Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

March, 2008:

ISO/FTC Method to Measure Cigarette Yield

SACTob Conclusions on Health Claims Derived from ISO/FTC Method to Measure Cigarette Yield

烟草制品管制科学咨询委员会关于以国际标准化组织/美国联邦贸易委员会测定香烟含量的方法 所标示的健康说明的结论


背 景

The United States Federal Trade Commission [FTC] adopted standardized testing methods for the measurement of tar and nicotine yields of cigarette smoke in the 1960s and for carbon monoxide in 1981, mandating the disclosure of these ratings in cigarette advertising (1). Under the International Organization for Standardisation [ISO] method, similar testing methods were adopted in Europe and many other countries.


For nearly three decades, the ISO / FTC methods were relied upon as meaningful predictors of the differences in exposure to tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide received by smokers of brands with different machine measured yields. This difference in exposure was expected to result in substantive differences in the health effects of smoking various types (low/high yield) of cigarettes (2). Since the 1980s, however, there has been growing concern among health authorities and scientists alike about the validity of the health claims based on these methods (3, 4, 5, 6, 7).


Even in the early 1980’s, it was understood that measurements made using the ISO/FTC protocol did not quantify the actual delivery of toxins to the smoker since individual smokers smoked with a variety of puff profiles that differed from those used in the machine testing. Today, with a better understanding of the modern cigarette designs and the concept of compensatory smoking of the low yield cigarettes (2), the limitations of the ISO/FTC measurements, even for comparisons of smoker exposures between brands of cigarettes have become more evident (8, 9). The validity of communications made to consumers on the basis of the ISO/FTC methods regarding the delivery of carcinogens and other toxins from different types of cigarettes are now being questioned (8,10,11). Considerable concern exists about the misuse of test results by tobacco companies to support their marketing claims, which imply that cigarettes with lower yield ratings are ‘safer’ than those with higher ratings (12,13,14, 15).


The ISO/FTC protocols were never designed to accommodate the variations in human smoking habits as opposed to the standard machine smoking methods (1,16,17). It is now clear that the combination of compensatory changes in smoking patterns by smokers and cigarette design changes (particularly ventilation holes in filters) which increase the yield of smoke can restore the smoke delivery of the so-called low-yield cigarettes to that of full flavour cigarettes with much higher machine measured yields (18, 19, 20, 21). However, as a consequence of the conventional format for conveying tar and nicotine information, the consumer believes that the ‘low yield’ cigarettes provide an alternative to smoking cessation (22,23). This belief persists even though it is now accepted that “low yield” cigarettes do not offer any proven health benefit in comparison to higher yield cigarettes (2,4,5,24,25).


The United States F.T.C stated in 1998 that: “new data suggests that the limited health benefits, previously believed to be associated with lower tar and nicotine cigarettes may not exist.” (26). Also, a 1999 quotation reads: “They (the ratings) are not intended to reflect what any individual consumer would get from any particular cigarette”(27).


In 2001, the U.S. National Cancer Institute completed its evaluation of the scientific basis for the relationship between the FTC methods and the health effects of smoking, as well as the effects of marketing claims (e.g., “reduced tar” and “light”) that are supported by the information derived from these methods (15).


The NCI Monograph (Number 13, 2001) “Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine” presented the following five main conclusions:

  1. “Epidemiological and other scientific evidence, including patterns of mortality from smoking-caused diseases, does not indicate a benefit to public health from changes in cigarette design and manufacturing over the last fifty years.”
  2. “For spontaneous brand switchers, there appears to be complete compensation for nicotine delivery, reflecting more intensive smoking of lower-yield cigarettes.”
  3. “Widespread adoption of lower yield cigarettes in the United States has not prevented the sustained increase in lung cancer among older smokers.”
  4. “Many smokers switch to lower yield cigarettes out of concern for their health, believing these cigarettes to be less risky or to be a step toward quitting. Advertising and marketing of lower yield cigarettes may promote initiation and impede cessation, more important determinants of smoking-related diseases.”
  5. “Measurements of tar and nicotine yields using the FTC method do not offer smokers meaningful information on the amount of tar and nicotine they will receive from a cigarette. The measurements also do not offer meaningful information on the relative amounts of tar and nicotine exposure likely to be received from smoking different brands of cigarettes.”


