Product type | Cigarette |
---|---|
Owner | Landewyck Tobacco, British American Tobacco (South Africa only) |
Produced by | Landewyck Tobacco, British American Tobacco (South Africa only) |
Country | Luxembourg |
Introduced | 1950; 69 years ago |
Markets | See Markets |
Tagline | 'For after action satisfaction, smoke Lexington.', 'Lexington, that's the one.' |
Lexington is a Luxembourgish brand of cigarettes, currently owned and manufactured by Landewyck Tobacco.[1] In South Africa, it is sold by BAT South Africa, a subsidiary of British American Tobacco.[2]
- 2Controversy
- 3Sponsorships
History[edit]
Lexington was launched in 1950 and became one of the most popular brands of the 1950s, with one billion cigarettes being sold every year since 1955.[3] The cigarettes became a popular brand in the Netherlands and South Africa, but failed on the German market.[4]
Various advertising jingles were created from the 1960s until the 1980s for South African radio,[5][6] as well as advertising posters in Dutch and South African English and Afrikaans.[7][8] A hand-drawn dog known as Lexi was also created in the 1960s to act as an advertiser for the cigarette brand.[9]
Some of the most popular slogans used to promote the brand were 'For after action satisfaction, smoke Lexington' and 'Lexington, that's the one'.
Controversy[edit]
The Lexington-affaire[edit]
In March 1962, the Dutch Consumentenbond released an article in their own newspaper, the Consumentengids, comparing the 14 most popular cigarette brands in the Netherlands at the time based on their tar and nicotine levels. The test was done on a special smoking machine that mimics a person who smokes.The test concluded that there was little difference in the amount of nicotine in the cigarettes. The brands Three Castles, Peter Stuyvesant, Chief Whip, and Alaska had the smallest amount of nicotine in their smoke. The highest amount of nicotine was measured in the Lexington cigarette smoke with 0.88 mg. The differences in tar were much more prominent, however. The Roxy cigarette had the lowest amount of tar with 30.5 mg. The brands Hunter and Lexington had twice the amount of tar in their smoke with 75.0 and 63.9 mg respectively.
At the time there was much concern about possible health hazards of smoking. Since the 1950s, research had been performed about the health risks of smoking and in March 1962, 5 days after the publication of the Consumentengids article, a report was released by the Royal College of Physicians titled Smoking and health, linking smoking to various diseases such as lung cancer and heart attacks.[10] The Dutch press paid a lot of attention to that report, as well as that of the Consumentenbond. Due to all the exposure from the newspapers, the article reached a lot more people than the 35,000 subscribers to Consumentengids.
The reaction was massive. Many people switched over to the brands that passed the test such as Roxy, others started smoking cigars as a safer alternative, and some reduced their smoking habit or even quit smoking altogether. The Koninklijke Theodorus Niemeyer BV company used the publication as publicity to advertise their Roxy brand as 'low tar' and 'low nicotine' with the slogan 'Roxy – Nu beter dan ooit!'.
Most tobacco companies at the time (such as British American Tobacco) refused to acknowledge the Consumentengids report, saying it was not factually based, and tried to focus as little attention on their brands as possible. However Abraham Jan Blok, the importer of the Lexington brand to the Netherlands, was furious. Lexington was the market leader at the time, with nearly 25% of all cigarettes sold in the Netherlands being Lexington cigarettes. Blok challenged the Consumentenbod, claiming that their test results were inaccurate, and performing his own tests in London, New York City and Zurich with different results, one showing that the amount of tar was as low as 12.1 mg, compared to the 63.9 mg in the Consumentenbond report. With these results, Blok started a new advertising campaign to 'cleanse' Lexington from the dirty image it had acquired. He paid every major Dutch newspaper at the time (117 in total) at a cost of 250,000 guilders to publish a large advertisement claiming that the amount of tar in Lexington cigarettes was much lower than what was reported in the Consumentengids report. At the same time he launched a major publicity offensive with leaflets and increased advertising including a cinema advertisement featuring cool stuntmen and rough cowboys.
