Xn the United :`States District Court
Content
xN THE UNITED :`STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN .DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Civ'i1 Action'No . 96CV-5903,
) .:
$TEVEN R . . ARCH ; WILLIAM BARNES,
CIARAN McNALLY,• CATHERINE ;POTTS,°_ )
NORMA RODWELLER, BARBARA 'SALZMAN,
EDWARD J . SLIVAK'and JOHN ;_TEAaLE, )
Plaint`iffe,
) Alan Rodgman,
)
Ph .D .
THE . .AMERICAN'TOBACCO''COMPANY,
INC ., et al ;,
)
) Volume 4,
) Pages 522 - 739
)
Defendants .
- ---~
------~---------
-----------
--
)
_ _)
-
TRANSCRIPT of testimony as taken by and
before LINDA RUSSELL, :a Certified Shorthand
Reporter and Notary . Public of'the State of
North Carolina, at the offices of Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, :200 West Second Street,
Winston=Salem, North`Carolina, on Monday,
1997, commencing at . 9 :28 in the
forerioon .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 52 3
SUPREME -COURT .OF THESTATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YOR K
------- --- ------- -- --•----------PHYLLX,SSMALL and DENISE~FUBINI,
individuaJ.ly, and on behalf of )
others similarly situated,
)
Plaintiffs ,
LOkILLARD TOBACCOCOMPANY, INC ., ) Index No .
LORILLARD, .INC .( LOEWS CORPOR .ATION, ') .110949/96
)
COUNCIL FOR TOBACCORESEARCH-USA,
INC . (S,uccessor to .Tobacco Industry ~
)
Research Comma.ttee) ;, AND TOBACCO
INSTITUTE, INC .-,
Defendants .
----- - --------0 .,-- --~ :. :--------- )
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
OF NEW YOR K
__._- ,.__....___ ..,.. .--------------MARY ._ANN HOSKINS, Executrix of the )
Estate of Edwin Paul Hoskins, )
WALTINA'BROWN and DANTE AUBAIN, )
individually, and on behalf of )
others similarly eituated,, )
Plaintiffs ,
agains t
R .J .REYNOLDS TOBACCOCOMPANY, ) Index No .
RJR NABISCO, INC ., COUNCIL FOR ) 110951/96
TOBACCO. RESEARCH-USA,, INC .
)
(Succeseorto Tobacco Industry )
Research Committee), AND TOBACCO
INSTiTUTE,` INC .,
Defendants .
--~---------------------- )
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 524
SUPREME COURT OF THE 'STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-- -- ------ ---- --
-•±-------- ----- -- )
SHARLENE HOBERMAN and AUDREY HULSE, )
as Executrix, on behalf' ;of the )
Estate of Lewis Huise,' . .individually, )
and on behalf of othera .similarYy )
situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
-
against
-
)
)
Index No .
110953/96
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO -- )
CORPORATION, B .A .T . INDUSTRIES )
P .L .C ., BATUS, INC ., BATUS HOLDINGS, )
INC .,•`COUNCIL FOR :~OBACCO'RES ;EARCH- )
USA, INC . (Successor to'Tobacco )
Industry Research Committee), AND )
)
TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC .
Defendants .
)
- --- -- - ----- - -- =-------------------- -- )
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-- - -------------- -
-- --------------)
ROSE FROSINA, ELIZABETH-COLAVITO and )
ANILDA ROSS, individually, and on )
behalf of others :similar3 .y situated, )
)
Plaintiffs,
-
against
-
)
)
)
)
PHILIP MORRIS, INC ., PHILIP MORRIS )
COMPANIES, INC ., COUNCIL,FOR TOBACCO )
RESEARCH-USA, .INC . (Successor to )
Tobacco Industry Research Committee) )
)
AND TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
Defendants .
----- ------ - -- -
'WAaA
-- _--
)
- --------- -)
&`SPINELLI
(201)
Index No .
110950/96
Ln
~
J
~
m
~
w
am
992-4111
Vol .
Pg . 525
SUPREME COURT OF THE ESTATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----•-- -----------------------------)
CATHERINE ZITO, PETER`HOBERMAN, )
and GEORGE ELISSEOU, individually, )
and .on behalf of othere similarly )
situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
-
against
-
)
)
)
)
THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC ., )
AMERI:CAN,BRANDS, INC .`, COUNCIL FOR )
TOBACCO RESEARCH-USA,,INC .
)
(Succ.esaqr to Tobacco 3ndustry )
Research_Committee), ANO fiOBACCO . )
INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
)
Index No
110952/96
Defendants .
)
----------- .. ....------- .-----------=------- )
WAdA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 526
A P P E A R A N C E S :
J . D . LEE, ESQ .
422 Gay Street
. .Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
For the Plaintiffe°in Pennsylvania case
(423) 544-0101
SHELLER, .LUDWIG & BADEY
3rd Floor
.1528 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
8Y : STEPHEN A . SHELLER, ESQ .
SHERRICE A . KNISELY, ESQ .
For the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania case
(215)_790-7300
`CLIMACO, CLIMACO, LEFKOWITZ &
~GAROFOLI CO ., L .P .A .
Ninth Floor, The Halle Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
. BY : JACK D . MAISTROS, ESQ .
For the .Plaintiffa in Pennsylvania case
(216) 621-8484
GOODKIND LABATON,RUDOFF & SUCHAROW L .L .P .
100 Park Avenue
New York, New, York ' 10 017
BY : MARTI S ANN . BRACHTL, ESQ .'_
For the Plaintiffs in New York case
(212) 907-0700
-WOMBLE CARLYLE :-SANDRIDGE & RICE
200 west Second Street
;Post Office Drawer 84
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102
BY : MARTIN L .`HOLTON, III, ESQ .
For the Defendant R .J . Reynolds Tobacco
(910) 721-3600,
WAGh,' .&
SPINELLI
(201)
~
Corp . ' w
992-4111
00
Vol . 4,
Pg . 527
A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued)
JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
Metropolitan .Square
1450 G Street N .W .
Waehington, D . C . 20005-2088
BY :
:ROBERT-F . McDERMOTT, .JR ., ESQ :
''For the Defendant`R .J . Reynolds Tobacco Corp .
(202) 879~3939
MCCALL DOUGHTON & BLANCATO
633 West Fourth Street
Suite 150
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
BY : WILLIAM A . BLANCATO, .ESQ .
(910) 725-7531
For the witness Dr . Alan Rodgman
.
MILLER & MARTIN
Suite 1000 Volunteer Building
832 Georgia `Avenue
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
BY : MARCIA MEREDITH EASON, ESQ .
,,(423) 756-6600 .
For the Defendant'Lorillard Tobacco Company
WAG4A' & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 528
I N D E X
WITNESS
REcR,osS REDIRECT RECROSS
ALAN'RODGMAN, Ph :D . .
Maistros'' 532
j X H_ I B I T S
PESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION
Vol . 4, Pg . 529
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going on the
2
record . The time is 9 :28 . This is the videotape
deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D ., taken by the
4
plaintiff in the matters'of William P . Perry and
Sandra Perry, Plaintiffs, versus Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corporation, ;et al .,
7
Defendants . Case number, civil action .2-473-95 .
8
Also the case Phyllis Small, et al .,
Plaintiffs, again .st Lorillard ;Tobacco Company,
10
Incorpora,ted,-et :al ., .Defendants . Index number
11
12
Plus the case of Mary Ann Hoskins,
13
et al . Plaintiffs, .against RJR Tobacco Company,
14
et al ., Defendants . Index number 110951/96 .
15
Plus'the case of Sharlene Hoberman,
16
et al ., Plaintiffs, against Brown & Williamson
17
Tobacco Corporation,>et al ., Defendants . Index
18
number 110953/96 .
19
20
Plup the case .of Rose Frosina, et al . I
Plaintiffs, against Philip Morris, Incorporated,
21
.et al ., Defendants . Index number .110950/96 .
22
Plus the case of Catherine Zito,
23
et al ., Plaintiffs, against the American Tobacco
24
Company, Incorporated,,et al ., Defendants . Index
25
number 110952/96 .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 530
This deposition is being held at the
2
offices of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, 200 -MS : KNISELYs Excuse us . The main
4
caption is Arch .' This is what it -VIDE04RAPHERa Okay, I have that also .
o.,,
y o.u want
-me
to
. :KNISEL'Y :
8
9
VIDEOaRAPHER : Also the case of Steven
R . Arch, et al,, Plai,ntiffs, versus Brown &
10
Williamson Tobacco -~ excuse me, the American
11
Tobacco Company, Incorporated, et al ., Defendante .
12
This deposition is being held at the
13
offices of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, 200
14
West-Second,Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina .
15
16
17
18
M
.
ItNtSELY : Excuse me . Could you
read the full caption in Arch for us .
VIDEOGi2APHER : Okay . Do you want me
to start over?
19
MS . KNISELY : No .
20
VIDEOORAPHER : Arch, et al ., versus
21
the American Tobacco Company, et al . Case number
22
U,S . .District Court_EDPA 93-5903-CN .
23
This is Monday, August 4th, 1997 . My
24!
name is John Girdler ; I'-m the video specialist .
25
The court_reportex is Linda Russell .
We are here
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 531
r
in connection with ;Waga and Spinelli, with offices
located ,at' Four . . Be .cker= Farm Road, Roseland,
New Jersey .
Counsel will now state their
appearances f or"-the record, and'the court reporter
will ewear`in the witness .
MR . MAISTROS : Jack Maistros for the
pla3.ntiff .
MS .'KNISELY : Sherrice Knisely for the
10
11
plaintiffs in Arch .'
MR . LEE :
12
Martis Brachtl, here for
13
14
the plaintiffs in the New York actions Small,
15
Hoekins,' Hoberman, Froeina, and .Zito .
16
MS . :EASON : Marcia Eason for the
17
defendant Lorillard`Tobacco Company in the
18
Tennessee litigation, William and Sandra Perry
19
versus Brown & Will,iamson .
20
21
MR . BAG4LEY : Rick Bagley, legal
assistant for the -defendant .
22
MR . HOLTON : Mark Holton for RJR .
23
MR . MCDERMOTT : Robert McDermott for
24
25
Reynolds Tobacco Company .
MR . BLANCATO :
Bill Blancato
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 532
representing Dr . . Alan Rodgman .
2
ALAN RODGMAN, Ph .D .,
having been first duly sworn, was examined and
did testify as follows :
4
EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR . MAISTROSs
0
8
you?`
R
10
11
Q
12
13
pleasurable experience .
My name is :'Jack Maistros and I
14
15
represent the plaintiffs in an action pending in
16
Pennsylvania . It's the Arch case .
17
I'm going ;to ask you a series of
18
questions today . If you don't understand my
19
questions, stop me . If you, want to confer with
20
your counsel, stop',me- . ',:If 'you want to go to the
21
22
23
me, '
A.
okay?
Yes, sir .
Q . We're here,for your schedule as much
24
as`everyone elee's, and more so for yours,
25
probably .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 533
Who are you represented by .today?
1
2
Mr . William Blancato .
3
Q
Is he your only counsel today?
Could :'you
full name for me .
My name is Alan Rodgman, A-L-A-N,
7
8
R-Or-D-G-M-A-N :
Q . Would you prefer Dr . Rodgman or
Rodgman?
10
Whatever you desire .
11
You are a doctor?
12
m a Ph .D . in organic chemistry .
13
I
14
Q.
Organic chemistry?
16
Q.
What is your date of birth?
17
February the 7th, 1924 .
18
Q . Where`do you currently reeide?
15
2828 Birchwbod Drive, Winston-Salem,
19
A .
20
North Carolina .
21
22
23
24
Q
Do you have any intentions, in the
of moving, relocating?
Not that I'know of .
Are you married?
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 534
Q .
1
A.
How
long
have .you been married?
F.ifty years on .June the 7th, 1997 .
Q . Is your 'wife' employed?
4
No .
5
Q . Do you have any children?
Yes .
Q . How many?
Three
MS . BRACHTL : Counselor, could you
10
11
12
speak up, .pleaee .
MR'. MAISTROS : Sure .
BY"MR . MAISTROS
13
14
15
16 .
17{
49, 47, and 44 .
o any of your children work for
Reynolds, or have they?
All three have°worked for Reynolds in what
18
was .known as Reynolds Summer Program for children
19
of'dmployees,~loading boxcars, and so on and so
20
forth,` My youngest son is'a manager in personnel .
21
What- ' s,
22
Mark Rodgman .
23
24'
25
manager,of personnel'trainingl
o either of your other two children
work full time for Reynolds, or have they?
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 535
Yes .
Q
What years?
was in the"-Canadian Navy :£rom 1942 to 1945 .
4
was born' in
10
11
When did y
12
Q
13
1954 . . But, before that, I'moved to Canada .
14
15
°'Twenty-six-years :'
Where ; clid you attend high school?
16
17
Toronto, Ontario,' Canada ; Humberside
18
19
20
Did you .
21
221
I went i
231
24
R
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 536
1
A . I entered the-University of Toronto in honors
chemistry .
4
Q
5
University of Toronto?
6
Eight yearsi .
7
Q, And what-degrees did you obtain?
Bachelor of arts in honors chemistry, and
master of arts in organic chemistry, and a Ph .D .
10
in-organic chemistries ; '49, '51, '53,
11
respectively .
12
Q . Up until 1953,` had you done any
13
work'related to or with a tobacco company?
14
A . No, I had not .
15
16
t2
Had any of your research involved
tobacco, in any fashion, up'to 1953?
17
18
Q
What was'your first involvement with
19
tobacco?
20
A . When I was hired by R .J . Reynolds in 1954 .
21
Q . What '`month?
22
June the .23rd .~
23
24
Was that your first full-time
employment after 'college?
25
WAGA & SPINEhLI `
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 537
1
2
Reynolds?
Well, I had a peculiar circumstance that, in
1941, I obtained a summer position at the
Banting & Best Department of Medical Research .
And for t .he summers, and then during the falls and
7
winters, I worked evenings and weekends, until I
got'my Ph .D .' in 1953 . Then I worked "full time at
9
the'Banting &<Best,Department of Medical Research .
10
Q . Where is the Banting & Best Department
11
f .Medical Research?
12
-Toronto, Ontario, Canada .
13
Q : What did you do there?
was involved in the study of
14
15
carcinogenesis . ;
S2 .
16
17
was a -- did_research .
A.
What is "carcinogenesis?
18
Carcinogenesis is the,process whereby a
19
20
How ;were you involved?
carcinoma is formed_ .,
21
0.
22
Carcinoma is a tumor .
Did you do research on any specific
23
24
25
What is a
type
types of tumors?
N
:WAGA' & `SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111 .
Vol . 4, Pg . 538
materials that were used in the studies .
Q
Did you have a major goal or theme of
your :research during that period of time?
A.
The major'goal
well,-my .major goal was to
synthesize the compounds that my professor there
material that'would act as a`'vaccine against
cancer .
9
10
certain compounds?
That'a=what I was-there-for .
11
3t e s .
12
Q . Multiple-compounds? How many
13
14
compounds did you synthe'size?
Well, they,were :peculiar compounds in which
15
polycyclic hydrocarbon .`was'--linked to proteins .
16
And .I probably synthesized .-- to'be able to link
17
the,polycyclic to .the protein required a series of
18
reactions, and then the final reaction to do the
19
li:nking . And I probably did 10 or 15, I guess .
20
And, of :course, because the-material
21
wae being used in animal studies, I had to keep
22
making them again and again, because these studies
23
ran . -.f or many yeara .
24
And _what- is the -- what is the purpose
251 of making these synthesized compounds, as opposed
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 539
to using naturally .occurring compounds?
You couldn't find them naturally occurring .
Did you publish'any research?
Wheze was it published?
A . , :Sotrie of it was in the Journal of American -jimerican''CYiemical Societv,'and some was in the
annual report of the Ontario Treatment and
Research Association, which was =- did the funding
10
of ,the work . Some of .it was published -- or
11
presented before various meetings . Canadian
12
Physiological Society,'I think, was one of them .
13
Q . And that was from '47 to '53?
14
Yes .
15
Q . How did your research progress in
16
17
terms of coming up with a vaccination?
. It wasn't too'succeseful .
Q
18
19
Was`that research continued after you
left?
20
Yes .
21
Q•
22
No .
23
Q.
. Why did ° :it ,stop?
24
A . Well, .my,professor, Dr . W . R . Franks, who was
25
.a cancer research professor at the University of
WAGA & :SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 540
1
Toronto, he eventually retired, and then, of
2
course,
4
4
5
-_a couple of years ago he died .
Who was funding that research? Do you
know?
Ontario Treatment and Research Association,
think it's called . And some of it was funded by
7
the National Cancer Institute of Canada .
Q . Was there any specific type of cancer
that you were focused on, as opposed to just
10
11
cancer I
general or tumors in general?
Well, it was the vaccine, if you want to call
12
it that . It was, you know, an attempt to find
13
something that would counteract the -- the effect
14
of polycyclic in -- polycyclice in animals .
What is a polycyclic?
15
4
16
Polycyclic compound is .one with more than one
17~
Poly
18
19'
Each ring is
20
Q
21
22"
23
Q
How are' .polycyclic compounds formed,
24
or how do they get in the animal's system?
25
A . Well, in the experimental work, they were
WAaA & SPINELLI ,
(201) 992-4111
Vol .
, Pg . 54 1
injected into the animal .
2
Q . What type of animals?
A . Mice .
4
Q . Why did you use mice ?
A . Well, I had no control over what~beast was
used ; Dr . Franks was the one that selected the
7
mouse .
Q . Didyou ever use any other type of
animals ?
10
A . Some of the people in the group were studying
11
what was called Rous sarcoma, which occurs in
12
chickens . So they used chickens .
13
Q
Is there some product or proces s
14
whereby the average person would be able to relate
15
what polycyclic compounds come out of or ar e
16
created by? I mean, why -- how -- why do yo u
17
focus on polycyclic compounds ?
18
19
20
MR .'MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : Well, as I say, I was
21
doing a job for the professor . But, at that point
22
,in .time, 1947, polycyclic hydrocarbons were quit e
23
rampant in the gasoline exhaust, the foods yo u
;Ln
-
I m
24
-exhaus
effluents .from your
25 coal-fired furnaces,- ;-oi1-fired furnaces, gas-fire d
WAGA & SPINELL I
(201) 992-4111
w
Ln
W
Vol . 4, Pg . 542
furnaces, tires that are being worn out on the
Q
6
that they were in tobacco or tobacco smoke?
about°°the`--: 1950, after some of the
9
epidemiological s.tudies resu3 .ts were published,
10
there-'was an effort-to f4gure out . And then
11
Dr . :Wynder had his mouse ski .n painting work, to
12
find'out if there was .-,- what was in the cigarette
13
smoke . And of course they concentrated on the
14
po3.ycyclic hydroca,rbons right .away, starting in, I
15
gueds,
'51/'52 .
16
Q .
"They" ;; w o is they?
17
People in . the
scientists around the world
18
were -- looked at it,' an .d'`primarily because of the
19
tremendous background on the polycyclic
20
hydrocarbons that had :begun'in 1931 .
21
By who? .
22
23
i
24
25
hydrocarbons?
would say,- if you categorize them into
(201) 992-4111
&
Vol . 4, Pg . 543
different types, there ;;are ::probably about 75
different types of polycyclic hydrocarbons . Of
course,,one of the classifi-catione .,ia whether they
have two rings, three .ringp, four rings, five,
And
Q . Are they`all,carcinogenic?
No . In fact, some`of them are
7
non=carcinogenic, and eome of them will offset the
effect of carcinogenic .hydrocarbone .
Q . Are there
10
MS . KNIS.ELY :
11
want to talk with you for a second, if
12
minute?
13
we-can go off the record .
14
MR . MAISTRQS_ :
15
VIDEOQRApHER :
16
record at 9 :48 a .m .
18
a .m .
vIDE00RAPHER :
20
record at 9 :52 a :m .
21 BY`MR . MAISTROS :
22'~
Q
23
talking about .polycyclic hydrocarbons . Let me ask
24
you, first of all, of the 75 different types that
25
you`said existed ; some are cancer-producing ; is
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 544
that correct?
Yes . In mice -- or animals .
{~ . If I use'the phrase "carcinogenic," do
you equate that ;:with cancer-producing or not?
.
Carcinoma-p'ro'ducing .
Q,
Of
t :he 75 different types, are they
carc,inogenic or carcinbma-producing?
A . It depends on how you'adminiater them . There
are some polycyclic .hydrocarbons which are not
10
tuntorigenic . There are some that, if you
11
administer them one way, they will cause a
12
carcinoma, by skin painting, and another one, if
1. 3
you inject them, it will cause a sarcoma . And
14
some, ;if ;you feed them, they don't cause anything .
o the term tumorigenic or
15
16
carcinogenic is dependent on about 50 factors
17
have to be,t`aken into account .
18
19
20
Q
that
inlhether .it's carcinogenic, tumorigenic
or carcinoma-producing, is the end result cancer?
Well, if you're"talking tumorigenic, not
21
neceaearily so, be-cause the tumorigenic compound
22
could cause_a papilloma, which is not
23
benign .tumor, which is not considered a cancer .
241
25
is a
`Q . What is the major alleged link between
polycyclic hydrocarbone and tobacco smoke?
WAC3A&'BPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 545
MR . I4CDERMOTT= Object to the form of
1
the question .
BY MR .'=MAISTROS :
If you .could survey the literature
not holding you to -- from a scientific
and .-
standpoint, this opinion .
I'm asking you, out of
th,e .literature out there, the major alleged link
-bettaeen polycyclic hydro -- or polycyclic
hydrocarbons,'tobacco'amoke and disease, what is
10
the alleged link?
il
MR ._BLANCATOt
12
MR . MCDERMOTT
13
THE WZTN$SSs
14
Object to the form .
Object to the form .
You're talking now, or
1954, or '55?
15
BY MR . MAISTROS t
16
Q
Let
17
A . Well, in'view of the evidence that's been
18
cQllected over the last 40 years, the~aasociation
19
between polycyclic h,ydrocarbons and cigarette
20
smoking disease in smokers is very tenuous .
s the alleged link between polycyclic
21
carcinogenic effect,
22
hydrocarbons and smoking a
23
tumor-producing effect? What is it?
MR .
24
25
MCDERMOTT :
Ln
~
..m
Object to the form .
Compound .
(201) 992-4111
w
Ln
,-J
Vol . 4, Pg . 546
1
BY MR . :MAISTROSs
Q . I want to just understand, for th .e
next:`couple of days, if I use the word
"tumor-producing'
or "carcinogenic" or
"cancer-producing," we re,not missing each other
6
in the night because I'm thinking one thing and
7
you're thinking another . Is`there some agreed
upon format we can use that you're comfortable
9
10
'w .ith?
Yes . If you' .re going,to use the term
or "tumorigenic" or "sarcogenic,"
11
"carcinogenic"
12
think you should be aware of what goes into
13
determining'that effect .
I
And, for example, the effect of a
14
15
compound is species-dependent . Things that happen
16
in mice cannot happen in ra,ts, do not happen in
17
rabbits, guinea pigs, or monkeys, dogs . And you
18
may have eomething_happen in a,rat that doesn't
19
happen in a mouee :
Tumorigenici :t,y a.~e also
20
21
'may not happen in a male, and vice ;
i
22
animal won! t
23
versa . Tumorigenicity is also dependent on the
24
age ;of the animal, .what happens when you've got a
25
six-week-old mouseland you start the experiment
WAaA` .&,SPINELLI
i
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 547
versus what happens when you've got a year-old
2
mouse . You can tell -- you may get entirely
3
different reactions .
The other thing is the mode of
4
administration .
;Whether it's skin painting ;
varioue types of irijection, intravenous,
intraperitoneal,
Q . Those are factors that affect --
8
inhalation .
9
Those are factors that affect the
10
11
.subcutaneous injection --
tumorigenicity, ;if, you :will,
12
.Right .
13
Q . -- the compound .
14
What_ Y
15
assume, .• . .1
16
Well, tumorigenic is an all-encompassing
17
18
19
word .
That's
20
looking °for the al .l -encompassing word that I can
21
use,,that you're comfortable with, that is an
I
22
alleged adverse health risk related to polycyclic
23
hydrocarbons . What's the broadest word you can
,
24
think of today?
25
A . Well, tumorigeneaie would be one . But I say,
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 548
even<vin that case,'you've got to take into account
the factors I was trying to tell you about and
Q . ' I , apologize`.
6
-administration .makee_a,great :deal .of difference,
whether it's the substance administered neat or in
solution ; and it depends on the kind of solution,
the .+concentration, and so on .
Men are :not,mice type theory?
10
11
Yes . You,probably read that'I had written
12
that someplace, `but I` plagiarized it . If you want
13
to find-out where it is, look in something Ernest
14
Wynder wrote .
I like that quote, though .
15
Q
16
Well,
in that case, I'm sorry I wasn't
17
the .inventor .
18
Q.
I
wi11
t
19
"tumorigenesis .°',And if I ask you a question in
20
the future, that<you think it's not accurate
21
because .•I'm not using the right phrase, I'd like
22
.you to interrupt me and tell me, okay?
23
24
I
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 549
doing from 147 to 153, was there a particular type
f tumorigenesis you were looking at?
We were looking . :at the -- .there ,are four
polycyclic hydrocarbons that,_ .from -- after
1932 -- well, actually 1931, that, when they were
syntheeized,or,isoi .ated .from something identified,
th-en synthesized, there'were four polycyclic
hydrocarbons'that are considered the most potent
.,
available :' Dibenz ia ; h] anthracene
Okay .
10
11
benefit, and`partially mine, if you could do these
12
long
13
words
slower,
okay?
. Okay . Dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and those are
14
square parens, too . ; benzo[a]pyrene ;
15
3-methylcholanthrene ;
16
7, 1,2-dimethylbenz Ta] anthracene . And the "All is in
17
brackets, .
18
]. 9
20
'21,
What :do you mean by "most potent"?
Well, if you were to look at a eeries of
hydrocarbons, you get --
polycyclic hydrocarbons,
you .get some .that aren'.-t active at all, some are
22
very slightly active . In other words, you may get,(„
23
o ne : t u m o r i n a t h ous ari d mi ce . B u t ,
24
thee right concentration in the right beast and
25
administered in the right .way, will cause a large
WAGA & SPINELLI
those four ,
at
(201) 992-4111
m
I W
Vol . 4, Pg . 550
percent of tumor-bear,ing animals . And they're
used~many times as standards .
o that ; even?
6
-We11, dibenz [a, hlanthracene was ' f irst found
to be`tumorigenic in 1931 . It was synthesized by
9
10
Dr .•Fieser at Harvard and found to be tumorigenic
by Kennaway in England .
11
Q . In what beast?
12
Mouse .
13
0
14
It'was isolated from coal tar in 1932 by
15
W . Cook and his colleagues . He isolated it,
How about benzo [a] pyrene? .
16
proved its-structure by-synthesis and then showed
17
thatt it, was tumorigenic in mice .
18
Q
19
I forget the exact date'about
20
-methylcholanthrene . But the interest in
21
3-methylcholanthrene is that, for years, from 1935
22
to 1950, people : were looking at
23
-methylcholanthrene because, if you heat food
24
stuffs containing cholesterol -- cholesterol is
251 structurally similar to 3-methylcholanthrene
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 551
there-was a likelihood or a theory that you would
get 3-methylcholanthrene in your food stuffs . And
that was the reason :for the high level of cancer
f -the stomach in the United States versus places
like Japan that very`seldom had cooked meat or
things with cholestero,l in it that were cooked .
How about dimethylbenzla]anthracene?
Well, that was .-actually .the -- that was
started about the 1950s . 'it actually was thought
10
to, be just a .straight synthetic compound, until it
11
was found in .a l,ot of things, food stuffs . And,
12
of course, it is found in tobacco smoke ; but it's
13
a very small amount .
14
Q . These four, what .you've described as
15
the most potent polycyclic hydrocarbons, is that
16
still true today, that those are the,four most
17
potent?
18
would sl! y yes
19
of that, becaub+e .there `have been writings that
20
maybe an individual coimpound might be more potent
21
than`those . But .those'four have been used in so
22
many experimental systems that, if you're going to
23
do an experiment in tumorigenesis and you want a
24
control, you might pick, :=one of those four, because
25
you've got something'like 50/60 years of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 552
background to fall'back o
- And'the object, during an animal
experiment, is .you always have what's`called a
positive control, which`would include maybe one of
these four, And if something went wrong with a
certain concentration and mode of administration,
and .you didn't get .the percent tumor-bearing
animals that you usually got, you knew you were
doing the experiment wrong and you better look at
10
your procedure :' Were your technicians doing the
11
skin painting properly, or was the solution right,
12
13
or so on and 'so forth .
:
,. .
Q . Now, when you say that they were --
14
these four .were known to produce tumors back in
151
the '30s,-'31/'32, is that a specific type of
16 1
tumor? The same`for all four?
17
A . Well, here,again, if you skin paint
18
benzpyrene, I'm sure -- we might as well stick
19
with that, because that's the one you're going to
20
rattle on about for the next few days .
21
Benxola]pyrene, if you paint it on the
22
skin, will-cause`a carcinoma of the skin . But if
23
you inject it subcutaneously, it causes a sarcoma .'N
m
24
If you administer it by -inhalation, it doesn't
25
cause anything .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 553
Q . Are there percentages that have been
1
attached to these different polycyclic
3
hydrocarbons, such as 80 percent of the mice that
.are, skin painted with particular ones have
developed-tumore, or 90'percent0
6
Well, it depends on the concentration, sir .
could -- D
experiments in 1957 ;-_showed that you could start
with a certain concentration of benzo [a] pyrene
10
solution and paint mice`with a certain
11
coneentration, cut it in half, cut it in half, cut
12
it in half, and paint different groups with the
13
solutions, and .you got to a point where you had a
14
level of benzo[a]pyrene_in solution that didn't
15
cause any tumore : But that level was 300 times
16
what's in a normal cigarette . .
That was'out of Dr . Wynder's lab in
17
18
19
That would' b
20
aseume1 `
y
21
A.
22
precise figures in there ; it may be 280, it may be
23
320
24
25
In the tar from 300 cigarettes . He has the
but it :'was cloae .to 300 .
Q
So there's'a certain minimum level
that has been discovered of
WAGA& SPINELLI
- of at least some o
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 554
these polycyclic hydrocarbons, at which they do
.not, promote
--
-Every one tested has aminimum thresh -- has
3
a threshold,limit value .
5
that you were talking about had about as much
as
8
A .
you need 300 cigarettes to equal?
Benzo [a7 pyrene :
Q : Why are they referred to as "most
10
potent"? I mean, how would a,layman understand as
11
to why they're the mos`t potent? Do they all cause
12
som'p form of ;tumors at some levels?" Are they just
13
biologically more active?
14
No . As I just finished telling you, they
151
don't, .cause it at al1`levels . It is the fact
161
that, if you were'to-administer a certain number
17
of millimoles of benzpyrene versus a certain
181
number -- the same number of .millimoles of, say,
19
benzoCa]anthracene,'which is a borderline
20
tumorigenic, if it's`a tumorigenic at all . Then,
21
at a .given concentration, say, benzo[a]pyrene
Ln
22
~
~
m
might produce 8fl_percent tumor-bearing animals, ,~
.
w
23
and benzo[a]pyrene (aic) may produce 2>percent at
24
the same concentration .
25
;~
And`it was found that those four, at a
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g
555
r
certain concentration, always produced the
2
highers, versus everything else that was tested .
Q•
Are all "four of those,polycyclic
hydrocarbons you mentioned in tobacco smoke?
As far as I know, 3-methylcholanthrene has
neve,.r been found in -- well, it's been found in
cigaret-te smoke but never confirmed . A man in
8
Germany called :Krt511er reported it, but there was
some question about the accuracy of his
10
identification . Dietrich Hoffmann and Ernest
11
Wynder disagreed with his identification .
12
Q . Do you know when the other three were
13
discovered to be in tobacco smoke?
14
A . Well, as I mentioned before, there was a big
15
controversy about whether the_polycyclics were in
16
cigarette smoke, and that controversy rattled on
17
between '51, '52, 'S3 . And even as late as 1957,
18
f.or example, for benzo[aJpyxene :, Dr . .Fieser, who
19
was :probably one'of the two great-polycyclic
20
hydrocarbon chemists,in this country, did not
21
agree wit .h the evidence indicating benzopyrene was
22
in cigarette smoke : His own staff could not find
23
it, yet they could find it in coffee .
&
24
Q . Who's the other great polycyclic
25i
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 556
Melvin Newman`at`Ohio State . I believe he's
Those are -- polycyclic wizards in
almost every_country . : J . W . Cook in England, whom
I have mentioned ; Clar, in Germany, wrote several
big, huge books on polxCyclics . The French had
Lacassagne ; that's L-A-C-A-S-S-A-G-N-E ; and a
Vietnamese called Buu-Hoi, B-U-U, hyphen, H-O-I .
8
So each country had somebody who was doing
p.olycyclic hydrocarbon-~work, from 1931 to probably
10
the war time ; everything was interrupted by the
11
war .
12
Q . And who was America's?
13
`Melvin Newman at Ohio State and Louis Fieser
14
at Harvard . And Louis Fieser, of course, was the
15
chemist who did ;this chapter on cigarette smoke in
16
the :1964' ;Surgeon General's report :' . .
17
18
The three hydrocarbons that -- is it
generally accepted,they're in cigarette smoke, the
19
20
as' I'said, after --`in '57, because
21
Fieser wouldn't accept the evidence, there
22
was -- that was in the literature, there was a big ~
23
push to definitely identify them . And the -- I
24
guess the culminating thing was, in 1959,
251 Dr . Wynder and Hoffmann'published -• gave a
Vol . 4, Pg . 557
presentation and s.aid ; Well, .here's absolute
proof that it's' .from
3
it's in-cigarette smoke .
And they showed a pictu,re of some-crystals of
ben,zo [a7 pyrene, which I' m sure they found .
So
5
after ;.i67/'58, everybody accepted
th'at it was there` .
8ame as everybody accepts it's
in .your toast this morning .
Q . S forgot my toast . I did get my
oatmeal, but they forgot ~ the toast .
10
The .levels you mentioned, I'm sure
11
there's a minimum threehol .d you have to get to
12
before it .is tumor promoting . As you said, for
13
benzo [a] pyrene ,you need 300 cigarettes?
no .
14
15
With cigarettes ;~he backed off on solutions of
16
pure benzo {a] pyrene ;: And when he got to an
17
equiv;alent that-wae .many"times what was in the
18
cigarette tar that he usually used, he didn't get
19
any .
20
21
sure you may be aware .that Dr . Wynder,
22
Dr . Hof fmann, `-Fred .Bock :, Ben j amin Van Duuren and
23
Alvin Kosak have repeatedly written that, in the
24
skin painting studies with cigarette smoke tar,
25
the polycyclic hydrocarbons, as a class, can
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 558
explain no more .than,two and :a half percent of the
And J'. W . Cook, Fieser, .everybody, has
.said, for 50 years, .you oannot explain the
observed response by the polycyclid hydrocarbons .
And if you look in the -' 79 .Surgeon General, the
'82 Surgeon General
the
all say the same thing .
To .add something to this business
10
11
about the controversy : From '51, that area --
12
that :time period, I ;personally couldn't understand
13
why there was a'controversy . Because, from 1935
14
to 1950, every material that was --'had an organic
15
compound, whether,,iaas chicken` wings, or steak, or
16
isoprene,
17
every one that was he`ated at a temperature above
-'18
19
or methane, or simple organic`compounds,
500 degrees gave :a series .of polycyclics .
Q .
In
the ;'work' you were doing, which is
20
where`we started, from,'47 to ',53, were you
21'
focusing on these four polycyclic hydrocarbons?
22
Well, focusing on`thope, plus another one,
23
benzo [a] anthracene, ` which 'ie actually in smoke
24
too . It's`a borderline tumorigenic . In fact,
25
there'are probably as many reports in the
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 559
literature that it's non-tumorigenic than there
are ; that" says , it
s very mildly tumorigenic .
I also
°some of my work involves
eome,other .things besides'polycyclic hydrocarbons
5
There's nitrogent~mustards that are tumorigenic
6
compounds, and I was involved with those .
Q~
mustards?
9
We want -- there was
10
that,- if you had linked a compound -that was
11
tumorigenic to another one'that was,tumorigenic,
12
would you get addition,'synergism or cancellation?
13
And ;I was interested in the fact that -- of
14
hooking a nitrogen mustard to a polycyclic
15a
hydrocarbon and made a,series,of those compounds .
And,they really acted like the
16
17
polycyclic . Nitrogen mustard had very little
18
influence, because nitrogen mustard, as you
19
.probably are aware,' ;_for some years was used to
20
treat leukemia in .children .
21
Q . What other research were you doing '47,
Ln
22
23
53?
~
~
Well, one of the things that did prove useful i m
w
J
24
later was -- other than my experience with
25
polycyclic hydrocarbons, was my -- 'Professor
(201
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 560
Franks had a good frie.nd ;who was head of the
medical department_ot a large U .S . corporation .
They were having some"problems,with -= and asked
us to do
f ind `out~ wh'at wae the problem in a
5
tarry-like substance that .was .being emitted from
6
equipment . And I developed a,procedure to look at
7
it .
It_was,obvious, very quickly, that it
contained polycycl#,c'<hydrocarbons .c
developed a
I pay :"developed ;" :I combined
10
procedure, based
11
two procedures that were in the literature : That
12
-
I
>f .J . W . Cooky~ and`hie work on the isolation of
13
polycyclics from coa3, tar, with a procedure called
14
column chromatograpliy,''and developed a procedure
15
16
o .tsolate polycyclic hydrocarbons from a complex
mixture .
It was a much easier procedure, much
1 7_:
18
si.tnpler than the'one Cook had used .- And, of
19
course, you got to remember, in 1931 there was
20
very little known about -- they' .didn't'know what
21
they .were looking for, for one thing . And they
22
started with two tons of coal tar . .
What 'company was this?
23
©
24
The company in the United States?
25
Yes .
WAaA & SPINELLI"
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 561
I
m not at liberty to'tell you that .
This was -- you signed a
2
confidentiality agreement?,_
My boss did . Well,_it was one'of those
f;riendship things .
A.
Well, as I say,- ;there seemed to be a problem
with=a --`the tar emitted from the equipment they
10
were ueing and the effect on the ekin of some of
11
the workers .
Q . Was the problem solved?
12
I have no idea . I just gave the results to
13
A .
14
my boss, and he transmitted them to liis friend,
15
and .I don't know .w.hat wa ;s done with them .
16
Q . And the reeearch you did for that
17
particular projeCt-•was to .identify the polycyclic
18
hydrocarbons
19
20
Well, to see if they'were there, and it was a
.good guess that they were . And I did identify
21
some of them . There we're a_whole series, startin
22
with-naphthalene, N-A-P-H-T-H-A-L-E-N-E,
23
anthracene, benzpyrene, benzanthracene . . They were
24
all : there . .
Ln
25
4
And what kind . jof `skin problems was the
WAC3A : & SPINELLI
~
~
!N
m
~
w
~
w
Vol . 4, Pg . 562
1
tar;,causing : for the ' employees?
2
I have no_idea,` sir .
whatever happened to that issue, or -
today?
Yes .
8
Q10
work?
11
A . When I came .to Reynolds, I was given a
12
project to do, which I did, and which`ended . Then
13
I was asked what`I :would like to :work on ; which I
14
was-a little surprised, because usually you're
15
told,what you're'to work on . And I said : Well,
16
in view of all the stuff that's .going on in the
17
literature, I think`we should look at cigarette
18
smoke . They said" ; Go ahead ._
19
20
And, of course, with all this
'controversy on polycyclic hydrocarbons and having
21
a method to determine"them or isolate and separate
22
them, we set up a smoking system that matched, as
23
near as we could, the one that Dr . Wynder
24
described in his 1953 paper on the skin painting
25
work, the Wynder, Graham and Croninger paper .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
Vol . 4, Pg . 563
1
looked at that .diagram and built a smoking machine
2
as :close to that as we could, from the diagram,
and used .the same smoking regime that'Dr . Wynder
had used, which he had said simulated the human
smoking eyetem ; ."whichy it .,really didn't . He used
three puffs per minute, which nobody used at that
7
time ; but we copied that .
And looking at the -- putting my
procedure through the`
the cigarette smoke, we
10
isolated and identified polycyclic hydrocarbons in
11
cigarette smoke .
Q . Before we'get to Reynolds, the work
12
13
you were doing from '47, .to '53 was -- the end goal
14
was to develop a vaccine for cancer-promoting or
15
cancer -- tumor-p`ro .moting-.compounds?
16 .
A . Tumor-initiated .
Q . And between '47 and '53, you weren't
17
18
doing research to see if the compounds were
19
tumor-producing,youu were doing research to figure
20
out`a solution to combat the tumor-promoting
21
compounds, correct?
Ln
~ 1
22
23
.
~
~
~ m
That's right . .
Q . You took it :as a given, between '47
w
J
Ln
24
and ."53, that certain`polycyclic hydrocarbons were
25
cancer or tumor promoting, correct?
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 56 4
3
vaccine for animals or_humans ?
Well, I thin k
in hope that, if there was a correlation_between
tumorigenicity in animals and .the tumorigenicit y
8
in humans,,that it would .work in humans .
Q . Did :you do
10
53 ?
11
My work
12
Q .
was all chemistry, sir .
Did anyone .in your laboratory, eithe r
13
Franks or anyone else, do you'know if they studie d
14
any,polycyclic hydrocarbon effect on humans ?
15
16
. ' No , they da.dn' t :
Q . They did not ?
coupl e
17
18
history, .sir .
19
20
are subjected to polycyclie hydrocarbons and watc h
2 1
them, over a period of °time, to see what happens ?
Ln
22
For e :xample, yo u mentioned that, I
23
th.i;nk, polycyclic-hydrocarbons are' prevalent i n
24
some fuels . Has a'nyone ever done etudies to look
2 5,
at :re.finery workers, over a period of,time, to see
(201) 992-4111
~_A
Vol . 4, Pg . 565
if there's_any correlation with .the animal
studies?
~A . Well,"you have a problem with -- in some
instances, of compari'eon . °zf you'r,e .looking at
po],ycyclics and the 'effect on skin ;i if somebody
gets stuff on the skin,` tar or oi1 .'or whatever,
you may get somewhat the sajme` effect : But one of
the problems has been that, on inhalation, the -it's~been, I,think,
.very .rare circumstance has
10
anybody ever beon abie to produce lung tumor in
11
animals with inhalation of a polycyclic
12
hydrocarbon .
13
Q . I'm just asking you if you're aware of
14
any'long-term-or short-term studies that were done
15
on humans that were eubjected to polycyclic
16
hydrocarbons in the'environment .
17
No . But there was a study done in Italy,
18
before the war, 1937/'38, by Cottini,
19
C-O=T-T-I-N-z, .'and Mazzone, M-A-Z-Z-O-N-E,
20
which' they actually painted human -beings with
21
solutions of polycyclic hydrocarbons that had
22
produced tumors in animals . I .think the skin
23
painting went on for four`or`- .five months . I
24
believe it was done .with prisoners . And I believe
,.
it`was terminated when -- Labor'Day of 1939, when
25
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 566
war ..was dec'lared`between Great Britain, Canada,
Germany, Italy, and'the prisoners were shipped
into the Italian Army .
Q . Was this published research?
5
Q . Do you know if there were any
7
conclusions drawn as to .a,ny analogies that can be
made to the animal skin painting?
I don't think it`ran .long enough . I think it
10
11
12
only` ran three o,rr four months .
Q . When you'were doing your studies in
147 to '53, was it a11 .:-skin painting?
13
No . Well, I didn't do any of the skin
14
painting . I saw a lot of it . I would say there
15
were, :eome injection -- the vaccine thing was
16
tested on skin-painted animals, on
17
inttaperitoneally-injected animals,-on intra --
18
eubcutaneously-injected animals,
19
. .in't•ravenously- :injected animals . And, of course,
20
work going on_there did -- as I said before, there
21
wae one small .,group under Dr . Franks, .working on
22
the ;Rous sarcoma with chickens . Rous sarcoma is a
23
virus-caused tumor .
24
0
Was
there
a
25,1, period, was there a generally scientifically
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 567
1
accepted method of doing this testing, skin
2
guessing?
4
A :-, No . If you were
there was a pretty well-set protocol . If you were
doing subcutaneous injection, there was a
defined -- fairly well defined protocol . And that
wasiprobably due to when I was running through all
9
that stuff about-the`factors that influence
10
tumorigenesis . Between "31 and 1941 --- '31 was
11
when .i'-the first polycyclic hydrocarbon tumorigenic
12
for mouse skih`was found, and then '32 was the
13
benzpyrene in coal tar .
14
15
Between that time, people were
-synthesizing polycycliO hydrocarbons in all
16
directions, different structures, ones with methyl
17
groups dangling on them and two methyl groups,
18
three methyl groups .' And they were painting them
19
on mice, and making all sorts of wild claims . And
20
a man who was a very noted cancer .research
21
specialist in polycyclic hydrocarbons and other
22
tumorigens, Dr . . Murray .Shear -- I don't know if he
23
worked for the National Cancer Institute or the
24
predecessor of the National -- but he was asked to
25
write an article to put all this mees in
WAaA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g
568
And he
Shear and Leiterr are-the authors, in which he went
through-'and described,all the intricacies of
tumorigenesis atudies, : ;`whatl it : all meant, and so
on .and eo forth .'
7
work he had done'came the procedure, for example,
in ekin painting, that=you had various groups of
mice . `One you''called .the cage control, and all
10
you did was put them in a cage, 100 mice or 50,
11
whatever number you wanted to use, put them in six
12
to a-cage or something, and you fed them and gave
13
them water and'cleaned their cage up every day .
14
And,then you had what'was called the
15
solvent control ; you had a group of mice that
16
you -- on the shaved surface of their.a:.back, you
17
painted them with the solvent . Th,en ;you had a
18
positive control,
19
that you_wanted to<use, maybe one of the four that
20
I talked about,
21
pai.nt'ed the back with
benzpyrene,or whatever,
Ln
22
Then whatever your test, material was,
:I-
N
23
was~'the subsequent ;groupst
24
different materials,you were'testin_g
251 ten groups painted the`same way as you did with
WAGA' &,. SPINEL .L,I
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 569
1
the benzpyrene positive control .
So it was all fairly well set out that
3
way . And of course, one of the interesting things
4
is that when you all -- everybody talks about
carcinogenicity and tumorigenicity . If you look
in"`the government documents that cataloged the
7
compounds that were tested for tumorigenicity,
8
that book was first published in 1947 and the
second edition in '51, and then .another one in
10
'57, and it keeps on going . It's now -- if you
11
had them'all-together_here, they'd be as wide as
12
this-table, all stacked side-by-side . But in the
13
first 25 years,`one of the'compounds that was used
14
as the solvent was benzine .
And in the solvent controls, the -- I
15
16
didn't look at all the books some time ago, when
there was a big fuss=about benzine . But as far as
I know, there are only three-tumors that ever
appeared in something like 11,000 animals painted
with benzine . Now is that tumorigenic or not
21
tumorigenic?
22
Q . Which three tumors?
23
Pardon?
24
Q
~
~
J
~
m
~
w
Which three tumors?
OD
~
251 A . Well they were all the same type, as I
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 570
1
recall . I've forgotten what they called -- it had
a weird name .
3
Q
You mean three tumors, or three types
f'tumors, or three :gpecific tumors?
A ..
No, three animals had tumors, and I don't
know what the tumor type- ;was, out of thousands of
animals tested that way .
8
9
0
A .
What `a-tudy are you referring to?
10
11
Ve11, I say, in many studies benzine was used
12
as .the solvent . And the solvent control, if
13
benzine had been ag tumorigenic as some people
14
claim, you,certainly :would have found more than
15
three in 20 years out of the thousands and
16
thousands of animals treated .
17
Q
Is therea'a :specific paper that I could
18
.identify or go'to that would summarize the
19
majority of the work you did from '47 to '53?
20
A . (Witnese shakes head .) No .
21
Q.
Are :there .specific titles of those
22
papers you recall, as you sit here today, that I
23
could look up?
24
00
N
Well, as I-- ohe of them, I think -- the one
251 that' .s in the Journal gf American Chemical Society
WAGA & SPINELLI-
Ln
r
_J
N
~
~
w
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 571
is a compound :I prepared with -- linking thyroxine
to .dibenzanthracene .
Thyroxin, of course, is the active
amino .acid that's .in`your thyroid . But I think
someplace you' mua`t have -- in all this stuff I've
given you, you must .have a copy of all my
publications .
Even prior~ .to Reynolds?
You have everything I've ever written that
10
has been,published .
11
Which I'gather you :mustn't have looked at .
12
Or presented at meetings .
Q . And, again, up until '53, none of your
13
specific research focused on tobacco or tobacco
14
smoke?
15
None of my`work at the Banting Institute
16
nor :`my work in the chemical department nor my
17
master's or my Ph .D . or -- my bachelor's degree
18
might -- you .might say : Well
19
. . .
As it turned out years later, might
20
have had .-- been connected or had an indirect
21
connection .
22
But when I told you I was involved in' ;
23
an honors chemistry course in the University of
24
Toronto, the University of Toronto is different
251 Ontario universita.es are different from those in
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 572
1
the rest of Canada and in the United States, that,
2
when you take what's called an honors course,
particularly in science, the first three years you
take nearly all the-courses that you have to take
to graduate . Your fourth year you may have one or
two courses . And the rest of the time in your
fourth year you were assigned a research project ;
8
9
10
11
it's .sort of a mini master's .
And they believe, at the University of
Toronto, . that you should not graduate from an
.honors chemistry course or honors physics without
12
knowing how to do research . And my project for my
13
bachelor's degree was to develop a procedure to
14
prepare unsymmetrical hydrazines . The Canadian
15
government was interested in unsymmetrical
16
hydrazines because they were very fine -- thought
17
they :would be a very fine rocket fuel .
18
We1l, to get unsymmetrical hydrazines,
19
what you needed to ;do was to make -- first get a
20
nitrosamine, and then reduce it to the hydrazine .
21
So I prepared, the Canadian
22
government, and it_became part of my bachelor's
23
thesis, if you will, pounds of dimethyl
24
nitrosamine, half of'which I converted to dimethyl
25
hydrazine . And of course, at the time I did this
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 573
1
work, 1948/49, dimethyl nitrosamine was not known
2
to be tumorigenic . : It was only discovered in 1956
3
that it was-tumorigenic . But I guess I was lucky,
because I probably made 25 pounds of dimethyl
5
nitrosamine . .> I .'.m still here .
Q
6
7
And how is that arguably related to
tohacco or tobacco smoke?
10
. In 1963/64 two guys in -- two gentlemen in
11
South Africa said dimethyl nitrosamine was in
12
cigarette smoke .
Q
13
14
Who were those two?
. Serfontein, S-E-R-F-O-N-T-E-I-N, and Hurter,
15
H-U-R-T-E-R .
16
Q.
The work you were doing when you got
17
your bachelor's degree, at that point in time you
18
didn"t-know it would .have some bearing upon your
19
future work?
20
A.
21
had suggested in -'you've probably seen it -
22
something I wrote in the_late '60s -- late
23
'S0a/early '60s that the conditions in a burning
24
cigarette were such that things like dimethyl
25
nitrosamine could possibly be formed . And then
No . In fact, nobody knew until 19 -- well, I
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 574
1
two ;men in Germany, Druckrey, D-R-U-C --
2
D-R-U-C-K-R-E-Y, and Schmahl, S-C-H-M-A-H-L,
proposed the same thing, I think, in 1961 or '62 .
4
And ; subsequently, they were found .
Q . What is a nitrosamine?
5
6
A . It's an amine with a nitrosa group hanging on
it .
Q
9
Is there some alleged health problem
with nitrosamines?
10
A .~ Well, in 1956, Magee and Barnes, in England,
11
found that they were tumorigenic .
12
Q . Hae,there been any work published
13 .
since 1956_that would suggest that -- was it
14
Magee?
15
.Magee, M-A --
16
Q
17
No .
18 .
Q
19 .
20
21
22,
23
And .Barnes were wrong?
Have you ever disputed Magee and
Barnes' work?
.
Vve never done the kind .of work they did .
Q
When -- did you ever accept
that
nitrosamines were .tumorigenic?
Were tumorigenic in animals .
G,
24
0
When did you first believe that
25+ nitrosamines were tumorigenic in animals?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 575
Well, when you start reading the literature
1
after,1956 -- I forget the exact number, but
probably 350 nitrogamines have been synthesized,
used for one thing or another, and I think all but
about ten of them have shown some activity in
animals in some way or another . Mostly on
feeding .
8
Q . Mostly on what?
9
On feeding .
Of couree, .some of them are -- some of
10
11
them .are in cigarette smoke . Some of them are in
12
your ;bacon . Some of them are in your cooked
13
bacon .
Have there been similar studies, like
14
15
the polycyclic hydrocarbons, where you"need a
16
minimum level of'nitrosamines to become .
17
.tumorigenic?
18
A .
I'm sure there'have been, but I can't think
mean
19
Q
20
Nobody did like Wydner (sic) did,
21
where they kept-reducing the amount in half, until
22
they got to a
level that -Ln
23
A .
Q . Wydner .
24
25
You mean Wynder W-Y-N-D-E-R .
A.
Wynder .
W-Y-N-D-E-R .
WAaA & SPINELLI
N
~
~
m
~
w
Co
-j
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 576
1
Q .
2
N-D-E-R .
Q .
W-Y?
D-E-R .,
Nobody did any studies like Wydner,
5
that A.
7
Wynder .
Q
Wynder . Nobody did any studies -
A . The'man's`been'in the business for 47 years,
and you don't know his name?
10
Q .
He was the`first published --
11
12
0
15
16
1950 .
0
If you criticize my age, I want you to
get it'right .
Nobody"did any studies similar to him?
17
18
I thought you said me . I'm sorry .
Wynder published his first article in
13
14
41 .
A . I don't know, sir .
19
Q . You didn't do any .
20
No .
21
Q . And,, I'm sorry, what year did you say?
22
It was, '50 -- '63/'64, to be determined to be in
23
tobacco smoke?
24
25
Yeah . I think it was "63/'64 .
Then there was a big controversy of
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 577
whether it was formed actually there or formed
2
arti•factually du.ring the collection of the smoke .
it seenmed,-every time something came
4
up, .:there was a-c-ontroversy . And eventually
5
procedures were worked out .that it could not be
artifactual . It had .to be -- whatever you found
was the true`bill of .goods .
Q . Have you been deposed before today?
9
10
Yes .
Q . How many_times?
11
A . ` Well, three weeks ago, was it? Would be
12
Minnesota, in the beginning of the Arch
13
deposition . That's the only time I've been
14
deposed for smoking and health-related .
15
Q . What other types of depositions have
16
you given?
17
A . There was a deposition on a procedure that
18
Reynolds .had developed on how to expand tobacco .
19
And'in some of our .work we -- in examining
20
competitive products, we-became very suspicious
21
that :American'was using our process . And there
22
was a case invOlving-that, and I was deposed
23
during .,'-that .
24
Q
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 578
Q . Did that actually go to trial?
No . American paid up .
3
Q.
A.
5
It
was :a patent infringement case?
Yes .
Q . What process?
Expansion off tobacco .
Q . Does that have .a number on it or a
letter, G1'3?
G13 .
101
Q
How long were you deposed?
think it was two days . Day and
11
12
a half, something like that .
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
court action?
20
I have no idea .
21
Q . Other than,that deposition, have you
Ln
22
~-A
-4
ever given`any other depositions?
23
A . - There 'was a c`ase of -- about the -- about the
24
tobacco expansion business, with Philip Morris .
25
And",that was probably 15 years ago I've
(201) 992-4111
N
m
4%
Vol . 4, Pg . 579
1
forgotten the date . It was done over in
Charlotte .
Q . How long were you deposed in that
4
case7 ~ ~ ~
guess .
was
10
N
11
Q . Have you<given any
12
related to,the research you've done at Reynolds?
13
A.
14
I don't understand'"sworn etatement ."
Q . . Have you ever signed any documents
15
where somebody aeked, you to swear under oath the
16
truth .of what was'in the document, affidavit or
17
otherwise, notarized?
MR . BLANCATOs There is an affidavit
18
19
dealing with some'doCuments, privileged documents,
20
that has been provided in one of these smoking
21
health cases .
22
MS . KNISELY : Was that in Minnesota?
23
MR . MCDERMOTT
24
25
I believe that's
correct .
BY MR .' MAISTROS :
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 580
Q . We'll get into your employment history
at Reynolds, but when was your last year of
full-time employment at Reynolds?
A . Well, in 1987 -- it's a little difficult to
explain . 1987, ,Reynolds offered an incentive
retirement plan . And since -- under the
conditions of the incentive retirement, it took me
past .65 . I accepted it .
So .my last day of work was August the
10
31st, 1987 . But my .fu]1-time employment or pay
11
continued through`March<the lst, 1989 . Because
12
I-- because of my tenure at Reynolds and the
13
conditions of the' :incentive plan, I had 18 months
`14
15
continued pay, I guess_they called it . So I don't
know how you want to fit that i
MR . BLANCATO : Are we at a good point
16
17
or about to take .' a break?
18
MR . MAISTROS : Sure . Any time .
19
MR . BLANCATO : Let's take a break .
20
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
Ln
~
J
21
record at 10 :44 a .m .
m
(Recess taken from 10 :44 a .m . to 11 :00
22
~
w
~
N
23
a .m .)
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going back on the
24
25
record at 11 :00 a .m .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 581
MR . MAISTROS : The affidavit you
provided, that's in'the'Minneeota litigation, is
that a stipulation? Is`that a -- are we -MR . BLANCATO : I think -MR . MAISTROS : I don't want to stop
now, but if~we can,
.at the break, just check and
a
.7
or -- I'd just like to see it .
9
MR . BLANCATOs- Sure .
10 BY-MR: MAISTROS
Doctor,"have you given any -- whether
11
12
they were sworn or unsworn statements, any
13
statements to third parties, related to the
14
research you've done -- or you did at RJR, to
15
somebody other than your counsel? Has anyone ever
16
come up to you and eaid, "I'd like to ask you some
17
questions about what .you_did at RJR," just in an
18
informal setting?
19
Yes . I'm trying to think of his name .
20
reporter'in Greensboro, Catanosa, phoned me
21
some four or five years :back, and I refused to
22
talk to him .
23
4.
24
Well, he did a whole bunch of articles on
25
Did he do an article-eventually or
some things other people had told him .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 582
Q . Was there a particular subject or
theme that he ;was writing about?
It was"about an .incident that happened in
4
1970 .
. :
Q . And 'this was,what newspaper?
6
A . The Greensboro some ;thing or other . I don't
know the name of it .
Q
Did anyone at Reynolds tal,k to him in
series, in that'article?
I don't know if'they were -- whether they
10
11
were .at Reynolds at the`time . Some ex-employees
12
talked with him .
Q . Was the subject of that article about
13
14
the animal testing?
15
A . I guess you'd aay that .
16
0
The closing of the mice or the rat
Q
Was :it .mice or rats?
17
18
19
20
A .
Mostly mice . Did have some cats .
21
Q . Have you ever given any media or
22
newbpaper interviews'about your work at Reynolds?
23
24
25
No . Iive given presentations at scientific
meetings .
Q . Has anyone from the Justice Department
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~
_J
Vol . 4, Pg . 583
attempted to interview you?
2
was trying to think .
That would include the FBI, the U .S .
4
`Attorney .'s .Office .
About my work?
Q .
6
A.
8
Yes .
No . I had an FBI guy come and talk to me one
time ., many`years agoi because a young lady that
was working for me had applied to go in the Peace
10
Corps, and they wanted some background on her .
Q . That's the only time :you've ever
11
12
been -I think the -- to my recollection .
13
14
you know of any'current or former
15
employees at Reynolds that have been interviewed
Justice Department, including the FBI?
16
No, I don't . I don't know anybody .
17
Have you'been interviewed by anyone
18
19
from the FDA?
20
A.
21
22
No .
Q
Have you ever appeared before any
panels of the FDA to give testimony?
23
24
Have you,ever appeared before Congress
25) to}give testimony?
WAdA &-SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 584
A .
No .
R•
Have you ever appeared before any
legislative ;body to'give testimony?
5
0
Did .you ever prepare any papers that
were presented before any legislative body with
respect to the work you did at Reynolds?
A .
No .
Q . Did you ever review any papers that
10
were provided'to any legislative body with respect
11
to research that was :being done at Reynolds?
12
Can we back up a second?
13
Q .
14
15
Sure .
A . What do you call .legislative body?
Q
Like before a House of Representatives
16
or a Senate panel or congressman or -
17
.(Witness shakes head .) No . No .
18
Q
19
20
Did you prepare any papers that were
presented to any sort of governmental entity?
.' Back in the mid '60s I .prepared some stuff
21
for management that was-- much of which was
22
turned over to the FTC, :when they were getting
23
ready to implement .their procedure .-- develop and -j
~
24
implement their,procedure on the FTC tar and
' m
251 nicotine .
WAGA & SPINELLI
~
w
~
m
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 585
Is that the kind of thing you're -Q.
Yes ., something along those lines .
You prepared -- but those were papers
you did for Reynolds't hat, at the time .you
prepared them, you didn't know they were going to
be turned over to the government? Or did you?
No, I ;didn't -- I prepared them for the folks
that asked for them .
Q . And theee papers related to measuring
10
the tar and nicotine'in cigarettes, or the
1.1
labeling?
12
That, plus some of the problems that exist -
13
coexist with that procedure, many of which have
14
resurfaced again now,
15
16
Q . You mean the procedure for determining
levels?
17
Yeah . And what it``meant and so on .
18
Q.
Did
you .ever review the work of anyone
19
else at Reynolds-that was eubmitting paper or
20
statemente'or li'terature to the government with
21
respect to any iseue ;related .to smoking?
22
A . We -- back in -- around 1980, Reynolds was
23
involved in a-- a problem with one of our
24
competitor's cigarettee ; we did a large amount of
25
work on that . The,.Barclay ; I'm sure you're aware
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 586
r
of the 'Barclay incident .
And we turned over a lot
information that we had generated on the
Barclay -- Barclay being measured on the FTC
proCedure, and the Barclay as it was'being smoked
by people . We-turned all that over to the FTC .
What was'°-your role in that process?
.Q
Well, I was :director
And the people-that weree doing the work, worked
Dr . Jokin Reynolde,
for .~m
10
11
David c3ilbert ; >so on . .
Q
12
13
Q
14
Pritchard?'
15
16
Have, you ever
. . : a . ... .
Any other circumstances-you can recall
17
where you were-invo] .ved in either preparation or
18
review of documents that were submitted to
19
governmental agencies?
20
Well, I'm sure you were aware'of the National
21
Cancer .Institute study on less hazardous
22
cigarettes ; I wae-invo1ved in that . I don't know
23
whether this is pertinent or not . I audited many
. 24
of thoee meetings :and was the representative
at
25
WAGF# ~ & SPINELLI`
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 587
were -- drafts of-the reports were put together, I
2
did`a lot of proofreading and correcting, and so
onand so forth, for the 'reports, which'was `sent'back to the NCI . I don't
5
know whether, tthey r- they included some of the
changes Irecommended,' and some they didn't .
7
Is that the kind of thing-you're
looking for?
Q . Indirectly, ]
10
governmental-related, but
The ``FDA, ii
12
testimony you've never presented any papers or
13
testimony to that'agency?
14
you -= well that was FTC . So, FDA,' .you've never
15
presented any papers or teptimony?
Other than the one
16
Have you ;prepared anybody that
17
18
appeared'before any .governmental agency, such as
19
the FDA or the FTC? .
20
No . Not that I
21
Q .< In Ap .ri1. o ;f
of Reynolds
22
and some other C :O .'s, testified before Congress .
23
Did you play any role in the preparation of that
24
testimony?
25
(201) 992-4111
Ln
Vol .
Pg . 588
wasn't an employee, t)ien .
Q . Were you receiving any`money from
Reynolds in 1994?
A . I had two contracted -- consulting things
'One was to write the book on
nitrosamines, and the other was to take part in a
planning s'ession, but I-think both -- both of
those were prior to 1994 .
MR . MCDERMOTT : This was reviewed in
10
11
the~past deposition that you all participated in .
MR . :MAIS.TROS : I'm not ;getting into
12
13
that . Ijust wanted to make certain that none of
14
youx` work involved any preparation for testimony
15
that was-provided to .Congress in April of '94?
16
17
THE WITNESS : No . No, sir .
BY MR . MAISTROS
Have you assisted in the preparation
18
19
20
any witnesses thathave been deposed in any of
the`:tobacco litigation?
21
Just myself .
22
Q.
23
I needed all the help°I could get .
And':how' many times -m
24
many' times
251 Counsel to; prepare",for your deposition?
WAGA & ;SPINELLI
'
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 589
1
'©
.
: . Let's
l.t' a
we'last met, about three weeks ago . I guess I
5
probably met with them .Iour or five times, maybe
six . I don't
And i f :: you
Q
8
time you spent with your counsel preparing for the
deposition, what would .the number of'hours .be?
10
Well, a lot of -it involved those boxes .
The documents?
11
12
Yes . Carrying them back and forth from my
13
house to Mr . Blancatols office,- and back to my
14
home, and here to get'them copied, and so on and
15
so forth .
Were you paid by anyone to do that?
16
.17
supposedly was paid,by the Arch people .
if you iaant to know
18
19
20
21
0
Were you paid by Reynolds or anyone
affiliated by Reynolde"to prepare for your
N
22
depo,sition
today?
~
,m
23
24
25
Other,-than actually -physically
carrying the documenta ; how much time was spent
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 590
preparing for the depos.ition today?
A . Oh, I don't know . Maybe a dozen hours .
Q . Was there anyone other than
Mr . Brancato`,MR . MAIS TitOS
MR .
7
BY MR .`MAISTROS :
Q . -- Blancato present`at those meetings?
Sometimes Mr . McDermott, sometimes
10
Counsel :for RJR attended the meetings
11
12
with your counsel?
mean, just these two : Jones Day and
13
14
15
16
Womble Carlyle .
They're .not your attorneys, though,
4
are they?
17
18
Q, What did you discuss in those
19
20
MR . MCDERMbTT : Object . Privileged .
21
MR . .-,ShANCATO : Objection .
22
MR . MAISTROS : How is it' privileged?
23
MR . MCDERMOTT :_ He's a former
24
employee . We
re t'alking about matters that relate
251 to the defense of the caee ; we're entitled to talk
WAGA
&'SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 591
to .him on a privileged basis .
2
BY MR. . MAISTROS :
Q
Do you have
do you have a written document with Reynolds that
pertains to'the .teetimony that you've given in
Have you entered into any agreements
with Reynolds to not disclose information without
1. 0
advising Reynolds .or their counsel first?
11
No .
12
Q . And the only counsel you've retained
13
in this matter is your own personal counsel?
14
Yes .
15
Q . Reynolds' :'counsel is not your counsel?
16
As far as I kndw, they're not .
17
Q . Who is paying your counsel?
-Reynolds .
18
19
Q . Who selected your counsel?
20
I guess, - i'ndirectly, I, did .
21
Q . How, indirectly?
22
.
Well, I needed a .lawyer, and the first one
23
that came to mind was tny. `son . But he works
24
200 -miles away -and' .w.as alreadyd tied up,' and so on
251 and so forth .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 592
r
Q.
1
And :how .did you get to your current
counsel?
3
A . . Well, I guess Mr . Holton .said : There's a
young man that w .ould ;do a'good job for you .
does
work for Womble Carlyle, and so on .
Q
Holton, Reynolds' counsel?
M
Yeah .'
10
preparation for .your,deposition?
11
Well, for the Minnesota case,' they provided
12
us :with a stack of documents, a foot and a half
13
high . .
14
we ;met, what, two or three weeks ago, three weeks
15
ago . But I reaily didn't -- since you folks
16
didn't provide me with :,any, .documents, I didn't go
17
through that many .
went through those prior to the last time
18
n the ' preparation for the Minnesota
19
deposition or the Minnesota case deposition, you
20
reviewed°only documents that were,provided .by the
21
person who was questioning you?
22
A~ . I don_'t .know who provided them . They showed
23
up one day here . .
Ln
~
~
6
24
Q,
4%
Did ;you review any documents
that were
251 provided by your own counsel?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
6
~
Vol . 4, Pg . 593
An affidavit, I`reviewed, before I signed it .
Did you review any documents that were
2
provided by Reynolds' counsel?
You mean these two gentlemen?
4
©'
The reason .`I'm ;heaitating, I've been involved
in this businees" so long and I've reviewed so
can't put it in perspective of when I did
much,
what .
I guess I did,'but I couldn't tell you
10
There weren't .very many .
11
12
Did you review'any of the previous
13
that were taken in any -- any tobacco
14
15
Which'onee?
16
17
18
19
Q.
Was :that-a`'deposition or was that
court .test-imony?
20
21
22
And why did you review that?
23
Q .
24
Well,'I had hired David Townsend in 1977/78,
25' and I just wanted to see how he handled it . I had
WAGA'& SPINELLI
(201)' 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 594
seen him, a little bit on television, and I wanted
How"did'you obtain-the transcript?
I
got a copy, of it f rom Mr .
Q .' Did you ask M
the'transcript?
Yes .
I :.asked for it .
10
11
Q
Other than Dr . Townsend's court
testimony, did you`review any other testimony?
12
'For this case?
13
Q
14
did .
15
16
17
Who else?
I looked at the depo,sition of -- or the trial
18
19
20
21
1961 . .
Who i
Ochsner?
Dr .-Ochsner is one of the first two men to
22
remove lungs, either i
23
lung,,back in'the early days . Dr . Evarts Graham
24
25
- whole lung or part of a
.And Dr .
Ochsner :had a clinic
New-Orleans . Very famous man .
WAaA~& ;SPINELLI`
(201) 992-4111
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 595
r
Q
2
What prompted you to review his
testimony?
>
Well, he was a :great proponent of the fact
3
that cigarette smoking,wae the cause of lung
-canc-er . And some of the testimony in that case
6
showed that there was a fluctuation between his
7
opinion on that and the'data he presented over six
8
°or eight years,-"in half a dozen publications, of
9
his clinical findings . But he kept saying he
10
would write an article at one point, in time,
11
saying : My opinion ia, This is the cause . And
12
his clinical data said ; We can't find any
13
correlation between place of residence, and
14
occupation ; and smoking or diet . And this went
15
So he was .ul
16
And
17
course he is quoted in the '64,
18
the '79, the ".82 Surgeon General's report, and the
19
only one they .-- paper they quote is the first
20
time he ever said it in 1939, that cigarette
21
.smoking was probably the cause of lung cancer .
22
A11 the caaes-where<his clinical data didn't prove
23
that, they left out .
24
25
A .
They left it out .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 59 6
1
Q
What prompted .you, though, to read hi s
testimony before your deposition today ?
happened to be looking at something and saw the
I had a copy of his testimonyand I remembere d
What :were`yo u
8
What wae,I looking at
Q . That you saw a
10
11
hooking at som e
some diaries that you folks copied .
Is Ochsner strial testimony among th e
12
13
documents you provided to us ?
14
15
16
17
Nobody .
18
Where is . it now ?
19
20
It's at home .
21
Ln
22
documents at home to :produce, I assume somebody
i 6
23
24
asked you to look and see what you had at home ?
Yeah .
25
(201) 992-411 1
Vol . 4, Pg . 597
1
1
home?
They're here .
Q . So Ochsner
theee boxes?
No, it isn't . No .
5
Q .' Why did you
I didn't .
MR . BLANCATOs-
-tYiat were responsive` to the : subpoena .
10
BY`'MR : MAISTROS3
A11'the .~documerits at your home, were
11
12
they provided to an attorney who went-through them
13
and decided what would be produced .to us?
14
Including the Ochsner testimony?
15
o, I didn't .
16
1?
18
What, ot:her-than the Ochsner
testimony, did you not give'`to'Mr . Blancato?
got -
19
20
on
for example, I've got files
and I think we' ;ve been through' this .
I have
21
22
23
24
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 598
Q . You didn't .pro.duce your index card in
there?
offered to, and'said they didn't want it .
THE WITNESS- ; Right?
MR . MAISTROS : I'll take it . You
still have it?
MR .'BLANCATO : No, no, no, no .
F
MR . MAISTROS : We'll discuss it at a
10
BY MR .•`MAISTROS
Q . You have-an index file of what?
11
12
What's on the indexes?
Well, there's more work -- references
13
14
perti-nent to the work I did, from 1947 probably up
15
to 1970-something,
:'75, maybe 1980 .
MS . RNISELY : If I could clarify the
16
17
record for just a .second : I believe,
18
Mr . Blancato, we,made t'he agreement and
19
-underetanding, w3,th r{egard :to the index, we would
20
not, at the present time, require Dr . Rodgman to
21
produce that .'
22
depending on'the deposition testimony with regard
23
24
We wouZd, however, reserve
o :the index, reserve the right to request the
production thereof . .
251
WAGA
MR . BLANCATOr And my position would
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4,
1
g
599
be!that we objected to : :production of that on the
grounds set forth .in the written objection . I
provided Me .-Knisely>with an example of one or two
or three of these cards,'if you still have a copy
of t.hem .
6
MS . KNISBLYs Right . And we decided
7
to disagree until ---,until Arch made a
determination, after the deposition, whether they
10
would -- or as the deposition progressed, whether
11
they would require the production of that or not .
12
And4I believe that wae the same with his
13
bibliography .
14
MR . BLANCATO : Correct .
15
MS . :KNISELY : I'm sorry .
16
BY MR .-MAISTROSs
17
4
18
19
20
21
What else did you not produce to
counsel?
That's it, as far as I know, sir . I mean, I
.didn't give you'copies-,of every issue of Tobacco
Science or every=issue of Beitragezur
22
23
T-A'-B-A-K= .S .-F-O,-R-S -C=H-S-U-N- ;G
24
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 600
I don't know about the public library, but
any good science library will have them .
Q . I tried to get in Bowman .aray ; they
wouldn't let .me in . You mean the public library
or Bowman Gray?
know,- ; x .+.ve got
figured you didn't want those .
. Books that I refer
t
MR . BLANCATO : For the record, those
10
11
books are in public domain,
12
13
THE ;WYTN$SS : Yeah . Oh, yeah .
BY MR . MAISTROS s
Q . Did_`you have any documents, other than
14
15
those that were at your home, that related to the
16
work you did while at; Reynolde?
17
A . Would'you say that again, sir . .
Q . Other than the documents you had at
18
19
your home, is there any other location where you
20
had documents related to the work you did at
21
22
A.
No . I mean, Reynolds has copies o
23
everything I ever wrote,' think .
N
i 0
~
24
Q
r
N
Between '54 and '87 or '89, did you
25 keep documents on computers?
WAaA' & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
1
N
2
Q .
3
era?
g . 601
You didn't keep any
or~
There waa'computer .otuff at -- computer
5
6
system at work,,but I didn't -things on the computer . I`don',t :know where that
stuff is now .
Q . You didn't take any computer discs or
101
keep any computer diece ;after your employment at
11
12
Did you "review any of the" documents
13
14
that you gathered .from your home specifically for
15
preparation of this deposition today?
16
Q
17
Did you re
other than the
18
Och`ener testimony and Townsand ;testimony, any
19
other testimony?
20
A.
21
No .
Q
Did`you talk to anyone'that had been
Ln
22
deposed in any of the .' .-- what I'll call "current ~
23 .
tobacco litigati, .on, ." to see what was said in their
24
depo.sitions?
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
~
w
Vol . 4, Pg . 602
Q
Dc
you know anyone, other than
yourself, who's been deposed from Reynolds?
. .Murx'ay Senkus, John Reynolds .
know several people that are going to be deposed :
Charles Green, Michael Ogden . I think
6
Dr .'DeBeth .izy has been, but I-- I haven't talked
to him about it .
Q.
8
You just-know they were deposed? You
didn't discuss any questions they were asked?
10
No .
11
Q . They didn't tell you what they were
12
asked or how fun it'was or how miserable it was?
13
A.
No .
Q.
14
15
Wallace Hayes?
haven't`seen Wallace Hayes since
16
17
18
19
How about Dr . Hayes? Do you know
1987 .
Q
Did you .`do any-thing else specif ically
in preparation-for your deposition today?
20
21
Q .' Did you meet with any attorneys, other ;
Ln
22
than your personal counsel and Reynolds attorneys? ~
23
No .
24
Q . Have you provided any sort of outlines
25
or papers to assist your attorneys in this
(201) 992-4111
I
~
m
~
~
&
Vol . 4, Pg . 603
2
Q
Are,`you being paid'in any fashion to
assist Reynolds i
this specific litigation?
I'm not being paid for anything to do with
6
this deposition .`'
0
How about in --~are you being paid in
any,fashion for tobacco litigation?
. I have been, in the past, but not for this
10
11
12
any compensation from Reynolds?
most of my
13
14
15
mentioned of specific contracts, which Reynolds
16
17
18
19
20 .
21
specifics that were .previously :,gotten into at the
22
other deposition the~ ;~other day, but I'm just
23
looking'gene'rally for time framea .
24
'89 to the present, ;have you, on and off, been a
25
paid consultant to Reynolds?
WAaA & SPINELLI
From '87
or
201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 604
1
Twice .
2
of the incentive'retixement was that -- one of the
5
conditions was that you could`not serve as a
consultant for Rey)iold,s through five"yeare after
.-' after the en'd,of ;your ; employment .
0
9
10
11
12-
Okay .
-you-are a
Womble'Carlyle,'t .hough? .
. Right .
And`'d
for•any tobacco companies, other than Reynolds?
13
14
15
confuse these two projects . You're .;not suggesting
16
that the only consulting you've done since '89 for
17
Reynolds is on those two projects . .`When .I say
18
°coneulting for Reynol :de," .`I don't care who pays
19
you . If the end benefit is going to be to
20
Reynolds, I just want to know if you're
21
still --
I!ve`done things for Womble Carlyle that I
22
presume that t he money comes through Reynolds, to
23
Womble Carlyle, to me . But those were the two
24
specific things where -- in which I had a contract
251 with R .J . Reynolds, which was -- been spelled out
WAGA .& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 605
1
before .
