Section II 
DR. RICKERT: I think there is one issue that we have not really looked at, 
and that is, there is something else that happens when you move from 
standardized FTC testing conditions to other testing conditions. We always 
consider what happens to the quantity of particulates, like tar, for example; 
what should be also considered is what happens to the quality of that tar. 
For example, in the Brown and Williamson documents that I received, it 
seemed that moving from standard conditions to behaviorally defined 
conditions resulted in an increase in mutagenicity of the tar fraction on a 
gram-per-gram basis using the salmonella assay, and so I think focusing 
totally on the changes in the relative ranking misses the point that the 
biological activity on a per-gram basis may be changing as well. 
DR. FREEMAN: Dr. Henningfield? 
DR. HENNINGFIELD: I would like to follow up on a point that Dr. Woosley 
made. I agree. My impression is that what people want to know is what gets 
into people, not into machines. There is only one way to do that, and that is 
to do what you do with any other drug: Test what gets in people, and that is 
the only way that you can validate the upper range. There is no way you can 
do that with a machine. You have to put the system in people to see what 
they actually get. 
Also, 1 think you need to do that because as we have seen, with almost 
any system you come up with, the industry might come up with a creative 
way to beat that machine. Testing in humans is essential. The question for 
Dr. deBethizy is, when we were discussing providing a wide range of values, 
and there seems to be some leaning that that would be a useful thing to do, 
you seemed to agree that was worth considering, but that the FTC method 
was not up to that task. 1 think that is what you said. If that is what you 
said, why is the FTC method not up to the task? 
DR. DEBETHIZY: I did not say that. What I said was that it seemed like a 
reasonable proposal to put on the table. 1 did not say anything about not 
providing the FTC number. 1 think the FTC number is a good number. It 
has been a standardized number we have used for a long time to provide 
relative ranking. If somebody is proposing that a range also be determined, 
with a low and a high end, then let us discuss that. 
DR. SHIFFMAN: Let us, indeed, discuss that. It seems to me that the FTC 
assay method may be adaptable to this goal in the sense that if one looked 
at a different set of parameters, if one included the potential vent blocking 
as part of a protocol for maximum extraction or maximum yield, perhaps it 
would be possible to use the machine testing method to adequately describe 
or estimate the range of human exposures from a particular cigarette, and 
that could well be more informative to smokers. 
DR. FREEMAN: Before we get other comments, that seems to be a recurrent 
point of discussion about the range being an important point to consider as 
a possible suggestion, and 1 would like to zero in on that particular point and 
discuss it. Is there anyone who wants to discuss that point? 
I 
205 
