and colleagues (1994). This approach was adapted 
from that used by FDA to label food products with constituents of 
health-related relevance. One issue that FDA addressed in food 
labeling was serving size. In the case of cigarettes, research has 
indicated the need for larger and more intense puffs from the machine to 
more closely parallel smokers' behavior (U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, 1988). A second issue for cigarette labeling is the need to 
use biologically meaningful categories. For example, labels might specify 
"no nicotine" or "low nicotine" instead of including numerical values that 
imply that differences of a few percentage points have practical meaning and 
provide the consumer with the illusion that she or he will obtain different 
doses from different cigarettes. Similarly, terms such as "light" should be 
banned altogether because they imply health benefits; these terms are 
permitted with foods only if the food type provides a health benefit relative 
to the conventional type of food in a given category. Actual nicotine 
content of the cigarettes also should be provided to consumers because the 
content determines the absolute limit of nicotine that could be extracted. 
Nicotine delivery ratings also could be linked to other factors having 
health effects, for example, tar. Thus, a low-nicotine-delivering cigarette 
could not be labeled "low nicotine" unless it was also low in tar and carbon 
monoxide delivery. A comparable situation in food labeling is that a label 
may not use the phrase "fat free" if a product contains cholesterol. Finally, 
nicotine yield estimates from standardized machine tests should be validated 
with bioavailability testing, as is done with other drugs, because what is of 
interest is the dose obtained by smokers. 
This approach would not in itself solve the health problem posed by 
tobacco use, but it would at least provide consumers with what they have 
come to expect in the United States, namely, honest labeling that gives them 
the information on which to make decisions about the products they use. 
Three decades of research on cigarette smoking, nicotine dependence, and 
measurement of tobacco constituent intake have provided the means to 
give consumers such information. 
QUESTION-AND ANSWER SESSION 
DR. DEBETHIZY: Dr. Henningfield, you really did not speak very much 
to the FTC method, but I think it is important to point out that the FTC 
method was never intended to measure nicotine uptake. 
1 also agree with you. I think we can do better in terms of measuring 
nicotine uptake when we want to do that. I think the methods that have 
been used in the past are estimates. 1 think the study that 1 will tell you 
about a little bit later is a step in that direction, and I will be looking 
forward to sharing that with you. 
122 