The work that you do for Womble
Q
Carlyle is 100 percent Reynolds?
Yes . Yes .
4
And have ; you provided documents to
5
6
7
A .
©'
those documents?"
10
11
Q
12
you're going to be an expert or fact witness in
13
the .Arch litigation?
was told I would be a fact witness .
14
Have you .been told you're going to be
15
16
an .expert or fact witness :in any other litigation?
understand I'may ..be -- supposed to be an
17
18
expert witness with Texas .
o you know what areas of expertise
19
20
you're going to .testify .on?
21
A .
22
23
24
25
Tobacco smoke composition and control .
0
Would that include the concept of
addiction or habituation?
We11, I didn't do much
anything on those
areas, sir .
WAGA & SPINELLI•
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 606
r
What's the time period
0
- I'm looking
generally for .inonths, if :you can give me months ;
have you been a
conau.1:tant to ;Womble :Carlyle?
Are we talking about .specifiC ;cases or total?
Q.
No .
That would go •back to 1984 .
Okay . So you were a
Wombl,e Carlyle while you were still a full-time
10
11
12
projects at that time .
Were you also paid by Womble Carlyle
13
14
from 184
to
87 or '89?
No . . Up till
15
16
after ; that .
17
.Q .
18
was helping them with'a couple of
Yeah .
9
you were still-on .;the payroll at Reynolds --
19
20
21
Q
You were also receiving compensation
cn
22
fro.m .Womble
Carlyle?'
~
;
and March the ~ ~
1-4
23
A .` Setween September-the lst,
24
1et,, . .,' 89, yes .
25
~
~
~
Could you ;tell` me how much you were
(201) 992-4111
Vol .
, Pg . 607
be,ing paid by Womble Carlyle .
$12 0 an hour .
2
Q
Yes .
,$140 an hour .
4
8
8
9
The ;two incidents that I had two projects
10
11
through -- with>R .J`. Reynolds R& D .
Other than : :those two . is it all
12
13
Womble Carlyle .or Reynolds?
14
A .
15
Arch?
16
17
18
19
m
20
s Ochsner,still .alive?-
21
think so,
~
~
~
%D
What prompted .you'to,be at that trial,
22
in New Orleans?
24
25
Soon after i came to ReYnolds,> in 1954, I had
wri .t'ten a
--, a report, which really,wae an update,
WAaA & .SPINELLI
Vol . 4, Pg . 608
I
1
I guess .. I'm'sure you've seen it, a report
written by Dr . Claude E . Teague in February 1953 .
And : -
than mine .'
Because of the ;things that had happened
between February '53_and when I came in June,
and
work at the-Banting & Best
8
Department of -Medical-Research, they`asked me to
10
11
update Claude's'thing -- report .
And, 'o
12
there was still the ongoing controversy of, you
13
know, the polycyclic°'hydrocarbong in smoke and so
14
on, in some of the work that had been published .
15
And'then, of course, in'late '53, Dr . Wynder and
16
his ;colleagues published the-`ekin tnouse -- mouse
17
skin painting :study .
18
I updated it .- And somehow or other
19
it got .from the research department into -- it was
20
shown to' .management, including Mr . #ienry H . Ramm,
21
the head lawyer, vice president of legal counsel .
22
And he-asked if I would help do something for the
23
law department and outside counsel, to collect and
24
critique publications dealing with the smoking and
25
health situation .
WAGA'.' . & S P I NE L L I .'
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 609
2
make a- comment here . D
number of years ., a scientific assistant, a
paralegal, assisting :I.,awyers, both in-house and
outeide ; in preparing for and defending
6
litigation .
general-terms the nature of his activities, we
regard all of that as .privileged .and off limits .
10
And ;_other than giving,you a bit of background,
11
should you choose to make any sort of a challenge,
12
we're going to claim .privilege .
Rodgman, I would caution you
13
14
to be very general in your description of your
15
activities . And
16
17
18 .{
yeare for that?
MR . MCD$RMQTT
19
20
number of ;y:ears ."
21
MR . MCDBRMOTT .
22
approximately, to 1966''or
Ln
I-A
%4
23
inte'rmittent-dutiee`thereafter . But on a regular
24
basis, for approximately a 12-year period .
251BY MR . MAISTROS :
WAGA & SPINELi,I .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 610
1
Q .
Is .that_'correct,
2
.
Yes .
What :was ;the question about 1960?
5
;The original question was why you were
in New Orleans in`1960 with Dr . Ochener .
7
Well I had
161,' whenever that tri,al was, I had been
collecting the literature and had hard copies of
161
all the .pertinent pa,pers,-and so on and so forth .
11
And with,the trial in"New Orleans, the lawyer
12
said -- both in-houee`and external said : We want
13
al1 that stuff .in New Orleans . .- You .come with it,
14
and it we need something, you find'it for us .
15
16
So I was there for that purpose, sort
gopher, I guepe, with regard to scientific
course I
17
literature . And
18
the courtroom .and watched all the goings-on, and
19
20
21
I,d d run and get ; a.
VIDEOQRAPHER : :
M
22
23
24
25
WAaA & SPINELLT_
(201) 992-4111
A .
2
June the 23rd,
;1954 .
And when did you start providing sort
Q
f legal assistance to :Reynolds?
The end of october 1955 .
5
Who hired ;you? Who ;interviewed you?
Well,,the person I was .;in most contact with
7
was' Dr .
Murray Senltus, The interview involved
it-wag a very nice .'interview system : You met
every manager and,-of course, director, . .which was
10
Dr . Kenneth H .°Hoover . And you .met Dr . Colby in
11
the library ; Dr . Markunas, head of analytical
12
chemistry ; Mr . Sprinkle was agricultural research ;
13
and "so on and . eo forth .
>
14
15
16
17
18
19
title at'that point?
He was manager . .of'the chemical research
division .
Q
Did 'they, have a health or -- health
type~department at 'that point in time?
20
21
Smoking .,and health?
22
23
Are you aware of D
24
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 612
Yes . Dr . Simmons didn't come till 1965 or
2
I think it was .in there .
Q .` And his department was referred to as
3
what?
5
Smoking ;and health?
I think it ;was called biochemistry and
I've f orgotten the exact name of it .
biological
8
0
Okay .
MR . MAISTROS : Let's take a short
10
break while they'exchange the videotape, okay?
11
VIDEOaRAPHER : We're going off the
12
record at 11 :41 :a .m .
(Recess taken from 11 :41 a .m . to 11 :47
13
14
a .m .)
15
VIDEOGRAPHER : This is tape 2 of the
16
videotape deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
17
going back on the'recor .d at .11 :47 a .m .
18
BY MR . MAISTROS :
19
Q.
20
21
Doctor, how did you hear about the
opening at .Reynolds? :;
It was an advertisement in the -- one of the
22
issues -- it's a weekly publication of the
23
American Chemical .Society called Chemical and
24
,ar}g4ineerinq Newe . And they had an ad in there
25
looki.ng for chemists skilled in isolation work,
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 613
Q •;
Had you
companies?
4
advertised?
Research chemist .
0
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
Here .
April -t,
©'
When you say you met
every -- was it
manager in the company?
.
In the research department .
Q . Was that all on April the lst or --
A . April the lst and 2nd .
Q
What was the research department in
April,of 1990 -- 1954?
18
What do you mean, "What was it"?
19
Q . What did it :consist of?
20
Well, it was .in'a new'building that had been
believe the whole procedure of
211
opened in 1953 .
22
the-opening was on .national television with John , N
23
Cameron, Swayze . It had a chemical research
24
division under Dr . Se'nkus ; biochemical division
251 under M.r . Jerry Snyder ; the analytical research
WAGA" & SPINELLI .
(201) 992-4111
~
~
~
m
~
~
N
(J1
Vol . 4, Pg . 614
1
division under Peter Markunas ; the agriculture
.regearch under Dr . Charles Sprinkle ; the flavoring
3
and product department work under Dr . Samuel
Jones ; the .science information division was
managed by Dr . Frank'G .,eColby . I don't know
6
whether`there_was .anybody else I met .
Q.
8
And they did not have a specific
division devoted to health at t'hat point in time?
10
11
particular division?
Chemical research division .
12
13
14
Oh, three or four months ago, on the phone .
15
a -in New 'York .
16
17
How was hishealth? : Do you know?
18
s not well . Hi e wife died a .little while
well, he wasn't too well anyway, and
19
20
21
22
old
What 'did you
23
A . Periodically, he'll call and-aak how things
24
are going, and we-chat : We've known each other,
25
as I say, since 1954 .
WAGA &'SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 615
,
Q
you joined?
of ; ;years .
somewhere around there .
Do you know when he left?
was thinking'_-- probably -- someplace
situation-in New York City .
thingg
Who was he consulting to? Do you
10
know?
guess, the: tobacco industry .
11
12
131
Q
What did the science information
division do in 1954?
got
14
- kept tabs of all the
15
publications on to bacco`and smoke and smoke
16
components, and anything to_do with smoking and
17,
health and,so on, and .cataioged them and, in many
18
instances, had hard copies .. And of course they
19
subscribed to a great number of journals, and
20
those .were scanned for pertinent articles . And
21
there .was a pub -- not a publication, I guess, an
22
inter -
23
research employees :,that here's some articles that
24
have just come out,, whether they be biochemistry,
in-house document that signaled to the
N
J
25
or whatever chemistry, analytical chemistry . And
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 616
that was ci.r"culat,ed, I think, twice a month,
something like that .
And then, of course, periodically they
would take the journals :that came in, you know,
once a month or twice a month, get them bound .
And there they are,` they're all up in the library .
Q . How`many,;people were in the science
information division in ' 54?_'
Q . Did that-divieion continue to exist
10
11
12
It sti11 exists .
13
Q.
14
15
And
what :,would you describe as the
overall purpose of that .division?
.
It's to provide .the -- collect and-provide
16
the staff with information pertinent to the
17
research pro j ectss_' going on .
Outside of RJR? Or inside? Or both?
18
19
Everything : .
20
When you say "provide the staff,"
21
woul they provide research scientiets,
22
yourself,
23
o the r ?
and management, both,
or one
such as
~
~
~
m
~
~
or the
I
24
A . Well,
25
they'd probably provide-summaries or -- more
WAaA
&
I think, .in"the case of management, ~
SPINELLI
(201)
~
N
OD
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 617
1
.general articles rather than ., you know, detailed
analysis . You know, :the -- for example, Reynolds
3
people published articles on the composition of
smoke and .decide the isolation identification of
5
700'compounds, 400,of which`are new and have names
that inost people,cou .l_dn 't even read, let alone
pronounce . Well,,is .management interested in
8
that? So we sent them the abstract and said 700
compounds identified, 450 for the first time, or
10 .
11
12
13
14
whatever number it was,
Q . This newsiet,ter or`memo you referred
o that went out twice a month, . .was that a -- like
an internal newsletter? Did i,t'have a title?
Well, it .wae a document that -- probably half
15
an .inch thick, and it would have the't'itle,
16
jouxnal -- couple of .lines .about what .was in thee
17
article . You know, 4eolation of -so-and-so from
18
tobacco, or isolation of so-and-so,from tobacco
19
smoke, or new and analytical procedure for
20
whatever in smoker tobacco, things like that .
21
22
Q.
Would .it -- would it have listings of
publications on anything that had to do with
bad?
23
24
251
I used-to kid D.r .`' Colby about it, because, if
it had anything
WAGA & SPINELLI
do ;with tobacco, or cigarettes,
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 618
or cigars, or something, it was in there . And I
called him one day and'said : Frank, what are you
doing?
And they :had
5
zealous,
they had picked up_ an entry from a
journal~that said,`so=-and-so company -
.I forget
was now - has Pur,chased a new ;cigar shaped
for viewing-sports events, and that was
aoodyear .?
10
11
12
Frank,',that's stretching it, cigar-shaped balloon
13
4
14
The articles he would gather and
15
summarize or circulate t o the rest of the staff at'
16
Reynolds, it would be --'<there would be health
17
issues involved, as well?
Oh, yeah .
18
19
20
differentiate,between favorable and,unfavorable
21
articles to tobacco?
All you would have .to do, sir',
22
23
24
25
D
Q
That's what' I'm asking . If the
articles is good, bad, or indifferent,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 619
whatever is there, they're in this publication?
They're in this publication .
So if there was a tobacco-related
articl$ that appeared in any journal between 1954
and .the present ;' there's a 99 to 100 percent
chance it appeared 4n a circular that was
d3stributed to the RJR staff?
Yeah, I would say so .
8
When you`eaid management -- I used
9
I don't -khow what I meant by it . What
10
thatword .
11
did .:you mean by it? .-Who's management?
12
A . - Well, I'm talking about people out
13
.know, the business manager,
- - you
outside the R & D
14
management . Every department has a management
15
I guess, has a management situation .
4
16
17
Were th,e business managers copied on
thie circular that updated the periodicals?
18
No . I , don
Colby 'was
19
20
Ln
21
22
manager, as opposed
23
A . He had, a Ph .D . in :organic chemistry from
24
Univereity in Switzerland .
251
Q . When you were hired in June of --
WAaA :& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 620
©'
chemical research department, approximately?
A .
5
20 .
7
departments, biochemical? Did it vary or
.
Yeah . For example,, the agriculture research
division,
I think, ended up with six people . They
10
didn't do any extra agriculture research, but what
11
they did was, . to attend to the funding of
12
agriculture research projects by various -- North
13
Carolina'State University'or University of
14
• Kentucky, or whatever, t .hat,g wae ',being done on
15
tobacco growing and agronomy and all that stuff .
16
And,`they monitored the :progress of the projects
17
that'Reynolds was funding in the agronomy area and
18
.-so on .
19
Now, .th.e staff in the science
20
in'formation were :a-couple of staff people ; but
21
most ., ;o£ the work was done by clerical people . Of
22
course, there .were a lot of typing, and so on and
23
so forth, that was required for keeping track .
24
-those days they had,everything on-cards .
25)
Q.
Like your index card, index system?
WAGA & 'SPINELLI
Vol . 4, Pg . 621
Q.
The five groups you mentioned that
were in existence in '54, would,there,,be one that
would look at .health'issues, even though it wasn't
designated as a, health divisiori or health
department?
Well, as I-- .a~s : .I said, when starting out at
Reynolds, the ;big controversy in terms of the
health issue, if ~you will, was, okay : Were the
If•._t'hey were, involved in
10
polycyclice~there?
11
anything, should we know it .? And if they're
12
there, should''we lower them :and get rid of them?
13
o most of that work was done in the
14
15
16
chemical division .
Q . What,did the', biochemical ` division d
that was different than what the chemical research
17
18
. A'lot of their work involved what happened
I don't know whether you know the
19
tobacco
20
procedure of
211
tobacco at auction,"you'get it so ;many pounds on
22
to
with tobacco, is,`when you buy
pallet .
! cn
f..
And it's'brought in ~
24
and .then it's stemmed and it's stored for anywhere ~
w
.
And
as
it
ages,
W
between 12 months and 24 months
25
cert :ain things happen to it that improve the
23
Vol . 4,
g . 622
flavor of the smoke .
They did,a lot of work -- what was
3
going on : When ;tobacco aged, and did you have to
age it as long as that, and so on . A l,ot of the
work involved the composition of tobacco as it
aged, and the'effect'on the flavor and consumer
7
acceptability_, and how,=it blended in with other
things in the tobacco .
That biochemical division, did that
Q
10
etay•in'existence, in one f orm or another, u
11
until you left?
12
Well, in the mid '60s, roughly, it was
called
13
14
Dr .-Aldon Nielson came, it was expanded to
15
include, not oniy biochemistry, but some
16
biological work .
17
18
19
20
21
Q.
Did
you ;;ever cross over .from chemical
research to one of .these other divisions?
Yes', in
seventy
let'p see .`
was promoted to~manager of the analytical
22
23
24
251
WAGA" & SPINELLI''
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 623
research chemist, or the section head in charge of
the emoke work .
Q . I want to just focus on the period of
time-you were exclusively in the chemistry
5
department, !54 to '75 . When you were hired, were
6
you'tolds We''re,going to have you be w'orking
7
this project o"r that project'=
on
8
or was it
10
11
Nothing specific .
12
4
Chemical research .
13
Were they ;aware of your seven-odd
14
15
yeare working wit h`polycyclic hydrocarbons?
it~was .in my resume .
16
Did they tell`you : You're going to
17
18
19
have the opportunity t
.
No .
20
21
when : you started in '54, that had the type of
22
background you had in polycyclic hydrocarbons?
23
24
25I f rame ; you were the most knowledgeable person at
WAaA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 62 4
Reynolds in terms of polyoyclic hydrocarbons ?
2
3
Didthat ever change, during the whol e
period of time you~were at Reynolds ?
I doubt if it did . . Because what eventuall y
8
happened -- or what happened wasthat, after
I
finished,my firs.t project and was'asked what
I
wanted to work on and saidemoke, over the nex t
few,years_we did ourthing on the polycycli c
10
11
history of what_happened and what we -I guess
I
12
shouldn't say "jokingly" defined as "what's th e
13
compound of .the month
14
polycyclichydrocarbona ., and the next group o f
15
compounds that were considered to be a --
16
problem or might be a''problem, were a group o f
17
compounds called aza-arenes .
18
group of,compounda that -- called the phenols, an d
things ` went fro m
a
Then it came to a
19
20
ciliaetats, and then came the'-nitrosamines, and
2 1
polonium, and so on and so forth . So, by th e
22
early '60s ,
23
finished .
most of the work on polycyclics wa s
24
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol .
, Pg . 625
Can we get
the'record to show
3
MR . LEEs
M
Steve Sheller came in, from Arch litigation,
fr-om"Philadelphia .!
0
8
agreement in .1954 when wyou joined Reynolds?
10
11
Did you have' to -gign an employment
What was .=the'nature of that agreement?
It`'s been produced . It -- it was sort of a
12 :
standard thing . Primarily, I think, protecting
13'
t .he company -- if'•you were to leave and had been
14
involved in certain ._manufacturing functions, that
15
you°weren't to tell .anybody about it till so many
I've forgotten
16
17j
18
19
it like a .Confidentiality
agreement,
20
.Yeah . But it :-- it was, primarily, I guess
21
for proprietary things to do with`manufacturing,
22
more than anything . I`don't think it ever
23
m6ntioned research and,development in it . But
24
it's been so long ago since I read it .
25 '
You never, then, had to execute any
WAGA & SPINELL`l .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 626
confidenti.ality.agreement :with respect to
2
was thinking :I-signed a document sometime
' . .80s
about the Premier--cigarette . Which I wasn't
involved with,that•much anyway .
Q . Whatever you knew, you weren't allowed
,
to disclose without getting somebody's permission
first?
Thatl s
10
Whether-i't's Exxori°or Pittsburgh
11
12
St6el or whoever .
Did you'ever actually sign a contract
13
14
for a specific length or- term of employment
15
Reynolds?
16
No .
17
Q . And the consulting -- two consulting
18
jobe-.you mentioned sPecifically for Reynolds were
19
not written documents?
201
Yeah, they were written -- they're written
21
contracts . They've already been provided .
22
MR .=MAISTROS : Have those been
23
provided?
24
THE WITNESS : Someplace
25
MR . MCDERMOTT : They were'produced in
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 627
1
2
the`- :last deposition .
BY MR . .MAISTROS
Q•
Were the agreements_with Womble
Carlyle produced?- Are .there written agreements
with Womble Oarlyle? .~,
a
we :didn't have them anymore . When .they ran out,
; .they,never renewed them and neither did I .
Q . Do you have some sort of letter
10
agreement, just confirming what your hourly rate
11
is 'or
12
13
No . Well --` yea
the f irst ' ;coupl,e,-oi' years . You' know, I do
14
15a
16
17
;_anything .
Q. .
18
19
w
From 154 '' to '75
Orleans case in the '60s tli$t you assisted on .
20
How many such cases -did you assist on when you
21
were' .in the chemistry department in that 21-year
22
period?
23
There was one in-New Orleans - - one in
I 0.
24
New Orleans, which .I, was there several times .
25
There was 'one in St . Louis .
w
I don't even remember
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 628
1
who .t:hat wae,, 'Then I was asked to provide some
2
information on occasion with -- was it Green case,
which wasn' t"agains't • Reynolds, and a Pritchard
case against somebody else . It wasn't Reynolds .
And that, as far ae '1 . :know, was it .
6
have no
I
.,g . A tobacco manufacturer?
Oh, yeah . It was
3. 0
waa''American or . :who` it waa .
W ho :asked you to assist
11
12
I don' t-`know whether it
American in
that case?
Reynolda' lawyers . They wanted a summary of
13
14
something or other ; I've even forgotten_ what it
15
was .
16
17
Q . Did you attend any portion of the
trial?
18
19
20
2i
22
Did you
23
2
25
No : Provided the stuff to_Reynolde' lawyers,
WA,GA :& SPINELLI ,
Vol . 4, Pg . 629
and then I guesg it wen:t on its way .
n the .Pritchard case, you weren't
helping Reynolds? What company were you helping?
I've forgotten . .
0
Another
were'.1ike the Lartigue .-caae, which was the case in
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
New Orleane .
a .
I
Lartigue, L-~A-12-T-I-G-U .-E, That was the case
in .:New -0rleans :
Q .
How .' .were they similar?
.
~
-They're :all smoking and lung cancer cases,
bel,ieve .
15
16
asking you .to assist=other tobacco manufacturers
17
in their lung cancer'litigat'ion?
18
A . '-No, not really . I guess z,figured they
,
19
wanted this information . I think it was pretty
20
well to do with'smoke composition and so on . I
21
had published a lot,on smoke . .
22
Did you assist in the defense of any
23
other cases'fox any other tobacco manufacturers?
24
25
Do you know whether you received any
WAGA & SP.INELLI
Vol . 4, Pg . 630
,extra :income for assisting those other tobacco
Just my rbgu ;lar .pay ;f rom' Reynolde .
Q . Where was' the Pritchard case? Is that
Louis?
No . St . Louis was against Reynolds . I don' t
know-what it --'the name "Lowell" rings -- comes
o mind, but I'm not sure about the name of
the
4
10
11
12
. They were in the '60s, early '60s, I think .
:
13
14
want to do about lunch?
THE WITNESS : It's a good time to
15
16
MR . MAISTROS : What do you gentlemen
quit•
MR . MCDERMOTT : I guesa .the witness
17
Why don't we accommodate
18
19
him . .
20
MR : MAISTROS :
It.' .s his party .
21
VIDEOORAPH$.R :
We're going off the
re off the record .
22
23 .
24
25
.m , .
to . 1 :26 : p .m . )
VID'SOGRAPHER :' We' re going back on the
WAa,A & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
r
record .at 1 :26 p .
2
Q
Dr . Rodgman, what was the first
project you worked .on at Reynolds?
5
The first project I worked on was the
synthesis of a series of compounds that might have
7
potential use .as flavorants,. These were a series
of'phenols . And what they were .looking for was
10
And
-went about synthesizing, I don't
11
know, maybe 20,- .-22•of them . However, I knew, from
12
my previous work at .the literature surveying at
13
the .Banting, that some"phenols, at high
14
temperature, convert`to quinones, another class of
15
compounds . And the Japanese had done some work on
16
quinones, mouse painting experiments and so on,
17
18
~and found them to be tumorigenic .
So-putting that together with a new
19
article : that came out while 'I wae inthe midst of
20
this, that a'man called Boutwell and his
21
colleagues,, ``thatls
22
some phenols were classified as`promoters because ~
~
B~ .-0-U-T-W-E-L-'L,-reported that
Ln
~
m
23
they . enhance the activity of polycyclic ~~
24
hydrocarbons that show ' some tumorigenicity .
~
25
w
Vol . 4, Pg . 632
f
said ; Hey, you know ;`
I,'ve nearly finished these
the grumbling~about polycyclics . Do you want to
put something that might .contribute quinones to
the "'smoke and have'another problem?
And the.y, ilooked at what I had there
They never used the
8
23 .or 22 compounda I,synthesized .,
Q.
10,
How long did that proj ect last?
A . About four months ., from June till November,
something like that ..;
12
Q.
13
being tumorigenic promoters, are there different
14
kinds of phenols?
15
V3.tamin E °
16
one of the great anti-carcinogens known .
17 .
Everybody's t'aking .it nowadays, aren't they, to
18
divert cancer :=
19
Q . Vitamin E?'
20
MR . SHELLER : I knew it .
21
THE WITNESS3
22
are phenols that are -- that are in all our food ~
23
~
stuffs .- Cloves and cinnamon are loaded with m
24
various phen,ols .
a
25 BY MR . MAISTROSi
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 633
1
2
Q . Was there-a lot of literature, a
minimal literature?' . Describe the course or the
amount of literature there- ;was on phenols in '54 .
No, it ~- the literature on phenols escalated
when they couldn't expl .a.in~the mouse-contained
data', the number of tumors they were getting with
polycyclic hydrocarbons, either benzpyrene itself
or the'total polycyclic hydrocarbon fraction of
cigarette smoke ;-thie was Dr .- .Wynder, Hoffmann .
10
Dr . ."Wright, .who was`actually my major professor at
11
the :'University of Tdronto'did the chemistry for
12
Dr . Wynder for four or five years, until
13
Dr . Hoffmann came on the scene .
They --'when they couldn't explain the
14
15
pol'ycyclic hydrocarbon results, they said :
16
There's not enough there ; that only accounts for
17
two, three percent . Said : Oh, we've got
18
promoters .
they lit on'the phenols, because of
19
20
this article by Boutwell . And then from about
21
1960, perhaps, to .1962/'b3, everything was phenol
22
promotion, plus polycyclic hydrocarbons .
23
there was only one problem with it .
24
himself and Hoffmann ehowed, .what we had already I&
; L
Except ~
That Wynder ~
~
~
251 shown : That, if you take the phenol-out of smoke,
WAGA ..& SPINELLI`
Vol . 4, Pg . 634
I
1
it°doesn't affect-the biological activity of the
smoke . So how can°you have a promoter that
doesn't promote? E
dropped after that .
Q .:
Forever?
No, it's still around . But -- you know,
there are people who°never drop anything .
8
Q
It .was then . It i
101
man :'called,Aivin Kosak published an article
11
describing all the components in cigarette smoke
12
that ;had been,reported in ,the literaturee
13
throughout the world .
14
which about .30 were<wrong,`by :the way . And phenol
There are about 90 ; of
15
it's been known for a long time . I
16
17
think it was identified in smoke someplace in
18
probably the 1930
19
20
21
Q . Have phe,nols been blamed as anything
else other than•a promo"ter?
We11, yeah, I guess some -- there has been
Ln
H
some-of the low
22
gome work done`that phenol
23
molecular weight .phenols are cocarcinogens, rather,,,
24
than promoters .
25
Do you know if Reynolds has done any
(201) 992-4111
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 635
such work?
A.
On the biological work?
Q
5
Q
or verify or dispute whether`phenols were
promoters?` :
0 , we'didn't do any work . We did do work on
the fact that they were present ; we determined
10
their levels,'which agreed :with some of the work
11
in the .litexatur$ . And we also demonstrated that
12
the filter tip that we-used, which has a substance
13
called a plaeticizer!1n .it, took out about
141
85 percent of the phenols from the smoke . That
15'
was'subsequently confirmed by four or five groups,
16
both `pro- and -anti-tobacco`.
17
Q
Has°'there been any more recent or
18
modern .work relate.d'to .phenols and their potential
19
as,'promoters? . .
20
No . Once the -
21
Hoffmann ;showedathat if you took out the phenol
22`
2 .3
from smoke that°it didn't change the biological J
~
m
:
Hey,
you
had
a
;activity of the smoke . I'd say
24
promoter that-wasn't promoting .
~
And they sort o J
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 636
Now, at one time they considered
1
2
phenol as an indicator of that class of compounds
and :its .promoting effect, but they subsequently
dropped that argument .when it was proven to be
wro~'lg .
Q . What's an'indicator?
7
Yeah . It'was like a,marker, that phenol
itself gave a clue tp the series,of-low molecular
9
weight phenola, which .usual].y,is considered about
10
five or six or eight--compounds~that are present .
11
The same thing it .eai,d about benzpyrene : It's an
12
indicator'of tumorigenic -pol .ycyclic hydrocarbons,
13
b t~Wynder and Hoffmann_'s own data show that's the
14
wrong,conceptg
W
it,your opinion ; as you sit here
7 7
5
16
today, that phenols then play no role in the
17
biological activity that is caused by cigarette
18
smoke?
19
20
been' ; done in animals, there has been some work
21
that ahows it' :doe's promote, there's some work that
22
shows .it doesn't promote, there's some work that ~
m
23
shows it's a cocarc .inogen, and some that shows it,,,
~
24
ien't-a c?ocarcinogen : And all that work has beea OD
Ln
25
WAGA & SPINELLT
(201) 992-4111
g
1
637
Well, isn't,it true that most of the
work related to cancer,research has been done in
4
re3ied upon animal studies to make, certain
conclusions with respect to compounds involved in
smoke?
9
A.
Yes . ; And of course,,one of the things is
10
about that is ;that you may, as I do, disagree with
11
trying to extrapolate from a mouse skin painting
12
experiment to inhaling smoke as an aerosol . One,
13
you've got a eolution of a thick gummy substance,
14
the`other is an aerosol .- `You can't extrapolate
That has been .a',,-- a no-no since 1941 .
15
16
4
How'did you know that -- that phenols
17
were potentially`,promoters?
18
A . This man Boutwell had this article .in the -
19
20
Q
And` `what method did he use to
determine they were po"ntial promoters?
21
Ln
22
with a level'of polycyclice that normally wouldn't
23
give a very .`high percent tumor bearing animals .
24
And if he painted t .hem .at the same time -- or
25 .
. sequentially with
solution of phenol, following
(201) 992-4111
N
Vol .
, Pg . 638
the :poiycyclic painting, then the polycyclic
seemed to behave like there was a lot more of it
3
there, or it_promoted the effect .
4
Well,'if -- and I :think your testimony
or Reynolds did not do any
6
testing on ita'own of the phenols, correct?
,Right .
Q . And if you were just reviewing
, test
10
,painting of mice, why wouldn't you tell Reynolds
11
not=to be concerned about it, because you can't
12
extrapolate`thoee results to the human experience?
13
Well, I think,`if .you read some of the things
14
wrote, that's what-I'implied in a lot of it .
15
But, then again, I also pushed, as you probablyy
16
are-aware, that I thought we should be doing some
17
biological work ourselves, because some of it was
18
actually very poorly done .
Wee had developed or, ;:if you wil.l,
19
20
acquired, a fairly good reputation`from our work
21
in chemistry of smoke ;and tobacco -- smoke
22
analysis/tobacco analyeis, and I felt-we could do
23 1
t he same thing in the biological area .
24
Q
.Why ;was the
Ln
H
~
~
m
why were the test
251 results, in and of themselves, the test results
WAC3A & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 639
1
'arising from :the'moude akin painting of the
phenols,'enough : :to-Convince you to advise Reynolds
rrot, to exp3 .ore using phenols as flavorants?
,_ Well, here again,
things that happened :in-'54, or '52, '53, '54,
'56. . Benzpyr,ene,` :for example, got to be a term
that was altnost, ;ae aCary to people as the word
cancer . And I felt : Wel1, gee, we got enough
9
problem .with thia,term .' Let's not start
10
introducing something that could go to a quinone
11
and-have another problem that would be our doing .
as I eay, .I was frankly surprised,
12
13
wher;i here' s a man'that' ;s been there three or four
14
months, walks into .research management and says :
15
Hey, . .here's some,_articles ; .I don't think we should
16
use 'these . ''And they say :
17
won't use them .
18
Q.
Who
did :you specifically talk to?
19
Dr . Senkus'and Mr . Hoover, my manager and the
20
21
22
23
0
Was your, -- was your opinion that
those shouldn't`be explored based upon your
your scientific belief that there were
24
health risks related to those compounds, or was it
25 .
based upon your belief :that it wasn't worth
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 640
1
getting into because
2
health risks related'to .itd
3
the public thought there were
Well, I thought why stir up another mess that
we were -- like the-one,we're already into with
-the'polycyclics :
mean, I ;was convinced the
had discovered benzpyrene and saya there isn't
a'problem . The American
10
Association for Canoer_Research said the same
11
12
When?
'84 . I've
t i
13
14
15
16
What 'did 'they say?
That there'a no compound`in cigarette smoke
cause of cancer . .
17
that :can be attributed_as a
18
Something in those words .
19
same` thing, Do11- .and Hill and' -- Doll and Peto
20
said the same thing . Doll is the guru of
21
statistical standings :`
J . W . Cook said the
Ln
22
I. say, Wynder and Hoffmann, '~
And ; as
..
.
.
. . ~.
..
~
~
-
. ~
. '~. F..
23
and Fred Bock, and Benjamin Van- .Duuren pr o ba bl y ~~
; ,r,
24
have said that 30 times in thee last 30 years .
25
You're`saying that'they :said that
[ IN
Ln
N
Vol . 4, Pg . 641
there cannot be a compound that is the cause of
cancer?
3
A . What they say is you cannot explain the
animal experiments on .skin painting with the
5
.composition of smoke as dictated by polycyclic
hydrocarbons or benzo[alpyrene .
That group,was not'suggesting, were
Q
they, and they did_not suggest,'that there was not
a'statisticalj.link .be;tween smoking and certain
10
forms of cancer?
11
Oh, no . Nc
12
Q . You agree that--there was definitely,
13
even by '56, a statistical link between smoking
14
and cancer?
15
A . A statistical association .
16
Q
Isn't it-,more fair to say that what
17,
that'group was, .e'aying was that"th.ere was no
18
specific compound that could be identified as the
19
specific cause of,the cancer?
20
21
22
guess you might_,say that,
after this four-month period
where you were working on phenols as a flavorant,
23
24
25
it surprised me .
was told to'drop the phenol
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 642
pxoject, that
they said : What do you want to
work on?' And I said, well -- you know, I think
it's in something I wrQte someplace : I said :
What .we're selling is smoke . I would like to do
5
work ; on amoke_ composition .
,And
because so little was known, as
I told you,'about the :article by Alvin Kosak and
8
the 90-something compounds .
So I set upFa whole . system of
10
examining smoke ;' the'smoking machine was patterned
11
after :that of :Dr . Wynder's
12
look at tobacco .smoke,And between examining the
13
composition of tobacco .~'s°moke and finding ways to
14
modify it, it t-ook 'the'next ten years .
15
16
17
Q
And we set out t
What was your beginning goal in
'-looking at smoke composition?
Well, I've already told you that I had worked
18
out a-p ;rocedure for ;,isolating and identifying
19
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from my work at
20
the' `Banting- and Best : And I was so f irmly
21
convinced that all this controversy was a bunch
22
nonsense, that the first thing I did was go after
23
the polycyclic hydrocarbons -Were-you --
24
Q
25
-- and settle the issue once and for all, in
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 643
my mind, that,they"were there in very low levels .
2
We actually`isolated the benzopyrene in
crystalline form . : First time that had"ever been
done .
Q . You were convinced that the
controversy ;was nonsense . Was that before or
after you began-at Reynolds?
Well, I really had nothing to do with medical
emok~e until I-got to Reynolds .
And, as I say,
10
when I started reada .ng -a little more about it and
11
suddenly realized some people were saying no, they
12
can't there and, yes ;'they can be there . And I
13
14
thought, the background of everything that had
..
been done since the mid '30s, there was no way
15
they could not be'there .
Q . I'm talking specifically about the
16
17
polycyclic
}That's what I'm talking about .
18
19
Carbo -- polycyclic hydrocarbons . Did
0
20
you, before you began at Reynolds, ever express in
21
writing that you-believed that t he polycyclic
22
carbohydron
23
nonsense?
24
A.
251
hydrocarbon controversy was
Ln
MR . SLANCATO ; I'm going to object to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 644
the form .
2
3
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Did you ever express, before you began
at Reynolds, orally that you believed that the
polycyclic hydrocarbon .controversy was nonsense?
Well, in my-work at the Banting, as I said, I
did :a lot of work in polycyclic hydrocarbons, and
would have "occasiori :, .to talk with my boss there,
9
Dr . .Franks . And of'° .course he was very
1, 0
knowledgeable in''polycyclics . And there were
11
12
papers that were~appearing,in some of the chemical
.,
j ournale and talkxng _about the presence of
13
polycyclics in their .;,'-- in cigarette smoke . And
14
then,there were papere .saying, well', they couldn't
15
fa.nd it .
And in our•
16
17
We11, the curves tha't'these people have, spectral
18
curves, .really don't tell you that they claim to
19
be polycyclics, really don't show that it is, they
20
were so poor, and this was Dr .'Fieser's criticism
21
in 1957 . And between us, I said : Hell -- pardon
22
my language . Heck, there's no way they can't be
23
there, from all we knew about how-they were formed
0c)
24
25
0
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 645
.controversy was . Was the controversy -2
The controversy was whether they were there
3
4
6
controversy as to whether
or not they were tumor-promoting or tumorigenic?
Well, if there was a controversy about
9
whether they were there or not there, you have to
10
prove that-they were there,to find out which ones
11
were there before you'could say : Well, if you had
12
a dozen polycyclics, which ones had ever been
13
tested?
Q . So your -- when you say this ten-year
14
15
project, you -- at the end of this ten years, were
16
you'convinced one way or-the other as to the,
17
quote, controversy,
18
A.
19
controversy in 1956 .when we isolated them .
20
unquote?
was convinced that there was no
Q . So the controversy you're referring to
21
that was resolved in your own mind -- or resolved
22
earlier but confirmed ten years later, was that
cn
23
they are there?
M
m
~
~
24
I knew that in '56 . . 1 said -- I think you're
cn
-1
251 misinterpreting my talking about --
WAGA & SPINELLI .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 646
1
2
I think I-did .
about the ten-year period . What we did,
A.
once we :were there, we .did a great deal of work on
4
how .could we diminish'them . And as -- one of the
things"that a lot of people were doing in labs all
over the place, was trying,to reduce polycyclics
7
specifically . And -l'_m sure we 'll get into the
fact that, when you .zry,that'with any class of
compounds in cigarett .e'smtike, you'run into a
10
problem .
Why were you trying to reduce them?
11
4
12
Well, here again, you had everybody saying
13
these things about polycyclics and they were
14
tumorigenic to mouse skin or on subcutaneous
15
injection, and the best way to shut up the people
16
complaining was to say, okay, let's get them out
17
of there or diminish them . They're not flavorful,
18
or at least most of them aren't . . Some of the
19
lower molecular rate :polycyclics are flavorful .
20
One of'~`them used to be ;ueed in mothballs :
21
Naphthalene .
,
,
22
Q . Was your'research to reduce the
23
polycyclic hydrocarbons related to your personal
24
Oesire•to make cigarettes-safer or to reduce the
25
controversy around polycyclic hydrocarbons?
Vol . 4, Pg . 647
A .
2
Probably part .;and parcel of both . When we
started the first,study on ways to reduce
polycyclic .hydrocarbons, we -- the polycyclic
hydrocarbons have to come from something in the
5
tobacco . Now, tkiere .had been a big controversy
whether they got there by"atmospheric pollution,
'by stuff settling on .the leaves in the fields
the big contr:oversy, well, all the
polycycl .ice came'from the cigarette paper and this
10
type of thing . 'But those
11
another group that thought,the :polycyclics came
rettee with a match, the burning
12
13
14
15
of 'tY}e wood "in '`the mat-ch, or the hexane in
the
.cigarette`ligh"ter .
Well, ` it
16
well, it come from something in the tobacco . And
17
i't was determined there were things in tobacco
18
that-'would give more polycyclics than cigarette
19
paper and so on . So,`if we got rid of those, the
20
polycyclic levels'wou1d go
21
did that was .toI extract what is called precursors .
22
down .
And the way we
Well, unbeknownst to us, for some
J
same project .im
23 .
time, Dr . Wynder was'working on the
24
And ' the way I found out that waa,because, as I
25
said, my major professor did all the chemistry
NELLI
Vol . 4, Pg . 648
with Dr . -- for Dr . Wynder, until he got
2
Dr . Hoffmann . And .I .found out that they're
working on extraction the same as we .are .
And in ..1960
Dr . Wynder, at a meeting in Atlantic City, said :
6
We'+ve given up on extraction ; it's economically
7
and :practically unfeasible .
8
Well, we had given -- we gave it up
too, for the :same -- for part of the same reason .
10
But- .the second part of the reason was that, when
11
you take out the precursors, you end up raising
12
.the :level of the non-soluble parts of tobacco,
13
like cellulose"and lignin ; they get to be a larger
14
percentage of the filler .- And one of the main
15
source of phenols Is`lignin, which is non-soluble
16
in'the`solvents that we .used . So did you want to
17
lower polycyclics and raise the .-phenols when there
18
was still a13l thie chatter abo'ut,phenols being a
19
problem?
20
The .other
21
soluble in t he solvents used for the extraction .
22
And, as we suepected, if 'you' left the nitrates
23
there, their`ratio in the residue -- : extracted
24
residue would increase, so you'd effectively
25
increase the nitrosamines in smoke . So do you
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 649
r
want to lower one thing and raise two?
So we said, "To heck with it," and
3
went on to something .else .
Q . At what point in time in your ten
4
years of your research`did you say'"to heck with
it," or was that after ten .years?
No . We did that about 1960, somewhere around
there . We looked, at .extraction for about three
years, and was actually so serious about it, we
10
had A major engineering company design a plant to
it, when we thought it was a good way to go .
12
But when we figured out that there were more -- it
13
would raise more problems than .it would solve, we
14
ended that .
Was there any -- you referred to a
15
16
ten-year period and`I just want to be clear in my
17
mind . What were you talking about,' .that ten-year
18
period?
19
Well, the ten=year period was from '54 to
20
'64', early '65, somewhere in there . . We were under
Hoover was the director
21
D
,Senkus was a manager and then he
22
of
23
was`aseistant director of, research . And we did a
24
lot~ of t-hings on_smoke-composition, polycyclics,
251 , phenols, ciliastate, nitrosamines, and we looked
WAGA & SPINELLI .
(201) 992-4111
u,
N
~
~..~
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 650
at,'different ways to ;-- ;we concentrated, mostly,
on`the polycyclic business .
3
And everything we
came,up with,~where we tried to look at -reduce things specifically, selectively, in other
5
words, only the polycyclics, only the phenols, we
ran ;into a trouble that we'-- if you lower one
thing, you were raising something else .
SO we went•to a philosophy : If you're
going-to make a safer cigarette, less hazardous
10
cigarette, lower everything as near, :in proportion
11
as you can . And the""work on, if you will, the
12
less hazardous cigarettes, everybody was looking
13
at it . And the interesting thing -- it may not be
14
interesting to you . But in 1960 D
I 15
out with an article and said the --`at this point
16
in time, the four cigarette design technologies
17
significant in making a less haza,rdous cigarette
18
are°the blend, the-'filter tip, paper porosity, and
19
reconstituted tobacco sheet .
20
. Wynder came
Now, . if you look historically at those
21
four, the first blended cigarette, called the
22
"American blend, was introduced in 1913 by R .J .
23
Reynolds Tobacco Company . And, subsequently,
24
after 1957/58,' it .was shown that a blended
251 cigarette was less -- smoke was less tumorigenic
WAGA & SPINELLI `
(201) 992-4111
1i
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 651
1
to mouse skin, its .benzpyrene content was less,
2
its phenols were less, .so on and so forth . The
-second, on filtration -4
Q . Less carcinogenic than what?
A . . Pardon?
Did you say .less carcinogenic?
R
7
Less :tumorigenic to mouee skin .
The second one, filtration, the first
success
.really .succes.sful cigarette acceptable
10
o the consumer was the Wineton, 1953, introduced
11
by`R . . .J . Reynolds Tobacco Company . There had been
12
filter .cigarettes,, but'they were 1-ess than one
13
percent of the market .
When the'Winston came out, the filter
14
15
tip cigarette took off like a skyrocket .
Well, the-other thing that the Winston
16
17
cigarette had, and wnich was also'incorporated
18
into t he other Reynolds brands, was reconstituted
19
tobacco sheet . Reconstituted tobacco :,sheet had
20
been used as a wrapper for cigars . But no
21
successful one .'had e,ver_been made that was
22
t
for
r
23
24
25
did'it . Dr . Samuel Jones invented it .
The third ' one was paper porosity, that
you lowered the tar'and nicotine and everything
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 652
1
else by having paper that let the air flow through
it fast .
So .the ;first four things that were
ever introduced, that Wynder and Hoffmann said
5
were signif .icant, all came out of R .J . Reynolds
6
Tobacco Company .
Q . Of those four items -
7
8
A.
And they were a1l copied by everybody else,
within three years of~their introduction .
Q . Those four items that you mentioned,
10
11
12
were
they originally"developed as health ideas?
they weren't . But, you know, it is, if
13
you will, serendipity, good fortune, that they all
14
worked out to be that way .
15
Q, Have,you seen any documents in your
16
employment or consulting relationship with RJR
]. 7
that would . ;suggest that- any of those four things
18
19
e,-further developed as a potential -- let me
start over .
The .'
20
21
you said`they did not start out with the
22
concept that 'they would be health-related benefits
23
to 'smoking?
24
Well, obv .iously the blend one in 1913
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 653
Q . . Did you ever see any,documents at RJR,
during your employment or during your consulting
period, that'suggested that there wouid be health
benefits to theae :four._items that ..should be
exptored?
y. ;
A ." `"Not "that- I .recall . It may have been
;merit'ioned, after•~the`-whole concept of -- when
Dr . Wynder .talked :about'lowering the tar he did
soaie''work in 1957, and at the same time he did the
10
benzpyrene work . And his conclusions were : If -it tar is the problem in smokers, then lowering
12
the tar by 40_percent would almost do away with
13
any respiratory tra'ct,problems . And that was in
14
hist testimony before the Blatnik Committee in
15
1957 .
16
17
there was a"look .at, you know,
if you increase the reconstituted
18
tob.acco sheet,
19
in agreement with what -- at least -- not i
20
agreement with, but complied with the things that
21
Dr ., Wynder was sayin.g .
22
that would lower the tar, which was
Do you )Criow of any promotional
23
campaigns that touted-either'blendg,~filter ti Pf
24
paper porosity, reconstituted tobacco°with
25
providing health benefits?
~
~
~
Im
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g . 654
No . As
anything .
The fact that
well, let's look at
reconstituted-tobacco .
. Now, ;ahat wae .introduce by 1953 . By
4
1958, everybody ;in the industry had copied, not
6
our .specific reconstituted tobacco sheet, but one
7
similar to it, that they either designed
themselves or`had,p.omebody`deeign for them, like
the"American Machine and Foundry .• Well, if you
10
look .at the curve of ;tar versus sales-weighted
11
average tar, it becomes obvious that that tar is
12
dropping, dropping, dropping ; and it's still
13
dropping : So, you know, if what Wynder says is
14
right, then we've done something in accord with
15
his wishes .
16
Q . Can you tell me any specific research
.
,
,
17
that you were assigned to in that ten-year period
18
that the goal was to~-.develop a'safer cigarette?
1962, one`of the people that worked for
19
20
me,' 'Dr . Fredricks:on, wrote a memo about tobacco
21
and how to, perhaps, generate a less hazardous
22
cigarette .
23
Put less tobacco in the cigarette .
24
25
And his philosophy or proposal was :
Ln
~
~
m
m
rn
And how do you do that .when you've go,
a certain dimension, you've got a thing that's
('201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 655
1
about the size of a pencil and it's so long, that
-you don't want toy drastically change the shape of
the,cigarette, but,how do you put less tobacco,
and'that .taking into account the filter? And he
said: Well,'make the tobacco lighter,
y
expanding it .
And in his memorandum he points out
that, not only would .this generate considerable
9
revenue, but it would also lower the tar and
10
whatever`elae you were interested in and want
11
lowered, that were -- that 'people were possibly
12
saying that was responsible for this or that .
13
And he worked on it, got the patents
14
on it . We put it in ;the cigarettes, we licensed
15
it, everybody else copied ; those that weren't
16
licensing developed one'of their own . And that's
17
one of the eight_significant technologies listed
18
by the Surgeon General as contributing to a safer
19
cigarette . That, came out of R .J . Reynolds,
20
because we had the first' patents on it .
21
22
23
Q . And it's considered safer because each
cigarette has less tobacco in it?
No . Because ,the smoke has -- the smoke
24
generated by the cigarette ; according to the -
25
you've got to go back, I think, sir, to who
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 65 6
defined the safer cigarette . And it was
a
cigarette -- the cigarette with expanded tobacc o
in it,fitted the definition of those who define d
safer cigarette . . Tar was less tumorigenic to
5
mouse skin ; tar was lowered . And the ratio of
certain ingredients to tar per milligram of tar
werelowered, and that included benzopyrene and
8
phenol and whatever else you wanted .
nd, as I. .eay, all you got to do i s
9
the Surgeon :4eneral's report for 1979 ,
10
look at
11
1981, and thereit gives you a list of eigh t
12
technologies, seven of which came out o f
13
14
15
Which isthe only one that didn't ?
not the first who incorporate d
16
ventilated filter tips into a cigarette ; I thin k
17
American Tobacco Company was . But we utilized i t
18
19
20
21
22
tip, paper`porosity, reconstituted tobacco . Wha t
.are the other four ?
in ;sequence ,
2 3
24
phenols, which, by the way, also take out volatil e
251 nitroeamines : The othex was paper additive, th e
WAC3A & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 657
1
seventh was .expanded .tobacco, and the last one
introduced was venti,lated filter tipe .
Q . Is it your suggestion that RJR did
research and used these areas to develop a safer
cigarette?
A .- Well, we -- we fitted it into the same type
of_program, if you-will~` that the National -National Cancer'Inst,itute called .their less
hazardous --'~its lees .~hazardous cigarette program .
10
11
Q . Did'RJR act,ually ._have a less hazardous
cigarette program?
12
Well, we incorporated all these things -- I
13
mean,
there was :a great deal of research that went
14
into expanded tobacco, for example . We did the
15
chemistry of the smoke, very detailed chemistry .
16
We,.did the biology~ "of -the smoke on skin painting
17
study . Our .results on the biology -- biology of
18
the smoke -- ;bioa`ssay of the . smoke were checked
19
and confirmed in the NCI study . They,were also
20
checked and,confirmed in Germany by a man called
21
Dontenville . And if you look at the definition
22
that` came out in the`late '50s of what a safer
F"
m
23
24
25
Q
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 658
cigarette"?
A . I don't have . a definition, sir .
Q . Do you believe there is a safer
cigarette?
.
We .used the definition that Dr . Wynder and
Hoffmann and Bock came-- :up with in,the '60s
early ',60s, late
50s .
Q . I'm talking about you, individually .
Do-you be3 .iede there"is a safer cigarette?
well,
10
11
cigarettes are that ;unsafe . But
Q.
12
13
14
15
- as I say, I'm not too sure
point .
Okay .~
guess that's a good starting
Do you believe cigarettes are unsafe?
, Cigarettes are .unsafe? No, I don't believe
ciga'rettes' are unsafe .
Q . : Do you believe that there are no
16
17
health risks related,to,smoking?
18
A.
19
smoking and :certain diseases .
20
21
. Well, there is t .he association between
Q.
Do
you .believe that's a valid
association?
22
MR . BLANCATO : . Object to the form .
23
THE WITNESS : I'm not that much of
24
expert, sir, on statistics . But the -- I'm
251 aseuming that the - - most of the incidences, the
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 659
methodology and :so .on, .,would indicate an
association .
BY MR . MAISTROSt
4
5
Q
The association you're referring to is
just a statistical one?
6
On the samples that were done, yes .
And the fact that you-recognize
8
there's a statistical association between smoking
and certain diseases does not convince you in
10
any way that cigarettes are unsafe or smoking is
11
unsafe?
12
I'm not sure . I won't -- I will not equate
13
association with cause and effect, if that's what
14
you're looking for .
Q . You don't think there's enough
15
16
biological, chemical, analytical research out
17
there to establish a link between smoking and
18
certain forms of cancer?
Well, you talk about biology . According to
19
.
20
the
21
Can : you induce thee aame kind of tumor by the same
22
route that you get in humans? And you can't do
23
that with inhalation of cigarette smoke . Yet you
24
can`do the .same thing_with the exposed mice, for
25
example, by inhalation to .the same level of diesel
what you should look for in bioassays
ia .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 660
exhaust fumes, at the same level as you do with
cigarette smoke, and you will get squamous cell
carcinoma in the mice that you don't .get with
4
cigarette smoke .
Q
When you were in Canada for those
6
seven years, you did :mice and rat and some chicken
7
studies?
8
A . Well, as I
Q
You were involved in them?
10
A . I was involved with them at -- I did the
11
chemistry of'the things they wanted to use in the
12
animal work .
13
Q
If during the course of those studies,
14
you were, I asoume,youu were doing those for some
15
purpose . In other words, if you saw .that
16
certain compound would cause cancer in a mouse,
17
MR .'MCDERMOTT :
18
19
I mean,
20
21
22
23
24
.relevant information to know that a
.compound
promotes tumors .in a mouse?
Weli, here again, tumor promotion is an
entirely different thing,
sir, than tumor
251 initiation .
WAGA & SPINELLI,
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 661
But beyond that point is -- we already
knew ;that the compounds that we were working with
were either very potent in the way they caused
tumors, either on skin :'painting or subcutaneous
injection or intraperitoneal injection .
Q . You were doing animal testing, were
you,not, back in '47 to °'53, so that you can draw
sonte,conclusions upon the biological activity of
c,ertain compounds? .
10
A . Well, we were interested in the fact that the
11
serum' we were ge:n.erating, the vaccine we were
12
generating, would it stop the production of tumors
13
in :the animals that, we knew we were going to cause
14
tumors in .
15
.16
Q, Let's take>4t another way . Why did
you want RJR, in '54 ., to develop it's own in-house
17
animal research laboratories?
18
A . I didn't say`that in 154 .
19
20
Q.
Okay ; when'did you say that?
A . . . I don't know . Late '50s, early '60s .
~
21
Q.
Why
did .you want R .J . Reynolds to
22
develop its own in-house animal testing in the
23
late 'S4s, earYy ;'60s? :
24
~
~
w
. Well, one of the`reasons, as I said, was, if
251 you look at what Reynolds did from 1952, when they
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 662
1
began to augment their research capability, we had
2
developed -- Reynolds had developed quite a
3
reputation in the field of tobacco composition,
tobacco and smoke a,nalysis . And then, when we got
into the smoke :composition work, where -- when I
started it in '54, by_1960, we had quite a
reputation for our skills in these .areas . And if
8
you looked at some of the stuff in the literature
9
on biology,-some of it was very poorly done . And
10
I felt : Let's do i`t, develop the expertise to do
11
it properly, and it may be more meaningful .
12
And one of the things -- you may not
13
realize this either,' that if you go to a meeting
14
and somebody's giving a talk on animal studies,
15
and!it doesn't necessarily have to be on tobacco
16
smoke, but usually we were interested in what
17
pe ople were saying in that area, and you asked a
18
question of,Dr . Wynder or Dr . Bock from Roswell
19
Park in`Buffalo, t he first thing they would look
20
and'say : Gee, there's~:Alan Rodgman from Reynolds
21
or Joe Smith from someplace else :, And they would
22
ask'the question : Was your question an outgrowth
23
ot fiomething you noticed .in your work? And of
24
course you were stuck . If you hadn't done any
25
biological work, you could .say : Well, I haven't
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 663
1
done any ; and'they'd i ust ignore your question .
Q . Up to this .,_point in time, had Reynolds
contracted with .outside laboratories to do such
4
work?
5
A . -No, I-don't think,so . I was trying to think .
6
That'didn't happen,until the '60s, I guess .
7
8
Q : Which companies -~ in the '60s, when
you decided to recommend that Reynolds develop
more biological in-house research, which companies
10
were doing biological in-house research?
11
A . . Well, when I first recommended -- or
12
recommended the acquisition of a biological
13
capability through bioassays and so on, nothing
14
happened for a while . But, then, I guess it was
15
about the mid '60s, we actually formed a group,
16
you know, that did some biological work . Not
17
necessarily all on tobacco smoke either, because
18
of some other ongoing things at Reynolds .
And`in addition to some in-house work,
19
20
we had some work done at'various -- Bio-Research
21
in Chi,cago,
22
Do you know which tobacco companies
23
were ;doing in-house biological research when
24
Reynolds was not?
25
w
. At that time I didn'
WAGA'& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol .
g . 664
Q . When`did you first recommend that
Reynolds develop biological research in-house?
MR . MCDERMOTT :
THE WITNESSs I-guess it was late '62,
really, in May_;
6
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . And when did they develop in-house
biological research?
In '65 . They started to acquire the staff .
10
And one of the problems, you know, you say -- you
11
don't jump into doing biological work overnight,
12
sir . You've got to get the staff, you've got to
13
get .a facility . A biological facility is -- is
14
not just like putting your kitchen together . ; it's
15
quite an elaborate setup . And it took time to get
16
that all done, and get the appropriate staff, and
17
get things started .' And, as I say, all of the
18
biological work that was done, underway, was not
19
all on cigarette smoke .
Q . Who was in charge of the efforts to
20
21
put_together sophisticated biological research
Ln
22
capabilities within RJR in 1965?
~
~
m
23
A.
24
N-I+E-L-S-O-.N ., I ;guess .it is .
A man called Dr . Eldon Nielson, E-L-D-O-N,
What role did you play in that
25
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 665
project?
A . None . I was just glad to see they were
getting a move on .
Q . And the primary benefit you saw, at
least, was so that'you could be more knowledgeable
when'you attended these seminars?
Well, that would have been a help . But
the~-- one of our problems had been, we do all the
chemistry of ways to control smoke and lower this
10
and that, and we sort of had to rely on people
11
doing the same thing outside and then seeing what
12
they did with the animal work, their animal work,
13
because they could do both . This way, if we were
14
.doing them both in-house, we could probably speed
15
up our knowledge reserve, and so on and so forth .
16
Q . And is it your testimony, that prior
17
to the development of this biological laboratory
18
in 1965, that Reynolds did not have'any in-house
19
capabilities to either confirm or deny the
20
biological work that'was being done by third
21
parties?
22
23
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : I don't think they did .
24
25
BY MR . MAISTROS :
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 666
When I say Reynolds, I mean either
0
in-house or by contracting it out .
m really -- I don't remember them going
outeide .
I think they may .have for some things,
but I don't'remember them going outside .
Q . When, if,you could put the year -- if
you could put a year to it ; if it's an unfair
question, tell me . When do you think Reynolds
first had the capabilities to personally examine
10
the biological activity of smoke?
Probably -- oh, ;I'11 say '60s . Let's say it
11
12
took them a year and a half to get everything
13
staffed and so on . Probably late '66 or early
14
167, somewhere in there .
15
Q . And the in-house biological research
16
that was developed in`'66/'67, did that continue
17
through the time you left RJR?
18
19
.
No . The -- some of the biological work was
terminated in 1970 .
20
Q, What "some" of it?
21
Pardon?
22
Q . What "some" of it?
23
Well, I'm sure you're referring to all the
24
fuss about the 1970 supposed closing of a Mouse
25
House . But there were several things going on in
WAaA .&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 667
the biologica] . areatthat -- for example, we were
in the proc'ess of considering a liaison with a
,pharmaceutical .Gompany ; Warner Lambert, I think it
was . We also were doing biological work -- and
with that regard ; we were -- had looked at some
forget whether they came from
6
compounds
7
tobacco or smoke, ._ We were looking at the
8
biology -- bioaseay of them as
9
cho.lesterol-reducing compounds . And so there were
10
I
several people working-on that .
The`n, .there was another group who were
11
12
working on what was called the isomerase project,
13
Which actually wa`s`a bacteriological project of
14
way to convert'glucose to a mixture of glucose and
i5
fructose . And,~ nowa;days, if you look at Coke or
16
Pepsi or soft drinks or ice cream, you'll notice
17
that t hey all .contain what's called liquid sugar,
18
which is a mixture of glucose and fructose,
19
produced by a similar system . Reynolds has its
20
own
21
called Penick `& 'Ford .
22
developed'its own system for a company
Now,` Penick & Ford was also a seller
23
'starch compounds, and`some of them, of course,
24
were> used in `foods,' ,some' were used as coatings on
25
paper, so on .' So they were a group testing the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 668
compounds that were used -- that would have been
2
3
taken in by people .
And then . .t here were, of course, people
4
working on the effects of cigarette smoke . And
5
then there was another group -- the Council for
6
Tobacco Research was'looking for a smoking machine
to use, to expose'animals to inhalation . It's
8
called the "nose only exposure method," where the
beast gets the smoke"`right at his nose and mouth .
10
11
And `Reynolds designed one .
So there were people -- biological
12
people working on the design of that machine with
13
people from the electronic -- electrical
14
department . And'all the companies, I think, made
15
one . I think Lorillard had one, we had one -- I
16
don't know if Philip Morris had one or not . But
17
it`ended up the Council for Tobacco Research
18
didn't pick any of ours, they picked a machine
19
called the Walton smoking machine .
20
So, contrary to what has been said
21
about what went on in the -- all these articles in
22
the newspaper that the whole biological group was
23
terminated, ' it was terminated because they were ~
24
all'' .working on cigarette smoke, their notebooks
I cn
N
m
~
OD
251 were taken and''`dest"royed ; it was a bunch of m
WAGA'& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 669
nonsense . And if you want to take :the time, I
2
think I could go .through and demonstrate to you
3
how-much nonsense it`really was . If I haven't
already .
For example,` they said the only people
terminated were biological . There were at least
eight people who were not biologically oriented .
Some of them were analytical chemists, some of
9
them were organic chemists, working on a flavorant
10
synthesis, analytical chemists, wasn't terminated .
11
And ; :the other thing abnut it was .there were about
12
12 people, including Dr . Nielson, who stayed on
13
after that, all biologi .cally oriented, except one .
14
Q . Who's that?
15
A man called Fred Wendelboe . He was doing
16
some analytical .chemistry for the biological
17
people .and went to the -- back to the
18
biological -- went back to the analytical group .
19
But the interesting thing is that some
20
f .the .people in :the biological area, they were --
21
according to people,who said everybody was gone,
22
a`re still there . In .fact, one of them is giving
23
two papers at the Tobacco Chemists Conference next
24
week .
25
Who is=that?
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 670
1
2
Riley Davis . Riley, R-I-L-E-Y, Davis . Fred,
Wendelboe is still there .
The-other interesting thing, the same
4
people who were saying Reynolds was so nasty in
5
getting rid of all this stuff about smoking and
health, three of,them came back : Dr . Bruce,
Dr . Colucci, and Dr . Simmons . And Dr . Simmons is
still there .
9
~things were so ;ugly? :
MR .`BLANCATO : Would this be a good
10
11
time for a break?
MR . MAI9TROS : Just a couple of
12
13
14
15
And"why would you come back if
minutes .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . What` was so"uglyo
mean, one-of those three
16
17
peo, ple said that~_th .ey destroyed his notebooks,
18
which he had to admit wasn't true' . He was the one
19
that gave the_ .interviews that said everybody in
20
21
R . Who'e that?
22
Colucci .
Ln
~
I
MR . MAIS .TROSs Do you want to take
23
24
25
J
F-+
m
a ;
, ~
~
CO
break?
N
MR . BLANCATO : Yes .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 671
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
record at 2 :23 p .m .
(Recess taken from 2 :23 p .m . to 2 :40
p .m,)
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going back on the
record at 2 :40 p .m .
7
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q.
Dr,; Rodgman, in 1970, the biological
research laboratory, if you will, at RJR was
10
shut down, was it not?
11
Yes .
12
Q . Where was it located?
13
A . It was located across the street from the -
14
the main research building .
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q . What was the building called where
biological research was done?
. People called it "the Mouse House," but it
probably had a more sophisticated name .
Q.
Was there anything else in the
building, other than biological research?
21
Not that I know of .
22
Q
23
Were there any employees in the
.building, other .than biological research
24
employees?
25
A . Well, now,'it depends on when you were there .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol .
Pg . 672
For example, the people that were working on the
2
design of the inhalation smoking machine would go
over there and they'd pop animals in and they
wouid adjust things in :the computer, and so on and
But I was never really that much
7
involved, so -- other than that one thing, I don't
who wae in another building .
know who
Q . Who made t he decision to close the
10
biological research laboratory referred to as the
11
"Mouse Houee
12
A . `` I have no idea
13
Q
Who .was,in charge of biological
14
research in 1970 at Reynolds?
15
A .` Dr . `Eldon,Nielson . ;
16
Q
What happened with the animals that
17
were being biologically researched at the Mouse
18
House?
19
I have no idea .
20
Q . Never heard any stories?
21
No .
22
Q•
23
24
25
Not even rumors, hearsay, cocktail
party conversation?
I don't,even remember reading it in the
articles in the Greensboro newspaper, when there
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 673
were five articles, I think, spread over a week, a
page and a half each .
3
4
Q :,
Did you`ever see any memos that
described why the Mouse House was shut down?
5
N
6
Q
Do you`know if they did any research
in the Mouse House that would establish a link
n between cigarette smoke and any form of
9
tumors or
cancer?
10
No .
11
Q . Do you know what kind of biological
12
13
14
research they were doing in the Mouse House?
. Would you rephrase that, please?
Q . Do you know what kind of biological
15
research they were"doing in the Mouse House?
16
A . Well, as I,mentioned before, they were doing
17
some things on cholesterol reducing drugs, on
18
inability or toxicity of starch derivatives that
19
would be in food .' And of course this isomerase
20
thing, they had,to make sure that the liquid sugar
21
you ended up with was -- didn't have bacteria in
22
it, the one that was causing the isomerization .
23
And I'believe they did some work on ciliastasis,
24
cigarette smoke and ciliastasis .
25
Q . What is ciliastasis?
WAGA & SPINELLI
, Ln
~
~-4
~
~
, ,0p.
OD
' Ln
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 674
Well, the cilia are small, little hair-like
things that are in your lung . And I guess the
3
best :-way to describe them is they move in the -synchronously,` like a wave, you know . On the
surface of -- the tips of these things is -- is a
layer of fluid . And if you get anything in your
lung, particles, smoke particles,
8
.dugt, these
little cilia wiggle in a rhythmic motion and move
that : fluid with,the . particles` in it up -- and you
10
end`up swallowing them . It brings them out of
11
your lung and you swallow them .
12
Well, it had been this -- after the
13
demise, if you wi11, .-,of the polycyclics, the
14
aza-arenes, the phenols, the next group were the
15
ciliastats, which were ;primarily in the vapor
16
phase of smoke, not in-the particles . And there
17
was some work .on that .
18
The exposure to these ciliastats, done
19
in vitro with clam cilia or a piece of lung tissue
20
extirpated out of a ;rabb .it, exposure to these
21
vapor phase parts of smoke slowed these down ;
22
sufficient concentration ended
23
their little waving motion . In other words, you
24
were -- the claim was that the ciliastats in smoke
25
hindered the clearance mechanism of the lung .
WAGA & SPINELLI
stopping
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 675
1
And, as a result of that, one of the -- it was
2
written up a great deal in the Readers Digest and
3
so' .on, as the same time as the Lark cigarette
came
out,'which had a,carbon filter which was supposed
;o take the ciliastats out of the smoke .
Well -- I think they were doing some
work :'on that . I'm not sure of that, but I believe
they were .
Unfortunately, by 19 .-- the end of,
9
10
1968 -- well, let,me,back up a little .
1965, Lawrence Cook-and I did some
11
12
experiments that showed that the compounds that
13
are supposedly responsible for ciliastasis or this
14
impairment,never reached the lung, or-very little
15
of them .
16
17
18
They're all dissolved out of the mouth
the saliva, and then the laryngeal, and the
fluids coating the larynx .
We reported that, wrote it up ; it's in
19
some reports . But some other workers in Europe,
20
Da].hamn,' Edfords and Rylander, did it very
21
sophisticated ; very fancy equipment . Got
22
23
: essentially the same numbers that we did for the v+~
~
compounds that are considered ciliastats . And, as '0
24
a result, by the 1969,,1970, the whole carbon
25
filter cigarette'thing fell apart . It ended up
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 676
1
with -- I don't know, 13 brands going down to two,
2
the Reynolds' brand and the L & M brand, Lark and
3
Tempo .
And what-they were doing over in
the -- I think one of the things they may have
been doing, we had also found, Lawrence Cook and
that if you pass the smoke through a moist
8
system, that the water would take out the
9
ciliastats . In fact, there was a commercial
10
cigarette made with :that principle, that
11
encapsulated water .was included in the filter tip,
12
and before you smoked the cigarette, you crushed
13
the filter . The water came out of the capsule,
14
and when you smoked it through -- smoked the
15
cigarette, all the ciliastats were taken out .
But thatl all fell apart when it was
16
171
shown that the ciliastats, or very little of them,
18
ever got to the lung .
19
20
Q
Now,
did RJR do research to establish
that ciliastats : nevex'.' got to the" lung?
just told you .
21
Where is that published?
22
23
It's not published .
24
Q.
25
Well, shortly thereafter, Edfords and
Why
not?
(201) 992-4111
Vol .
, Pg . 677
Rylander-came out with their publication, and
there it was .
R
3
So'is it like medically not subject to
debate that ci3iastats -don't get to the lung?
I didn't say they didn't get to the lung . I
said the level that :>gets to.the lung is very much
reduced . Only about--a querter of them get there .
Q.
How'many .cigarettes do you have to
smoke befor,e you .get`a level that gets to the lung
10
.that matters?
I have no'' idea .
11
12
13
A .
No . The thing is, the effect disappears
14
between cigarettes .
15
Q .
16
The effect disappears between cigarettes .
17
Q . Is there any health d :isease that you
Pardon
me?
18
would feel comfortable, sitting here today,
19
acknowledging as related to smoking?
20
MR . MCDSRMQTTs . "Related"?
21
MR . MAISTROS : Related .
22
THE WITNESS : I still didn't hear you?
23
24
25
WAaA ;& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 678
it .
s there any .adverse health
3
consequence, that you feel comfortable discussing
today, ;that is related or associated with smoking?
MR .' BLANCATO : Object to the form .
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
8
around so much
10
11
Let me
4.
12
There are certai•n people out there
13
14
15
that you've referred to as zealots or
I never used that word .
I forget what word you used,
16
17
opponents, proponents of theories, or anti-smoking
18
people, that would suggest that there are certain
19
diseases related to emoking . Are you aware of
20
21
Well,`I've already said that there were
m
22
epidemiological-studies that indicated an
23
association .
24
Is there any health disease or adverse
251 health consequence that you, sitting here today,
WAdA`& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 679
1
feel comfortable stating that you believe, you
personally, not RJR, you personally believe is
caused by smoking?
4
5
o, I can't -think of anything .
Q . So as far as you' .re concerned, there
6
are .no adverse health consequences-that are caused
7
by smoking?
MR . MCDE,RMOTT : Object to the form of
9
the question .
THE WITNESS : Here, you come back to
10
11
.thie business of association and cause . It's been
12
my training that you cannot prove cause and effect
13
with statistics . You can prove association, but
14
not cause and effect . .
15
16
BY MR . MAISTROS
Q.
Okay . So if I paint a million mice
17
with compounds that's contained in tobacco smoke,
18
and one million get cancer, you can draw no
19
conclusions from that, related to the human
20
experience?
21
. Only if you were to paint the human the same
22
way and get the same-response . And by the way,
23
there has been a akin painting study done with
24
humans and cigarette .smoke .
25
Q . The`prisoners you•talked about?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 680
no . No .' That was with benzpyrene .
1
Who did the .human skin painting study?
2
There was a mari'here in the United States, in
1956 . .,: It's in Wyndev's boo•k ; he's got it
described . He did it for three or four months,
and then they'quit, : because they didn't see
anything .
I was surprised at reading that,
because I had~never realized that reference was in
10
11
existence .
Q
Give me something that the average,
12
common :person can relate to that would establish
13
the distinction that you see'between association
14
and cause .
15
A . : Well, I think part ;of my problem, sir, is
16
that -- as I mentioned, I was collecting and
17
critiquing literature for the law department, and
18
whether it's`a fortunate`position or an
19
unfortunate position, by the time of the trial in
20
New Orleans, the Lartigue case, I had read
21
something like 20-something thousand articles on
22
all aspects, pro and con,`of smoking and health .
23
By the time I got out of that job and it was
24'
actually turned over to Dr . Frank Colby,
25
probably had read 40,000 articles .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 681
Now, whether I am right or wrong --
1
the average person gets his knowledge from a front
page of the newspaper, a magazine, Time magazine
or whatever . If he`reads 52 issues of Time a
ye.ar, maybe three or five of them will have
smoking articles in . So z,think it's very
. ..difficult to pin down and say : Well, the average
8
,person should know :what Alan Rodgman knows, or
9
vice ::verea . So I'm•not in a position to say what
10
the ` average person would f eel about it . I don' t
11
know if'that answers your question .
12
4•
13
The other thing`about it, if you -- to jump
14
from aesociation'to cause and effect, maybe I'm
15
being the ultimate scientist, but there are
16
inconsistencies, even in the_epidemiological
17
studies considered taboo, to even say there's
18
something wrong with them .
19~
I've mentioned the Ochsner case . Why
20
is not Ochsner ever mentioned in the Surgeon
21
General's report, other than his first paper that
22
says cigarette smoking is associated or caused
23
by -- is a cause of lung cancer? All his
24
contradictory clinical data is omitted . Why does
25
Dr . Doll and Hill, in their first study, say they
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 682
can't explain why "the incidence of lung cancer
among people who said they did not inhale is
3
greater than,that in the people who say they
4
inhale .
Now, the American Cancer Society
5
6
sloughed that off and said : Well, the people
7
didn't understand the difference .between inhaling
8
and .not inhaling .
B
t Doll and Hill then went
on to do a study that,was a prospective study, in
.
.
.
. .
. 3
.
,
.
.
10
which they started out with people, 57,000 to be
11
precise, that'they were going to get their smoking
12
habits and see what happens to them . They never
13
asked the question about`inhaling .
Now, you .may say, well, people might
14
15
not understand again ; but this was 57,000
16
physicians . You can't tell me'that you got 57,000
17
physicians that do not know the difference between
18
inhaling and not .inhaling .
And, of-course, if you want to look at
19
20
the chemistry, which I'm much more familiar with,
21
if you want to take the ;time, I can give you at
22
23
24
25
Ln
F-A
a
m
Dr .
. Bock,
Van Duuren made an
on-t e front page -of the
newspapers that axe"wrong, some of which we showed
(201) 992-4111
~
~
Vol . 4, Pg . 683
1
were wrong, some of`which they showed were wrong,
2
but they, to this day, have never retracted a one .
3
4
Q . Why is your former employer agreeing
to FDA regulation of nicotine?
MR . MCDERMOTT : Objection . No
foundation .
THE WITNESSs I don't know whether is
7
or not .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
10
Q . Let's°assume that the newspaper's
11
correct and they've agreed to be regulated by the
12
FDA as a drug . Why would they do that?
MR . MCDERMOTT : Objection . No
13
14
foundation .
THE WITNESS : I'm not an expert in the
15
16
nicotine . All I would say, that I think it's a
17
mistake .
18 BY MR . MAISTROS :
19
20
Q .' Which is a mistake? You think they
should be settling these cases?
21
MR . BLANCATOs Object to the form .
22
MR . MCDERMOTT : Objection . No
23
foundation .
THE WITNESS : You want a personal
24
25 1 opinion?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 68 4
MR . :MAISTROS : Yes .
1
THE WITNESS : No .
3
BY MR . MAISTROS :
4
You think the settlement's foolish?
5
MR . BLANCATO : Objection to form .
6
THE WITNESS : I think it' s
inappropriate .
BY MR ;MAISTROS s
Why do you think its's inappropriate ?
9
10
11
A.
just think it'sinappropriate .
Q . You don't think there's any reaso n
12
that the tobacco-companies should ever agree to
13
any regulation of its product by the FDA ?
14
15
16
MR . MCDERMOTT : . Objection :
foundation .
THE WITNESS : If you go.back in time,
17
at one time there was"a serious consideration of
18
the FDA handling tobacco products the way they do
19
other things, and some people had proposed that .
20
AndI don't know -- I don't think the tobacco
21
companies really had said much either way . But
22
the FDA said : We-don't want to do it . We don't
23
have the time ; we don't have the facilities ; w e
24
don''t have the knowledge .
25+ And that's history, sir . Bac k
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 685
1
sometime -- look up sometime in the '70s .
Q . Do you think that t he defense that's
2
3
asserted by the tobacco company's Freedom of
Choice -- first .of all, are you aware of the
defense, Freedom of Choice?
6
A.
No . I'm not'that familiar with what's been
all this
Q
9
Do you know what the defense of the
tobacco companies is in the Arch litigation?
10
No, I do not .
11
Q . You've not served in any capacity as a
12
consultant in the Arch litigation?
13
Only by being here .
14
Q . Have you assisted Womble Carlyle in
15
the :defense of the Arch case?
16
A . . By being,here ; I don't'know if this is
17
-helping them or hindering them . I don't know what
18
the -- what's involved in the Arch case, frankly .
19
Q.
Have :you ever :written any memorandum
20
to`your managers, supervisors, higher-ups at
21
Reynolds, where you espouse the opinion that there
22
were health risks rel,ated to smoking?
23
. I have written things to them pointing out
24
that these views are held otherwise, and we should
25
be paying attention to them .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 686
1
Q . But have you written anything
2
forget what other people have espoused . Have you
3
written anything where .you said I, Dr . Rodgman,
believe that the following health risks are
5
related to smoking?
6
A . Not that I remember .
7
Q . So, I just<want to understand the
playing field we're on'.
You start from the
proposition that you don't personally believe
10
there'are health risks related to smoking?
MR .-MCDERMOTTs Object to the form of
11
12
the question . You're misstating or not accurately
13
summarizing his prior testimony . It speaks for
14
itself .
MR . MAISTROS : Tell me if I'm
15
16
misstating -THE WITNESS : I think I've already
17
18
spoken to that .-
19 BY MR . MAISTROSs
20
21
Q . Do you have grandchildren?
A . Yes .
22
Q . Any of them smoke?
23
No .
24
Q . Do you have any concerns if they
251 started to smoke?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 687
My sons - don' t smoke .