  1. “流行病学和其它科学证据,包括由吸烟引起的疾病的死亡模式,并不表明在过去50年期间香烟设计和生产方面的改变对公共卫生带来利益。”
  2. “对自发的品牌转换者而言,看来对尼古丁释放获得充分的补偿,反映更强烈地吸含量较低的香烟。”
  3. “在美国普遍采用含量较低的香烟并未在老年吸烟者中间制止肺癌的持续增加。”
  4. “许多吸烟者由于担忧自己的健康而转向含量较低的香烟,相信这些香烟风险较小或是朝着戒烟迈进一步。含量较低的香烟广告和市场营销可促进开始吸烟和阻碍戒烟,它们是吸烟相关疾病的较重要决定因素。”
  5. “采用美国联邦贸易委员会的方法测定烟碱和尼古丁并不向吸烟者提供关于从一支香烟中所摄入烟碱和尼古丁量的有意义信息。这些测定也不提供从吸不同品牌香烟中可能获得的烟碱和尼古丁接触量的有意义信息。”

Currently, there are two major issues of concern about the health claims based on the ISO/FTC methods: one, machine-measurements are not valid estimates of the exposure to smoke or nicotine received by smokers when they smoke different brands of cigarettes (4,16) and two, many smokers currently believe that lower yield or light cigarettes deliver less tar, produce lower rates of disease and are therefore ‘safer’ (17,22,28,29). Because of these misconceptions, smokers believe those cigarettes marked as lower yield or light and ultra light are a reasonable intermediate step or alternative to cessation and may defer or avoid the one change in smoking behaviour proven to actually reduce their disease risk-cessation.


The Health Education Authority in the UK (30) and several other studies have revealed that the tar and nicotine ratings as they are displayed by the industry are not clearly understood by the consumers (28,31). Due to the advertising and packaging methods adopted by the industry, smokers see these terms not as technical descriptors but as implying health benefits (13,32,33). These advertising and marketing approaches have contributed to consumers’ using low yield cigarettes in an attempt to reduce their health risks, or as a step towards or an alternative to smoking cessation (34,35). A number of reputed bodies have therefore recommended banning terms such as ‘light’, ‘mild, etc (25,36)


Additionally, awareness levels among the general public about the limitations of the ISO/FTC test methods and the ratings based upon them (37,38,39) are very low. The regulatory measures undertaken for the disclosure of this information have clearly proven ineffective (40,41).


The message that there is no such thing as a safe cigarette still has not been effectively communicated to the smoking public…


Based on the existing science, SACTob makes the following conclusions and recommendations:

  1. Tar, nicotine, and CO numerical ratings based upon current ISO/FTC methods and presented on cigarette packages and in advertising as single numerical values are misleading and should not be displayed.*
  2. All misleading health and exposure claims should be banned.
  3. The ban should apply to packaging, brand names, advertising and other promotional activities
  4. Banned terms should include light, ultra-light, mild and low tar, and may be extended to other misleading terms The ban should include not only misleading terms and claims but also, names, trademarks, imagery and other means to conveying the impression that the product provides a health benefit.

