Research And Product Development Response To The ETS Issue

As discussed in chapters 3, 4, and 7, BAT held annual research conferences so that its subsidiaries from around the world could share their research findings and agree on the research agenda for the following year. BAT research was carried out at facilities operated by the individual companies, and also through a joint research program headquartered at the Group Research and Development Centre (GR&DC) in Southampton, England. Most of the research on environmental tobacco smoke appears to have been conducted in Southampton.

Duck Key Research Conference, 1974

During the early 1970s concern over ETS was focused on its irritating effects. For example, the minutes from a meeting of the Biological Testing Committee that was held in Southampton on January 27, 1970, note that research technicians have been complaining about irritation caused by sidestream smoke from one of the cigarettes under evaluation:

Dr. [S. J.] Green [of BAT R&D] drew attention to the additional point ... that the operators of the smoking machines at Battelle [which was conducting research for Project Janus at the time] have complained about the odour/irritating nature of the sidestream smoke from the cigarette containing 100% I-308. {1164.04, p. 3}

Minutes from later meetings indicate that most BAT scientists did not take these complaints seriously at first. At the 1974 research conference in Duck Key, Florida, Dr. Green proposed that irritation caused by sidestream smoke should be evaluated in all new products. His colleagues, however, reacted without enthusiasm. The conclusions and recommendations from the Duck Key conference state:

16. It was suggested by Dr. Green that now that we have an objective sensory difference test for assessing irritation of sidestream smoke, we might write in to all new product developments a constraint in the specification in this respect. This suggestion had a cool reception and most members felt that passive smoking was relatively unimportant. It was agreed to note disagreement on this subject [emphasis added]. {1125.01, p. 4}

Just one year later, however, BAT scientists began to pay more attention to the irritating and potentially dangerous effects of ETS.

Merano Research Conference, 1975

At the BAT research conference held in Merano, Italy, in April 1975, BAT scientists discussed passive smoking at length. Participants agreed that research into the irritating effects of sidestream smoke should be undertaken. The minutes from the meeting state:

12. Passive smoking was discussed and reviewed in detail. It is considered that this is an important area and interest in it is unlikely to recede. The meeting felt that the work on sidestream irritation at Southampton was a useful contribution to a part of the whole problem. R & D Southampton were asked to extent [sic ] their studies to cover a wider range of cigarettes and chemical constituents in the sidestream. It is desirable to be in a position to anticipate the identification of new sidestream constituents which may be considered harmful to non smokers [emphasis added]. {1173.01, p. 3}

BAT's scientists made this statement nearly a decade before the general scientific community had recognized ETS as a serious threat to public health.

Biological Research Meeting, Southampton, 1976

By the mid-1970s the scientific community had begun to identify toxic substances such as carbon monoxide (13, 14) and N-nitrosamines (15, 16) in sidestream smoke. In addition, Carl Becker, a researcher at Cornell University, had published a series of studies on glycoproteins in tobacco smoke (17–19). Glycoproteins are a class of proteins that often induce allergic reactions. Becker's first study showed that glycoprotein isolated from tobacco could produce allergic reactions in some individuals (17). His report caught the attention of BAT researchers, who discussed his findings at a biological research meeting held on October 14, 1976, in Southampton. The minutes of the meeting note that BAT scientists at Southampton had repeated Becker's experiments and had confirmed that glycoprotein is present in mainstream smoke. The researchers agreed that the studies should be repeated for sidestream smoke.

The work in GR&DC ... has shown that glycoproteins with characteristics similar to those found by [Carl] Becker and Stedman are present in tobacco leaf and in saline extracts of mainstream smoke. It was agreed that there was no intention to examine the biological effects of such materials and there was no necessity to examine condensate. Nevertheless, SJG [Dr. S. J. Green, of BAT R&D] considered that it was important to know whether or not these materials were present in sidestream smoke.

It was concluded that the project should be extended to an examination of sidestream smoke and to the examination of one or two other tobacco types including experimentally de-proteinated tobacco. {1164.17, p. 11}

By the next year's meeting, BAT researchers announced that they had found glycoproteins in sidestream smoke as well.