Bartholomeus Buitendijk, one of the two original founders of the Consumentenbond, reacted on the radio about Blok's accusations concerning the test. Abraham Blok said that it wasnot an exaggeration, due to the fact that the manufacturer of Lexington had lost millions after the publication of the article. On 25 May 1962, the Consumentenbond received a summons in which Blok sued them. The primary demand was that the Consumentenbond would have to release an extra edition of the Consumentengids within one week containing a correction to the test report.
The court hearing began on 6 June 1962. J.A. Stoop, Blok's lawyer, attacked the 'irresponsible' and 'hasty' publication of the results of the 'faulty' test by the Consumentenbond and compared it to the results from the other three tests done in London, New York and Zurich. From these results it was shown that a different length of cigarette, puff duration, puff frequency and puff volume were used and that the results for tar and nicotine were different for that reason. The lawyer for the defence, J.A. Nagtegaal, tried to justify the test in every way possible by calling various experts to his defence; Bertram who led the research, a statistician (who abruptly debunked his own research) and a doctor. After several days of testimony, the final judgement on 22 June 1962, concluded that there was no standard way of testing, and the Consumentenbond should have realised this before publishing the article. The judge (an avid subscriber to the Consumentengids who had not smoked for years and hoped that he would not lose his subscription) said that Lexington was right but did not agree with all the demands made by Blok. The Consumentenbond was forbidden to repeat the publication and had to pay Blok's court costs of 395 guilders, but wasnot required to publish a retraction as Blok had demanded.
In July 1962, the members of the Consumentenbond and Blok reached a compromise; Blok dropped all the demands for financial compensation, and the Consumentenbond published a correction in Consumentengids, admitting their wrongdoing.
The whole Lextington-affaire was publicised widely in the press. Before the judge reached his final judgement, there was a lot of criticism of the way the Consumentenbond handled the situation. Especially Elsevier and several trade magazines lashed out at the company, calling the test 'shameful and harmful' and the Consumentenbond 'meddlesome' and 'left-leaning'.
The aftermath of the affair had large and surprising consequences. The Consumentenbond was accused of being inaccurate and 'dilettantist', but had also gained valuable publicity and were praised as a small company who had bravely fought against the producer of a big and popular brand of cigarettes. The company gained 25,000 new members, reaching 250,000 in 1969. Even though Blok had won the court case, the constant association between the Consumentenbond test and his brand, as well as the ever-increasing fear of smoking and health hazards in the Dutch market, caused Lexington's market share to crumble within two years from nearly 25% to 7%, declining to a second-tier brand within a few years.
Lexington is still manufactured in the Netherlands, while Abraham Blok moved to Switzerland. The dog Lexi was terminated as no longer fitting into Lexington's market strategy.[9][11][12][13][14][15]
Sponsorships[edit]
Formula 1[edit]
In the 1975 Formula One season and 1976 Formula One season, Lexington sponsored a private-entry Tyrrell Racing team to compete with Jody Scheckter at the 1975 and 1976 South African Grand Prix. The car used and driven was the Tyrrell 007.[16][17][18][19][20][21]
Markets[edit]
Lexington is or was sold in the following countries: Luxembourg, Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Zambia and South Africa.[22][23][24]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^S.A., LANDEWYCK TOBACCO. 'Landewyck: cigarettes'. Hvl.lu. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'British American Tobacco South Africa - Our brands'. Batsa.co.za. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^S.A., LANDEWYCK TOBACCO. 'Landewyck: History - Sales'. Hvl.lu. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'ZIGARETTEN: Für die Katz'. 8 May 1978. Retrieved 9 January 2018 – via Spiegel Online.