以现有科学为基础,烟草制品管制科学咨询委员会 提出下列结论和建议:

  1.  以国际标准化组织/美国联邦贸易委员会目前方法为基础并在香烟包装和广告中作为单一数值出现的烟碱、尼古丁和一氧化碳数字分级是误导的,不应予以显示。∗
  2.  应禁止所有误导性健康和接触说明。
  3.  禁止应适用于包装、品牌名称、广告和其它促销活动。
  4.  禁止的词语应包括淡味、极淡味、柔和和低烟碱,并可扩大到其它误导性词语。禁止不仅应包括误导性词语和说明,而且应包括名称、商标、图象和传递该制品提供健康效益的印象的其它手段。

Lawsuit Against Tobacco Industry

N.B. Becomes Second Province To File Lawsuit Against Tobacco Industry

The Canadian Press – 14th March 2008

FREDERICTON — New Brunswick has become the second province to officially file a lawsuit targeting the tobacco industry.

Health Minister Mike Murphy said Thursday the province is committed to holding tobacco companies accountable for the suffering caused by tobacco products.

“The suit is on behalf of people whose health has been harmed by tobacco products, families who have lost loved ones to tobacco-related illness, and taxpayers who have borne the added costs to the health-care system,” he said.

While no one in the government was willing to put a dollar figure to the suit, it’s expected the province will be seeking to recover tens of millions of dollars.

“Numbers, of course, are going to be substantial because we believe the province of New Brunswick has spent millions of dollars in health care for citizens who have tobacco-related injuries or damages,” said T.J. Burke, New Brunswick’s attorney general.

“Tobacco has caused tremendous damage to citizens in the province of New Brunswick, and the government has paid substantial costs in medicare with respect to damages related to smoking activity and we’re going to recover those costs from these tobacco companies.”

News of the lawsuit was welcomed by the president of the New Brunswick Lung Association.

Ken Maybee said thousands of Canadians have died prematurely because of smoking, and people who started smoking at a younger age are now suffering from emphysema and acute bronchitis.

“It is very painful and debilitating to them and very costly to the health-care system,” said Maybee.

He said once a settlement is reached, his group and others will have to be vigilant to ensure a portion of the money is used to fund smoking prevention.

British Columbia was the first province to launch a lawsuit against the industry while Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have all taken legislative steps to clear the way for their own.

New Brunswick’s Liberal government announced in December 2006 that it would take legal action, but provincial legislation allowing it to do so was only proclaimed last week.

The province is using a consortium of lawyers, including two U.S. firms that have been involved in settlements at the state level.

Negotiated settlements by the 50 American states totalled more than US$245 billion over 25 years.

Michael Perley, director of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, said he expected lawsuits in Canada could be of the same magnitude.

“There’s no reason to believe we shouldn’t achieve the same results here in Canada because the behaviour of the American companies that led to that settlement is no different from the Canadian companies over the same periods of time,” said Perley.

He called New Brunswick’s case “good news,” but said it was long overdue.

Perley said all the provinces should have filed suit 10 years ago. He hoped that New Brunswick’s action would spur other provinces, including Ontario, to take the tobacco industry to court.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has said his government doesn’t want to punish big tobacco and warned there’s “considerable doubt” about the likely success of a lawsuit.

Tobacco Bill Targets Use By Teens

By MICHAEL RISPOLI • Gannett State Bureau • March 14, 2008

TRENTON — Teenagers less than 19 years old would be banned from smoking in public under a bill passed by the Assembly on Thursday.

Last session, lawmakers raised the legal age to buy tobacco products in New Jersey to 19 but hadn’t passed a law prohibiting teens from smoking in public.

Assemblyman Fred Scalera, D-Essex, said the bill would bring tobacco laws in line with alcohol laws that making underage possession illegal.

Currently, Scalera said, “A 10-year-old could be walking down the street, smoking a cigarette, waving to a police officer, and the officer would not be able to do anything.”

The bill, which passed 53 to 20, with three abstentions, would issue a written warning and parental notification for first time offenders. A second offense would require 25 hours of community service and participation in a smoking education program, and subsequent offense would require 50 hours of community service and a $75 fine.

The bill is targeted to curb high schoolers from smoking. Nearly 23 percent of high school students are cigarette smokers, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. The U.S. Health and Human services estimates more than 3 million American children under 18 consume more than 947 million packs of cigarettes combined every year.

