Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7 
Question 2. Should constituents other than tar, nicotine, and carbon 
monoxide be added to the protocol? 
Dr. Henningfield? 
DR. HENNINGFIELD: I do not think we have the information to decide the 
entire list, but we probably have some ideas of things that should be added. 
I would suggest that the procedure be used as the FDA uses for food labeling, 
which is that substances that an organization or committee with specialty in 
toxicology agrees are of toxicological significance be added. And with foods, 
under the category of other flavorings and ingredients, industries are not free 
of listing things that are of toxicological significance just because they call it 
a flavoring, as occurs with cigarettes. Rather an outside body decides what is 
of toxicological significance. I do not know if they are of toxicological levels, 
but that should not be decided by the tobacco industry, in my opinion. That 
should be decided by a regulatory agency with toxicology experts. 
DR. FREEMAN: Dr. Benowitz? 
DR. BENOWITZ: I think Dr. Henningfield's comments are well taken, but 
I would just like to go on record in support of the sort of labeling that 
Dr. Harris showed us yesterday, which I thought is very informative to 
consumers when you see all the cyanide and arsenic and all those things in 
cigarettes. I think it just helps to provide more information to a consumer 
about the mix of what is in their tobacco smoke. I am sure they are not 
going to read every bit of it, but anytime they are interested in looking and 
they see a list of 30 cancer-causing compounds, I think it is useful for them 
to know that. So, I am in favor of having that sort of listing available. 
DR. FREEMAN: May I try to understand what you said, that you would not 
present measurements in the way that we are measuring the three elements, 
but you would simply list them as carcinogenic or harmful to health? How 
would you do this? 
DR. BENOWITZ: I think you could do it either way. It would be relatively 
straightforward to measure those and just list how many micrograms or 
whatever was there, or you could just list them. I do not have a very strong 
feeling about it just as long as it is made clear to people what the types and 
the mix of toxic chemicals they are taking in their smoke. 
DR. FREEMAN: What I mean is, you would treat them differently from the 
way we are treating tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide? 
DR. BENOWITZ: Yes, I do not think we need to provide information about 
standard and maximum exposures, for example. I just think if we had one 
number or one list it would be adequate. 
DR. FREEMAN: I see. Thank you. Dr. Rickert? 
DR. RICKER'F: I think there should be additional communication of 
information. I question whether or not it should be in the form of an 
absolute number. For example, it could be categorized in terms of 
218 