- ^SRPS AUDIO ARCHIVE JOHANNESBURG (24 April 2017). 'LEXINGTON CIGARETTES'. YouTube. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^Ulric Algar (18 January 2012). 'Better than a Lexington'. YouTube. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'South African memories'. Pinterest. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'1960'S LEXINGTON CIGARETTES ADVERT IN AFRIKAANS - bidorbuy.co.za'. bidorbuy.co.za. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^ abDe Waal, Joost. 'De Lexington-affaire'. Andere Tijden. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'Smoking and health (1962)'. Rcplondon.ac.uk. 10 September 2015. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'.. kwam Lexington als slechtste sigaret uit de bus'. Trouw. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'ANDERE TIJDEN - Teleblik'. Teleblik.nl. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'Nieuwe Leidsche Courant - 19 april 1962 - pagina 19'. Historische Kranten, Erfgoed Leiden en Omstreken. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'De Lexington-affaire en de doorbraak van de consumentenbond (1962)'. Isgeschiedenis.nl. 21 June 2017. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'Geschiedenis van 1962 - Het jaar 1962'. Aandachtvoorgeschiedenis.nl. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'Lexington Racing - ChicaneF1.com'. www.chicanef1.com.
- ^'Lexington Racing'. 12 June 2017.
- ^'F1 - Prywatne zespoły'. Pinterest.
- ^'Tyrrell 007 / 1 F1 - ex- Lexington Racing , Ian Scheckter , Jody Scheckter Elf Team Tyrrell - South African Drivers Championship 1975 - South African F1 Grand Prix , Kyalami , 1975 & 1976 - Heidelberg Transport Museum , 1998 - SA00085'.
- ^'Lexington Racing'. www.laberezina.com.
- ^Papercraft (9 September 2016). 'F1 Paper Model - Tyrrell 007 Ford Lexington Racing Ian Scheckte AFS01 Paper Car Free Download'.
- ^'BrandLexington - Cigarettes Pedia'. Cigarettespedia.com. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'Lexington'. Zigsam.at. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
- ^'Brands'. www.cigarety.by.
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lexington_(cigarette)&oldid=879205707'
“Low-yield cigarettes” are those that tobacco manufacturers label “light,” “low,” or “mild.”
Tobacco advertisements once implied that “low-yield” cigarettes were safer than regular or “full-flavor” cigarettes.1,2 However, low-yield cigarettes are not less harmful to health than regular cigarettes.1
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 now prohibits manufacturers from selling or distributing any tobacco products that have “light,” “low,” or “mild” on their labels.3
There is no risk-free level of exposure to tobacco smoke, and there is no safe tobacco product.4
Cigarette Descriptors and Design
In the past, the tobacco industry categorized low-yield cigarettes using measurements of tar on standardized smoking machines.1
- Cigarette brands that yielded approximately 1–6 milligrams (mg) of tar were called “ultra light.”
- Those with approximately 6–15 mg of tar were called “light.”
- Brands yielding more than 15 mg of tar were called “regular” or “full flavor.”
The following cigarette design changes made over the past decades affected the tar and nicotine measurements:1,2,4
- Addition of different size and density filters
- Ventilation holes in the cigarettes to bring in air and dilute the smoke measured
- Chemical additives in the paper and/or tobacco
- Tobacco (i.e., using different types, blends, and curing methods)
Carlton Lowest Tar And Nicotine Cigarettes
Changes in cigarette design have not made cigarettes safe.1,5
- Changes in cigarette design have not been scientifically shown to lead to a decrease in diseases caused by smoking cigarettes.
Compensatory Smoking
Most smokers are addicted to nicotine. Smokers may compensate when smoking low-yield cigarettes in order to take in more nicotine.1,5,6,7
- Many smokers block the ventilation holes, thus inhaling more tar and nicotine than measured by machines.
- Many smokers inhale longer, harder, and more frequently when smoking low-yield cigarettes to get more nicotine.
- Smokers may get as much or more tar and nicotine from cigarettes with low-yield ratings as from regular cigarettes because of the ways they compensate when smoking them.