Assemblyman Scott Rudder, R-Burlington, tried to amend the bill to exclude 18-year-olds in the military, but his motion was shot down.

More than a dozen students from Nutley High School who came up with the bill in their Advanced Placement government class were present for the vote and received applause for their efforts.

“It’s pretty crazy,” said Rose Stoffers, 17. “I never though I’d be involved in something like this.”

Stoffers said it felt good to be a part of something that is going to positively affect upcoming generations.

Seven hundred students from Nutley High School signed a petition in support of the legislation, which began as a class project.

A Senate version of the bill is in committee, and likely would not be acted upon until the late spring.

The Assembly also passed a bill that would allow state psychiatric hospitals to ban smoking if they offer a cessation program. The Senate passed that legislation, which now heads to Gov. Jon S. Corzine for consideration.

Tobacco Industry Needs To Answer To FDA

3/14/2008 2:30:00 AM – LETTER 03.14.2008

Dear Editor,

Even though tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, currently no government agency has oversight over the manufacturing and marketing of tobacco products. Tobacco companies are free to add whatever ingredients they want, even if it makes products more attractive to kids, more addictive or even more deadly.

A new report released last week by leading public health organizations shows the extent to which tobacco manufacturers take advantage of the lack of regulation over their industry to entice new users. The report shows how the tobacco industry attracts children by adding candy flavorings like strawberry and grape to their products. They also know that smoking is unpleasant for new smokers, so they carefully design the product to make it less harsh by adding sugars and chemicals that numb the throat. They even address how the cigarette should be designed so that the novice smoker can light it more easily.

A lifetime of addiction almost always starts in the teenage years: 90 percent of adult smokers began smoking as teens, so any attempt to limit the national epidemic of tobacco addiction must begin with eliminating the marketing and manufacturing these products to target children

Congress has an historic opportunity to stop the special protection of Big Tobacco and protect Indiana kids by passing bipartisan legislation that would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority over tobacco products and their marketing. While the bill would help protect all Americans, it includes specific provisions to protect our children from this deadly addiction.

The bill’s strong restrictions on advertising and marketing of tobacco products to children include provisions to keep tobacco out of their hands, prohibit candy flavorings in products, and require larger more effective warning labels.

Tobacco products take a significant toll on Hoosiers every year, leading to 9,800 deaths annually and costing Indiana more than $2 billion each year in preventable costs. The legislation before Congress will give us additional crucial tools for preventing the disease and death caused by tobacco products.

Senators Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh, and Representative Brad Ellsworth are co-sponsors of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. They will play a critical role its passage. With their help, Congress can take a major step to protect our children and reduce the terrible toll of tobacco on our community. I want to thank Senators Lugar and Bayh and Representative Ellsworth for co-sponsoring this life-saving legislation and urge them to do all they can to ensure its safe passage in the Congress this year.

President and CEO
American Lung Association of Indiana

Study Finds That Smoking Ban Had No Effect On Revenues

Mar 14, 2008 – 04:05:09 CDT – By SARA KINCAID – Bismarck Tribune

A smoking ban had no effect on restaurant and bar revenue, according to an analysis of tax records by the Bismarck Tobacco Free Coalition.

The analysis showed revenue growth prior to the city smoking ban and revenue continued to increase, even after the ban went into effect. Duane B. Pool, presented the analysis at the coalition’s meeting Thursday.

Pool analyzed tax records from the first quarter of 2002 to the first quarter of 2006. The city smoking ban started in October 2006, which restricted smoking in restaurants and bars attached to restaurants. Free-standing bars, truck stops and hotels could still allow smoking under the ordinance.

Individual businesses were not studied, rather full-service restaurants only were placed in groups of five based on revenue. The five businesses that produced the most revenue were group one, and so-forth, to the five lowest revenue-generating restaurants.