2
Wou1d yo:u have any ;concerns if your
Q
g I randchildren smoked?
I believe that's their parents' problem, not
It wouldn't`concern you one way or
Q
another if your grandchildren .smoked?
. Well, at their :present age ; .some of them are
three years old .
10
11
Q . The ones that are old enough to smoke,
would it concern you if they started to smoke?
12
Not particularly .
13
Q
14
151
Did you ever do any research to
determine why people smoke?
That was outside my expertise, sir .
16
Most of my work'has been on composition of smoke,
17
control of it .
18
Q . What do you mean by "control"?
19
Just what we've'been talking about : Lowering
20
the composition delivery from'a cigarette,
21
compounds in the tar, and so on and`so forth .
22
Q . Any of the papers that you did on the
23
composition of amoke, did you turn those in to the
24
legal department for review?
25
A . Did I?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 688
Yes .
2
A ..
No .
Q.
Anyone ever .review your work before it
was`published?
5
Oh, there was a set routine, that you
6
prepared the manuscript, submitted it to your
7
manager, manager took it to the director of
research, and then the-director of research either
9
10
-11
approved-it there or, if he had some concern, he
might take it on .
Did you ever submit any documents that
0
12
were returned, edited by anyone in the legal
13
department?
14
Edited?
Yes .
15
16
17
0
Q . Did you ever .have any manuscripts
18
returned, where suggestions were made that, when
19
you expressed certain views by anti-smoking
20
advocates, that you would highlight they were the
21
views of anti-smoking advocates as opposed to just
22
the views of a third person?
23
24
Ln
F-A
~
N
m
No .
MR . MCDERMOTT : Would you read back
251 the question . There was a noise here . I didn't
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ob
Ln
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 689
quite hear the middle part of it .
MR . MAISTROS : He said, "No," but she
can do it again .
(Record read)
5
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q
7
Agreement?
8
A .
Now, have you heard of the Gentleman's
. .~Yee .
Q . What is the Gentleman's Agreement?
We talked about it at the last part of this
10
A.
11
deposition . It was .:-- I heard about it in a round
12
about way . But no in-house animal work was part
13
of it, I think .
Did Reynolds abide by the Gentleman's
14
15
Agreement?
MR . MCDERMOTTs Objection .
16
171
foundation .
THE WITNESS : As far as I know .
18
19
BY MR . MAISTROS :
20
Q.
21
22
What was the reason for the
Gentleman's Agreement?
Ln
I have no idea .
MR . MCDERMOTT :
23
~
~
~
Objection .
m
~
24
25
Foundation .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g
690
Q . Did you hear of a gentleman's
agrefement with respect to a safer cigarette?
A . I don't quite know what you mean .
Q . Was there ever a gentleman's
agreement, to your knowledge, with respect to, if
one tobacco company developed~a safer cigarette,
they'd share that-knowledge with other tobacco
companies?
.
Oh . I was ~-,trying to think if -- Dr . Colby
10
and I gave a talk . That may have been in that --
11
so,me parts Frank put'in .
12
Q . Some parts what?
13
.A . Some parts of the talk D
14
th'at 'may have, been in there .
15
Q . Talk to who?
16
Management .
I'm sorry .
Colby put in . And
What year?
17
18
19
Did` -- I
20
21
into -- back into the biological work . That's
22
when Dr' . Hayes showed,, ., up .
23
Q . You espoused more in-house biological
24
research in '62 . And then there was no biological
25
research, for whatever reason, in '70 . And then
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 691
1
when did°Reynolds get'back into biological
research in-house?
It was about '83 ; I guess . There again, I
Dr . Hayes was hired, and he had to acquire
got. 5
a staff, and was . set up to,do all this stuff,
Q-
Why was there no in-house biological
research from 1970 to '83?
9
A . Whenever we needed it, we contracted it .
10
Industrial :Bio-.Test, in Chicago, and
11
12
Bio-.Reeearch .'in Montreal, and I don't know where
13
else, if there was anywhere else .
Q
14
15
Did Reynolds have facilities in other
countries that did .biological research?
16
Q.
17
Did Reynolds contract with university
18
or outside hospital medical personnel to do
19
biological research,'from 170 to '83?
20
A.
21
done in Industrial Bio-Test, and then the one done
22
at Bio-Research -- well, there were several done
23
at .Bio-Research in Montreal . One was a --
24
Industrial Bio-Test was a tobacco'substitute --
25
No . The only ones I know about are the one
well, both of them were tobacco substitute . Then
(201) 992-4111
~
~
~
~_A
m
,P.
cn
im
w
Vol . 4, Pg . 692
1
2
there was the . .expanded tobacco biological work .
Q . Have those reports been published and
3
provided, to your knowledge?
4
A . I don't know . I don't have them .
Q.
Industrial .Bio-Test, did they do
and 9
10
11
and it include the chemistry of the smoke of the
12
eubstitute .
Well, unfortunately, just at that
13
of
14
time, Industrial°Bio-Test got into all sorts
15
trouble with -- I don't know who it was, FDA or
16
somebody, because of something,they had done with
17
some agricultural chemicals they_had_approved or
18
not approved or should°have been'approved or
19
whatever . And most of,. the people that were
20
involved got fired, so it was never .finished .
21
'Q
Did you .ever see any published reports
22
of Industrial"Bio-Test?
23
A, Did I ever<see'any?
24
Yes .
Ln
0
14
on our work?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 693
Yes .
3
0
Do you know .if Industrial Bio-Test did
any testing to determine if any of the compounds
5
in cigarette smoke promoted tumors, caused cancer,
were tumorigenic?
7
N
8
Q .
They did a lot of work on ciliastasis .
But they didn't publish any reports?
Well, they sent the reports to Reynolds .
10
Q
Do you~know where those are?
11
A . They're in the boxes I gave you . Some of
12
them . I think they"confirmed what Lawrence Cook
13
and I had found, that :ciliastats were taken out in
14
the oral cavity .
Q
15
16
Why di`d Reynolds get back into
in-house biological research in 1983?
Well, here again, it was a management
17
upper management change in R & D . First
18
change
19
one was 1980, then it was 1982/83 . And I -- so
20
D
21
presentation - said we ; .should get into
22
bio-behavioral type things about smoking, and why
23
people smoked and how they smoked, and so on and
Colby and I - I<did., actually, the
m
~
24
w
so forth . And it was approved .
25+
VIDEOdRAPHERs
WAGA &`SPZNELLI
M
m
Maistros, we have
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 694
five minutes left on the videotape .
2
3
BY MR . MAISTROSs'
Q . Did you ever hear any reasons or
explanations as to why_ ;Reynolds did not have
in-house biological,research from '70 to '83?
Well, not -
nobody ;came up and said : Alan,
here=-are the reason.s .
8
But what happened was, if
you thought about it,'that -- to set up a
biological system for various -- for a great
10
number of things is`very expensive .' And you could
11
contract it to a,,univergity lab or a commercial
12
lab and they have everything in place ; they have
13
staff, all expert in certain things, whatever
14
you're looking for . And it ended up being much
15
less expensive to do some things like that than to
16
set up a whole system -in your in-house, and
17
maybe use it tw-ice, and then have to go on to
18
something else .
19
So, you know, in the -- for example,
20
as I mentioned, we did,some of the tobacco
21
substitute work by a contract lab . And, by the
22
way, all of that wae confirmed in the NCI study,
23
the puffed tobacco work, and so on .
24
Q ." In 1970, Reynolds had'in-house
251 biological research .already in existence, did they
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 695
not? So we're not talking about startup costs .'
A . Well, they did -- they weren't set up to
do -- if you did do mouse .skin painting, for
example, you need a tremendous amount of space .
For example, if you have, as I said, cage
controls, solvent controls, positive controls,
test things, you usually do it with 100 or so, 150
mice a piece, and you put six to a cage, and
you're talking an awful lot of space and room, and
10
so on and so forth .
Q . In all`the papers that you did in the
11
12
boxeis-over there, did you ever do a memo to anyone
13
suggesting the reason that there shouldn't be
14
in-house biological testing is the economics?
15
A.
16
No .
Q.
Did
you .ever see a memo, in those six
17
boxes sitting over there, where economics was the
18
reason there was-no`in-house biological research?
19
Well, one of the reasons, for example,
20
that -- here, X had nothing to do with that .
21
That -- the situation aroee in 1970 with the --
22
doing away with the -- if you will, the Mouse
23
House . It actually started in late 1968, when, if
24
you're aware, there was sort of an austerity
25
program ; things weren't going quite as well as
Ln
m
~j
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 696
1
they could have . We were told, for example, in
2
late 1968 : in your`planning for 1969 and '70, do
not budget any new staff acquisitions or
4
replacement of etaff'who are leaving because of
5
retirement or whatever :
Well that budget was prepared for '69 .
And then, of course, it was again -- started to
prepare,it in late '69 for '70 -- well, several
9
10
things happened . I had mentioned Penick & Ford in
the starch work that was biological work .
Well, Reynolds was getting rid of
11
12
Penick & Ford . The deal with Warner Lambert, the
13
company that was sort of interested in our
14
anti-cholesterol business, fell through . And so,
15
with the austerity thing and the collapse of the
16
Penick & Ford starch business -- now,
17
Penick & Ford also had some interest in our
18
isomerase business, and the agreement ended up
19~
there that Penick & Ford would have the rights to
20'
the isomerase patent in the United States and we
21
wouid-have it in the rest of the world . I don't
22
know whether they ever'did license it, but we did .!
23
MR . MA 'ISTROS : We're going to have to :
24
change tapes, okay?
251
THE
WITNESS : Okay .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 697
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
record at 3 :16 p .m` . We're off the record .
(Recess taken from 3 :16 p .m . to 3 :37
VIDEOGRAPHER : ; This is tape 3 of the
5
6
videotape d,eposition of„'A] .an Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
going back on_the ;record at 3 :37 p .m .
BY MR . MAISTROS ;`
D,
Rodgman, let me see if I can
10
expedite_today and the rest of tomorrow in some
11
fashion . Maybe ao .
There are six boxes sitting over
12
13
here with documents'`in them . Are you familiar
14
with-those documents?
15
I think so .
16
Q
Were all those documents produced by
17
you in'response to document requests in this
181
litigation?
19
A.
20
.' Yes .
Q . And all those documents were kept by
21
you in,the regular and .ordinary course of your
22
business at Reynolds? .
23
24
25
Well, as I remember, some of them are some
things I wrote since I left Reynolds .
Q
Okay .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 698
MR . BLANCATOa Did you testify
earlier, some are from before?
THE WITNESS : That's right . Some of
them are from my work in -- for example, reprints
of some of my publications, prior to coming to
Reynolds in 1954 . And then there's some work -publications that I actually published on my Ph .D .
thesis, and I actually .wrote them -- or wrote my
part of it as late, ;as 1959 when I was at Reynolds,
10
with my professor Dr . George F . Wright at the
11
University of Toronto .
12
13
BY MR . MAISTROSs
Q . Is it fair to say that . the vast
14
majority of documents 'in° those six boxes,
15
including the ones that .would be dated between
16
1954 and 1989, are related to your work at
17
Reynolds?
18
Yes .
19
Q.
And :that,the vast-majority of such
20
documents were created and kept in the ordinary
21
course of business at Reynolds?
22
23
Q . And are copies of original documents
24
that were . kept 'at Reynol `de?
25
A . Yes .
WAGA .&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 699
And you have no reason to believe that
2
any of those documents in there are other than
3
what they appear to be in terms of copies? None
4
are fabricated,
in other words?
No . Why would I do that?
6
7
Q . I wouldn't suggest you would, but
silly questions, lawyers have to ask .
You wouldn't object, then, to the
introduction of any of those six documents, (sic)
10
in terms of either being authentic copies or kept
11
in`the ordinary course of business --- six boxes of
12
documents?
13
MR . MAISTROS :
14
Can we have a
15
stipulation to that, other than hearsay and
16
relevancy?
17
MR . MCDERMOTT : We're going -- I mean,
18
I haven't looked through every document in those
19
boxes, and so .I can',t stipulate, in gross, that
20
they're all business'records or that they're --
21
that t hey're properly authenticated : But we're
22
not going to be unreasonable . We're going to --
23
we're going to take a sensible and civilized view
24
of the contents of,those boxes . If they're
25
business records, I'm sure we can work out an
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
N
m
IN
Ln
Vol . 4, Pg . 700
1
accommodation . If`you"ve got some stuff that you
2
want to examine overnight and you ask me about it
3
or ask Dr . Rodgman about it specifically, that's
fine . I'm not going to stipulate that six boxes,
5
in gross, are :business records, however .
THE WITNESS : For example, along that
7
line, my -- I`believe ; someplace .in that mess, is
a copy of my application for employment at
Reynolds . Now, is that a-~ ;where .does that fit?
10
11
12
MR . MAISTROS : Historically
interesting, but probably irrelevant .
MR . MCDERMOTT : You've also got some
13
calendars that I think .are largely personal and so
14
"fort'h . Again, we're'-not going to be -- we're not
15
going'to be obstructionists, but --
16
MR . MAISTROS s Let me` ask you this,
17
and 'the reason I' m' doing it ° on the record is to
18 :
hopefully -- it,was toaexpedite, not to prolong
19
.this . Rather than have me take the witness
20
through all those documents and say, yes, this a
21
copy that -- while I produced at Reynolds . If we
22
can,at least have the agreement, if it's sent to
23
him, :`eent by him or he,'s copied on it and it's got
24
something that says it wae Reynolds-affiliated,
25
then we won't be getting a business record
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
r
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 701
objection or hearsay objection .
MR .,'MCDERMOTT : Let me suggest this .
We're going -- we're going to be back tomorrow
morning ;with'this"witness . I m : not involved in
the case directly ; : .I'm not sure what .the history
6
has been between the parties at ;this point . Let's
get'Mr . Belasic'on-the phone at 4 :30, after we let
8
the witness go, and we'can take a look at the
boxes ourselves, and make, maybe, a more sensible
10
determination w,ithout wasting the witness' time or
11
the court reporter's time on this, and we can put
12
stuff on,the record in-the morning . All right?
13
14
15
MR . MAISTROS : Okay . Or possibly at
4 :30 .
BY MR . MAISTR,OSt
16
Q.
17
18
Now
-
MR . MCDERHOTT : Possibly 4 :30 .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
19
Q . -- you mentioned two studies or two
20
projects you were-involved in at Reynolds,
21
separate and apart from the consulting work you've
22
done for Womble, right?
23
A.
Ln
r
V
Ln
24
4
25
Well, here again,
Was one of those in 1994?
can remember things in
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 702
1
1954 that I can't remember from yesterday . But
one of them was a book on nitrosamines I wrote .
The .other is a-- there was a gentleman called
Dr . ;;,Dennis .Regan, who . ;wanted a planning meeting -research planning meeting, and he invited several
retirees to it : . And there was some small amount
of preparation for,the meeting and some things I
wrote for the meeting and presented at the
9
10
meeting, and I got paid for that, and so on and so
forth . So those are the two things -When was that latter meeting?
11
12
Well, both'.of them have-to have been after
I guess . Because I had that five-year
13
14
restriction on being able to do work for Reynolds
15
until the five years up was after my'retirement .
16
So -'- I mean, the information -- the contracts
17
have been provided, and how much I was paid, and
18
all this -- and the books are in there .
19
20
Q . So all the results of those two
projects are in .those six boxes?
21
Someplace, yeah .
22
0
•You were reviewing Dr . Townsend's
23
trial testimony from the Florida case earlier ; do
24
you remember that? .
25
A . Yeah .
WAaA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 703
Was there anything in there that -- as
2
you .were reviewing it, that you agreed with or
disagreed with, that you remember as you sit here
today?
5
Well, I agreed with a lot of what he said .
6
Q.
Was there anything that you can recall
that you disagreed with?
Not really . I didn't read it that closely,
9
Mr . ;Maistros . I just want'ed to see how -- I had
10
seen him on television . And, of course, I hired
11
Dr . Townaend . And -- he's a very brilliant young
12
13
14
15
knew ;he would do .a good job, anyway .
You were not aware he was going to
te .stity in that case, before he did so?
I knew he wae`getting ready for something,
16
but I didn't know which one it was until, all of a
17
sudden, I looked at the television and there he
is, being asked questions .
In '54 to 165 you've already testified
what you were primarily involved in . Were there
other projects you were working on, that you
22
haven't testified .about,
in that time period?
23
Well, as I<say, we were doing the smoke
24
composition -- if I may, let me run through .
25
Polycyclic,,-- discounting the phenol
WAGA & SPINELhI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4 , Pg . 704
synthesis thing, it was polycyclic work ; we did
some work on the aza=arenes ; which are nitrogen
compounds that are structurally similar to the
polycyclic hydrocarbons ; then we did the phenol
work ; we did the ciliastat work ; and we started to
do some work on nitroeamines in the '63/'64 era .
And then -- and, here, I've forgotten
8
the date,
we had a shift in management .
Mr . Hoover retired ;`Dr . Senkus became director of
10
~research ; and a new man, the vice president of
11
R& D, Dr . Willard Bright became vice president of
12
R& D . And he had a bit different attitude about
13
what we should be doing and what we shouldn't be
14
doing . He was very interested in acquisitions,
15
and he was the one that triggered the
16
Penick & Ford thing and the Warner Lambert thing .
17
And he also got :us involved in a tobacco
18
substitute study'for a material called Sutton
19
20
21
22
4
-Sutton?
A .' Sutton, S-t7-T-.T-O-N .
So the tobacco work -- or tobacco
23
smoke work and our tobacco composition studies
24
were, sort of dropped in favor of some of the new
25
things he wanted done . And for the next several
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 705
ye'ars, my group, which I wasn't familiar with, you
know, studied, not only the Button .smoking
3
material, but,a smoking material manufactured by
Celanese, and that's called Cytrel, C-Y-T-R-E-L,
5
and emoking materiai manufactured in England
called_New Smoking Material, by Imperial Chemical
and Imperial Tobacco Company .'
And we looked at these, and we had
8
9
problems with all of them . And over the next --
10
between 1965 and maybe 1970, early '70's, a young
11
man called Jack'White,•developed a smoking tobacco
12
substitute that was better than any one we could
13
buy or license or whatever . And we did all the
14
smoke work on it and so on, the animal work .
And we never used it, because there
15
16
were thirteen brands introduced in the United
17
Kingdom with NSM 3mperial smoking material and the
18
Cytrel, and within nine months every one of them
19
hadn't sold enough to make a penny . So we never
20
did`market and put it in our cigarettes .
21
R.
Do you k~ow°if ff there was nicotine in
Ln
~
V
22
23
~.A
those materials?
Not per se, no . And, of course, nobody ever
m.
~
Ln
N
J
24
marketed a cigarette made of 100 percent smoking
251 material .' It was always blended with 80 percent
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 706
1
tobacco or 70 percent tobacco or 90 percent
tobacco .
Q . When you say "not per se," you mean
3
4
what nicotine there was, was from the natural .
5
tobacco that appeared in the product?
A.
.Right . These things are all cellulose
derivatives, mixed with a bunch of inorganic clays
and .whatnot, or salt .
Q.
Was the .primary interest of your
10
supervisor the fact that it would be a tobacco
11
substitute and reducee the cost of the product, or
12
it .would reduce the biological activity of the
13
product?
14
A . Well, actually'the cost of most of the
15
tobacco substitutes, the -- except for the one we
16
developed in-house, the cost of the'three we could
17
have bought cost more than the tobacco .
18
19
20
Q . So what was the primary goal, then, of
developing
Well the primary goal was to -- would this be
21
an`additional_way that -- to add to the eight
22
technologies that would be acceptable in the
23
generation of a less hazardous cigarette . And,
24
well, the Cytrel, for example, was tested in the
25
NCI study that ran from '68 to '78 and, despite
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 707
I
their claims,'it was-worse than tobacco, in terms
of producing tumors on mice and so on .
Q.
4
Has anyone
when you say that there
were thirteen brands .that They were introduced in England .
Commercially?
Commercially .
And how "long were they .on the market?
Oh, some`of them were out there -- most of
10
them were gone within nine months . I happened to
11
when --
12
nine-month, ten month after they had been first
13
introduced, and I finally found a,pack ; but I had
14
to go into eleven-tobacco~stores in London to find
15
a pack . And the'fel,low said : Here, take it . He
16
didn't even :~harge me ., He'said : It's the last
`17
one-I've got, and it's~been sitting here for five
18
months .
19
20
21
Q . And how long did you work on a
potential tobacco substitute?
Well, I said, we worked on the Sutton one, we
22
worked on the° .NSM, we worked on the Cytrel .
23
didn t do an awful lot ;of work on the NSM ; most of
24
that work was some really fundamental .smoke work,
25
tar and nicotine -
_well, not nicotine . Tar,
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 708
carbon monoxide and .so on .
That one we did quite a bit of work on
2
panel evaluation' . That was one of the problems
with all those three,that -- whether`they were
alone-or mixed with tobacco at various levels, the
parieaists just didn't cotton to them, smoking a
cigarette, per se . But`t he,other thing that they
8
didn't like was, if somebody was in the room, side
9
stream smoke was very obnoxious, in terms of an
10
.of flodor, that it smelt ,like, 'burning paper .
11
Nobody liked to have .that .
Now, the one we developed in-house,
12
13
and we panel-tested it,'and the people didn't
14
know, of course, that it was ours . It didn't have
15
a taete'problem, and it did all the things that we
16
had hoped it would do . And so`it would have been
17
a W
18
patented . And I' :mFaaure, if you look at the
19
patents, you'll see .what it is ; it's a puffed
y to' make money ..
_ so
20
21
And of' course we had it
0
Did :'you'personally believe that these
22
potential tobacco eubet'itutes :would result in a
23
safer cigarette?
24
~Well, we were hoping, that when we looked at
251 the!Sutton material and the Cytrel material, that
WAaA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
Pg . 709
it_ would be another way to do things that were in
the definition that had been laid out in the '60s
by W.ynder, Hoffmann, Bock and all that bunch .
Q . But you personally didn't believe, in
your heart of hearts, that it mattered anyway, did
you?
Well, what Is was looking for is, if that's
f course,
10
11
t
sales-weighted average, we kept dropping it,
the industry kept dropping that
12
13
in -- the requfrement that Dr . Wynder and others
14
had said :
15
go :"_away . Well we dropped it 40 and then they said
16
not'enough . We dropped it another 40 ; not enough .
17
You, know, where do you stop?
18
Q . Are you talking about the FTC testing
19
method or -
20
Right .
21
Q.
22
Drop it 40 percent and the effect will
When`you say that the -- you kept
23
dropping the tar content, that's -- and you've L,
~
;_j
testified about that on a couple occasions today . m
24
You!re talking about the FTC testing method?
25
Right .
WAaA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 710
Q . Had you done, in fact, research that
1
2
would indicate that the FTC testing method was ann
inaccurate method to test tar content of
c,igarettes?
MR . MCDERMOTTs Object .t o the form of
THE WiTNESS : "it -- the way it's done,
what you get is,what you get .
BY MR . MAISTROSs
10
11
But nobody smokes that way .
A.
.Nobody smokes that way . We told them that in
12
They don't
13
And, now,
14
15
everybody's complaining that the FTC doesn't
16
the people don't smoke the way the machine smokes,
17
eo, ;therefore, there's something wrong with it .
18
And we had told ;them that in 1963, '64, '65 . And
19
they came out in`1966 and said : You will do the
20
analysis this way, period . And that was that .
21
22
Q
do -
Has there ever been any discussion at
Reynolds about whether or not Reynolds has an
23
.obligation .to advise the_public on its cigarettes,
24
or otherwiae, that the FTC yields published on the
25
ciga.rettes, don't mean a .whole lot?
WAGA & SPINELLI'
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4
g . 711
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS :, You know, what
management wants to`do about that is their
business . You know, you usually don't tell the
FTC too much .
8 BY MR . MAISTROSs
Q . Did yo'u ever tell management that
10
perhaps RJR should consider"publishing what it
11
believed to be more realistic tar and nicotine
12
yield numbers on its cigarettes?
13
A . Well -MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the .form of
14
15
the :question . No foundation . .
16
THE`WITNESS : The number that .you get
17
is all right, except people don't smoke that way .
18
Now, there may be one person in ten that smokes
19
exactly the same as the smoking machine . But, you
20
know, if you were to,smoke a cigarette in Alaska
21
at 20 below zero
22
23
24
25
BY MR .`MAISTROS :
Q, I would hope you would be doing
e'omething other than A .' -- and compared it to smoking one at Key West
WAGA .&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 712
at 90 degrees and 100 percent humidity, that's
2
going to be entirely different than smoking a
3
cigarette at the FTC parameters .
And the other thing, that if you, say,
have three cigarettes, just take an example, at
20 milligrams delivery of tar, depending how those
cigarettes`were made,j those tars could be entirely
different . And`they know that ; it's all in the
NCI'report of -- on the less hazardous cigarettes .
10
Q . Again, though -- and you can say you
11
disagree if it's the case with the premise of my
12
question . But did you ever suggest to anyone at
13
RJR that the results that you determined at age --
14
not you, but that RJR determined, the tar and
15
nicotine content of cigarettes and how it differed
16
from the FTC, that those results should be
17
published?
18
Well, which smoker would you pick?
19
Q . Well, didn't you do tests that
20
indicated that the average smoker took in more tar
21
and nicotine than would be established by the FTC
22
testing method?
23
A . I don't -- I don't know about -- that might
24
have been done after'I left . I don't know .
25
Q . Did you''view or did you ever express
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g . 713
the-opinion, while-you were at RJR, that the
2
FTC-published reductions in tar and nicotine
3
indicated that RJR was producing a safer
4
cigarette?
Well, the FTC never .said that .
6
Q
9
10
11
Is the fact that a cigarette is lower
in tar and nicotine indicative that it's a safer
ciga,rette,, An your''opinion?
Well, that's one part of the -- well, the
12
nicotine was :never mentioned in the original
13
definition . But that is one part of the overall
14
definition that,came oLtt .in the late '59 --
15
'50s/early '60s . 0ne of the parts is that the tar
16
is re'duced, the tumorigenicity -- specific
17
tumorigenicity of the,tar'is reduced and the level
18
of certain. components relative to tar are reduced .
19
Q . Do you concur in the assessment that,
20
if you have lower tars, you're going to have a
21
safer cigarette?
22 ;
I don't know . You know, you'd have to say :
cn
J
F-A
231
What kind of tar? And .there again -- for example
24
if,,you looked at the F-- the NCI work, which
25
involves a hundred and-something experimental
(201) 992-4111
m
Sch
Ln
nJ
M
Vol . 4, Pg . 714
cigarettes, you would make your choice -- for
2
example, you could have a 20-milligram cigarette,
take one of their-samples -- and here I'm just
giving you an example, and I'm sure the numbers
5
aren't going to be the same as in those four
reports .
But .you could take a 20-milligram
8
cigarette that had -- and let's just pick a
figure, ten nanograms of benzpyrene per cigarette .
10
Now,-if you had any health concerns, would you
11
pick that cigarette,_20 versus 10, versus another
12
c.igarette that, say, had 15 milligrams of tar but
13
20 .mi1 -- 20 nanograms of benzpyrene? Which would
14
you pick? Would you ;pick the -- it depends on
15
whether you're concerned about tar per se or the
16
polycyclics per se .
17
18
19
But the number you get ,from the FTC
does not tell you what the'composition of that tar
And when we tried to tell the FTC that in the
20
mid '60s, they'said all you're trying to do i
21
make your produCt tsound good . And that's the lastj
-
Ln
~
22
we heard of it until'people, in the last five or ~
23
_
Im
six years,, have started to say : Well, you know, !Ln
24
there's a problem here . And actually, the problem
25
came up in 1980, with the Berkley cigarette --
(201) 992-4111
N
~
Vol . 4, Pg . 715
Barclay cigarette .
Q
A .
4
What' prob],em?
Well, the .Barclay cigarette, when you smoked
it on the -- in the FTC method, you got a certain
tar yield . But when ;the smoker smoked it, and was
forced to smoke exactly the same as'the smoking
machine'- that can be done by appropriate
mechanics - because of the way the lips press down
on the filter tip, which had some grooves in it,
10
theJsmoker was`taking in twice as much'as the FTC
11
method :ehowed on the Phipps & Bird smoking
12
machine'. And
13
the FTC .'
14
15
things you'were doing between 1954,and '65 .
Well, as'I say, in -- well, we got to the
16
17
substitute thing, which actually ran from the late
18
'64s -- .,- I guess '65 Is when we got into the
19
substitutes .
20
There was a time there, and I'm sure,
21
if you look at some of the reports I wrote, I
know
22
there was a question- :that came up in the - - f rom
23
M
24
things we had done . Well, I think, at one time,
25
we ."'looked to perhaps fifteen different kinds of
O'Fallon about publishing/not publishing
WAGA `& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 716
filters that had been proposed for their effect on
certain smoke components . And every one did not
perform like the patent said it would .
Well, there's a report on each one of
4
those, or maybe some that are combined, the
two-in-one reports, but how can you publish
something that shows -- ends up being a failure?
_ The,`journal won't take it .
Then if you look, for example -- I
10
went to a lot of meetings in conjunction with my
11
research work and in connection with my providing
12
infbrmation to the law department . I guess, over
13
the_years, I went to .a dozen AACR meetings, and
14
half a dozen American Cancer Society meetings, the
15
Heart Association meetings and so on . And these
16
are reports to management of what things I had
17
picked up there,•what people had said, and so on
18
and"so forth . Well, you don't publish those .
So when,you back off on the, oh, I
19
20
don't know, hundred or so reports I wrote, you can
21
find'out, about half of them wouldn't be
22
publishable anyway .` And the ones we did -- many
23
of the ones .we did publish, of course, are in the
24
literature or presented at meetings .
251
Q.
Do you recall any titles, off the top
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~
1 1-4
Vol . 4, Pg . 717
your head, that published, that indicated that there was health
3
4
hazards 're,lated to smoking?
No, I didn' t .
Q . Are there any, out of the six boxes
over there, published reports that you authored,
that indicate health ;consequences re,lated to
smok'ing?,
Not in so many words . Now, we did publish
10
some components in smoke that subsequently were
11
shoivn to have a problem .
12
Q . I'm specifically talking about papers,
13
where the topic or theme or conclusion was that
14
there was a health_risk related to amoking . Do
15
you recall publishing any such papers?'
16
No . No " I did not .
17
Q . You reviewed a lot of papers, did you
18
not,-that reported links between smoking and
19
20 .
21
22
23
24
25
lot of the chemical stuff .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 71 8
Q . Any>of the -- specifically there was
research, was therenot, biological testing, that
established a purported link between cigarette
smoke and its compoundsor components and advers e
health consequences .
literature ?
Yeah . Bu t
I was in the chemistrybusiness .
Now, as I say, the people in the bio bunch, they
looked at ciliastasia, and so on . At one time -10
I mentionedthe work Lawrence Cook and I had don e
11
about the ciliastasis and finding it -- most of i t
12
wasabsorbed in the mouth, the ciliastats . Now ,
13
guess that's biological, because we did it with
14
people .
15
Q . What chemical research did you try to
16
duplicate ?
17
A . . Well, we weren't duplicating any ; we were th e
18
first to find out that the ciliastats were
19
absorbed in the mouth .
20
Q . Separate'and apart, from the
21
.ciliastats,, did you attempt to duplicate any of
22
the chemical studiesthat were done and then
23
publi.shed in the literature, that showed a link
24
between cigarette smoking or the compounds i n
251 cigarette smoke and adverse health consequences ?
WAGA &SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 719
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : Well, it was a long
question . But,_for example, there were claims of
e'o,-much volatile nitrosamines or tobacco specific
nitrosamines in cigarette smoke .- We looked at it,
and the work published_in the collection procedure
0 avoid-artifactual formation of
8
nitrosamines during the analysis, used ascorbic
10
the collection system, which
11
was supposed to :prevent artifactual .formation of
12
the`nitrosamines ; and which it did .
13
° Well, the ;people at Reynolds -- we got
14
wondering about some of the values they were
15
getting for the nitrosamines, so they looked at
16
it . And in the .collection of cigarette smoke you
17
hav.e a epecial kind of filter that the smoke
18
impinges on and :is collected, 99 .9 .percent . And
19
the people at Reynolds decided to put ascorbic
20
acid on the pad . Well, when they did that -- the
21
levels of nitrosamines reported by everybody else,
22
prior to that, was about 25, 30 percent less,
23
depending on which one,you were looking at . And
24
what was happening, you were preventing the
25
artifactual formation right on the~pad before you
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
w
1~
I
Vol . 4, Pg . 720
ever took it,to the ;analysis . And that's been
2
confirmed in a lot of laborat-ories .
o, there's a great deal made of how
3
much the nitrosamines are in smoke, and -- but,
you know, is it relevant when most of the numbers
6
in the literature, except the ones published since
that`article by=Rey,nolds,,are wrong ; they're not
8'
only wrong for cigarette smoke, they're wrong for
9
bac:on and anything .else you see with nitrosamines .
10
If it .would make you feel any better, your bacon
11
has about 30 percent less than what everybody has
12
been telling you .
13
14
15
. 16
17
Q . What were your official titles between
154 and ' .65?
I was a senior research chemist from 1954
until 1965 . When Dr
back up a littI le . .
Mr . Hoover had a peculiar philosophy .
18
19
20
Bright came -- well, let me
There was director of_research, there were the
-managers, and ;there . ;were-the troops . The troops
21
were divided into eenior research chemists, or
22
biologists or`b,io-chemists, research chemists,
2
asbociate research chemists, .technicians . There
~
Ln
24
was .no administrative people below manager,
~
251 supervi.sors .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 721
Dr :'Bright came, and he didn't like
that . Well, also, :another thing, the place was
.getting larger, .more : ;p.eople . And he set up a
system where you had a manager, section head, a
group leader', -and then the :-troops . And when he
came, I was made a sect-ion head in charge of the
What year?
A . 1965, 1 guess, is when he came .
10
soon after he came :
Q . And how long were you section head?
11
12
He did it
.
Well, in 19 --'I got to get this straight .
the spring of 1973, my
13
14
boss, who was, at that time, the manager of the
151
chemical research, was Dr . Anders Laurene . He was
16
sent off to take a,management course at the
17
University of North Carolina over at Chapel Hill
18
for six months . And then`he was assigned to do an
19
orientation through the -- the development
20
department . And while he was gone, .I was acting
21
manager of the chemical research division .
22
23
When`he came back, I went back to
being section head . And then, the next spring and
24
75,
251 analytical divieion, which, at the time, I thought
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 722
1
was an odd choice, not knowing that they already
had plans . And then, the spring of '76, I was
3
made :director of research .
Q : Director` of research for all of
Reynolds?
Tobacco .
6
And then, in 1980, when we had the
massive organization -- reorganization, our R & D
9
was split into six divisions, instead of just
10
being research and development . I got the task of
11
being director of-fundamental research .
Q . As opposed to what other type of
12
13
14
research?
. Well, there was fundamental research
15
director, applied research director, analytical
16
research director, process engineering,
17
administration -- what was t he other one? There
18
were six•
19
Q . New products?
20
Oh, yeah .. It wasn't new products, it was
.Just products . So you had fundamental,
21
products .
22
applied, and products .
23
24
25
0
A.
And you were in charge of which one?
Fundamental .
Q
Unt il when?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 723
Until I retired .
2
Q
o are we`using the '87 date, then?
3
Right .
Q . From '80 to '87, was there one group
that looked at health aspects, as opposed to
6
another group?
Well, in '83, sometime in there was when we
got Dr . Hayes on board, and I set up the whole
biobehavioral/biological system there . So from
10
then till, I guess, now, that's what they're
11
doing .
12
13
Q.
looking at health issues?
assume they're related, to some -- I don't
14
15
16
'83 till now, ;biobehavioral/biological
knOw`what their projecte are, actually .
Q
What division under research was
17
biobehavioral/biological?' I mean, was that under
18
one of these six research groups?
19
. No . Actually, when they formed the
20
biobehavioral division, which was in '82, some
21
it was actually put in fundamental ; I had John
22
Reynolds and John Robinson and those people
23
wo .rking` for me .' Then, when Wally Hayes came, they ', m
24
moved it from fundamental into the more
25
biologically-oriented part .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~
~
N
Ln
Vol . 4, Pg . 724
Q,.
During .this period of time, were you
familiar with the creation of key issues?
3
MR . MCD.ERMOTTs Object to the form of
thel .queetion .
BY MR . MAYSTROSs
Do you know what a key issue is?
What's an RJR key issue?
If they sell cigarettes .
s that one of the key issues?
10
11
A . ' I've -- I was trying to think- that I' had seen
12
something on that, but I really can't spell it out
13
in .the language I think you're looking for .
Q . - Did you ever participate in a project
14
15
or .* process whereby key issues were identified by
16
RJR~
17
Some of the reports in those six boxes
18
19
over there,have "key issues" written on them and
the langua,ge "varies, '' and we' re going
20
21
to-get into them tomorrow . But I want to ask you,
22
generally, 'if you- know . :how that came about, the
23
development of the key issue concept .
241
May I ask a question?
25
Q
Sure .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4
g . 725
A . Is this a document where the issues are what
happens in the world and how Reynolds would
respond?
Q . Yes, thatts some of them .
Okay . Well, that was -- they started, I
guess, in the early '70s, as I remember . And
everybody pitched in and gave suggestions of, you
know, what would happen -- what would Reynolds do
if something happened in another tobacco company,
10
or happened in North America, or happened in the
11
world, and so on and'so forth . How would we
12
respond? And for some ;years Dr . Teague put --
13
assembled everything and put them together, and
14
they`were distributed to upper management, to get
15
16
• their .views . And -
Q . You did not participate in that
17
process?
18
A . _ Oh, I-~ I chipped in with some suggestions
19
here .and there . . And then, .of course, when
20
Dr .'Teague left R& D, I ended up, I think, doing
21
the last one or two, assembling them myself . If
22
that's the paper you're talking about .
23
Q . For example, and we'll get into
24
specific
ones tomorrow, but there's -- there's
.
25
specific research projects that are set up, and
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4,
g . 726
1
then there's a goal or a key issue identified as
2
the basis for that project that it relates to .
And there's been some testimony in the past that
4
every research project had to have a key issue
assigned to it . Are you familiar with that
6
concept at all?
7
I guess I never thought about it in that
8
terms, but it sounds'logical . As I remember, some
things in those key issue things were never done .
10
11
Q.
Were you -- during the period of time
that you were at Reynolds, were you ever demoted?
12
13
Q
Were you ever written up for any
14
incidents that you view as an infraction or a
15
demotion?
16
No . I was fired .
17
Q . ; By Reynolds?
18
By Mr . Hoover .
19
Q . What year was that?
201
Oh, about 1963 .
211
Q
How long were you fired?
m
22
Fifteen mihutes .
23
0
24
There had been an unpleasant incident in the
What was that over?
251 research department that we usually don't like to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 727
talk about . And when Mr . Hoover went to the
weekly meeting over at the head office, main
office, somebody said : Hey, what about so-and-so?
And he was furious .
And he came back and called me into
his office, and I didn't know what he was talking
You
7
contact with anybody on the board because of your
10
11
contact with,Mr : Ramm . Get your stuff out of
.
here .
You disclosed something that happened
Q
12
in re .eearch that he thought .
13
I didn't .
e thought you .dieclosu
14
thought .I did . . So I asked him, I said :
15
16
Why don't you phone Mr . Ramm and ask him the last
17
time I talked to him, and I can tell you exactly
18
when it was .
19
Q . What did he think you disclosed?
20
Well, as Z say, it was this unpleasant
I
21
22
23
24
R
Well,,what was the unpleasant
incident?
. Well, somebody was supposed to have
done some
251 analysis and just wrote down numbers .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 728
Q.
On .what`research project?
Well, it wasn't . It was -- when you buy
tobacco, we used to get a sample of all the
pallets of tobacco and_,analyze .them for tar -- for
nicotine and sugar . So that, if :nicotine was
6
high, we could remove it and if -- so we could do
the .blending . And'this fellow was -- rather than
run them, he just wrote down numbers, and it
happened to be one set of tobacco was from an area
10
in the south here where it had been very hot, very
11
little rain . And when that happens, the tobacco,
12
ina_tead of being `two 'and' a half percent nicotine
13
will
- it may jump'to six .
14
And the-person who had turned in the
15
samples to .him knew that we had a whole bunch of
16
samples, five or six or eight, I forget the
17
number, that probably were going to be around four
18
or five, and they had to be cataloged for nicotine
19
removal . And when he got the usual numbers, two,
20
two and a half percent, he put in some -- we have
21
-to have -- we happened to have some low
22
experimental tobaccos from NC State and you put in
23
some more high, and they all came back 2 .2, 2 .3 .
24
Of course he was fired, right then and there,
25
but -- you don't get that very often .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 729
i
And so Mr . Hoover phoned Mr . Ramm, and
1
M
3
. Ramm confirmed`the :exact time I had spoken to
him, which had been three months before, and said :
A1l-right forget about"leaving .
{~ . The -- who was the gentleman that was
6
tired?
Oh, he was a technician . I've forgotten his
name .
Q . Now, we''11_ ;get into this tomorrow, I'm
10
certain, but you mentioned that, if the nicotine
11
is too high, you`have to remove it . Are you
12
familiar with that`process?
13
A . Yes .
14
Q . How's the nicotine,removed?
i5
Exposure to steam and ammonia . And you can
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
take it down to any value you want .
Q .` By adjusting the amount or the timing
f the steam and'ammonia?
Well, it's the way it rolls through the
conveyor belt, timing on the conveyor belt -Q . How long,has RJR treated its tobacco
with` "ateam and" ammonia?
I think the first report
on it is someplace
around 1958 .
Q . Were they still doing that when you
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 730
le'ft in ' 87?
assume so, if they -- if you had high
nicotine tobacco from a hot, dry summer or
something .
Q . The only occasion that RJR would treat
nic -- or tobacco with 'steam .and'ammonia was when
they had high nicotine•content?,
A . Well, only that'part of the`tobacco . Now,
they'did have a reconstituted tobacco sheet they
10
11
treated with ammonia .
Q . That's a different process though,
12
correct?
13
A . Right .' It also reduces the nicotine .
14
Q . The process of applying steam and
15
ammonia to the tobacco to reduce the nicotine, you
6
said you could get the nicotine to 'whatever level
17
you wanted . -Within_what degree of error?
18
A . I really =- I'm -- you know,•I never was
19
involved in the engineering of, that . But the
20
objeot was that`, if, you'had -- here again, you
21
have to have some understanding .of how you blend
22
tobaccos . You .don't go out and buy .a year's
23
tobacco . And of cou,r.se it's,always aged for -- in
24
storage` :sheds for maybe 12 months to two years, to
251 let all' .the things go on that goes on when tobacco
WAGA & ::
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 731
a ged
. You .don't take all that tobacco two
years .later, say, .and use it .
What you do is you combine tobaccos
from three .consecutive years and you juggle it so
that the nicotine change is a minimum . And if you
have -- well, just say you have flue-cured tobacco
from Georgia that's two and a half percent
nicotine, and flue-cured tobacco from someplace in
North Carolina where it's five, you remove the
10
nicotine f rom the five percent nicotine tobacco
11
and bring it down to the two and a half, or a
12
little less, depending on whether you, over the
13
years, want t o keep reducing it . Because,
14
usually, what happens is, as things go by, the
15
ni`cotine sort of para11e1s .the tar .
16
But,the'-- I've been interested in
17
some of the things I've heard about nicotine on
18
the news and so on . And what some people should
19
find'out is that, when you bring tobacco in from
20
the market, the first thing you do is stem it .
21
And when you stem 'it, you keep it at -- keep it
22
moist so it doesn't shatter . And when it goes
23
down the conveyor belt, the stems go in one
24
direction, the cut lamina go in the other . But if
25
you measure the nicotine from the time you put it
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 732
on',that conveyor belt to the time it comes off the
2
other end, you've lost two percent of your
3
nicotine .
Then when you store it and age it for
5
12 monthe, .two years, you've got to bring it out .
6
And to take it out of the containers so it doesn't
7
fragment, you again moisten it, warm it, run it
8
through the conveyor belt for a certain period of
9
time, and you lose another couple of percent
10
nicotine -- a percent of the percent you've got
11
there .
12
So when you puff tobacco -- all you
13
got to do is look at the'NCI study where they used
14
our puffed tobacco, Philip Morrie' puffed tobacco,
15
North Carolina State . Every state where puffed
16
tobacco was used, the nicotine is down 40 percent .
17
So when you take tobacco that has been
18
losing nicotine because of the way you process it,
19
then you put in a tobacco that's been expanded and
20
21
has lost nicotine, the nicotine in that cigarette j Ln
.
~
;~
is going to be less'than the tobaccos that you
22
bought to put in it .
23
Ln
And I can -- might tell you one other
24
thing, if you're interested . Is that, if Reynolds
25
or anybody else want to increase the nicotine to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g . 733
the'consumer, there are two ways to do it . And
they could make afortune .
Q . How° is that?
Don't put cellophane around the pack .
Because, as a cigarette dries out, the nicotine in
the smoke increases . The only reason the
cellophane'or the protective material around the
pack is to ;prevent moisture loss . As the moisture
goes'down, the nicotine in the smoke goes up .
10
Now, why would you --
11
Q . What's the second way?
12
Is to leave out half the humectants . If you
13
drop the humectants`from, say, five percent to two
14
and a half percent, the nicotine in smoke will go
15
up . And glycerine is expensive . Propylene glycol
16
is expensive .
17
Q .
Why .is Reynolds, then, concerned in '(n
_
.i
18
the initial process -- I assume youfre talking im
i
19
about the initial process whereby they have to ~
L"
20
21
remove nicotine of high nicotine yield tobacco?
Well, the object is to keep the product, from
22
year to year, from-quarter to quarter, fairly
23
uniform so the consumer does not all of a sudden
24
see a big'change . Now, you might say : Well, they
25
could .increase it gradually . But all .you have to
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 734
is look at the sales-weighted average data and
it's obvious that from -- well, from 1954 to the
current time, the nicotine has been,dropping
gradually in every` :cigarette marketed in this
5
country .
6
Q . Is there a process you're familiar
with that Reynolds employs when the-nicotine
8
content is too low in .the tobacco?
can't think-of one, but T ; ;could think
10
of a .solution .to it .
11
What's that?
s mix low'tobacco -- low nicotine tobacco
12
13
with one that's'slightly above average, and
14
average it .out . . I don't know whether they do
15
that .
16
17
Q •manufacturing process?
18
19
20
21
22
Weren't you,identified as an expert
ir
the .manufacturing process in the Texas case? L,
t,,
23
24
You weren't?
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 735
Did you ever read what your expert
1
designation was,in that case?
Yeah . I don't believe I am .
4
t2 .
You're. not an expert in,the production
process?
6
Q . Do you know what methods, if any, have
8
been employed'by Reynolds to attempt to control
9
the nicotine level _in the tobacco, other than the
10
one you've testified to about the steam and
11
ammonia,
12
here again ;,I come'back to the eight
13
significant technologies . Foz .example, you can
14
control the nicotine .-in the smoke by controlling
15
the blend . You can control the nicotine in the
16
smoke by controlling'the efficiency of the filter,
17
which removes the total particulate matter which
18
contains the nicotine .
19
You can control it by increasing or
20
juggling the amount of reconstituted tobacco which
21
is ).ow in nicotine . The more you put in, the
Lq
H
22
lower your nicotine . You can reduce it by the
23
degree of air .dilution you use, by perforated
24
filters or by porous cigarette paper .
25
_j
r
Q . Doesn't Reynolds -- doesn't Reynolds,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 736
1
at the beginning of the process, have a specific
2
nicotine content that it's striving to achieve at
the end of the process for every particular type
4
of cigarette they're selling?
I don't really know that .
I mean, I look in the supermarket and
0
7
see all these different brands of cigarettes,
from Reynolds, for example, and they .all have
different t-ar and nicotine yields . I assume
10
that"s not by accident-that they end up that way
11
in those particular packages .
12
would imagine :that the big thing they try
13
to do ie'control the tar, and ;the nicotine falls
14
where it may .
You know, talking about nicotine
15
16
17
18
19
well, maybe I won't say that .
Q
ao'ahead . This is the end of the day ;
it~'-s~'your opportunity to say -Do you ever wonder why the FTC equation is as
20
Why?
21
22
23
24
25
Wet TPM,equals tar, plus water, plus
nicotine?
MS . BRACHTL : Would you repeat that?
I couldn't hear you back here .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4
g . 737
THE WITNESS : The FTC equation for
calculating tar is wet TPM equals tar, plus water,
plus nicotine . In other words, tar is water-free,
nicotine-free, wet TPM . And the reason it's that
wa-y is 'cause, if you read the 1964 Surgeon
aene-raY's report, nicotine essentially is given a
clean .bill of health . So the two ingredients in
wet,TPM, that was obvious to everybody at that
tinie had no concern :with health, was wa,ter and
10
.nicotine : And that equation is still the same to
11
this day .
12
13
MR . MAISTROS : Okay . We're going to
b.reak .until tomorrow morning . Nine o'clock?
14
MR .-MCDERMOTT : Yeah .
15
VIDEOaRAPHER : We're_going off the
16
17
record at 4 :30-p .m .
(Deposition adjourned at 4 :30 p .m .)
18
19
20
Ln
21
~
22
23
24
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 738
I
U~T RAT
1
Alan Rodgman, Ph .D ., do hereby
2
3
certify that I have'read the foregoing transcript
of my testimony, taken on Monday, August 4, 1997,
and have signed it subject to the following
changes :
PAGE'
LINE
CORRECTION
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
211 DATE :'
22
Sworn and subscribed to before me on this
23
d a y o f -------~------------
24
NOTARY PUBLIC
------------------------------
25
WAGA & SPINELLI -
(201) 992-4111
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 739
1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF YADKIN
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Linda N . Russell, a'Notary Public in and
5
for the State of North Carolina, do hereby certify
6
that-there came before me on Monday, August 4, 1997,
7
the person hereinbefore named, who was by me duly
sworn to testify to the truth and nothing but the
9
truth of his knowledge .concerning the matters in
10
controversy in this cause ; that the witness was
11
thereupon examined under,oath, the examination
12
reduced to typewriting under my direction, and the
13
deposition is a true record of the testimony given
14
by the witness .
15
I further certify that I am neither
16
attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed
17
by, any attorney or counsel employed by the parties
18 hereto or financially interested in the action .
19
~
~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my ~
2V
L_
a
E~~
"a
""~F
„"4
LlanGiaanCx ZlLL17Ce~d 'illy ~LLl~:iai
21
12th day of August .1997 .
~
I
1
1hi ..+
a
.+. .+tha
aava.a+.~.vL i vv~+,
22
23
24
North t~tpia i VWkin
UNDA N.
RUSSEL
~
-N~wPiei;,, ~'Li
da N . Russ 11, Notary Public
#ly Oommfssbri EzDiros a-2S•qt„~,~,, , j Commission Expires 8/25/97
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
. ii~
LAWYER'S NOTES
Pwo6
I*
LINB
LAWYER'S NOTES
LIN6
0
LAWYER'S NOTES
Pwoe
O
LIN6
LAWYER'S, NOTES
PAGE
LIN6
I
0
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Civil Action No . 96CV-5903
STEVEN R . ARCH, WILLIAM BARNES, )
CIARAN McNALLY, CATHERINE POTTS, )
NORMA RODWELLER, BARBARA SALZMAN, )
EDWARD J . SLIVAK and JOHN TEAGLE, )
CERTIFIED COPY
)
Deposition of :
)
vs .
)
Alan
Rodgman,
)
Ph .D .
THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, )
INC ., et al .,
)
Volume
5,
) Pages 740 - 1024
Defendants .
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
----------------------------------)
(Caption continues . . .)
CONFIDENTIAL
TRANSCRIPT of testimony as taken by and
before LINDA RUSSELL, a Certified Shorthand
Reporter and Notary Public of the State of
North Carolina, at the offices of Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, 200 West Second Street,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, on Tuesday, August 5,
1997, commencing at 9 :50 in the forenoon .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
741
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------)
PHYLLIS SMALL and DENISE FUBINI, )
individually, and on behalf of )
others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
against
)
)
LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, INC ., ) Index No .
LORILLARD, INC ., LOEWS CORPORATION, ) 110949/96
COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH-USA, )
INC . (Successor to Tobacco Industry )
Research Committee), AND TOBACCO )
INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
)
Defendants .
)
------------------------------------)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------)
MARY ANN HOSKINS, Executrix of the )
Estate of Edwin Paul Hoskins, )
WALTINA BROWN and DANTE AUBAIN, )
individually, and on behalf of )
others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
against
)
)
R .J . REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, ) Index No .
RJR NABISCO, INC ., COUNCIL FOR ) 110951/96
TOBACCO RESEARCH-USA, INC .
)
(Successor to Tobacco Industry )
Research Committee), AND TOBACCO )
INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
)
Defendants .
)
------------------------------------)
0
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
742
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------)
SHARLENE HOBERMAN and AUDREY HULSE, )
as Executrix, on behalf of the )
Estate of Lewis Hulse, individually, )
and on behalf of others similarly )
situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
against
)
Index
No .
) 110953/96
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO )
CORPORATION, B .A .T . INDUSTRIES )
P .L .C ., BATUS, INC ., BATUS HOLDINGS, )
INC ., COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH- )
USA, INC . (Successor to Tobacco )
Industry Research Committee), AND )
TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC .
)
)
Defendants .
)
-------------------------------------)
•
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
•
-------------------------------------)
ROSE FROSINA, ELIZABETH COLAVITO and )
ANILDA ROSS, individually, and on )
behalf of others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
against
)
Index
No .
) 110950/96
PHILIP MORRIS, INC ., PHILIP MORRIS )
COMPANIES, INC ., COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO )
RESEARCH-USA, INC . (Successor to )
Tobacco Industry Research Committee) )
AND TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
)
Defendants .
)
-------------------------------------)
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
743
SUPREME COURT OF THE ESTATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------)
CATHERINE ZITO, PETER HOBERMAN,
)
and GEORGE ELISSEOU, individually,
)
and on behalf of others similarly
)
situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
- against THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC .,
AMERICAN BRANDS, INC ., COUNCIL FOR
TOBACCO RESEARCH-USA, INC .
(Successor to Tobacco Industry
Research Committee), AND TOBACCO
INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Index No .
110952/96
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants .
-------------------------------------)
•
•
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
744
A P P E A R A N C E S :
J . D . LEE, ESQ .
422 Gay Street
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
For the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania case
(423) 544-0101
SHELLER, LUDWIG & BADEY
3rd Floor
1528 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
BY : STEPHEN A . SHELLER, ESQ .
SHERRICE A . KNISELY, ESQ .
For the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania case
(215) 790-7300
•
CLIMACO, CLIMACO, LEFKOWITZ &
GAROFOLI CO ., L .P .A .
Ninth Floor, The Halle Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
BY : JACK D . MAISTROS, ESQ .
For the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania case
(216) 621-8484
GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW L .L .P .
100 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
BY : MARTIS ANN BRACHTL, ESQ .
For the Plaintiffs in New York case
(212) 907-0700
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
200 west Second Street
Post Office Drawer 84
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102
BY : MARTIN L . HOLTON, III, ESQ .
For the Defendant R .J . Reynolds Tobacco Corp .
(910) 721-3600
•
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
745
A P P E A R A N C E S ( Cont inued )
•
JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
Metropolitan Square
1450 G Street N .W .
Washington, D . C . 20005-2088
BY : ROBERT F . McDERMOTT, JR ., ESQ .
For the Defendant R .J . Reynolds Tobacco Corp .
(202) 8 7 9 - 3 9 3 9
MCCALL DOUGHTON & BLANCATO
633 West Fourth Street
Suite 150
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
BY : WILLIAM A . BLANCATO, ESQ .
(910) 725-7531
For the witness Dr . Alan Rodgman
•
MILLER & MARTIN
Suite 1000 Volunteer Building
832 Georgia Avenue
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
BY : MARCIA MEREDITH EASON, ESQ .
(423) 756-6600
For the Defendant Lorillard Tobacco Company
m
•
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
746
I N D E X
WITNESS
DIRECT
CROSS
REDIRECT
RECROSS
ALAN RODGMAN, Ph .D .
Mr . Maistros 747
Mr . Sheller 806
Mr . Maistros 990
E X H I B I T S
EXHIBIT
Exhibit 1
MARKED
.
761
847
•
Exhibit 7 .
7A .
7B .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
859
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
859
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
871
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
898
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
901
903
903
910
928
937
Exhibit 12A .
12B .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
940
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
951
951
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
954
972
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
996
996
•
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
747
r
•
1
2
ALAN RODGMAN, Ph .D .,
having been previously sworn, was examined and
3
testified further as follows :
4
VIDEOGRAPHER : This is day two of the
5
videotape deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
6
going on the record, Tuesday, August 5th, 1997, at
7
9 :50 a .m .
8
9
EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Good morning, Dr . Rodgman . How are
10
•
•
11
you?
12
A . Fine . And before we start, I'd like to
13
correct one thing from yesterday .
14
Q .
Okay .
15
A . I had mentioned that in those boxes, wherever
16
they are, there were two notebook -- or material
17
from two notebooks about my publications . And
18
last night I was -- remembered that there is one
19
publication that is not in there . It's a paper
20
that Dr . Charles Green and I prepared for last
21
year's Tobacco Chemist Conference symposium . And
22
the symposium papers are published in a journal
23
called Recent Advances in Tobacco Science . And
24
our paper is in volume 22 .
25
The reason the copy isn't in there,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
this is not a very well bound book . And if you
2
were to open it to copy it, the article is
3
170-something pages long, you would have to do
4
that for every double page to go on an
5
eight-and-a-half by eleven sheet . That book will
6
fall apart .
7
Now, if you want a copy, you can get
8
it from the North Carolina State University
9
library ; they have all the back available copies
10
of that journal, probably back to volume 9 or 10 .
11
Before that, they run out of them .
And, of course, the authors are given
12
13
five copies each, but I've given four of mine
14
away . So I only have the one left .
15
thing you want to correct from six hours .
17
A . Pardon?
Q . That's pretty good if that's the only
19
thing you want to correct from six hours .
20
A . Well I thought somebody would say : He did
21
something last year and it's not in there, and
22
picky, picky, picky . So I thought I'd correct it
23
right here and now .
24
•
Q . That's pretty good, if that's the only
16
18
25
748
Q .
Not
me .
Let me ask you about the six boxes of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
documents . Where did they originally come from?
2
Were all these at your house, originally?
3
A .
4
•
Yes .
Q . How did it come to be that you had
5
documents -- six boxes of documents at your house?
6
A . Well, some of them, I think, if you look at
7
them, were prepared since I retired, and some are
8
copies of the formal reports I wrote while I was
9
at Reynolds . And because of the peculiar way I
10
worked, during the daytime -- or normal working
11
hours -- for many years at Reynolds I was a lab
12
man . I did my research at the bench from 7 :30 in
13
the morning till five o'clock at night . And I did
14
a lot of my writing at home in the evenings ; much
15
to my wife's regret, I sometimes would write until
16
two o'clock in the morning . And in order to do
17
that, I would have pre -- previous reports I had
18
written so I could refer to the references, and so
19
on and so forth .
20
Q•
21
over to?
22
A . When?
23
24
•
749
25
And who did you turn these documents
MR . McDERMOTT : Asked and answered .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Originally . Your attorney or RJR's
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
attorney?
2
A .
Mr . Blancato .
3
4
MR . McDERMOTT : I believe we went into
this yesterday .
5
•
MR . MAISTROS : I'm trying to
6
establish -- yesterday we had some objections to
7
conversations with you and attorney/client
8
privilege, and I'm just trying to establish how
9
there's an attorney/client privilege there . And
10
I'll get to that very shortly .
11
MR . McDERMOTT : Well, the providence
12
of these documents was reviewed yesterday . And,
13
again, if there is concern about using time
14
efficiently, I suggest we get into new areas .
15
16
MR . MAISTROS : Well
. . .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . What is the attorney/client
17
18
relationship, if any, that you have with
19
Mr . McDermott? Do you have any attorney/client
20
relationship with Mr . McDermott?
21
A . Well he, I guess, represents Reynolds .
Q . And you are not currently an employee
22
•
23
of Reynolds, are you?
24
A.
25
750
Ln
~
a
~
m
~
Ln
o.
No .
Q . So I want to know -- take me through
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
the conversations you've had with Mr . McDermott
2
concerning this case .
3
751
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . Counsel is
4
well aware of the fact that attorneys for
5
corporate entities are allowed to consult former
6
employees under an umbrella privilege, in order to
7
determine facts and prepare a defense . We are
8
invoking privilege .
9
If you've got something you want to do
10
that doesn't deal with my conversations relating
11
to litigation, you can pursue that . If you want
12
to deal with other conversations Dr . Rodgman has,
13
that's fine . But it is absolutely specious to
14
suggest that I cannot communicate with Dr . Rodgman
15
about events that occurred while he was an
16
employee that are not covered by privilege .
17
That's nonsense .
18
BY MR . MAISTROS :
19
Q•
And you -- do you consider yourself a
20
private person in this litigation?
21
A . I consider myself a private person, I guess .
22
I'm here because I was deposed .
23
24
Q . Do you consider yourself as working
for Reynolds in this litigation?
A . No, not really . No .
,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
Q . And you're not being paid in any
2
fashion in the Arch litigation ?
3
A . I was not paid for Minnesota ; I'm not being
4
paid in Arch . In fact, I'm probably the only one
5
around this table that's not getting paid .
Q.
6
The documents were not provided to -
7
from you to Mr . McDermott or any other RJR
8
attorney, they were provided to your personal
9
counsel, correct ?
10
A . That's right .
Q.
11
12
Do you know what he did after he go t
them?
13
14
MR . BLANCATO : Well, he doesn't have
to disclose any priv -- that would be privileged .
15
BY MR . MAISTROS :
16
Q .
Do you know what he did after he go t
17
the documents ?
18
A . He arranged for them to be copied .
19
Q .
20
2 1
75 2
Do you know what he did after that ?
MR . BLANCATO : Well, wait a minute .
You know -
22
MR . MAISTROS : How is that privileged?
23
I'm trying to establish how the documents got from
~
I.-
N
m
•
24
the garage to this room . If you can tell me ho w
25
they got from the garage to this room, do that .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
m
CO
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
THE WITNESS : From the garage --
2
MR . MAISTROS : I don't know how that's
3
privileged .
4
THE WITNESS : What garage are you
5
talking about?
6
BY MR . MAISTROS :
7
Q . Your house, whatever . Where did you
8
store them?
9
A . There --
10
11
MR . McDERMOTT : Object . Asked and
answered .
MR . MAISTROS : Let's speed this up .
12
•
13
BY MR . MAISTROS :
14
t2 •
15
Can you tell me how the documents got
from your possession to this room?
16
MR . BLANCATO : Can I answer it?
17
MR . MAISTROS : If you know .
18
MR . BLANCATO : They were given to me .
19
We had them photocopied . A set was made for the
20
Reynolds attorneys, and the set that was here
21
yesterday was Mark Holton's extra set of those
22
photocopies . It should be the same -- a duplicate
23
set of what was sent to Ms . Knisely .
24
•
753
25
MS . KNISELY : Actually, I might be
able to shed some light on that, if I might .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
conversations with McDermott and Mr . Holton, as
3
well as Mr . Blancato, and please correct me if I'm
4
wrong, those documents -- those documents were
5
originally provided to Mr . Blancato ; but I also
6
understand Mr . Blancato then provided them, prior
7
to the first deposition of Dr . Rodgman, to Womble
8
Carlyle, and most particularly, Mr . Holton went
9
through them originally to review for privilege,
11
as well as work product .
The two -- possibly one to two boxes
12
were provided at the last deposition . Our office
13
was advised that there were three to four other
14
boxes that had -- were being withheld for the
15
purpose of reviewing them again for privilege by
16
Reynolds' counsel . We were provided a subsequent
17
list of those withheld documents, minus any
18
privileged and a privilege log .
19
•
From what I understand in my
2
10
•
754
We've also been supplied a
20
supplemental privilege log, because I understand
21
Dr . Rodgman has reviewed his documents at home and
22
provided, I don't know who first, with copies of
23
two additional documents . And we received last
24
Fri -- Thursday or Friday, from Mr . Belasic, an
25
additional supplemental privileged log for two
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
•
2
Now, we were not advised of that by
Mr . Blancato . The privilege log did not come from
4
Mr . Blancato . I also understand that the copies
5
of the documents were made here at Womble Carlyle .
Now, I also understand that perhaps
7
Dr . Rodgman may or may not have been present
8
during various review processes of the documents .
9
Is that all accurate?
10
MR . BLANCATO : No .
11
MR . McDERMOTT : I don't know the
12
extent to which it's accurate or not . But let me
13
suggest, to the extent you all are concerned about
14
time, this does not concern Dr . Rodgman, as such .
15
The lawyers can spar among themselves over breaks
16
and after Dr . Rodgman goes . If this is how you
17
want to use your time with the witness in the
18
chair, we can have lawyers talking all day long .
19
I suggest it is not a particularly fruitful
20
expenditure of time, however .
21
•
additional documents .
3
6
•
755
MS . KNISELY : I believe Mr . Maistros
22
was trying to go into the questioning of the chain
23
of custody of the documents and Dr . Rodgman's
24
knowledge of that .
25
MR . McDERMOTT : And I --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
•
2
MS . KNISELY : And I think that's
perfectly appropriate .
3
MR . MCDERMOTT : And I believe you will
4
find that Dr . Rodgman doesn't know that the
5
documents passed from his hands, as indicated, and
6
it was Mr . Blancato who was providing further
7
information . Use your time as you wish .
8
9
•
0
MR . MAISTROS : I will offer -- I will
offer, once again, to a stipulation that the --
10
insofar as authenticity is concerned, that we have
11
a stipulation on those six boxes of documents . I
12
don't think we've put that in the record . You've
13
declined that, just so the record is clear .
14
25
756
So I will go through, and you can take
15
a break if you want to do this . I want you to go
16
through the six boxes today and tell me which ones
17
you have problems that aren't authentic, aren't
18
original -- or copies of originals, and you would
19
dispute are not of business records of Reynolds .
20
You can do that at lunch, you can do it tonight, I
21
don't care when you do it . I'm not going to take
22
the time up today . But unless we get a
23
stipulation, I want you to go through those six
24
boxes .
1
THE
WITNESS : Sir, I've been through
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
4
those six boxes .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . And you believe they're all business
records of Reynolds?
5
6
7
0
757
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Other than the ones that you did
8
before you joined Reynolds and the ones that you
9
did after you joined Reynolds?
10
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form .
11
THE WITNESS : Well, I wasn't sure what
12
you folks really wanted . And I think you'll find,
13
for example, obituaries of my two mentors at the
14
University of Toronto . You'll find an award I was
15
given for -- the testimony I was -- for an award I
16
was given for my participation in Little League
17
programs, and things like that . I just put it all
18
in there and you've got it .
19
MR . McDERMOTT : And, again, we're not
20
claiming any of those documents are fraudulent .
21
So as to authenticity, what you said is not
22
correct .
23
We spoke last night, outside, after
24
the deposition, about breaking the documents down
25
into categories . Those documents which are
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
clearly copies of Reynolds' materials and
2
Reynolds' records we're not going to be picayune
3
about .
4
•
•
There are materials in those boxes,
5
however, which are not business records of
6
Reynolds . We talked about segregating them
7
categories ; we can do that now or later . But to
8
suggest that we are responsible for your not
9
having examined the documents and been a little
into
10
bit more systematic about how we treat these
11
documents is again nonsense . I suggest that we
12
use this witness' time more efficiently than we
13
are doing now .
14
758
MR . SHELLER : I just want to put
15
something on the record that -- I would note that,
16
when we had the conversation with the judge's law
17
clerk, Judge Newcomer's law clerk, Mr . Blancato
18
was agreeable to allow me to question the witness,
19
rather than bother Judge Newcomer on vacation or
20
have the other law clerk intervene, when
21
Mr . McDermott interfered and told Mr . Blancato to
22
wait for the second law clerk's call at 11 :00 a .m .
23
to see what he said . I would also note that I
24
watch Mr . McDermott constantly coaching
25
Mr . Blancato .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Mr . McDermott, if you want to
1
2
represent Mr . Rodgman, why don't you change seats
3
with Mr . Blancato . Otherwise, I suggest that
4
Mr . Blancato, if he really is Mr . Rodgman's
5
counsel, that you leave him alone and stop
6
interfering with his decision processes .
MR . McDERMOTT : I will respond to this
7
•
8
nonsense after Dr . Rodgman is gone . If you keep
9
giving speeches, Mr . Sheller, I will not
10
kindly on your petition for more time .
11
you've burned that bridge already .
12
BY MR . MAISTROS :
13
Q .
look
I think
Dr . Rodgman, I would like to take you
14
through the manufacturing process and your
15
knowledge of the same at Reynolds during the years
16
you were there, okay?
You have been -- I'll show you --
17
18
we'll mark it later . I only have one copy . It's
19
a designation of yourself that was provided in the
20
Texas litigation . And I'd ask you, before I have
21
it marked, have you seen that document before?
(Witness reviews document)
22
•
759
23
Ln
A . I saw this a couple of minutes before we met ~
~
m
24
here this morning .
,P.
Ln
J
25
Q .
Who
WAGA & SPINELLI
showed
you
that?
"'
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 760
A . The gentleman here .
Q . Which gentleman?
A .
Mr . McDermott .
Q . And what was his purpose of showing
you that?
A . Well, because yesterday it was -- you had
mentioned that I was supposed to be an expert in
manu -- things about manufacturing . And I said
something to the effect that I was not an expert .
Now, this business about manufacture,
10
11
the one that was -- the opinion list that was sent
12
to Texas does not have that in there .
I did not write this . I didn't --
13
14
15
•
I've never seen it till this morning .
Q . Are you suggesting, then, that the
16
designation that's in this exhibit, which we'll
17
mark Rodgman Exhibit 1 for purposes of this
18
deposition, is accurate? You are going to testify
19
concerning the design, construction, manufacture
20
of cigarettes?
21
A . Well, I think, someplace down later on in
22
there, it says familiarity with manufacturing
23
processes in general . And I would agree that I
24
know a little bit about it, but I am not an expert
25
in the manufacture of cigarettes .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
•
2
3
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 was
marked for identification)
BY MR . MAISTROS :
4
Did you know you were going to testify
5
in Texas with respect to the design, construction
6
and manufacture of cigarettes?
7
A . As I say, this -- I saw this, this morning .
8
It's different from the one that I had seen
9
earlier, which is three pages long .
10
•
MR . McDERMOTT : For the record,
11
counsel, this is a preliminary disclosure which
12
was produced some weeks ago in accordance with the
13
case management order where the final list of
14
Dr . Rodgman's opinions was filed, or at least
15
provided to opposing counsel last week .
16
17
•
761
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Do you have knowledge concerning the
18
design, construction and manufacture of cigarettes
19
at Reynolds?
20
A . Well, that's an all-sweeping statement, sir .
21
I know -- as I say, I know a little bit about the
22
manufacturing . I know a little bit more about the
23
design . As you know, most of my work has been
24
involved in the smoke composition, it's con -- and
25
its control .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
762
r
1
2
manufacturing process?
3
A . Well, as I mentioned in my testimony
4
yesterday, when you buy tobacco on the auction
5
market, the first thing you do, you bring the
6
tobacco in to the facility, stemery . You
7
moistened it ; you warm it so it doesn't fragment ;
8
you cut out the stems . You store the lamina
9
separately from the stems, and they're stored in
10
sheds for various periods of time, usually from 12
11
to 15 months, up to two years . And while they're
12
in the storage shed, the tobacco slowly changes in
13
certain ways .
14
0
Q . And what do you know about the
And when it's withdrawn from the shed
15
at the appropriate time for manufacture, it's
16
taken out of the containers, it's moistened,
17
warmed ; it's called "reordering ." And if you're
18
talking flue-cured tobacco or burley, then you
19
start your blending process . It's done in --
20
usually in two lines : Part of the blend is done
21
in one line, part in another . Because you also
22
have to bring in Oriental tobacco and Maryland
23
tobacco . Oriental tobacco comes from abroad and
24
has to go through customs, and so on and so forth .
25
And at that point, the stems, of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
course, can be used to make reconstituted tobacco .
2
That is incorporated in part of the blend . And
3
part of the tobacco, the flue-cured burley part,
4
is expanded . And that whole thing comes together
5
and mixed, and it's cut . And there you have the
6
blend for the -- what goes into the cigarettes .
7
S
763
And that -- the last thing that's done
8
on the cigarette is called -- the cutting and
9
casing operation is when the casing materials and
10
flavorants are added and the cigarette blend is
11
all ready to be run through the cigarette-making
12
machine .
13
And at that point it's put in hoppers
14
to feed the cigarette-making machine . It runs
15
through the cigarette-making machine ; the paper's
16
wrapped around it and stuck together . The filters
17
are inserted into the cigarettes in pairs .
18
Cigarettes are cut -- the tobacco rod
19
part is two units long and it's cut in the middle,
20
and the double filter is dropped in between and
21
they're attached . And at that point the thing is
22
cut in half and -- through a very neat, little Ln
N
J
•
23
device that Reynolds invented . The one set of ~
24
cigarettes is flipped over so they're all facing Ln
J
to
25
the same way, and then they're inserted in
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 764
packages . The packages are sealed . The packages
•
are incorporated into the cartons, and the cartons
are incorporated into big cartons, and they're
shipped out the door .
Q . At what point in the manufacturing
process does Reynolds know that a certain tobacco
is going to end up in a certain brand of its
cigarettes?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
10
the question .
11
•
THE WITNESS : Sir, I have very little
12
knowledge about the precise nature of blends and
13
how they're put together .
14
BY MR . MAISTROS :
15
Q .
16
Do you know what's added to the
cigarettes in the manufacturing process?
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
17
18
the question .
19
20
21
22
•
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
question .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . What compounds?
23
A . I know something of the -- what goes into the
24
casing material .
25
Q . Do you know if there's a compound
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
that's applied to the tobacco itself during any
2
portion in the manufacturing process?
3
A . Would you say that again, sir .
Q . Is there a compound that's applied to
4
5
the tobacco itself during the manufacturing
6
process?
7
A .
8
9
10
11
•
Q . What compounds?
A . Well, glycerin, propylene glycol, licorice,
sugar, cocoa, and then the flavor formulation .
Q .
Anything
else?
A . Well, during the expansion of the tobacco
13
there is an agent used in the expansion -- or was
14
used ; it's no longer used at Reynolds .
16
17
Q .
What's
that?
A . It's Freon 11 .
Q . And what years was Freon 11 used?
18
A . 1969 to sometime after I left Reynolds . I
19
don't know when they quit using it .
20
•
Yes .
12
15
765
Q . What is Freon 11?
21
A . Freon 11 is similar to the material that's in
22
your air conditioner -- car air conditioner and
23
your refrigerator . It's called a
24
chlorofluorocarbon .
25
Q . Who developed the process to use
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 766
Freon 11 during the manufacturing process?
A . The original work was done by Dr . James D .
Fredrickson in the laboratory . And then two other
gentlemen developed the engineering aspects of the
process -Q . What was the original -A . -- Moser and Stewart .
Q .
I'm
sorry . What was the first one?
A . Moser, M-O-S-E-R ; and Stewart, S-T-E-W-A-R-T .
Q .
10
•
What
was
--
11
A . And there were two patents issued to these
12
gentlemen ; one the theory part and one the
13
engineering part . They were issued the same day
14
and are sequential in the patent list .
Q . This process went till sometime after
15
16
1987?
17
A . I don't know when they quit using Freon 11 .
18
19
20
Q . Do you know why they quit using it?
A . Because of the ozone question .
Q .
What
was
the
ozone
question?
Ln
J
21
A . Well, freon is a very -- well, extremely m
~
Ln
22
inert substance . That's, you know, why it's N
23
used -- how it became used as a refrigerant .
24
However, when freon vaporizes -- it's a liquid ; it
25
boils at a very low temperature . When it
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
•
1
vaporizes, it rises through the atmosphere and is
2
so inert that very little happens to it until it
3
gets into the stratosphere . And then it comes
4
apart on the effect of intense sunlight . And,
5
supposedly, part of the degradation products
6
combined with oxygen -- combined with ozone in the
7
stratosphere and -- convert ozone, which is a
8
trimolec -- triatomic form of oxygen, breaks it
9
down into regular oxygen . And when that layer
10
thins, the ozone layer thins, more types of
11
sunlight can get through to the earth's surface .
12
And that's supposed to cause all sorts of
13
problems .
So, some years back, I forget the
14
15
exact year, there was a move to diminish --
16
decrease the use of ozone freon -- Freon 11 and
17
Freon 12, which were the two main compounds used
18
in refrigeration .
Q . Was there -- prior to '69, was there
19
•
767
20
expansion of tobacco at Reynolds?
21
A.
22
was . Dr . Fredrickson did the work in -- I believe
23
it was '63 that he actually did the lab work,
24
looking at a whole variety of solvents that could
25
be used in the expansion process .
No . That's -- well, experimentally there
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
768
And from then till 1968/'69, we were
1
2
looking at -- Reynolds was looking at the
3
incorporation of expanded tobacco into blends and
4
whether the consumers would accept this . And they
5
did, on test panels and market testing and so on .
6
And it was, I believe, introduced into Reynolds'
7
products -- it was either late '68 or early '69 .
8
9
Q . And do you know if there were other
expansion processes being used, other than the use
10
of Freon 11?
11
A . Well, when we came up with the expanded
12
tobacco, it was -- I don't know whether you're
13
familiar with how competitors look at each other' s
14
products, but when somebody has a -- products are
15
monitored frequently by competitors . And of
16
course it did not take long for some of
17
competitors -- what they do is you take a bunch of
18
cigarettes, and you cut the paper off, and you
19
have a pile of tobacco . And you have some
20
technicians, who are usually very skilled at it,
21
and they pick out the burley tobacco, the
22
flue-cured tobacco, the oriental tobacco, the
23
reconstituted tobacco sheet, and say : Look, you
24
know, what's Reynolds got in this blend? Or we
our
Ln
~
~
N
m
~
Ln
0
25
OD
4~1
look and say : What's Philip Morris got?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Well, it's obvious, when they picked
1
2
apart the Winston in 1968 or '69, whenever it was
3
issued, they got a fifth pile . You know, what's
4
this tobacco that's all fluffy? And so everybody
5
knew that we had expanded tobacco .