Smokers Who Use Low-Yield Cigarettes
- Many smokers consider smoking low-yield cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, or additive-free cigarettes to be safer than smoking regular cigarettes. However, no strong scientific evidence exists to support these beliefs.1,2,5
- Many smokers may have switched to low-yield brands instead of quitting.1,5,6
- Tar and nicotine levels decreased from 1954 to 1993.
- Tar decreased from 38 mg in 1954 to 12 mg in 1993; nicotine decreased from 2.7 mg to 0.95 mg.
- Tar and nicotine levels have remained stable since 1993.4
Health Risks of Smoking
- Changes in cigarette designs over the last five decades have not reduced overall disease risk among smokers. In fact, they might have hindered prevention and cessation efforts.4
- Overall health of the public could be harmed if low-yield cigarette products
- encourage tobacco use among people who would otherwise be unlikely to use a tobacco product, or
- delay cessation among people who would otherwise quit using tobacco altogether.4
References
- National Cancer Institute. Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 13external icon. Bethesda: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 2001 [accessed 2017 Jul 21].
- Institute of Medicine. Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Prevention. Washington: National Academy Press, 2001 [cited 2017 Jul 21].
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Use of “Light,” “Mild,” “Low,” or Similar Descriptors in the Label, Labeling, or Advertising of Tobacco Productsexternal icon. [PDF–161 KB] Rockville (MD): U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, 2010 [accessed 2017 Jul 21].
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2010 [accessed 2017 Jul 21].
- Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Light and Low Tar Cigarettes: The Essential Factspdf iconexternal icon.
[PDF–464 KB] Washington: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2010 [accessed 2017 Jul 21]. - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2000 [accessed 2017 Jul 21].
- Public Health Law Center. Light/Low-Yield Cigarettesexternal icon. St. Paul (MN): Public Health Law Center, 2010 [accessed 2017 Jul 21].
For Further Information
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Office on Smoking and Health
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 1-800-CDC-INFO
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Office on Smoking and Health
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 1-800-CDC-INFO
Media Inquiries: Contact CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health press line at 770-488-5493.
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems. Please send reports of such problems to [email protected].
Continue reading the main story
The commission has issued a list each year since 1967 and now includes more than 200 brands in the tests. It added the carbon monoxide rating in 1980.
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main storyThank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
- Opt out or contact us anytime
The lowest-rated cigarettes had less than half a milligram of tar, carbon monoxide and nicotine per cigarette, the commission reported.
But the report said the commission had now determined that its testing procedures did not accurately measure the smoke from Barclay cigarettes, produced by the Brown & Williamson Company, and so Barclay was not included in the ratings.
Here are some of the brand ratings issued by the commission, from lowest to highest, based on the amount of tar. The ratings show tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide in milligrams per cigarette, in that order. K designates king size, F is filter, M is menthol and H is hardpack.
Cambridge KF, 1, 0.1, 1. Cambridge KF, 1, 0.1, 1. Carlton KFM, 1, 0.1, 1. Now KF, 1, 0.1, 1, Now KFM, 1, 0.1, 1. Benson & Hedges FH, 1, 0.1, 2. Carlton KF, 1, 0.1, 2. Kool Ultra KFM, 2, 0.2, 2. Now 100 FM, 2, 0.2, 1, Now 100 F, 2, 0.2, 2. Kent III KF, 3, 0.3, 3, Triumph KFM, 3, 0.3, 3, Triumph KF, 3, 0.4, 3. Iceberg 100, FM, 3, 0.3, 4. Lucky 100 F, 3, 0.3, 4. Merit Ultra Lights KF, 4, 0.3, 4, Merit Ultra Lights, KFM, 4, 0.3, 4. Merit Ultra Lights 100, 4, 0.3, 4. Salem Ultra KFM, 4, 0.4, 4. Kent III 100 F, 4, 0.4, 5. Triumph 100 F, 4, 0.4, 5. Triumph 100 FM, 4, 0.5, 5. Doral II KF, 5, 0.4, 3. Doral II KFM, 5, 0.4, 3. Kool Ultra 100 FM, 5, 0.4, 4. Tareyton Lights KF, 5, 0.4, 4. Cambridge 100 F, 5, 0.4, 5. Carlton 100 FM, 5, 0.4, 5. Carlton 100 F, 5, 0.4, 5. Salem Ultra 100 FM, 5, 0.4, 5. True KF, 5, 0.4, 5.True KFM, 5, 0.4, 5. Vantage Ultra Lights KF, 5, 0.4, 6, Vantage Ultra Lights KFM, 5, 0.4, 6. Vantage Ultra Lights 100 F, 5, 0.4, 6. Winston Ultra KF, 5, 0.4, 6. Winston Ultra 100 F, 5, 0.4, 6. Vantage Ultra Lights 100 FM, 5, 0.4, 7, Carlton 120 FM, 6, 0.5, 4. Carlton 120 F, 6, 0.6, 5.