Over the five-year period, revenue increased. Prior to the ban, revenue increased 3.2 percent, and after the ban, revenue increased 7.2 percent, Pool said. The ban did not cause revenue to go up, but it did not hinder the business’ ability to earn money, he said.

“Regulation costs are not being transferred to the business, and the ban is not affecting growth in the industry,” Pool said.

The cause for the increase in revenue is likely the addition of 13 new restaurants in Bismarck. Revenue increased, and the new restaurants also cornered a larger share of the restaurant revenue each year. The new establishments had 14.2 percent of the market share at the beginning of the study and 23 percent of the market share at the end of the study.

The economic analysis was done by Pool. Robin Reich of Colorado State University and Michael Carroll of Bowling Green State University contributed to the analysis.

Cigarettes Should Be Sold In Dull Packaging

Make ciggie packs dull – experts

By Tamara McLean – March 14, 2008 01:32pm – Article from: AAP

CIGARETTES should be sold in dull, homogenous packs stamped only with a brand name and a health warning, a major review by leading Australian public health researchers says.

The report published in the international journal Addiction reveals the full extent to which tobacco companies treasure glitzy packs as their most powerful marketing tool.

“They are quite open about it,” say Professor Simon Chapman and Becky Freeman from the University of Sydney, who trawled through previously private internal tobacco industry documents and trade magazines.

“Now that the law prevents them from advertising, the main game is now via the pack.

“Pack design is now the leading edge of making tobacco products attractive and interesting, particularly to young starters.”

The specialists called for all cigarettes to be sold in plain cardboard packs marked only with the brand and the standard health warnings.

“Prescription drugs are all sold in plain packaging without alluring colours and imagery,” said Prof Chapman, who has been awarded the World Health Organisation (WHO) medal for tobacco control.

“These promote health. Cigarettes kill half their users and should be made as unattractive as possible.”

He said plain packaging may seem a radical policy today, but the same was once said about banning tobacco advertising, sports sponsorship and banning smoking in workplaces.

The change would be possible with federal government endorsement, an extension of the large and now grisly pack warnings.

“Not one cent has been paid by any government to compensate any company for loss of trade mark,” Prof Chapman said.

“International law is plain on this: governments can over-ride all arguments about the sanctity of trade marks and branding by invoking public health concerns.”

The WHO recently forecasted that one billion people will die from tobacco-caused disease this century.

Anne Jones, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), said anti-smoking lobby groups had long backed a move to plain packaging.

“This is an addictive lethal product that is causing 15,000 thousand deaths a year, and the fact that we still glamorise the packaging is terrible,” Ms Jones said.

No Smoking Day

Smokers with a 20-a-day habit will be paying over £2077 a year for their habit after the latest Budget tax rise.

Chancellor Alistair Darling’s announcement of a 11p per pack rise coincides with the 25th annual No Smoking Day, which takes place today (12 March).

To mark the event, the No Smoking Day charity has released new research showing almost one in five smokers plan to stop today*. Research indicates the rising cost of smoking is proving a key factor in triggering quit attempts.

No Smoking Day chief executive Dan Tickle said: “Today’s Budget rise, coming on the back of smokefree legislation, is likely to be a decisive factor for many smokers considering quitting. A 20-a-day smoker will now be spending well over £2000 a year, up from under £500 when we launched our first No Smoking Day, 25 years ago.

“But the good news is that the now leads the world in services for people who want to quit smoking. You’re four times more likely to succeed if you use the free local stop smoking services. So if you are thinking about quitting, there’s really never been a better time.”

This year’s campaign, The Great No Smoking Day Challenge, sees events taking place across the , with local stop smoking services, employers, GPs and others providing help, support and advice to those that are ready to stop.

Tobacco Duty Should Be Higher

Tobacco Duty ‘Should Be Higher’

The Press Association – 13/3/2008

Anti-smoking campaigners have said they were disappointed that tobacco duty rises announced in the Budget were not higher but added that they backed the planned crackdown on tobacco smuggling.