Biological Research Meeting, Chelwood, 1977

Becker published a second study on tobacco glycoproteins in 1977 (18). This study showed that glycoproteins from tobacco increase the formation of clots in human blood, and he concluded that tobacco glycoproteins "may be important to the pathogenesis of cardiovascular and pul-

monary diseases associated with cigarette smoking" (18). Becker's findings were reported in the New York Times (20).

Ironically, Becker's second study had been funded by CTR. As mentioned in chapter 8, publication of his results had prompted correspondence between Robert Hockett, the scientific director of CTR, and Addison Yeaman, president of CTR {1910.01}. Hockett stated in his memo that he was unhappy with Becker's publication and that he had attempted, but failed, to have acknowledgment of CTR funding deleted from the publication.

While CTR was attempting to distance itself from Becker's findings, tobacco industry lawyers and scientists took his findings very seriously. A letter from Timothy M. Finnegan, an attorney at Jacob and Medinger, to William W. Shinn, an attorney for Shook, Hardy, and Bacon, notes that the lawyers have hired a scientist to repeat Becker's experiments.

As a result of Dr. Carl Becker's report of a glycoprotein in tobacco leaf, tobacco smoke condensate and tobacco smoke, Dr. [John] Salvaggio and his colleagues have undertaken an analysis of these compounds for the presence of glycoproteins. {1910.06}

Dr. Salvaggio received $283,777 from 1976 to 1981 to conduct a CTR special project on the physical, chemical, and immuno-chemical properties of components present in tobacco smoke (table 8.1).

Scientists at BAT also repeated Becker's experiments and replicated his results. They adopted a defensive posture, however, regarding the implications of their research. The minutes from a biological research meeting held on November 27, 1977, in Chelwood note:

RB [R. Binns of BAT GR&DC] explained that, whereas Becker's findings in relation to the presence of glycoproteins in mainstream and sidestream smoke had been confirmed, this did not mean that we agreed with his interpretation of their effects on man. {1164.24}

Although Binns was hesitant to concur with Becker's conclusions, the researchers at the Chelwood meeting agreed that the presence of glycoproteins in sidestream smoke was an important problem. They recommended that it should be addressed on an industry-wide basis through the Tobacco Research Council (TRC) in the United Kingdom {1164.23; 1164.24}.

SJG [Dr. S. J. Green of BAT R&D] proposed that the glycoproteins question is an industry problem and should be pursued by TRC. This was accepted. {1164.23}

The documents and our review of the literature do not indicate whether the health effects of glycoproteins were ever studied by the TRC. The role, if any, that glycoproteins play in the mechanisms underlying tobacco-related disease also is not known precisely. It is noteworthy, however, that BAT had confirmed the presence of a potentially dangerous substance in sidestream smoke as early as 1977.

Sydney Research Conference, 1978

The research conference held in Sydney, Australia, in March 1978 marked two major shifts in BAT's research policy toward environmental tobacco smoke. First, the emphasis shifted from glycoproteins to nitrosamines. Second, BAT executives began to realize that the passive smoking issue represented a potential new commercial opportunity for the company.

Nitrosamines are potent carcinogens. Tobacco contains several types of tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNA), most of which are byproducts of nicotine formed during the curing, fermentation, aging, and burning of tobacco (21,22). TSNA cause a variety of cancers—most notably lung cancer—in laboratory animals, and most researchers today believe that they are one of the primary causes of many tobacco-induced cancers in humans (21–23).

BAT was actively engaged in measuring levels of nitrosamines in both mainstream and sidestream smoke by the late 1970s. Notes from BAT's Sydney conference explain BAT's concern over nitrosamines in ETS:

It is clear that in many countries there is concern over the level of nitrosamines in foodstuffs. This explains in part the sensitivity to the presence of nitrosamines in tobacco smoke and, perhaps particularly, the levels in sidestream smoke. The latter is a potential threat to the currently held view by many authorities that passive smoking does not constitute a direct hazard. {1174.01}

Minutes from later conferences indicate that research on nitrosamines in both mainstream and sidestream tobacco smoke grew in importance at BAT throughout the 1980s. Unfortunately, the conference reports in the documents rarely include the results of these studies, but only indicate that research was ongoing.