Now, people had been trying to expand
6
7
tobacco for years . They could succeed in
8
expanding stems, but no one had been able to
9
expand the lamina of tobacco - that's the leaf
10
part - until Dr . Fredrickson discovered how to do
11
it .
12
769
And, of course, soon after that, some
13
other people -- Philip Morris came up with an
14
expansion process of its own . Prior to that, we
15
elected to -- if anybody wanted our process, we
16
would license our expansion process to anybody who
17
was willing to pay the licensing fee . And the
18
Japanese tobacco company, which is an immense
19
company, licensed it ; Lorillard licensed it, L & M
20
licensed it . Eventually our process was licensed
21
in probably 25, 30 countries around the world .
22
But Philip Morris elected not to
23
license it, our process . And that's because they
24
had been responsible, primarily, for all the
patents on expansion of stems, and I think they
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
were a little miffed that they had worked so long
2
trying to expand tobacco, had been successful in
3
stems and unsuccessful with lamina . And I think
4
there's a bit of pride there .
So they had developed a process
5
6
their own - it involved the use of different
7
expansion agent - and used that in their own
8
c i garettes .
Q.
9
10
•
Which agent?
Back to my original question ; maybe
Q .
you misunderstood it .
Did RJR use any other expansion
13
14
process,
other than Freon 11?
15
16
18
working,
McDERMOTT :
MR .
MAISTROS :
During what
time
19
is .
'69 to when you ceased
consulting or advising RJR, whatever it
20
•
MR .
f rame ?
17
21
of
A . It was -- it was called ammonium carbonate .
11
12
770
THE
WITNESS :
Well, when I left they
were still using Freon 11 .
22
BY MR . MAISTROS :
23
Q.
24
RJR
25
A . Well,
Ln
~
Was that the only expansion process
J
N
m
~
Ln
CO
m
use d?
we kept looking at different things .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
i
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
For example -- as I say, Dr . Fredrickson looked
2
at -- and I think if -- you probably have it
3
someplace, his report in 1963 ; he must have looked
4
at 15 different solvents . And there was a problem
5
with them, and primarily in manufacturing, that
6
some of the solvents -- for example, ethyl alcohol
7
will work ; hexane will work ; pentane will work .
8
9
But one of the problems is, here you
have this facility to expand tobacco with pentane
10
or hexane, and I'm sure you know that they are
11
components of gasoline . And they're -- hexane --
12
gaseous hexane and air is a very explosive
13
mixture .
14
And -- but Freon 11 was designed in
15
edict by Boss Kettering at General Motors to be
16
inert, non-flammable and usable in a car engine
17
for air conditioning of the car . So it does not
18
burn ; it's not explosive ; it has very little -- in
19
fact, it was so inert it has
20
biological effect on anything . And so we -- of
21
the 15 or 20, I forget the exact number that
22
Dr . Fredrickson looked at, we ended up using
23
Freon 11 .
24
0
771
25
very little
Q . Did Reynolds test the biological
effects of Freon 11 before it incorporated it in
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
772
1
the manufacturing process?
2
A . Well, we didn't need -- we did . But we
3
didn't really need to, because Freon 11 is the --
4
was a patented or copyright, whatever -- a product
5
owned by DuPont . And they had done so much work
6
on the biological properties of Freon 11, Freon
7
12, that acceptance of their data -- but we did do
8
some things to see how it affected tobacco smoke .
9
4•
Were studies done to determine
10
biological effect of taking Freon 11 through the
11
respiratory system?
12
A . Not by us . But Philip Morris -- not Philip
13
Morris, DuPont had done that .
14
In fact, the FDA had approved -- I
15
don't know whether any of you have had -- have
16
asthma, but for many years there were little
17
propellant gadgets with medication in them that
18
you placed against your nostrils and pressed the
19
button and, psst, psst, you got shots of the
20
medication plus the propellant .
21
Well the propellant, in most
22
instances, was either Freon 11 or a mixture of
23
Freon 11 and 12 . And that had all been checked
24
out by the FDA and so on . And in using those
inhalers, the amount you got on one squirt was
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
something between 25 and 35 milligrams, which
2
would -- say, 25 milligrams is 25 million
3
nanograms, which was the equivalent of what was in
4
the smoke of many, many cigarettes, but less than
5
a nanogram of Freon 11 in the smoke of one
6
cigarette after we made it .
Q . Did -- to your knowledge, did DuPont
7
•
773
8
test Freon 11 in a state after it had been burned,
9
such as in a smoking process?
10
A .
11
Triangle, there was a group that was doing work on
12
various things . And I don't know whether you
13
remember that, at one time, there was a big
14
problem with -- in Philadelphia, with what turned
15
out to be called the Legionnaire's disease . And
16
the cause of Legionnaire's disease was -- the
17
first cause was that an air conditioner or
18
refrigerator had malfunctioned and there had been
19
a fire, that the Freon 11 or 12, what was ever
20
used in the refrigerator, had decomposed or
21
something during this fire, generating phosgene,
22
which was a World War I gas used by the Germans to
23
kill Allied troops . And that was supposed to be
24
the cause of Legionnaire's disease .
25
No . But over at Triangle -- Research
Well, this group over at Research
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
Triangle took Freon 11 and studied its effect on
2
combustion, studied its effect on -- in cigarette
3
smoke, and the formation of cigarette smoke, and
4
so on and so forth, and found that it does not
5
generate phosgene . But -- and then, of course,
6
Legionnaire's disease was found to be an entire -
7
caused by a bacteria of some type, which -- whose
8
name escapes me .
9
Q . What year was that research done?
10
A . Over at the Triangle? Oh, early '70s, I
11
would say . I forget .
But we did in-house -- one of the
12
13
things we worried about was the effect of -- would
14
Freon 11, during the com -- smoking process, form
15
phosgene . Because, if you look at the structure
16
of phosgene, the structure of Freon 11, it's
17
obvious that, given the right circumstance, it was
18
possible .
19
•
774
So we did a study, great detail ; we
20
had to develop all the analytical procedures for
21
it, to determine nanograms of phosgene, and so on
22
and so forth, in smoke . And we conducted it --
23
could find no phosgene in the smoke of a cigarette
24
made with expanded tobacco, with a lot more freon
25
than would be in a commercial product . We had
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
that checked by a contract lab, Industrial
2
Bio-Test . They came up -- they couldn't find it .
3
And as I say, the group over in Research Triangle
4
couldn't find anything wrong with -- at least
5
phosgene generation .
6
Then a man in Germany, because we were
7
going to license our process in Germany, he looked
8
at the question, because I had given presentation
9
to several companies in Germany on our process as
10
part of the licensing ploy . And he was intrigued
11
by it all . And -- and he was a physical chemist .
12
•
775
And he took -- looked at the thing
13
from phosgene and the conditions in a burning
14
cigarette and said : You folks didn't need to do
15
the experiments . That if you just looked at the
16
thermodynamic calculation, it's impossible to
17
generate freon -- phosgene from freon in a burning
18
cigarette .
19
20
21
Q . Let me just cut you off for a second,
because I know time is a concern .
The question was that, prior to using
22
Freon 11 in the tobacco manufacturing process, Ln
N
~
23
first, did Reynolds do any testing to determine m
24
the effect of burning of the Freon 11? ~
4~-
•
N
25
A . I just told you .
WAGA & SPINELLI
1
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
Q . I don't think you answered my
question .
3
Prior to the use of Freon 11 in the
4
manufacturing process, did RJR do any testing to
5
determine the effect of burning the freon?
6
A . Between 1963 and 1970, sir, we did the
7
phosgene work ; we did what's called a material
8
balance study .
9
•
If you end up with a cigarette blend
10
that's got so much -- a certain percentage of
11
expanded tobacco and that expanded tobacco has so
12
much freon on it - and here we're talking
13
nanograms, parts per million - that we examine
14
what happened to that freon during smoking ; where
15
did it end up? Obviously, if it didn't form
16
phosgene, it exits the smoke -- exits in the smoke
17
as Freon 11 itself . And we determined what was in
18
the mainstream smoke, the sidestream smoke, how
19
much was retained in the cigarette filter, so on
20
and so forth, and could account for everything in
21
the Freon 11 business of where it ended up in the
22
smoke . That was all done before it ever went into
23
the cigarette .
24
•
776
25
Q•
Did you determine if there were any
other compounds that were created during the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
777
1
burning process as a result of the addition of
2
Freon 11?
3
A . I just finished telling you . Freon 11 is so
4
inert that -- if it won't form phosgene, it won't
5
form anything else . Now, we could account for, in
6
our material balance study, if you had -- and here
7
I'll just pick a figure, because I'm sure you have
the document that I wrote -- put together on the
9
•
10
say you had ten nanograms of Freon 11 on a
11
cigarette . You get so much in the mainstream
12
smoke, so much in the sidestream smoke, so much in
13
the -- the tobacco part of the butt, so much in
14
the filter tip . And then, in the way you
15
determine this, there was some Freon 11 on the
16
walls of the gadgetry where you collect the smoke,
17
which is a very small amount .
18
nanograms to start with, we could account for all
19
of it .
20
•
T13 process, and I've forgotten the numbers . But
So if you had ten
MR . McDERMOTT : Let me point out,
21
counsel, that the report Dr . Rodgman just referred
22
to is, in fact, attached as an exhibit to the
23
first part of this deposition, and a lot of this
24
was covered in detail in the initial part of the
25
deposition . But you may use your time as you
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
w
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
•
2
choose .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Did you do any tests to determine the
3
4
effect of Freon 11 -- or the burning of Freon 11
5
on nicotine content or yield of the tobacco?
6
A .
7
You -- you asked about freon itself . But,
8
obviously, if you have expanded tobacco in a
9
cigarette, you have less tobacco in the cigarette .
No . The -- part of the -- well, indirectly .
10
Correct? Then, when you smoke that cigarette,
11
you're going to get less
12
•
778
nicotine in the smoke .
And if you look at the Surgeon
13
General -- not the Surgeon General, I'm sorry, the
14
National Cancer Institute study, they repeated and
15
confirmed the effect of our expansion process,
16
Philip Morris' expansion process, and the one
17
developed at North Carolina State, which was
18
actually a freeze-dried tobacco that was expanded .
19
All of them were significant in their
20
contribution, if you will, to a less hazardous
21
cigarette, but all of them dropped the nicotine in
22
the smoke . And that's in the data and -- by our
23
National Cancer Institute .
24
Again, though, the primary motivation
S 251 behind expanded tobacco was not to drop nicotine,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
was it?
2
A . Well, I think I mentioned yesterday, when we
3
talked about the technologies, if you read
4
Dr . Fredrickson's proposal --
5
Q . I'm going to cut you off because I
6
want a specific answer to this specific question .
7
Did RJR develop the expansion process to reduce
8
nicotine or did they do it so that they could --
9
A . If you let me answer the question, sir .
10
•
There's one -- two purposes for
11
expanded tobacco . One, money . The second was to
12
design a cigarette that would have reduced total
13
particulate matter in the smoke . And if you
14
reduce the total particulate matter in the smoke,
15
you would reduce the nicotine .
16
17
Q . What was the first purpose of
expansion of tobacco? Out of the two .
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . Asked and
18
19
20
21
answered .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . It was money, wasn't it? The primary
22
purpose was money?
23
A . Well, he had two things in his report .
24
779
Q.
Wasn't the primary purpose of the
0 25+ expanded tobacco process -
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
780
I
1
2
A . No, it wasn't .
Q . It wasn't money? It was to reduce the
3
particulate matter?
4
A . No, it -- I will say that -- make -- make
5
them equal, if you want .
6
Q . I invite you on a break to go over the
7
six boxes of documents and show me one where
8
reduction of particulate matter was mentioned
9
above money .
10
MR . MCDERMOTT : Objection .
11
MR . BLANCATO : Objection to form .
12
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . The very first document that ever was
created that discussed Freon 11 and the expansion
15
of tobacco, do you know if it ever mentioned the
16
goal of reducing the particulate matter in the
17
smoke?
18
A . Well, as I say, Dr . Fredrickson's first memo
19
didn't mention any specific solvents, because he
20
didn't know which ones would work, if any .
21
Q . Didn't his first memo say that the
22
primary advantage of expansion of tobacco was to 1-n
~
~
use less tobacco in the cigarettes and thereby m
~
increase the profits to Reynolds? Ln
23
24
m
25
A . I don't know whether he had it that -- you
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
probably read it more recently than I have, but I
2
don't remember him saying it that way .
3
•
manufacturers' processes that they used to expand
5
tobacco?
6
A . Yes . We looked at ammonium carbonate .
Q . How did -- I'm sorry .
8
A . We looked at carbon dioxide puffing, which
9
actually other people looked at . Nitrogen was
10
used by some people . And of course -- we did not
11
spend much time looking at the process North
12
Carolina State University had, the freeze drying
13
procedure .
14
Q . The ammonia process, what's the full
15
name, do you know, that you mentioned?
16
A . Pardon?
17
Q . The ammonia process that you
18
mentioned, what's the full name?
19
A . Well, it's -- ammonium carbonate is the
20
expansion agent, mixture of ammonium carbonate and
21
ammonium bicarbonate .
22
•
Q . Did you examine the other tobacco
4
7
781
Q . And which companies were using that
23
process?
24
A . Philip Morris ended up with the U .S . patent
25
for it .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
S2 •
Did you study how the ammonium
2
carbonated -- carbonate affected nicotine content?
3
A . We -- we looked at the ammonium carbonate as
4
an ex -- expansion means . I don't know whether --
5
a man called Charles D . Mays did the work on the
6
ammonium carbonate expansion . I don't know what
7
he looked at in terms of nicotine .
8
9
But the chances are that, if you -looking at the ammonium carbonate puffed tobacco
10
that was involved in the National Cancer Institute
11
study, that the nicotine level in the tobacco was
12
reduced . And I have -- I would take a guess that
13
Charles Mays found the same thing when he did --
14
checked it at Reynolds . But I -- I can't say that
15
for sure .
16
Q . Did you explore the possibility of
17
Reynolds using the ammonium carbonate method of
18
expansion?
19
A . No -- well, let me back up on that .
20
•
782
At -- at -- when we were looking at
21
various expansion methods, of course we were very
22
pleased with the Freon 11 exercise .
23
Dr . Fredrickson looked at other things, and one of
24
them happened to be ammonium carbonate .
25
In fact, if you look at the patents
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
issued in the -- I think it's Belgium, Reynolds
2
has the first patent on -- was issued a patent on
3
ammonium carbonate before Philip Morris . We did
4
make a mistake, I guess you would consider it a
5
mistake, that we decided not to file a patent in
6
the United States, and Philip Morris -- I think
7
the rule is you have to file -- if you have a
8
foreign patent, you've got to do it within a year .
9
Philip Morris filed the patent in the
10
United States, so they had the patent on ammonium
11
carbonate puffing . And -- even though ours, in
12
Europe, preceded theirs .
13
But we had looked at it ; we looked at
14
many things . We looked at carbon dioxide as a
15
puffing agent and --
16
Q . And you said you looked at nitrogen?
17
A . Now, somebody else had reported nitrogen . We
18
checked to see how that would work . It's a little
19
difficult to handle, because, to get it to work,
20
you have to have liquid nitrogen, and liquid
21
nitrogen is -- requires a temperature of, I don't
22
know, minus 270-something degrees .
23
•
783
Q . Do you know who was using nitrogen
24
process?
25
A . I don't know whether anybody was using it .
i
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
It was reported that it would expand tobacco . I
2
don't know if it was in a patent or what .
3
•
Q . Did you -- are you saying that
4
Reynolds didn't seriously explore the use of
5
nitrogen to expand tobacco ?
6
A . Well, we looked at it . As I say, from
7
1970 -- '68, '69, till I left, they were still
8
using Freon 11 . And so were all the people that
9
licensed it from us .
1 0
Q .
processes for tobacco that was sold and markete d
12
overseas?
13
A . No .
Q.
To your knowledge, then, the onl y
15
expansion process Reynolds has ever used is th e
16
Freon 11?
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; misstates
17
18
prior testimony .
THE WITNESS : Until I left . I think
19
20
I've said that about five times, sir .
When I left Reynolds in 1987, they
21
•
Was Reynolds using any other expansio n
11
14
22
were using Freon 11 . And if they're using
23
anything else since then, I have no idea what it
24
would be .
25
78 4
BY MR . MAISTROS :
WAGA & SPINELLI
1
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 785
Q . Do you know who was using carbon
dioxide expansion?
A . A company called Airco was the one that
pioneered the use -- or at least pushed the C02
expansion of tobacco . And that was another case
where Reynolds had actually been the first to look
at C02 expansion and decided not to proceed with
it because it took rather bulky machinery, and so
on and so forth, and was no less effective
•
10
than was -- than our process . And, of course,
11
subsequently, Airco got the patent on it, I
12
believe --
13
Q . Do you know if Reynolds ever used
14
ammonia or any compound related to ammonia in the
15
manufacturing process, other than -- let's
16
back up .
In any fashion, were you aware that
17
•
18
Reynolds used ammonia in the manufacturing
19
process?
20
A . Well, I think I said yesterday, they used
21
ammonia to denicotinize high nicotine tobaccos
22
down to whatever level they wanted . And I can't
23
think of the date, but at one time they were
24
using -- ammoniating their reconstituted tobacco
25
sheet .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
•
1
Why did they use ammonia on their
2
reconstituted tobacco sheet?
3
A . Well, they were trying to -- in the Philip
4
Morris products, the -- their reconstituted
5
tobacco sheet is made by an ammoniate -- ammonia
6
process . And when Marlboro be -- began to look
7
like such a winner, we wondered, well, should we
8
do something to our sheet to -- to imitate the
9
ammoniated effect of the Philip Morris sheet, and
10
we obviously couldn't use -- without royalties and
11
so on, the procedure used by Philip Morris, which
12
involved treatment of the sheet material with an
13
ammonium salt .
14
Q . Do you know why Philip Morris did
15
that?
16
A . I guess they wanted a sheet of their own .
17
•
Q•
786
Q .
No . What is the chemical effect of
18
adding ammonia salt to the reconstituted tobacco?
19
A . Well, the addition of the ammonium salts to
20
the -- you're not adding them to the reconstituted
21
tobacco . What happens is that stems -- stemmed
22
material have some compounds in it that are
23
calcium salts of pectic acid, P-E-C-T-I-C . And
24
you want to get that calcium away from the pectic
25
acid . So if you treat it with a compound, one of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
the ammonium phosphate salts, the ammonia replaces
2
the calcium as the pectic acid -- to make an
3
ammonium salt of pectic acid, instead of the
4
calcium salt . And the calcium combines with the
5
phosphate part of the ammonium phosphate that you
6
added, and calcium phosphate is very insoluble in
7
water . So the ammonium pectate, now, can be made
8
into a sheet much easier and a much nicer sheet
9
than the calcium pectate material .
10
11
That's what I got out of the patent
they had .
Q . Well, how did that affect the
12
•
13
popularity of Marlboros?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
14
15
the question ; no foundation .
THE WITNESS : I have no idea why it
16
17
18
affected the popularity .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Why did you mention Marlboros?
19
•
787
20
A . Well it's their main -- major product . And
21
as I say, we did the same kind of thing that
22
everybody does : We looked at their product, and
23
all of a sudden they had a reconstituted tobacco
24
that was different . About 1968, I guess, it was,
25
'69 .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q . And did you find or did you discover
2
any effect that the ammonia -- ammonia process
3
that Philip Morris used had an effect on the
4
nicotine yields of the tobacco?
5
A . I don't know what they looked at, sir .
6
7
8
9
788
Q . You didn't look at that?
A . I didn't look at that .
Q . Did Reynolds look at that?
A . I don't know what they looked at . I think
10
they were interested in the sheet, per se . And,
11
of course, the one thing about -- when you make a
12
sheet, like reconstituted tobacco, you're actually
13
starting something that's rather low in nicotine
14
anyway . Stems have much less nicotine than the -
15
the lamina .
16
Q . Do you know if Reynolds did any
17
studies to determine if Philip Morris was
18
controlling the amount of nicotine yields of its
19
reconstituted tobacco?
20
A . I don't know whether we did or not .
21
Q . Did Reynolds do any independent work
22
on the effect that ammonia had on nicotine yields? cn
N
-j
23
Separate and apart from looking at Philip Morris .
24
A . If it did, I don't recall .
m
OPb
•
m
to.
25
Q . Do you know if Reynolds did any work
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
789
to determine the effect that any compound had on
the nicotine yields of cigarettes?
A . There was a study, I believe it was done by
Miss Janet Wheeler, putting various additives
in a
filter tip to see the effect on -- how it would
affect the nicotine level in smoke . Like acetic
materials put in the filter tip, would that -nicotine is a basic compound . And'my vague
recollection is that, when you use some of these
10
additives, you got to -- have a problem with
11
acceptability on test panels . But it's been years
12
since I even thought about that .
13
Q . Do you know if Philip Morris did any
14
research to determine the effect that its
15
additives had on the nicotine yields of these
16
cigarettes and the end product nicotine yields?
MR . McDERMOTT : Excuse me . Your
17
18
question was Philip Morris?
19
MR . MAISTROS : I'm sorry . RJR .
20
THE WITNESS : Would you say that
21
22
23
again, sir .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Do you know if RJR did research to
24
determine the effect that any of its additives had
25
on the nicotine yields of the tobacco, other than
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
790
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
the filter one you just mentioned?
2
A . Well, in an indirect way . For example, we
3
did a study on use of humectants, glycerol and
4
propylene glycol, part of the casing material for
cigarettes . And of course'your main concern with
6
the humectants is that they help the cigarette
7
retain its moisture level at manufacturing . And
8
of course, being here in the south, when you
9
manufacture cigarettes in Winston-Salem and then
10
11
problem sometimes that there they're locked in a
12
truck and they're driving through areas that are a
13
hundred degrees Fahrenheit . So you -- you don't
14
want to lose moisture from your product .
15
So we were looking at the advisability
16
of raising or lowering, or doing whatever, with
17
the humectants . And, of course, one of the things
18
•
you ship them to California or wherever, you have
.that happens, if you increase the humectants
19
level, and more of humectant gets into the
20
and the humectant turns out as part of
21
you weigh as total particulate matter and ends up
22
as being in the calculation, the FTC tar -- part
23
of the FTC tar number, then what happens is, as
24
you increase the humectants from, say, three to
25
four to five to six percent, the nicotine level in
WAGA & SPINELLI
smoke
the -- what
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
791
1
the smoke goes down . That was just an observation
2
we made, that you could control nicotine by the
3
use of various levels of humectants .
4
But the primary purpose of -- oh, I
5
think at one time we increased the level of
6
humectants . It was not to lower the nicotine, but
7
it was primarily to make sure our products retain
8
their moisture for a longer period of time .
9
Because what happens, if you lose moisture from
10
the cigarette and the moisture loss is -- gets --
11
gets over a percent or two, that is it drops, say,
12
from 12 to 11 to 10, the tar level goes up and the
13
nicotine level in smoke goes up . And it gets to a
14
point where the smoke is very irritating .
15
Q.
Did RJR do studies to determine
16
whether or not the tar levels could be reduced,
17
independent of reduction of the nicotine levels?
18
A . Well, here -- let me go back, 1980 . In 1980
19
there was a conference on less hazardous
20
cigarettes, called the Banbury Conference, and
21
Dr . Russell from England gave a presentation
22
there . And one of his theses, which he had
23
proposed sometime in the '70s, I forget the exact
24
date -- M .A .H . Russell is his name . He, in
25
England, and a man called, I believe, Jarvik,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
792
1
J-A-R-V-I-K, in this country, proposed that the
2
safer cigarette should encompass lowering the tar
3
and leaving the nicotine alone, or lowering the
4
tar and raising the nicotine . And we looked at
5
that, and there was problems with it about -- when
6
you got an imbalance in the tar to nicotine ratio,
7
the cigarette became very harsh and the consumer
8
said no, no, no .
9
10
VIDEOGRAPHER : Mr . Maistros, we have
five minutes left on the videotape .
11
12
THE WITNESS : Well, if you gentlemen
don't mind, I'd like a break .
13
14
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
record at 10 :51 a .m .
(Recess taken from 10 :51 a .m . to 11 :07
15
16
a .m . )
17
VIDEOGRAPHER : This is tape 4 of the
18
videotape deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
19
going back on the record at 11 :07 a .m .
20
21
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q.
Dr . Rodgman, so I'm clear on this,
22
when you were talking about Philip Morris'
23
addition of ammonia to the reconstituted tobacco
24
sheet, was it your understanding, or is it your
25
understanding, that the only purpose in doing that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5,
1
was to make the sheet easier to work with?
2
A . That was in the patent .
Pg
793
3
Q . Did you ever have any information that
4
there was another purpose behind adding ammonia to
5
the tobacco?
6
A . I didn't .
7
8
Q . Did anyone at Reynolds?
A . Not that I know of .
9
Q . And when you left, was Reynolds adding
10
tobacco to its sheets -- I'm sorry, adding ammonia
11
to its reconstituted tobacco sheets?
12
A . Not all of it . They had two variations of
13
reconstituted tobacco sheet, and I'm sure you've
14
heard of them . One's G7, the one that was
15
invented in nineteen fifty -- first used in '54 ;
16
and G7A, which was the ammoniated one . And I
17
don't know how much they used of either .
18
19
20
Q . Do you know what years G7A was used?
A . No, I don't .
Q . And do you know what the purpose of
21
Reynolds adding ammonia to the reconstituted
22
tobacco process was?
23
24
25
Ln
A . I believe they were thinking, well does this ~
~
m
have anything to do with the acceptability and ,p
m
m
sudden surge in the sales of Marlboro? Was it W
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 794
something that the consumer liked? And they were
seeing, I guess, if they could match it .
That's a speculation on my part .
Q . You don't know of any research that
was done to determine if the ammonia being added
to the reconstituted tobacco sheet affected the
amount of nicotine yield of the tobacco?
A.
No . The only thing I know, sir, is that --
and, here, I'm not an expert on nicotine ; I think
10
you're quite aware of that .
With every case I've seen that --
11
12
where you add ammonia or ammonium salt or ammonia
13
solution to a tobacco, you end up with less
14
nicotine in that tobacco than you started with .
Q . How about free nicotine? Do you know
15
16
what the concept of free nicotine is?
17
A . Yes . And I think, if you read the deposition
18
that went on here two weeks ago, three weeks ago,
19
you'll get a good idea of my view on free
20
nicotine .
Q . Does anyone share your view in the
21
22
chemical world?
23
A.
24
.
25
Yes .
Q.
Who?
A . That the free nicotine is a calculated
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
795
number?
Q . Okay, we can start there . Who shares
3
your view that the free nicotine is a calculated
4
number?
5
A . I think everybody realizes it's a calculated
6
number . As far as I know, there's no chemist that
7
has ever isolated -- identified free nicotine in
8
mainstream cigarette smoke .
9
Q . Was the -- to your knowledge, the
10
primary purpose Reynolds added ammonia to the
11
reconstituted tobacco was to attempt to duplicate
12
Marlboro?
13
A . That was my understanding .
14
Q . Is it your understanding that the
15
only -- only manner in which ammonia is added in
16
the manufacturing process is in this reconstituted
17
tobacco process?
18
A . I have no idea if it's added any other way .
19
And you've got to remember, too, up until 1980,
20
the R & D part of Reynolds was R & D . And there
21
were a lot of things went on in development
22
that -- where I was in research, that I had very
23
peripheral knowledge of . I was aware of some
24
things going on, but had no basis of knowledge of
25
the reasons for it or the reasons not to do things
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
i
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
or to do things .
2
And then, as I said before, in 1980,
3
research and development was split into six parts,
4
and the process engineering and applied work was
5
entirely separate from my work in fundamental .
6
And I had enough to do with fund -- directing
7
fundamental research, that -- to be worried about
8
what other people were doing . And --
Q.
9
Between 1953 and 1980, did R -- R & D
10
do any research on nicotine?
11
A . I wasn't there in '53 .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
796
Q .
A.
I'm
sorry . What year did you join?
1954 .
Q . Between 1954 and 1980, did R & D do
any research in nicotine?
MR . MaDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : Yes .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . What research?
21
A . In the late 'SOs, two men at Reynolds -- well
22
one was actually a manager, the other was a lab
Ln
f-~
~
23
chemist, Dr . Markunas and Mr . Robert H . Cundiff
24
developed a -- an improved analysis of nicotine in',P .
rn
N
25
tobacco and cigarette smoke that became used by
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
~
N
Vol . 5, Pg .
797
1
1
almost every tobacco company in the world . It
2
took several years' research to develop that
3
process .
4
In fact, it was one of the reasons
5
that his development of a variety of analytical
6
methods for tobacco and tobacco smoke, which
7
included nicotine, nornicotine, and so on, that
8
Mr . Cundiff was awarded the -- a very prestigious
9
prize for his work in analytical chemistry .
Q . What other research?
10
11
A . In 1960, Benjamin Van Duuren and his
12
colleagues reported the identification of three
13
polycyclic aza-arenes, A-Z-A, hyphen, A-R-E-N-E-S,
14
in cigarette smoke . And these are -- have been
15
reported to be tumorigenic to mouse skin . And
16
Dr . Van Duuren studied nicotine pyrolysis to see
17
if these compounds arose from nicotine during
18
heating . And he said that they were, the three of
19
them .
20
However, we looked at the pyrolysis of
21
nicotine and couldn't find these three compounds .
22
And subsequent to 1960, from 1963 to 1992,
23
seven -- eight different studies had been
24
conducted and published, including some by
25
Dietrich Hoffmann and some from the U .S .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Government . But nobody can reproduce those
2
findings of Benjamin Van Duuren, either with
3
respect to those compounds in smoke or the
4
pyrolysis of nicotine .
5
6
798
And the reason I mention it is these
compounds are listed by EPA and Wynder and
Hoffmann as being three significant tumorigens in
8
cigarette smoke ; and for '63 to '92, in eight
9
different studies, in three different countries,
10
nobody can find them .
11
Q . And what -- what work were you doing
12
that would have piqued your interest to look,
13
after '87, at whether nicotine promotes tumors?
14
A . After '87? I wasn't there in '87 .
Q . What -- why are you still researching
15
16
what reports are out there on nicotine and its
17
potential tumor causing effects between '87 and
18
'92? Just as a --
19
A .
20
21
22
Who?
Q .
You .
A . I was reading the literature, see .
Q . After '87, when you left Reynolds, you
23
still kept up on the scientific literature of
24
tobacco?
25
A . Tobacco smoke .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
S
Q.
Were there any cases, litigation or
2
legal matters that you were consulting on, between
3
'87 and the present, that you haven't testified
4
about?
5
A . Not that I -- not that I know of .
6
Q•
And going back to my original
7
question . Were you aware that Reynolds was doing
8
studies subsequent to Van Buren's (sic) study to
9
determine --
10
A . Van Duuren .
Q . Van Duuren's study, to determine if
11
•
799
12
his results could be duplicated?
13
A .
14
pyrolysis, we went on to other things .
No . When we couldn't find it in the nicotine
15
Q . Did, to your knowledge, Reynolds ever
16
do any research to determine if nicotine promoted
17
tumors, caused tumors, was tumorigenic?
18
A.
19
No .
Q . Are you aware of any other research
20
that was done at -- in R & D between '54 and '87
21
with respect to nicotine?
22
A . Well, I'm not really aware of any research .
23
When I came to Reynolds in 1954, I was shown a
24
facility that was not too far from here - it's w
25
gone now - where Reynolds recovered nicotine from
Ln
WAGA & SPINELLI
~
~
a
(201) 992-4111
~
m
Vol . 5, Pg . 800
scrap tobacco and stems, and this was before the
days when -- in the manufacture -- preparation of
reconstituted tobacco sheet, Reynolds didn't use
all its stems . And they used part of the stems in
this facility ; they would treat it with alkali and
distill off the nicotine and sell the nicotine to
the company that made -- I'm thinking Black Leaf
40, which people use it on their rose bushes .
Q . A bug killer?
10
11
A . Bug killer .
Q . Do you know during what period of time
12
Reynolds continued to sell nicotine to that
13
company?
14
A . I -- I don't know when it quit or -- or it
15
was probably before -- maybe 1960 they quit . It
16
was probably earlier . Because, as their increased
17
use of the stems occurred, there was less and less
18
stems to process .
19
Q . If R & D wasn't doing nicotine
20
research, what entity within Reynolds would have
21
been?
vn
22
N
v
A . If it wasn't done in R & D, I don't know m
23
where it would have been done .
bN
24
25
rn
N
rn
Q . But when -A . There was some work done -- now that I think
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 801
about it, it wasn't done at Reynolds, it was done
•
at Bowman Gray School of Medicine . And it was the
first use of the radial-labeled nicotine to see
what happened to nicotine in a mammalian body .
I'm not too familiar with the work,
but it was done by a man called Dr . Wolff,
W-O-L-F-F . And the results were presented at
several of the earlier Tobacco Chemists
Conference, and which the first one, I believe,
10
was 1947 . And he presented several papers over
11
the years, between '47 and early '50s . I've seen
12
abstracts, but I didn't hear the papers .
13
Q . What is the largest particulate
14
compound that's contained in the cigarette smoke?
15
A . Largest particulate?
Q .
16
17
A . How do you mean "large"?
18
19
20
21
22
Yes .
Q . Greatest quantity .
A.
Water .
Q . And what about after water?
A . Nicotine .
Q . And between 1954 and 1987, is it your
23
testimony that there were no studies, other than
24
those you've testified about, with respect to how
25
nicotine interacts with the human body?
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; no
1
2
802
foundation .
THE WITNESS : Well we didn't have any
3
4
biological facilities, you know, '65, '66, '67, in
5
there . So as far as I know, no .
6
BY MR . MAISTROS :
7
Q . And Reynolds, to your knowledge, other
8
than the Bowman Gray study you just mentioned, did
9
not contract with any outside agencies to
10
determine how nicotine interacted with the human
11
body?
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; no
12
13
foundation .
THE WITNESS : I don't know .
14
15
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Are you aware of any work that
16
17
Reynolds did to determine if nicotine had an
18
effect on the central nervous system of humans?
19
A .
20
No .
Q . Did you prepare any literature,
21
reports, memorandum, that addressed the role
22
nicotine plays in tobacco smoke?
23
A . Not specifically on nicotine . I may have
24
mentioned nicotine . But not a report devoted to
25
the effect of nicotine during smoking, that I can
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
recall .
Q . As you sit here today, do you know
what role nicotine plays on the smoking process?
4
5
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . Vague .
6
7
8
9
THE WITNESS : Say that again, sir .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Do you know what effect or what role
nicotine plays on the smoking process?
10
MR . McDERMOTT : Same objection .
11
THE WITNESS : On the smoking process?
12
13
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . I don't want to limit it to tobacco,
14
smoke, smoking process ; so I use "the smoking
15
process" as a catchall phrase .
16
A . Well, the smoking process is the process
17
whereby tobacco is converted to smoke and
18
nicotine -- some nicotine is transferred to --
19
from the cigarette to the mainstream smoke, and
20
some is transferred to the sidestream smoke, and
21
some is decomposed . That's the role of nicotine
22
in the smoking process .
23
803
Q . Do you know what role nicotine plays
24
insofar as interaction with the human body is
25
concerned?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A . I have no idea how nicotine works in the
2
human body . You're way outside my area of
3
expertise, sir .
4
Q . Who was the most knowledgeable person
5
at Reynolds between '54 and '87, with respect to
6
the role nicotine plays in the smoking process?
7
A.
8
9
John
H . Robinson .
Q . Was he within research and
development?
10
A . He came to research and development -- the
11
research department about 1978, '77, somewhere in
12
there .
13
Q . And you eventually were director of
14
research and development?
15
A . I hired John Robinson . I was director of
16
research, sir . I heard somebody saying something
17
on the phone that I was the grand guru of
18
R & D, and I wish you'd get it straight .
19
804
all
Q . When you were director of research,
20
you were John Robinson's supervisor?
21
A . I was -- well, I was director of research,
22
and John Robinson's manager was John Reynolds, who
23
reported to me .
24
Q . And were you copied on the reports
25
that Robinson was preparing, insofar as he was
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
doing research on nicotine?
2
A .
3
of years he was there, he wasn't particularly
4
working on nicotine per se . The -- one of the
5
large projects he was working on was the Barclay
6
problem, which lasted for a year and a half .
7
Someplace in 1981 it was all finished ; they turned
8
over the information to the Federal Trade
9
Commission .
10
•
Yes . Well, his first work in -- first couple
Q . Did you review Dr . Robinson's work on
11
nicotine?
12
A . I can't remember whether he did very much
13
nicotine work while I was director of research .
14
Q.
Did
Dr . Robinson have to obtain your
15
approval before commencing any research projects,
16
when you were director of research?
17
A . Well, it was usually done through the
18
manager, from Dr . Reynolds .
19
•
805
Q . Have you written any papers,
20
memorandums, research reports that address the
21
contentions made by some people out there that
22
Reynolds and other tobacco companies manipulate or
23
control the level of nicotine?
24
MS . EASON : Object to the form .
25
THE WITNESS : Would you say that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
again, sir .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
3
Q . Are you aware there's allegations
4
floating out there that tobacco companies,
5
including Reynolds, manipulates and controls the
6
level of nicotine in its tobacco products?
7
A . I'm aware there -- that's been said .
Q . Have you ever written any papers,
8
9
documents, memorandum that address that issue?
10
A.
11
came up after I retired .
No . I think most of the manipulation thing
12
13
MS . KNISELY : May we go off the
record, please?
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
14
15
record at 11 :28 a .m . We're off the record .
16
17
(Recess taken from 11 :28 a .m . to 11 :44
a .m . )
18
19
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going back on the
record at 11 :44 a .m .
20
21
22
23
806
EXAMINATION
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
Dr . Rodgman, my name is Steve Sheller
and I'm one of the counsel for the plaintiffs, and ~
J
H
24
•
I ' m go i ng to ask you some additional questions .
~
4~-
m
25
Mr . Maistros will be back asking you questions N
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
when I'm done with my portion of the deposition .
2
And hopefully it won't be too long .
3
In terms of the compounds that are in
4
tobacco smoke, the Cambridge filter system, which
5
is used by the Federal Trade Commission to measure
6
particulate matter in tobacco, you're familiar
7
with that?
8
A . Yes, I am .
9
Q .
Okay . And that -- what does that
10
measure in terms of tobacco smoke? Just
11
particulate matter?
12
A . It -- the Cambridge filter pad was designed
13
that, when smoke impinges on it, it takes out
14
99 .9-something percent of the particulate matter
15
that strikes at the vapor phase gas components go
16
through .
17
Q . Now, you say, the vapor phase gas
18
components . Can you explain what the vapor phase
19
gas components are in generality? What -- what is
20
that, as distinguished from particulate?
21
A . Well --
22
0
807
Q . I-- I know we know, but this is for
23
the jury .
24
A . Okay . Cigarette smoke is, of course, an
25
aerosol . It's little liquid droplets, balls,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
808
1
little liquid balls, spheres, whatever you want to
2
call them, suspended in a vapor . And when you
3
pull smoke through the cigarette, it goes through
4
the cigarette, tobacco rod, and the filter . And
5
then, if you're collecting the smoke on a
6
Cambridge filter pad, like in the FTC procedure,
7
the particulate matter impinges on the Cambridge
8
filter pad and it stays there . The vapor phase
9
components continue on through and are expelled,
10
11
unless you're specifically studying those .
And if you look at the particulate
12
phase of cigarette smoke versus vapor phase, what
13
happens is, obviously, when you're smoking -- take
14
a puff on the cigarette, you're pulling air
15
through the lit end . So what goes through the
16
Cambridge filter pad, the vapor phase components
17
of course is : The nitrogen that was in the air,
18
it doesn't burn, or very little of it does ; the
19
unconsumed oxygen ; plus carbon monoxide, carbon
20
dioxide, helium that was in the air, acetaldehyde,
21
formaldehyde .
22
23
There are probably four or five
hundred components in the vapor phase that go
Ln
~
J
F-+
m
~
ON
N
24
i
25
~
through the -Q . That go through the filter?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A . Right . And, fortunately, every -- almost
2
everything in the vapor phase is known .
3
0
Now, if you look at the vapor phase
4
versus the particulate phase, in a normal
5
cigarette, with nine-tenths of a gram of tobacco
6
or so, the vapor phase -- well, the total smoke,
7
counting what impinges on the -- stays on the
8
Cambridge filter pad and what goes through it, is
9
roughly 500 milligrams . And if the particulate
10
matter is a 20-milligram -- well, say,
11
20-milligram TPM cigarette --
12
13
14
15
Q . Tar per -A . Four hundred -- 480 is gas phase, of which
probably -- nearly 400 milligrams is unused air .
Q .
Okay . So -- let -- let me understand .
16
The -- there's 500 milligrams --
17
A . Uh-huh .
18
809
Q . -- approximately, that goes through
19
the Cambridge filter .
20
A . Well, no . The total smoke generated from a
21
cigarette in ten puffs or eight puffs, whatever it
22
takes, would be about 500 milligrams . Twenty
23
milligrams of total particulate matter,
24
480 milligrams of vapor phase components, of which
25
about 400 is air .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
810
Q . So there's about 80 milligrams of
1
2
something in the vapor?
3
A . Yeah . Well, if you have a TPM of 20, you
4
could take a rough guess that your carbon monoxide
5
will be 20, plus or minus one milligram .
6
Q.
Okay . But let -- let me kind of get
7
these numbers straight . And I was not good in
8
chemistry . I want you to understand that .
9
A . Uh-huh . I'm just giving you approximations .
10
Q .
11
to go very --
12
A . Let's say, take a 20-milligram TPM cigarette .
13
14
15
16
17
18
No . No, I understand . So, I'm going
Q . That's a tar per milligram .
A .
No .
Q . What does TPM stand for?
A . Total particulate matter .
Q.
Matter . Total particulate matter .
A . Okay .
So 20 milligram total particulate
19
S2 •
20
matter .
21
A . Right . Okay .
22
And -- and then, if you're speaking
23
about the non-air components that go through the
24
filter pad, like acetaldehyde, and so on and so
25
forth, then the ones that are the most plentiful
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
811
)
1
are carbon monoxide ; which, as a rule of thumb, if
2
you know the TPM, the carbon monoxide will
3
probably -- that number, plus or minus one or two
4
milligrams, so you're looking 18 to 22 . The
5
carbon dioxide, as a rule of thumb, will be about
6
twice that, two and a half times that . And those
7
are the most plentiful components in the vapor
8
phase .
9
10
And of course you have acetaldehyde,
and so on and so forth . And then you --
11
Q .
Okay . Let me -- let me -- so the
12
vapor phase consists of -- let me get this
13
straight . You've got 500 --
14
A . Total smoke matter .
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q . Total smoke matter .
A .
Right .
Q . TSM I'm going to call that .
A . Okay .
Q . Then of that 520 -A . Say -- let's say 20 .
Q . Approximately 20 .
A . Twenty would be TPM .
Q . That's what gets onto the filter?
A . The Cambridge filter, right .
Q . Then there's 480 left .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
812
(
1
A .
2
3
Q .
A.
4
5
Right .
Approximately .
Ri g ht .
Q .
A.
And
of
that
air?
Roughly .
7
A.
8
whatever, krypton .
Nitrogen, and oxygen, and helium, and
Q . I thought that's Superman .
9
10
So 80, I'll
11
A.
12
is C02,
13
Q .
Right . So
15
A .
19
A.
20
about
21
write
40 equals C02
this
down .
--
Which is carbon -
-- dioxide .
Carbon monoxide would be the same as
the TPM,
20 .
Q .
A.
let me
Dioxide .
Q.
18
probably half of it
Two -Q .
A .
is stuff?
carbon dioxide .
Forty equals -- of 80,
16
say,
Right . And of that 80,
14
22
400 is
Q . Roughly four --
6
17
480,
Well,
Twenty .
you've got
And what's the other
20?
-- probably the next highest
Ln
23
F~
component in the vapor phase is acetaldehyde,
m
24
which is about one milligram . Then everything 4~*
rn
N
!
251
after that goes down, milligrams -
WAGA & SPINELLI
CO
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 813
Q . Is that where they talk about benzines
and all those other things that --
A . Yeah, they're way down there, in micrograms
and nanograms, and so on and so forth .
Q .
Okay . Now --
A . And in that 80, it -- rough -- roughly 80
that we said were non-air components, there are
about four or 500 compounds -- 400 compounds that
have been identified .
10
Now, if I wanted to make a cigarette
Q.
11
to reduce the tar per milligram at that 20 that's
12
collected on the Cambridge pad --
13
A . Right . Right .
14
15
Q . -- could I vaporize some of those
things and get them out of there?
16
17
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
18
19
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
question .
20
21
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form of
the question .
22
23
THE WITNESS : I don't quite
understand -- you mean --
~
~
-3
~
m
~
N
0
24
9
25
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, I want to turn it -- I want to
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
lower -- I want to have less gook . I want to get
2
it out of the gook stage and turn it into the air
3
stage, the vapor stage .
4
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
5
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
6
the question .
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
8
9
Q . How would I do that? Could I vaporize
it, could I do something to it to -- to do that?
10
A . Well the best way is to have the cigarette
11
burn differently .
12
814
Q.
Okay .
13
A . And you could do that by air diluting filter .
14
And if you -- there's a mathematical correlation
15
between percentage air dilution as imposed by
16
filter tip ventilation and the particulate matter .
17
Because, what you're doing is -- normally, with a
18
normal cigarette, you would pull 35 milliliters of
19
air into it, according to the FTC procedure . If
20
you air dilute it ten percent through the little
21
holes in the filter, then ten percent of the air,
22
which would be three and a half milliliters of
23
air, would come through the little holes ; and then
24
the remainder, 31 and a half milligrams, would
25
come through the cigarette . Which means that you
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
would form less material that would impinge on the
2
Cambridge filter pad .
Now, if you went to 20 percent,
3
4
then - -
5
Q . Well, would that material go into the
6
air? Where would it go?
7
A.
8
9
What?
Q . The less -- material that didn't get
on the Cambridge filter .
10
A . It's because -- no . It's because you didn't
11
generate it .
12
13
14
Q . You didn't -- it didn't get generated .
A . Right .
Q .
Okay . Now, is there any way to
15
generate it, but turn it into vapor?
16
A . Uh --
17
18
19
20
21
22
_
815
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
Generate what?
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . In the four -- the 500 -A . Well, you see, sir, the -- the --
23
Q . The 400 air stuff that you take
24
through the filter, that the filter doesn't
25
pick up, which includes the 80 --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A .
Right .
Q . -- 80 milligrams that we talked
2
3
about .
4
A . No, what would -- you would have to do
5
6
MR . MoDERMOTT : Let me just --
I object -
7
8
MR . SHELLER : Please let me ask a
question .
9
•
MR . McDERMOTT : Yes -- I object to the
10
form of the question . It is vapor already . So
11
your question is : How do you turn the vapor into
12
vapor?
13
14
MR . SHELLER : No . No, we're talking
about the 20 part TPM .
15
THE WITNESS : Okay . Okay .
16
MR . MCDERMOTT : Well, then, will
17
18
you -BY MR . SHELLER :
19
Q . I'm -- I'm -- I'm designing a
20
cigarette that I want'to know -- you're -- you're
21
a cigarette engineer, right? Design --
22
A .
23
24
25
816
No . I'm an organic chemist .
Q . An organic chemist . All right .
So you -- well, I'm asking you, as an
organic chemist -- and I did take organic
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
chemistry ; that was one of the few chemistry
2
courses I took . But if I wanted a --
3
A . You've got to -- let -- let me back up, if
4
you want to learn about what's on the Cambridge
5
filter pad .
6
What's on the Cambridge filter pad are
7
things that are relatively non-volatile when they
8
hit that Cambridge filter pad .
9
Q . All right .
10
A . Now, things like acetaldehyde, formaldehyde,
11
air, components, nitrog -- they are gaseous or
12
vaporous ; they go through .
13
Now, because the particles, these
14
little balls, are whizzing down the cigarette,
15
they hit the Cambridge filter pad, and the
16
Cambridge filter pad is designed to stop
17
everything above a certain size . Well, above a
18
certain size is almost everything that is-not
19
little molecules like the air . So they hit the
20
Cambridge filter pad and are impinged there .
21
22
23
24
817
Now, what's in that 20 milligrams is
all the things that are non-volatile at the ~
_j
temperature that they impinge, which usually is 30 m
~
or 40 degrees, a little above room temperature -- W
w
251 all right . I mean, let's get to the point .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
818
Benzpyrene does not vaporize at room
1
2
temperature or 40 degrees . You -- to vaporize
3
benzpyrene, you got to get it to 350 degrees
4
centigrade . So, theirs stick there now . You
5
cannot -- there's no way you can vaporize
6
benzpyrene, for example, or -- to get it to go
7
through as a vapor at 30, 40 degrees . So it's
8
going to impinge .
What you do, you control the design
9
of
10
the cigarette so what comes through and hits that
11
pad is less . And you can do that by what you put
12
it -- how you design your filter tip, how you
13
design the -- use expanded tobacco or
14
reconstituted sheet . And -- and, of course, if
15
you look at the FTC -- well not FTC, the
16
sales-weighted average for tar, from 1955 to the
17
present time, it's been dropping .
Q . Well, I understand that . But what I'm
18
19
trying to understand is -- let's -- let's talk
20
about benzpyrene, for example . Is that in the
21
TPM?
22
A . Uh-huh .
Q . That -- that never gets vaporized .
23
24
25
A .
No .
Q . The cigarette doesn't burn at a high
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
81 9
1
enough -
2
A . And by the way, I'm sure you may b e
3
heading for -- because you cannot find nicotine in
4
the vapor phase of a cigarette ; it's on the pad .
5
6
7
Q . Right .
A . So, therefore, it's not --
Q-
Your view -- now, benzpyrene -- wha t
8
deg -- can only vaporize at how many degree s
9
temperature?
10
A . What --
11
Q . 350 degrees ?
12
A . Yeah . You have to get it above its melting
13
point . And it melts --
14
Q . Right . And cigarettes never burn at
15
350 degrees ?
16
A . Well, yeah, the burning temperature of a
17
cigarette, out of the fire cone, is 850 degrees
18
centigrade .
19
Q . 850 . Well, wouldn't some of that
20
benzpyrene then be vaporized ?
21
A . Well, it's not formed at the 850 degree
22
temperature . It's formed back in the cigarette,
23
where the temperature is lower . And the thing is,
24
the benzpyrene, because of its nature, gets into
25
the particle .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
820
1
Q . Well -- well I understand that . But
2
suppose, now -- I'm being very simple here . I'm
3
at the end of my cigarette butt and it's -- the
4
burn is down at the bottom near the filter . Are
5
you -- you telling me that none of that benzpyrene
6
is vaporized?
7
A . It's probably vaporized during the
8
formation -- during its formation . Benzpyrene
9
isn't in tobacco .
Q . I know, during the formation . And
10
11
you're saying none of that benzpyrene is going to
12
get through that filter, according to you?
13
A .
14
15
No .
Q .
Okay .
And you're saying, you don't know
16
any way to vaporize that tar per milligram, that
17
20 that the pad gets, that -- now, I
18
a cigarette that I want -- what -- what's in that
19
tar per milligram? You got benzpyrene --
want to make
20
MS . EASON : Objection .
21
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . Total
Ln
22
23
24
25
particulate matter .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Total particulate matter .
A . Total particulate matter --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Q .
1
2
I'm
821
sorry . I used TPM before .
A . -- there are 4400 known components -Q . What are the major ones? Nicotine?
4
A . Nicotine, water .
Q . Which -- is nicotine, the ma -- that's
5
6
the most --
7
A .
Water . Water .
Q . Water is the main thing? So --
8
9
A . Nicotine .
Q . Then after that? What's the next big
10
11
ones?
12
A . The saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons ; which
13
is a series of about 80 compounds, but they act as
14
if they were one .
15
Q .
I
see .
16
A . And they probably represent a fair -- let me
17
correct one thing .
Well, the third one I would put down
18
19
would be the humectants, glycerin and propylene
20
glycol .
21
Q.
Okay . Now, let me ask you something .
22
The water -- how much of the 20 TPM is water?
23
A . About eight percent .
24
25
Q . And how much is nicotine?
A . Six or seven, depending on the cigarette .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q .
I
see . And how much is whatever that
2
word was?
3
A . Humectants?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
822
Q . No, the one be -- poly -A . Oh, the saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons?
Q .
Yes .
A . Probably three or four percent .
Q . And then humectants?
A . And, see, that will be dependent on the
tobacco, because those are in tobacco .
Q.
Uh-huh . What are humectants?
12
A . The glycerin and propylene glycol are used to
13
help the cigarette retain its moisture
14
transport from manufacture to the consumer, and
15
across the country, and so on .
16
during its
Q . What's the usual amount, approximate?
17
A . In smoke? Probably a couple of a percent .
18
Two percent .
19
20
Q . All right .
Now, is there any way, that you know
21
of, that nicotine can get vaporized so it doesn't
22
get counted on that pad?
23
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
24
the question .
25
BY MR . SHELLER :
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
Vol . 5, Pg .
Q .
2
TPM .
A . No, I do not know .
Q . Do you know whether ammonia vaporizes?
3
4
As
823
A . Ammonia is in the gas phase of smoke .
Q.
5
Right . But does ammonia free the
6
nicotine from the salt? The TPM?
7
A . As far as I know, no .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to form .
8
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . What is that calculated amount of
10
11
nicotine you were talking about in the prior
12
deposition in Ju -- I think it was in July or
13
June? What is that? Is that an amount that
14
people calculate as in the vapor?
15
A.
16
calculation . It's based on the pH of the smoke .
17
And I say, as far as I know, nobody has ever found
18
free nicotine that went through that filter --
19
Cambridge filter pad .
20
No . They -- as I say, it's a funny
Q . But they -- but they calculate that --
21
that there is some amount going through there,
22
right, because of the ammonia ; isn't that true?
23
24
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : No . They calculate
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
824
)
•
1
that -- in the smoke that you take in there may be
2
free nicotine, according to that calculation .
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
4
Right . That's not on -- that doesn't
5
get picked up on the pad, right?
6
A . Well, it gets picked up on the pad 'cause
7
none goes through, sir .
Q.
8
9
10
--
A . You don't smoke a cigarette through a
Cambridge filter pad .
Q . I understand .
11
12
Well
A . Personally .
13
Q . Are you saying that the Cambridge
14
filter pad picks up all the nicotine that's in the
15
smoke?
16
A .
17
Yes .
Q.
Okay . And you're positive of that?
18
A . I have never seen a report where somebody has
19
reported nicotine, per se, in the vapor phase of
20
the mainstream smoke .
21
Q . But people believe that nicotine is in
22
the vapor phase because of ammonia, don't they?
23
Many scientists .
24
A . No, they don't .
25
Q . They don't . Where do they believe it
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
Vol . 5, Pg .
825
1
is? They believe it's not in the vapor phase?
2
A . No, they don't believe it -- I think you're
3
missing the point about this calculation with free
4
nicotine and nicotine in the vapor phase .
5
Q.
Uh-huh . Right .
6
A . If nicotine is free and in the vapor phase,
7
it will go through the Cambridge filter pad .
8
9
10
11
Q.
Right .
A . But none does, so it can't be in the -- can't
be f ree .
Q . So you're saying, if nicotine is free,
12
it will be in the --
13
A . Vapor phase .
14
Q . -- vapor phase and not counted in the
15
filter . But you're saying, to your knowledge,
16
none is in that vapor phase, right?
17
A . Right .
18
Q . So you don't agree with those who
19
believe that a substantial amount of nicotine is
20
in the vapor phase . You disagree with that view .
21
A . I keep telling you, sir, that nobody has been
22
able to measure it .
23
Q . I understand that . But that's --
24
because no one has measured it, you're saying it's
25
not there . Right?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
0
21
the
A . It's not in the vapor phase that goes through
filter
pad .
Q . Now, has Reynolds ever tried to
3
4
measure it?
5
A . Yes .
6
7
Q .
10
Q . When you were there?
A . Yeah . When I was there . I wasn't involved
in it .
Q .
11
12
When?
A . Oh, I forget when .
8
9
Who
was?
A . Somebody in analytical .
Q . Who was that?
13
14
A . Probably somebody like Patrick Cooper,
15
who
.
Q . And did you ever see a report from
16
17
Patrick Cooper, saying : I tried to measure the
18
,
nicotine and -- to see if it's in the vapor phase,
19
and I tried and tried and tried and couldn't do
20
it?
21
A.
22
other people that have done it and have tried it
23
and tried it .
24
25
826
No . There are reports in the literature by
Q . Now, you do use ammonia to free the
nicotine from the tobacco stems . You did that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
back in the '60s . Remember, you said that? How
2
does that work?
3
A . I didn't say I used ammonia to --
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
4
5
the question .
6
7
8
THE WITNESS : -- free tobacco from the
stems .
BY MR . SHELLER :
9
10
Q .
Not tobacco, nicotine .
A . Nicotine from the stems .
11
Q.
Well, remember, you were talking about
12
selling the nicotine
13
A . I didn't say I used ammon -- they used
14
ammonia . They didn't use ammonia .
Q . They didn't . What did they use?
15
16
827
A . Sodium hydroxide .
17
Q . Sodium hydroxide . Well, I thought you
18
said somewheres that they used ammonia, before, to
19
free -- to get nicotine out .
20
A . That was the denicotinization process .
21
Q.
Okay . And how did ammonia take out
22
the nicotine in the denicotinization process?
23
A . Well, ammonia is more basic than nicotine,
24
and nicotine is present in tobacco as a salt . And
25
it --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 828
Q .
But
--
A . -- frees the nicotine, which temperature
drives off, and it's burned or collected or
whatever .
Q . It frees the nicotine into a
collectible air which is then -- what -- how does
it get back into a fluid or a salt?
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Once it's freed by the ammonia .
10
•
11
A . Well, in that case, it's -- there's enough
12
ammonia there to keep it going, to keep it as free
13
nicotine .
14
Q .
I
see .
15
A . There's nothing else there, like the smoke
16
particles, to get the nicotine -Q . What does it look like? Have you
17
18
seen it?
19
A .
A . Nicotine -- yeah, I've seen free nicotine .
Q . What does it look like?
22
23
24
25
What?
Q . The free nicotine in --
20
21
ever
A .
Water .
Q .
Water . Is it wet?
A . I wouldn't advise putting your finger in it .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 829
Okay .
Now, if that -- and you've never done
any -- to your knowledge, no one's ever tried to
heat that water to see if it vaporizes?
A . Heat what water?
MR . MCDERMOTT : Excuse me . What
water?
8
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . The nicotine water, that looks like
10
water .
11
A . Nicotine vaporizes .
12
13
Q .
Hmmm?
A . Nicotine will vap -- you can boil nicotine Q . It will vapor --
14
15
A . -- and it boils like water, and it gives off
16
an equivalent of steam .
Q .
17
Right . So you don't know whether
to see if
18
Reynolds has ever tested the product
19
in the cigarettes the vapor that -- the nicotine
20
that's freed is vaporized?
MR . MaDERMOTT : Object to the form .
21
22
BY MR . SHELLER :
23
24
Q . And gets through that Cambridge
filter?
251
WAGA
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection, asked and
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
answered .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You don't know .
To your knowledge, that's been tried
4
5
and they never found anything?
6
A . As I have said repeatedly, sir, no one has
7
found, either at Reynolds or elsewhere, free
8
nicotine passing through that Cambridge filter
9
pads from the mainstream smoke of the cigarette .
10
Q.
Okay . Now, we talked about ammonia,
11
in terms of vapor -- can vaporize things,
12
nicotine, right? You agree it can vaporize it -MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
830
BY MR . SHELLERt
Q . -- if it's boiled?
A . You're wandering around . I can't follow you .
Q.
Okay . Well, let me try another
question .
Is there anything else in the tar that
is freed by any additives -MR . BLANCATO : Objection -BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . -- similar to, for example, the way
nicotine is freed?
Ln
~
~
~
m
~
m
~
m
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 831
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the
question .
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
The TPM -- the total particulate
Q•
matter? I'm sorry about the tar .
A . Well, as far as I know -- you're talking
about freeing nicotine in the TPM . As far as I
know, there's no free nicotine been found in TPM .
Q . Well, how about in the cigarette? Is
10
there any -- it frees it from the salt?
11
A . As far as I know, there's no free nicotine in
12
tobacco .
13
Q .
I
see . So the ammonia does nothing to
14
the nicotine . It doesn't free it in the tobacco
15
in the cigarette, but it will free it in the
16
tobacco that you're going to sell for bug killer .
17
A . Pardon?
MS . EASON : Objection .
18
19
20
21
BY MR . SHELLER :
~
~
Q . It will free it in the tobacco that
you're going to sell for bug killer?
J
N
m
~
m
~
J
22
MR . BLANCATO : Object to form .
23
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to form .
24
THE WITNESS : As I said, we didn't use
25
ammonia to make the -- free the nicotine for sale .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
832
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, what did you do with the free
nicotine that you freed with the ammonia?
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
THE WITNESS : We burned it .
5
MR . MCDERMOTT : Ditto .
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You burned it?
9
10
11
12
Yeah .
Q . Why did you burn it?
A . What would we use it for?
Q . Bug killer .
13
A . Well, you got to remember, in one case you
14
had a controlled or contained system . It looked
15
like a large liquor still, where you cook the
16
stems with the alkali and the nicotine distilled
17
over, and you caught it in suitable vessels . But
18
this is being done in a huge belt . Nic -- tobacco
19
is going along a belt . And you're dealing with
20
great volumes of air and ammonia and nicotine .
21
it's either collected and disposed of, or actually
22
burnt at an outlet .
23
24
25
Ln
N
Q . And has that always been the case, ~
S)
they
were
burning
~
~
A . I don't -- I don't know whether they still do0D
WAGA & SPINELLI
it,
at
Reynolds?
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 833
it or not . There are probably rules against it
now .
Okay . When did -- when you'were
there, up to, what, 1987, did they always burn all
that nicotine?
A . Sir, I saw it done once on an orientation
tour, back in the early '60s, and that's the only
time I ever saw them do it .
Q . So you really don't know what happens
10
to that free nicotine --
11
12
13
14
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . -- after that . You have no personal
15
knowledge of what happened .
16
A . I have no personal knowledge what they did
17
after that one time I saw it ; I didn't know what
18
happened before that .
19
20
Q . Is there anything else that -- in the
21
processes you're familiar with, in the chemistry c„
N
~
that goes into cigarettes, that frees anything
~
m
22
else besides the nicotine from tobacco?
0.
m
10.
ko
23
A . Well -MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
24
251 the question .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 834
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
THE WITNESS : I think you may be
confused about something . You sound as if we
ammoniated every pound of tobacco we bought .
5
BY MR . SHELLER :
I didn't say that .
Q .
A . We only ammoniated the tobaccos -- we removed
the nicotine from tobaccos when the nicotine was
very high . Which, in some years, if the normal
10
crop or the crop that was going to be used were in
11
the range that we normally used, there was no
12
denicotinization . It was only those crops that
13
arose out of a situation where it was very hot,
14
very dry, and you ended up with a tobacco that was
15
six percent nicotine and you didn't want that .
16
Q.
Right . There were two times ammonia
17
was used ; I think you already pointed that out .
18
One with -- is that G7A --
19
A . Right .
20
Q . -- product, which is actually put into
21
the cigarette, and then the other is the
22
denicotinization process you talked about .
23
A . Right .
24
Q . No, I understand that .
I'm talking about, is there anything
25
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
else, similar to ammonia, or does ammonia also
2
free any other salt-type thing like nicotine or
3
any other product in this tobacco?
MR . MoDERMOTT : Object to the form of
4
5
the question .
6
BY MR . SHELLER :
7
Q . To your knowledge .
8
A . You know, the -- tobacco contains several
9
compounds similar to nicotine, and there --
10
11
12
13
14
15
Q .
What
are
they?
A . Nornicotine .
Q . Does it free that?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : Well, I think you're
16
trying to trap me into this "free" business . it
17
will, if you're denicotinizing tobacco with
18
ammonia to reduce the nicotine, it will also
19
reduce the nornicotine, in the same way .
20
835
BY MR . SHELLER :
21
Q . Well, I want to know : I've got that
22
~
tar . And I'm trying to get out of the tar, free ~~
23
24
stuff from it, for whatever purpose .
Is
there
~
~
m
~
anything else that you know of, in the chemistry ~
251 that's used in Reynolds' products, that frees
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
anything other than the nicotine and the
2
nornicotine?
3
4
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question .
5
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
6
MS . EASON : Objection to the form .
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
8
Q . From that tar .
9
I don't follow the question, sir .
10
Q . Well, let me -- what's . -- give me --
11
in the tar itself, what -- the main thing in the
12
tar, you said, is water, 80 percent . Let's take
13
the saturated, what do you call them, alo --
14
A . Aliphatic hydrocarbons?
Q .
15
Yeah . Is there anything that can free
16
them?
17
A . They are free .
Q . They are free?
18
19
836
A . They are free .
Q .
20
I
see . So they're in the partic -- is
21
there anything that vaporizes them?
22
A . That's --
Ln
Q . Hmmm? Is there anything that can
23
24
vaporize them?
25
A .
~
~
N
Yeah .
WAGA & SPINELLI
~
~
~
m
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 837
Q.
What?
A . That's how they get in the smoke .
Q.
I
see . Are all of them picked up by
the filter?
A . Yes -- well, I shouldn't say "all" of them .
There are saturated aliphatic -- aliphatic
hydrocarbons that are very low molecular weight,
like methane or ethane, and they go through in the
vapor phase . It's only when you get up to about
10
eight or ten carbons that they stick on the
11
filter . And it's a matter of molecular weight and
12
size .
13
Q . Well, if I wanted to design a
14
cigarette to reduce the amount of particulate
15
matter that gets on that filter and yet get the
16
smoker to take it in -- the smoke, get
17
that 480 milligrams of stuff that goes in the
18
smoke -- is that it, milligrams?
19
A . Uh-huh .
20
Q.
21
How could I do it?
A . I don't understand -MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
22
23
it into
the question .
THE WITNESS : I don't understand what
24
251 you mean .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 838
1
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . I want to get around that filter .
Get what around the filter?
Q . I don't want the Cambridge filter
counting everything that I got in my cigarette .
How would I do it? You don't know how to do that?
MS . EASON : Objection to the form .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : I -- I still don't get
10
11
12
13
14
what you mean .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, let me make it a little simpler
for you .
If I turned ammonia into my cigarettes
15
16
and I had -- 6 to 7 percent of it was particulate
17
matter, but I was able to vaporize it, still get
18
it in -- in the body of a human being, and reduce
19
that 6 to 7 percent to 2 percent, wouldn't that
20
fool the .Cambridge filter? I'm being very clear
21
with you, not hiding anything, throwing it right
22
to you . Wouldn't it fool the Cambridge filter?
23
MS . EASON : Objection .
24
THE WITNESS : Which 6 or 7 percent are
25
you talking about, sir?
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
839
BY MR . SHELLER :
2
You told me a few minutes ago that 6
S2 •
3
to 7 percent of the total particulate matter
4
picked up on the filter, the Cambridge filter, is
5
nicotine .
6
Right .
7
Q
You said 3 to 4 percent is this other
8
thing I can never pronounce, and you said
9
8 percent is water . And then -- and isn't it true
10
that, if I'm able to vaporize a good portion of
11
that nicotine into -- it's not going to get on
12
that filter, right?
13
A .
Right . But I say --
Q . Well, you're saying that you never
14
15
counted it .
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . Objection
16
17
let him answer .
THE WITNESS : No . I said that nobody
18
19
20
has been able to measure it .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
21
I
see . Is there anything else that
22
can vaporize things that nobody's been able to
23
measure that was in that tar -- that particulate
24
matter?
251
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 840
the question .
THE WITNESS : Nornicotine .
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
Nornicotine . How about anything else?
Q .
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : I can't think of
anything .
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
10
Q . You're a chemist, now . You mean you
11
can't tell me anything that you could do to that
12
particulate matter that could vaporize -A . I've told you -- I've told you how you
14
15
16
control the particulate matter . It doesn't -Q . I understand what you told me . But
now -MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
17
18
19
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . -- I want to design a cigarette that's
20
going to trick that filter .
21
A . Well, if you can design it, we'll be glad to
22
hear from you .
23
24
Q . I know you would . That's been
Reynolds' business, hasn't it?
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
25
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
841
the question .
2
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
MR . SHELLER : Does he have the
4
materials now that I asked to be copied?
5
MR . HOLTON : We have the first batch .
6
THE WITNESS : I think it's time for
7
lunch, isn't it?
8
9
MR . SHELLER : What time is it? Do you
want to take a break?
10
MS . EASON : It's after 12 :00 .
11
THE WITNESS : 12 :21 .
12
MR . SHELLER : Do you want to take a
13
break?
14
MR . BLANCATO : Sure .
15
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
16
record at 12 :19 p .m .
17
18
MR . McDERMOTT : I'd like to respond to
Mr . Sheller .
19
20
VIDEOGRAPHER : Do you want to stay on
the record?
21
22
23
24
•
25
MR . SHELLER : I don't want to let him
respond .
MR . McDERMOTT : Or we can do it when
we get back from lunch, either way .
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
1
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
video record at 12 :19 p .m .
2
3
MR . SHELLER : Do it now . Get it done
with .
4
5
6
842
VIDEOGRAPHER : Do you want this on the
record?
MR . McDERMOTT : Yeah, I did want to
respond on the record . I just didn't want -8
9
10
11
12
•
13
be on the -- does it have to be on the video?
MR . McDERMOTT : No, it doesn't have to
be on the video record, like we do it here .
VIDEOGRAPHER : So we're going off the
video record at 12 :19 p .m .
14
MR . McDERMOTT : And you can leave,
15
Alan . I wanted to respond very briefly to two
16
charges which were leveled at the beginning of the
17
deposition today . See if I can get my notes here
18
to make sure I copied them down .
19
Oh, first, that I was coaching
20
Mr . Blancato . I believe that was a reference to
21
my touching Mr . Blancato's arm at a point where
22
Ln
~
~
~
m
Reynolds' attorney/client privilege, and I was
~
m
anticipating questions dealing with Mr . Rodgman's Ln
CO
23
24
•
MR . SHELLER : Well, it doesn't have to
25
there were questions that first dealt with
personal attorney/client privilege .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 843
I view it as the obligation of every
lawyer to protect and preserve attorney/client
privilege . And to do otherwise is to bring the
profession into disrepute, which, I regret to say,
it, more and more, seems to deserve, in the
public's eye . I do not regard that as
interfering .
Which brings me to the second charge
that was hurled, and that is that I was somehow
10
interfering with the conduct of the deposition .
11
I invite Mr . Sheller to review the
12
transcript at his leisure and come up with any
13
instances in which I was interfering with this
14
deposition . As to the proposition that I was
15
interfering with the progress of the case in some
16
fashion by indicating my preference to
17
Mr . Blancato with respect to review by another law
18
clerk, we are parties to the proceeding, and
19
Mr . Blancato is not .
20
21
That protective order or case
Ln
~
management order was negotiated between the ~
m
22
parties . I regard what t h e p l a i n tiff' s
23
attempted to do there as a breach of the order .
24
We will abide by the -- I won't call it "ruling,"
25
but the "suggestion" of the law clerk . But I do
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
'~
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 844
not regard what I have been engaged in here as
anything like interference . I regard the
statements on the record, with the witness
present, as specious, frivolous interference and a
waste of time . I hope we can avoid this in the
future . I don't think it's necessary, the conduct
of this deposition, or to the practice of law in
general .
MR . SHELLER : I will not comment
10
11
further .
(Lunch recess taken from 12 :21 P .M . TO 1 :24 P .M .)
VIDEOGRAPHER : We are going back on
12
13
14
the record at 1 :24 p .m .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, where we left off before, I
15
16
was asking you a couple of questions about ammonia
17
and particle size and that sort of thing .
What's the smallest particle that the
18
19
Cambridge filter system will pick up? If you
20
know .
21
A . I don't know . It's -- it's very small . I
22
know where to find the answer ; it's in an article
23
by Bradley Ingredthsen from R .J . Reynolds -COURT REPORTER : I'm sorry, Doctor . I
24
25
didn't hear you .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
845
THE WITNESS : Bradley Ingredthsen,
I-N-G-R-E-D-T-H-S-E-N, from R .J . Reynolds .
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . When was that written -- or published?
I'm sorry .
A . Oh, about eight or ten years ago .
Q . So somebody at Reynolds, Bradley -A . Ingredthsen .
Q . -- actually measured or knows how
10
to --
11
A . Yes . He got a very prestigious prize for his
12
work on the aerosol nature of cigarette smoke .
13
Q . Where is that published?
14
A . Recent Advances In Tobacco Science, and I've
15
forgotten the-year . I don't know whether it's in
16
here or not .
17
Q . Now, Reynolds, when they ammoniate
18
tobacco, there's a couple of processes, one is
19
process gaseous and the other -- another is
20
aqueous? You've heard about that?
21
A . Well, there was some experimental work done
22
on various ways to ammoniate tobacco .
23
Q . And which Reynolds -- which process --
24
does Reynolds --
25
A . I have no idea .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
846
Q . You say you have no idea? I see .
You've never said in a memorandum that
3
they ammoniate their process using a specific
4
process, in a 1994 or subsequent memo? Did you --
5
or am I mistaken?
6
A . I'm not sure whether I did or not . I -- I
don't know what they're using now, if anything .
8
9
MR . MCDERMOTT : Is your question
directed to today or at any point in time?
10
MR . SHELLER : At any point in time .
11
BY MR . SHELLER :
12
Q
In 1994, did you believe they were
13
using an aqueous process?
14
A . I don't know what they were using . I know -
15
I say they -- they had been experimenting, when I
16
was there, with various ammonia salts, ammonia
17
gas, ammonia solutions, and so on . But
18
19
20
.
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
I
see .
All right, Doctor, at this point I'm
21
going to refer you to a document that was produced
22
by you a few weeks ago called "FTC Smoking Method
23
Used For 'Tar' And Nicotine Data," dated
24
August 30th, 1994 .
25
MR . SHELLER : And we're going to call
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
this -- what exhibit are we up to? Exhibit 2?
2
COURT REPORTER : Yes, it is .
3
MR . SHELLER : For today .
4
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2 was
5
6
7
marked for identification )
BY MR . SHELLER :
t2•
And, Doctor, what was this documen t
8
authored by you for ?
9
A . Well, there was some questions about the FTC
10
procedure had come up, about what did the FTC tar
11
number mean and so on . And there were criticisms
12
of the FTC tar number, that it wasn' t
13
representative -- representative of what many
14
smokers would take in, because all smokers smoke
15
differently and the machine smokes rigidly .
And I got intrigued by this because I
1 6
•
84 7
17
was involved, back in the '60s, in this stuff .
1 8
And some of the criticisms that kept appearing in
19
the newspaper and then some of the Time magazine
20
and all this stuff about the validity and whatnot
21
of -- or what the meaning was in terms of the
22
smoker . And I thought, well, these people are
23
complaining about things that we told the FTC in
24
1964, 1965, and they just said we don't want to
25
listen to .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
848
I
1
2
3
Q . Who did you prepare this document for?
A . For myself .
Q . So this has never been distributed or
disseminated anywhere?
5
A . Well, one of the gentlemen at R &
6
out, is a good friend of mine . And I heard he was
7
going to participate in a -- some meeting on the
8
FTC thing . And I said to him : Do you want to
9
look at this? And he did . And I gave him a copy .
10
11
12
Q .
Was
that
D,
I found
Dr . Townsend?
A . That's Dr . Townsend .
Q . Did you give him this to use for his
13
preparation as an expert witness in the Connors
14
case in Jacksonville, Florida?
15
A . I didn't know he was ever involved -- well, I
16
do know that he was involved in Florida ; I
17
wouldn't know it was the Connors case .
18
No . This was actually because there
19
was a meeting in -- outside Washington,
20
Gaithersburg or someplace .
21
22
Q . Who was participating in this meeting?
Did he tell you?
23
A . Well, it was a -- an NCI or FTC meeting .
24
was open to the public . I don't know who went .
25
wasn't there .
WAGA & SPINELLI
it
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~
~
m
Vol . 5, Pg . 849
Q .
Was he going to testify?
A . He was
supposed to give some presentation at
it . Whether he did or not, I'm not sure .
Q . So he may or may not have used this
paper for his presentation?
A . I don't know whether he gave a presentation .
I just finished telling you that, sir .
Q.
I see .
Did anybody at Reynolds pay you for --
10
A .
`
13
this?
Q.
11
12
For
--
for the time you
spent doing this
paper?
A .
No .
Q.
14
So this was not part of your hourly --
15
A.
16
that, 30 years after all of this stuff came out
17
and we had told them, item after item after item,
18
all of these things became : Gee, we've never
19
heard of this before . And the FTC knew all about
20
it, back in 1964, '65 .
21
No .
Q.
I say, I was just intrigued by the fact
I
22
Ln
N
~
~
m
see .
Now, Doctor,
in your
-- on the first
23
page of the document,
on page 1 .
24
numeral page, it's --
I'm referring you to . You
25
say the "Statement of
Purpose ." And it starts out
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
Not the roman
(201)
992-4111
~
m
orn
Ln
Vol . 5, Pg . 850
roman numeral one, "Intended Use of Smoking Method
Results, A Statement of Purpose" . And then you
say : (Reading)
The results from the FTC
analysis of the "tar" and
nicotine yields in the
mainstream smoke from
cigarettes marketed in the
U .S . was intended to
accomplish the following :
10
To permit the catalog --
11
12
cataloging of sequential
13
listing of the cigarettes for
14
their MS, mainstream, yields
15
of these two smoke entities
16
[and in parentheses there's
17
some dates] generated under
18
standard and reproducible
19
conditions . Subsequently a
20
third MS entity, CO, was
21
added to the FTC listing
22
(FTC, 1981) .