Federal Trade Commission Report
Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide of the Smoke of 1206Varieties of Domestic Cigarettes for the Year 1994
Released July 15, 1997
Alphabetical List of Cigarette Brands
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |
---|
This report contains data on the 'tar,' nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields of 1206 varieties of cigarettes manufactured and sold in the United States in 1994. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) obtained the test results from the five largest cigarette manufacturers in the United States. These companies are: Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation; Liggett Group, Inc.; Lorillard, Inc.; Philip Morris, Inc.; and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Inc.(1)
The Tobacco Institute Testing Laboratory (TITL), a private laboratory operated by the cigarette industry, conducted most of the 'tar,' nicotine, and carbon monoxide tests for these varieties. The Commission collected the results of the TITL testing directly from the individual companies under compulsory process. Generic, private label, and other brands not widely available were not tested by TITL. The Commission obtained the information on these other brands directly from the manufacturers, pursuant to compulsory process. Results of such non-TITL testing are indicated by asterisks. The methodology, processes, and procedures that the five cigarette companies and TITL employ are identical to those the Commission, in its own testing lab, had followed in the past.(2) Harold Pillsbury, the former director of the FTC laboratory and currently a contractor to the Commission, had unrestricted access to the TITL laboratory to review TITL's testing methodology and protocols and to monitor the actual testing process. TITL provided the results to the respective cigarette companies, which then provided TITL's data regarding their own brands to the FTC in response to compulsory process.
The cigarettes were tested using the Cambridge Method. The FTC approved this methodology, and it has been the standard for cigarette testing since 1966. The testing was subjected to the conditions prescribed by the FTC in Federal Register, Volume 32, Number 147, Page 11,178, dated August 1, 1967. With regard to the testing of carbon monoxide yield, the conditions are specified in Federal Register, Volume 45, Number 134, Page 46,483, dated July 10, 1980. The conditions prescribed in the FTC's 1967 announcement are the following:
1. Smoke cigarettes to a 23mm. butt length, or to the length of the filter and overwrap plus 3mm. if in excess of 23mm.;
2. Base results on a test of 100 cigarettes per brand, or type;
3. Cigarettes to be tested will be selected on a random basis, as opposed to 'weight selection';
4. Determine particulate matter on a 'dry' basis employing the gas chromatography method published by C.H. Sloan and B.J. Sublett in Tobacco Science 9, page 70, 1965, as modified by F.J. Schultz' and A.W. Spears' report published in Tobacco Vol. 162, No. 24, page 32, dated June 17, 1966, to determine the moisture content;
5. Determine and report the 'tar' yield after subtracting moisture and alkaloids (as nicotine) from particulate matter;
6. Report 'tar' yield to the nearest whole milligram and nicotine yield to the nearest 1/10 milligram (32 Fed. Reg. 11,178 (1967)).