While BAT scientists acknowledge that nitrosamines in sidestream smoke could present a problem for the industry, they also began to realize during the late 1970s that the passive smoking issue could be used to their advantage. The report from the 1978 Sydney conference indicates a growing awareness that BAT could capitalize on the growing anti-

smoking sentiment by developing a new cigarette with less irritating sidestream smoke. The notes from the meeting state:

21. ... A worthwhile aim is to modify the quality of sidestream smoke, and it should be remembered that governments can produce markets by endorsing a particular aspect of the cigarette, e.g., charcoal filters. {1174.01, p. 3}

Throughout the 1980s BAT's research on environmental tobacco smoke was focused on measuring nitrosamine levels and on developing a new low-sidestream cigarette.

Uk Research Conferences, 1979

The tobacco industry was concerned that government agencies would use the nitrosamine issue to impose further regulations on tobacco products. BAT group scientists discussed this concern at an R&D policy conference held in the United Kingdom on February 10 to 14, 1979. The notes from the conference, prepared by Dr. S. J. Green of BAT R&D, indicate that BAT executives agreed that they should attempt to establish "safe level" thresholds for nitrosamines:

The likely increase in pressure in this area from the anti-smoking lobby was noted. In the absence of threshold figures (e.g. safe levels for nitrosamines) any measured number could harm the Industry. Consideration should be given to the possibility of establishing thresholds. It was agreed that on nitrosamines some sighting shots should be aimed on both ambient air and sidestream smoke. {1175.03, p. 4}

The implication here is that the industry would attempt to show that nitrosamine levels in all cigarettes were below the "safe level," thus preventing government regulation of cigarettes based on their nitrosamine content. On the other hand, the industry realized that any mention of a "measured number" could be dangerous because it would be an explicit admission that tobacco smoke contains hazardous substances.

An R&D conference held later in 1979 in London confirmed the growing realization of the importance of the passive smoking issue. The notes from the meeting, prepared by Dr. L. C. F. Blackman of BAT R&D, state:

18. SIDESTREAM

Concern for the passive smoker was regarded as likely to become a key issue in the future and the GR&DC programme was regarded as of importance—both for defensive and offensive (i.e., possible commercial advantage) purposes [emphasis added]. {1176.02, p. 9}

Sea Island Research Conference, 1980

By 1980 BAT's researchers were trying to develop a cigarette with low sidestream smoke emission. The direction of the research was discussed at a research conference held in Sea Island, Georgia, on September 15 to 18, 1980. Notes from the conference, prepared by Dr. L. C. F. Blackman of BAT, state:

SIDESTREAM

20. There was strong support for research into the generation and control of sidestream smoke. Factors investigated should include the role of pH on sidestream nicotine and aroma. Research into the attitude of smokers and non-smokers to substantial reduction or elimination of sidestream smoke should be established.

21. Effort should be directed to developing a smoking article with greatly reduced tobacco content to reduce the material available for generation of sidestream. {1177.01, p. 4}

In addition, the notes from the meeting indicated that the BAT Group continued to support research on nitrosamines in sidestream smoke.

19. The research into the source and mechanism of formation of nitrosamines in both sidestream and mainstream should be continued with urgency. {1177.01, p. 4}

The entry suggests that the researchers had already isolated nitrosamines in sidestream and mainstream smoke, because the purpose of the research was to determine their source and formation. Thus, BAT may have again confirmed in its own laboratories that ETS contains dangerous substances.

While BAT's scientists were quietly conducting research on sidestream smoke, the general scientific community was becoming increasingly aware that passive smoking could cause a variety of diseases, including lung cancer. In 1981 a large epidemiological study on the relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer was published by Dr. Takeshi Hirayama (3). The study showed that nonsmoking women married to smokers were more likely to develop lung cancer than nonsmoking women married to nonsmokers. The Hirayama study received a great deal of publicity and, as we will discuss later in this chapter, was criticized vehemently by the tobacco industry. Nonetheless, shortly after the publication of Hirayama's paper, BAT began to study the "biological activity" of sidestream smoke. As discussed in chapter 4, the tobacco industry uses the term "biological activity" as a euphemism for carcinogenicity and other adverse health effects.