And then the second purpose, you say,
23
24
was : (Reading)
251
To
WAGA
permit
&
the
SPINELLI
consumer
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 851
who wished to continue
smoking to select a cigarette
whose MS 11 tar --
Is that what that stands for?
A . No, it was my lousy typing . It's supposed to
be a quote -- quote mark .
Q .
I
see . (Reading)
MS tar --
A . If you use a typewriter, the quote mark is
10
right next to the "1" .
Q.
11
I
see . (Reading)
-- and/or nicotine yield
12
13
was compatible with his/her
14
concerns about the effects of
15
cigarette smoking on his/her
16
health .
17
It was never anticipated
18
by the FTC or by the
19
cigarette manufacturers that
20
the FTC lists could serve as
21
a means to catalog or rate
22
cigarette smokers .
23
24
"Smokers"?
A . "Smokers," right .
251
Q . So those were the two basic purposes,
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
right?
2
A . Well --
3
Q
4
And
--
A . That's what the FTC said .
5
Q .
Right . Where did the FTC say that
6
were the two purposes? Is that in -- you quote
7
from a notification from the FTC that appears on
8
page 9 . Is that where you believe that
9
information is reproduced? Referring to the
10
March 25th, 1966 --
11
A . Yeah . That's it . Mr . O'Shea's letter?
12
13
(Discussion off the record)
BY MR . SHELLER :
14
Doctor, your -- your testimony, and
15
Dr . Townsend's, I believe, at the Connors case,
16
was that the FTC, in 1966, required the cigarette
17
manufacturers to list the FTC Cambridge filter
18
figures for tar and nicotine ; is that correct? Is
19
that your understanding?
20
A.
21
analysis was to be done according to the way they
22
said it should be done . I don't know whether the
23
cigarette -- as a matter of fact, I think the FTC
24
does the listing, doesn't it?
25
852
No . I think the FTC rule was that the
Q . Well, so -- is the -- did the FTC,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 853
Federal Trade Commission, require the cigarette
manufacturers, in 1966, to anywheres list the tar
and nicotine levels according to the Cambridge
filter system on anything?
A . I think it -MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . No
foundation .
THE WITNESS : I think it ended up on
some packs .
10
BY MR . SHELLER :
11
Did the FTC require that it appear on
Q•
12
the packs of cigarettes?
13
A . I don't know what the FTC required or didn't
14
require, sir . All I know is that the analytical
15
method was to be thus and so . No argument .
16
17
Q . Did they require that?
A .
What?
18
19
20
MR . McDERMOTT : What?
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . That it had to be by that analytical
21
method .
22
A . That's what the letter says, doesn't it?
23
Q .
I
And is there anywheres in the letter
24
25
see . I see .
where they -- well, in looking at your page 9 .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 854
And let's read what you say on page 9 .
(Reading)
The Cigarette
Advertising Guides
promulgated by the
Commission -MR . McDERMOTT : Excuse me . Let me
raise a point of order . There looks like may be
an elliptical period . I don't know whether that
indicates some matter has been omitted or not .
10
Maybe, before you read this in and represent it
11
be the entire letter, we can clarify that .
12
MR . SHELLER : What, the three dots?
13
MR . McDERMOTT : Yeah .
14
MS . KNISELY : Actually, the three
15
dots -- the elliptical is in the actual letter
16
itself .
17
18
19
to
MR . McDERMOTT : Okay . Thank you .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
Okay . (Reading)
20
The Cigarette
21
Advertising Guides
22
promulgated by the Commission
23
in September 1955 provided
24
that no representation should
25
be made that [in quotes] "any
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol .
g.
855
brand of cigarette or the
smoke therefrom is low in
nicotine or tars
. . . when .it
has not been established by
competent scientific proof
applicable at the time of
dissemination that the claim
is true, and if true, that
such a difference or
•
10
differences are significant ."
11
On the basis of the facts now
12
available to it, the
13
Commission has determined
14
that a factual statement of
15
the tar and nicotine content
16
(expressed in milligrams) of
17
the mainstream smoke from a
18
cigarette would not be in
19
violation of such Guides, or
20
of any of the provisions of
21
law administered by the
22
Commission, so long as they
23
-- in -- (1) [according to
24
your page nine] no collateral
25
representations (other than
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
factual statements of tar and
2
nicotine contents of
3
cigarettes offered for sale
4
to the public) are made, and
5
(2) the statement of tar and
6
nicotine content is supported
7
by adequate records of tests
8
conducted with the Cambridge
9
Filter Method, as described
10
in an article entitled
11
"Determination of Particulate
12
Matter and Alkaloids (as
13
nicotine) in Cigarette
14
Smoke," by C .L . Ogg, which
15
appeared in the Journal of
16
the Association of Official
17
Agricultural Chemists, 47,
18
No . 2, 1964 . It is the
19
Commission's position that it
20
is in the public interest to
21
promote the dissemination of
22
truthful information
23
concerning cigarettes which
24
may be material and desired
25
by the consuming public .
WAGA & SPINELLI
856
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 857
Did that letter require -- is that
what you base your view, that this letter, issued
by the FTC in 1966, was the commission directing
the tobacco industry that the only way they could
list tar and nicotine levels was by the Cambridge
method?
A . Yes, that's right . That's the way it was . I
mean, this is an edict from the FTC .
Q .
I
see .
10
A . And you kept saying "you have written" . I
11
haven't done -- I didn't write that --
12
Q . No, no, I'm reading it .
Now, this letter doesn't require you
13
14
to list anything on your packs does it?
15
16
17
18
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . Dr . Rodgman .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
Dr . -- Reynolds, does it? It doesn't
19
require Reynolds to list anything, does it? Read
20
it, please .
21
22
MR . BLANCATO : Well, objection .
BY MR . SHELLER :
23
Q . Doesn't the letter say that, if the
24
Commission has no problem, no objections to you
25
doing that, if it's supported by the Cambridge
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
method?
2
A . That's right .
Q.
3
858
Okay . Did the tobacco -- you say the
tobacco industry objected to that?
5
6
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question .
7
8
THE WITNESS : No, I didn't say that .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . I thought you said they did object to
9
10
that .
11
A.
12
the rest of the article, that we pointed out to
13
the FTC that the method they were offering did do
14
what they asked about ranking cigarettes, but it
15
was very incomplete in what else it --
No . I said they objected -- and if you read
Q.
16
Well,
Dr . Rodgman, I believe you had
17
written a memo, and it was entitled -- it appears
18
as appendix B in your FT -- in your article here
19
that you gave to Mr . -- Dr . Townsend . And you
20
say -- it's entitled "A Short Explanation and
21
Analysis of Methods for Measuring Tar and Nicotine
22
in Cigarette Smoke," right?
23
A .
24
Yes .
You're familiar with that one?
251 A . Yes, I'm familiar with that .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 859
Q . Now, you give -- you wrote that in
1965, in January . And who did you give that to at
that time?
A . 1965? Where did you get that date?
Q . It says January/February 1965 . You
say
.
MS . BRACHTL : Where are you in the
document?
MS . KNISELY : Page 37 .
10
11
MS . BRACHTL : Thank you .
BY MR . SHELLER :
12
Page 37, Doctor . In fact, I'll give
13
you a draft of the agreement and the original that
14
was produced for us in your boxes . The draft will
15
be 4, and the actual article 5 .
16
MR . McDERMOTT : What's 3?
17
MR . SHELLER : Oh, we don't have 3? We
18
didn't mark that yet . It's 3 and 4 .
19
20
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Numbers 3 and 4
were marked for identification)
21
MS . EASON : Just for clarification,
22
could you please read into the record the Bates
23
numbers that are stamped .
24
MR . SHELLER : There is a Bates number
251 on it .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
MS . KNISELY : On one of them, I
believe .
3
MR . SHELLER : No, on both of them .
4
The draft is 501013245 . And the -- I assume the
5
final, because it's undated, 501013225 .
6
7
(Discussion off the record)
BY MR . SHELLER :
8
9
Q . Now, Documents 3 and 4, Exhibits 3 and
4, those are your documents .
You prepared them,
10
right? They were given to us in the boxes that
11
you produced a few weeks ago .
12
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
13
the question .
14
BY MR . SHELLER :
15
16
17
18
Q . Did you prepare those?
A .
Yeah . Yes, I did .
Q . Now, who did you give these
documents -- this document to at Reynolds?
19
20
21
860
MR . BLANCATO : Which one?
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Exhibit 4, or 3, whichever you gave .
22
Did you give one or both? One is listed as a
23
draft with a date and the other is undated .
24
MR . McDERMOTT : Do you have a time
Ln
N
~
N
G
~
m
~
m
251 frame?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
MR . SHELLER : 1965, I presume .
2
THE WITNESS : I don't know whether I
3
4
5
gave them to Dr . Senkus or Mr . Ramm,
861
Henry Ramm .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Do you know if those documents were
Q•
6
ever given to anybody at the Federal Trade
7
Commission?
8
A . I don't know whether they were given in
9
exactly this form, but I -- my understanding was
10
that some of the information in them were provided
11
to the FTC .
12
13
14
Q . Do you know which information?
A . No, I don't, sir .
Q .
I
see . Well on page -- how do you
15
know what was given -- something was given to the
16
Federal Trade Commission?
17
A . There were some documents about the
18
collaborative submission to the Federal Trade
19
Commission that had some of this stuff in it .
20
And -- which, you know, you don't ask the vice
21
president of legal counsel : Did you submit what I
22
gave you?
23
MR . SHELLER : Have the documents that
24
were submitted to the Federal Trade Commission
25
been produced in the -- any discovery materials?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
1
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
MR . McDERMOTT : Sitting here, I have
no idea .
3
4
862
MR . SHELLER : Could you find out?
Because we've searched and we cannot find them .
5
MR . McDERMOTT : All right . Well, why
6
don't you put the inquiry in writing to Mark
7
Belasic, since I'm -- because I'm not continuously
8
involved in this case .
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
10
Dr . Rodgman, in page 3 of the --
11
MR . McDERMOTT : Let me also suggest,
12
however, that the information, I'm sure, is
13
available through the records of the FTC, as well,
14
as another way of obtaining this information .
15
16
17
18
MR . SHELLER : They may be . They may
be .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . On page 3 of the documents, do you
19
know which one you gave to Mr . -- Dr . Senkus? Was
20
it that -- was it the draft or the one that has no
21
date on it?
22
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
23
the question .
24
BY MR . SHELLER :
25
Q . They both say the same thing ; there's
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
no difference .
2
A . Yeah . I assume that the one had no -- not
3
the draft on it . In fact, I didn't think they
4
were the same .
5
Q . Well, if there is a difference, I
6
didn't pick it up . You can tell --
7
A . Well, if you didn't pick it up, you missed
8
11 -- 8 pages of it .
9
Q . Oh, I'm sorry . Oh, you're talking
10
about the appendix . No, I wasn't --
11
A . Well, that's part of the memorandum, isn't
12
it?
13
Q . No, you're right . I meant the body of
14
the document itself, not the appendix .
15
A . Well, that's part of the body of the
16
document .
17
18
Q.
Yeah, you're right . You're right .
You got me .
19
20
863
Now, Doctor, on page 3, you say :
(Reading)
21
The conclusion is
22
therefore inescapable, that
23
labeling the amount of "tar
24
and nicotine" on a cigarette
25
package cannot give to the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
smoker meaningful information
2
as to the amount or
3
composition of the total
4
solids and nicotine he
5
receives from the cigarettes
6
he smokes . He is more likely
7
to be misled than informed .
8
That was your opinion then, Doctor?
9
10
A . Yeah . Not mine -- not only mine, but it's -but expressed by other people since then .
Q . And your opinion today is the same ; is
11
12
that correct?
13
A . That's right .
Q . And it hasn't changed through all
14
15
these years?
16
A .
17
smokers who smoke in a different way to what's
18
smoked in a machine .- In fact, the machine does
19
not inhale -- exhale, I'm sorry . But people do .
20
864
No . It -- you cannot compare three different
Q .
Now,
Doctor
21
A . I might recommend that, if you want more
22
information on this, you read the report of the
23
Froggatt Committee, which is in -- sometime in the
24
1980s, when Dr . Froggatt says exactly the same
25
thing as we said in 1965 .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q . And this has always been Reynolds'
2
view also since you've been there?
3
A . Well, I haven't heard anybody come out and
4
say that they went along with doing the analysis
5
the way we were told to do it .
6
7
865
Q . Now, did Reynolds ever -- now, you say
that the -- this letter of March of 1966 from the
FTC required you to do it -- the -- the tar and
9
milligram system the way you des -- the Cambridge
10
system, correct?
11
A . That's what the FTC said to do .
12
Q.
Right .
Did Reynolds ever submit another
13
14
procedure recommendation as to how to get
15
information on tar and nicotine levels? Did they
16
make a recommendation of any type?
17
A . Well, we had provided some information before
18
that letter came out . And I don't know whether
19
anybody did after that . I -- you know, you're
20
fighting the FTC . We had a little bit of a
21
problem that -- for example, if you read Ogg's
22
Ln
N
method, for that -- at that time it was a very ~
m
&b
good analysis for nicotine .
23
24
Q .
That
was
1964?
251 A . Right . But, eventually, you know, when
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
866
1
people are testing cigarettes that are on the
2
market, our competitors or experimental cigarettes
3
or cigarettes designed in-house, that was a very
4
slow procedure . And as you know, the FTC equation
5
is wet TPM is tar, plus water, plus nicotine .
6
And people like analytical chemists at
7
Reynolds and other places determined that you
8
could get as accurate nicotine values and water
9
values by doing it with -- it's called gas
10
chromatography . And the beauty of a gas
11
chromatography system is that you can do it
12
automatically . You can do -- load up a carousel
13
with 50/60 things to be measured and just turn it
14
on and let it run .
Q . Did the FTC ever tell you, you
15
16
couldn't use that method?
17
A.
18
using it .
19
20
Q .
A .
They
did .
Yeah .
Q . So when did -- is that what you now
21
22
No . We persuaded them, and they ended up
use
to
label
your
packs?
Reynolds
packs?
u,
~
~
m
23
24
~
---
A . I don't know what they use . I don't know ~
CO
N
whether they label packs or not . But they do use
25 the analytical procedure of gas chromatograph .
---- --- - _ - _ WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
Q . When did that come into effect?
A . Oh, I don't know .
3
Q . When you were there?
4
A . Well, I was there -- excuse me . I can't put
5
a year on it . It was probably -- well, let me
6
look . I might be able to get it for you . Let's
7
see here .
'8
(Witness reviews document)
9
Okay . Well, I thought it was in here
10
on the -- on page 21 . Oh, okay . Okay . Okay . C .
11
Page 24, there's a footnote "Gas Chromatographic
12
Method ." And if we run back in time, I believe
13
you'll see that the 1973, under "Nicotine
14
Determination," a man called Randolph, that is
15
1973/1974, has a little "C," which indicates that
16
was a gas chromatographic method that was
17
described -- well, in fact -- well, there's
18
actually some before that . Put i believe that was
19
the one that may have been presented, written up
20
and --
21
Q . So that was of a -- known about since
22
1973?
23
A . I think so . I may be wrong about that .
24
•
867
25
Q . Give or take a little bit .
A . But the people in Europe and what -- the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
i
Vol . 5, Pg .
868
1
CORESTA method and so on, eventually everybody
2
went to gas chromatographic method . If you've
3
ever done a water and smoke by the old fashioned
4
method, I won't say it -- I guess I wouldn't say
5
it the way I would think it . It's very difficult .
6
Q . And that's more accurate than the
7
Cambridge method, right?
8
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
9
the question . Misstates prior testimony .
10
THE WITNESS : It's not -- the
11
determination of the water, sir, has nothing to do
12
with the Cambridge method .
13
14
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
I
see .
15
A . The Cambridge method is the collection . And
16
when you get -- the old days, you took the
17
Cambridge pad, you got rid of the particulate
18
matter from the Cambridge pad, and you used one
19
part of it to determine the nicotine by the
20
Griffith/Still method and you did the water in the
21
other part by what's called the Karl Fischer
22
titration .
23
The way we did it with the modified
24
method, you took the stuff off the Cambridge
25
filter pad, the same way, and you put it in the -
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
869
I
1
and did it by gas chromatography and calculate the
2
water and nicotine .
3
In fact, the old method really didn't
4
do nicotine . It expressed alkaloids as a lump .
5
And, of course, nicotine was 90 percent of the
6
alkaloids, so they just assumed it -- or called it
7
nicotine . But the new method gave it -- the
8
nicotine its value, and actually you could get the
9
nornicotine value, if you wanted it .
10
t2 •
Did the new method also take into
11
account the variations among smokers?
12
A . Sir, the new method involved the same smoking
13
procedure outlined by the FTC method, which says
14
you will collect the cigarettes, you will
15
condition them at such-and-such temperature for
16
such-and-such a humidity, you will smoke them on
17
the machine in the laboratory designed . It had
18
nothing to do with the -- relating them to the
19
smoking ; it was just as wrong then as it was
20
before .
21
Q . Well, can you tell me, if the FTC was
22
so wrong, why were they asked to give you
23
permission to use that method?
24
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
870
r
•
1
BY MR . SHELLER :
2
Q
3
A . What letter?
4
5
6
7
Isn't that what that letter does?
MS . EASON : Objection to the form .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . That March 1966 letter . Isn't that
giving the tobacco industry the right to use that
method if they want to use it?
9
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
10
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form .
11
MR . SHELLER : You want to read it?
12
THE WITNESS : The letter says you will
13
14
15
16
use it that way .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q•
The letter doesn't say you will use
it . Where does the letter say -- point --
17
MR . McDERMOTT : The letter requires
18
every public statement, with respect to tar and
19
nicotine, to employ that method, and it encourages
20
the use of the method and the information . But
21
the record and the letter speak for itself . Let's
Ln
22
23
move on .
MR . SHELLER : No . Your representation
24
of the letter is not correct . Would you -- does
25
the witness -- we're going to mark a copy of the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 871
letter . We'll have the letter read .
MR . McDERMOTT : You've already read
it MR . SHELLER : Exhibit 5 . No, the
letter is a little different .
MS . EASON : You have a representation
that the letter was identical .
MS . KNISELY : No, no . I said that the
stars -- Mr . McDermott had raised the issue of
10
whether that star pattern was in the original or
11
whether it was an ellipsis that they had removed
12
words .
MR . McDERMOTT : Well, let's use the
13
14
letter, then . Do we have copies?
MS . KNISELY : There were copies made,
15
16
and I assumed everybody took their copy .
MR . SHELLER : Where are the copies for
17
18
the witness, please? Here's one for you .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 5 was
19
20
marked for identification)
21
22
(Discussion off the record)
BY MR . SHELLER :
23
Q . Now, Doctor, would you tell me -- and
24
you read me the words that the Commission used in
25
its letter that said you must use the Cambridge
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 872
method at all times to list tar and nicotine on
cigarettes . Would you read the words that say
that?
A . Well, I think it's implicit in the way that
they said this is the method .
Q . Implicit? Can you point to me any
words in the letter that say you have to use this
method, and you must list the tar and nicotine
levels on the cigarettes?
10
11
MR . McDERMOTT : Object . Compound .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Does the letter require you to list
12
•
13
the tar and nicotine levels on the cigarettes?
14
A . No, it doesn't .
15
16
17
Q .
A .
It
No .
Q . What does it say? if it --
18
•
doesn't .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
19
the question .
20
BY MR . SHELLER :
21
Q . Does it say, if you want to use the
22
tar and nicotine levels on the cigarettes, that
23
you can, using the Cambridge method, without
24
objection of the FTC?
25
A . Yeah . It says here : (Reading)
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
The statement has to be
2
supported by adequate records
3
of tests conducted by the
4
Cambridge filter method .
5
873
Q.
Right . So they say they won't do
6
anything to you about false advertising if you do
7
it that way?
8
A . Well, I don't know about advertising, sir . I
9
don't --
10
11
Q . Well, that's what this is all about,
isn't it, false advertising, sir?
12
13
MR . McDERMOTT : Let the witness finish
his answer, please .
14
15
16
17
18
19
MR . SHELLER : I'm letting him finish
his answer .
THE WITNESS : I'm not in the
advertising business .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . The tobacco industry had -- isn't
20
it -- do you remember that history about there
21
being a -- a tar and nicotine derby in the '50s
22
and '60s? And the FTC was getting concerned about
23
false advertising, right?
24
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
MS . EASON : Objection to the form of
2
the question .
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . So didn't the tobacco -- do you
4
5
remember that?
6
A.
7
Yes .
Q . And didn't the FTC say they were going
8
to look into false advertising?
9
A . They did, in 1957 .
10
Q.
Right . And didn't the tobacco
11
industry want to have the ability to put tar and
12
nicotine levels on cigarettes and not be
13
threatened with false advertising claims?
14
A . I don't know that, air .
15
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; no
16
foundation .
17
BY MR . SHELLER :
18
Q . Didn't the tobacco industry seek
19
permission from the FTC to do it this way, with
20
the Cambridge system?
21
A . Not that I know of .
22
Q . You don't remember . You don't know or
23
you don't remember?
24
A . I don't know .
25
874
Q . You don't know .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
S
875
Now, Doctor, in looking at your quote
2
in the memo on page 9, would you please look at
3
number -- the letter . And you quote in the middle
4
of the body of the letter "no collateral
5
representations" . And would you read that from
6
your page 9 . it says number one . Just that one
7
number one part .
8
A . Yeah, I've read it .
Q . Could you read it for the camera, out
9
10
loud .
11
A . I've already read it, sir .
12
Q . I know, but I'd like you to do it
13
again .
14
A . Why in --
15
16
Q . I'll tell you why .
A . (Reading)
No collateral
17
18
representations (other than
19
factual statements of tar and
20
nicotine contents of
21
cigarettes offered for sale
22
to the public) are made .
23
Q . Now, would you read Exhibit 5, which
24
is the actual copy of the letter . To the camera,
25
please .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
876
A . (Reading)
2
No collateral
3
representations, other than
4
factual statements of tar and
5
nicotine contents of
6
cigarettes offered for sale,
7
are made, expressly or by
8
implication, as to reduction
9
or elimination of health
hazards .
10
Q . Could you read it again . I think you
11
12
left out a couple of words .
13
A . (Reading)
No collateral
14
15
representation, other than
16
factual statements of tar and
17
nicotine contents of
18
cigarettes offered for sale
19
to the public, are made,
20
expressly or by implication,
21
as to reduction or
22
elimination of health
23
hazards .
Q . Why did you leave out --
24
251
MR . McDERMOTT : I move to strike the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
877
last question and answer .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Why did you leave out the part
4
"expressly or" -- in your article that you gave to
5
Dr . Townsend -MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form .
6
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . -- "expressly or by implication, as to
9
10
reduction or elimination of health hazards"? Why
was that left out?
MR . McDERMOTT : I object to the form
11
12
of the question . You're misstating prior
13
testimony .
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MR . SHELLER : I'm not misstating
anything . You can answer it .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
Why was that not in your
A . I probably just goofed, sir .
Q . You goofed .
A . Umm .
Q . Well, isn't it true that the FTC
22
didn't want any representations, expressly or by
23
implication, as to the reduction of elimination of
24
health hazards by reason of the -- this late
25
information about tar and nicotine?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 878
A . That's what they said in the letter .
Q . That's what they said .
Now, would you look back at page 1 of
your article .
A . Uh-huh .
And the second point that you made at
Q•
the top is :
(Reading)
To permit the consumer
who wished to continue
10
smoking to select a cigarette
11
whose MS tar [mainstream tar]
12
and/or nicotine yield was
13
compatible with his/her
14
concerns about the effects of
15
cigarette smoking on his/her
16
health .
That wasn't what the FTC was saying could
17
18
be done, isn't that correct, according to this
19
letter? There could be no implication of that
20
drawn permitted .
21
A . Well not in the advertising .
22
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
23
the question .
24
BY MR . SHELLER :
25
Q . Oh, not in the advertising .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
879
1
A . That was what the whole list was put together
2
for .
3
Q . So the implication then, from the
4
tobacco industry's point, was that -- that's why
5
the list was put together?
6
7
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
8
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
9
MR . McDERMOTT : No foundation .
10
11
12
13
THE WITNESS : You've lost me with your
question .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, wasn't the intent of Reynolds to
14
have the public draw the implication that there
15
was, by lowering tar and nicotine levels, a
16
reduction or elimination of health hazards?
17
18
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . No foundation .
19
20
21
22
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
question .
THE WITNESS : If you look back at why
this was done, why the FTC got into the act, it
Ln
~
23
started in 1957 with Dr . Wynder, who said, from
24
his animal work, that if you kept backing off on
25
treating the mouse skin with cigarette smoke
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
-J
r
Ob
m
W
cn
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
condensate, you got to a point where you didn't
2
get any tumors on the mice . And he said, if this
3
is translatable to the smoker, if -- then,
4
reduction of the tar from cigarettes by 40 percent
5
would significantly lessen the possibility of
6
respiratory tract cancer .
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
9
I
see .
A . And that was the reason the FTC got into the
10
business of : All right, if you lower it, and if
11
people are concerned one way or another --
12
Q . Well do you know why the FTC got into
13
it? Were you there at a meeting?
14
A . Well, I read what they were talking about,
15
back then . it was all over .
16
Q . Weren't they talking about false
17
advertising from the tar and nicotine derby that
18
was going on --
19
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
20
the question .
21
BY MR . SHELLER :
22
23
24
•
880
Q . -- in the '60s?
A . I don't know that, sir .
MR . BLANCATO : Object .
25 BY MR . SHELLER :
WAGA & SPINELLI
1
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q .
2
You
don't
881
know .
Now, isn't it true that in 1964 the
3
Surgeon General, for the first time, came out with
4
a report that said cigarettes cause cancer?
5
A . Well, it's -
S2 •
6
Was that the first report?
7
A . Well, t hat was the first Surgeon General's
8
report . And that really spurred the FTC to get
into the act, putting -- in fact, the government
10
agency had said this, and with the work of
11
Dr . Wynder, they put it altogether and said :
12
Let's have a list .
Q . So -- and the tobacco industry would
13
14
benefit from that list because the public, who
15
might have stopped smoking, was led to believe
16
that, because the tar and nicotine levels were
17
being lowered, the cigarettes were now safe or
18
safer?
19
20
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question . No foundation .
21
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
22
MS . EASON : Objection to the form of
23
the question .
24
BY MR . SHELLER :
251
Q . Isn't that correct?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
882
J
1
A . I don't know that, sir .
Q . Isn't that what the tobacco industry
contended?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
6
7
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
question .
8
MR . BLANCATO : Objection to the form .
9
MR . McDERMOTT : No foundation .
10
11
12
THE WITNESS : Not that I know of .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q•
Isn't it true that the tobacco
13
industry wanted to keep the public smoking, and
14
not stopping as a result of the Surgeon General's
15
report about cancer?
16
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
17
the question .
18
BY MR . SHELLER :
19
Q . Isn't that correct?
20
MR . McDERMOTT : No foundation .
21
THE WITNESS : I don't know that, sir .
22
23
24
25
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You didn't know that, the tobacco
industry didn't want to do that?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
1
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
THE WITNESS : You got to remember, in
1964 I was a bench chemist .
3
4
5
6
7
MR . McDERMOTT : Dr . Rodgman -BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You were a bench chemist . How about
in 1970?
MR . McDERMOTT : Excuse me . Just a
8
minute . Gentleman, Dr . Rodgman, when I interpose
9
an objection, please wait until I finish my
10
objection . It will be easier on everybody here,
11
including the court reporter . And please give me
12
a chance to object, because your questions are
13
getting outrageous .
14
MR . SHELLER : My questions are not
15
outrageous ; they are very true . You know, you
16
always object when things start sticking you in
17
the chest . Why don't you just say "objection" and
18
allow the witness to testify . I understand your
19
problem and I would be troubled too, if I was
20
Reynolds' counsel . Don't laugh, it's true .
21
22
0
883
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Now, Doctor, if you look at your
23
report, Dr . Townsend, on page 27 --
24
A . This report wasn't to Dr . Townsend .
25
Q . Well, the one you gave Dr . Townsend .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
•
2
A . What page?
Q . Twenty-seven . Now, do you see the
3
chart that you prepared at the bottom of the
4
report, "Table 9" you call it?
5
A . Uh-huh .
6
7
Q . And in Table 9 -- and we're going to
mark this table at a separate exhibit .
MR . SHELLER : Call it -- what number
8
9
am I up to?
10
COURT REPORTER : Six .
11
MR . SHELLER : Six .
12
13
14
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . In Exhibit 6, Table 9, you define it
as : (Reading)
85-millimeter Winston
15
16
and Marlboro : Comparison of
17
FTC carbon monoxide,
18
nicotine, and 'tar' yields at
19
standard and more 'realistic'
20
smoking parameters .
21
884
What were the "more realistic smoking
22
parameters" that you figured out to use here?
23
A . This was from a report written by somebody at
24
Reynolds, I believe .
25
Q . What are realistic smoking conditions?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
885
r
1
According to Reynolds . .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
2
3
the question .
THE WITNESS : Sir, this was just a
4
5
table that, when you change the smoking regime,
6
you got the higher numbers .
7
8
9
10
11
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, is this a report by a Dr . Rix
that you're referring to, at Reynolds?
A . It may be .
Q . You cite that in the body of your
12
report?
13
A . Right .
14
Q . And what does he describe as more
15
realistic smoking conditions?
16
A . It has those -- the parameters are listed
17
there .
18
Q .
What
are
they?
19
A . Sixty-five-milliliter puff, two-second puff,
20
one puff every 45 seconds .
21
Q . And what was the FTC standard?
Ln
FA
22
23
24
25
A . Thirty-five, two, and once a minute .
Q .
I
see .
And now you took that material
~
~
m
~
~
m
~
prepared -- done by Dr . Rix and converted it into
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 88 6
1
a table? Or is that table right from his article ?
2
A . I've forgotten . It may be -- probably
taken -- he may have had it in a little different
4
5
format .
Q . And what he did is he -- or you -- I'm
6
not sure who did the table, now . But the table
7
you used from Reynolds says "FTC smoking
8
conditions for Winston and Marlboro comparisons,"
9
right? That's -- Marlboro is made by Philip
10
Morris ?
11
A . That's right .
12
13
14
Q.
And Winston by Reynolds, right ?
A . Right .
S2 Q .
And the -- and according to the FT C
15
tar levels from the FTC standard, the Winston was
16
20 .6 tar, and there's a parenthesis there, 20 .9 in
17
parenthesis, and it refers to a note A . Do you
18
know what that refers to ?
19
A . It was the percent difference between the
2 0
Winston and Marlboro .
2 1
Q.
And the Marlboro was at 16 .3 . And th e
22
FTC nicotine level for Winston was 1 .43 milligrams
23
and for Marlboro it was 1 .08 . And the carbon Ln
24
monoxide for the Winston was 19 .1 and for Marlboro m
25
16 .2 ; is that correct ?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A .
887
Right .
Q . But when it was done according to
3
realistic conditions, smoking conditions -- and
4
that's the title in the chart, right?
5
A . Right .
Q . The Winston was actually
6
7
35 .7 milligrams in tar and 2 .35 milligrams
8
nicotine ; is that correct?
9
A.
Yes .
Q . Can I ask you a question? Is that
10
11
exactly pretty much the same as the 1955
12
16 milligrams of tar and nicotine for the
13
cigarettes in those days?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
14
15
the question .
THE WITNESS : Well -- no . The --
16
17
well, they're comparable, but done under
18
different -- under --
19
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Pretty close, though?
20
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . Let him
21
22
finish his answer, please .
MR . McDERMOTT : Let him complete his
23
24
answer .
251
THE
WITNESS : In 1955, of course, the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
numbers that were -- are in the graph, I'm sorry,
2
were done with the top figures .
3
4
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . With the "top figures" . What do you
5
mean? The 35 .
6
A . Close to that .
7
8
Q . The realistic ones, right?
A . Right .
9
10
MR . McDERMOTT : No, no, no, no . Just
the opposite .
11
12
•
13
888
MR . SHELLER : No . I think he -would -- would you -BY MR . SHELLER :
14
Q . As I understand it, in 1955 the
15
Winstons were approximately 35 milligrams of tar,
16
weren't they?
17
A . Yeah . But they were determined by a
18
35-milliliter puff .
19
Q . They were?
20
(Witness nods head .) Yeah .
21
Q .
I
see .
22
A . I mean, if you look back historically at the
23
smoking parameters, which were set in 1936 by some
24
people at American Tobacco and everybody used it
25
worldwide, more or less, it was 35-milliliter
i
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
889
1
puff, one puff a minute, two-second duration . And
2
the numbers -- say, Winston, Camel, whatever
3
cigarette you're talking about in '55, were
4
determined with that .
5
Q . How do you know that? Is that -- the
6
1955 numbers that Reynolds had was based on a
7
35-milliliter puff?
8
A . Yes . There was some slight difference in the
analytical procedure for nicotine .
10
Q . What was the difference?
11
A . Well, I had just gotten at Reynolds at that
12
time . But I believe they were using a
13
modification of the Griffith/Still thing that
14
Mr . Cundiff had incorporated . After all, there
15
was no really set method by that -- at that time .
16
17
18
Q . So, then -A . And --
Q . -- your -- your point that the --
19
you're responding to Dr . Wynder and Dr . Hoffmann .
20
If you use realistic figures, are you able to tell
21
the jury that there -- that you can actually
22
conclude that there's a lowering of tar and
23
nicotine in the realistic conditions of smoking
24
today?
25
A . Well, what -- you don't compare apples and
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
890
1
oranges . If you're going to make a comparison,
2
let's be fair . If you're going to say these are
3
the conditions we will use in the smoking machine,
4
let's compare the '55 cigarette done the
5
6
same way .
Q . But you're not doing that .
A . Pardon?
Q . You said it wasn't -- you don't know
8
how it was -MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
9
10
the question .
11
BY MR . SHELLER :
12
Q . It wasn't -- if you're going to
13
compare, how do you know what the realistic
14
conditions would have shown in 1955?
15
A . Well, if you use these numbers, if you use
16
those numbers on a'55 cigarette, presumably you
17
would have got higher numbers than are in the
18
graph .
19
Q . Presumably . I thought you don't use
20
calculated, you like to be realistic, you want to
21
know what they are . Remember, we went through
22
this with nicotine? You don't like using
23
calculated numbers?
24
25
MR . BLANCATO : Let's not harass the
witness, please .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
MR . SHELLER : I'm not harassing him .
2
He's the one who talks about calculated numbers .
891
MR . McDERMOTT : You're asking the
3
4
witness to apply a different regimen, to
5
hypothesize an answer, and then you're criticizing
6
him for trying to respond to your question?
MR . SHELLER : Well, he's the one who
7
8
criticizes the people who wanted to figure out the
9
nicotine levels by calculating them .
MR . McDERMOTT : This is nonsense .
10
11
Let's MR . SHELLER : Well, I understand . I
12
13
14
15
understand nonsense to you, maybe .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Now, Doctor, so what you're really
16
saying today, that if you use realistic conditions
17
for determining tar and nicotine levels, you have
18
to make an estimate of what those conditions would
19
have been in 1955 to determine whether or not the
20
tar and nicotine levels were actually lower
21
today --
22
A . Well, you'd use -- you'd use the same
23
conditions . Wouldn't you?
24
25
Q . Well, you would ; but you didn't .
You're saying you don't know what the realistic
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
conditions of smoking would have shown in 1955 .
2
Unless these aren't the realistic conditions in
3
1955 .
892
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . Are you
4
5
talking about the values they got here for tar and
6
nicotine --
7
MR . SHELLER : Uh-huh .
8
MR . BLANCATO : -- or are you talking
9
about 35-milliliter puffs? Or --
10
MR . SHELLER : I'm only trying to
11
figure out what realistic conditions existed for
12
smoking in 1955 .
13
THE WITNESS : Well, I said, if you're
14
going to make a comparison, you would use these
15
realistic conditions that are listed here by
16
Dr . Rix for the 1955 cigarette .
17
BY MR . SHELLER :
18
Q . Why would you assume those are the
19
realistic conditions for smoking a cigarette in
20
1955?
21
A . Well, I think, if you notice, they're in
22
quotation marks .
23
Q.
Right .
But
why
N
N
would
--
wouldn't
m
24
somebody who got their adequate dose of nicotine -J
m
25
in 1955 with the higher, quote, tar and nicotine
Co
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
J
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
levels you talk about, have a different realistic
2
smoking level?
3
A . They may or may not .
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
4
5
question .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
6
7
the question .
8
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You don't know the answer to that, do
9
10
you?
11
A . Well, as I have said repeatedly, sir,
12
everybody smokes differently .
Q .
13
Right . And you don't -- do you know
14
what the realistic smoking conditions were, as
15
you -- in 1955?
16
A.
17
No . And I don't know what they are now .
Q.
Well, apparently Dr . Rix and you
18
reached the conclusion in this 1994 article as to
19
what they were .
20
A . I was summarizing some of the work --
21
22
23
24
25
893
Q .
For
now .
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . Please let
the witness finish his question .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Isn't it true, Doctor --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
894
I
MR . McDERMOTT : You cut the witness
1
2
off . Let him finish his answer, counselor .
MR . SHELLER : Fine .
4
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Do you have something to finish, sir?
5
6
A . As you notice, I'm just reporting what
7
Dr . Rix reported .
Q.
8
9
I
see . You don't agree with him?
A . I was reporting what Dr . Rix reported .
Q . Do you agree with him or disagree with
10
11
him?
12
A . I assume he found what he found .
13
Q . Do you agree with him?
14
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
15
THE WITNESS : I don't know how you
16
17
18
mean, "agree" .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Do you think he was right?
19
A . Well, I said, he -- I assume that what -- the
20
experimental data he found, he found .
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Do you think he was right? That's a
simple yes or no . Can you answer -MR . McDERMOTT : In what respect?
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Do you think these are realistic
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
895
r
1
conditions? Do you think -- do you have any
2
reason to disagree with Dr . Rix?
3
A . I don't know -- I don't know why he picked
4
the realistic conditions that way . I have no
5
idea .
Q . Did you ask him?
6
7
A .
Q . He worked for you, right?
8
9
No .
A . At one time .
Q.
10
Yeah . And, in fact, this report was
11
done when you were director of --
12
A . Research .
Q . -- research, right? And so he worked
13
14
under you?
15
A . Right .
Q . Did you tell him then : There's
16
17
something wrong with your report?
18
A.
19
20
No .
Q .
I
see .
Doctor, just to make it clear, you
times, that you kept
21
have testified today, several
22
meeting Wynder and Hoffmann's conditions of
23
dropping nicotine and tar levels - when I
24
"you," I mean Reynolds - over the years . Yet,
25
this document, that you have, would indicate that
WAGA & SPINELLI
say
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
896
1
the tar and nicotine levels for realistic smoking
2
are con -- are at the same level, at least of
3
whatever the measurement was in 1955, as they were
4
then ; isn't that true?
5
6
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question . Misstates prior testimony .
7
MR . BLANCATO : Objection to the form .
8
THE WITNESS : Well, here again, this
9
is -- this is -- if you ran the '55 cigarette by
10
what Dr . Rix called realistic conditions, you
11
probably would have got numbers much higher . And
12
if you plotted them over the years, the curve
13
would still drop the way it is . All you'd have
14
done is move your baseline .
15
16
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, how can you say that? There's
17
different smoking compensation factors involved .
18
You talked about it in your report, why smokers
19
compensate and how they smoke differently .
20
You have no basis, do you, for making
21
a claim that realistic smoking conditions for the
22
same cigarettes in nineteen-fifty -- the
23
cigarettes that were in effect in 1955 were, in
24
fact, the number that Dr . Rix used in his report
based on the cigarette smoke in 1979 .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
897
A . No, I don't .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : The -MR . SHELLER : Did you get the answer?
COURT REPORTER : Uh-huh . "No, I
6
7
don't ."
VIDEOGRAPHER : Mr . Sheller, we have
8
9
five minutes left on the videotape .
MR . SHELLER : What we'll do at this
10
11
point is let's -- let's mark the next document
12
we're going to refer to, which is the -- where's
13
that one?
14
15
16
MR . McDERMOTT : Just a point of order .
Have you now made arrangements
to make this Table
exhibit?
17
MR . SHELLER : Yes .
18
MR . McDERMOTT : So it's going to be
19
20
MR . SHELLER : Yes .
21
MR . McDERMOTT : All right . Has that
22
23
MR . SHELLER : Not yet . All right .
24
(Discussion off the record)
25
1
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 6 was
1
2
marked for identification)
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
3
4
record at 2 :22 p .m .
(Recess taken from 2 :22 p .m . to 2 :42
5
6
898
p .m .)
VIDEOGRAPHER : This is tape 5 of the
7
8
videotape deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
9
going back on the record at 2 :42 p .m .
10
11
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
Dr . Rodgman, if Reynolds disagreed
12
with anything the FTC was doing about its method
13
for measuring tar and nicotine levels, did
14
Reynolds ever go to court to argue against what
15
the FTC was doing?
16
A . I don't know .
17
Q . Did they ever ask for a hearing before
18
the Federal Trade Commission about it?
19
A . I don't know .
20
Q . Well, we know that tobacco industry
21
and Reynolds are not shrinking violets, are they,
22
when it comes to litigation?
23
24
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
Ln
~
J
N
m
~
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form of
J
P.
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
the question .
2
BY MR . SHELLER :
3
Q . Isn't that true?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
4
5
the question .
6
BY MR . SHELLER :
7
Q . So if it's something they didn't like,
8
they wouldn't hesitate to take on the Federal
9
Trade Commission, would they?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
10
11
the question .
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
12
13
question .
14
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
15
MR . McDERMOTT : No foundation .
16
THE WITNESS : I don't know .
17
899
BY MR . SHELLER :
18
Q . Isn't it true they're taking the Food
19
and Drug Administration to court because the Food
20
and Drug Administration has said that nicotine is
21
a drug? And they're in court right here in North
22
Carolina, their own ballpark, right?
23
MS . EASON : Object to the form .
24
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
the question ; no foundation .
THE WITNESS : I don't know .
2
3
4
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You don't know?
MR . McDERMOTT : Dr . Rodgman, just a
5
6
900
moment . Let me finish my objection .
Counsel well knows Dr . Rodgman was an
7
8
employee at Reynolds from 1954 to 1987 . He's here
9
to answer factual inquiries with respect to that
10
time period .
If you want to give little speeches
11
12
about what the tobacco industry has done, that's
13
fine ; but it has nothing to do with Dr . Rodgman or
14
the information in his possession . You're wasting
15
our time, and this line of questioning is
16
improper .
MR . SHELLER : Well, I don't think it's
17
18
improper . I think the jury is entitled to know
19
that the -- Reynolds can go to court in
20
North Carolina any time they wanted to if they
21
didn't like what the Federal Trade Commission was
22
doing . And they didn't .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
23
24
the question . That's why God made closing
25
argument .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
MR . SHELLER : Oh, yeah?
1
2
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q•
Now, the next exhibit that I'd like to
Report
4
mark is "Comments, Re FDA Nicotine
5
General" . Dated -- it says "Revised 11/2/95" .
6
Did you re -- prepare that report?
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
MR . SHELLER : Can you give the witness
a copy of it? I believe copies were made .
MR . BLANCATO : What's the exhibit
number on this?
MR . SHELLER : This will be 7 .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 7 was
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . That was in your documents that you
16
gave us, Doctor .
17
A . Yes, I prepared this .
18
901
Q . And what was the purpose of re --
19
preparing this?
20
A . I was asked to read the -- some report from
21
the FDA or some comments about the FDA, did I have
22
any thoughts of what they had written and anything
23
I might come up with that might be usable to
24
respond to them . And I -- as you know, it's sort
25
of choppy . I just put this together and --
~
r
J
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 902
Well, who asked you to put this
Q•
together?
A.
The folks at R & D .
At Reynolds?
Q.
A .
Yes .
Q .
So this was prepared for Reynolds . So
you were doing work for Reynolds in 1995, then ; is
that correct?
A.
10
No . I just did it for -- I wasn't paid for
it .
Q . You weren't paid for it .
11
12
you were doing work for them .
13
A.
16
17
MR . MoDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . Misstates prior testimony .
BY MR .
SHELLER :
Q . Now, you had testified that you were
18
not an expert on nicotine .
19
A . That's right .
20
21
But
(Witness nods head .)
14
15
I see .
Q . Yet, Reynolds is asking you to give
the m a
repor t on n i co ti ne ?
Ln
N
22
A . Well, they knew that I had considerable
23
background in the literature .
24
most of it is things pulled out
25
I don't consider my
WAGA & SPINELLI
And ,
as you notice ,
of the literature .
-- still don't consider myself
(201) 992-4111
~
~
m
~
~
N
CO
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
an expert on nicotine .
Q . Would you look at what appears to
3
be -- I'm sorry . I have two different reports .
4
And I -- which one -- let me just see which one
5
you do have . Do you have the one marked 11/25/95
6
or 11/2/95?
7
A . Well, I've got them back-to-back here .
8
9
10
903
Q .
Okay . Look at the one marked
11/25/95 .
A . Uh-huh .
MS . KNISELY : Actually, when they were
11
12
doing the copying, they put them, obviously,
13
together .
14
MR . SHELLER : That's all right .
15
MR . McDERMOTT : Do you want to keep it
16
as one exhibit? Or do you want 7A,'7B or --
17
MR . SHELLER : It doesn't matter .
18
MS . KNISELY : Why don't we make it 7A
19
and 7B .
MR . SHELLER : Okay . So the
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments
.
(Plaintiff's Exhibits Numbered 7A and
7B were marked for identification)
(Discussion off the record)
BY MR . SHELLER :
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
904
Q . Now, Doctor, on page 1 of the revised
11/25 report, it states : (Reading)
Tobacco treated with
3
4
ammonia/steam (the process
5
used by RJR to reduce the
6
nicotine level in
7
high-nicotine tobaccos)
produces the following
changes in the tobacco .
9
So, remember I asked you before if you
10
11
knew what system RJR was using?
12
A . Yeah . I'd forgotten about that, sir .
Well, that case was the
13
14
denicotinization case, which has always been
15
ammonia and steam .
16
Q .
I
see .
17
And is there anything in these two
18
reports that you now disagree with or think is
19
incorrect?
20
A . It's been some time since I've looked at
21
them . As I say, they were sort of pulling things
22
together that might be of use in responding to the
23
FDA . And I'd have to read them . As you notice,
24
it's very choppy . It wasn't one of my better
25
efforts .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
Q . Well, do you see the portion under
that, it says : (Reading)
In the mainstream, MS,
3
4
from the ammonia treated
5
tobacco?
6
7
A . Right .
Q .
It
says : (Reading)
On an equal weight of
8
tobacco smoke basis, the
9
10
nicotine delivery is lower in
11
the mainstream from the
12
processed tobacco than in the
13
mainstream from the control .
Is that correct?
14
15
A . That's usually the case with ammoniated
16
tobaccos .
Right . Well, how did you measure
17
Q.
18
that, though?
19
A . Well, there's a set analytical procedure for
20
measuring nicotine in tobacco .
21
Q . How did you measure it in the
22
mainstream smoke? MS, is it -- what is that?
23
A . Mainstream smoke .
24
25
905
Q . I thought you can't measure it in
mainstream smoke?
WAGA & SPINELLI
j
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
2
the question . You're misstating the witness'
3
testimony .
4
5
6
7
8
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Only by particulate?
A . Yeah, it's in the -Q . Just the particulate matter .
A . It's the nicotine done by the FTC procedure .
Q .
I
10
see .
So, you don't know, then, whether
11
there's more nicotine in the smoke, then, because
12
you -- you'd have to calculate a value for that,
13
right?
14
A . I -- I don't get the message .
15
Q . If you treat tobacco with ammonia to
16
reduce the nicotine, this is your -- you're
17
reducing levels of nicotine, right, so you're
18
saying?
19
A . Right .
20
Q . And you're treating the tobacco with
21
ammonia, right?
22
A . Right .
23
24
906
Q . And there's still ammonia in the
tobacco that's treated, right, left in there?
A . A little bit .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
Q .
A
little
907
bit .
Do you know what portion, if any, of
3
that nicotine, after burning or pyrolysis, remains
4
in the smoke that's not picked up by the filter?
5
A . We're back to that again? As I said this
6
morning, the -- we looked at some very clever
7
chemists, both in our company and others, tried to
8
determine free nicotine, if that's what you're
9
trying to get, or nicotine, per se, in the vapor
10
phase that passes through the Cambridge filter
11
pad, and nobody has been able to find it .
12
And just to maybe round off and make
13
you feel better about it . If you have a reservoir
14
or a flask with nicotine in it that leads to a
15
Cambridge filter pad holder with a Cambridge
16
filter pad in it, and you vaporize the nicotine
17
and let it go along, so that when it hits the
18
Cambridge filter pad that it's about the same
19
temperature as the Cambridge filter pad in the FTC
20
procedure, you collect a lot of the nicotine on
21
the -- Cambridge filter pad . If you then check
22
what can go through the filter pad - because
23
there's nothing else to hold it, there's no acids
24
or anything - we can detect down to nanograms,
25
micrograms of nicotine that will come through
Ln
~
J
~
m
0.
J
N
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
W
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
that, and we could never find it with cigarette
2
smoke .
3
I
see . So anybody who finds it is
4
mistaken?
5
A . In the mainstream smoke that goes through to
6
the filter pad?
7
8
9
Q .
Uh-huh .
A . I've never heard of anybody who's found it .
Q .
I
see .
10
A . As I said, it's been looked at by everybody
11
that I can think of .
12
Q . So you're saying there's no such thing
13
as free nicotine, the way I'm referring to it, in
14
this smoke that's not collected in the filter .
15
A . There is no nicotine that goes through the
16
Cambridge filter pad . And if it goes through the
17
Cambridge filter pad, it has to be nicotine by
18
itself . No salt .
19
Q.
No
salt . And you're saying, to your
20
knowledge, no nicotine by itself, free of salt,
21
does not go through that pad or it does?
22
A . That's right, it does not go through .
23
24
i
Q.
25
908
Q . It does not go through .
A . I guess that's -Q . But you're not an expert on nicotine,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 909
but you know that .
A . Well, I -- I know that -- I happened to have
some people that looked at that for about a year
and a half and tried all sorts of very fancy
methods .
The reason we did it is the -- some
people at Tennessee Eastman found out a way to
measure free ammonia in smoke, and we thought it
was adaptable to free nicotine . But it doesn't
10
work . They couldn't get it to work . Hoffmann
11
can't get it to work .
12
•
Q . Well, do you know any researchers at
13
Reynolds, like Dr . Robinson or -- who actually can
14
measure increased levels of nicotine -- I forget
15
what they're called -- indicators in the urine?
16
Cotinine levels, is that --
17
A . Well, a lot of the things that Dr . Robinson
18
has done on nicotine metabolism and so on were
19
done after I left . I don't know --
20
21
22
Q . You don't know about that?
A . I don't know about -Q . So you don't know whether Dr . Robinson
23
has actually found that nicotine in
24
ammonia-treated tobacco has higher levels than in
25
the control without it?
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
2
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
3
the question .
4
5
6
THE WITNESS : I think you're jumping
from apples to oranges again, sir .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . I'm talking about the way Dr . Robinson
7
8
measures things .
9
A . I don't know . I just finished telling you, I
10
don't know how he measures .
11
Q .
don't
know . You don't know . All
right .
13
A . I mean, if I don't know, I don't know . I'm
14
sorry, I can't -- I won't make up an answer for
15
you .
16
I understand . I understand .
17
MR . SHELLER : This is going to be the
next exhibit I refer to .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 8 was
19
20
21
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, this is a report that you
22
251
You
12
18
0
910
Ln
1~
23
prepared in 1956, September 28th . Do you recall ~
24
preparing that? It's called "RDR, 1956, No . 9" .
And
it's
Exhibit
WAGA & SPINELLI
8 .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
MS . BRACHTL : Give us a second to
catch up with you .
3
4
(Witness reviews document)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Did you prepare that report?
5
6
911
A . Oh, yes .
Q . So you recall it .
7
Would you please look at page 36 .
9
This was when you were a young chemist, right,
10
Doctor?
11
A . When I was young?
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q . Some 41 years ago .
A .
Right .
MR . MCDERMOTT : We were all young .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Now, Doctor, in the discussion it
says : (Reading)
18
The main interest in .the
19
presence of the polycyclic
20
aromatic hydrocarbons in
21
cigarette smoke condensate is
22
that many of these compounds
23
are known to be carcinogenic
24
to various species of
animals . The current
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
controversy concerning the
2
influence of cigarette
3
smoking on the increasing
4
incidence of cancer of the
912
lung in the human male (and
6
it lists a bunch of numbers] .
7
Animal data indicate there is
8
a carcinogenic factor in
9
cigarette smoke condensate .
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . You've
10
11
skipped over a portion of the -MR . SHELLER : "However, animal
12
13
data" -MR . BLANCATO : No, beyond that --
14
15
before that : "It has not yet been settled ."
MR . SHELLER : Where are you reading
16
17
18
19
f rom?
MR . BLANCATO : After the numbers in
the parentheses end .
20
MR . SHELLER : Oh . (Reading)
21
Has not yet been
22
settled -- the increasing
23
incidence of cancer of the
24
lung in the human male has
25
not yet been settled .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
However, animal data indicate
2
that there is a carcinogenic
3
factor in cigarette smoke
4
condensate . This
5
carcinogenic factor resides
6
mainly in the neutral
7
fraction of the smoke
8
condensate and is produced
9
primarily by the pyrolysis --
10
THE WITNESS : Pyrolysis .
11
MR . SHELLER : (Reading)
-- pyrolysis of the
12
13
tobacco during the smoking
14
process .
Is that a true statement?
15
MR . McDERMOTT : Is that now, or was it
16
17
18
913
then?
BY MR .
SHELLER :
Q.
19
Was it then, and is it today?
Well, the carcinogenic factor that causes
20
A.
21
skin cancer in mice is probably due to that . It's
22
true now as
it was then .
Ln
Q.
23
24
A.
Would you change that any way today?
The last two sentences? (Reading)
However, animal data
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
~
~
m
~
~
N
kD
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
indicate there is a -- there
2
is a carcinogenic factor in
3
the cigarette smoke
4
condensate .
5
6
7
Q.
No . Is there any part of it you'd
9
A . No, I wouldn't change that . Because you can
12
still do it with mouse skin .
Q . Now, on the top of page 37, you say :
(Reading)
13
It has been demonstrated
14
that the carcinogenic
15
activity of the whole
16
condensate -- condensate, or
17
the hexane-soluble, neutral
18
fraction, is apparently much
19
greater than that due to the
20
individual carcinogenic
21
hydrocarbons, anthracene,
22
pyrene, chrysene?
23
24
•
A . No, are those the two --
change?
11
S
Q . You'd change that?
8
10
914
A . Chrysene .
Q . (Reading)
25
1, 2-benz --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A . "Benzanthracene" .
Q . Do you want to help me here? I can't
2
3
pronounce these things .
4
A .
5
m 3,4-benzpyrene" .
Q . (Reading)
6
-- present . Three --
7
these explanations of this
8
apparent anomaly appear
9
plausible at present .
And then it lists the following :
10
11
915
(Reading)
The carcinogenic
12
13
activity of the
14
hexane-soluble, neutral
15
fraction (or whole
16
condensate) is due mainly to
17
some hitherto unknown
18
powerfully carcinogenic
19
polycyclic aromatic
20
hydrocarbon .
A synergistic effect is
21
22
obtained from the known
23
hydrocarbons . This fact --
24
phenomenon has been described
25
by numerous workers in the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
cause -- case of the
2
polycyclic aromatic
3
hydrocarbons .
Some compound present in
4
5
the neutral fraction of
6
cigarette smoke condensate is
7
behaving as a cocarcinogen
8
either for some compound in
9
cigarette smoke or for some
10
compound present as a
11
pollutant in air .
(Witness reviews document)
12
Do you agree with those? Anything you
13
14
disagree with?
15
A . Well, I now know, for example, that number 1
16
is wrong .
17
916
Q . Number 1 is wrong?
18
A . That the -- there was a proposal that,
19
because they could not explain the fact with the
20
known polycyclic hydrocarbons that would cause
21
tumors on mouse skin, they couldn't explain what
22
they were getting with cigarette smoke condensate,
23
that Dr . Wynder and Dr . Wright - Dr . Wright
24
happened to be my major professor - had proposed
25
that there is some other polycyclic hydrocarbon in
WAGA & SPINELLI
.
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
smoke that's as potent as benzo[a]pyrene, at --
2
but present at 25/30 times the level of
3
benzo [a] pyrene .
4
917
Q . We went through that before . So this
5
is the same thing before?
6
A . Well, no, this is different .
The -- or there was a polycyclic
7
8
hydrocarbon, which was 30 times more potent than
9
benzo[a]pyrene, present at the same level as
10
benzo[a]pyrene . And Dr . Wright, who I say was my
11
major professor, spent 18 months looking for what
12
they call the super carcinogen and, of course,
13
never found it .
But then, I say, looking back at what
14
15
we know now, back to 1956 -- and in the mid '70s
16
the group at USA -- USDA in Athens, Georgia, under
17
Dr . Chordik did the most complete study of
18
polycyclic hydrocarbons in smoke ever done and
19
could account for the whole fraction . And there
20
was no compound potent, like benzpyrene, present
21
at 30 times the level or no super carcinogen .
22
Q.
Well
--
23
A . So that is, you know, a premise that was in
24
the works at that time, and went down the drain
25
subsequently .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
Q .
I
918
see . Is two and three correct?
A . The --
Q•
Synergistic effect .
4
A . In a way it is . Because what was found
5
shortly after 1956 -- for example, if you have
6
benzpyrene at a given amount and paint mice with
7
it, you get a certain number of tumors . But then,
8
if you paint another group of mice with the same
9
amount of benzpyrene but with a non-tumorigenic
10
polycyclic, like anthracene, the tumorigenicity
11
goes down . In other words, it's not synergism,
12
it's inhibition . And, of course, this was not
13
known when I wrote this .
14
Q . How about synergistic effects? How
15
about --
16
A . That has never been demonstrated with
17
polycyclic hydrocarbons .
18
Q . Has it been demonstrated with other
19
substances and stuff?
20
A . Not that I know of .
21
Q . Well, did Reynolds, to your knowledge,
22
ever do any studies on animals, either by contract
23
or otherwise, to see if the various constituents
24
of smoke, when mixed together in different
25
mixtures --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
919
r
1
A .
No,
didn't .
Q . -- create a synergistic effect?
2
3
we
A . No, we didn't .
Q . You didn't . Do you know if anybody
4
5
did?
6
A . Oh, yes .
7
Q .
8
A.
A . Well -Q . He says it does, doesn't it?
11
12
Dr . Wynder .
Q . And what did he say?
9
10
Who?
A . It doesn't say synergism .
Q . It doesn't? So if Dr . Wynder and
13
14
Dr . Hoffmann agree with you, you're going to have
15
a problem with it?
16
A . No, I don't have a problem with it . Because
17
they -- what they did -- at the time they did the
18
experiment, there were, I don't know, a dozen
19
polycyclic hydrocarbons which had some degree of
20
tumorigenicity to mouse skin . And they figured
21
out how much was in the smoke condensate . And
22
they added -- and I forget whether they doubled Ln
~
~
23
the amount or tripled it . I forgot . I think it m
~
~
.
w
was doubled
Ln
24
251
In
other
words,
WAGA & SPINELLI
if
they
had
X
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
nanograms of benzpyrene, they put 2X . And they
2
said, when you painted the skin of the mice with
3
this enhanced thing, you got double the tumors --
4
not quite double, but --
5
6
920
Q . But that was an enhancement .
A . -- but -- yeah .
The thing was, it was done by four
7
other laboratories and nobody could confirm it .
9
Q .
I
Well how about -- do you know what
10
•
11
the -- what do you understand, from your
12
background, are the tumor promoters in cigarette
13
smoke?
14
A . Well, the tumor promoters were -- the first
15
group that was proposed were the phenols .
16
Q . Are they still -- some of them still
17
in smoke?
18
A . Well, I don't -- yeah . They're always in
19
smoke .
20
•
see . I see .
Q.
I
see .
21
A . And the thing was, as I said yesterday, that
22
several people have shown that, if you have a
23
smoke condensate intact and you paint it on mice
24
and get a certain number of tumors, if you then
25
prepare that same smoke condensate in a way that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
921
1
strips out the phenols from the smoke, paint that
2
on mice, you get the same number of tumors . Which
3
means that there's no -- the promoter, that they
4
claimed, is not promoting .
5
Q .
I
see .
6
A . And Dr . Van Duuren at -- I think he's at
7
New York University -- showed that actually the
8
phenol, which some people call promoters, actually
9
inhibited the behavior of poly -- of
10
11
12
13
14
15
benzo [a] pyrene .
Q . Is nicotine a tumor promoter?
A . Not that I know of .
Q . You don't know that?
A . Huh-uh .
Q . Did you know that it was Dr . Minna
16
from a medical school in Texas, who was funded by
17
the Council for Tobacco Research, concluded that
18
nicotine was a tumor promoter?
19
A . No, I did not .
20
Q . You didn't know that .
What are the other tumor promoters?
21
22
A . There are a couple of the indoles --
23
substituted indoles in smoke that have been shown
24
to
be
tumor
--
~
J
W
25
Q . How about nitrosamines? Is that a
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
J
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
carcinogen or a tumor promoter?
2
A . It's a tumorigen, yeah .
3
Q . It's actually not just a promoter? It
4
actually causes cancer?
5
A . Right .
6
7
922
Q . Do you know if anybody has painted
nitrosamines on animals and gotten tumors beyond
the skin? In other words, of the lung and other
9
parts of the animal's body .
10
A . Usually they don't -- because of the fact
11
that painting -- skin painting with nitrosamines
12
has -- but many of them done and rather fruitless,
13
they don't get tumors on the skin --
14
Q . I didn't ask about skin tumors .
15
A . -- and, as you pointed out, they do get them
16
elsewhere .
17
Q .
I
see .
18
A . So most people who study nitrosamines don't
19
paint them, they feed it .
20
Q . They feed it .
21
22
Well, if you -- how about painting -cn
has Reynolds ever looked at humans to find out, -J
N
m
23
24
those who smoke, if they're, you know, getting AD .
-J
those nitrosamines in their mouth, whether it o
251 causes tumors in the lungs or someplace else?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A .
No . Reynolds has not done that kind of work .
Q . Anybody? In the tobacco industry?
2
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; no
3
4
foundation .
THE WITNESS : I don't know .
5
6
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Wouldn't that be logical and important
7
8
to look into?
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
9
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; no
10
11
foundation .
MS . EASON : Objection .
12
13
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Your answer?
14
No . Well, there have been speculations that
15
A.
16
they're causative, but nobody's shown it .
17
Q.
I
see . Nobody's studied it for the
18
humans .
19
A . Not with humans . But he also --
20
Q . Well, we know if we put them on a
21
mouse it will get cancer of the lung, right?
22
A . Yeah . But it's not the type caused by --
23
it's mostly attributed to smoking .
24
25
923
Q.
I
see . Adenomas, though, right?
A . Well, you get mice that are --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Q . What kind of cancers do they get of
1
2
924
the lung?
3
MR . McDERMOTT : Counselor, you keep
cutting the witness off . Would you let him finish
5
his answer .
6
MR . SHELLER : I'm letting him finish .
7
MR . MCDERMOTT : No, you're not . The
8
record will reflect that . Let him finish .
THE WITNESS : Will you let me finish?
9
10
If you won't, I'm leaving .
11
MR . SHELLER : I'm letting you finish .
12
THE WITNESS : I'm finished .
13
MR . SHELLER : Good .
14
BY MR . SHELLER :
15
Q . Doctor, at the -- sir, as I understand
16
it, then, you know of no testing that Reynolds has
17
done to take, say, a tumor promoter and
18
nitrosamines and test them together to see if they
19
increase the risk of cancer in animals .
20
A.
21
they've ever done it . Unless they've done it
22
since I've left .
23
24
No . I don't -- I don't know -- I don't think
Q . Now, Doctor, at the last paragraph
here you say : (Reading)
Since it is now well
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 925
established that cigarette
smoke does contain several
polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons -A . Where are we?
Q.
Page
37 . (Reading)
In considering the
potential and actual
carcinogenic -- (you say]
10
actual carcinogenic activity
11
of a number of these
12
compounds, a method of either
13
complete removal or almost
14
complete removal of these
15
compounds from cigarette
16
smoke is required .
Do you now disagree with that view that
17
18
you had in 1956?
19
A.
20
when there was a big controversy about all this,
21
saying that it would be opportune to remove -- to
22
cut down the argument and the bad press we were
23
getting .
24
25
No . You got to remember, this was written
Q . Well, you don't say that there . You
say -- you were a young scientist then, trying to
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
do the right thing, right? You weren't worried
2
about the controversy ; you were worried about what
3
was right, weren't you?
4
A . Well, the other thing, too, sir, is that,
5
when I wrote something like that, the people knew
6
what I was talking about .
Q .
7
They
9
did . 1956 .
By the way, I looked in your
8
background . I saw, when you were a young man, you
10
taught Sunday School, didn't you?
11
A . I did?
That's what it said, somewheres . You
12
13
didn't teach Sunday School? Do you belong to
14
church?
15
A .
16
Yes .
Q . Which church?
17
A . If it's any of your business, I'm an
18
Episcopalian .
19
20
21
22
*
926
Q . Do you believe in God?
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . This is -BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, Doctor, I'm just asking you . If
23
you know that something is a carcinogen, don't
24
you -- you don't believe anymore that it's
25
required to be removed -- complete removal or
Ln
N
~
N
~
~
~
N
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
927
1
almost complete removal of these compounds from
2
cigarette smoke is required? You don't believe
3
that anymore? Is that true?
4
A . Well, I believe in what we have done . If you
5
look at what we have done, we have reduced it
6
substantially in cigarette smoke over the years .
7
And the fact that that has been done has gotten,
8
actually, commendation from the Surgeon General .
Q .
9
I
see .
You got a letter to that effect from
10
11
him?
12
A . No, it's in the Surgeon General's report .
Q . Oh, I see . Now --
13
14
(Discussion off the record)
15
MR . McDERMOTT : Are we moving to a new
16
exhibit?
17
MR . SHELLER : Yes . We're moving to --
18
THE WITNESS : If you'll excuse me, I'm
19
going to go to the restroom .
20
MR . SHELLER : Sure .
21
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
22
Ln
record at 3 :15 p .m . .
FA
J
(Recess taken from 3 :15 p .m . to 3 :24
23
24
25
p .m . )
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going back on
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
m
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
record at 3 :24 p .m .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
Doctor, I'm going to give you a lette r
4
that you wrote to Dr . Hoover, Dr . Kenneth Hoover,
5
in July -- on July 25th, 1962 . And this would be
6
Exhibit 9 .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 9 was
7
8
marked for identification )
(Discussion off the record )
9
MR . SHELLER : While they're waiting ,
10
11
I'll just -
12
BY MR . SHELLER :
13
92 8
Q .
Kenneth Hoover is who ?
14
A . He was the director of research when I came
15
to Reynolds, and I guess he was director till 1965
16
when Dr . Willard Bright took his place .
17
Q . Now, you were making a submission of
18
abstracts of papers to be presented at the 16th
19
Tobacco Conference Research Conference, in
20
Richmond, Virginia, in September 1962 .
21
A . Right .
22
Q.
And you had to get permission fro m
23
Dr . Hoover as to what you could present ; is that
24
correct ?
25
A . Yes .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
929
Q . And in it -- and I take you down to
2
the third paragraph . It says : (Reading)
The findings presented
3
4
in this manuscript have been
5
described in RDR, 1962,
6
No . 14 .
7
And you say : (Reading)
The discussion given in
8
9
-
the RDR of the testing of
10
indoles and carbazoles for
11
carcinogenic activity has, of
12
course, been deleted from the
13
manuscript, even though all
14
of these tests gave negative
15
results . The review of other
16
heterocyclic nitrogen
17
compounds identified in
18
tobacco smoke, example, [and
19
again, my pronunciation is
20
not great] pyrido indole
21
methyl-something . Indole
22
dibenz acridine -- [on and
23
on] was omitted from our
24
manuscript because of the
25
reported carcinogenic
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
activity of the latter three
2
compounds .
3
A . Right .
4
Q . Why did you feel compelled to have to
5
omit any compound that could be carcinogenic from
6
this presentation?
7
A . Well, we didn't omit any, we just didn't
8
discuss them in the presentation, their biological
9
activity in the presentation .
10
•
930
Q . Well, why didn't you want to do that?
11
A . Well, as I explained to you before . If you
12
look at the last ones, dibenz[a,h,]acridine,
13
dibenz [a, j] acridine and dibenz [c, g] carbazole . If
14
you notice the date on this is 1962 . These were
15
the three aza-arenes that had been reported in
16
1960 by Benjamin Van Duuren . And as I said
17
earlier, they had been described as tumorigenic to
18
mouse skin . But they're -- already some question
19
as to whether they were in cigarette smoke .
20
And as I said, Dr . Wynder, if you look
21
at his book and some of his writing in his review
22
articles, they couldn't find those . And then,
23
since then, seven other studies done in Germany,
24
Japan, the United States, they can't find them .
25
So -- and the other thing is, sir,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
this was a -- not a biological conference, it was
2
a chemist conference . And they were primarily
3
interested in chemical analysis, chemical
4
identification, and not on the discussion of
5
biological issues .
Q . Well, "May we" -- you say, "May we
6
7
submit the manuscript to Tobacco Science for
8
Publication?"
You were submitting it, not just to
9
10
the conference, but you were submitting it to
11
Tobacco Science for Publication . Weren't you
12
planning to do that?
13
A . Yes . And it was published .
Q . It was published . With the omission
14
15
of any compound that was thought to have --
16
A.
17
No .
Q . -- carcinogenic activity in cigarette
18
smoke .
19
A . Not compounds we had identified .
20
931
Q . Not ones you had identified .
21
A . That other people had discussed . And I say
22
here, Tobacco Science was primarily a chemical
23
journal .
Ln
r
J
~
m
~
J
J
24
Q . Well, how about -- were there any of
25
these compounds that you agree were still -- are
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
still in tobacco smoke and are carcinogenic?
2
A . The norharmane and harmane, the first two
932
there, are, if you will, borderline tumorigens,
4
5
and they're in tobacco smoke .
Q . So, your description, then, was you
6
were going to admit -- omit even the ones that
7
even today you agree are borderline carcinogenic?
8
A . Omit discussion .
9
Q . Was that the standard practice at --
10
11
THE WITNESS : I guess .
13
MR . McDERMOTT : Okay . I'm sorry .
15
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Was that the standard practice, to
16
omit any compound -- discussion of compounds at
17
any of these Tobacco Science conferences that were
18
carcinogenic compounds at that time?
19
A . At this particular one, it was . This
20
conference .
21
251
Dr . Rodgman, had you finished your answer?
12
14
~
MR . McDERMOTT : Excuse me .
Q . How about after that?
22
Ln
A . Well, I'm sure you've mulled through all my ~
23
~
m
reports on the composition of smoke, including the ~
24
~
ones on the polycyclic hydrocarbons, and so on and co
so
forth . By sometime in 1965, we had presented
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
almost all of that stuff at different conferences .
2
Carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic, inhibitory,
3
promoting, and --
4
Q . How about publishing them?
5
A . Well, by the time we got to presenting
6
them -- the whole thing -- are you listening?
7
,~
933
Q.
Yes . I didn't forget . I'm here .
8
A . That -- when we determined the polycyclics
9
and identified them, we then set out on a -- as
10
you know, a series of studies of ways to reduce
11
polycyclics in cigarette smoke, which involved the
12
extraction procedure I mentioned before, the
13
addition of combustion additives, the use of
I I_I I
14
filter tip additives, the effect of things in
15
paper and so on . And one of the major reasons we
16
had not published too much about the polycyclics,
17
since our work was fairly sophisticated, that --
18
this would have been a pretty good clue to anybody
19
that, if Reynolds knows that much about
20
polycyclics, they're probably doing something to
21
reduce it, and what are they doing?
22
As I told you before, many of the
23
methods that -- where we were looking at selective
24
reduction of class of compounds, whether it be
25
polycyclics or phenols or what have you, ended up
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
934
1
in causing other problems that -- you know, you
2
solve one problem, or partly solve it, and then
3
you raise several others . And by the time we
4
finished all that work and went to the premise
5
that, if we're going to do something with smoke,
6
let's lower everything uniformly, or as nearly
7
uniformly as we can . Most of what we had found
8
had all -- was already published . I think, by the
9
time we got to that point in time, in the -- '65,
10
or whenever it was, there was only one compound
11
that I had found that was not in the literature,
12
and I wasn't too sure of that one either .
13
That was carcinogenic?
Q.
14
A . I don't know -- it may be borderline
15
carcinogenic .
16
17
What one was that?
Q.
A . A compound called cholanthrene .
Q . Did you ever publish on that?
18
No . It appeared in something else, shortly
19
A.
20
thereafter .
21
Q . How long thereafter?
22
A . Oh, I don't know . A year or two . You
23
usually wouldn't --
24
25
Q .
Doctor
--
Ln
~
~
N
m
~
~
Ln
m
MR . BLANCATO : Finish your answer .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 935
MR . McDERMOTT : Doctor, finish your
answer .
MR . SHELLER : A year or two
thereafter, I think he said .
THE WITNESS : But, here again, you
know, by this time,
there were -- by 1965, there
were probably a hundred polycyclics in smoke .
'What more would one do?
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
10
I
Doctor, wouldn't it have been
11
12
appropriate for Reynolds to say : There are
13
carcinogens in tobacco smoke -MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
14
15
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . -- and here they are, that we have -
16
17
that have been reported by others? Rather than
18
saying, publicly : We're going to deny that we
19
know about them .
20
MR . BLANCATO : Object to form .
21
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
22
the question . Assumes facts not in evidence .
23
THE WITNESS : I don't understand .
24
!
see .
! c„
N
~
m
~
BY MR . SHELLER :
251
Q . Well, why didn't -- is the only reason
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
936
,
1
Reynolds never told the public that there are
2
carcinogens in our smoke and published it was
3
because others, outside of the tobacco industry,
4
had published that information and, therefore,
5
there was no need for Reynolds to acknowledge it?
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection, no
6
7
foundation .
THE WITNESS : Well, as I say, we
8
9
10
0
eventually did acknowledge it . And I gave it four
times .
11
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
12
THE WITNESS : Twice in Georgia, and
13
14
15
16
over here in Greensboro, North Carolina, and once
here at Wake Forest University .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . In a publication?
17
A . No, a presentation . As I say, everything had
18
been published by that time . But --
19
Q . When did you -- there were four times
20
you did this . When was it?
21
A . I think -- the first time, I think, was '65,-
22
somewhere in there .
23
Q . So you agreed that there were
24
carcinogens in tobacco smoke?
25
A . Well, as -- as I've said, many, many times
WAGA & SPINELLI
Ln
N
(201) 992-4111
1
Vol . 5, Pg .
937
I
1
here, sir, there are carcinogens in tobacco smoke
2
that are carcinogenic to mouse skin .
3
Q . Doctor, I'm going to give you a
4
report . We're going to refer to this as Exhibit
5
10 .
6
7
8
9
10
11
•
description, please --
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 10 was
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . This is entitled "The Smoking
.and
12
Health Problem, A Critical and Objective Appraisal
13
of RDM, 1963, No . 4 ." The copy where it's marked
14
"voided by KHH" .
15
(Discussion off the record)
16
MR . McDERMOTT : Do you want to do the
17
same thing? Do you want to do an A and B here?
18
Or you're not going to use
19
.
MS . KNISELY : I don't know if we'll
20
get to the next one, but we can just give it a
21
different number .
22
•
MS . EASON : May we please have a
MR . McDERMOTT : If memory serves, I
23
think these are already in the record for this
24
deposition from the first session .
25
MS . KNISELY : Not that particular one .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
I
938
MR . LEE : Only in the boxes, not
1
2
individual . I talked about it . It was never
3
introduced . And they're not on top --
4
MS . KNISELY : It's not been attached,
not that particular one .
6
MR . McDERMOTT : All right . I thought
7
it was introduced in the Minnesota deposition, the
8
Minnesota portion, was it not?
9
MS . KNISELY : No . The one attached to
10
the subpoena -- the Arch subpoena was ; but that
11
did not have the "voided KHH° on it .
12
13
MR . McDERMOTT : All right .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, you, in this -- do you recall
14
15
this report?
16
A . Oh, yes .
Q . And this -- what do you mean by
17
18
"voided by KHH°?
19
A .
20
21
22
Mr . Hoover voided it .
Q .
Meaning
what?
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . Asked and
Ln
N
~
~
answered . This was all gone into --
m
23
24
BY MR . SHELLER :
He rejected it ; is that correct?
IN
~
~
~
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . Asked and
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
answered . This was all gone into at length by
2
Mr . Lee .
3
4
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
All
right . The -- page 7 of the
5
report -- and before I get to that, let me
6
introduce another exhibit, 'cause I'm going to ask
7
you to refer to them together . This is a 1962 --
8
it says "RDM 1963 No . 1," also voided by KHH .
MR . McDERMOTT : I believe that's
9
10
Number 4 .
11
MR . SHELLER : Previously Number 4?
12
MS . KNISELY : No, I don't think it is .
13
THE WITNESS : The one that's got
14
"first" on the top is number 1, 1963 . The one
15
that's got second -MR . McDERMOTT : Yeah, but let me see
16
17
this one .
18
THE WITNESS : It's the short one?
19
MR . McDERMOTT : Is that a "one" or a
20
"four"?
THE WITNESS : That's a "one" and this
21
22
one's the "four" .
MR . McDERMOTT : Okay, I'm sorry . I
23
24
~
939
25IBY
Un
r
misspoke .
~
~
~
MR . SHELLER :
WAGA & SPINELLI
J
F-'
0
Ln
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
Q . Now, Doctor, I want you to look at
page 4 of what's number 1, research report 1 .
3
4
MR . BLANCATO : Are you going to mark
this short one as an exhibit?
5
MR . SHELLER : Yes .