The 1980 FTC announcement contained specifications regarding a new testing methodology to determine the carbon monoxide (CO) and nicotine yield of cigarettes. These
specifications are the following:
1. Determine CO concentration using a 20-port sequential smoking machine described by H.C. Pillsbury and G. Merfeld at the 32nd Tobacco Chemists Research Conference, October 1978;
2. The concentration of CO will be reported as milligrams per cigarette;
3. The present method for 'tar' and nicotine determination will be modified to use the method described in an article entitled, 'Gas Chromatographic Determination of Nicotine Contained on Cambridge Filter Pads,' by John R. Wagner et al., as presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, October 1978 (45 Fed. Reg. 46,483 (1980)).
TITL reported, and the FTC's contractor confirmed, that an independent company under contract to TITL obtained the tested cigarette samples. Under its contract, this company purchased two packages of every variety of cigarettes in 50 geographical locations throughout the United States. If not all varieties were available in every location, one or more additional packages of cigarettes were purchased in the areas where the respective varieties were available. This procedure of selecting cigarettes for testing replicates the one used by the FTC. Cigarettes used in the test represented cigarettes sold in the U.S. at the time of purchase in 1994.
The 'tar' and carbon monoxide figures are rounded to the nearest milligram (mg.). Those figures with 0.5 mg. or greater are rounded up, while those with 0.4 mg. or less are rounded down. The nicotine figures are rounded to the nearest tenth of a milligram. Those with 0.05 mg. or greater are rounded up; those with 0.04 mg. or less are rounded down.
Cigarette varieties with assay results of 'tar' below 0.5 mg. per cigarette and of nicotine below 0.05 mg. are recorded in the table as <0.5, and <0.05, respectively. The table does not differentiate, nor are actual ratings provided for these cigarettes, because the currently approved testing methodology is not sufficiently sensitive to report these components at lower levels.
The following varieties are the lowest in 'tar' yield as tested by TITL:
BRAND-NAME | D E S C R I P T I O N | TAR | NIC | CO |
CARLTON | KING F HP ULTRA-LT | <.5 | .1 | <.05 |
NOW | KING F HP | <.5 | .1 | <.05 |
NOW | 100 F HP | <.5 | .1 | <.05 |
CARLTON | KING F SP ULTRA-LT | 1 | .1 | 2 |
CARLTON | KING F SP ULTRA-LT MEN | 1 | .1 | 2 |
CARLTON | 100 F HP ULTRA-LT | 1 | .1 | 1 |
CARLTON | 100 F HP LT MEN | 1 | .1 | 1 |
MERIT | KING F HP ULTIMA | 1 | .1 | 3 |
MERIT | KING F SP ULTIMA | 1 | .2 | 3 |
CAMBRIDGE | KING F SP LOWEST | 1 | .2 | 2 |
BRISTOL | KING F SP LOWEST | 1 | .1 | 1 |
NOW | KING F SP | 1 | .1 | 2 |
NOW | KING F SP MEN | 1 | .1 | 2 |
CARLTON | 100 F SP LT | 2 | .2 | 3 |
CARLTON | 100 F SP LT MEN | 2 | .2 | 2 |
KOOL | KING F SP ULTRA MEN | 2 | .2 | 2 |
MERIT | 100 F HP ULTIMA | 2 | .2 | 4 |
MERIT | 100 F SP ULTIMA | 2 | .2 | 5 |
CAMBRIDGE | 100 F SP LOWEST | 2 | .2 | 3 |
BRISTOL | 100 F SP LOWEST | 2 | .2 | 3 |
NOW | 100 F SP | 2 | .2 | 3 |
NOW | 100 F SP MEN | 2 | .2 | 3 |
NOTE: K - King Size, F - Filter, HP - Hard Pack, SP - Soft Pack LT - Light, MEN - Menthol
Those ranking the highest in 'tar' yield are the following:
BRAND NAME | D E S C R I P T I O N | TAR | NIC | CO |
BRISTOL | KING NF SP | 27 | 1.7 | 16 |
COMMANDER | KING NF SP | 27 | 1.7 | 16 |
BASIC | KING NF SP | 26 | 1.7 | 16 |
ENGLISH OVALS | KING NF HP | 26 | 2.0 | 16 |
LUCKY STRIKE | REG NF SP | 26 | 1.6 | 16 |
OLD GOLD | KING NF SP STRAIGHT | 26 | 1.8 | 18 |
PALL MALL | KING NF SP | 26 | 1.7 | 18 |