Pichlarn Research Conference, 1981

The issue of environmental tobacco smoke grew in importance at BAT throughout the 1980s. A document describing BAT's proposed research program for 1982–84, which was prepared after a research conference in Pichlarn, Austria, in August 1981, states:

The broadly based Programme [on sidestream smoke] was approved. Particular points were:

- It was agreed that GR&DC should continue short-term testing (inhalation, Ames [test for mutagenicity] etc) to get a better understanding of the relative specific activity of sidestream and mainstream smoke. This should form a basis for a future decision as to the need, or otherwise, for more extensive biological testing (eg, mouse-skin painting) of sidestream smoke. {1178.01, p. 6}

The fact that BAT was studying the "specific activity" of sidestream smoke indicates that BAT was concerned about studies suggesting that ETS is carcinogenic and that it was attempting to measure the carcinogenicity of ETS in laboratory tests.

The proposed 1982–84 research program also contains a reference to a study of sidestream smoke emissions using different cigarette papers:

- Information on inorganic fibres thought to be available in Canada from prior use in cigar wrapper should be evaluated with respect to the current cigarette sidestream project. {1178.01, p. 6}

As discussed below, one of BAT's primary techniques for minimizing sidestream smoke was to use new cigarette papers.

Montebello Research Conference, 1982

The summary of BAT's 1982 research conference, held in Montebello, Canada, notes that the bulk of the conference was devoted to discussing topics of major importance to the group {1179.01}. One of the five topics discussed was environmental tobacco smoke. The summary of the meeting reflects the growing awareness that the passive smoking issue represented an opportunity for new product development. Under the topic of environmental tobacco smoke, the summary states:

(a) and (b) represent constraints on the tobacco industry as a whole, but within them lies the opportunity for commercial exploitation (c). {1179.01, p. 6}

The next item in the summary is very vague. It appears to suggest that BAT had determined that sidestream smoke had different biological effects than mainstream smoke, but also that BAT may have found a way to reduce the toxicity of sidestream smoke:

15. Sidestream has long been known to be different chemically from mainstream, but only very recently have there been signs from GR&DC inhalation studies that the biological activity of sidestream may also be significantly different from mainstream .

An early design of reduced sidestream product developed at GR&DC has recently been screened [emphasis added]. {1179.01, p. 6}

Sidestream smoke contains higher levels of toxic substances—such as carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene, and nitrosamines—than mainstream smoke (24). The item above confirms that BAT's inhalation experiments had shown that sidestream smoke is "biologically active" and that researchers were actively seeking designs that reduced sidestream emissions.

The summary of the 1982 Montebello conference also mentions a paper written by Dr. Ian Ayres of BAT GR&DC, which apparently was presented or discussed at the conference:

The personal paper by Dr Ian Ayres was regarded as a useful contribution in that it highlighted our need for better knowledge and understanding of the key chemical and biological aspects of environmental smoke. Much further thought is clearly required but specifically it was recommended that:

It was also recommended that BAT should be prepared to share on an industry basis the development of techniques for monitoring chemicals in environmental smoke [emphasis added]. {1179.01, pp. 7–8}

This item demonstrates that BAT was attempting to develop a sophisticated understanding of the health effects of passive smoking and the pub-

lic's attitude toward environmental tobacco smoke. BAT planned to use some of its data to "counter anti-smoking attacks," while data supporting the evidence that ETS is dangerous would be withheld from the public. This is the same strategy that the tobacco industry has employed regarding active smoking.

Review Of Bat Research Program, 1983

In May 1983 BAT conducted an extensive review of its group research at Southampton. BAT's research operations at that time were divided into fifteen work areas: Biological, Filters, Nitrosamines, Future Technologies, Combustion, Sidestream, Human Smoking/Smoke Aerosol, Psychology and Sensory Testing, Smoke Taste and Flavour Improvement, Leaf and Biotechnology, Tobacco Processing, Tobacco Expansion, Novel Cigarette Making Technology, Process Control and Physical Test Method Development, and Chemical Test Method Development and Analytical Projects. The review of BAT's research program summarizes the activities in each of these work areas {1180.17}.