6
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 11 was
7
8
940
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . If you look at E, the "Evidence to
10
Date
m
on report number 1, you say : (Reading)
11
Obviously the amount of
12
evidence accumulated to
13
indict cigarette smoke as a
14
health hazard is
15
overwhelming . The evidence
16
challenging this indictment
17
is scant . Attempts to shift
18
the blame to other factors
19
(example, air pollutants)
20
necessitates acceptance of
21
data similar to those denied
22
in the cigarette smoke case .
23
MR . MeDERMOTT : I'm not going to
24
object at this time, but I will point out this was
25
covered in the first session of the deposition .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
941
r
MR . SHELLER : Not this particular
1
2
statement .
3
MR . HOLTON : Oh, yes, it was .
4
MR . SHELLER : You'll see, when I get
5
to it .
6
MR . HOLTON : Not the variation .
7
MR . SHELLER : Right, not the
8
9
variation .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Now, Doctor, that's what you said in
10
11
your first report . And then, if you look at page
12
second (sic) of your -- this one, 1963 report,
13
number 4, when you -- what did you do? Did you
14
resubmit it to Mr . -- to Dr . Hoover?
15
A .
No . No .
16
MS . EASON : What page are you on?
17
MR . SHELLER : Page 7 .
18
THE WITNESS : If you had read the
19
deposition, you'll find why there are two . You
20
haven't read the deposition .
21
MR . SHELLER : Yes, I have .
22
THE WITNESS : Well, do you know why
23
24
25
there are two, then?
MR . SHELLER : I may not remember it
accurately, I'm sorry .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
942
THE WITNESS : Well, if you notice, one
1
2
is very brief ; no citations . And the reason they
3
were written this way is, I knew management --
4
scientific management would appreciate the longer
5
version annotated, and so on and so forth . And
6
the other one, if it marched on outside of the
7
research department, that people wouldn't want to
8
have a whole bunch of numbers rattling around, and
9
a long bibliography, and so on and so forth . So
10
one is a -- if you will -- a brief summary of the
11
other one .
12
13
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, Doctor, look at the top of page
14
1 of the report number 4 .
15
A . Uh-huh .
16
Q•
17
paragraph :
You say on the top of the page, first
(Reading)
This report is an
18
19
extension of a companion
20
memorandum, which presented
21
my position as briefly and as
22
concisely as possible .
The
23
Ln
~
~
two memoranda have identical m
24
schematic organizations .
25
mentioned before, if
As
~
Ln
00
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
943
r
1
requested, a thorough,
2
fully-documented exposition
3
of the ideas will be
4
prepared .
Is that why this -- is there any
5
6
inconsistency between these two?
7
A.
8
the other . And, if you notice, they fairly well
9
follow the same plot and --
No . As I say, one was a shorter version of
10
Q . Well, on page 7 -- could you look at
11
page 7 of the report 4 . "The Evidence to Date,"
12
which is now being amplified in your report 4, you
13
say : (Reading)
Obviously the amount of
14
15
evidence accumulated to
16
indict cigarette smoke as a
17
health hazard is
18
overwhelming .
19
20
A . Yes, I said that . And I explained it before .
Q.
Right . Now you say : (Reading)
However the evidence
21
22
from epidemiological,
23
pathological, biological and
24
chemical studies . Supporting
25
the proposition that lung
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
cancer is caused by or
2
associated with cigarette
3
smoke, is paralleled by
4
similar evidence supporting
5
the proposition that lung
6
cancer is caused by or
7
associated with air
8
pollutants . In some
9
instances, the evidence seems
10
to be stronger in support of
11
cigarette smoke as a
12
causative or associated
13
factor ; in other instances
14
the evidence seems to be
15
stronger in support of air
16
pollutants as a causative or
17
associated factor .
944
(You then go on and say]
18
19
Any criticism leveled at the
20
lung cancer-cigarette smoke
21
proposition, statistical
22
studies cannot prove
23
cause-and-effect
24
relationships between two
25
factors, mice are not men,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
945
y
1
(criticism of biological
2
evidence) .
3
You say : (Reading)
4
Metaplasia and
5
hyperplasia do not become
6
cancerous (a criticism of the
7
pathological evidence) ; and
8
no experimental evidence to
9
show that any cigarette smoke
10
constituent is carcinogenic
11
to human lung tissue at the
12
level present in cigarette
13
smoke (a criticism of the
14
chemical evidence) is equally
15
applicable to the lung
16
cancer-air pollutant
17
proposition .
Is that how you amplified it then?
18
19
A . Well, as you can see, one is much longer than
20
the other . And, of course, as I explained before,
21
that my concern was that -- when I said evidence
22
was overwhelming, is all we were hearing was one
23
side of the arqument . And this is late '62/early tj
24
'63 .
251
And
as
I
said
WAGA & SPINELLI
before,
my
concern
was
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~_j
_j
~
m
Vol . 5, Pg .
946
1
we had developed a pretty good reputation for
2
being good chemists . And what I wanted to do, and
3
what this is really aimed at, is persuade
4
management to let us get into biological work .
5
Q.
Right .
6
A . And -- because I felt, with the competence of
7
the people we had or people we could acquire, that
8
if we could be that good in chemistry - and we
9
were considered very good in chemistry r then we
10
could do the same thing with the biological
11
studies . And already, by this time, in 1963, we
12
had demonstrated in-house -- unfortunately we
13
hadn't published some of it . But many of the
14
assertions in the -- that -- in this overwhelming
15
evidence was wrong .
16
17
18
Q . All right, sir .
Doctor, look at your recommendations
on page 14 . And you say : (Reading)
Recommendations : After
19
20
consideration of the evidence
21
available
22
smoke-health problem and the ~
23
Company's obligation to its
24
customers [and you have an
on
the
cigarette
Ln
r
~
asterisk there] it is
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
•
1
interesting to note remarks
2
like "Why don't 'they' do
3
something about the liquor
4
industry? After all, there
5
are an estimated four million
6
Americans classified as
7
alcoholics . Alcoholism not
8
only is a health hazard to
9
the drinker but also causes
10
untold anguish to his
11
family ." Or "What about the
12
meat-packing industry and the
13
supposed relationship of
14
saturated animal fat to
15
cholesterol-caused
16
circulatory disorders and
17
heart disease? After all,
18
many more persons die of
19
heart disease than lung
'20
cancer ." These remarks [and
21
this is your statement] may
22
have some justification, but
23
attempts to minimize our
24
obligations by pointing an
25
accusing finger at others is
WAGA & SPINELLI
947
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
no solution to the cigarette
2
smoke-health problem!
3
A . Right .
Q . Do you agree with that today?
4
5
6
A .
Yeah .
Q . Then you go on to say, after you say,
7
"To its customers, stockholders, and employees :"
8
(Reading)
It is recommended that
9
0
10
facilities, animals, and
11
personnel (where necessary)
12
be acquired to study
13
948
biological cigarette smoke,
14
tobacco, tobacco and
15
additives .
This recommendation has
16
17
been made previously by
18
Teague, by Rodgman [and it
19
lists -- you list all these
20
dates] . Data from such
21
studies may be invaluable, if
22
government restrictions are
23
imposed as a result of the
24
conclusions of the Surgeon
25
General's Committee on
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
949
,
1
Smoking and Health . It is, I
2
believe, more urgent than
3
ever that we acquire
4
dexterity in biological
5
techniques .
Do you still agree with that today?
6
7
A . Yes . And of course we do have biological
8
things in place, now, some of them .
9
Q . And between 1970 and '84 you had none,
10
right?
11
A . Well, we did a lot of contracting outside .
12
13
Q .
I
see .
Then you say, on page 15 : (Reading)
It is recommended that
14
15
data already available on
16
physiologically active
17
cigarette smoke components,
18
example, polycyclic
19
hydrocarbons, phenols be
20
published . It is recommended
21
that analytical procedures
22
concerning such components be
23
published . These
24
recommendations are made
25
because I believe they
WAGA'& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg
950
t represent the best answer to
1
2
the questions : What effect
3
would immediate publication
4
of these data have on this
5
Company's economic status?
6
What would be the effect on
7
this Company of not
8
publishing these data now,
9
but being required at some
10
future date to disclose such
11
data, possibly in the
12
unfavorable atmosphere of a
13
lawsuit?
What happened? Did they agree with you?
14
15
Did Mr . Hoover -- Mr . Hoover voided this, didn't
16
he?
17
A . Right .
18
MR . McDERMOTT : Counselor, I don't
19
mean to rain on your parade, but this has been
20
covered already, and this is getting repetitive
21
and quite time consuming .
MR . SHELLER : By the way, I'm going to
22
23
give you a letter that Dr . Teague wrote to
24
Dr . Hoover .
251
MS . KNISELY : If you want to mark
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
these next A and B?
THE WITNESS : By the way it's not
2
3
Dr . Hoover, it's Mr . Hoover .
4
MR . SHELLER : Mr . Hoover . All right .
5
THE WITNESS : Believe me, there's a
6
difference .
7
MR . SHELLER : That's obvious .
8
MS . KNISELY : One is typewritten and
9
one is handwritten, if you want to mark the next
10
number A and B .
MR . SHELLER : Okay . What number are
11
12
we up to? 12 A and B .
MS . EASON : And which is the A and
13
14
951
which is .the B?
15
MR . SHELLER : A is the typewritten
16
version, the letter from Dr . Teague to Kenneth
17
Hoover -
18
MR . McDERMOTT : This is 11 A and B?
19
MR . SHELLER : Right . And 11 -- 12 .
20
And the handwritten is -- 12 is the handwritten
21
copy by Dr . Bruce .
22
(Discussion off the record)
23
(Plaintiff's Exhibits Numbered 12A and
24
25
12B were marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q .
Now,
Doctor,
2
supervisor, right?
3
A . At one time .
4
Q .
At
one
952
Dr . Teague was your
time .
5
And what was he at this time, in 1963?
6
A . He was manager -- 1963, he was manager of the
7
chemical research division . He was my boss .
8
Q . And he says : (Reading)
I believe he has a right
9
10
to be heard, despite my
11
honest disagreement with him
12
on certain minor points .
13
Accordingly, I recommend that
14
the reports be accepted and
15
distributed . I also might
16
suggest that copies be made
17
available to members of our
18
legal department .
And he's referring to "RDM, 1963, No .
19
20
and °RDM, 1963, No . 4 .°
21
A . Right .
MS . EASON : For the record, which
22
23
1"
version
were
you
reading?
~
0,
00
MR . SHELLER : I was reading the typed
24
251 version .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 953
MS . EASON : Thank you .
2
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . And even though Dr . Teague supported
you, he -- Hoover rejected it too . Did Hoover
tell you why?
A . He called me in -- actually, they were all
typed and of course had been assigned a number -you might as well hear the whole story .
And in those days we didn't have Xerox
10
copiers . We had an original and five or six
11
carbons . And he had the typed version on his desk
12
and a couple of copies of my -- if you notice,
13
this typing on the ones we just finished, it's
14
pretty terrible . And I have to -- I was never
15
much of a typist . I did these at home .
And he said, "Alan, I'm not going to
16
17
issue these ." And he didn't say why . And I
18
noticed the copies on his desk . I didn't know if
19
there were two copies or three copies there with
20
the "voided KHH" on it . And I just reached over
21
and I said, "Okay, if you're not, then these are
22
mine," and walked out .
So these -- I think, if you look in
23
24
the list of RDM's, you'll find a place there where
25
these two are voided .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
just voided them?
3
A.
5
No .
Q . All right .
Doctor, I'm going to give you a report
6
that you wrote in 1964 that wasn't voided by
7
Hoover, apparently . It's an analysis of cigarette
8
smoke condensate, summary of an eight-year study .
9
10
•
Q . So he really didn't tell you much, he
2
4
954
MR . McDERMOTT : Hang on . Do we have
copies of that?
11
MS . KNISELY : Yes, you do .
12
MR . HOLTON : We don't have that one
13
copied, do we?
14
MS . KNISELY : Yes, you do .
15
(Discussion off the record)
16
BY MR . SHELLER :
17
Q . Doctor, would you please refer to --
18
this is RDR number 1964, Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 .
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 13 was
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . And I'm referring you now to page 56,
entitled "Discussion" .
You start a rather lengthy discussion,
and you say : (Reading)
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
During the past decade
1
0
2
and a half, considerable
3
scientific evidence has been
4
presented which relates
5
tobacco smoking, particularly
6
cigarette smoking, to
7
specific diseases . This
8
evidence consists of four
9
types : Namely, statistical,
10
pathological, biological and
11
chemical . Our studies have
12
been concerned solely with
13
955
the latter - the chemical
14
composition of smoke . For a
15
consistent picture to be
16
painted of the tobacco
17
smoke-disease problem, the
18
evidence from each discipline
19
must agree with that from the
20
other three . With respect to
21
the composition of tobacco
22
smoke, are our chemical
23
evidence and the chemical
24
evidence reported by others
25
consistent with the reported
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
statistical, pathological,
2
and biological data?
3
You asked this question .
4
And then I take you over to page 58,
956
where you say -MR . McDERMOTT : Hang on, let me catch
6
7
up with you . All right .
BY MR . SHELLER :
9
Q . (Reading)
The known composition of
10
11
tobacco smoke is not
12
inconsistent with the
13
statistical finding that
14
cigarette smoke may be
15
associated with lung disease,
16
heart disease, et cetera .
The next paragraph, you go on and you
17
18
say -- and -- I'm sorry, lung cancer, heart
19
disease, et cetera .
You then say in the next paragraph :
20
21
(Reading)
The known composition of
22
0
23
tobacco smoke is not
24
inconsistent with the
25
pathological findings that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
fluorescent components of
2
cigarette smoke --
3
MS . KNISELY : Biological .
4
MR . SHELLER : (Reading)
5
-- are absorbed b y
6
respiratory tract tissue, or
7
that metaplasia and
95 7
hyperplasia are produced in
9
the respiratory tract by
10
cigarette smoke, or that
11
ciliastatic -- ciliastasis is
12
produced by cigarette smoke .
13
Then you go on and you say : (Reading)
The known composition of
14
15
tobacco smoke is no t
16
inconsistent with the
17
biological findings, that
18
cigarette smoke is
19
carcinogenic, cocarcinogenic,
20
and ciliastatic .
21
You say, on page 59 : (Reading)
22
It is often argued that
23
the amount of benzo [a] pyrene
24
or arsenious oxide i n
cigarette smoke i s
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
958
r
1
insufficient to account for
2
the observed carcinogenicity
3
of cigarette smoke . This, of
4
course, is true! But no one
has yet conducted the obvious
6
experiment to determine
7
whether the amounts of the
carcinogenic polycyclic
9
0
hydrocarbons plus the amounts
10
of the carcinogenic
11
heterocyclic nitrogen
12
compounds plus the amount of
13
arsenious oxide plus the
14
amounts of the cocarcinogenic
15
phenols and fatty acids are
16
sufficient to account for the
17
observed biological results .
18
Calculation has indicated
19
that the known carcinogens
20
and cocarcinogens in tobacco
21
smoke -- in cigarette smoke
22
can account for about
23
90 percent of the observed
24
activity . Such a mixture
25
could behave synergistically,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
additively, or inhibitively .
2
It is obvious that concern
3
with relative concentration
4
in cigarette smoke of one, or
5
at most, of a few of the
6
components is ridiculous . As
7
an absolute criterion of
8
safety insofar as health is
9
concerned, chemical analysis
10
of cigarette smoke, while
11
highly suggestive, is
12
physiologically meaningless .
13
14
You then -- I take you to page 62 . You
say on page 62, number 7 : (Reading)
None of the --
15
16
17
959
You say several things ; I'm just pointing
out to you one of them . (Reading)
None of the chemical
18
19
data acquired in our study or
20
in studies conducted
21
elsewhere is inconsistent
22
with
23
pathological, or statistical m
24
data
25
smoke as a health hazard .
reported
biological,
~
v
~-•
~
~
WAGA & SPINELLI
indicting
cigarette
~
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 960
Recommendations . Future
1
Work, 1 .
2
All additives of tobacco
3
4
smoke should be tested
5
biologically for their
6
adverse effect, if any, on a
7
host .
Was that ever done by Reynolds?
8
9
A .
Q . Your recommendations .
10
11
The additive thing?
A . Well, the additive thing was eventually done .
Q . All additives were tested on a
12
13
biological host?
14
A . They were tested in the Ames test .
Q . All of them?
15
16
A . As far as I know .
Q . As far as you know .
17
18
19
A .
Dr . Chin Lee was the --
Q.
Oh . Okay . And how about your other
20
recommendations about -- that it's ridiculous if
21
you don't mix the different things together? Do
Ln
N
N
-j
22
6
you recall that?
23
A . Well, that's an interesting exercise, because
24
at one time I thought that would be really the way
25
to look at it . And in looking at some
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
~
-j
rn
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
calculations done by one of the masters in the
2
cancer field, I thought, well, if we have this
3
number of polycyclics that are tumorigenic to
4
mouse skin, and if we had this number of this
5
compound and these compounds, what kind of an
6
experiment would you have to do?
7
961
Well, I plotted it all out and I was a
8
little stunned to find, to do the experiment
that
9
I thought would be the ultimate in solving the
10
question or showing the effect would require three
11
times the number of available mice at all the
12
laboratory supply companies in the United States,
13
because of the extent .
14
And then it goes over the cost . In
15
those days, it doesn't sound like much, but I
16
think I figured it out : It cost about
17
$12 million . And I just -- you know, nobody's
18
going to do that .
19
And, of course, some of the things I
20
suggested there -- although, I -- I have a little
21
problem . I don't know where I got that
22
90 percent . But that's all right .
23
Q . So it was never done, because it cost
24
too much ; is correct?
25
A . Well, nobody ever did it .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
962
I
•
Q . Nobody ever did it .
1
2
A . And --
Q . Except it's done on humans .
3
4
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
5
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form .
6
MS . EASON : Objection .
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Isn't that correct, Doctor?
8
9
A.
What?
Q . It's done on humans . Every human who
10
11
smokes is a human guinea pig .
12
A . I wouldn't say that, sir .
Q .
13
14
A.
No?
No .
15
MS . EASON : Object to the form .
16
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form .
17
18
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . So you'd, rather than run the test and
19
spend the money, which was $12 million in 1964 --
20
A . Well, I never proposed that to anybody, sir .
21
Q . -- because it was too expensive .
22
MR . McDERMOTT : Object . You're
23
mischaracterizing his testimony . He said it would
24
take three times the number of animals that
25
existed in the United States, laboratory animals .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
963
r
1
2
Q . Laboratory . How many animals would it
3
take, Doctor?
4
A . Well, I forget the -- in here I used 100 mice
5
per group . And it was in the hundred thousands of
6
animals . Well, you can phone some of the animal
7
supply place and say, "Well, you know, if I were
8
to need so many animals by such-and-such a date,"
9
they were nowhere close to what you need .
10
'
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . How did you determine that? Did you
11
contact anybody who had knowledge to do this
12
testing, to give you an estimate on how many
13
animals they need and what the cost would be?
14
A . Well, as I say, the way I looked at it -- and
15
it was very simplistic ; I was just curious . That
16
if you had compound A, B, C, D, E, whatever - they
17
listed them - what was their effect singularly?
18
What were their effect in pairs? What were their
19
effect in triplets? And you can see, it just
20
snowballs .
21
Q . How about sticking to just triplets?
22
A . Well, I say, I was doing -- I mean, you're
23
asking me something I did 33 years ago and say
24
"Why didn't you do so-and-so?" I didn't do it .
25
Q . And Reynolds never did it . And to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
964
r
1
your knowledge -
2
A.
3
to anybody .
No . I never even turned that calculation in
Q . And to your knowledge, no one in the
4
5
tobacco industry --
6
A . Nobody in any place has ever done it .
Q.
7
Now, Doctor -- you say Dr . Chin did
8
9
10
11
Right .
Ames testing?
A .
Dr . Chin Lee .
Q . Chin Lee, on additives that are in
12
tobacco?
13
A . He -- he looked at all the components of
14
flavor formulations, I understand .
15
Q . Well, which ones? Do you know?
16
A . I don't know that much about all the -- the
17
flavorants by name . I know a few of them .
18
Q . You don't know whether Dr . Chin Lee
19
actually looked at all of the additives in
20
tobacco, do you?
21
A . Well, I used to see some of the things he
22
wrote that he did . And of course, in those days,
23
a lot of the flavorants and the flavor formulation
24
were coded, for obvious reasons . And there were
25
75, 100 of them, and he had run them all and found
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
965
r
1
no problem with all of them .
Q . Seventy-five or a hundred .
2
3
A . Something like that .
Q . Additives .
4
Now, how many additives are there in
5
6
tobacco?
7
A . Additives in tobacco?
Q.
8
9
A . Tobacco per se?
Q . In cigarettes .
10
11
Uh-huh . Do you know?
A . Well, I just told you .
Q . You said there was only 75 or 100?
12
No . There may be 75 or 80, whatever the
13
A.
14
number of compounds used in flavor formulation .
15
But'each blend -- brand, I should say, not blend,
16
has its own flavor formulation, and there may be
17
40 in this brand and 50 in this, and 30 in this .
18
And -- but they'll be different ones .
19
Q.
I
see . Well, are you able to tell the
20
jury today whether Reynolds tested all the
21
additives for Ames testing, that's mutagenicity on
22
animals
in
their
cigarettes?
~
a
23
A . Well, as far as I know, Chin -- Dr .
Lee
did
24
0
it . But then we had another experiment that ~
251 actually was a much simpler one and more
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
m
Vol . 5, Pg . 966
meaningful, I guess, if you will, in terms of
product .
Q . What was that?
A . Well, this will take a little explanation .
And we did it with five products . But let's just
concentrate on one product .
Q . When you say "a product," you mean a
cigarette brand?
A .
10
Yeah . Like Winston or -- I'm sure you've
seen this someplace . It's all written up .
Q . Is that the one where you found --
11
12
when you tested one of your products,
13
half percent of the mice got skin cancer?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form --
14
15
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Is that one of the tests you did?
16
MR . McDERMOTT : -- of the question .
17
18
You're interrupting Dr . Rodgman's answer .
19
Dr . Rodgman, complete your answer .
20
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . I'm just asking if that's one the --
21
!
37 and a
No . This is -- this was a mutagenicity test,
22
A.
23
Ames test, done by a contract laboratory, with
24
unimpeachable reputation . And what we did was
25
very simple .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
967
r
1
We had the Winston cigarette, as it is
2
marketed, which has a certain amount of what we
3
call casing materials and a flavor formulation .
4
Then we had the Winston cigarette with the casing
5
materials, no flavorants . Then we had some
6
Winstons made with no casing material, and the
7
flavorant formulation the same as on the marketed
8
product . Then we had the Winston cigarette with
9
no casing, no flavorings .
10
And the Ames test showed that, when
11
you took out the flavorants of the -- the casing
12
material, the mutagenicity went up . And the
13
minute I saw the results, I -- I won't say I
14
panicked, but I was a little thunderstruck . Until
15
it hit me . We already knew why it went up,
16
because six -- it just went up a little bit .
17
Six or seven percent of this tar,
18
which is used in the -- or TPM, which is used in
19
the Ames test, is humectants, glycerol and
20
propylene glycol, and they are non-mutagenic . So
21
we -- you weren't getting those in the smoke, you
22
didn't have -- their dilution effect . So the
23
mutagenicity went up a few percent .
24
25
Flavorants had no effect on
mutagenicity .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q . Doctor, you did this with Winston .
2
What other products?
3
A . Winston, Vantage, Now, Camel and something
4
else ; there were five brands .
5
Q . Did you do it with any of the other
6
brands?
7
A . Well, if you did it five times and you get
8
the same answer --
9
968
Q . But in all instances there was
10
mutagenicity, right?
11
A . Well, cigarette smoke itself is mutagenicity .
12
Q .
I
see . I see .
Did you do any other test --
13
14
biological testing, other than the Ames test, on
15
any of your products? The biological testing
16
A . Well, we did the biological testing on puffed
17
tobacco, we did it on one of our tobacco
18
substitutes .
19
20
Q . On your product line .
A . Well
I was trying to think if one of our
21
22
23
24
. . .
products was the control for a substitute test we u+
~
did .
Q.
I-You
I
don't
just
don't
-know?
-J
m
4
~
~P-
251 A . I've forgotten, apparently .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q . There's a whole lot of biological
2
tests that one can do, right, on a product?
3
A . Right . And of course the one that is part
4
and parcel of the definition is mouse skin
5
painting .
6
Q . And that wasn't done on your products,
7
other than -- which one did you did do -- which
8
product did you do the mouse skin painting?
9
A . Well, we did it on the tobacco substitutes .
10
969
Q . On the substitute .
In a prior exhibit, it's already been
11
12
marked, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1056 . I'll have to
13
show you the one that I have, 'cause it's the only
14
copy I have handy .
15
You -- you had said that you didn't
16
recommend testing the mixtures of the different
17
parts of the tobacco smoke . I'd like you to look
18
at page 2 . And this is a -- April 16th, 1982,
19
from you, is it Dr . Giles, Dr . Colby and
20
Dr . Nystrom are "Misters" there?
21
A . Giles is a Mister .
22
Q.
To
Dr . DiMarco . And who's
23
Dr . DiMarco?
24
A . He was vice president of R & D . He had just
25
come to Reynolds about that time, early '82,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
something like that .
Q .
You
say : (Reading)
3
Project Area 3 . In
4
spite of its high complexity,
5
most of the chemical
6
carcinogenesis literature
7
deals with experiments
8
involving one - or at most
9
two - 'carcinogens' (plus
10
cocarcingoens, promoters,
11
et cetera) ; the real-life
12
situation is obviously much
13
more complex than this .
14
Therefore, we propose
15
standardized animal
16
carcinogenesis tests
17
involving varying proportions
18
of first, three chemical
19
carcinogens and, later, four
20
chemical carcinogens,
21
et cetera, to,determine
22
interrelationships more
23
closely related to real-life
24
situations .
25
970
First, who was Dr . Giles -- or was it
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
971
I
1
Mister? I'm mixed up . Is that a Mister or
2
Doctor?
3
A . Yeah, he was at one time -- he was manager of
4
analytical research at one time .
5
6
Q .
I
see . Is he a doctor?
A . Mister .
7
Q .
Mister . And who is Dr . Colby?
8
A . He was head of the science information
9
division at that time .
Q .
10
At
1982?
11
A . Right . And -- and Dr . Nystrom worked under
12
him at the library and eventually became manager
13
of the science information division .
Q . And what was your com -- position at
14
15
the time?
16
A . Director of fundamental research .
Q . Did Reynolds ever do what you
17
18
recommended?
19
A .
No .
Q . They give you a reason why not?
20
No . You got to re -- well, this was written
21
A.
22
because Dr . DiMarco had just gotten there and we ~
-j
23
were showing him some of the things -- or
24
outlining some of the things that we thought ~
I-A
~
0.
J
251 should be done . And some he did, some he didn't .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
972
1
And, of course, he eventually got us back into the
2
biological work again .
Q . But he didn't do this, did he?
3
4
A . I'm sure they didn't do this, no . They had
5
other things they wanted to do, I guess .
Q . Do you know if any -- anybody has ever
6
elsewhere .
7
done that? In the tobacco industry or
8
A . I don't think it's ever been done anyplace .
9
MS . KNISELY : Do you have the copies
10
of the RDR's index -- '54 to '91? I think they're
11
out on the table .
12
(Discussion off the record)
13
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 14 was
14
15
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, while we're waiting for one
16
17
more exhibit, I would like you to look at what I
18
am now marking exhibit, whatever, 14? And it's
19
entitled "R & D Long-Range Planning, Smoking and
20
Health : Product and Smoke Components, Dr . Alan
21
Rodgman, October 8, 1976 ." Is that a report that
22
you prepared?
23
A . I assume so . Let me look at it .
Ln
H
J
~
6
MR . McDERMOTT : Do we have copies of ~
24
25
this?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
MS . KNISELY : We don't . Sorry about
1
2
that .
3
4
MR . HOLTON : Shall we go make some
copies?
MR . SHELLER : We didn't know we were
5
6
going to get to it . That's the problem .
MR . HOLTON : Shall we go make some
7
8
973
copies?
THE WITNESS : I'm only going to refer
9
10
to one sentence . It's not going to be a big deal .
11
MR . McDERMOTT : Okay . What's the date
12
13
14
15
on that?
THE WITNESS : October the 8th, 1976 .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, look at page 43 . Now, is this
16
a document you've prepared? Has your name on it?
17
I mean, the whole document .
18
A . I assume so . I mean, it's got my name in the
19
front and my signature . Sometimes you get
20
something like that and it may be a combination of
21
different people working on it .
22
23
Q . Would you look at the top of page 43 .
It says (Reading)
I .A ., Product .
24
25
Condemnation of nicotine as a
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
health hazard by some
2
smoking-health proponents
3
increased demand for
4
low-nicotine tobaccos,
5
probability of occurrence
6
70 percent .
And then you say "Qualitative" over in
7
8
the right . (Reading)
Lowered "tar" and
9
10
nicotine on established
11
brands ; if lowering of "tar"
12
and nicotine progresses too
13
far, customers weaned from
14
smoking with subsequent sales
15
decline .
Is that your statement?
16
17
18
974
A . Yes, sir .
Q . Why would lowering tar and nicotine on
19
established brands too far wean smoke -- wean
20
customers from smoking with subsequent sales
21
decline?
22
A . Well, it has been shown that, in many
23
instances where people have come out with a very
24
low tar cig -- very low nicotine cigarette or a
25
zero nicotine cigarette, that they just don't
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~
~
~
m
Vol . 5, Pg .
975
r
1
2
sell .
Q . Why did you use the word "wean" them
3
from smoking, rather than "stop" them from -- they
4
just won't buy it? What did you mean by that as
5
this -- you don't say "they won't buy the
6
cigarette," you say it will "wean" them from
7
smoking .
8
A . Well, it may be a--
9
10
11
Q . That's your word, right?
. Right . That's my word .
Q . You could have used different
12
language, couldn't you have?
13
A . Oh, certainly .
14
Q . What did you -- do you mean by "wean"?
15
A . Well, I think you know the meaning of "wean,"
16
don't you?
17
18
19
(Discussion off the record)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Now, Doctor, I'm giving you a list of
20
RDRs, that's research reports, from 1954 to 1991
21
of Reynolds' research department reports . I'm
22
only -- because -- yeah, mark the whole thing,
23
because we'll refer to others . But I'm only, for
24
now, because I know time is short --
25
I want to refer you to page -- there's
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
976
r
1
no page number . Nineteen -- the year 1970 . Did
2
you make that list, Doctor?
3
A .
4
5
6
No .
Q . Who made that list?
A . The library .
Q . So this is a list from the Reynolds
7
library . And they gave you a copy of it? How did
8
you have, in your possession, a copy?
9
A . Well, if you look back, about 1976, '75 --
10
let's see, where are we? 1970, '71, '72 . The
11
typewritten part . When I took over as director of
12
research, there was a folder -- Dr . Senkus had
13
been my predecessor, and before him, of course,
14
was Mr . Hoover .
15
And if you notice -- I'm sure you've
16
looked at some of the RDR's/RDM's . And at the
17
bottom of the last page there's a distribution
18
list, and usually it's to the authors, the
19
manager, the director of research, and a couple of
20
copies to the library . And if it's a report that
21
has patentability things in it, it may go to the
22
patent lawyer .
23
Well, periodically Mr . Hoover, and
24
then subsequently Dr . Senkus, they got all these
25
copies and -- and had them on file . But,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
obviously, we've only got so much filing space,
2
and there were two copies up in the library, so
3
periodically they would tell their secretary "get
4
rid of so -- so many years of this stuff" .
5
977 '
And -- and I'm sure you've noticed in
6
several places it says -- for example, on -- you
7
flip the page, "1954, destroyed 4/9/57" . And that
8
means they took those copies from Mr . Hoover's
9
files and destroyed them .
10
Well, they kept the list of all these .
11
And when I took over from Dr . Senkus, I happened
12
to get this folder, and here's this list of -- of
13
the RDR's, and there was a similar list for RDM's .
14
And I thought, gee, this is a handy thing to have
15
to check things .
16
So, after that, I went up to the
17
library and they had a ledger book that, as new
18
RDR's were phoned in, the secretary or the
19
clerical person up there would say, "Give me the
20
title," and they would write down the date and
21
assign it a number and write it down . That's why
22
it's all handwritten .
23
And then I'm sure you'll probably come
24
across places where you may see something crossed
25
out . Well what would happen is somebody would
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
978
1
phone up and get an RDR number or RDM number,
2
suddenly have reservations or a problem with what
3
they were going to write, phone up and say, "Hey,
4
void that one ; I'm going to redo it," or give it a
5
new title or something . And then you'll notice,
6
sometime later on, there may be something with a
7
very similar title . You know, sometimes an
8
experiment goes wrong and you get it screwed up .
Q . I understand .
9
Look at the year 1970 in this list, in
10
11
the typewritten part .
12
A . Uh-huh .
Q . And from 1970 it says "Smoking
14
exposure studies, not in file . E .R . Fluck ."
15
There's a checkmark next to that one . Whose
16
checkmark is that?
17
A . I don't know .
18
MS . EASON : For the record, could you
19
please read the Bates number that appears on that
20
page .
21
MR . SHELLER : There is none .
22
MR . McDERMOTT : Yes, there is
23
MS . EASON : Yes, there is .
24
MR . SHELLER :
25
.
Ln
J
N
Not
on
the
page
m
~
J
I'm
~
looking at .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
979
I
MR . McDERMOTT : 501524764 . If you
1
2
look on the cover -- it's probably covered by your
3
hand .
MR . SHELLER : Oh . Okay . Sometimes
4
5
these help .
6
MS . BRACHTL : Repeat that .
7
MR . SHELLER : 501524764 .
8
MS . BRACHTL : Thank you .
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . So you don't know who put that
10
11
checkmark there?
12
A .
No .
Q . And what does it mean, "not in file"?
13
14
Is that your writing?
15
A.
No . I don't know whose writing that is .
Q . Then you -- there's a checkmark at
16
17
number 4 . An attempt to establish a simple
18
procedure for determination of a drug's addicting
19
properties . And that says, "not in file," and<
20
there's a checkmark .
21
A . I have no idea what it --
Ln
23
N
Q . And then there's a checkmark -- and ~
m
these are the only three checkmarks on this whole ~
24
page . (Reading)
22
251
Number
15,
WAGA & SPINELLI
"Development
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
of a New Screening Procedure
2
Which Detects and
3
Differentiates Major and
4
Minor Tranquilizing and
5
Sedative Hypnotic Activity ."
6
"Not in file" .
7
You don't know why, on the entire page,
8
those three have the words "not in file" written
9
next to them and checkmarks next to them?
980
No . I notice, over the next page, number 25
10
A.
11
has a checkmark beside it but "not in file" is not
12
written on it . So I don't see any connection .
13
Q . Well that's "90-day Toxicity Study on
14
Glucose Fructose Syrups"?
15
A . Well, I think that's a good example of
16
showing the people were wrong . I said the only
17
thing the bio division was doing was smoke
18
studies .
19
Q.
20
21
Right . But that's in the file, huh?
A . Well, 319 is not a smoke study either .
Q . Would you mind telling me why -- who
22
are Thompkins and Thornloe? Do you know, who are
23
the authors?
24
A . They were some -- they were some of the
25
people that were let go in the '70 incident .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Q . Are they still around, alive? Do you
1
2
know?
3
A . I don't know .
4
5
981
Q . How about -- well, Thompkins also did
number 15 .
6
Now, do you know why Reynolds is
7
researching an attempt to establish a simple
procedure for determination of a drug's addicting
9
10
properties?
A . I have no idea, sir .
11
Q . Do you know why smoking's exposure
12
studies from E .R . Fluck -- where's Fluck these
13
days? Do you know? E . R . Fluck?
14
A . He left -- he actually wasn't in the group
15
that left in 1970 ; he had already left . He had
16
done some work on ciliastasis, but I don't know
17
whether that's what it refers to or not .
18
Q . Where is he now?
19
A . I have no idea . I mean, you're talking 27
20
years ago, sir .
21
Q . Well I -- I just was -- so you have no
22
idea why those three studies are not in the file .
23
A . Well, I don't know what you call by "in the
24
file" and in whose file or --
25
Q . Who would know where those studies
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
982
r
1
are?
2
A . I think the first place to check was with
3
Reynolds' library .
4
I
see . And where are the -- you think
5
the originals would be in the library?
6
A . I would assume so .
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Q . They'd still be there, right?
A . They should be .
MR . SHELLER : Could I have them
produced, please?
MR . McDERMOTT : Document production
has long since ended .
MR . SHELLER : We only found these
14
boxes six weeks ago, and we had to go -- and only
15
had them delivered a couple of weeks ago . And we
16
need to -- we can't get production of things we
17
don't know about . We didn't know this witness had
18
this material .
19
•
Q.
MR . MCDERMOTT : This material has
20
nothing to do with the underlying studies, which
21
have been available . Document production has
22
concluded . If you want to make a request to
23
Mr . Belasic -- I'm not the regular attorney in
24
this case . Put it in writing and give it to him,
25
and we'll respond .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 983
MR . SHELLER :
Okay .
MR . McDERMOTT : But we don't engage in
document production exercises in a third-party
witness deposition .
MR . SHELLER : All right . At this
point I'm going to let Mr . Maistros go forward,
and I will press the issue with Mr . Belasic and
see if we have to -MR . McDERMOTT : All right . Let me
10
raise a question, and you have me at a bit of
11
disadvantage here .
MR . SHELLER : I know, you wanted to
12
13
leave at 4 :30 .
MR . McDERMOTT : No . That's -- that's
14
15
not a problem . I'm not going to raise my schedule
16
as a barrier to your going forward .
Ordinarily, when two attorneys
17
18
question, one questions and completes his
19
questioning and the other begins, and that ends
20
it, and you don't do tag-team, switching back and
21
forth .
MR . SHELLER : Oh . I'm finished with
22
23
Dr . Rodgman .
MR . McDERMOTT : Has that practice not
24
251 been observed in this case? I just want to know
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
what -- sequential testing . Jack is coming
2
back - MR . SHELLER : Yes . And I'm not going
3
4
to be questioning again .
MR . McDERMOTT : That doesn't precisely
5
6
respond to my question . Mr . Maistros, having had
7
his turn at bat, does he get another turn at bat?
MR . SHELLER : No . He's not going to
8
9
984
repeat anything that I've repeated .
MR . McDERMOTT : That is not my
10
11
question either . Does he get a second opportunity
12
to question under the protocol that you all been
13
following --
14
MR . SHELLER : It's not a second
15
opportunity . Don't play games now, Mr . McDermott .
16
We -- to let me question because I wanted to get a
17
few hours - and I said it to the judge's law
18
clerk - and that Mr . Maistros would then continue .
19
And I said it to the judge's law clerk . And I
20
told that to you, that I only wanted a few hours .
21
MR . McDERMOTT : Are you representing
22
to me, on the record, that has been the practice
23
in this case, that the attorney first questioning
24
is then followed by the second attorney, the
25
second lead attorney designated under the case
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
985
1
management order, and then the first attorney gets
2
to return and ask additional questions?
MR . SHELLER : It depends on the
3
4
situation . We've already done this before, by the
5
way .
6
MR . MAISTROS : We have done this on
7
numerous occasions . I don't know why it was
8
agreed to and I wasn't a party to it, but it's
9
happened at, I would guess, more than half the
10
11
depositions that I attended .
THE WITNESS : I thought there were
12
only supposed to be two, if I may stick in my ore .
13
Now you're the third .
14
MR . McDERMOTT : On the strength of
15
your representation that this sort of
16
switching-off has taken place before, I will
17
permit you to continue, but without prejudice
18
the ability of my partner, who is not here and who
19
is not reachable, Mr . Belasic, to raise objection
20
to this procedure and deem the deposition closed
21
as of this point . But I will not -- I will not
22
stop things, for the moment .
23
to
MR . BLANCATO : I would like to go
24
ahead, while you're moving, Mr . Sheller, and put
25
something on the record about the discussion
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
objection that I raised this morning and that
2
Mr . McDermott raised this morning based on
3
pretrial order number one, joint case
4
management --
5
6
COURT REPORTER : I'm sorry, I can't
hear you . Based on what?
7
8
MS . BRACHTL : Rustling the paper is
extremely distracting .
9
•
MR . BLANCATO : I'm sorry . Based on
10
pretrial order number one, joint case management
11
plan entered in the Arch case, particularly
12
paragraph roman numeral VI-D-1, which said that :
13
(Reading)
Each side shall
14
15
designate not more than two
16
attorneys to take the lead in
17
conducting the examination of
18
the deponent .
19
It's my position and, I believe,
20
Mr . McDermott's position that Mr . J . D . Lee was
21
the first attorney to be designated to take the
22
lead in questioning this case, and that
23
Mr . Maistros was the second, and that Mr . Sheller
24
25
986
Ln
~
was therefore the third and, under the terms of ~
m
this order, should not have been permitted to ~
N
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
•
987
question the witness .
We've made a telephone call to the
3
judge's chambers, learned that the judge is on
4
vacation, and spoke with his law clerks, who
5
recommended that Mr . Sheller be allowed to go
6
forward . We agreed to abide that recommendation
7
and not disturb the judge on his vacation . But I
8
want to make it clear that, by agreeing to that
9
recommendation or allowing -- following that
10
recommendation by the law clerk, I don't waive any
11
objection to the procedure you followed here
12
today . And it's my position that your questioning
13
was improper under the orders governing this case .
14
MS . BRACHTL : This is Martis Brachtl,
15
for the record . I need to make a statement while
16
we are at this transition point .
17
We cross-noticed this deposition in
18
the New York action . It's 4 :30 . It's my
19
understanding that the Arch deposition will not
20
finish today, and we, in New York, have not been
21
able to ask any questions, and we will do so when
22
you let us know the date to resume the deposition .
23
Th an k you .
,
~
-J
24
MS . EASON :
May
I
also
make
a
r
m
Ob
~
25 statement for the record, that I believe that the m
w
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Perry case preceded your case .
MS . BRACHTL : So you're saying that
2
3
Perry should go before --
4
COURT REPORTER : I can't hear you .
5
MS . EASON : Mr . Lee had designated the
6
Perry case for his case before your intervention .
7
I think that, even though he's not present, you
8
probably need to discuss with him if he has any
9
questions and if he would like to reconvene for
10
Perry .
MR . McDERMOTT : All right . Let me put
11
12
•
988
in my two cents worth once again .
As far as I'm concerned, the Arch
13
14
deposition is going to conclude today . And I will
15
leave it to negotiations with my partner,
16
Mr . Belasic, if he wishes to permit a
17
continuation . And, of course, I can't speak for
18
Dr . Rodgman or his counsel .
Plaintiffs in Arch have had more than
19
20
ample opportunity to explore any relevant issues
21
they wished, and they've spent some time doing
22
that, other time in ways that we can quibble
23
about
.
Ln
J
F4
24
•
25
Be that as it may, as far as I'm m
~
concerned, this deposition in Arch will be ~
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
concluded as of the end of today, subject to
2
Mr . Belasic having a kinder review of things .
3
We've had three attorneys . The thir d
4
attorney has completed his examination, and we're
5
now going back to number two . This is highly
6
irregular and quite protracted .
98 9
MS . BRACHTL : Regardless of what
8
happens in the Arch case, whether it finishes
9
today or doesn't finish today, it's clear that
10
New York won't get to go today . So we'll talk to
11
you about another date .
12
THE'WITNESS : I want to go home . I
13
mean, I've been here for four days, listening to
14
all this stuff . Do I have a say in this ?
15
16
MR . McDERMOTT : Would you like to
confer with your counsel ?
17
MR . BLANCATO : Let's take a break .
18
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
19
record at 4 :30 p .m .
20
2 1
22
0
(Recess taken from 4 :30 p .m . to 4 :3 9
p .m . )
VIDEOGRAPHER : This is tape 6 of the Ln
23
videotape deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
24
going back on the record at 4 :39 p .m .
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
or.
CO
cn
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
990
I
EXAMINATION (Continued)
1
2
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q.
3
4
Dr . Rodgman, how are you?
A . I'm tired .
5
Q . I'll try not to be duplicative of
6
either my previous questions or Mr . Sheller's
7
questions . I'm sure I'11 be reminded, if I am .
I'd like to mention a couple of
8
9
topics, first of all,
and ask you if -- what your
10
knowledge is of these topics, okay?
11
A . Yes, sir .
Q . You ever hear of a project called
12
13
Project RAN, R-A-N?
14
A .
15
16
17
Yes .
Q . What was Project RAN?
A . Reduced Ames numbers .
S2 •
What does that mean?
18
A . Well, in the test for mutagenicity, they --
19
what is used is the test that was developed in
20
1973 by Dr . Bruce Ames, and it was used to test
21
the mutagenicity of compounds . And, for a while,
22
it was thought to be a -- an alternative to
vn
23
24
•
25
lung -- large-scale lung -- running biological H~
m
studies, but there wasn't a complete coordinatioi,p .
00
m
or relationship between mutagenicity and
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
991
r
1
tumorigenicity . But it's a way to get a result on
2
something very quickly ; it takes a week or less
3
than -- I never ran it ; Dr . Chin Lee did all that
4
work in-house .
5
And there was a project to develop a
6
cigarette whose smoke condensate showed reduced
7
Ames numbers . And the Ames numbers are usually
8
proportional to some of the components in the
9
tobacco smoke .
10
11
Q . What was that project?
A . Pardon?
Q . What was the project that you
12
13
mentioned? You said there was a project to
14
develop a cigarette .
15
A .
16
Q . No, you said there was a project to
17
develop a cigarette with reduced --
18
A . R-A-N was the project .
19
Q . That was to develop a cigarette
20
with -- with reduced --
21
A . Well, it was a -- the -- yes . It was to
22
develop a cigarette with reduced Ames numbers, and ;
23
it was called Project RAN .
24
•
R-A-N .
25
Q . What was the name of the actual
cigarette that was developed?
WAGA & SPINELLI
J
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
A . I don't think there was one developed . If
2
there was -- if anything was developed, it was
3
probably incorporated in something I know nothing
4
about .
Most of that work - I don't know what
5
6
date you have on that - was started just about the
7
time I was leaving . It may have started in '86 .
8
It was not done in fundamental R & D -- in
9
fundamental research . And I believe a fellow
10
called Dr . William Rice was in charge of it .
Q.
11
•
Okay . Have you heard of Project XDU?
12
A . If I have, I don't -- I don't know it by
13
those initials . I mean, I don't know exactly what
14
it does or what it's supposed to do . I may have
15
heard of a project -- I don't know of an XDU .
16
Q.
Have you heard of Project R-E-S-T?
17
A . I have a feeling I should -- I've heard the
18
name someplace recently, but I couldn't tell you
19
what it does .
20
Q.
Reestablishment of solubles ; does that
21
ring a bell at all?
22
A . No, it doesn't ring a bell .
Q
23
24
•
992
25
A.
Have you heard of Project EW?
No .
Q . What was the Chemosol study?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
993
r
1
A . Oh, the Chemosol study . The Chemosol study
2
was based on a patent -- issued to a man called
3
Bindig, B-I-N-D-I-G, a German . He obtained
4
patents in Germany, Canada, and the United States .
5
And sometime in the late '60s, this patent was
6
issued in the United States, and some noted
7
government officials found out about this patent .
8
And what it involved, sir, was the
addition to tobacco of citric acid, which is
10
already in tobacco, dissolved in water containing
11
some deuterium oxide and -- heavy water .
12
Well, we had looked at the patent and
13
figured well, this is not going to do anything .
14
Because the amount of citric acid -- that's a very
15
plentiful component of tobacco ; it's about two and
16
a half/three percent of tobacco is citric acid .
17
And Bindig recommended adding enough citric acid
18
to the .tobacco to, say -- and here I'm just
19
picking a figure . Say it was 3 .00 percent citric
20
acid, that when you put what he recommended, it
21
would be 3 .002 . And the amount of deuterium oxide
22
he recommended adding was like doubling the water
23
that comes out of your tap at home . And this
24
Chemosol additive was supposed to reduce the
25
tumorigenicity of cigarette smoke condensate to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
J
N
m
Vol . 5, Pg . 994
mice, and the benz -- polycyclic hydrocarbon
content of the smoke .
We -- I looked at it, from my
background, and said to management : It isn't
going to do a darn thing . Philip Morris' people
looked at it, they told their management it isn't
going to do a darn thing . American's people
looked at it, Lorillard, and so on . But these
three very powerful individuals in the government
10
said : You will do it .
And at a cost of three years' time and
11
12
several million dollars, Reynolds made the
13
cigarettes with Chemosol people standing there,
14
watching how the cigarettes were made .
The animal work was done, which takes
15
16
about two years . The chemistry was done on the
17
smoke with regard to polycyclic hydrocarbons,
18
principally benzo[alpyrene .
And, here, I've
19
forgotten the exact numbers,
but there was one
20
mouse difference between the control and the
21
Chemosol-treated cigarette,
22
experimental error, because you could have a
23
difference of three and not make a difference .
which is within
The benzpyrene difference was
24
0 251 micrograms per gram of condensate versus
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
.84
.83,
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
995
which is an experimental error .
Now, this is all written up by James
2
3
Gargis in a reputable journal . He did all the
4
work .
5
And the, of course, the high-powered
6
officials, as soon as they learned this -- their
7
aim was, if it had worked, they would buy the
8
patent from Bindig and charge the tobacco industry
9
royalties . And of course, when it didn't work,
10
11
the whole thing dropped .
And if you're wondering who one of the
12
major proponents of it is, it was Hubert H .
13
Humphrey . The father of the man pushing Minnesota
14
all over the place, from the tobacco company .
15
And you may say : Well how does Alan
16
Rodgman know this? In 1968 or '69, when this
17
started, the monitoring of this whole experiment
18
was done by Dr . Eldon Nielson . And when he left
19
in -- Reynolds, late in 1970, I was assigned to
20
take his place on the monitoring committee, which
21
included Dr . Robert Carpenter from Philip Morris
22
and Dr . Preston Leake from American Tobacco
23
Company, and myself replacing Dr . Nielson .
24
25
And after Gargis published his work,
the Chemosol people had enough nerve to say :
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
i
Vol . 5, Pg .
996
r
1
Well, the cigarettes weren't made properly . And
2
they stood there and watched every step of the
3
preparation . And the Reynolds factory is just up
4
the street from here . And agreed that everything
5
was done properly .
Q . Let me show you what's been marked as
6
7
Exhibit 16 .
8
9
MR . MAISTROS : I don't know if there's
a quick way to pull that or not .
10
MR . HOLTON : This is -- this is not in
11
those boxes . This was produced by Reynolds . So
12
we need to make copies .
13
MR . MAISTROS : Well, while you're
14
doing it, then, please make this one as well . I
15
have two of this, if that's enough . You want
16
more?
17
18
19
20
21
MR . McDERMOTT : Yeah, let's make a
couple of copies .
MR . MAISTROS : Let me put a sticker on
it, first, Mark .
(Plaintiff's Exhibits Numbered 15 and
Ln
22
23
!
16 were marked for identification)
BY MR . MAISTROS :
24
Q . While they're making those copies, if
25
you wouldn't mind browsing -- let me see if -- if
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
997
r
1
that's the -- that will be the next one . Maybe we
2
can save some time if you read it now :
3
(Witness reviews document)
4
The document I've marked as Exhibit
5
16, is it not?
6
A.
Yes .
7
8
Q . It's dated January 4th, 1978?
A .
Right .
9
10
Q .
A .
to
you?
Yes .
11
12
It's
Q . And it's from a D . H . Piehl?
A .
Dr . Donald Piehl .
Q . Who was Dr . Piehl?
13
14
A . He was manager of the chemical research
15
division .
16
Q . What was your title on January 4th of
17
1978?
18
A . Director of research .
19
Q . And take a minute to look at this
20
document . Do you recall receiving this document
21
on or about January 4th of 1978?
22
A . Yes, I -- yes, I did, sir .
23
24
Q . And is this a document that appears to
~
be a complete and accurate copy of the document °~°
w
251 you received on or about January 4th of 1978?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A . I assume so . Page numbers seem to be all
2
right .
998
Q . And was this document kept by you in
3
4
the ordinary course of business as an employee of
5
Reynolds?
6
A . I don't know whether I kept it in my file or
7
not . I really don't know . I've forgotten if I
8
did .
Q . What do you mean by your file? You
10
mean in those six boxes over there?
11
A . Yeah -- no . I don't think it was in those
12
boxes . It may have been, but I don't think it
13
was .
14
Q . But, you do recall receiving this
15
document on or about January 4th of '78?
16
A . Yes . I mean, I wouldn't swear to the date,
17
but I remember seeing this before .
18
Q .
What is the objective that Dr . Piehl
19
advises you that he had in '77/'78?
20
A . This is the taste of nicotine, the tar and
21
nicotine ratios . Those ones, you mean?
22
Q . What is the stated objective,
23
underneath "Objective"?
24
A . (Reading)
The ultimate goal of
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
this research is to provide
2
the means to maximize smoker
3
satisfaction for all Reynolds
4
cigarette brands, with
5
particular emphasis on low
6
"tar" cigarettes .
999
Q . And then the four specific objectives
7
8
that he lists below there . First one is :
9
(Reading)
Determine the taste
10
11
characteristics of nicotine
12
in factors that affect its
perception .
What's the second objective of head of
15
chemical research at RJR in 1978?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
16
17
the question .
THE WITNESS : I didn't understand you,
18
19
sir .
20
BY MR . MAISTROS :
21
Q•
Well, I'm reading below the heading
m Specific '77/'78 objectives," correct?
22
that says
23
A . Right .
24
25
Q . What's the second listed '77/'78
objective by Dr . Piehl, manager of chemical
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1000
research at RJR?
2
A . (Reading)
3
Determine the means to
4
alter and control "tar" and
5
nicotine ratio and increase
6
nicotine transfer efficiency .
8
nicotine transfer efficiency"?
9
A . Well -- I'd have to read this again . I
10
don't
.
Q . It's on the second page .
11
(Witness reviews document)
12
13
A . I assume that's what he meant, is what he
14
wrote there . On page 2, item 2 .
Q . On the second page, Dr . Piehl goes
15
16
into some detail explaining what he means by
17
nicotine transfer efficiency?
18
A .
19
meant because that's what he wrote .
20
Yes . I assume -- I assume that's what he
Q . What's the first paragraph, second
21
sentence say underneath that?
22
A . First paragraph?
23
24
0
What did Dr . Piehl mean by "increase
Q
7
25
Q . If you could just read slower for the
court reporter .
A . (Reading)
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
It has been demonstrated
1
2
that blending alone can
3
greatly alter T/N ratio,
4
while, to date, other
5
techniques such as adding
6
nicotine or other additives
7
have been less expedient .
8
9
department -- or the chemical department doing in
'77/'78, that related to adding of nicotine?
11
A . I think they're shown on page 3 . And the
. .
Q . Why was RJR doing research in '77/'78
13
with respect to adding nicotine to tobacco?
14
A . Well, a lot of this was experimental . I
15
don't know whether -- I'm pretty sure it was never
16
included in a product . But I guess he wanted to
17
see how it behaved under different circumstances .
18
•
Q . What research was the chemistry
10
12
1001
Q . Do you know what the "Reynolds' number
19
one cigarette" is? It's referred to on the third
20
page, second paragraph .
21
A . Which paragraph, sir?
22
Q . Third page, second paragraph . Last
23
line refers to "Reynolds' number one cigarette"
24
A . No, I don't know what that is .
25
Q . Are you suggesting that, in 1978, the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
only addition of nicotine that Reynolds was doing
2
to its tobacco was experimental?
3
A . As far as I know .
1002
This was about the same time as the
4
5
thing I mentioned yesterday to you, was when
6
people like Dr . Russell in England and Dr . Jarvik
7
here - maybe it was this morning I mentioned it were recommending leaving the nicotine alone and
9
reducing the tar, or reducing the tar and
10
increasing the nicotine . And that was discussed
11
by him at the Banbury Conference in 1979, which
12
was published in 1980 .
And, subsequently, there were problems
13
14
with consumer acceptance or test paneling of such
15
prototypes . And as far as I know, we dropped
16
them .
17
Q . And the third objective listed on the
18
first page says what?
19
A . (Reading)
Define the optimum
20
21
nicotine level in cigarette
22
smoke required to maximize
23
smoker satisfaction .
24
Determine the existence of a
25
minimum or a threshold value
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
of nicotine required for
2
satisfaction .
Q.
3
Was
1003
Dr . Piehl advising you of this
4
objective to get your approval or just to advise
5
you of what he was doing?
6
A . He was just telling me what -- some of the
7
things they were looking at that would run from
8
'77 into '78, possibly .
Q . And do you know if Dr . Piehl carried
0
10
these studies forward, that is, to determine the
11
minimum or threshold value of nicotine required
12
for satisfaction?
13
A . I really don't remember it . But, you know --
14
but, you know, if he did, I'm sure there's a
15
report on it .
16
Q . On the fourth page of this document,
17
do you see where he is listing the -- it's under
18
the heading "Optimum and Threshold Nicotine
19
Values" . The heading is on the previous page .
MR . McDERMOTT : I'm sorry, where are
20
21
you?
22
MR . MAISTROS : On page 3, he's got the ~
~
~
23
heading "Optimum and Threshold Nicotine Values," m
24
but it caries over to page 4 on the second
25
paragraph .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . He states that : (Reading)
The preliminary data
3
4
above apparently reveal an
5
optimum nicotine value of
6
.12 milligrams per puff .
7
These results should be
8
regarded as unconfirmed at
9
this point . However, it is
10
of interest to speculate,
11
since the value for Winston
12
has usually been over
13
.15 milligrams puff and the
14
value for Marlboro
15
.13 milligrams puff or less .
16
Were you aware in 1977/'78 that Dr . Piehl
17
was doing that research?
18
A . I'm sure I was . I notice, on the preceding
19
page, they were talking about the consumer study,
20
and I was trying to think of where that was
21
conducted . It wasn't in Winston . It was
22
someplace else .
23
1004
Q . Do you know if consumer studies were
24
done, subsequent to this period of time, to
25
determine the minimum nicotine values that were
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
l
Vol . 5, Pg .
1005
1
acceptable to consumers?
2
A . They may have, sir . I don't remember them .
3
I think that's one of the things that
4
everything -- this is '78, of course ; a couple of
5
years went by, we were into 1980, and the whole
6
R & D thing got changed around and things were
7
dropped . Don Piehl became a director . And I
8
really don't remember some of this work, if it was
9
done .
Q . When you would do -- did you do,
10
11
yourself, consumer tests with test cigarettes?
12
A.
13
most of my work was in the chemical end . I was
14
trying to think .
15
No . I -- when I was involved experimentally,
You might say it was sort of test
16
paneling, consumer testing, is when we were
17
looking at the substitutes, the Sutton smoking
18
material, as I mentioned before and the -- we had
19
a problem with some of our test panels who are --
20
people who had become very perceptive to tobacco
21
smoke . And they really couldn't tell us much on
22
tobacco substitutes, particularly when the
23
cigarette was a hundred percent . They didn't know
24
what to look for .
25
And so we had some small groups that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1006
I
•
1
we sort of trained, they were in-house groups, to
2
test substitutes .
3
4
5
•
That's really the only one I was
involved with in the Sutton smoking material .
We had supposedly bought a finished
6
product, but we really ended up having a year-long
7
research exercise to improve it and get the right
8
formulation for the Sutton thing . And so we had
9
to keep testing it and changing the manufacturing
10
process . And I had about six or eight people that
11
did all that . That was -- but they were all
12
in-house people, not external .
13
14
Q . Could you look at page 4, at the
bottom . Dr . Piehl states : (Reading)
It has also usually been
15
•
16
assumed that smoke pH
17
determined "free nicotine"
18
content of the smoke, and it
19
is calculated on that basis .
20
However, recent evidence
21
suggests that "free nicotine"
22
in the mouth is determined by
23
the pH of the smoker's
24
saliva .
25
Do you know if any work was done,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
subsequent to this date, to either verify or
2
confirm that hypotheses?
3
A . I think -- and this -- we went through this
4
with Mr . O'Fallon . That there's a report by
5
Dr . Rix on this subject -- at least it's also in
6
the report by Dr . Rix, that it was done with some
7
experiments in which human saliva was tested with
8
nicotine salts . And the saliva -- the pH of the
9
saliva is the controlling factor, not the pH in
10
11
•
the smoke or anything like that .
Q . In this same period of time, wasn't
12
Reynolds doing other testing to determine how to
13
increase the ability of the nicotine to transfer
14
into the human respiratory system?
15
A . If it was, I don't remember it .
16
1007
Q . Do you know what I mean by -- do you
17
have a specific understanding of what Dr . Piehl
18
meant by "nicotine transfer efficiency," separate
19
and apart from this memo you just read?
20
A . Yes . It's -- tobacco has a, you know,
21
certain level of nicotine in it and -- for
22
example, in -- just taking a one-gram tobacco
23
cigarette, if it's got two and a half percent
24
nicotine in it, that means you've got
25
25 milligrams of nicotine in the tobacco . And,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1008
1
normally, maybe 1 .5 milligrams of that would end
2
up in the mainstream smoke and maybe twice that in
3
sidestream smoke, and the rest of it's destroyed .
And so the transfer is, say -- one and
4
5
a half milligrams from 25 is the transfer rate of
6
nicotine from -- to tobacco to the mainstream
7
smoke .
Now, one of the things that could
8
9
possibly be involved in some of these things that
10
we were doing that, when you puff tobacco, the
11
nicotine level goes down in the puffed tobacco ;
12
which, at some -- at one point, was 15/16 percent
13
of the blend . So, actually, your total nicotine
14
in the tobacco blend is down .
Then, when you increase the level of
15
16
reconstituted tobacco sheet, the total nicotine in
17
the overall blend goes down . And to -- if you had
18
been making a cigarette, for example, that
19
delivered 1 .3 or 1 .5, whatever number you were
20
looking for, and you ended up having, say -- in
21
one case had 25 milligrams of nicotine in the
22
tobacco, and the other you had 20, well, if you Ln~
23
~
increased the transfer rate, you could keep m
24
n i cot i ne
~
OD
251
Q .
i n th e smo k e
at the same level .
Okay . Let's start, first, the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
principle that expanded tobacco has the effect of
2
reducing the nicotine content of the tobacco .
3
A . It does .
4
5
6
Q . Before it's burned, correct?
A . Before it's burned .
Q . And Reynolds had to develop a means to
7
compensate for that reduction of nicotine, did
8
they not?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
MR . MaDERMOTT : Object to the form .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . In the reconstituted tobacco .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESSs Are you suggesting they
added nicotine to the -BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Well, I don't want to limit it to
18
adding nicotine, because no one's going to admit
19
that, I'm sure .
20
21
1009
What I'm looking at is did Reynolds
engage in other processes whereby the nicotine
F-A
1J
22
that was lost during the expansion process could
23
be regained by some other process later on?
24
A . Not that I know of . As I say, I think I just
25
explained it, that -- by increasing the transfer
N
m
0
CO
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
N
Ln
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
rate, you could make less nicotine in the tobacco
2
behave as it had before .
3
4
Q . That -- that's much more accurately
worded than I attempted .
You have less nicotine in the tobacco ;
5
6
but, because you increase the transfer rate, the
7
exact same amount of nicotine enters the human
8
system, correct?
9
A . Yeah -- pretty well . I mean, you could --
10
you could arrange it that way . I don't recall
11
that it was actually
12
•
ever done that way, but
.
Q . When the tobacco is expanded, and
13
before the tobacco is burned, there's less
14
nicotine, correct?
15
A . Right .
16
1010
Q . After the tobacco is burned, expanded
17
tobacco, didn't Reynolds have to devise a method
18
whereby the end product in the human system
19
remained some sort of constant to the pre-expanded
20
tobacco?
21
A . Well, you've got to remember one thing, that
22
expanded tobacco was not the whole blend . You had
23
unexpanded tobacco in the blend . So you're not
24
looking at a great difference of the total --
25
total nicotine in the tobacco -- as I say, it
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 1011
might -- we've reconstituted tobacco sheet,
juggling it and so on .
(Ms . Eason leaves deposition)
MR . MAISTROS : Let me show you what
I've marked as Exhibit 17 .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 17 was
marked for identification)
MR . McDERMOTT : Let me ask a question
here . I see that counsel for Lorillard in another
10
case has just left . This is marked as
11
confidential under the Arch protective order . Is
12
the -- is the practice to type up this portion of
13
the transcript separately and not circulate it to
14
counsel for other defendants, or what? I'm not
15
sure how you all have been treating confidential
16
documents .
MR . MAISTROS : Let me keep this short ;
17
18
we're running out of time . Protocol has been :
19
You decide what you want to do, run it by Belasic,
20
he calls us and we sign off on it . Whatever
21
the -- the defendant's desire has been .
22
MR . McDERMOTT : All right .
23
MR . HOLTON : Is that part of the
24
review -
251
WAGA
MR . MAISTROS : I'm not sure it's part
&
SPINELLI
1
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1012
1
of it ; it's just as a courtesy . I have
2
represented that I will not share a deposition, my
3
notes, the transcript, anything till that's
4
resolved .
MR . McDERMOTT : All right, we'll take
5
6
it up with Mark, so we don't waste time here .
7
He'll get back in contact with you .
8
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Exhibit 17, which I've showed you, is
9
10
dated January 30th, 1978?
11
A . Uh-huh .
12
Q . It's Bates stamped on the right
13
508880315 through 508880316, correct? And there
14
is a -- in between, a 3158 that somebody wrote on
15
in handwriting . Do you see that?
16
A .
17
Yeah .
Q . Now, it appears as though, on my copy
18
at least, the way it was produced, that pages 1, 2
19
and then a page in the middle was just reversed ;
20
it should be at the end .
21
A . Yes .
22
Q . Would you agree, though, that this
23
appears to be a complete three-page document of
24
report authored by Thomas Perfetti and Lawrence
25
Hayes, and --
WAGA & SPINELLI
a
(201) 992-4111
Ln
H
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A.
Right .
Q . -- copied to you?
2
3
A . Right .
Q . And do you recall receiving this
4
5
report on or about January 26th of 1978?
6
A . I really don't . But if my name was on there
7
I probably did .
Q . And again, at this point in time you
8
9
1013
had supervisory responsibility over both Perfetti
10
and Hayes, correct?
11
A . Right .
Q . Is there any relationship between
12
13
Lawrence Hayes and Wallace Hayes?
14
A .
15
No .
Q.
What does the summary of this report,
16
which you were copied on state, on the first page?
17
A .
(Reading)
Chemically-bonded
18
19
ammonia as the pectate amide
20
and nicotine as the pectate
21
salt into ammoniated
22
reconstituted sheet should
23
improve the nicotine transfer
24
and flavor of RJR tobacco
25
products .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 1014
Q . Were you aware, that on or about this
date, that Perfetti and Hayes were working on
improving the nicotine transfer and flavor of RJR
tobacco products through the use of ammoniated
reconstituted tobacco?
A . I knew they were working on it . This was the
time we were -- I believe, around the time we were
working on the ammoniation of our reconstituted
tobacco sheet and -- in an attempt to see if we
10
could figure out why Marlboro was doing so good --
11
so well .
12
•
Q . Did you agree that -- and I'll read
on the first
13
from -- I'm reading from the document
14
page, underneath "Memorandum" . Fourth line :
15
(Reading)
It is known that ammonia
16
17
is used to break down the
18
pectin in tobacco .
Is that a generally known principle in
19
20
January of '78?
21
A . Well, that was the -- the basis -- somewhat
22
the basis for the Philip Morris patent, except Ln
J
H
23
they use ammonium phosphate not ammonium gas or m
A
00
24
aqueous ammonia .
So
it
had
been
known
for
W
~
9 251 some time, you know, since 1967 .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Was it known by you and others at RJR
1
2
that : (Reading)
It is believed that
3
4
pectin chemically binds the
5
ammonia and available
6
nicotine as the amide and
7
nicotinic salt -- I'm
8
sorry -- amide and pectin
9
chemically binds the ammonia
10
and available nicotine as the
11
amide and nicotinic salt,
12
respectively?
13
A . Well, that was a theory . I don't know
14
whether you know what a CIM is .
15
Q .
What's
a
CIM?
16
A . It's a conception of invention memorandum .
17
And what it is, is a -- an idea that Lawrence
18
Hayes and Tom Perfetti had to -- as sort of an
19
outline of a possible invention .
And if you notice, there's a lot of
20
and "it is believed" and so on in this .
21
°mays,"
22
What they're saying is : Is this possible and
23
should we look at it?
24
25
1015
Q . Why was Reynolds interested, in '78,
in creating an invention or a patent related to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1016
1
enhancing nicotine transfer?
2
A . Well, it may -- it may have been -- these are
3
individual concepts, sir, that, whether Reynolds
4
was interested in this or not, had no bearing on
5
the fact that Thomas Perfetti and Lawrence Hayes
6
made this proposal . Whether we were seeking a
7
method of this or not, I don't know .
8
9
But there were a lot of times -- if
you look at the conception of invention
10
memorandum, there were a lot of things that were
11
proposed over the years, and some of them Reynolds
12
had never expected (sic) an interest in . I think,
13
if you look through the list -- in fact, somebody,
14
one time, suggested : Hey, we should have colored
15
cigarettes, orange and pink and so on, to match
16
the ladies wardrobe . Well, Reynolds never
17
expressed an interest in that . Somebody just
18
thought it might be a good idea and proposed it .
19
Q . And was the underlying premise of such
20
an invention, or a potential invention, that,
21
because of the process used to make reconstituted
22
tobacco, you lost some of the nicotine?
23
24
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . No foundation .
THE WITNESS : Well -- say that again,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
•
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . I'm trying to figure out why -- what
was the premise behind the desire to figure out a
5
method to increase nicotine transfer . Would --
6
A . Well, as I say -- as far as I know, any time
7
you ammoniate the tobacco, whether it be sheet
8
or -- or tobacco itself, like burley or
9
flue-cured, you lose ammonia -- lose nicotine .
10
And I say again that, if you do that, you get an
11
acceptable reconstituted tobacco sheet that's
12
ammoniated . If you -- that has lost nicotine
13
if -- there's a possibility the ammonia will help
14
in increasing the transfer of nicotine and
15
maintain it at what it had been before you lost
16
the nicotine .
Q . Earlier, I got into this in some
18
detail with you .
19
the purposes of expanding tobacco was to reduce
20
the end compounds that were produced during the
21
smoking process, correct?
22
A . Yes .
23
•
sir . I'm sorry .
4
17
1017
. But you explained that one of
Q . At least in so far as nicotine was
24
concerned, although the nicotine content of the
25
tobacco itself may have been reduced as a result
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
of the expansion process, wasn't it the goal of
2
Reynolds to make certain that the nicotine that
3
ended up in the human system was not reduced?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
4
5
1018
the question . No foundation .
THE WITNESS : Well, I guess all I can
6
7
go -- say about that is, if -- when you go back to
8
when we introduced expanded tobacco - it was in
9
'68/'69, sometime around there, the cigarette was
10
made - it was the Winston - with about ten or --
11
eight to ten percent expanded tobacco . And
12
nothing was ever done at that point to either
13
increase the transfer of nicotine or to add
14
nicotine . They just sold the product and people
15
bought it .
16
17
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . And is it your testimony -- if you
18
know, was anything similar done, such as the
19
ammoniation process, to increase the transfer of
20
nicotine from '68 to the present?
21
A . Well, as I -- as I said, ammoniation usually
22
reduces the nicotine, and it also increases the
23
transfer . So if you've lost nicotine and
24
increased the transfer, you may have offset some
25
of the effect of the loss .
WAGA & SPINELLI
1
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1019
Here again, I have no idea that -- you
1
2
know, if you lost a small percentage -- dropped
3
the nicotine in the tobacco from two and a half to
4
two percent, whether the ammonia would drive
5
enough nicotine over to make up for what it -- was
6
lost . There's a possibility it could ; but there's
7
a possibility it wouldn't, either .
Q . Does the FTC testing method, that
8
9
10
you've discussed previously, measure the nicotine
content of the tobacco smoke?
11
12
13
MR . MeDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . Asked and answered .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . It does, doesn't it? In some fashion
14
15
it measures the nicotine content?
16
A . Right .
Q . Does it measure the transfer
17
18
capabilities of the nicotine?
19
A.
20
tobacco . You got to analyze the tobacco in the
21
mainstream smoke if you want to figure out the
22
transfer rate .
23
24
No . Because they don't ever analyze the
MR . BLANCATO : Dr . Rodgman, it's about
5 :20 . You said you want to go to about 5 :15 .
If
251 you'd like to go a little longer, it's up to you .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
1020
THE WITNESS : Do you want to finish
this one?
3
MR . MAISTROS : Let me ask you this .
4
Your answer is what your answer is ; we'll debate
5
it with Belasic later . Are we stopping at 5 :15
6
because of the witness' desires or because counsel
7
believes we should stop?
8
9
MR . BLANCATO : No . Dr . Rodgman just
blurted out, before the last break, he's going to
10
go to 5 :15, and that's the first I heard of it .
11
It's really up to the witness .
12
13
14
THE WITNESS : I mean, I've been here
four days .
MR . MAISTROS : I understand . I'm not
15
going to debate it, because it's not going to
16
accomplish anything ; the judge isn't here . I will
17
say on the record that there are numerous
18
documents I'd like to go through with this
19
witness, have them identified, try to get a
20
stipulation that they're business records, and ask
21
him questions about . It will take longer than I'm
22
sure he's willing to sit here for the rest of the
23
day or evening to do . And I would --
24
25
MR . BLANCATO : How long do you think
it will take?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 102 1
MR . MAISTROS : It's at least anothe r
1
2
day .
And I would request -- rather tha n
3
4
debate it here on the record, is we'll discuss it
5
with Belasic . The record is what it is, and
6
somebody wiser than me can decide .
I just want to note for the record
7
8
that there is previous testimony about how much
9
time he spent preparing for the deposition . I'm
10
sure you all agree he's an important witness . And
11
I think, if you take the total time of the Arch
12
examination as opposed to whoever was doing it
13
from Minnesota, including my time yesterday,
14
Steve's time today, Doctor -- or J . D . Lee's time,
15
that it's probably not as much as Minnesota's
16
time .
THE WITNESS : They took exactly te n
17
18
hours .
19
MR . MAISTROS : I'm guessing we're -
20
THE WITNESS : What are you on, tap e
21
what?
22
MR . MAISTROS : Close . Close .
23
THE WITNESS : So you're over te n
24
hours . And that doesn't count the hour and a half
25
that Mr . Lee --
WAGA & SPINELLI
i
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1022
r
MR . MAISTROS : It accomplishes nothing
1
2
by us debating it . But I am not done and I would
3
object if the position is going to be taken that
4
this is the end of the deposition . You've
5
preserved all your objections as to why it should
6
be .
7
8
9
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
record at 5 :24 p .m .
(Deposition adjourned at 5 :24 p .m .)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
JURAT
I, Alan Rodgman, Ph .D ., do hereby
2
3
certify that I have read the foregoing transcript
4
of my testimony, taken on Tuesday, August 5, 1997,
5
and have signed it subject to the following
6
changes :
7
1023
PAGE
LINE
CORRECTION
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
DATE :
22
Sworn and subscribed to before me on this
23
day of -----------------•
24
NOTARY PUBLIC
------------------------------
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
1024
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF YADKIN
2
3
4
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Linda N . Russell, a Notary Public in and
5
for the State of North Carolina, do hereby certify
6
that there came before me on Tuesday, August 5,
7
1997, the person hereinbefore named, who was by me
8
duly sworn to testify to the truth and nothing but
9
the truth of his knowledge concerning the matters in
10
controversy in this cause ; that the witness was
11
thereupon examined under oath, the examination
12
reduced to typewriting under my direction, and the
13
deposition is a true record of the testimony given
14
by the witness .
15
I further certify that I am neither
16
attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed
17
by, any attorney or counsel employed by the parties
18
hereto or financially interested in the action .
19
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my
20
hand and affixed my official notarial seal, this the
21
12th day of August 1997 .
22
~~.~y. e1e6 T
WIti.13C 5;?:I
23
24
N oth ~ r.rdina . Yadkin Cou
ELI .
LIN Notsry Pubsc
My Commfssbn Expl__ rex_ Q•~?
----------T -----I ------- -Linda N . Russell, Notary Public
My Commission Expires 8/25/97
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
EXHIBITS
4
Arch, et al . vs . The American Tobacco Co ., et al.
Civil Action No. 96-5903-CN
4
As Attachment to Deposition of.•
ALAN RODGMAN, PH . D . Tuesday, August 5, 1997
(VOL . 5)
0
I
I
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit Nos . 1 - 17
PREPARED FOR :
MARTINL. HOLTON, III, ESQUIRE
PREPARED BY:
WAGA & SPINELLI.
FOUR BECKER FARM ROAD
ROSELAND, NEW .IERSEY 07068
Phone : (201) 992-4111
CONf1DE1-11 1 AL
njn°
Subject: 5.okin9-itealth Research ProOrIR
' Dete : April 16 . 1982
Alem RodpKan
J . A . Gtl es
F . 9 . Colby
C . it . Mystro+e
Tos Or . G . R, Dlrkrco
t
in response to your request, this .eoorandua outlines opportunities
for a substantial research proOrem related to the tookin and health
controversy . In the ekta, these are tn eddition to outs~de tndnstrrsporsored research (see Appendix A) end do not necessarily coestder
past 1lrftations .
Concerning the outside Industry- and RJR•sponsored reseerch the
following reco .meadattoas are ottered :
o, RJJtT ALO oersonael be more Intimately inrolved In decisions
VAapt, discussions end monitoring ef thtpr oQress of this
~Y!lbardh . tn the post, these activities Aave been ltatted
~ to R 1e9e1 personnel sad/or upper w ne9e .ent with 1t«tted
''••tlu~to devote to tbe saokinp•Meelth controversy .
Rf0 aersoanel be involved in the conteaplated euJor RJR
to fund iundiaental research on diseases alleged to be
ted to saokinq without, however, necesserily involvinQ
tn' as such .
Rt0 personnet be sore involved in the existing RJRirted pro0rAe on basic research adetnistration by Kessrs .
eier and tecon .