Chancellor Alistair Darling said that from 6pm on Wednesday the duty on tobacco will rise, adding 11p to the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes and 4p to the price of five cigars.

He said the Government was continuing the 5% reduced rate of VAT on smoking cessation products beyond June 30.

Budget documents also revealed a new crackdown on smugglers of cheap illicit tobacco with the UK Border Agency set to develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce tobacco smuggling.

The group Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) said it welcomed the announcements on smuggling and VAT on smoking cessation products.

Deborah Arnott, Ash director, said: “Substantially reducing tobacco smuggling must be a key plank of any policy to tackle health inequalities as research shows that low income smokers are much more likely to buy smuggled tobacco.

“This announcement is encouraging and we hope that the new strategy will be implemented as quickly as possible.”

But she added that Ash was critical of the Government for not “substantially” raising tobacco tax above the inflation rate.

The No Smoking Day charity said smokers with a 20-a-day habit would be paying more than £2,077 a year for their habit after the tax rise announced by the Chancellor.

Patrons Become Actors As Bars Find Way To Evade Smoking Ban

Agence France-Presse in Maplewood, Minnesota – Updated on Mar 12, 2008

Sick of sending their patrons outside to shiver in the cold, dozens of bars in Minnesota are challenging the state’s smoking ban with a new spin on the Shakespearean adage that all the world’s a stage.

They have started handing out posters and calling their customers actors to exploit a loophole in the law that exempts theatrical productions from an October 1 ban on smoking in public places.

Legislators are not amused. But in the weeks it took them to respond to the first foray into treating life as art, the idea has spread like wildfire. And smokers and bar owners across the state are digging in their heels.

“It’s rebellion. People want to speak their mind,” Sarah Brent, 38, said as she puffed on a cigarette in the Rock Nightclub in Maplewood, a suburb of the state capital, St Paul.

Twenty-three states have extended public smoking bans to bars and restaurants, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. But in Minnesota, where the winters are so cold a puff of breath will turn to frost by the time it reaches your eyelashes, a revolt began on February 9 at a resort popular with snowmobilers and ice fisherman in Lake Mills Lacs where lawyer – and non-smoker – Mark Benjamin persuaded the owners to let him stage the “Tobacco Monologues”.

“I realised when I saw the exception, which I had never heard of before, that that’s it,” said Mr Benjamin, who attended the first “performance” in medieval costume. “All we had to do was exploit it.”

Within weeks more than 100 bars in mining towns and suburbs had staged “performances”

Most pretences of stagecraft soon fell by the wayside. The ashtrays serve as props and, while a few lines of dialogue may be spoken in jest, the performances mostly consist of people sitting around drinking, talking and smoking – just as before the ban.

The performances are particularly popular in the heart of the Iron Range, a section of the state where mining is the prevailing industry and the winters are harsh even by Minnesota standards.

“Everybody up here is trying to jump on that bandwagon because [the ban has] affected business so badly,” said Deb Davey, who has helped several bars stage performances in the town of Gilbert.

After complaints, the Minnesota Department of Health announced last week that the performances did not comply with the law and threatened bar owners who kept staging them with fines of up to US$10,000.

But the performances have been a lifeline for proprietors of small bars, who say their revenues have plummeted since the ban.

Do You Think The Smoking Ban Is Effective?

Updated on Mar 12, 2008 – SCMP

I do not think the ban has been effective.

Smoking is banned in public places, such as offices, many restaurants, sports grounds, parks and playgrounds.

However, I still see lots of teenagers smoking at basketball courts. I have never seen any officials telling them they are in a no-smoking area and to put out their cigarettes.

I suggest that staff of public estates who see people smoking in prohibited areas should report these incidents to the Tobacco Control Office.

Also, people still smoke in public toilets. Once they lock the door inside a cubicle, they feel it is okay.

If there are no tobacco control officers to stamp this out, then people will continue to smoke in public toilets.

Tsang Yung-ho, Fanling