Work on environmental tobacco smoke was being carried out in several of the work areas. For example, the review notes that 20 percent of the work in the Biological area was related to the evaluation of sidestream smoke. In the Nitrosamine work area, "the importance was emphasized of ... Work on both mainstream and sidestream [emphasis in original]" {1180.17}. In addition, one of the projects in the Combustion work area was related to "The mechanism by which magnesium oxide filler in the cigarette paper reduces visible sidestream" [emphasis added] {1180.17}.

In the Sidestream work area, BAT's research effort was directed at designing a low-sidestream cigarette, primarily by developing new types of cigarette paper that would release less irritating or smaller volumes of sidestream smoke.

The general thrust of the work on sidestream is to design and evaluate cigarettes with reduced emission of sidestream smoke. This will also include the generation of data on the build-up of smoke in confined areas and the effect of this on occupants and furnishings. The project areas are:—

This research was aimed primarily at reducing the visibility and irritation of sidestream smoke. The review does not mention any attempts to study the health effects of sidestream smoke released from these new products. Evidently, BAT's first inclination was to develop a "health-image" cigarette to respond to public concern over ETS, just as it had initially responded to concern over active smoking by introducing filter cigarettes (see chapter 2).

BAT's 1983 review of its work program also mentions several other projects related to environmental tobacco smoke. For example, "Interest was expressed in determining the extent to which the level of visible sidestream smoke influences subjects [sic ] irritation response" {1180.17}. In addition, a smoking machine was being built that would collect both mainstream and sidestream smoke from the same cigarette; and the range of sidestream analysis was being expanded to include more vapor phase components, such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. Taken together, these projects indicate that BAT's scientists were making a sophisticated evaluation of the chemical, social, and biological aspects of environmental tobacco smoke. The primary focus of its program, however, was on producing a new cigarette with reduced sidestream smoke emissions.

Following this review of the research program, BAT subsidiaries were asked to provide priority rankings for each research project {1180.18}. The projects were rated on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 having the highest priority. The documents include the rankings provided by the major countries in the BAT group—Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, and the United States—along with the average score that each project received. Virtually all the projects related to environmental tobacco smoke, described above, were given a priority of 1 by most of the delegates {1180.18}.

Broad Objectives Of Bat's Research Program, Circa 1983

BAT's primary objective in conducting research on environmental tobacco smoke was to develop a new cigarette that produced less sidestream smoke. However, by the end of 1983 BAT had added a second

primary objective to its ETS research program: to gather scientific data to refute the evidence that passive smoking is dangerous to health. This shift is shown in a document titled "Broad Objectives of the Group R&D Programme" {1180.14}. This document contains a series of tables describing eleven areas of research, corresponding loosely, but not exactly, to the work areas mentioned above. BAT's research on environmental tobacco smoke was considered both "defensive and offensive" in nature and was given a priority of 1. The main objectives of the program in this area were to "find ways of reducing the nuisance aspects of sidestream" and to "obtain scientific data to refute the alleged health risks of sidestream smoke" {1180.14} (see table 10.1, p. 433).

A document written by W. D. E. Irwin of BAT GR&DC and titled "Sidestream Research" confirms that BAT's main priorities for ETS research during the mid-1980s were to develop a low-sidestream cigarette and to conduct defensive research. This document appears to have been written in mid-1983, possibly in anticipation of BAT's research conference in Rio de Janeiro. It begins:

The B.C.A.C. [BAT Chairman's Advisory Committee] confirmed two requirements:

Again, it is noteworthy that BAT appeared more concerned with the irritative aspect of smoke than with whether passive smoking is dangerous to health. Its interest in health appeared to be limited to refuting any claims made by others about the effects of exposure to ETS.

Irwin then notes that a joint GR&DC/Marketing/Public Affairs Sidestream Working Party has been formed to coordinate BAT's effort to develop and market a low-sidestream product.

The Working Party will propose a programme of gradual reductions in sidestream emission levels as well as developing products taking maximum reductions. The former would be a safeguard to any future debate, but would not be communicated to the consumer at present [emphasis added]. {1180.24}

BAT appears to have been planning to make cigarettes with a range of sidestream emissions that would leave it free either to reduce sidestream smoke gradually, without informing the customer, or to introduce a radically new product if it were deemed marketable.