TAREYTON HERBERT | KING NF SP | 25 | 1.7 | 15 |
BEST BUY* | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.6 | NA |
BRONSON* | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.6 | NA |
GENERALS* | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.6 | NA |
GENCO* | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.6 | NA |
GPA* | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.6 | NA |
GRIDLOCK* | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.6 | NA |
PREMIUM BUY* | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.6 | NA |
PRIME | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.5 | 16 |
PRIVATE STOCK | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.5 | 16 |
RALEIGH EXTRA | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.4 | 15 |
SHENANDOAH* | KING F SP | 24 | 1.6 | NA |
SUMMIT | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.5 | 16 |
TOP CHOICE* | KING NF SP | 24 | 1.6 | NA |
NOTE: K - King Size, F - Filter, HP - Hard Pack, SP - Soft Pack LT - Light, MEN - Menthol
* indicates brand tested by the manufacturer rather than by TITL.
* indicates brand tested by the manufacturer rather than by TITL.
On April 13, 1983, the Commission announced it had determined that its then testing methodology for 'tar,' nicotine, and carbon monoxide understated the measured deliveries for Brown & Williamson's Barclay cigarettes. Therefore, Barclay cigarettes were removed from the Commission's reports for 'tar,' nicotine, and carbon monoxide until a new, accurate methodology could be tested and adopted. The Commission found that there is a significant likelihood that the same problem exists with two other Brown & Williamson varieties -- Kool Ultra and Kool Ultra 100's.
On July 25, 1986, the Commission informed Brown & Williamson that as a result of a review of data presented by Brown & Williamson regarding 'tar' and nicotine rating for two varieties of Barclay cigarettes with a new filter, the Commission would authorize, under certain conditions, the following legends for advertising purposes:
- 1. For Barclay King size:
- 3 mg. 'tar,' .2 mg. nicotine avg. per cigarette as authorized by FTC.
- 2. For Barclay 100's:
- 5 mg.'tar,' .4 mg. nicotine avg. per cigarette as authorized by FTC.
Brown & Williamson also agreed to provide the Commission with data regarding 'tar' and nicotine ratings to be used in advertising for Kool Ultra and Kool Ultra 100's. Until these data are presented, the ratings for these two varieties will not be included in Commission reports.
On July 20, 1994, the Commission asked the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to convene a consensus conference to address certain issues concerning the FTC cigarette testing methodology and ratings system. NCI, which shortly before had received a similar request from then-House Subcommittee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, convened the conference in December 1994. At the close of the conference, the conferees recommended, interalia, that certain changes be made both in the method currently used to obtain cigarette tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields and in the manner in which information about those yields is communicated to consumers. In October 1996, NCI published a report of the conference as the 7th monograph in its smoking and tobacco control series: 'The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of U.S. Cigarettes: Report of the NCI Expert Committee.' In light of the concerns raised by the NCI conferees about the current system, the Commission is giving careful consideration to possible changes in the test method.