,_.._ _ . elopAent ot detailed reco~anendettons= t .e ., prol ect proposels/
wlthiri+iRMeElrort ttee tri .e is essentially impossibte because of the
bresdt/iq;,p*doinp bfoe~edtcel research which t•pects on the se~oktn9 and
hea)th~l[troYersy . The attached tables of contents froa the lest coeprehensiYfT~ir eon lienerai's Report (1979) illustrate this breadth .
of aress have beea identified which constitute gaps or
weekain the present state of knowled e . Eecb Is addressed below
with a<~;d~ stete~Kat ot background and t~e, pyerill thrust of research
~eor~t~. It~1s clear that soeu of this research could be eonducted tn-house,
ire facilities not presently on h :nd . Other areas will be
best addressed by tuadia9 competent outside researchers aad, providing
RJA tohnicel support as appropriate .
i
t
I
/
V
V
•
nPN /OnV eM-AMe,1pe
.. ..
r4AuwY/rra•~~C~~XH181T~
pwv[ ....~..~/A ]>
WiLLIAM C . L .AB0ROt
RCgIilTtRC• rRor• RCPORTtII
s
•2•
PROJECT AREA I1 :
The literature contains ewvr studies on animal (rouse skin, tnstil•
lation, Inhalation, etc .) tests of Individual s+noke components and/or
smoke lroctions, shacing positive or negative results with reference to
the so•called Initiation and/or pro.otion of earclnogenesls . 1fe propose
to test all knorm s .oke eoweonents (present above a certain Qusntitative
level~ for entl•earttao?enle ectivlty In one or sort general eerclnogenes s testing systems s
a) Initiation phase
b) prowtion phase, etc .
tw"
.(
,w n-;rr
::Zc A
~~
'"
~
~ _
,~a.
maan~
PROJECT ABE/l Itt
lbst of the titerature on chemical carctnogenests isqltcttly or
explictt suaes that results of experiments with a high level ef a
cheRlc~~r dsinp relatively few antalt, can be extrapolated to a
reei•1 e situttion . There is also to date unresolved controversy
r+bethe eAeral toxteolo4tul prtnctple that there is a threshold
level substance's biological action, does or does not apply to
carcinogenes s . therefore we propose standardized enial circtnoeeacsis
tests, tftereAt species, iRvolving different strength proups of
ehee~k tno9enf wet~ es 'strong' earelnogen~ s, "aediua• arciaoQens,
•n0 ret eas tetttnp e~xle~u . tolereted dou9es involving a
.oS anisa1=,1/(e levels of ax~ chemical entittes
~
i volvp~
n a=r ~~ue+bol=r
tSoee of tbe:e axpertants e~
pi~rrea underwn~r tl~rou~h see,e Oovern .ent tunded researct:.) Ye
ther st to exaanQ these projects to test the validity of the
~ aifo th• hypothesis of chemical earcinolenesis .
"" PRQJECT' /1 :
tn'ttde of its bi9h complexity, =st of the c,heoical carclno-•
9eneststtt+erature deals with experiments involving one • or at srost
~ two •`n=" (p1us co•carcinotens . prOpotSrf, ete .)s the real~ life songls ObvloNsly «ucb ebre complex then this . Therefere
We pro~andardited eniewl earclnopeneslt tests Involving
=w+vP varying proportiont of first, three chemical carcinogens and leter,
four cIM~MRI earcinoQens etci, to deteraine lnterretationships more
closely related to reat•1{fe stwttons .
PROJECY AREA 84 :
ozb
r
*-Awau
' One of the chief antagonists of smoking, tn the past, has published
rouse skin tests, elaiMing to show that 'tar' frorn c!~arettes to whi~,h
nitrate has been added, proved_less carcinog+nic_tn these tests . Hore
recently_, that seae tea~e has elUiaed thet high nitrate tobaccos yield
©
ille9ed toainer+tise ea Cinogenieity . ~lherittore .wa roposetto teste
A
•3-
high nitrate versus low nitrate tobiccos 1n a suitable, to be developed .
aniwl imalation sodel which wt11 assay simultaneously the so•called
'putfculate aed gas phasa' of cigarette uroke .
Mt4JECT AMA IS :
,,
.
relitlirely 1loitea nuaber of studiei~bii sbownthit ir~antait
experiaents the results are very contradictory and roy not depend on the
chemical and/or other factors which an experiAentsr wiy ennt to tett*
but on the design protocol of the study, and, most specifically, oa the
rethode by whlch the anixul : are 'hendled" . Thsrefore we propose to
deterrine effects of vurinp handling procedures such as caging, feedin9,
foAdiinp, itrefs, etC ., on the outco .oe of animal models ettperiaeats
related to diseases alleged to be associated with s .okin4 .
Mo,1ECT AM fi :
.
TMire'~are some li .ited epfdeafelo0tCa1 data iR the litsrature
Mhich ~{odi te that prepupt women have a~eReral cencer Incidence
way be oir~ xpected' levels . Therefore we suggest to determine
plVrsf 1 parametert of prepnency which euy have a eancer preventing
sffectiF: ,,~
l~~
pROJEC~ /7 !
'weak lunp' hypothesis . It has been postulated that
ia of lcmp eancer, other respiratory system eaaesrs,
hrente breeehiti : . atc. . are essentfallr oeoale who in
__ s Mould lwve betA affected by pulaoniry tbbeiYUlosfs,
ci--- lwre an fa-bor+a 'weak tunp• . Therefore we propose to
Iete tber or aot en :yrwatie or other piraaoters can be tdeatftied
W ch terNfne that an individuel has a'penetiully' determined
sus ty to lung diseases in 9eneral,
PROJEcu.0A
is:
.
A'ili"*ity of scientists working on non•wwliQnent chronic
respi .• diseases believe 1n a hypothesis that~~ eo is due
to a 1atbalance in poi .onery eniy.es in that smoking, through an
oxidative effect, either proaotes depradatfon of the protein laycr of
elastic 1ong tissue framework, end/or inhibits lung constituents,
which prevent such destruction . Therefora we suggest to Investigate
which saokscoa1 onent or coeponents or fraction •if any'eould
exert the so-ulled 'oxidetiw' effect postulated by the 'elastese'
egplt4se.x1~pothtsis . This project could possibly be done in•tiovse,
If proper aefwl facilities were available .
.
a
0
x
i
.
.
.
.
,~
1W
~
~ ~-- ---------_ _-____--_ ._._.- -- - - -- -- -- ---- - -
PRAJECT AREA IQ :
C1aiMs that carbon monoxide an0 ntcotine eey be responsibte for the
association between saohinp and urdiovesculer disase ere ottee made .
These clai .o are given support by oxperiments conducted with either
carbon sonoxide or nieotine separately .
ihere is some evidence In the literature wl :ich suggests that nicotine
ewy actually counteract soNe of the physiological effects of carbon
etonoxide . It is suggested that tM synergtsm andJor anteWisNS between
carbon monoxide sad nicotine be tested In snieel eadels using a battery
of epecitic cardtovaculer parameters .
-: nv
Pao,>ECT
AREA
tla:
Certain Individuals may be oore suscepttibte to s .okinp sssociated
resptr and other diseases . The suscepttblllty may be reflected in
the 0gtui~ties of these individuals . It /s, theretore .
prsPo d~, et the tesMinoZO01N1 protilet of se~okers and aon-sMOktrs
harir~ihete dtstases be tmrestlpated and Eo.pered to Mealtl~y non•saokcrs .
as wel~aeet healthy sNOker : .
.
rRDJl~~b /11s
v. ••r " MW*sous one million + men Anericen tancer Socie~r (Ita :onond) stqQy
Is 61 ted as the a~or evidence of the association bet+teen lun4
~cancse~oicfn9 . Noa+ever, the study has beeR criticized and is knarn
"'°to ~ butlt•iA b/eses, inconststeectes In the data, support for
~the ttonel 1{tpotbes/s, ttc . (You will recall that the consti~+sau tutt 1 tMstsproposes that the hiOher 1evels of the diseases
Itr,v,t ess with saokip ts due to the fact ttat sookers are different
« . kir:ds ple than non•s+rokers, i .e ., they ara eare vnlnerable
eons 1 types .) It 1s proposed this an en•de th study of the
. : raw to carried out In ordcr to expose these veeCne :ses etc .,
and r+llablt study of similar or larger scope be desi9ned to
i
:+
;. test,,1D~'~constitutlonel hypothesis . (Potential cost ) S2 tailiton/year
, ; for ~ ysers . )
t
i
i
~
E+
t
~
'
Much evidence exists india tin9 thatQe nettc susceptibility fs an
leportant factor In chronle diseases assoeieted with sMokiaq . It Is,
i therefore, proposeA that as epide+aioloQtcal study be conducttd of the
; causes ot deat * in tirst and seeond back 9eneration biood repitives of
smkers and non•sokers having sote allepedly ukoking associated dtsease, o ~
such as lwy cancer, other respiratory cancert, chronic bronchttis, ~
emphysea, etc .
v
~
V
}
.;.
PROJECT AREA 813 :
Evtdence iw= been presented sup4est1n9 that sihokin9 my affect the
R+etaboilsa of cheRicals In mn . These effects eoy be desirable or
undesirable and tuy be quite different In certain indtviduils . tt ts,
therefore, proposed that the e~etabolisw or a coor+Otnated, ltatted number
of cher1ci11y different non-toxtc substances be determined in groups of
smokers, as well as In groups of non•taokers .
PROJECT AREA 114 :
~
.,~ .
A major thrust against the tobacco industr hit been claims of
alleged effects of slde :trem s.oke . These iac~ude both Naltw claims,
as will as those due to ennoyance or ct~~rette s .oke in the at .osphere .
This problem could be alleviated by techniques which would remove the
anaoyence etrects of cigarette s+.oke . it is proposed that we spopsor
electrtcal/eaecAsntcal research oo tnexpensive, energy efficient and
uaobtrmtve equipeent for removing cigarette s .oke and cigarette saoke'
odors fpfthe Indoor indestrtal, public, and home environments .
M
'*
~
~ t!~t
r unS
e ocyi ot r
• Knp,
e ttr Rpent
at !
np,1 anc
d lttt
r- ont
d t on
i Ap
Engtne~nc . IASIIRAE) us recently released aew standards for
rentti requ raeents for smoking and non•smoktng, areas tn Industrial
butldt The raqutreN eat : tA arees whert snottap ts pemtttea 9reatly
qacree apital investment and subsetuent operattn9 costs tor the
:ainildt ~ltneertn9 and other studies should be undertaken to test
~adt,e ve ty ot these requirewrentt end new e~etAodt of dea11w9 with these
'8 ~eQui t Moula be reseerched .
..AIxsul4
k•
Attaclaents
D
APVERDIx A
WR7tEKT MUNC-NEA1T11 RESEARCN VENICLES
Two tyDes of projects are twwed by the Council for Tobacco Research .
There ere also Plens vnder consideratlon by R,MT to cowatt svbstantial
fuRds to fundaoe, :tal research ion diseases alleged to be associated with
s.*kinR .
The e+ost t .portent effort by the Meriun Industry ts eide through
the Council for Tobacco Research-USA 1n New York . This orRaRi :ation
handles generally t•ro types of projects :
a) Cener.l projects eDO+''ored by an independent peer
~~i9rouD of scientists, the •Scientific Advisory
,.•, .
b) Specill projects ~enerally inltiatel, discussed and
. approved p~r tndvitry counsel and/or outside litigating
w,a,, attorneys lror firfss such as dacob, /~elinper i iinne'ant
frSbok . 14sr4y i RacoA .
Ati:.. . .
Es
Ses ::J. .
!L ."••i •t!:
r
.215 546_0942 .,,_•
7j~i*/97 MON 17 :52 FAX
5HELLER,
L&
B
au . 1~~a
P. 2
.
ALAN RODGMAN, Ph .D
~•
Dr. Rodgman was, formerly employed In the Research and Development Department
at R.J. Rqnolds Tobacco Company ("Reynolds") . He is a fact witness who may also offer
expert testimony . Dr. Itodgrnan has a A .A . in chemistry and qs, M .A, and Ph.D in organic
~ chemistry from the Unlversity, of Toronto . He vka$ employed„iii scarlous capacities at .
' Reynolds from 1954 undl •1987.
.
Dr. Rodgman is expected to testlfy or opine concerning the development over time
of scientific knowledge relacing to smoking and healrh. Dr. Rodgrnan is ('Itrther expected mw
testify cottcernitig historical activities of the Research and Development bepatbrae~nt at
Reynolds, includfng research conductad by or for Reynolds, in the areas of smoking sad
health, including the subject of the constituents of cigarette staoka,
Dr. Rodgman fs further expected to testify concerning the design, aoasttvstion atyd
manufacture of cigarems, incluoiag tbe state-of-the-art in c,igarette design, and goveromattal
regutatioA/pazticipation with respect thereto . Dr. Rodgtnan ts expected to tes} ify dtat, In the
design of cigarettes . Reynolds speciticaUy. and rhe manufacturers of cigarettes generally,
have responded both to the scientific criticisms of cigarettes and .the demands of smokers.
Indeed, the tobacco irbdustry, ineludina Reynolds, were leaders in inventing or developing
such cigarette designs .
Finally, Dr. Rodgman may be asked to comment upon the opinions expressed by
other witncsses, as well as the evidence upon which they rely, to the extent that such
opinions and evidence related to his areas of expertise .
Dr . Rodgman will base his testirnony on his education . training and experience, his
review of scientific information and literature concerning the subject matter described above
that are reasonably relied upon by members of his profession, his review of documents from
Reynolds concerning the subject matter described above made in connection with the expert
opinions he itatends to offer in this case during the tenure of his em131oyinent at Reynolds
and, as appropriate, documents either produced by other defendants in this fawsuit
concerning cigarette design or relied upon by plaintiffs experts oA these subjects, and his
review of testimony atld . evidence in this case .
~
FTC SMOKING METHOD
USED FOR
" TAR"
AND NICOTM
DATA
Alan Rodgman, MA, Ph.D .
2828 Birchwood Drive
Wiaston-Salem, NC 27103 3410
30 August , 1994
Ln
~
~
~
m
~
HEALTH ASPECTS OF POORLY DEFINED "TARS"
OBTAINED FROM TOBACCO BY A VARIETY
OF METHODS
APPENDIX B :
INFORMATION PROVIDED RJRT MANAGEMENT
IN THE MID-1960s FOR COMMUNICATION TO
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION re ITS
CIGARETTE MS "TAR" AND NICOTINE
LABELING PROPOSAL
35
7
APPENDIX C: DETERMINATION OF "TAR" YIELD FROM
ULTRALOW-"TAR" CIGARETTES :
SPECTROPHOTOMETRY
44
REFERENCES
46
m
FTC SMOKING METHOD USED FOR "TAR" AND NICOTINE DATA
SUMMARY
In the mid-1960s, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its intention to have cigarette packs
labeled with the "tar" and nicotine yields from the packaged cigarettes because of the reports issued between 1950
and 1964 on the following :
• The dose-response relationship reported in retrospective and prospective studies on the association
between smoking and lung cancer
• The production of epidermal carcinoma in laboratory animals skin-painted with cigarette smoke
condensate (CSC)
• Reports that nearly all the tumorigenicity of tobacco smoke resides in the CSC
• The demonstration of a dose-response relationship between the amount of CSC applied to the animals'
skin and the number of tumor-bearing animals (TBA)
• The demonstration of the presence in CSC of extremely small quantities of several polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and aza-arenes reported to be tumorigenic to the skin of laboratory animals
• The publication in 1964 of the Advisory Committee's Report to the Surgeon General Report in which,
on the basis of the evidence noted above, cigarette smoke - particularly its particulate phase - was
classified as a health hazard of sufficient importance to warrant appropriate remedial action
To rank cigarettes marketed in the U.S . according to their MS "tar" and nicotine yields so the consumer
could select, from the labeling data, the cigarette that spoke to his/her individual smoking-health concerns, the FTC
proposed the development of a precisely defined protocol which would permit the reproducible determination of
yields of cigarette mainstream smoke total particulate matter (MS TPM), MS TPM nicotine, and MS TPM water,
and "tar," the latter entity to be calculated from the equation
MS TPM - MS "tar" + nicotine + water .
Both the FTC and the cigarette manufacturers recognized from the very beginning that the FTC's publication of
cigarette "tar" and nicotine yields was to serve solely as a ranking of the cigarettes . ?he values determined had
nothing to do with ranking the smokers and were never intended to do so.
The details of the analytical procedure specified by the FTC in its protocol and how some of them differ from
human smoking parameters are shown below :
•
®
FTC SMOKIlKG PARAMETERS vs HUMAN SMOKIIVG PARAMETERS
Param¢ler or Condition
FTC Soecification
Smoker
• conditioning ojthe cigarette prior to smoking and analysis
• time of conditioning, hr • 24
• temperature of conditioning area, °C
• 23 .9 (75•F)
• relative humidity (RH) of
conditioning area, %
0
• nature oJthe smoking machine
• 20-port
• variable ; depends on individual
smoker
• variable ; depends on environment
encountered by Individual smoker
• variable; depends on environment
encountered by individual smoker
• NA
• major smoking parameters=
• variable ; dependent on individual
smoker
• variable; dependent on individual
amoker
• variable ; dependent on individual
smoker
• puff volume, nd
• puff duration, aec
• puff frequency, no ./min
• other smoking parameters
• depth of Insertion of cigarette in
holder, mm
• 11
• temperature of smoking laboratory,
eL.
• RH of smoking laboratory, %
• number of cigarettes to be smoked
• butt length of a non8ltered cigarette
to be smoked, mm
• butt length of a filtered cigarette to
be smoked, nun
• method of trapping q f TPAf
• 23
• overwrap length + 3
• Cambridge filter pad
• variable ; dependent on individual
smoker
• variable ; dependent on
environment encountered by
Individual smoker
• variable ; dependent on
environment encountered by
individual smoker
• NA
• variable ; dependent on individual
smoker
• variable ; dependent on individual
smoker
• oral cavity and respiratory tract
• analytical procedurea jor determination oJTPM, TPM nicotine, and TPM water jor calculation of cigarette "tar" yield
• TPM, mg/cigt
• nicotine in TPM, tttg/cigt
• gravimetric
• originally the Griffith still
procedure ; later a OC
procedure
• NA
• NA
• water in TPM, mg/cigt
• originally, Karl Fischer
titration; later a CiC
procedure
• NA
• 100
• 0
• 50-90
• 10-s0
• 7PM behavior
• TPM retained by trap, %
• TPM emitted from tap, %
' Theae are essentially the values described In a publication issued almost 30 years before (Bradford et al ., 1936) and used in
USDA studies in the early 1960s (Ogg et al ., 1962 ; Ogg, 1964).
•
iv
The FTC was adamant about the details of its smoking procedure . Its analytical protocol was written almost
on "tablets of stone" despite the fact that personnel from the individual cigarette manufacturers informed FTC
personnel that the consumer may be more misled than informed by the "tar" listing for a variety of scientifically
valid reasons . Each of the reasons was communicated to the FTC by representatives of one or more members of
the Industry . Information communicated from the Industry to the FTC included the following :
• The smoking parameters defined in the FTC protocol are not those of either an average smoker or of most
individual smokers (see preceding Table) .
• The FTC "tar" yield determined for, a specific cigarette brand is not the "tar" yield to which the
individual smoker is exposed because each individual consumer does not :
condition his cigarettes prior to smoking as is specified in the FTC protocol for cigarettes to be
analyzed ; the moisture content of the consumer's cigarettes is dependent on moisture content at time
of manufacture, transportation conditions, shelf time, time between opening of the pack and
consumption of the last cigarette ; ambient conditions while smoking the cigarettes successively,
smoke a cigarette in a regimented fashion ; thus, the number of puffs, the pressure drop across the
cigarette, its burning temperature will vary from smoker to smoker and with individual smokers from
cigarette to cigarette,
smoke each cigarette under conditions identical with those in the FTC procedure,
retain the total intake of MS TPM as does the smoking machine .
• The "tars" from two different cigarette brands that yield the same amounts of "tar" are not
compositionally the same .
• Specific "tar" components from a cigarette brand that yields say 30 mg of "tar" are not present at twice
their level in the "tar" from a brand that yields 15 mg of "tar". The cigarette design technologies used
to control "tar" yield also markedly influence the MS composition, including that of the "tar ."
Since the implementation of the FTC procedure in 1967, cigarette have changed markedly because of the
introduction of new design technologies . Also, consumers' smoking regimen has changed since the mid-1960s and
is substantially different from the 35-m1 volume, one 2-sec puff per minute specified by the FTC .
The FTC protocol is no longer appropriate for analysis of many current cigarettes, particularly those with
low- and ultralow "tar" yields . Despite the fact that these inadequacies in he FTC procedure were pointed out by
the Surgeon General in his 1979, 1981, and 1982 reports, the FTC has made no effort to modify the major smoking
parameters (puff volume, duration, frequency) prescribed in its procedure for "tar" and nicotine determination to
counteract these criticisms . However, the FTC has made several other changes in the FTC procedure : It has
incorporated carbon monoxide (CO) determination into its procedure and CO values are now reported in the FTC
reports on "tar" and nicotine yields of cigarettes marketed in the U .S . The FTC also approved the use of automated
gas chromatographic procedures for the determination of the nicotine and water in the MS TPM . These latter
modifications were demonstrated to be significant improvements (less time consuming, less expensive, more
accurate) over those originally dictated in the FTC protocol . These improved analytical procedures were proposed
by Industry R&D personnel, not by FTC personnel .
Detailed studies involving 1979 85-mm Winstons and Marlboros, 1984 100-mm Winstons, and 1984 120mm Dawn cigarettes of the effect on MS "tar" and nicotine yields of changing the three major smoking parameters
revealed the following :
• Variation in puff duration has little effect on the "tar" and nicotine yields of the 85-mm Winston or
Marlboro . -
v
• Variation in puff volume or puff frequency has a significant effect on the two yields . Increasing either or
both increases the "tar" and nicotine yields .
• The "tar" and nicotine yields for the 85-mm Winston were greater than those for the 85-mm Marlboro .
• For a given increase in puff volume or frequency the "tar" and nicotine yields increase for both the 85mm Marlboro and the 85-mm Winston but the % difference between the Marlboro and Winston "tar" and
nicotine yields decreases .
Thus, if the FTC does modify the three major smoking parameters, particularly increasing the puff volume and puff
frequency, the "tar" and nicotine yields for marketed cigarettes will increase over the values obtained currently .
To reiterate several points mentioned previously : the following aspects of the protocol for the so-called FTC
procedure for the determination of cigarette MS nicotine and "tar" yields (and subsequently carbon monoxide yield)
should be remembered :
• The final protocol was a product of the FTC which dictated every detail of the protocol .
• Its implementation was ordered by the FTC .
• Its purpose from the very beginning was to rank marketed cigarettes according to "tar" or nicotine yield
to permit the consumer to choose a cigarette whose deliveries satisfied his/her concerns about the effect
of cigarette smoke on the smoker .
• The "tar" and nicotine yield data obtained by use of the FTC smoking and analytical procedures were
never considered by either the FTC or the cigarette manufacturers as a means to somehow rank smokers .
vi
FTC SMOKING METHOD USED FOR "TAR" AND NICOTINE DATA'
I. INTENDED USE OF SMOKING METHOD RESULTS
A. Statement of Purpose
The results from the FTC analyses of the "tar" and nicotine yields in the mainstream
smoke (MS) from cigarettes marketed in the U.S. were intended to accomplish the following :
To permit the cataloging or sequential listing of the cigarettes for their MS yields of
these two smoke entities (c, f. FTC, 1967b, 1978) generated under standard and
reproducible conditions. Subsequently, a third MS entity, CO, was added to the FTC
listing (FTC, 1981) .
• To permit the consumer who wished to continue smoking to select a cigarette whose
MS lltar" and/or nicotine yield was compatible with his/her concerns about the
effect(s) of cigarette smoking on his/her health .
It was never anticipated by the FTC or by the cigarette manufacturers that the FTC lists could .
serve as a means to catalog or rate cigarette smokers .
The following factors were known or suspected from the very beginning of discussions
among the FTC and the representatives of the cigarette manufactureres on a standard,
reproducible procedure for the determination of cigarette MS "tar" and nicotine yields :
• Individual smokers do not smoke a cigarette under the precise smoking regime
dictated in the FTC procedure .
• Unlike the smoking machine used in the FTC procedure, individual smokers may
miss one or more puffs during the smoking of a cigarette because of involvement with
other activities (writing, telephoning, discussing, etc .).
• Unlike the smoking machine used in the FTC procedure, the individual smoker does
not smoke his/her cigarette to the butt length dictated in the FTC procedure for
untipped and filter-tipped cigarettes .
• Unlike the smoking machine used in the FTC procedure, the individual smoker
exhales a portion of the MS .
• It is highly probable that the per milligram compositions= of the MS "tars" from two
~'I1ro original FTC procedure for smoking cigarettes to determine "tar," nicotine, and water deliveries in mainatream .moke (MS) (values
first reported in 1967 ?PTC, 1967), was subsequently modified for the simultaneous determination of MS carbon monoxide (cf . FTC, 1981)
2 In addition to the differences between the compositions of the particulate phases, the compoaidons of the vapor phases will differ .
1
different brands of cigarettes whose "tar" yields are 20 mg are entirely different .
• It is highly probable that the per milligram compositions' of the MS "tars" from two
different brands of cigarettes whose "tar" yields are 20 and 2 mg, respectively, are
entirely different .
B. Other Analyses Similar to FTC Smoke Analysis
In the U.S. there are numerous analyses of consumer products similar to the FTC
analysis for "tar" and nicotine in cigarette mainstream smoke (MS) :
• Composition of vitamin pills in terms of weight or units of Vitamin A, vitamin C,
thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin D, vitamin B,,, etc .
Even though the analysis for the levels per pill of various vitamins appears on
the label, the consumers absorption of the each vitamin will depend on the
individual consumer's metabolism . The label listing only indicates how much of
each vitamin is ingested when the consumer swallows the pill, not how much is
actually effective in and beneficial to the consumer .
• The urban and highway mileage per gallon of gasoline expected for an automobile
model tested under certain driving regimes representing the average driving habits of
and conditions encountered by the American driver, e .g., 20 mpg under urban
conditions, 28 mpg under highway conditions . These two mileages are listed annually
for each new automobile model and are listed in numerous publications as information
to enable a potential automobile buyer select the automobile of his/her choice .
Depending on his/her driving skills, individual drivers may get more or less mpg
than the reported 20 mpg in city driving and more or less mpg than the reported
28 mpg on the highway.
• The mileage rating of automobile tires, e .g., 40,000-mile tires, 50,000-mile tires .
These ratings are determined by testing the tires under specified driving conditions
and ensuring that they are periodically and properly maintained during testing .
Here again, how many miles are obtained with a given set of tires depends on
the driving skills and habits of the owner, the terrain over which the tires are
driven, and whether or not the tires were maintained at proper inflation and
rotated according to prescribed schedule .
• The content of fat in dairy products expressed as % butterfat .
• The levels of various components in foodstuffs are determined by approved analytical
procedures and the results listed on the marketed packages, e .g., on the package of
•
3 In addition to the differences between the compositions of the particulate phases, the compositions of the vapor phases will differ .
2
a popular cereal are listed the amounts per serving of protein, fat (saturated, fat
(unsaturated), carbohydrate, cholesterol, sodium, potassium, iron, zinc, magnesium,
calcium, copper, phosphorus .
It is known that the nutritional effect of each of these components is not the
same for each consumer but depends on the individual consumer's metabolic
processes.
II.
CHRONOLOGY
A. Introduction
While the concern about the particulate phase of cigarette mainstream smoke (MS)
received particular emphasis in the early 1950s, numerous investigators between the late 19th
century and the early 1950s had commented on its possible effect on the health of the smoker
(see Appendix A) .
Six major events in the 1950s and early 1960s escalated the concern about the MS
particulate phase' and triggered the FTC's proposal to have the U .S. cigarette manufacturers
report the "tar" and nicotine deliveries of individual cigarette brands :
• The epidemiological data from both retrospective and prospective cigarette smoking
studies that indicated a dose response relationship between the number of cigarettess
smoked per day and specific disease entities, particularly cancer of the lung (see
summary of the epidemiology studies in the Advisory Committee's report to the 1964
Surgeon General (USPHS, 1964)] .
• The first reported production of skin carcinoma in susceptible strains of laboratory
animals painted periodically with massive doses of mainstream smoke cigarette smoke
condensate (MS CSC) prepared under conditions more or less simulating the human
cigarette smoking regime' (Wynder et al ., 1953a, 1953b, 1955, 1956 ; Wynder and
Wright, 1957) .
• Reports that nearly all the tumorigenicity (mouse-skin painting) of tobacco smoke
4 Even though they differ in composition, MS total particulate matter (rpM), cigarette smoke condensate (CSC), and "tar" (water- and
nicotinafree TPM as detined by in the FTC procedure) became almost equivalent when referred to In d'ucuuiona of the effects of cigarette
MS particulate phase on the health of the conaumer .
s Fewer than two dozen cigarette brands were marketed In the U .S . in the 1950s and their per cigarette deliveries of "tar" and nicotine were
t hese values showed
remarkably uniform, ranging from 33 to 40 mg "tar" and 2 .7 to 3 .0 mg of nicotine . In the late 1950. and early 1960s t
progressive decreases .
6 To collect large amounta of cigarette smoke condensate for the akin-painting studies, the puff frequency used was three puffs per minute
rather than one puff per minute, the frequency closer to that used by smokers . The MS was trapped in Dry lce-chilled vessels .
3
resided in the MS CSC' . The MS vapor phase was subsequently shown to possess
very little tumorigenicity .
• Reports that the MS CSC contained several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
and aza-arenes' previously demonstrated to be tumorigenic to mouse skin and several
phenols, nontumorigenic per se, previously reported to enhance or "promote" the
tumorigenicity of tumorigenic PAHs applied to laboratory animals at subtumorigenic
levels (see summary in Wynder and Hoffmann, 1967) .
• Reports from several laboratories (Wynder et al ., 1957a, 1957b ; Bock et al ., 1962)
that carcinoma production showed a dose response in laboratory animals skin-painted
with various levels of cigarette smoke condensate and that no carcinomas were
generated below a certain dose level .
The publication of the Advisory Committee's report to the 1964 Surgeon General
(USPHS, 1964) in which it was stated that "Cigarette smoking is a health hazard of
sufficient importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action ."
The latter event provided the FTC with an official statement of the government's position
on tobacco smoking, particularly cigarette smoking, and a virtual mandate to require the
reporting of the "tar" yields from all U .S . cigarette brands .
In response to these reports, the U .S. cigarette manufacturers subsequently marketed
newly designed cigarette brands which provided a range of "tar" (and nicotine) yields, thus
enabling the consumer to choose a brand whose "tar" yield satisfied his/her concern about
smoking and health .
It should be noted that at the time of publication of the 1964 Report of the Advisory
Committee to the U .S. Surgeon General, nicotine in cigarette MS was not considered to be a
significant health hazard . It was stated (USPHS, 1964) :
Nicotine is rapidly changed in the body to relatively inactive substances with low toxicity . The
chronic toxicity of small doses of nicotine is low in experimental animals. These two facts, when
taken in coqjunction with the low mortality ratios of pipe and cigar smokers, indicate that the
chronic toxicity of nicotine in quantities absorbed from smoking and other methods of tobacco use
is low and probably does not represent an important health hazard .
7 MS CSC, closely related compusitionaily to the nnaterial subsequently defined as "tar," was reported to contain numerous tumorigenic
(mouse skin) polycyclic aroroatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as benzo(a1PYrend (Bap), tumorigenie au-arenes, and tobaeeo-speeifie IK
nitrosamines (rSNAs) such as N-nitrownornicotine (NNN) and 4-(*methyWunsamita)-t-(3-pyridinyi)-1-butanone (NMq . It is claimed
that the PAHs are responsible for the tumorigenicity of CSC to mouse skin, but their concentntions in CSC account for less than 296 of
the observed response . The renuinder of the observed tumorigenicity In such studies has not been accounted for . The /Knitrosamines are
organ specific tumorigene and play little, if any, role in the tumorigenicity of CSC to mouse skin .
~ Of all the groups itrve Wgating the aza-arenes in tobacco nnoke, none has been unable to duplicate the findings of Van Duuren et al . (1960a,
1960b) who reported the presence of dibenz[a,hjact4dine, dibenz(a,JJacddine, and 7R-dibenzo(c,glcarbazoie (see Rodgman, 1991, 1994) .
4
Subsequently, however, nicotine was alleged not only to be involved in coronary and
circulatory problems but also it was defined as the precursor of several tumorigenic tobacco and
MS components, the so-called tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNAs) such as N'nitrosonornicotine (NNN) and 4-(N-methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone (NNK)
(Hoffmann et al ., 1984, 1985, 1991a, 1991b ; Hoffmann, 1989) .
Soon after the publication of the 1964 Surgeon General's report (USPHS, 1964), the
following events occurred :
• The FTC began its activities to implement a labeling system for "tar" and nicotine
yields from cigarettes marketed in the U .S. As communications between the FTC and
the cigarette manufacturers proceeded, RJRT R&D personnel provided management
with pertinent information on the status of the analysis of MS for 'tar" and nicotine
(see Appendix B) . This information was used in attempts - obviously all
unsuccessful - to dissuade the FTC from pursuing its plan of implementing cigarette
pack labeling .
• The FTC alerted the U .S . cigarette manufacturers of its intentions (FTC, 1966),
vigorously pursued the implementation of an appropriate analytical method for the
determination of MS TPM, defined MS "tar" in terms of MS TPM, water, and
nicotine (Equation 1), promulgated the protocol of FTC procedure for the
determination of MS "tar" and nicotine yields (FTC, 1967a ; Pillsbury et al ., 1969),
and published the first FTC list of the MS "tar" and nicotine yields from 59 cigarette
brands marketed in the U .S. (FTC, 1967b) .
TPM = "tar" + nicotine + water Equation 1
The FTC procedure originally incorporated the best aspects of various methodologies
developed during the preceding three decades and subsequently was modified slightly
to include new and improved analytical techniques such as the determination of TPM
water and nicotine by gas chromatography . E.g ., the FTC procedure included the
smoking parameters (puff volume, duration, and interval) of Bradford et al. (1936),
collection of TPM on the Cambridge filter (Wartman et al ., 1959), pertinent aspects
of TPM nicotine analysis of Pfyl et al ., (1927), Pfyl (1933a, 1933b), Willits et al .
(1950), Griffith (1957), Ogg et al . (1962), Ogg (1964) and TPM water analysis of
Holmes and Cridlin (1960), Crowell et al. (1961), Jarrell and Wickham (1961, 1962),
Sloan and Sublett (1964, 1965), Schultz and Spears (1966) .
Because many of the analytical procedures to define the yields of cigarette MS TPM,
nicotine, water, and "tar" had been used for some years in the laboratories of
Tobacco Industry members in their product development studies, R&D representatives
from five of them° collaborated on a publication (Bates et al ., 1967, 1968) in which
9 L&M, Inc ; BdtW Tobacco Corp . ; American Tobacco Co . ; RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. ; Philip Morria, Inc .
5
appropriate and Industry acceptable procedures for the determination and reporting
of MS TPM, TPM water, and TPM nicotine were described . The procedures were
essentially identical with those presented in the FTC protocol (Pillsbury et al ., 1969) .
• At the 1967 World Conference on Smoking and Health, a workshop involving some
30 presentations was devoted to the subject "Toward a Less Harmful Cigarette"
(Wynder and Hoffmann, 1968) . About two-thirds of the presentations dealt with the
composition and alleged adverse effects of "tar" in experimental situations .
• Under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute Smoking and Health Program, a
study, "Toward a Less Hazardous Cigarette," was implemented in 1968 and
continued for more than a decade . The summary report on the study was issued in
1980 (NCI, 1980) . R&D personnel from several of the major U .S. cigarette
manufacturers10 served on the NCI Tobacco Working Group as private citizens
knowledgeable in cigarette design and tobacco and tobacco smoke analysis,
composition, and properties .
1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984
Numerous technologies
introduced sequentially from the
mid-1950s to the late 1960s were
incorporated into cigarette design
to control MS delivery and
composition. All are considered
to contribute to what some have
characterized as a "less
hazardous" cigarette when
included in cigarette design
(USPHS, 1979 ; NCI, 1980 ; Gori
and Bock, 1980 ; USPHS, 1981) .
These technologies include :
50
3 .0
45
n,tar Tlp.
Raoonatftut.d Tob .ooo She .t
P.p.r Additt...
P.per Porosity
~
lspaad .d Tobaooo
1.
V.nUlatlon
40
I
0
~
35
e~e
30
~
ir
.!
42.5 °
-l 2 .0
25
20
8
15
r
- Tar
••••••••• Nicotine
10
5
.0
• tobacco blend and 0 1956
. 1960
L 1964
L L
1968 L
1972L
1976
L1980
AI
1984 0
weight
• tobacco rod length and Figure 1 . "Tar" and Nicotine Deliveries, Sales Weighted Average
Basis
circumference
filter tips (material type
and additives)
• processed tobaccos (reconstituted tobacco sheet, expanded tobacco)
• paper (type and additives)
air dilution (increased paper porosity, filter tip perforations) .
The chronology of introduction of these technologies and their effects on sales weight average
10 LdtM, Inc . ; B&W Tobacco Cocp . ; P. Lodllard Co., Inc . ; RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co . ; Philip Morsis, Inc .
6
nicotine and "tar" yields are shown in Figure 1 . Over the years, the introduction and use of
these technologies in concert and to various degrees in cigarette design have provided the
consumer with a great variety of products whose number has increased from about a dozen in
the early 1950s to nearly 200 presently . The cigarette is a system : All the technologies used
in cigarette design are interactive . Le., inclusion of or change in the level of use of any
particular technology may require other adjustments in the cigarette design to maintain certain
attributes acceptable to the consumer . In contrast, by current technology, SS delivery is
controlled almost totally by tobacco blend and weight . The SS is not subjected to filtration, the
effect of filter-tip additives which specifically remove certain MS components from MS (phenols,
volatile N-nitrosamines), or air dilution effects .
In a continuation of their earlier reported mouse skin-painting studies, Wynder et al .
(1957a, 1957b) examined the effect of application of lower and lower total annual doses of MS
CSC on tumor production in skin-painted mice . They reported that skin painting of mice with
a total annual dose of 10 g/mouse produced papilloma in about 60% of the mice ; at a total
annual dose of 7 .5 g/mouse the percentage of papilloma-bearing animals was reduced to about
35 % . Only a small percentage (< 10%) of papilloma-bearing animals (but no carcinomabearing) animals was observed when the total annual amount of MS CSC applied was less than
5 g/mouse; further reduction of the annual dose to 3 g/mouse resulted in no papilloma- or
carcinoma-bearing mice . These data are presented graphically in Flgure 2 . Thus, in this study,
reduction of the total annual dose from 10 g/mouse to 3 g/mouse reduced the percentage of
tumor-bearing animals from 60% to 0% . This represents a 3 .3-fold reduction in the dose of the
applied material, CSC .
so
r
ro
These data from the doseresponse study (and the threshold
limit value for MS CSC) were
subsequently reported several 30
times by Wynder and Hoffmann ~
(1962, 1963, 1964, 1967) who ~ 40 stated in 1964 and again in 1967
: ,~ „
It is apparent that a V
reduction of
tumorig enic t0
components can be
most readily
°a
}~f
3
4
6
e
7
s
Y
10
accomplished by arams of Cisaratta smotce/llouae/Year
reducing the total Figure 2 . Relationship of Tumor Yield and Dose (Wynder et al .,
amount of smoke con- 1957b)
densate. . . to which one
is exposed . This has
been clearly shown
experimentally by doseresponse studies
[Wynder et al:, 1957a, Wynder and Hoffmann, 1962a, 1962b ; Bock et al., 1962] .
7
Wynder and Hoffmann (1965) determined the effect of MS CSC dose on tumor yield by
conducting lifetime sldn-painting studies in mice (50 mice per dilution) with various dilutions
of CSC-acetone suspensions. The results are shown in FIgure 3 . Skin painting with a fixed
volume of successive dilutions of a 50% CSC-acetone suspension reduced the percent tumorbearing animals from 45% with a 5096 suspension to 34 % with a 33% suspension, to 2036 with
a 25 % suspension, to 8% with a 10% suspension, and to 2% (one tumor-bearing mouse) with
a 5% suspension, i.e., a 10-fold dilution of the CSC-acetone suspension produced a 25-fold
diminution in % tumor-bearing animals . From their results, Wynder and Hoffmann (1965)
noted:
It is apparent. . .from
laboratory studies . . .that so
exposure to tobacco
smoke condensate and
tumor yield are
quantitatively
correlated .
51
A few years earlier,
Wynder (1961) had commented on
the effect of dose reduction on
tumor yield in laboratory animals
painted with CSC . Because he
used much more reasonable doses
of CSC in his slcin painting,
Passey in England was unable to
confirm the findings of Wynder et
al. (1953a,, 1953b) . Wynder's
- 60X
-- 33X
-- -
$ax
109
5%
................ .`
.~ , ,
1 s a 7
0
0
m
.
.
11
/u
..-•
.
13
. .. . . .
14
_._. . ..-
1s 16 17 ls
YONTHS
explanation was as follows :
Figure 3 . Tumor Response to Different Doses of Cigarette Smoke
What reAlly happened
Condensate in Acetone (Wynder & Hoffmann, 1965) .
was that y applied
too weak a coneentration of to smoke
condensate to his
animals. Of course,
since tobacco ke is
only a weak carc ogen
to begin with, if u
dilute its concentra too markedly, it is no wonder that you do not obtain any cancer . It would
be just like a human , ing smoking one or two cigarettes a day without inhaling it . His risk of
developing lung cancer`would certainly also not be greater than that of a non-smoker . . .
[From] a study which we have done on the dose response of different amounts of smoke condensate to the
production of skin cancer in mice . . . (y]ou will note that, if we applied to the mouse 5 g or less per year
of tobacco smoke condensate we were not able to produce any cancers . This of course explains the failure
of Dr. Passey_to repeat our work . But it clearly shows that tobacco smoke condensate is not a very strong
carcinogen .
8
The importance of dose (exposure) was reiterated in tlie same language by Wynder and
Hoffmann in their lengthy 1964 review article (Wynder and Hoffmann, 1964) and 1967 book
(Wynder and Hoffmann, 1967) on tobacco :and tobacco smoke:
Since 1953, when the first large-scale prod4ction of epidermoid cancer was reported, many
investigators have verified these findings . Some ri~ativeftndings (Shotadze, 1953 ; Gwynn, 1954 ;
Passey et al., 1954; Kakhiani, 1955 ; Hamer and Wbpdhouse, 1956 ; Gwynn and Salaman, 1956)
are largely, if not exelusively, a result of tnadequate~dQse . (Emphasis addedr AR)
.,
Wynder and Hoffmann (1964, 1967) also noted that Gritsiute and Mironova (1960)
reported only 3 (1 .7%) tumor-bearing animals (TBA) out of 174 animals treated with between
1 .4 and 2 .6 g of CSC over a 10-month period whereas their own studies gave 44% TBA in
animals treated with 11 .7 g of CSC over a 15-month period . When the difference in treatment
time is disregarded, a dose reduction ranging from 4 .5 to 8 reduced the % TBA by a factor of ~
26!
Because of the dose-response relationships reported in the human epidemiological studies
and the dose-response relationships in the biological studies conducted with CSC-painted
laboratory animals, the FTC proposed that the consumer should know the "tar" deliveries of
marketed cigarettes in order to make an informed choice of his/her brand, depending on his/her
degree of concern about the reported relationship between smoking and certain disease entities .
In the period 1964-1966, numerous memoranda were prepared in which reasons for the
FTC not to continue with its efforts to label cigarette packages were outlined . The salient points
advanced by RJRT R&D personnel to dissuade the FTC are summarized in Appendix B . These
arguments and similar ones advanced by other Industry members were unsuccessful .
On 25 March 1966, the FTC (FTC, 1966) announced it had sent identical letters to each
of the major U .S . cigarette manufacturers in regard to factual statements of "tar" and nicotine
content on labels and in advertising of cigarettes :
Gentlemen :
. The Cigarette Advertising Guides promulgated by the Commission in September 1955
provided that no representation should be made that "any brand of cigarette or the smoke
therefrom is low in nicotine or tars * * * when it has not been established by competent scientific
proof applicable at the time of dissemination that the claim is true, and if true, that such difference
or differences are significant ." On the basis of the facts now available to it, the Commission has
determined that a factual statement of the tar and nicotine content (expressed in milligrams) of the
mainstream smoke from a cigarette would not be in violation of such Guides, or of any of the
provisions of law administered by the Commission so long as (1) no collateral representations
(other than factual statements of tar and nicotine contents of cigarettes offered for sale to the
public) are made, and (2) the statement of tar and nicotine content is supported by adequate
records of tests conducted with the Cambridge Filter Method, as described in an article entitled
"Determination of Particulate Matter and Alkaloids (as Nicotine) in Cigarette Smoke," by C .L .
Ogg, which appeared in the Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Vol . 47,
No. 2, 1964- It is the Commission's position that it is in the public interest to promote the
9
/
dissemination of truthful information concerning cigarettes which may be materia) and desired by
the consuming public .
By direction of the Commission. Joseph W . Shea, Secretary .
During discussions between U .S . cigarette manufacturers and the FTC in the mid-1960s,
it was pointed out by industry representatives that labeling cigarette packs with the amounts of
MS "tar" and nicotine delivered by the cigarette smoked under standard laboratory conditions
would not inform the smoker of the precise amount or composition of the "tar" received during
his/her smoking of the cigarette (see Appendix B) .
The reporting of nicotine as a separate MS component derived from the fact that it and
water are the two most plentiful components in MS TPM . In the early 1960s when the FTC
began its efforts to require "tar" and nicotine reporting, extensive studies were underway to
define MS composition . The number of identified MS components had increased from about 80
in 1954 (Kosak, 1954) to about 800 in 1965 . Currently, the number of identified components
in MS exceeds 4,500 . Thus in the early 1960s, MS "tar," except for nicotine and water, was
a poorly defined material .
B. Origins of Smoking Parameters (Puff Volume, Puff Duration, Puff Frequency, etc .)
As noted previously, the FTC's desire to catalog cigarettes by their "tar" and nicotine
delivery stemmed from the various claims in the scientific and medical literature that certain
health problems arose in cigarette smokers as a result of their inhalation of the components
constituting MS "tar" and the dose response relationships reported in epidemiological studies
with smokers and biological studies with laboratory animals . The following relationship has been
used for over three decades to calculate the value of the "tar" delivered in cigarette MS :
total particulate matter = "tar" + nicotine + water
The values for the major smoking parameters (puff volume, duration, and frequency) can
be traced to the publication of Bradford et al. (1936) who selected a puff volume of 35 ml, a
puff duartion of 2 sec, and a puff frequency of 1 puff/60 sec . Actually, only the puff duration
of 2 sec 'was similar to that observed with cigarette smokers . The other two values were less
than the observed average puff volume and frequency . The values for these three cigarette
smoking parameters persisted for the next three decades .
For a given cigarette brand, the FTC numbers for "tar," nicotine, and more recently
carbon monoxide are obtained via a precisely defined smoking regime and analytical methods
[preconditioning of cigarettes (23 .9°C; relative humidity, 60% ; conditioning time, 24 hr) ;
smoking parameters - 35-ml puff volume, 2-sec puff duration, 1 puff/min ; 23.9°C, 60%
relative humidity, cigarette smoked to a defined butt length].
In contrast to the rigorously defined FTC smoking and analytical procedures for the
determination of cigarette MS "tar," nicotine, and more recently carbon monoxide :
10
• Few smokers, if any, in the smoking of a cigarette take in the TPM amount found
in the FTC determination .
• Few smokers smoke their cigarettes to as short a butt length as in the FTC procedure .
• Because of involvement in other tasks, the smokers often place their cigarette in an
ash tray for a brief time, thus missing one or more puffs on the cigarette . Few
smokers take the number of puffs obtained for a given cigarette brand in the FTC
procedure. The smoking machine used in the FTC method is relentless ; it never
misses a puff on the cigarette under test!
• Whereas the smoking parameters (35-ml puff, 2-sec duration, 1 puff/min) in the FTC
procedure are those originally proposed by Bradford et al . (1936), proposed again by
Ogg (1964), accepted by the tobacco industry (Bates et al ., 1967, 1968) and the FTC
(FTC, 1966 ; Pillsbury et al., 1969), individual smokers varied considerably from the
FTC-dictated values, e .g., puff volumes ranged from 32 .8 to 53 .4 ml, puff durations
ranged from 1 .53 to 2 .77 sec at 1 .8 puffs/min in a study conducted close to the time
of the FTC activities (Adams, 1966) .
• In contrast to human smokers, the smoking machine used in the FTC procedure does
not "exhale. " It has been reported in numerous studies that individual cigarette
smokers vary considerably . They were found to exhale between 10 and 75 % of the
TPM inspired during the puffs taken to consume the cigarette, thus retaining between
25% and 90% of the inspired TPM" (cf., Piehl, 1970) .
Another problem, long recognized by tobacco scientists but ignored by the FTC, is the
fact that the MS "tars" from two different cigarette brands delivering the same weight of "tar,"
e.g., 25 mg, may be quite different compositionally because entirely different technologies were
incorporated in the design of the two brands to achieve the 25-mg "tar" delivery. Examples of
this are found in the reports of the National Cancer Institute on its 10-year study on "less
hazardous" cigarettes . Various cigarette design technologies were investigated to determine their
effect on MS yield, MS chemical composition, and MS CSC biological activity (mouse-skin
painting) (Gori, 1976a, 1976b, 1977, 1980 ; NCI, 1980) . Overall, the relationships among
tobacco blend compositions, MS compositions, and biological activities of the CSCs from nearly
100 test and some 30 standard and reference cigarettes were studied . Nine of the cigarette
samples showed "tar" yields ranging from 27 .0 to 27 .4 mg. As shown in Table IA, despite the
uniformity in "tar" deliveries from these cigarettes, their MSs - both the particulate phases and
vapor phases - were quite disparate compositionally as shown by the data, normalized to "tar"
yield, and the ranges listed for the normalized data .
t~ % retentiona of MS TPM much lower then the 90% described in the literature were reported by Whisnant and Stevenson (1969c) at RJRT .
In a detailed in-houae studies at RJRT R&D, .rooken were found to retain between SO and 65 % of the TPM inspired .
11
Table 1
Variations In Mainstream Smoke Composition for Cigarettes Delivering 27 .2 f 0 .2 mg of "Tar"
AnalyldCigt. No. Id,'
1-23°
II-42'
1I-44'
1II-74a
III-81'
IV-26'
IV-31a
IV-67°
Range
27.4
1 .007
1 .39
19.7
27.3
1 .004
1 .93
14.1
27.4
1 .007
1 .80
15 .2
27 .4
1 .007
1.80
15.2
27.3
1 .004
1 .91
14.4
27.0
0 .993
3 .25
8.3
27.1
0 .996
0 .89
30.4
27.2
1 .000
1 .84
14.8
27.0-27. 4
Per Cigarette Dedvery
`Yar" i mg
'tar"P'taq.d"
nicatinei mg
'Yar"/nioot6ne
27.4
1 .007
2 .07
13 .2
0.89-3 .2 3
8.3-30 . 4
Amount ofComponent Relative to "Tar "
BaPj
µg/g
BaA °
µglg
pheaol
mg/g
ocresol
mg/g
aoetaldehyde
mg/g
HCN
mg/g
NO'
mg/g
0.91
1 .40
3.95
0.72
39.1
0 .68
0 .92
2.98
0.51
42 .6
0.58
1 .08
3.83
0.62
37.9
0.79
0.90
3.90
0.63
36.1
1 .04
1 .49
4.28
0.77
38.4
1 .18
1 .64
4.62
0.79
39.9
0.72
1 .01
4.85
0.72
19.6
0.82
1 .00
3.07
0.57
25.1
0.64
1 .42
6.10
nd
34.9
0 .38-1 .1 8
0 .90-1 .64
2 .98-6 .1 0
0.51-0 .79
19.6-42.6
6.11
9.6
4.2'
8.0
12.2
9.4
12.0
8 .7
13.3
10.8
12.1
10.0
9.8
33.7
13 .0
11 .3
12.5
12.8
9.8-13 .3 °
8.0-33 .7
Tschnology Investigated; other notes :
' I!i contained double the nitrate level of control blend SRH-I (1).
° Higb deosity reooos<itutad tobacco (RTS), slurry process (1 b
` Dupllcate aatnplea ofoonttol blend SE&I1(2}
° Cantrol blend SEB-III (aoatained 3 .2 Bti glyoaol) (3).
' Olycerol omitted from control blend SEB-1II (3).
Full redum of cut rolled burley rtmn (4).
a Niontine in SFR-IV blend adjuRed iuâ–º that dgarette delivered MS nicotine at 1 .0 mg/ciQl. (4).
" SEB-IV blend with 1 .3l5 of m additive to reduoe MS iartstion.
' MS "ur' and nicotine deiamined by the FTC prooedure .
BaP - benno[a]pynaw t BaA - benz[a]anthraome
~ Subeaquaot HCN malyua for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th series involved an improved and more accurate analytical prooedura
° Becauae of analytical problem . HCN data from SEB-1 samples were omitted from ranga
In the original e epocts, nrtrogien oiddea were expnxsed as NO= . Sinoe it has been demwstrated that more than 95 %
of the nitrogen oxides in tobacco smoke is nitric oxide (NO) (5), the nitrogen oxddes data were recalculated accordingly .
Table 2
Variations in Mainstream Smoke Composition for Cigarettes Delivering 25 .5 f 0 .4 mg of "Tar"
tlaaavtolCiai Nu. jx
11-53~
ID-73`
-ITI g2°
fII-93e
IV-13t
IN'-29a
[uV,-32a
$em
25 .9
1 .016
0 .38
68 .2
25 .5
1 .000
1 .67
15 .3
25 .5
1 .000
1 .78
14.3
25 .1
0.984
1 .18
21 .3
25 .4
0.996
0.16
158.8
25 .1
0.984
2.02
12.4
25 .7
1 .008
1 .91
13.5
25 .1-25 .9
Per Cigarette Detivery
"tar" ° mg
`har"PYarW3 "
nivulvne ° mg
"lar'Yniaatide
25 .9
1 .016
1 .68
15.4
0.16-2 .02
12 .4-159
.4mount ofComponent Relative to "Tar"
BaP I
µg/g
BoAJ
µglg
pheaol
mg/g
otresol
mg/g
aataldehyde
0.72
1 .20
4 .35
0.78
41 .1
0.54
0.87
3 .26
0.57
35.0
1 .06
1 .56
4.05
0.86
46.0
1 .16
1 .54
4 .89
0.82
41 .8
1 .56
2 .35
3 .71
0 .73
36 .7
0.76
1 .03
4 .99
0.40
30 .6
0 .78
1 .05
4 .44
0 .59
39,2
0 .66
1 .72
3 .53
0 .63
39 .3
0 .54-1 .56
0 .87-2 .33
3 .26-4.99
0 .40-0 .80
30.6-46.0
HCN ~gg
NO ° mg/g
7 .e
9 .2
11 .3
2.0
12.6
10.5
12 .0
10.8
9.7
7 .4
11 .1
10.9
12 .7
11 .4
12 .6
11 .4
9.7-12 .7'
2.0-11 .4
Technology fmrutlgated .• other nota:
•
' Cigarotte faFxioetad with SRR-1 Mend and medium panMity, citrrtetrcated parer (1).
° Cigaralte fabricated with Iow-0loat6te flue aued tobacco grown with nonnal nitrogea feftifuatian (2) .
' Contr+ol SE&III blend (3).
° SEB-III blend with added cocoa (1 .0 %) (3).
' Tobaoco subatituta (Cytrelm):SEB-III blard - 30:70 (3).
~ Datioatiaized SEBd1I blend (3) .
' SEB-IV control blend (4) .
h MS "tar" and niootitta detecmined by the FTC prooedure .
' BaP - beivo[a]pyrene ~ BaA - benz[a)anthraane
k Subsequent HCN analysea for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th series involved an improved and more aoourate analytial
p~a
' Hecaux of analytical problem, HCN result from SEB-1 sample 1-2 was omitted from range .
'" In the origina/ repocts, nhrog,ea o)ddes were expressed as NO3 . Sinx it has been demaostnnad that more tban
95% of Ihn nilrulgnn uxides 6n tubauw wrxukn ia nilriu oxide (NO) (S), the nilnVe oxidex data were reuslwlatexl
aooordingly.
~ . Gori, G .B. (Editor) Report No . 1. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The FJrst Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW Publ. No . (NIH) 1976, 76-905 .
2. Gori, G .B. (Editor) Report No. 2. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The Second Set of
Experimental Cigarettes. DHEWPubI. No. (NIH) 1976, 76-1111 .
3. Gori, G.B. (Editor) Report No. 3. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes The Third Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW Publ. No. (NIH) 77-1280.
4. Gori, G.B . (Editor) Report No. 4. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The Fourth Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW PubG (NIH) March (1980) .
s. Cooper P.J. ; and Hege, R.B. The Oxidation of NO to NO= in Cigarette Smoke . 32nd Tob . Chem. Res.
Conf., Montreal PQ, Canada, 1978 : Paper No . 34 .
Ln
N
~
N
CO
m
-j
Table 3
Component:"Tar" Ratios of Deliveries of Selected Components in Fresh Mainstream Smoke
from Commercial Cigarettes Designed to Yield Different "Tar" Levels'
AnalytelCigt . Type
Cigt A (NF) b
Cigt B (F)
Cigt C (F)
Cigt D(P17
20.1
2 .04
15 .6
1 .50
6 .8
0 .81
0.90
0.15
1 .00
0 .10
1 .30
1 .55
3 .21
6.37
1 .00
0.10
1 .14
0.20
0.65
47.69
1 .00
0 .12
1 .79
1 .78
4 .81
77.06
1 .00
0.17
2.44
4.46
14.67
113 .3
50.10
21 .14
31 .28
11 .54
40.15
8 .26
73.67
19.22
2.08
4 .56
3 .96
10.11
Per Cigarette Delivery
"tar"
nicotine
mg
mg
Amount of Component Relative to "Tar"
"tar"
nicotine
benzo[a]pyrene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosopyrrolidine
N'-nitrosoanatabine +
N'-nitrosoanabasine
.N'-nitrosonornicotine
4-(N-methylnitrosamino)-1(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone
catechol
g/g
919
µg/g
µg/g
µg/g
µg/g
µg/g
µg/g
mg/g
' Dats from Adanu et aL (g .
"NF - nao6haed dgarene; F - 6ha4ipped aguatta
PF - perfaated 6halippad dgaette
~ . Gorl, G.B . (Editor) Report No . 1 . Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The F7rst Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW Publ. No. (NIH) 1976, 76-905.
2. Gori, G.B. (Editor) Report No. 2. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes . The Second Set of
Experimental Cigarettes. DHEW PubL No. (NIH) 1976, 76-1111 .
3. Gori, G .B . (Editor) Report No. 3. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The Third Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW PubL No. (NIH) 77-1280.
,. Gori, G .B. (Editor) Report No. 4. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The Fourth Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW Publ. (NIIQ March (1980) .
s. Cooper P.J. ; Hege, RB. The Oxidation of NO to NOZ in Cigarette Smoke . 32nd Tob. Chem . Res.
Conf., Montreal PQ, Canada, 1978 : Paper No. 34.
6. Adams, J .D. ; O'Mara-Adams, K.J. ; Hoffmann, D . To)dc and carcinogenic agents in undiluted
mainstrcam smokc and sidcstrcam smoke of different typcs of cigarittcs . Carctnogenesis 1987, 8,
729-731
TABLE 1A : VARIATIONS IN MS COb1FOSITION FOR CIGARETTES
DELIVERING 27.2 ± 0.2 mg OF "TAR"
AxWYtc/Sjai .Ns,
L-o:
L-=
I-C
II-W
IDZ4°.
ID w
1.:3e
w-31'
27 .4
27.4
27 .3
27 .4
27 .4
27.3
27 .0
27 .1
e
Am
Per Qgareae Dellrery
"ur"' cog/ci8t
27.2
27.0-27 .4
•'ur' y' 4ary,e„
1 .007
1 .007
1 .004
1 .007
1 .007
1 .004
0.993
0.996
1 .000
nkotinet mg/clgt
2.07
1 .39
1 .93
1 .80
1 .80
1 .91
3 .25
0.99
1 .94
0.89-3 .25
"ar"/nicotine ratio
13 .2
8 .3
30.4
14.8
8 .3-30.4
19 .7
14.1
13 .2
15 .2
14 .4
Amount oJ Component Re(ative w'7or••
BaPi
Itg/j*
0 .91
0 .68
0 .58
0.79
1 .04
1 .18
0 .72
0 .82
0 .64
0 .58-1 .18
BaAt
µg/g
1 .40
0 .92
1 .08
0 .90
1 .49
1 .64
1 .01
1 .00
1 .42
0 .90-1 .64
phenol
aWg
3 .95
2 .98
3 .83
3 .90
4.28
4 .62
4 .88
3 .07
6 .10
2 .98-0 .10
ocrerol
mg/=
0.72
0.51
0.62
0 .63
0.77
0 .79
0.72
0.57
ad
0 .31-0 .79
aceWdehyde ng/g
39 .1
42 .6
37.9
36 .1
38 .4
39.9
19 .6
25 .1
34 .9
19 .6-42 .6
HCN
n4g/j
6 .11
4.21
12.2
12 .0
13 .3
12 .1
9.8
13 .0
12 .5
9 .8-13 .3°
NO'
aS/j
9 .6
8 .0
9 .4
8.7
10.8
10 .0
33 .7
11 .3
12 .8
8 .0•33 .7
Technofogy tnvrrdgaad; other norer:
• 1-6 coataiued double the nitrate level of control biend S8&I (God, 1976a) .
I
so
3~
~
b High density reconstituted tobacco (ATS), slurry procew (God, 1976a) .
° Duplicate samples of control blend SBB-11(Ciod, 1976b) .
~
C
L
~
J
e Control blood SB&lII (contaiaed 3 .2 !i glyceroq (Ooei, 1977) .
i
S1
~
• Olyceroi omitted fmm control blood S88-m (God, 1977) .
r Full retura of cut rolled burley aems (()ori. 1980) .
~
S
3
s Nieotine In SB&N blood adjusted so that eigareua delivered MS nicotine at 1 .0 mg/cigt (Ciorl, 1980) .
~ S8B-N blood .vith 1 .5 % of an additive to reduce MS irdtation .
t MS "tar" and aicodns determined by the FTC procedure .
J B.P = benzo(aJpyeww k BaA - beoz(a)aat6ncane
~ Sub .equent HCN aaalysas foe the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th asria involved an iaaproved and nwn accurate analytical procedure .
m Becauss of analytical probbm, HCN data fi= S88-1 smopies Mm omitted 6om raa`e .
° In du oeiSiaal roports, aioropa osid .a .rorev exprewd as NOp Sioce it hu been deawa°trated that more than 9S9i of the
nitrogeu oxides In tobacco soatA is s3teia oxide (NO), dw nierojea oxides data were recalculated aoooedaqtly .
In the same NCI study, another set of eight cigarette samples whose "tar" yields were
equivalent at 25 .5 f 0.4 mg showed similar disparate compositions in their MS particulate and
vapor phases (Table IB) .
12
TABLE 1B : VARIATIONS IN MS COMPOSITION FOR CIGARETTF.S
DELIVERING 25.5 t 0.4 mg OF "TAR"
,AnaIXJ2/S'
.tio.
L-Z
D'-
r
L3£9
IYUL&
Bi!oe4
Per agarette Deuvery
"tar"e mg/cigt
25 .9
25 .9
2S .S
25 .5
25 .1
25 .4
25 .1
25 .7
25 .1-25 .9
"tar"/"urtp,.q•'
1 .016
1 .016
1 .000
1 .000
0 .984
0 .996
0 .984
1 .008
nicotined mg/cigt
1 .68
0.38
1 .67
1 .78
1 .18
0 .16
2 .02
1 .91
"tar"/nicotine ratio
15 .4
68.2
15 .3
14 .3
21 .3
158 .8
12 .4
13 .S
12 .4-158
~
~ ;.
0 .16-2 .02
Amount oj Compor+ent Relatrve to "Tar"
Ba0
µg/g
0 .72
0 .54
1 .06
1 .16
1 .56
0 .76
0 .78
0.66
0 .54-1 .56
BeAI
µg/g
1 .20
0 .87
1 .56
1 .54
2.35
1 .03
1 .05
1 .72
0 .87-2 .35
4,99
4 .33
3 .53
3 .26-4.99•
0 .40
0 .59
0 .63
0.40-0 .80
phenol
mg .r
.".,3;
3 .26
4.055
4 .89
3 ;71
acreaol
mg/g
0 .78
0.57
0 .86
0 .82
0.73
acetaldehyde
mg/g
41 .1
35 .0
46 .0
41 .8
36 .7
30 .6
39 .2
39 .3
30 .6-46 .0
HCN
mg/g
7 .8k
11 .3
12 .6
12 .0
9 .7
11 .1
12 .7
12 .6
9 .7-12 .7'
NO1O
mg/g
9 .2
2 .0
10.5
10 .8
7 .4
10 .9
11 .4
11 .4
2 .0-11 .4
9.I
Technology tnvest/gated; other notes:
' Cigarette fabricated with SEB-I blend and medium porosity, citrate-treated paper (Gori . 1976a) .
b cigarette fabricated with low-nicotine flue cured tobacco grown with normal nitrogen fertilization (Oori, 1976b) .
° Control SEB-III blend ~(t3~ori, i~~'7):
e SEB-III blend with addZd-o" (1 .0 %) (Gori, 1977) .
• Tobaceo substitute (GytreN) :SEB-m blend - 30:70 (dori, 1977) .
t Denicotinized SSB-III blend (Qod, 1977) .
a SEB-IV control blend (God, 1980) .
b MS "tar" and nicotine determined by the FfC procedure .
I BaP - benzo[alpyrene 1 BaA - benz[a)anthracene
4 Subsequent HCN anaiyaea for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th aeriea involved an improved and more accurate analytical
procedure.
t Beeau.e of analytical problem, HCN result from SEB-I sample 1-2 was omitted from range .
m In the original reports, nitrogen oxldes were expressed as NO= . Since it has been demonstrated that more than 9596
of the nitrogen oxides in tobacco smoke ia nitric oxide (NO), the nitrogen oxides data were recalculated accordingly .
Cigarette design technologies for the cigarettes listed in Tables 1A and 1B included RTS
inclusion, stem inclusion, tobacco substitute inclusion, nitrate enhancement, humectant (glycerol)
effect, tobacco additives, e .g., cocoa, nicotine adjustment, use of high porosity citrate-treated
cigarette paper . Several of these together with other technologies (expanded tobacco, perforated
filter tips, filter-tip additives) have been used in concert and to different degrees to attain specific
"tar" yields . ranging from 0 .1 to over 40 mg .
•
Another anomaly ignored was the fact that the "tars" from different types of cigarettes
i .e ., those cigarettes rated ultralow-, low-, medium-, and high-"tar" on the basis of "tar" yields
determined by FTG analysis, may be quite different compositionally . The consumer smoking a
15-mg "tar" cigarette is inhaling "tar" entirely different in composition from the "tar" in the
13
.'
I
MS of a cigarette whose "tar" yield is 20 mg or 7 mg . Examination of the data (Adams et al.,
1987) in Table 2 for four different U .S. commercial cigarettes indicates the significant variations
in individual component : "tar" ratios for several MS components of interest .
TABLE 2: COMFONENT :"TAR" RATIOS OF DELIVERIES FOR
SELECTED COMPONENTS IN FRESH MAINSTREAM
SMOKE FROM COMMERCIAL CIGARETTES DESIGNED
TO YIELD DIFFERENT "TAR" LEVELS'
CiQt A(NF1°
Per Cigarette Delivery
. . r„
ta
mg/cigt
mg/cigt
nicotine
Amount of Component Relative to "Tar"
. .tar,t
g/g
20.1
Cigt B (F)
15 .6
Cigt C (F)
Cigt D(PF)
6 .8
0 .90
2 .04
1 .50
0 .81
0 .15
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
nicotine
g/g
0 .10
0.10
0 .12
0 .17
benzo[a]pyrene
Ng/g
1 .30
1 .14
1 .79
2 .44
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Ng/g
1 .55
0.20
1 .78
4 .56
N-nitrosopyrrolidine
.Ug/g
3 .21
0 .65
4 .81
14.67
N'-nitrosoanatabine +
N'-nitrosoanabasine
llg/g
6 .37
47 .69
77 .06
113 .33
N'-nitrosonornicotine
IiS/g
50 .10
31 .28
40.15
73 .67
4-(N-methylnitrosamino)-1(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone
Ng/g
21 .14
11 .54
8 .26
19 .22
catechol
mg/g
2 .08
4 .56
3 .96
10 .11
' Data from Ad .ma er al . (1987) .
b NP - nonfiltered ; F- filtered; PF - perforated filter
14
III. REPRODUCIBLE ANALYTICAL METHODS
Between the Bradford et al. (1936) publication and the implementation of the FTC
smolring method for the determination of cigarette MS "tar" and nicotine yields, there were
other analyses used for this purpose . The details of the five most commonly used procedures are
summarized in Table 3 . Other details of these procedures plus comments on the events occurring
at the time of the FTC's involvement in the "tar" and nicotine labeling are summarized in
Appendix B .
TABLE 3 : METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF TOTAL SOLIDS AND NICOTINE
L&M Tobacco Co .
Method (Keith and
The Consumer Newsome, 1956,
Union's Method Cambridge Filter 1957, 1958 ;
Smoking Wolman Method (Consumer Method (Wartman Foster D . Snell Newsome and Keith,
Condjtiona, ete . (Wolman . 1953) Reoorta . 1955) sr al. . 1959) Method (Kimball) 1936 . 1957)
cigarette length 47 variable ; depends 47 variable ; depends variable ; depends on
smoked, nvn on length of on length of length of cigarette
cigarette being cigarette being being tested
tested
tested
butt length, mm variable ; depends 23 variable ; depends 23 variable ; depends on
on length of on length of length of cigarette
cigarette being cigarette being being tested
tested
tested
number of puffs number required to number required to number required to number required to 14
consume 47 mm of attain 23-mm butt consume 47 nun of attain 23-mm butt
cigarette length cigarette length
puff
puff
puff
no ./min
volume
duration
33
2 .0
frequency,
I
35
35
2.0
1
1.
35
2 .0
1
44
1 .9
2
lab temp ., °C 25° not specified not apecified not specified 23 .90
lab RH, %- 45% not specified not specified not specified 60%
cigarettes
per determination
smoked
5
8
10
5
10'
cigarette selection selected for selected for selected for selected for selected for
uniformity in uniformity in uniformity in uniformity in uniformity in
moisture content, moisture content, moisture content, moisture content, moisture content,
cigarette aize (if cigarette aize (if cigarette size (if cigarette size (if cigarette size (if
feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feasible), weight,
firmneu, and other firmness, and other firmness, and other firnuxaa, and other firmness, and other
chancteriatica characteristics characteristics characteristics characteristics
15
Table 3. Continued :
Smoking Wolman Method
Conditions, etc . (Wolman . 1953)
The Consumer
Union's Method
(Consumer
Reoons. 1935)
Cambridge Filter
Method (Wntnun
er o1 . . 1959)
Foster D. Snell
Method (Kimball)
L .dcM Tobacco Co .
Method (Keith and
Newsome, 1956,
1957,1958 ;
Newsome and Keith,
1956, 1957)
determination of SoHds (designated
total solids as tars in the
publication) are
determined by
gravity deposition
of smoke over 25
m1of0.1N
sullbric acid . The
mixture is extracted
with chloroform,
and the chloroform
extract Is heated to
evaporate the
chloroform . The
residue Is then
heated, or dried,
for 3 hr at 100°C.
The weight of
remaining material
after the heating ia
reported as tars .
Smoke for determination of both
nicotine and solids
Is absorbed in
acidified alcohol .
One portion of the
acidified alcoholic
solution Is diluted
with water, then
extracted with
chloroform. The
aqueous layer ia
nude alkaline and
re-extracted with
chloroform. The
two chloroform
extracts are combined, and the
chloroform
removed by
evaporation to yield
the tar, which Is
weighed .
Cigarette MS Is
collected on a glass
fiber filter material,
Cambridge filter
medium CM-1 13 .
The weight of
material retained in
the filter represents
total solids (total
particulate matter) .
Part of the material
retained on the
Cambridge filter Is
water. Thus . this
method includes
water In the value
for total aolida,
whereas the
Wolman Method
and the Consumers
Union Method do
not.
.
To determine soUds
(tar content In the
communi-cat'wn),
smoke is collected
in acidified alcohol .
The alcohol
solution Is heated
on a steam bath
(100'C) to
evaporate the
alcohol. After
about 5 hr, the
residue is heated in
the beaker at
105°C for 7 hr.
The weight of
material remaining
in the beaker Is
designated as the
tar content.
The smoke in this
method is retained
on an a-cellulose
trap . The a-cellulose
Is washed with hot
acidic methanol . The
solution Is extracted
with chloroform . To
deter-mine soUds
(termed tar in the
publications), the
chloroform solution
is evaporated on the •
steam bath and
heating is continued
for 3 hr at 105°C .
Tar value is
determined by
weighing the
residue .
determination of Solids for deter•
nicotine mination of
ntcodne are
collected over 10
ml alcohol acidified
with sulfuric acid
in a 300-m1
1Cjeldahl flask.
Solution ia treated
with alkali and then
steam-distilled . The
distillate Is treated
with silicotungstlc
acid to precipitate
the silicotungaute .
The silleotungatate
Is aeparated and Is
ignited to an ash
whose weight Is
used to calculate
the nicotine valueb .
Another portion of
the acidified
alcoholic solution is
treated with base
and steamdistilled .
Mcodne in the
steam distillate Is
measured spectrophotometrically.
To determine
nicotine, the
Cambridge filter
with the retained
solids is extracted
with 0.1 Nsulfuric
acid . The solution,
after washing with
chbroform, Is
made alkaline and
Is steam-distilled.
Nicotine in the
steam distillate Is
determined either
by the aiGcotungstio
acid method or by
the spectrophoto•
metric method .
To determine
nicodne, an aliquot
of the acidified
alcohol solution
containing the
smoke solids is
heated to remove
the alcohol, the
residue Is made
alkaline and Is
steam-distilled.
Wlcodns is determined gnvimetrically in the steam
distiWte (siGcotungstic acid
method) .
The extracted
methanol solution is
made alkaline and is
steam-distilled .
Mcodnt is determined In the steam
distillate spectrophotometrically.
' The authors recommended that three to six such determinations be carried out and the results averaged .
b Since other alkaloids coprecipitate with nicotine as silicotungstates, thia determination yields the alkaloid or total alkaloid
value .
•
16
Table 4 summarizes the chronology of the various analytical procedures proposed and
used for the determination of cigarette MS "tar" and nicotine yields .
TABLE 4: MAINSTREAM SMOKE "TAR" AND NICOTINE DETERMINATIONS
The Pre-FTC Era'
The FTC Era
T6e Ultralow-"Tar" Era
Wolman Method (Wolman, 1953)
FTC Methodab (FPC, 1%7a)
Spectrophotometcic Methodad : For
determining "tar" yield of cigarettes
designed to deliver < 2 mg/cigt
Consumer Union's Method - No . I
(Consumer Reports, 1955)
ISO Methods (ISO, 1986, 1987s, 1987b,
1989a,198b)
Cambridge Filter Method (Wartman et al.,
1959)
CORESTA Methods (CORESTA, 1966s,
1966b, 1966c, 1966d, 1969s, 1969b,
1986, 1987, 1989s, 1989b)
Foster D. -Sneil MethoJ (Kimball)°
DIN Methods (Verband, 1965)
LecM Tobacco Co . Method (Keith and
Newaome, 1956, 1957, 1958; Newsome
and Keith, 1916, 1957)
UK Methods (Bentley and Burgan, 1961)
' For complete details on these five methods, aee Appeodt : B .
b FTC methods Incotporate contributions of Bradford et al. (1936), Griffith, (1957), Wartman et ol . (1959), Ogg et al .
(1960, 1962), Ogg (1964) ; rf. Bates et al . (1967, 1%8) .
° 7he Reader'r Digest (Riia, 1950; Norr, 1952; Miller and Monahan, 1957s, 19S7b, 1957c, 1958s, 1958b, 1959, 1961, 1966,
1968• ; Miller, 1958, 1%2 ; Ratcliff, 1959) in ita continued attack against cigarette smoking had retained Foster D . Snell,
Inc . to determine the "tar" and nicotine yields from U .S . (Miller and Monahan, 19S7b, 1958s, 1958b, 1959, 1961, 1966)
and Canadian (Miller and Monahan, 1957c) cigarettes .
d For details on these methods, aee Appmdbc C .
• in thia article, Miller and Monahan (1968) cite FTC (6TC, 1968) not Foater D . Snell data .
IV. DI]FFERENCES BETWEEN FTC AND OTHER METHODS
Debardeleben et al . (1991) presented a very fine review of the determination of "tar"
and nicotine in cigarette smoke from an historical point-of-view . They included discussion of the
following topics and how certain procedures eventually were included in standard methods of
analysis such as the FTC procedure and the CORESTA and ISO procedures :
• Smoking machines
• Smoking parameters
- the origins of puff volume, puff duration, puff interval, butt length'=
• Smoke trapping systems (cold traps, Cambridge filter pad)
12 DeBardeleben et al . (1991) nude no mention of the depth of insertion of the cigarette into the cigarette holder . It was eventually set at
I 1 nun (7/16 in) . This insertion depth ensured that in most products with perforated filter tipa, the perforations were not covered, i .e . .,
the perforations were external to the cigarette holder .
17
~ Analytical procedures
- water (Karl Fischer titration, gas chromatography)
- nicotine (silicotungstic acid method, spectrophotometric methods,
titration, gas chromatography) .