Irwin also summarizes BAT's research on cigarette papers that would reduce ETS emissions. Two types of papers were being evaluated: slow-burning papers and "sidestream filtration papers." However, the sidestream filtration papers did not appear to work well; two of them failed to reduce fresh sidestream irritation and smell {1180.24}.

Rio De Janeiro Research Conference, 1983

At BAT's 1983 conference in Rio, the biological activity (i.e., carcinogenicity) of sidestream smoke was addressed as a major issue. The meeting summary states:

5. The programme of work set up in response to the BCAC directive was supported—but it was stressed that the programme should consider the reduction of specific biological activity, as well as the reduction of visible smoke irritation and unpleasant odour . It should also consider the more general question of ambient smoke [emphasis added]. {1180.07, p. 5}

This statement suggests that BAT's scientists believed sidestream smoke could be biologically active, that is, carcinogenic. In addition, it implies that they were hoping to create a new product with less carcinogenic sidestream smoke, just as they had initially hoped to create a "safe" cigarette for active smokers.

The summary of this conference also refers to several contracts being negotiated to develop special cigarette papers that would reduce sidestream smoke emissions. The use of slow-burning cigarette paper could serve a dual purpose: reducing sidestream emissions and creating a self-extinguishing cigarette, which would be less likely to set accidental fires (see chapter 7) {1180.07, p. 5}. In addition, the participants agreed that defensive research should continue:

The analysis of ambient smoke was regarded as a priority need—to provide firm data to counter misleading statements in the literature and the media. {1180.07, p. 23}

The increasing emphasis that BAT placed on ETS research during the early 1980s is indicated in a document that provides projected resource allocations for 1984 {1180.16}. In 1983, 4.1 "graduate years" and 4.7 "assistant years" were allocated for ETS research (7.6 percent and 5.2 percent, respectively, of BAT's budget); in 1984 these values had increased by roughly 60 percent to 6.5 graduate years and 6.7 assistant years

(12.5 percent and 8.2 percent, respectively). The revenue expenditure for 1984 was estimated at 318,000 pounds for the sidestream research group {1180.16}.

Southampton Research Conference, 1984

BAT's 1984 research conference, held in Southampton, included lengthy discussions of BAT's research activities related to environmental tobacco smoke and to the psychology of smoking. In addition, several other technical conferences held earlier in the year were summarized. The main objectives of BAT's ETS research program remained unchanged from the previous year: to "Develop cigarettes with reduced sidestream yields and/or reduced odour and irritation" and to "Conduct research to anticipate and refute claims about the health effects of passive smoking" {1181.12}. As in previous years, the first objective was being addressed by attempting to reduce sidestream emissions through changes in cigarette composition and construction. This research was being coordinated with efforts to maintain satisfactory mainstream deliveries, taste, and ash characteristics {1181.12}. There was also an attempt to develop an alternative cigarette paper. Consumer tests had shown that a noticeable reduction in visible sidestream smoke could be achieved with "a 50% reduction in the rate of sidestream PMWNF [perhaps, particulate matter] emission" {1181.12}. For example, the paper company Ecusta had conducted consumer tests of a magnesium oxide-filled cigarette paper, but the ash and taste properties of this cigarette were judged unsatisfactory. BAT had next turned to Papeteries de Mauduit (PDM), which was testing cigarette papers with a combination of 8 percent potassium citrate additive and 11 percent magnesium oxide. This product performed fairly well in terms of taste but did not result in a large enough reduction of ETS emissions. PDM was currently testing papers with higher percentages of potassium citrate or magnesium oxide {1181.12}.

BAT was also measuring the buildup and decay of ambient smoke under carefully controlled conditions. In addition, it was monitoring levels of smoke in public places such as bars. Tests of human uptake of various smoke components as well as tests for odor and irritation were also being performed {1181.12}.