This year's report includes a new table (Table 1) displaying the average tar and nicotine values, calculated on a sales-weighted basis, from 1968 through 1994. The Commission has added Table 1 to the report because these data have become an issue of current interest. The Commission intends to supplement Table 1 with additional data in future reports.(3)
TABLE 1
SALES WEIGHTED TAR AND NICOTINE YIELDS (1968-1994)
YEAR | TAR (mg.) | NICOTINE (mg.) |
1968 | 21.6 | 1.35 |
1969 | 20.7 | 1.38 |
1970 | 20.0 | 1.31 |
1971 | 20.2 | 1.32 |
1972 | 19.9 | 1.39 |
1973 | 19.3 | 1.32 |
1974 | 18.4 | 1.24 |
1975 | 18.6 | 1.21 |
1976 | 18.1 | 1.16 |
1977 | 16.8 | 1.12 |
1978 | 16.1 | 1.11 |
1979 | 15.1 | 1.07 |
1980 | 14.1 | 1.04 |
1981 | 13.2 | 0.92 |
1982 | 13.5 | 0.89 |
1983 | 13.4 | 0.88 |
1984 | 13.0 | 0.89 |
1985 | 13.0 | 0.95* |
1986 | 13.4 | 0.93* |
1987 | 13.3 | 0.94 |
1988 | 13.3 | 0.94 |
1989 | 13.1** | 0.96* |
1990 | 12.5 | 0.93 |
1991 | 12.6 | 0.94 |
1992 | 12.4 | 0.92 |
1993 | 12.4 | 0.90 |
1994 | 12.1 | 0.90 |
Entries marked with an asterisk differ by 0.01 milligram from information previously released by the Commission.
Entry marked with two asterisks differs by 0.1 milligram from information previously released by the Commission. Autocad 2017 xforce keygen download.
1. The number of major domestic cigarette manufacturers went from six to five in April 1995, when the Commission approved B.A.T Industries' acquisition of The American Tobacco Company after B.A.T, the parent company of Brown & Williamson, agreed to divest itself of certain assets it proposed to acquire from American Tobacco. In October 1996, the Commission approved B.A.T's application to divest six brands, a manufacturing plant, and certain related assets to Commonwealth Tobacco LLC.
2. The Commission determined in early 1987 to close its laboratory. The Commission found that closing the laboratory was necessary for several reasons, chiefly, the cost of the laboratory was significant, and the Commission would have had to commit significant additional funds to continue the program. The Commission was also persuaded that the information could be obtained from other sources, and other means were available to verify the accuracy of industry testing results.
3. Several issues should be noted with regard to the collection and tabulation of the data in Table 1. First, the underlying tar and nicotine ratings were obtained using smoking machine parameters (puff frequency, puff volume, etc.) that have not changed since they were first adopted in 1967. Although this consistency allows for comparison of the data over time, it also means that the test has not been modified to reflect possible changes in the way people smoke. For example, research indicates that smokers of lower rated cigarettes may tend to smoke them more intensively than they smoke cigarettes with higher ratings. Thus, while Table 1 suggests a decline in average tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes, this might not correspond to a similar reduction in tar and nicotine ingestion by smokers.
Second, the source of the data in Table 1 has changed over time. From 1967 through 1985, the Commission's laboratory provided practically all of the tar and nicotine ratings reported by the Commission. As noted supra, the Commission determined in 1987 to close its cigarette testing laboratory. Since then, the Tobacco Institute Testing Laboratory has continued to test most branded cigarettes; the companies report the results to the Commission pursuant to compulsory process and the Commission publishes the results. The companies test their own generic and private label cigarettes -- which today represent a significant part of the overall cigarette market -- brands not widely available, and new brands. While the companies are required to follow the FTC method for testing their cigarettes, staff does not directly monitor the company tests (as it does the TITL tests).
Third, although the Commission did not publish tar and nicotine reports during some of the years covered by Table 1, reliable data for those years are still available. Beginning with cigarettes sold in calendar year 1985, the Commission required the major cigarette companies to report annually the tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide ratings of all cigarettes they sold in the United States. These data were incorporated as needed into the database that was used to compute the sales-weighted tar and nicotine figures in Table 1.
Finally, when the FTC created its computerized database for tar and nicotine figures in 1982, various problems resulted in missing observations for between four and eight percent of the data for the years 1982 through 1984. Although these missing observations do not appear to generate systemic biases in the data, they suggest that the data in Table 1 may be more useful for gauging long term trends than for evaluating changes over very short time spans.