Turning to BAT's secondary objective of conducting defensive research, the 1984 conference summary notes that evidence related to the "alleged" health effects of passive smoking could be classified as:

The report noted that the rate of publication on ETS, particularly clinical and epidemiological studies, was continuing to grow. However, BAT's research effort was restricted to measurements of smoke components and body uptake.

[C]linical and epidemiological testing of the effects of ambient smoke are not part of the GR&DC programme [emphasis added]. {1181.12}

Also discussed at the 1984 meeting was BAT's research on the psychology of smoking. The group's strategic objective was threefold:

Among the projects undertaken in this area was a study of whether nonsmokers' reactions to environmental tobacco smoke might be affected more by the actions of smokers than by the smoke itself.

It has been hypothesised that the smoker, rather than the cigarette smoke, plays a key role in determining non smoker reaction to sidestream smoke. An alternative to modifying the cigarette may therefore be to encourage more "acceptable" behavior by the smoker. {1181.12}

BAT's preliminary results suggested that this hypothesis was correct. Studies were planned for 1985 that would further characterize nonsmokers' reactions to ETS. Specifically, BAT planned to study how nonsmokers react to the smoker's manner, the degree to which the nonsmoker perceives control over the passive smoking situation, and the effect of same-sex and different-sex pairs of smokers and nonsmokers {1181.12}. This and similar work may have contributed to current tobacco industry activities to create a "smokers' rights" movement and to provide social support for smokers (25, 26).

BAT's 1984 R&D conference report also contains summaries of several smaller technical exchange meetings that had been held earlier that year. Environmental tobacco smoke was discussed at several of these smaller conferences. For example, at a biological conference held in Southampton, BAT researchers confirmed their commitment to studying the health effects of the sidestream smoke produced by any new products.

It was thought prudent to ensure that the Company could show no adverse effects on sidestream toxicity for a product designed to have a lower visible sidestream [emphasis added]. {1181.06}

This statement raises the question of whether the additives and other modifications to the paper and tobacco rod used to reduce visible sidestream smoke may have increased overall toxicity of the smoke.

Southampton also sponsored a "structured creativity" conference in June 1984. The conference was essentially a brainstorming session to discuss the feasibility of developing a variety of new products. One of the products discussed was the "low sidestream/ameliorated aroma product." The purpose of this product was:

To pre-empt potential volume decline from smokers under pressure in social and work environments by providing them with an offer which combines re-assurance in social smoking with taste and satisfaction [emphasis added]. {1181.10}

This statement indicates that the motivation behind BAT's effort to develop a low-sidestream cigarette was profit rather than public health. The goal was to keep smokers smoking even though acceptance of smoking in public places was declining. The conference attendees rated this project as having "large market potential, high behavioral validation (evidence of need) but potentially high associated risks to the business" {1181.10}.

After the 1984 research conference in Southampton, BAT circulated a document titled "Proposed Revisions to the Group R&D Programme" {1181.13}. Few revisions were proposed for the work on ETS. However, in the section on "Novel Cigarette Technology," the research that had been carried out that year on low-sidestream cigarettes is described as promising.

Initially promising work using a food extruder, at the Food Research Institute, Norwich, produced highly expanded tobacco materials with low density and reasonable smoke character. Lower CO [carbon monoxide]/tar ratio and sidestream smoke levels were recorded in prototype products. Significant effort will be allocated to this activity during 1985–86. {1181.13}

Another study described as promising had to do with the effect of changing cigarette combustion/pyrolysis temperature profiles by the use of thermal conductors. The result was reduced carbon monoxide and tar levels.

Unexpected observations of reduced CO/tar ratios, especially in sidestream smoke, have encouraged a wider investigation of products employing the principle, as it is thought that there may be accompanying changes in specific activity. {1181.13}

These items suggest that BAT was meeting with some success in its efforts to reduce the carcinogenicity of sidestream smoke.

The reports from BAT's annual research conferences demonstrate that BAT's internal research efforts supported the conclusion that environmental tobacco smoke is dangerous to health. BAT had shown in its own laboratories that sidestream smoke contains toxic substances, such as nitrosamines, and that sidestream smoke was "biologically active," and therefore potentially carcinogenic. Publicly, however, BAT and the other tobacco companies have denied that ETS is dangerous.