Table S summarizes information from Bradford et al . (1936), Wynder and Hoffmann
(1967), Johnson (1986), DeBardeleben et al., (1991), and others on the similarities and
differences in the smoking parameters used by various investigators or institutions in the
determination of cigarette MS "tar" and nicotine .
Table 6 compares the smoking and parameters and analytical procedures prescribed for
use by the cigarette manufacturers (Bates et al ., 1967, 1968), by the USDA (Ogg et al ., 1964),
and by the FTC (1967b).
18
(A
TABLE 5: SMOKING PARAMETERS PRESCRIBED FOR USE IN VARIOUS
DETERMINATIONS OF CIGARETTE MS "TAR" AND NICOTINE
Source
p~
Bradford
CORESTA
24
puff volume, ml
35
35 t 0 .3'
33 t 0 .25"
35
33
35
3S t 0.5
35 t 0 .5
puff duration, .ec
2 .0
1 .8-2 .2 f 0 .0t3'
2 .0 t 0.05b
2
2
2
2 t 0.2
2 t 0 .2
puff fcequency, puff/min
1
1°
1°
1
1
1
1'
l
bua lenyt6, mm
23
23
OW + 3•
23
OW + 3•
23
OW + 3'
20
OW + 3a
30
OW + 31
23
OW + 3'
F+81
F+Br
F+Bt
OW+Sh
17.5
17.3
17.5
17.5
17 .5
17 .3
aample aize, no . of ci8areaea
200
100
ia.eRion depth, mm
11
11
air flow, mVaec
17 .5
PPl
3m
4Qe
FM
TPM trappinp tyatem
CFI+i
SSPti
CFFi
BSFt
CF14
ESpk
CFFi
CFpi
CFpi
TPM water analyaia
llC'
KFl•
Oct
KEtm
Oct
KFI°
Oct
OC1
KFl°
Oct
GC1
QC1
ClC!
Od
OCi
OSpo
ad
OSpo
laboratory conditions
22'C
60% RH
22'C
60% RH
22'C
60% RH
22•C
60% RH
23 .9'C
60% RH
23 .9'C
60% RH
ci8arette conditioning
22'C
60% RH
22•C
60% RH
22•C
60% Wi
22'C
60% RH
24 hr @
23 .9'C
60% RH
24 hr 0
23 .9'C
60% RH
TPM nicotine andyaia
STAF"
K1tN
' ptrior w 1989 ` Atter 1989
° 1 puff every 60 t 1 aec ° 1 puff every 60 t 0 .5 aac
• OW - overanp ; 23 mm or overweap + 3 mn% whichever Ia longer
r F - flher ; 23 mm or Sher + 8 mm, whichever Is loag .r
e For cipralba s 75 nM 20 aom a oveewpp + 3 me% whichever ia lon8er
k For ci8aauea > 75 mm,10 mm ar ovenvap + 5 mm, whichever ia looSer
1 OW m overnc .pp 30 mm or aver.vrap + 3 mm, whichever ia lon`er
J CFP - Cambridje mter pad k BSP ~ electroatado precipitation
~ OC - gas cbromatojrapby ~ KFT ~ Karl Fiacber BtnBoo
e BTAp - ailioowo8 .dc aaW pencedur.
o OSP - OeitFith still procedure. 'lbis procedure was uaed for war yean In the U .S . but .vaa
replaced by a ps cbeom .w;eapbio met6od, wbsequeofly approved by the FTC
19
KF I°
TABLE 6: COMPARISON OF SMOKING PARAMETERS PRESCRIBED FOR
USE BY THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY (BATES et al, (1967, 1968),
OGG et ot. (1964), AND THE FTC (1967b) IN THEIR
DETERMINATIONS OF CIGARETTE MS "TAR" AND NICOTINE
Source
Parameter
Bslgs ti.el,
2u
Fn
puff volume, ml
35 t 0.5
35 t 0 .5
35 f 0 .5
puff duration, sec
2 .0 t 0 .2
2 ± 0.2
2 ± 0 .2
puff frequency, number
l per 60 ± 1
I per 60 ± l
I
butt length, mm
NP: 23, 30b, or 47
F- OW+3°
F+OW+3°
NF : 30
F:OW+3°
NF - 23
F- OW+3d
air flow, ml/sec
17 .5
17 .5
17 .5
sample size, no . of cigarettes
200'
200
100
ineertion depth, mm
11
11
1l
TPM trapping system
CFFr
CFFt
CFFr
TPM water analysis
Kb'1'e
KFre
GC6
K1TTe
()Ci
TPM nicotine analysis
GS>J
GSFi
GSPi
()Cb
laboratory conditions
23 .9 ± 1 .1°C
60 f 2%RH
23 .9°C
60%RH
23 .9°C
60%RH
cigarette conditioning
variablet at
23 .9° ± 1 .1°C
60t2%R13
24 hr at
23 .9°C
60%RH
24 hr at
23 .9°C
60%RH
' NF - nonfiltered cigarette ; F - filtered cigarette
6 30 mm or overwrap + 3 nun was the preference of Bates er al (1967, 1968)
° OW - overwrap ; 30 mm or overwrap + 3 nun, whichever Is longer
d OW - overwrap ; 23 mm or ovenvrsp + 3 mm, whichever Is longer
• 40 determinationa on S cigarettes
r CFP - Cambridge filter pad
e KFT - Karl Fischer titration
b OC - gee chromatography ; the procedure of Schultz and Spears was recommended
~ Eventually a gas chromatographic procedure was implemented in the FTC procedure to
determine water and nicotine In the particulate matter
1 OSP - Griffith still procedure
k it was recommended that cigarettes be conditioned under laboratory conditions
specified until they "come to moisture equilibrium with the atmosphere of the
conditioning chamber ."
Both prior to and after the implementation in 1967 of the FTC analytical procedure for
cigarette MS "tar" and nicotine, numerous investigators reported on their determinations of total
particulate matter, water, nicotine, and "tar" in cigarette MS . References are indicated in Table
7. Surprisingly, most of the studies conducted pre-1967 dealt with methods of determining
20
TABLE 7: CHRONOLOGY OF ANALYSIS OF MS TPM AND NICOTINE AND
WATER IN MS TPM
tinatlon TPM Nicotine Determtnation TPM Water Determination
Pre-193Q
~.
~ ~ I{iaeling, 1882s, 1882b
\, Lowenthal, 1892
~ Schmidt, 1904
Theodorovita, 1905
~ Warburg, 1906
Biederbeek, .1908
\ Toth, 1908, 1909
Toth and Krampera, 1910
Van Leeuwen, 1919
Hahn and Langer, 1920
Bogner, 1921
Popp,1922
Baumberger, 1923a, 1923b
Ptyl and Schmidt, 1927
Wenuach, 1928
Winter.tein and Aronaon, 1928
_/n •
193Qs
•
Preiu, 1936 Bodnar, 1930s, 1930b
Heiduachaka, 1930
Batu and Toole, 1931•, 1932a', 1932b'
Hahn and IfiriamaM, 1931
Kovalenko, 1931
Malaquin, 1931
Pydki, 1931a, 1931b, 1932 .
Wenusch, 1931a, 1931b
Heiduachaka and Poat, 1932
Molinati, 1932
Nagy, 1932a, 1932b
Hofmann, 1933°
Nagy and Dickmann, 1933a, 1933b
Pfyl, 1933a, 1933b
Pyriki, 1933, 1934, 1935
Schloumann, 1933
Toole, 1933
Kopericu, 1934
Pretu, 1934, 1935, 1936
Wenuach, 1934s, 1934b, 1934c, 1934d,
1934e, 1936a, 1936b, 1937a,
1937b
Wulfert, 1934a, 1934b
Bodnar et at ., 1935
Jensen and Haley, 1935
~
Hofmann,
1942b
Pyriki,
1943
Griffith and Jefl'rey, 1948
Dabrowaka,
1949
~
~
--j
~'
S
tp
J
tp
21
Table 7. Continued:
TPM Nicotine Deterrnination
TPM Water DeterminatioC
19SOs
Schmihl et at., 1954b
Schmihl, 195Sb
Schmihl and Schneider, 1955b
Keith and Newaome, 1956, 1957
Aksu and Fneroan S, 1958s, 1958b
Morgareidge, 1958, 1959
Trifu and Dumitreacu, 1958s, 19S8b,
1959
Wartman and Harlow, 1958
McConnell et at., 1959b, 1960P
Monod and DuPont, 1959
Staberg, 1959
Wartman et at ., 1959
Willita ct at., 1950
Marchand and Zenard, 1951
Cundiff and Markunaa, 1953', 1955'
Laurene and Harrell, 195Sb
Cogbill et al ., 1959
Fiahel, 1959
izawa and Kobashi, 1956
lzawa et at ., 1956s, 1956b
Grittith, 1957d
Aksu and Enercan S, 1958s, 1958b
Laurene and Harrell, 1958"
Mathur, 1958
Trifu and Dumltreacu, 1958s, 1958b
Wartman and Harlow, 1958
Kuhn, 1959b
Pleaaanta et al ., 1959b
Staberg, 1959
Waltz er al., 1959b
L2&
Bentley and Burgan, 1961
Bock et at., 1962
Ogg et at., 1962
Harrell and Sullivan, 1963t
Smith and De Souza, 1963°
1964 biopm (fatnn/'r Reporr
Ogg, 1964
Okada and Shibayama, 1964b
Senkus, 1960
TTokura and Furakawa, 1964
Rodgman, 196Sa, 196Sb, 1965c
Yamazaki tt at ., 1965
CORESTA, 1966a
Batea et at., 1967, 1968
MOller and Moldenhauer, 1967
Wynder and Hoffmann, 1967r
Dalhamn, 1968
CORESTA, 1969a
Georgiev, 1969
Gilea, 1969t
Gilea and Sullivan, 1969
Ogg, 1969
Viart, 1969
Barkemeyer and Seehofer, 1960b
Ogg ct al ., 1960, 1962
Kuhn and Marek, 1961
Aamua et al ., 19626
Pyriki and Moldenhauer, 1962
Artho and Grob, 1963, 1964d
Harrell and Sullivan, 19631
Seehofer and Borowaki, 1963a
!%{ SSageaai (ienerol'c Report
Mann et al., 1964°
Ogg, 1964
Senkua, 1964t
Tokura and Funkawa, 1964
Lyerly, 1965a°, 1965b°
Pyrikl and Moldenhauer, 1965a, 1963b°
Rodgnun, 1965s . 1965b, 1965c
Verband,1963
Yamazaki et al., 1965
Lyerly and Gilleland, 1966
CORESTA, 1966b, 1966c, 1966d
Harvey et al., 1966' , 1967'
Bates et al ., 1967, 1968
Lyerly 1967°
M811er and Molden6auer, 1967
Wynder and Hoffmann, 1967t
Dalhamn, 1968
Charles et al ., 1969b
Pillsbury et at., 1969
CORESTA, 1969b
Georgiev, 1969
Gilea, 1969r
Gilea and Sullivan, 1969
Ogg, 1969
22
Crowell, 1960b
Fishel, 1960
Holmea and Cridlin, 1960
Crowell et al ., 1961b
Jarrell and Wickham, 1961°, 1962°
Ogg et al ., 1962
Harrell and Sullivam, 1963r
Waltz et al., 1963b
1964 b5ogoow Gsewertil'c Reporr
Neurath et al ., 1964
Okada and Shibayama, 1964s, 1964b
Sloan and Sublett, 1964°, 1965°
Neuath, 1966
Neurath er al., 1966
Schultz and Spears, 1966°
Thome, 196Sa°, 1965b°, 1966°
Bates et al., 1967, 1968
Graves, 1967°
Wynder and Hoffaunn, 1967r
CORESTA, 1969a
Table 7. Continued :
TPM Determination
TPM Nicntine Determination
TPM Water Detennination
1970s
Ogg and Schulz, 1970
Smit, 1972b
Hartung and Stewart, 1973
Norman, 1973, 1974
Rothwell and Grant, 1974t
Harbin and Stamey, 1975
Williamson et al., 1975
Bronnemann et al ., 1976r
Hammond et al., 1976
Keith, 1976
Owen, 1976
Wakeham, 1976
Burton et al., 1977
Maeda et al ., 1978
Rix, 1979
Cano et al., 1970°
Ogg and Schulz, 1970
Sadler et al., 19704
Diffee and Sheppard, 1971°
Bourlas and F.aperdy, 1972b
Hartung and Stewart, 1973
Schulz and Seehofer, 1973
Randolph, 1973°, 1974°
Rothwell and Orant, 1970
Wagner and Thaggard, 1974°, 1979°
Diffee, 1975
Roberts, 1975°
Williamson et al ., 1975
Bourlas et al ., 19766
DeVriea et al ., 1976"
Watson et al., 1970°
Hartung and Stewart, 1973
Roberta, 1975°
Rix, 1979
Bmnnemann et al ., 1976"
Hammond et al ., 1976
Keith, 1976
Leonetti and Carugno, 1976°
Lyerly and Greene, 1976°
Owen, 1976
Wakeham, 1976
Campbell, 1978
Oaivoromchi et al., 1978°
Maeda et al., 1978
Ma.kninec et al ., 1978a
Rix, 1979
1980.r
Hege, 1980b
Norman et al., 1980a, 1980b
Thomaa, 1980b
Herning et al ., 1981
McMurtrie et al., 1981
Sloan and Curran, 1981b
Wald et al ., 1981
Yama111100, 1981
Baakevitch and Ferrer, 1982
Dobbina, 1984
Yamamoto et al., 1984
ISO, 1986
Johtuon,1986t
Williamson et al., 1986s, 1986b
ISO, 1987s, 1987b
CORESTA, 1989a, 1989b
Shoffner and Ireland, 1980°, 1982°
McMuttrie et at., 1981
Wald et al ., 1981
Yamamoto, 1981
Baskevitch and Ferrer, 1982
Dobbins, 1984
Yamamoto et al ., 1984
CORESTA, 1986°, 1989b°
ISO, 1989a°, 1989bb
•
23
CORESTA, 1987°, 1989b°, 1990'
ISO, 1987a, 1987b
Table 7. Continued :
TPM Determination TPM Nicotine Determination TPM Water Determination
1M
Yamamoto et al ., 1990 Ayres et at ., 1990b Deldardeleben et al ., 1991t
DeBardeleben et al., 1991t Yamamoto et al., 1990
DeBardeleben et al., 1991t
Deutach and RobeR.on, 1991°
Deutech and Jefton, 1994°
• Titrimetric method b Spectrophotometic method °(3aa chromatognphic method
d Distillation method ° Extraction method t Review
a High pressure liquid chromatograph
nicotine or total alkaloids in cigarette MS . Those described post-1967 include improved
procedures (e .g., gas chromatographic methods instead of gravimetric, titrimetric, or
spectrophotometric procedures for nicotine ; gas chromatographic methods instead of the Karl
Fischer titrimetric method for water), spectrophotometric methods for determination of "tar"
in the MS from ultralow-"tar" cigarette, automation of existing procedures, reviews, and the
like.
VI . HISTORICAL TRENDS
1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984
A. Sales-Weighted
Average MS "Tar"
Deliveries
50
3 .0
45
1711.r Tlpe
Raoonaututad Tobacco Sbaat
40
From the mid-1950s
through the late 1980s, the salesweighted average "tar" yield of
U.S. cigarettes has declined as
shown in Figure 4 .
This decline in "tar" yield
is the result of inclusion of various
combinations of these technologies
to varying degrees in the design of
cigarette. As noted previously,
these technologies include :
Papar Addithes
Papar Porodty
i:panded Tobaaoo
35
V.atllatlon
30
25
~ . . . . . .... . . . .
~ • . .. ..~
15
- Tar
••••••••• Nicotine
10
5
0I I I I I
L_
I I I
0.0
1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984
Figure 4.
• tobacco blend and weight
• tobacco rod length and
circumference
• filter tips (material type and additives)
"Tar" and Nicotine Deliveries, Sales Weighted Average
Basis
24
• processed tobaccos (reconstituted tobacco sheet, expanded tobacco)
• paper (type and additives)
• air dilution (increased paper porosity, filter tip perforations) .
In Figure 4 are indicated the approximate dates when these technologies were introduced
and subsequently became used routinely thoughout by U .S . cigarette manufacturers .
It has been noted by the U .S . Surgeon General (USPHS, 1979, 1981, 1982) that the
following changes in the properties of the "tar", actually CSC, accompanied the decrease in
sales-weighted average "tar" produced by inclusion of the various technlogies in cigarette
design:
• The BaP per mg of CSC decreased over the same time period .
• The tumorigenicity, as measured in mouse-skin painting studies, of the MS "tar" (CSC)
decreased over the same time period .
B . Sales-Weighted Average MS Nicotine Deliveries
From the mid-1950s through the late 1980s, the sales-weighted average nicotine yield of
U. S. cigarettes has declined as shown in Figure 4 .
This decline in per cigarette nicotine yield is also the result of inclusion of the various
technologies to varying degrees in the cigarette design .
VII. EFFECT OF VARIATION OF MAJOR SMOKING PARAMETERS ON FTC MS
"TAR" AND NICOTINE YIELDS
An individual cigarette smoker generally does not consume his/her cigarette by the major
smoking parameters (puff volume = 35 ml, puff duration = 2 sec, puff frequency = 1 puff/60
sec) defined for use in the FTC smoking procedure . Data are available from several RJRT inhouse studies to show the effect on MS cigarette "tar" and nicotine yields of keeping two of the
three parameters constant and varying the third .
In 1979, Rix (1979), using Response Surface Methodology, conducted a detailed study
on the effect of puff volume, duration, and frequency on puff number plus the MS TPM, MS
nicotine, MS water, MS "tar," and MS carbon monoxide yields from 85-mm Winston and
Marlboro cigarettes . Table 8 summarizes the 'tar" and nicotine data on the 85-mm Winston .
"Tar" and nicotine yields are increased by increasing the puff frequency and by increasing the
puff volume. Examination of the data in Table 8 reveals that of the three major parameters
changes in the puff duration have the least effect on MS "tar" and nicotine yields: See
comparisons of Sample No . 17 vs Sample No . 18 and Sample No . 1 vs Sample No. 3 where the
puff durations of 1 .5 vs 2 .5 sec were studied .
TABLE 8: THE EFFECT OF VARIATION IN SMOKING PARAMETERS (PUFF VOLUME,
DURATION, FREQUENCY) ON THE FTC "TAR" AND NICOTINE YIELDS
FROM AN 85-mm W7W!nN
Puff Puff Puff FTC
Samole No. Volume, ml Duration, sec Freauencv "Tar" . ma
FfC
tlicotine . ma
No . of
rt
16
35
1 .5
30
42 .1
2 .26
15 .2
1
3S
1 .3
60
23 .7
1 .60
9 .3
16
35
1 .5
30
42 .1
2 .26
15 .2
17
60
1 .5
30
62 .2
2.85
12 .2
3S
2 .S
30
38 .7
2 .31
13 .5
60
2 .S
30
61 .1
2 .72
11 .4
3S
2 .S
60
24 .1
1 .43
9.1
60
2 .5
60
41 .8
1 .96
8.4
2
18
3
20
11
47.5
2 .0
30
43 .9
2 .21
10 .8
S/l0°
47 .5
2.0
45
40 .7
2 .11
10 .3
47 .5
2 .0
60
32 .4
1 .81
8 .2
2 .0
43
24 .0
1 .48
12 .5
47 .5
2 .0
45
40 .7
2.11
10.3
68 .8
2 .0
4S
50 .7
2 .31
9 .1
13
26 .3
S/lOb
14
2
35
2 .5
30
38 .7
2 .31
13 .5
©
35
2 .S
60
24 .1
1 .43
9 .1
18
2 .S
30
61 .1
2 .72
11 .4
20
2 .S
60
41 .8
1 .96
8.4
17
60
1 .5
30
62 .2
2 .85
12 .2
cn
N
18
60
2 .5
30
61 .1
2 .72
11 .4
J
N
m
~
OD
26
W
Table 8. Continued :
l
35
1 .5
60
23 .7
3
35
2 .5
60
24,1
1 .60
9 .3
1 .43
9 .1
' Data are from Rix (1979) who also presented similar data for the 85-mm Marlboro . Rix also presented data on the
yields of TPM, TPM water, and carbon monoxide .
b Data represent the average "tar^ and nicotine yields from Samples Noa . 5 through 10.
Rix (1979) also compared the effect on the carbon monoxide, nicotine, and "tar" yields
from the 85-mm Winston and 85-mm Marlboro of changing the major FTC smoking parameters
(35-m1 puff volume, 2 .0-sec puff duration, 60-sec puff frequency) to more "realistic""
smoldng conditions (65-m1 volume, 2 .0-sec duration, 45-sec frequency) . Table 9 summarizes
the results obtained . At the higher puff volume and frequency, the % differences between the
Winston and the Marlboro become less for MS "tar" and nicotine yields, with the Winston yield
being the higher . In the 150-page report by Rix, there are numerous plots of the relationships
between carbon monoxide, nicotine, and "tar" yields and puff volume, duration, and frequency
for the 85-mm Winston and Marlboro . Also included are plots (2-sec puff duration, 1 puff/min)
of the "tar"/nicotine ratios vs puff volume for the following brands : Winston, Camel, Vantage,
Now, More, Real, and Marlboro .
TABLE 9 : 85-mm WJVSTiDN AND MARl.8OR0: COMPARISON OF FTC CARBON
MONOXIDE, NICOTINE, AND `-TAR" YIELDS AT STANDARD AND MORE
"REALISTIC" SMOKIING PARAMETERS
cjgg agg
FTC "Tar",
ale/ciat
FTC Nicotine,
me/ciet
FTC CO,
m !Q Ciat
"Tar"/Nicotine
Rado
FTC smokfng condidons (3J-ml pkQ', 2.0-sec puff durotion, one pi}D'every 60 see)
WAsron
20.6 (20.9)'
1 .43 (24 .3)
19 .1 (15 .2)
14.4 (-4.8)
Marlboro
16 .3
1 .08
16 .2
15 .1
' ReallsNe" snaokIng eondidons (6J-rnd pqf. 2.4see pr}Q'durotion, one pr{Q'every 45 sec)
Wlnsron
35 .7 (15 .7)
2 .35 (16 .8)
33 .9 (15 .3)
13 .2 (-2 .6)
Marlboro
30.1
1 .93
28 .7
15 .6
' Numbers in parentheses represent % difference between WINSTON and MARLBORO :
% Difference - 100(Wtnsron - Marfboro)l Wlnrton
In a similar study on the 100-mm Winston and the now defunct 120-mm Dawn, Dobbins
(1984) elected to vary the puff volumes at different puff frequencies with the puff duration
•
13 Whether the "realistic" conditions for 1979 smokers would apply to current (1994) smokers is not known . Two years later, Henning et
at. (1981) observed that filter cigarette smokers took a 35 .9- to 47 .8-m1 puff of 1 .94 to 2 .06 wc every 26.9 to 30 .0 sec .
27
•
maintained throughout at 2 .0 sec because of the findings of Rix (1979) on the minimal effect of
variation in puff duration . His data on number of puffs plus MS "tar," and MS nicotine yields
are summarized in Table 10 . In addition to the data summarized, Dobbins also reported the MS
TPM and TPM water yields for the cigarettes . The effects of variation of puff volume (puff
duration and puff frequency constant) and puff frequency (puff volume and puff duration
constant) observed for the 100-mm Winston and the 120-mm Dawn were similar to those
reported by Rix for 85-mm Winston and 85-mm Marlboro .
Rix (1979)
Dobbins (1984)
Herning et al.
(1981)
,
cigarette type
85-mm filtered cigarettes
100-mm and 120-mm
filtered cigarettes
smokers of filtered
cigarettes
puff volume, ml
26 .3, 35 .0, 37 .5,
60.0,68 .8
15, 25, 35, 40, 45, 55
35 .9-47 .8
puff duration, seo
1 .15, 1 .5, 1 .0, 2.5, 2 .85
2.0
1 .94-2.06
puff frequency, sec
30, 45, 60
30, 45, 60
26 .9-30 .0
Sm4king Parameter
28
TABLE 10: THE EFFECT OF VARIATION IN SMOKING PARAMETERS (PUFF VOLUME,
FREQUENCY) ON THE FT C "TAR" AND NI COTINE YIELDS FROM A 100-mm
W11VSTrIN
Puff
Volume. ml
Puff Puff
fluration. aeo Freauencv
RCC
"Tar" . me
FTC
Nicotine, mQ
No . of Puffi
15
2 .0
30
13 .5
1 .08
20.7
1S
2 .0
45
10 .0
0 .81
15 .2
15
2.0
60
7 .8
0 .63
12 .0
2 .0
30
23 .2
1 .77
18 .4
2 .0
45
17 .4
1 .19
13 .5
2 .0
60
13 .8
1 .02
11 .1
35
2 .0
30
30.6
2 .24
16,6
35
2 .0
45
23 .0
1 .72
12 .6
35
2 .0
60
18 .6
1 .36
10.5
1 40
2.0
30
32 .0
2.32
16 .0
45
2 .0
30
34 .6
2 .44
15 .8
45
2 .0
45
25 .9
1 .89
12.2
45
2 .0
60
21 .3
1 .52
10 .1
SS
2 .0
30
38 .0
2 .68
14.2
SS
2 .0
45
31 .4
2 .09
11 .4
55
2 .0
60
24 .1
1 .62
9 .4
25
' Data from Dobbina (1984)
29
VIII. RELATIONSHIP TO HUMAN SMOKING
USPHS, 1979 :
The "tar" and nicotine content of cigarettes is measured by machines which smoke cigarettes
according to a predetermined puff rate, butt length, duration of puff, and volume of puff . An
individual smoker does not necessarily consume cigarette in this standardized manner .
Depending on the makeup of the cigarette, the wet particulate matter that issues with the [MS]
from the butt end amounts to 0 .2 to 9 .0 percent of the weight of the [MS] . The. ..FTC issues
reports semiannually on the "tar" content of all U .S . commercial cigarettes . In those reports
"tar" is defined as total particulate of [MS], minus water and nicotine, and is determined by
smoking cigarettes under standard conditions in a 20-channel machine [Pillsbury et al ., 1969] .
[From 1955 to 1977], the "tar" and nicotine contents' of cigarettes have declined . This trend is
illustrated in [F'igure 5] which depicts the sales-weighted average "tar" delivery per cigarette
from 1955 to 197T. . . For the years after 1967, periodic measurements of cigarette "tar" by the
[FTC, 1967b] permit reliable calculations of sales-weighted average "tar" delivery .
•
From 1954, sales-weighted average "tar" decreased from approximately 37 mg to approximately
23 mg . Although this change paralleled the rapid increase in filtertip market share, it also reflected
a decrease in the "tar" content of both filtertip and nonfilter cigarettes . . . Since 1966,the salesweighted average "tar" has continued to decrease . . . The observed decreases in sales-weighted
"tar" have been paralleled by declines in the sales-weighted nicotine [yield] per cigarette .
a A cigarette does not have a"tu" content; Its MS does.
b FiQnre S is in an extension of that ahown In the 1979 Surgeon General's report (USPHS, 1979) ;
it represents data from 1954 through 1985 .
USPHS, 1981 :
There is evidence that machines that measure "tar" and nicotine content are not suitable for
measurements of smoke from lower "tar" and nicotine cigarettes with perforated filter tips . . .and
that the "tar" and nicotine in the inhaled smoke may be more than indicated by the test
procedures .
The FTC ratings of "tar" and nicotine yields measure an implied risk to the smoker . Smokingmaehine"data guide experimenters in elucidating the mechanisms of induction of smoking-related
disease . Absolute levels of smoke constituents my be very important for experiments, so the
experimenter must have reliable information about the comparability of machine and human
smoking . The use of machine data to monitor risk has somewhat different requirements . If the
relative yields of different cigarettes are not greatly affected by smoking conditions, present
smoking-machine standards will be adequate to indicate relative risk of new cigarettes . We know,
however, that the relative yield of many constituents is affected by butt length, puff frequency,
and degree of ventilation . We need to determine how the variations in these smoking parameters
affect relative yields of the several substances in smoke that are of toxicological interest .
Methods for determining "tar"' and nicotine yield were developed before very low yield
cigarettes were an important segment of the market . It is questionable whether existing procedures
can measure accurately the "tar" delivery of the cigarettes yielding 0 .1 mg of "tar." Other
techniques giving acceptable results must be developed . Procedures for determining "tar" yields
30
•
of low magnitude through measurement of fluorescence have been recommended (Thomas, 1980) .
[see Appendix C, this memorandum]
USPHS, 1982 :
The composition of the [MS] and [SS] depends greatly on the smoking conditions and the methods
of collection and analysis . This has long been realized; more than 20 years ago, standardized
smoking conditions were established for machine measurements of cigarette smoke [Wartman et
al., 1959] . Since then, the . . .FfC, research institutions, and the U .S . cigarette industry have used
the same standardized parameters for cigarette smoking [Bates et al ., 1968 ; Pillsbury et al .,
1969] . . . The standard cigarette smoking conditions reflect the average smoking habits of a male
smoker of nonfilter cigarettes as determined 25 years ago (Brunnemann et al ., 1976] . The average
smoking parameters recently recorded for filter cigarette smokers were one puff of 1 .94 to 2 .06
seconds duration, repeated every 26 .9 to 30 .0 seconds, with a puff volume of 35 .9 to 47 .8 ml
[Herning et al., 1981] . Nevertheless, FTC-standard cigarette smoking conditions continue to be
used for comparisons of tar and nicotine yields in the smoke of present cigarettes and those made
years and even decades ago .
The trends for the
sales-weighted average
tar and nicotine
deliveries of U .S .
cigarettes since 1955 . . .
are shown in [Figure
5] . . . During this time,
the percentage of filtertipped cigarettes in
U .S . cigarette
production increased
from 18 .7 to 90
percent . . .
1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984
50
3 .0
45
~
~
~
171ta Ttpr
R4ooo.ttlut.a ToDaooo Sh ..t
Pap .r Addlu...
Pap.r PoroalLy
lspaadad Tobaoao
40
35
2 .5 °•!
2 .0
v.nw.u.o
30
~
25
S5
20
a
15
-
~'`~
...
Tar
••••••••• Nicotine
The reported data are
5
based on measurements
obtained by machine
I
1
1
I
0
0 .0
smoking of cigarettes
1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984
under standard
Figure S . "Tar" and Nicotine Deliveries, Sales Weighted Average
conditions . As
Basis
discussed before, these
conditions may have
reflected the average smoking habits of individuals 25 years ago, but today [1982] they appear to be
representative of less than 10 percent of U .S . smokers .
1
I
I
Despite the repeated criticisms and deficiencies noted above (USPHS, 1979, 1981, 1982)
of the FTC analytical procedure for "tar" and nicotine yields, a procedure imposed on the U .S .
cigarette manufacturers (FTC, 1966, 1967), no serious attempt has been made by the FTC
during the past decade to modify the analytical procedure it put in place in 1967 . Because of a
B&W uniquely filtered cigarette product that behaved differently when smoked in the holder on
•
31
the FTC-recommended smoking machine and when smoked by mouth", an attempt was made
to introduce a new holder that would circumvent the problem . The original rubber diaphragm
holder on the FTC smoking machine is still in use.
IX. PERTINENT EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA : DO PEOPLE WHO SMOKE
REDUCED-"TAR" CIGARETTF.S HAVE A LOWER INCIDENCE OF
SMOKING-RELATED DISEASE?
In 1976, Hammond et al. (1976) described the decrease in mortality ratios in lownicotine, low-"tar" smokers compared to high-nicotine, high-"tar" smokers for lung cancer .
Several years later, Hammond (1980) wrote :
Wynder and I drafted a resolution that . . .was quoted in the Congressional Record [U .S . Congress,
1967] and by the Surgeon General . It said, "The preponderance of the scientific evidence strongly
suggests that the lower the 'tar' and nicotine contenN [sic] in cigarettes, the less harmful would
be the effects . . . The statement has been relevant ever since . Today I would change this wording .
Instead of saying that "the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests," I'd now say "the
preponderance of scientific evidence very strongly suggests" and I'd leave the rest of the wording
unchanged .
' A cigarette does not have a"ur content" ; its MS does .
In a comparison of the cellular changes (hyperplasia, metaplasia, carcinoma-in-situ) found
in the respiratory tract of smokers who died from lung cancer during the periods 1955-1960 and
1970-1977, Auerbach et al . (1979, 1980) reported that the epidemiological data reported by
Hammond et al. (1976) were paralleled by pathological data . They reported :
Although we do not have the tar and nicotine content [sic] of the cigarettes smoked by the subjects
in this study, all those who died in the 1955-1960 period had to have smoked cigarettes up to the
time of their death that were higher in tar and nicotine, than those who died during the years
1970-1977 . . . [F]or the last 5-10 years of their lives none of the 1970-1977 group could have
smoked cigarettes with as high a tar and nicotine content [sic] as those smoked by the 1955-1960
group .
Whenever we have found an early microscopic invasion in the tracheobronchial tree
epithelium in our previous studies of lung cancer cases, it was always next to and probably arose
from an area of carcinoma-in-situ . The changes in the cigarette over the 15 years from the time
the average group A person died [the 1955-1960 group] to the time the group B people died [the
1970-1977 group] has resulted in the changes demonstrated. . . These changes seem to be the result
of decreased tar and nicotine and they correlate with epidemiological data already presented . . .
With regard to reduced-"tar" cigarettes, Wynder (1980) noted :
A number of retrospective epidemiological studies have shown a decreased risk of disease
associated with filtered cigarette smoking . . . In our studies we calculated risk among persons who
smoked filtered cigarettes . . . [T]he risk of developing either epidermoid lung cancer or larynx
•
1s Mouth smoking of the cigarette generated much higher "tar" yields than when the cigarette was smoked In the FfC smoking
machine because of compression by the smoker's lips of longiwdinal dou In the filter tip .
32
cancer is reduced up to 33 % in long-term (Z 10 yr) smokers of filtered cigarettes, compared to
smokers of nonfiltered cigarettes.
The retrospective study from our group included more than 1000 cases of lung and larynx cancer
and showed a reduction in risks among long-term filter cigarette smokers of 10 years or more of
between 25 % and 33 % for both men and womea . . . This finding has been confirmed by the
prospective studies of the American Cancer Society . . . ([¢1 discussion to Russell (1980a)]
I
~
~
_j
~
m
OD
~
m
33
ITEM TO BE INSERTED :
In 1964, nicotine was essentially given a clean bill of health in the first Surgeon
General's report on smoking and health (USPHS, 1964) . Fifteen years later, nicotine was not
described in overly adverse terms. E.g., in the 1979 Surgeon General's report it was stated :
For the habitual smoker, the smoking of a cigarette is a rewarding experience ... Because of the
myriad compounds present in cigarette smoke, it should be kept in mind that the pharmacological
effects of smoking are not related solely to nicotine ; rather, it is the combined effect of the whole
smoke . Nevertheless, nicotine is generally accepted as the principal constituent responsible for
cigarette smokers' pharmacologic response. . .
Because "tar" rather than nicotine was considered to be the most hazardous part of the
particulate phase of MS, there was an era when it was proposed to fabricate a "less hazardous"
by redesigning it to deliver a substantially reduced "tar" level but deliver the same or an only
slightly reduced nicotine level, i .e., decrease the "tar" :nicotine ratio (Russell et al., 1973,
Russell, 1976, 1980b ; Schacter, 1978) . Russell et al. (1973) noted :
[T]he least harmful cigarettes for heavy smokers may be those with high, rather than low, nicotine
yield. . .
[A] cigarette with a high nicotine yield would enable heavy smokers to curb their tobacco
consumption, and harmfulness would be further reduced if, at the same time, the tar and CO
yields were low . . . To reduce tar yield without lowering the nicotine yield presents a challenge to
cigarette technology but is one which the skill and resources available are no doubt capable of
meeting . . .
and Russell (1980) in a conference on "safer cigarette" design wrote :
[A] low-tar, low-CO, but medium-, rather than low-, nicotine cigarette might reduce tar and CO
intake more than occurs with low-tar, low-CO, low-nicotine cigarettes . It might also be more
acceptable to smokers .
A problem with this concept was consumer acceptance when "tar" :nicotine ratio was less than about 7 . The
consumer re " from inhaling because of the harshness of the MS . Perforated filter-tip
cigarettes with" 1" :nicotine ratios between 9 and 11 or other filtered and nonfiltered cigarettes
with "tar" :ni e ratios above 10 are not perceived as too harsh to smoke's .
•
1s The following ia my recollection of In-house experiments conducted by Harris with a modified NOW with 2-mg "tar" delivery : Its
nicotine delivery was enhanced by nicotine ask addition to the blend so that'4ar" :nicotine ratio was decreased from about 9 to about 3 .
Even though the MS nicotine delivery per cigarette was about 0 .6 mg and the MS nicotine delivery per puff was only about 0 .1 mg,
panelists repotted the modified cigarette to be totally unacceptable because of the harshness of the smoke . Cigarettes with deliveries of
18 mg "tar" and 1 .5 mg nicotine (a "tar" :nicot'ux ratio of 12 and a per puff nicotine delivery of about 0 .1S mg) are rated acceptable .
34
APPENDIX A : HISTORICAL COMMENTS ON THE POSSIBLE HEALTH
ASPECTS OF POORLY DEFINED "TARS" OBTAINED
FROM TOBACCO BY A VARIETY OF METHODS
Prior to the first production of carcinoma in laboratory animals skin-painted with the tar
from cigarettes smoked under conditions supposedly simulating human smoking (Wynder et al .,
1953a, 1953b), there were various comments and studies described in the literature on changes
produced in laboratory animals by application of various tobacco products (tars, juices, extracts)
and the possible relationship of tobacco smoke tars to respiratory tract cancer . No malignant
tumors were produced in studies with tobacco tars or any other industrial tars such as coal tar
prior to 1915 when Yamagiwa and Ichikawa (1915, 1918, ef . summary 1965) developed the
procedure to produce tumors in laboratory animals skin-painted with coal tar solutions . Between
1915 and 1953, numerous studies were described of attempts to produce tumors with v' t~tS e~S
tobacco products . None of the tobacco products (tars, extracts, etc .) in a smoking
process simulating the human smoking of cigarettes . Table APP A-1 summarizes representative
tobacco product studies conducted between 1880 and 1953 and their results .
TABLE APP A-i : MISCELLANEOUS TOBACCO TAR STUDIES PRIOR TO
WYNDER et al. (1953a, 1953b, 1955)
Year
Event
1880 Tillmanns (1880) suggested that tobacco amoke particulate matter was of interest in cancer research from an etiological
standpoint because it possibly contained the aenx products of incomplete combustion as In coal tar and aoot .
1900 Broach (1900) observed cellular proliferation in guineas pigs painted with "tobacco juice ."
1911 Wacker and Schminke (1911) iqjected tobacco tar from pipes into rabbits and reported cellular proliferation .
1915,1918 Yamaglwa and Ichikawa (1915, 1918) produced carcinoma in robbta by repeatedly painting their sMn wlth a solution
ojeoaf tar. 7hts was the first nporred tneident ojthe production ojearetnoma In laboratory animals and was the basLs
for the all the research on chemical tumorigenesls In subsequent years .
1923 Hoffman et al. (1923) reported that tobacco tar which was not nicotinatree produced strong acute toxic aymptoma
when painted on mouse akin .
1928 Helwlg (1928) reported that rabbits injected with tobacco tar from pipes developed extensive cellular proliferation ;
mice akin-painted with the same solution developed ulceration at painting site .
1930, 1931 Roffo (1930, 1931) painted 30 rabbits with a tobacco tar, one rabbit developed a tumor . Roffo claimed that this was
the first production of cancer In a laboratory animals with a tobacco tar . However, his tobacco tar was obtained by
destructive distillation of tobacco, not In a smoking process (cf. Wynder st al., 1953 ; Wynder and Hoffmann, 1964,
1967) .
1932 Bogen and Loomis (1932) concluded that tobacco tar did not possess the necessary irritating or stimulating properties
to induce cancerous growths when painted on mouse skin .
Cooper et al . (1932) collected tobacco tars from tobacco mechanically smoked at 400-500°C and at 700-800°C and
applied the tars as 10-50% aolutiona in benzene, ethanol, or glycerol . Only one tumor-bearing animals was observed .
He concluded that tobacco was relatively unimpoetant In cancer causation, especially when the data were compared
with those obtained with aimila coal tar solutions.
1935 Schurch and Winteratein (1935) reported that mice treated with cigar tobacco tar or cigar tobacco tar fractions did not fLn ,
develop cancer either treated with the tar or tar fractions alone or subjected to a combination of tar treatment plus
v
irritation (thermal or mechanical) .
~
_
G
1P
tb
tO
N
35
Table 1 (Appeadibt A) . Continued:
1937 Taki (1937) reported a squamous cell tumor on the skin of mice treated with a tar extracted from tobacco pipes .
1946 Jaffe et al . (1946) questioned the validity of Roffo's results because of the fact he had used a destructive distillate of
tobacco rather than a tobacco tar generated by a smoking process .
1949 National Cancer Conference panel (American Cancer Society, 1949) reported that the tobacco smoke tar painted on the
skin of Strain A mice, injected subcutaneously, or itoected intravenously did not induce tumon of the lung (adenomas)
or any other organ .
1953 Shotadze (1953) treated mice (lower lip) with a tobacco pyrolyate for 1 l months . No precancerous or cancerous
conditions were observed .
1953, 1955 Wynder er al. (1953a, 1953b, 1955) rreported the production of carcinoma In laboratory animals (highly tusceptible
mouse strain) painted with massive doses of cigarette smoke condensate generated under conditions simulating human
smoking conditions .
• The Strain A mouse is extremely susceptible to development of lung adenoma; 90% of them will die with adenoma
of the lung .
•
36
APPENDIX B: INFORMATION PROVIDED RJRT MANAGEMENT IN THE
MID-1960s FOR COMMUNICATION TO THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION re ITS CIGARETTE MS "TAR"
AND NICOTINE LABELING PROPOSAL
Below is presented the essentials of a 1965 memorandum prepared for RJRT management
by Rodgman (1965c) . It incorporates information from memoranda by Senkus (1964) and
Rodgman (1965b) and a draft memorandum by Rodgman (see also 1965c) .
A Short Explanation and Analysis of Methods for Measuring "Tar and Nicotine"
in Cigatette Smoke fJan/Feb . 19651
Introduction
Suggestions have been made from time to time that cigarette packages should indicate the
amount of "tar and nicotine" produced by smoking of the cigarettes in the package . Even if it
were established that "tar and nicotine" have some relationship to health, there is no method by
which a smoker can be accurately informed of either the amount or the composition of the "tar
and nicotine" he receives from the cigarette he smokes .
The term "tar and nicotine" requires clarification . Cigarette smoke consists of the particulate
phase and the gas phase. The particulate phase has been referred to in scientific and other
literature by a variety of terms, such as tars, smoke solids, solids, total solids, particulate matter,
total particulate matter, smoke condensate, total smoke condensate, and smoke condensables . One
of the components of smoke solids is nicotine ; the nicotine fraction of smoke solids is sometimes
referred to as alkaloids, or total alkaloids . It seems more meaningful to use the term "total solids"
instead of "tar," and such term will be used in this memorandum .
Summary and Conclusions
Various methods exist for determining in the laboratory the total solids and nicotine in the
smoke from cigarettes smoked by a machine under laboratory conditions. Although the different
methods produce different results, one method could be arbitrarily selected as the standard . But
the total solids and nicotine received by any individual smoker would vary from that produced by
the smoking machine in the laboratory using the same brand of cigarettes, even if it were assumed
that the cigarettes smoked by the individual and those smoked in the laboratory are exactly alike .
This is because the smoking habits of individual vary, and because the conditions under which
cigarettes are smoked vary .
•
It may not be assumed, however, that cigarettes smoked by the smoking machine in the
laboratory are the same as the cigarettes of the same brand purchased by the smoker . Because of
unavoidable variations in the manufacture and storage of cigarettes, differences exist in the
tobacco, paper, filter, and condition of cigarettes so that measurements of total solids and nicotine
in the smoke of one sample of cigarettes will differ from measurements obtained with another
sample of the same brand, assuming that all possible steps are taken to assure as much uniformity
as possible . The measurements appearing on a package of cigarettes would relate to the cigarettes
used in the test and would not be accurate as applied to the cigarettes contained in the package .
Even if two cigarettes of the same brand, or of two different brands, were to deliver precisely
37
the same amount of total solids, variations in the cigarettes, in smoking habits, and in smoking
conditions would generate total solids in the smoke of one of the cigarettes composed of different
quantities and kinds of chemical compounds from those found in the total solids from the other
cigarette . Since it is not known which, if any, chemical compound in the total solids is harmful,
it is not helpful to the smoker to furnish him a quantitative measurement of total solids, especially
one which, as has been stated in the two preceding paragraphs, cannot be accurate .
The conclusion is therefore inescapable that labeling the amount of "tar and nicotine" on a
cigarette package cannot give to the smoker meaningful information as to the amount or
composition of the total solids and nicotine he receives from the cigarettes he smokes . He is more
likely to be misled than informed .
Methods for Measuring Total Solids and Nicotine
The following five methods for measuring total solids and nicotine are described in Table
APP B-1 :
(1) The Wolman method [Wolman, 1953]
(2) The Consumer Union's method - No . 1[Consumer Reports, 1955]
(3) The Cambridge filter method (Wartman et al., 1959]
(4) The Foster D . Snell method' [Kimball]
(5) The Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company method [Keith and Newsome,
1956, 1957, 1958; Newsome and Keith, 1956, 1957] .
•
It should be recognized that a number of variations of such methods are possible, and there may
be other methods . Those described [below], however, appear to be the ones most commonly
reported.
The five methods described in Table APP B-1 have not been compared on the same lot of
cigarettes . Three of the methods, however, have been compared by Keith and Newsome (1957a,
1957b, 1968) . The results of such comparison show distinct variations and were reported to be
as follows:
Consumer Union' .
Method - No . I
Foeter D. Snell Method
L.dcM Tobacco Co . Method
Solids, rtg/ciyt
18 .8
34.2
19.1
Nicotine, nglclat
2 .2
2 .9
3 .S
It is of course clear even apart from such comparisons that the various methods described in Table
APP 13-1 necessarily will produce different results because they do no start with the same smoking
conditions .
Generally speaking each of the methods require five to ten cigarettes for testing purposes . The
cigarettes are smoked by machine, which is designed to retain 100% of the particulate phase of
the smoke . Each method proceeds on the basis of smoking the cigarette using a fixed volume of
puff, a puff of specific duration,a fixed frequency of puffing, and a specific amount of the
cigarette to be smoked . All methods other than that of Liggett & Myers use a 35-m1 volume puff .
The most common duration of puff is two seconds, and the most common frequency of puff is one
~P
Co
~
Ln
~ The Foster D. Snell Labontory performed many of the cigarette smoke anelyaes for ?he Reader's Digest .
.
38
Ln
~
~
~
per minute . The Wolman method and the Cambridge filter method2 smoked a fixed length of
cigarette (47 mm) regardless of the length of the cigarette being smoked and regardless of whether
it is a filter cigarette or not . Some of the methods smoke to a predetermined butt length, e .g ., 23
mm ; in such methods the length of cigarette smoked would vary depending upon the initial length
of cigarette being tested and whether or not it is a filter cigarette . The Liggett & Myers method
smokes fourteen puffs of each cigarette, so that the number of puffs taken determines the length
of the cigarette smoked .
TABLE APP B-1 : METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF TOTAL SOLIDS AND
NICOTINE
1.&M Tobacco Co.
Method (Keith and
The Consumer Newsome, 1956,
Union'a Method Cambridge Filter 1957, 1958 ;
Smoking Wolman Method (Consumer Method (Wattman Foster D. Snell Newsome and Keith,
Conditions . etc . (Wolman . 1953) Reoocta . 1955) ft ol . . 1959) Meth (Kimbalb 1956 . 1957)
cigarette length 47 variable ; depends 47 variable ; dependa variable ; depends on
smoked, mm on length of on length of length of cigarette
cigarette being cigarette being being tested
tested
tested
butt length, tnm variable ; depends 23 variable ; depends 23 variable ; depends on
on length of on length of length of cigarette
cigarette being cigarette being being tested
tested
tested
number of puffs number required to number required to number required to number required to 14
consume 47 mm of attain 23-mm butt consume 47 mm of attain 23-mm butt
cigarette length cigarette length
puff
puff
volume
duration
puff
no ./min
35
2 .0
35
35
2 .0
frequency,
l
3S
44
2 .0
l
1
1 .9
1
2
lab temp ., °C 25° not specified not specified not specified 23 .9°
lab
RH,
%
45%
cigarettes
per determination
not :peeified not specified not specified 60%
smoked
5
8
10
S
10°
cigarette selection selected for selected for selected for selected for selected for
uniformity In uniformity in uniformity In , uniformity In uniformity in
moiature content, moisture content, moisture content, moisture content, moisture content,
cigarette size (if cigarette aize (if cigarette size (if cigarette aize (if cigarette uze (if
feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feaaible), weight,
firmness, and other firmness, and other firmness, and other firmness, and other firmneu, and other
characteristics characteristics characteristics characteristics characteristics
2 It should be noted In the Cambridge filter method as outlined by Ogg et ai . (1962) the cigarette under teat is smoked to a 30-mm butt
length . Further modificitiona of this method, including length of cigarette to be smoked, are under consideration by the Analytical Methods
Committee of the Tobacco Chemists' Research Conference .
39
Table APP B-1 . Continued :
Smoking Wolman Method
Conditiona, etc . (Wolman. 19531
•
The Consumer
Union's Method
(Consumer
$Sports . 1955)
Cambridge Filter
Method (Wartman
t! 9
Foster D. Sne11
Method (Kimball)
L&M Tobacco Co .
Method (Keith and
Newsome, 1956,
1957, 1958;
Newsome and Keith,
1916, 1957)
determination of Solids (designated
total solids as tan in the
publication) are
determined by
gravity deposition
of smoke over 2S
m1of0.1N
sulfuric acid . The
mixture Is extracted
with chloroform,
and the chloroform
extract ia heated to
evaporate the
chloroform . The
residue is then
heated, or dried,
for 3 hr at 100°C .
The weight of
remaining material
after the heating ia
reported as tars .
Smoke for determination of both
nicotine and solids
is absorbed in
acidified alcohol.
One portion of the
acidified alcoholic
solution is diluted
with water, then
extracted with
chloroform . The
aqueoua layer ia
made alkaline and
re-extracted with
chloroform . The
two chloroform
extracts are combined, and the
chloroform
removed by
evaporation to yield
the tar, which is
weighed .
Cigarette MS is
collected on a glass
fiber filter material,
Cambridge filter
medium CM-! l3 .
The weight of
material retained in
the filter represents
total solids (total
particulate matter).
Part of the material
retained on the
Cambridge filter ia
water. Thus, this
method Includes
water in the value
for total solids,
whereas the
Wolman Method
and the Consumers
Union Method do
not.
.
To determine solids
(tar content In the
communi-cation),
smoke Is collected
in acidified alcohol .
The alcohol
solution is heated
on a steam bath
(100°C) to
evaporate the
alcohol . After
about S hr, the
residue is heated in
the beaker at
105°C for 7 hr.
The weight of
material remaining
in the beaker ia
designated as the
tar content.
The smoke in this
method is retained
on an a-cellulose
trap . The a-cellulose
is washed with hot
acidic methanol . The
solution is extracted
with chloroform . To
deter-mine soltds
(termed tar in the
publications), the
chloroform solution
is evaporated on the
steam bath and
heating is continued
for 3 hr at 105°C .
Tar value is
determined by
weighing the
residue .
determination of Solids for deternicotine mination of
ntcodne are
collected over 10
ml alcohol acidified
with sulfuric acid
in a 300-mi
i(ieldahl flask .
Solution Is treated
with alkali and then
ateatn-0iatilled . The
distillate ia treated
with ailicotungatic
acid to precipitate
the ailicotungatate .
The ailicotung.tate
la separated and ia
ignited to an ash
whose weight Is
used to calculate
the nicotine valueb .
Another portion of
the acidified
alcoholic solution is
treated with base
and ateam-diadlled .
Mcodne in the
steam distillate ia
measured apectrophotometricdly .
To determine
nicotine, the
Cambridge filter
with the retained
solids Is extracted
with 0. 1 N aulfitric
acid . The solution,
after washing with
chloroform, ia
made alkaline and
is ateam4iatilled .
Nicotine In the
steam distillate ia
determined either
by the silicotungstic
acid method or by
the apectrophotometrie method .
To determine
nicodnt, an aliquot
of the acidified
alcohol solution
containing the
smoke solids is
heated to remove
the alcohol, the
residue ia made
alkaline and is
ateam-diatilled .
Mcodne ia determined gravimetrically in the steam
distillate (silicotungstic acid
method) .
The extracted
methanol solution is
nude alkaline and is
steam-distilled .
NTcodnt Is determined in the steam
distillate apectrophotometrically .
' The authors recommended that three to six such determinations be carried out and the results averaged .
b Since other alkaloids coprecipiute with nicotine as ailicotung .tatea, this determination yields the alkaloid or total alkaloid
value .
•
40
From the foregoing it is apparent that each of the methods has adopted arbitrary smoking
habits for the smoking machine, which habits do not correspond with the habits of each individual
smoker . The volume of puff taken in smoking [Derr et al ., 1937 ; Cigarette Components, Ltd .,
1957 ; Schur and Rickards, 1955, 1957 ; Cuzin et al., 1958], the frequency of puffs [Derr et al .,
1937 ; Cigarette Components, Ltd ., 1957 ; Cuzin et al., 1958 ; Staub and Furrer, 1957 ; Bentley and
Burgan, 19613, and the duration of the puff [Derr et al ., 1937 ; Hilding, 1956 ; Schur and
Rickards, 1955, 1957 ; Cuzin et al ., 1958 ; Staub and Furrer, 1957 ; Bentley and Burgan, 1961]
vary among individuals. The length of the cigarette smoked, or the butt length to which cigarettes
are smoked also varies among smokers [Hilding, 1956 ; Cigarette Components, Ltd ., 1957; Schur
and Rickards, 1955, 1957 ; Finkner et al ., 1957; Bentley and Burgan, 1961] . These variations
necessarily mean that the amount of total solids and nicotine collected by the smoking machine
is not the same as what individual smokers receive .
It is obvious of course that all smokers do not retain 100% of the particulate phase as a
smoking machine is designed to do . The degree of inhalation differs appreciably among individuals
(Cigarette Components, Ltd ., 1957] . Moreover, smokers who inhale hold the smoke in the lungs
for different times, some exhaling more quickly than others [Mitchell, 1962] . The Amount of
particulate phase retained in the lungs obviously depends in part upon the time elapsing between
inhaling and exhaling . Smokers who do not inhale admit the smoke to their mouths ; the duration
of retention of the particulate phase in their mouths obviously affects the extent of retention of
solids [Mitchell, 1962] .
Other variations between smokers include the following :
• The burning temperature of cigarettes varies from smoker to smoker because of
differences in smoking habits [Cuzin et al ., 1958] .
• The pressure drop across a cigarette differs from smoker to smoker [Bradford et al .,
1936; Hilding, 1956 ; Schur and Rickards, 1955, 1957 ; Staub and Furrer, 1957 ; Cuzin
et al ., 1958] .
• The total number of puffs per cigarette and the time necessary to consume a cigarette
varies from smoker to smoker [Hilding, 1956 ; Bentley and Burgan, 1961] .
Successive puffs of an individual on the same cigarette may differ with respect to puff
volume, puff duration, and frequency, degree of inhalation, temperature change by puffing, and
pressure drop produced by smoking [Staub and Furrer, 1957] . The manner of smoking successive
cigarettes by an individual may also vary . These differences include length of cigarette consumed,
total number of puffs per cigarette, and time required to consume a cigarette (Staub and Furrer,
1957] .
All of the variations so far mentioned have been the subject of comment in the scientific
literature, and all would affect the amount of total solids and nicotine received by the individual
smoker as compared with a smoking machine . In addition, there are other variable factors, which
have not been reported in the scientific literature and which may affect the amount or composition
of total solids and nicotine delivered to or retained by a smoker . Some of the factors are :
• Smoking at very low temperatures and very low humidity . These conditions would
prevail in the winter in the northern states .
• Smokin,g at reduced pressure, e .g., in the mountainous states . There is some indication
41
NUMBER CONTROL PAGE
BATES NUMBER
NOT USED
517104899
that the rate of burning of a cigarette will differ depending upon the altitude at which the
cigarette is smoked .
• Smoking in areas which are either abnormally humid or abnormally dry.
• Smoking from a pack which has been opened for more than a day . The cigarettes may
lose appreciable moisture under and conditions . Although loss of moisture will not affect
weight of solids produced per cigarette', it is believed to affect the chemical composition
of smoke.
Variations in Cigarette s
The following variables affect the yield of total solids per gram of tobacco product consumed
and the composition of the smoke and total solids :
• Tobacco [Wynder and Hoffmann, 1963, 1964] .
Since tobacco is an agricultural commodity, it is not homogenous . Its characteristics vary from
leaf to leaf of the same plant and within the same leaf . And of course a variety of types, grades,
and blends of tobaccos are used in the manufacture of cigarettes, such as flue-cured, burley, and
Turkish tobaccos, and blends of such tobaccos .
• Processed tobacco (Wynder et al., 1959 ; Nicod, 1961 ; Cuzin et al, 1963 ; Uhlman,
1963] .
Just as different tobacco types and blends yield different amounts of total solids, homogenized
tobaccos (reconstituted tobacco sheet), on a per gram of processed tobacco consumed, yield
different amounts of total solids than does tobacco . Extraction of tobacco decreases the yield and
alters the composition of the total solids in MS and alters . Steaming of tobacco produces similar
changes .
• Number of cuts/inch [Wynder and Hoffmann, 1964] .
With the same tobacco type or the same blend, increasing the number of cuts per inch decreases
the total solids in MS .
• Filtration and pressure drop [Wynder and Hoffmann, 1960 ; Bock et al., 1962 ; Ayres et
al., 1963 ; Waltz and Hausermann, 1963] .
The higher the degree of filtration the lower the total solids ; the higher the pressure drop, the
lower the total solids. The efficiency of filters of the same design will vary from filter to filter
depending upon the construction or the manner in which the filter tow is packed.
• Paper porosity [Schur and Rickards, 1955,1957 ; Lipp and Van Hooy, 1962 ; Wynder and
Hoffmann, 1964] .
The cigarette paper which is normally supplied to the cigarette manufacturer usually has an
3 This has been shown to be Incorrect . Loaa of moisture from the tobacco filler affech the yields of both "tar" and nicotine .
• The study by Green et a! . (1982) showed that moisture loss from the cigarette filler had profound effects on the MS composition .
42
appreciable range of porosity . The solids in MS usually decrease as the porosity increases .
• Number of pt~`'s taken to consume a given length of cigarette [Newsome and Keith, 1956,
1957 ; Segelken et al., 1962] .
E.g ., burley tobacco buras at a greater rate than other tobacco types ; thus, a different number of
puffs are required to consume the same cigarette length of burley, flue-cured, and Turkish
tobaccos .
• Moisture content of cigarettes [Newsome and Keith, 1956, 1957 : Sato et al ., 1961 ;
Wynder and Hoffmann, 1964] .
The age of the cigarette, e.g., the length of time on the retailer's shelf, may affect the moisture
content of the filler.
• Variations in amounts of total solids and nicotine In each puff [Lindsey, 1959, 1962 ;
Kotin and Falk, 1960 ; Wynder and Hoffmann, 1961 ; Ayres et al., 1963] .
It has been suggested in the scientific literature that the amount and composition of total solids in
later puffs markedly exceeds that in earlier puffs [Lindsey, 1959, 1962 ; Kotin and Falk, 1960] ;
other investigators report finding very little difference between the mounts in the early and late
puffs [Wynder and Hoffmann, 1961 ; Ayres et al ., 1963] .
• Additives on tobacco [Alvord and Cardon, 1956 ; Lindsey et al ., 1959 ; Bentley and
Burgan, 1960 ; Candeli et al., 1960; Wynder and Hoffmann, 1961 ; Cuzin et al., 1963 ;
Scherback et al., 19631 .
The amount of total solids and composition of MS and solids vary with the amounts of additives
such as licorice and glycerol . It is impossible to apply these to tobacco uniformly .
• Humidity of analytical laboratory [Newsome and Keith, 1956, 1957 ; Sato et al ., 1961 ;
Wynder and Hoffmann, 1964] .
It is quite obvious that some of these variable are interdependent, e .g., filtration, paper porosity,
cuts/inch, filling capacity, and pressure drop .
Chanaes in the Comcosition of Smoke and Total Solids
It has been pointed out that the amount of total solids and nicotine produced by smoking can be
changed by a large number of variable factors, including the type of tobacco, the efficiency of the filter,
and the porosity of the cigarette paper. As has been mentioned in connection with such factors, they (and
probably others) may also change the ratio of various components of the smoke . As a result, the ratios of
the components in the total solids may be different .
m
43
f- APPENDIX C : DETERMINATION OF "TAR"' YIELD FROM
ULTRALOW-"TAR" CIGARETTES: SPECTROMETRY
The following paragraphs, slightly modified, are from a 1988 memorandum written
by Rodgman :
In the mid-1950s, Watson (1954) investigated the fluorescence of cigarette smoke and related
the difference in fluorescence between inhaled and exhaled cigarette MS to the degree of
particulate matter retention and the possible relationship to lung cancer causation . At the same
time, Schmghl and co-workers reported on their studies of the fluorescence of cigarette MS,
particularly with respect to the fluorescence of its particulate matter (SchmBhl et al ., 1954 ;
SchmAhl, 1955 ; SchmAhl and Schneider, 1955) . In fact, they used this analytical procedure to
estimate the degree of absorption of MS by the smoker during consumption of the cigarette . From
their fluorescence measurements on inhaled and exhaled MS particulate matter, Schm1hl et al .
(1954) estimated that as much as 90% of the MS particulate matter was retained in the lungs and
bronchi during deep inhalation. Subsequently, Wynder and Hoffmann (1960) claimed they had
confirmed the findings of SchmAhl et al . Neither Watson nor SchmBhl commented on the findings
of Bruce (1941) who reported that there was no correlation between fluorescence in general and
carcinogenicity .
/
Bentley and Burgan (1958) described the use of fluorescence techniques to estimate the levels V/
of several PAHs, including BaP, in a PAH-rich fraction derived from CSC . The use of
fluorescence spectroscopy to estimate PAHs (or BaP) is not surprising : UV fluorescence
spectroscopy was used by Hieger (1930, 1933) and Cook et al . (1932, 1933) in their concentration ~Ie ,/
of the PAHs in coal tar and the isolation of BaP and other tumorigenic PAHs from the PAH-rich
coal-tar fraction in the early 1930s .
However, it should be noted that the fluorescence of a solution of cigarette MS particulate
matter is not due solely to the PAHs contained therein . E.g., Duggan et al. (1957) noted in their
study of the fluorescence properties of compounds of biological interest that, in addition to the
PAHs and structurally similar heterocyclic compounds, many classes of compounds such as
phenols, aromatic amines, and conjugated polyenes exhibited pronounce fluorescence properties .
All of these classes of compounds are now known to be present in CSC . Glycerol and propylene
g.lycol, major tobacco additives which appear in MS, are .UV transparent at the absorption or
fluorescence wavelengths used .
McConnell et al . (1960r'used fluorescence techniques in their method to evaluate the
efficiency of various cigarette filtefs-in particulate matter removal from MS . They did note that
the fluorescence intensity of solutions of cigarette MS particulate matter was linearly proportional
to the weight of MS particulate matter . However,'ate the high-"tar" deliveries (about 30 mg/cigt)
of the 1960 cigarettes, it was noted that the gravimetric method was more rapid and slightly more
accurate than the fluorescence method . A similar procedure ftc described by Smit (1972) in his
determination of filter tip efficiency for particulate matter removaTfratQMS .
Burton et al. (1977) confirmed the findings of McConnell et al . (1960) on the linearity
between fluorescence and particulate matter weight and also noted the fluorescence method was
more accurate and less time consuming for low-"tar" cigarettes than the gravimetric method used
in the FTC procedure . Three years later, Thomas et al . (1980) described an automated method,
base on fluorescence technology, for the determination of FTC "tar" in the MS of low-"tar"
delivery cigarettes .
r
r
P/
r
ILe UV absorption method described by Sloan and Curran (1981) for estimation of per
cigarette "tar" yields is similar to the UV fluorescence procedure . A modification (Hege, 1980)
of the Sloan-Curran UV procedure was used at RJRT R&D in low-"tar" studies and in Premier
studies (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co ., 1988). K
45
X. REFERENCES
Adams PI (1966), Measurements on Puffs Taken by Human Smokers . 20th TOB . CHEM. RES. CONF., Winston-Salem NC : Paper No . 3l .
Adams P1, (1976), Changes in Personal Smoking Habits Brought About by Changes In Cigarette Smoke Yields . PROC . 6th INTERNAT. TOB .
SCI. CONG., Tokyo, Japan, 1976 : 102-108.
Aksu S and Enercan S(19S8a), New Apparatus and Method for Determining Nicotine and Total Tar in Tobacco Smoke . INHISARLAR
ENSTITULERI RAPORLARI 7.• 202-209 .
Aksu S and Enercan S (1958b), The Amount of Nicotine and Tar In the Smoke of Cigarettes Made from Blended and Some Individual Turkish
Tobaccos . INHISARLAR ENSTITULERI RAPORLARI 7.• 210-215 .
Alvord ET and Cardon SZ (1956), The Inhibition of the Formation of 3,4-Benzpyrene in Cigarette Smoke . BRIT . J . CANCER 10.- 498-503 .
American Cancer Society (1949), Discussion Panel Moderated by tkhsner A, Heston WE, and DeCamp PT. PROC. 1st NATL. CANCER
CONF : 203 .
Artho AJ and Grob K(1963), Distribution of Nicotine between the Vapour and Particulate Phases of Cigarette Smoke . 17th TOB . CHEM. RES .
CONF., Montreal PQ, Canada : Paper No . 10 .
Anho Al and Grob K (1964), Nikotinabsocption aus dem Cigarettenrauch . Z. PRAVENT.-MED. 9• 1425 .
Asmua E, Hbhne R, and Kraetsch J(1962), Photometrische Beatinunung von Nicotin und Pyridin im Tabaknuch . Z. ANAL. CHEM. 187.• 3337 .
Auerbach 0, Hammond EC, and Garfinkel L (1979), Changea in Bronchial Epithelium in Relation to Cigarette Smoking, 1955 - 1960 va 1970
- 1977 . NEW ENG. J. MED . 300: 381 .
•
Auerbach 0, Hammond EC, and Garfutkel L (1980), Changes in Bronchial Epithelium : Then and Now . In God GB and Bock FO (Editors),
A Sqfe Q'garerraT Banbury Report 3, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor NY : 141-154 .
Ayres CI, Fordyce WB, and Hughes 1W (1963), Cigarettes : The Potential of Tobacco to Produce Smoke . 17th TOB. CHEM. RES. CONF.,
Montreal PQ, Canada: Paper No. 07.
Ayres PH, Shreve WK, and Coggina CRE (1990), Use of a Near-Infrared (NIR) Device for the Determination of Nicotine in Smoke Presented
to Animals ia lnhalation Studies. 44th TOB. CHEM. RES. CONF., Winaton-Salem NC : Paper No. 63 .
Barkemeyer H and Seehofer F (1960), Zur Spektrophotometrlschen Bestimmung des Nicotins in Tabak und Tabakrauchkondensaten . Z .
LEBENSM. UNTERSUCH. U. FORSCH . 112:S0-S2 .
Batu L and Toole E(1931), Microtitrimetric Determination of Nicotine in Tobacco Smoke . ANGEW . CHEM. 44: 682-683 .
Barta L and Toole E(1932a), lrJber den Nikotin- und Ammoniakgehalt des Cigarettentabakrauches . ANGEW . CHEM. 4S: 43 .
Barta L and Toole B(1932b), Ober den Nikotin- und Ammonlakgehalt des Cigarettentabakrauches . ANGEW. CHEM . 46: 671-673 .
Baskevitch N and Ferrer G(1982), Modification of the Nicotine :Tar Ratio through the Use of Reconstituted Tobacco . CORESTA 1982 SYMP,,
Winston-Salem NC, USA, CORESTA INF. BULL., Spec. Edition 1982: Paper STI, 31 .
Bates WB, Griffith RB, Harlow ES, Senkua M, and Wakeham H (1967), Detetmination and Reporting of Total Particulate Matter, Water in
Total Particulate Matter, and Nicotine In Cigarette Smoke . VIRGINIA J. SCI . 18: 130-135 .
Bates WB, Griffith RB, Harlow ES, Senkus M, and Wakeham H (1968), Determination and Reporting of Total Particulate Matter, Water in
Total Particulate Matter, and Nicotine in Cigarette Smoke . TOB . SCI . 12: 192-196.
Baumberger JP (1923a), The Nicotine Content of Tobacco Smoke . J . PHARM . EXP . THERAP. 21 : 35-46 .
Baumberger JP (1923b), Amount of Smoke Produced from Tobacco and Its Absorption in Smoking as Determined by Electrical Precipatation .
J. PHARM. EXP. THERAP . 21 : 47-57 .
46
Bentley HR and Burgan JO (1958), Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke . i . 3,4-Benzpyrene . ANALYST 83: 442-447 .
Bentley HR and Burgan 10 (1960) . Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke . m . The Inhibition of the Formation of 3,4Benzpyrene in Cigarette Smoke . ANALYST 8S: 727-730 .
Bentley HR and Burgan 10 (1961), Cigarette Smoke Condensate : Preparation and Routine Laboratory Estimation . Research Paper No. 4 : Second
Edition . TOBACCO MANUFACTURERS' STANDING COMMITTEE, Loadon UK .
Biederbeck 1 (1908), New Investigation of the Absorption of Nicotine and Ammonia from Contaminated Air and Tobacco Smoke . Theeia,
Wurzburg University : 1-26 .
Bock FO, Moore GE, Dowd JE, and Clark PC (1962), Carcinogenic Activity of Cigarette Smoke Condensate . Biological Activity of Refined
Tar from Certain Branda of Cigarettes . J. AM. MED. ASSOC . 181: 668-673 .
Bodnar J(1930a), Composition of Tobacco Smoke and Denicotinization of Tobacco . TERMESZETTUDOMANYI KOZLONY 62 : 397-404 .
Bodnar J(1930b), Composition of Tobacco Smoke and Denicotinization of Tobacco . TERMESZETTUDOMANYI KOZLONY 62: 443-W .
Bodnar J, Nagy VL, and Dickmann S (1935), Uptake of Nicotine by the Human Organism during Smoking : Fate of Nicotine . BIOCHEM. Z .
276: 317-322 .
Bogen E and Loomis RN (1932), Tobacco Tar : An Experimental Investigation of Its Carcinogenic Action . AM. J. CANCER 16: 1315-1521 .
Bogner H(1921), Determination of the Nicotine Content of Cigarette Smoke . Medical Inaugural Dissertation, Erlangen .
Bolm F(1930) .On Smoke, Nicotine Umit Values, and the Nicotine Determination Method of Pfyl and Schmitt . Z. UNTERSUCH . LEBENSM .
59. 602-606 .
Bourlaa MC and Eapetdy RC (1972), The Determination of Nicotine in Particulate Matter Using Citric Acid and Bromomaleic Acid . 26th TOB .
CHEM. RES. CONF., Wiltiamaborg VA : Paper No . 24.
Bourlas MC, Thomaa CE, Eaperdy RC, and Kuhn WF (1976), The Determination of Nicotine in Particulate Matter Using Citric Acid and
Bromomaleic Acid . BEITR. TABAKFORSCH. 8: 334358 .
Bradford JA, Harlan WR, and Hanmer HR (1936), Nature of Cigaret Smoke : Technic of Experimental Smoking . IND. ENG . CHEM . 28: 836839 .
Bradford JA, Harlow ES, Harlan WR, and Hanmer HR (1937), Nature of Cigaret Smoke : Volatile Bases and Acids . IND . ENG . CHEM. 29:
45-50.
Brauer K (1930), Determination of Nicotine in Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke . CHEM. ZTG . SJ: 354-355 .
Braun C(1931), Estimation of Nicotine in Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke . PHARM . ZENTRALHALLE 71 : 209-213 .
Broach A(1900), Theorotiache und experimentelle Unterauchungen zur Pathogenesis und Histogenesis der malignen Geechwulste . ARCH.
PATH . 162: 32-84 .
Bruce WF (1941), J . AM . CHEM SOC . 63: 304.
Brunnemann KD, HofGttann D, Wynder EL, and Gori (3B (1976), Detenmination of Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide In Cigarette Smoke .
A Comparison of International Smoking Conditiotu . In Wynder EL, Hoffmann D, and flori GB (Editors), Mod{/yfng the Rtsk jor rhe Smoker .
Proc . 3nd World Coqj. on Smoking and lfeolrit. DHEW Pttb1. No. (NIH) 76-1221, Voi .1t 441-449.
Button FQ, Veal JT, and Phelps DW (1977), Analysia of Cigarotte Tars Using Fluorescent Spectroscopy . NATL . MTG., AM . CHEM . SOC.,
New Orlana LA: Paper No . 31 .
Campbell DR (1978), Determination of Nicotine on Cigarette Filters or Cambridge Pads . RDM, 1978, No . 6(Febnury 13) .
Candeli A, Lindsey AJ, and Persaud K (1960), Catta di Sigarette al Sulfammato di Ammonio a Idrocarburi Cancerigeni . BOL . SOC . ITAL.
BIOL . SPER. 96: 4S24S4 .
Cano JP, Catalin 1, Badrd R, Dumaa C, Viala A, and t3uillerm R (1970), DEtenmination de la Nicotine par Chromatographie en Phaze Ciaseuse .
47
II . Applications . ANN. PHARMACEUT . FRANC. 28: 633-640 .
Charles JL, Stahr HM, and Ikeda RM (1969), Automated Determination of Nicotine In Total Particulate Matter of Cigarette Smoke . TOB. SCl .
13: 3458 .
Cigarette Componenta, Ltd . (1957), Cigarette Smoking : Study of Certain Aspects of Human Smoking Habits . CIGARETTE COMPONENTS,
LTD. PAMPHLET (October) .
Cogbill EC, Wartnun WB Jr, and Harlow ES (1959) . Cigarette Smoke . II. Some Variable Affecting the Water Content of the Particulate Phase .
TOB. SCI . .f: 136-138 .
Consumer Reports (1955), Cigarettes : A Three-Part Report . CONSUMER RPTS. 20 (2) : 56-74.
2
Cook JW, Hewett CL, and Hieger I(1932), Coal-Tar Constituents and Cancer . NATURE 130: 126 .
Cook JW, Hewett CL, and Hieger I(1933), Isolation of a Cancer-Producing Hydrocarbon from Coal Tar . II . Isolation of 1,2- and 4,5Benzopyrenea, Perylene, and 1,2-Benzanthracene . J . CHEM . SOC . 395-398 .
Cooper EA, Lamb FWM, Sanders E, and Hiret EL (1932), The Role of Tobacco Smoking in the Production of Cancer . J . HYG . (London)
32: 293-300 .
CORESTA (1966a), Standard Method No . 1 : Recommended Methods for Machine Smoking and for the Determination of Cigarette Smoke
Condensate . CORESTA SCI . COMM. SMOKE STUDY GROUP, Lea Rasses, Switutiand: 1-9.
CORESTA (1966b), Standard Method No . 2a Recommended Method for the Determination of Total Alkaloids as Nicotine in Tobacco .
CORESTA SCI. COMM. SMOKE STUDY GROUP, Lea Rasaee, Switzerland : 1-3 .
CORESTA (1966c), Standard Method No . 3 : Recommended Method for the Determination of Total Alkaloida in Tobacco Smoke Condensate .
CORESTA SCI. COMM . SMOKE STUDY GROUP, Lea Ruaee, Switreaiand : 1-2 .
CORESTA (1966d), Standard Method No . 4 : Recommended Method for the Determination of Nicotine Alkaloid Retention by Cigarette Filters .
CORESTA SCi . COMM . SMOKE STUDY GROUP, Lea Rauea, Switzerlaod : 1-4 .
CORESTA (1969a), Standard Method No .10 : Machine Smoking of Cigarettes, Detecmination of Crude and Dry Smoke Condensate . CORESTA
INF. BULL. 1969 (1): 24-33 .
CORESTA (1969b), Standard Method No . 12 : lkterminationof Alkaloids in Cigarette Smoke Condensate . CORESTA INF. BULL.1969 (2):
7-8 .
CORESTA (1986), Recommended Method No . 7 : Determination of Nicotine in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes by Gas Chromatographic
Analysis . CORESTA INF. BULL . 1986 (3/4) : 39-41 .
CORESTA (1987), Recommended Method No . 8 : Determination of Water in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes by Gas Chromatographic
Analysis . CORESTA INF. BULL .1987 (!) : 21-23 .
CORESTA (1989a), Recommended Method No . 22: Routine Analytical Cigarette-Smoke Machine Specifications, Definitiona and Standard
Conditions . CORESTA INF. BULL. 1989 (4) : 28-53 .
CORESTA (1989b), Recommended Method No . 23 : Determinadon ofTotal and Nicodne-Free Dry Particulate Matter Using a Routine Analytical
Cigarette-Smoking Machine . Detentdnation ofTotal Particulate Matter and Preparation for Water and Nicotine Measurements . CORESTA INF.
BULL. 1989 (4): 54-85 .
CORESTA (1990), Recommended Method No . 1S : Cigarettes - Determination of Water in Smoke Condenaatea - Karl Fischer Method .
CORESTA INF. BULL .1990 (2) : 11-16 .
Crowell EP (1960), Determination of Moisture In Total Particulate Matter of Cigarette by Near-Infnred Spectrophotometry .14tL TOB . CHEM .
RES. CONF., VVinaton-Salem NC : Paper No . 30 .
Crowell EP, Kuhn WF, Resnik FE, and Varsel CJ (1961), The Determination of Moisture in Total Particulate Matter of Cigarette Smoke by
Near-Infrared Spectrophotometry . TOB . SCI .1: 3437 .
Cundifi'RH and Markunas PC (1953), A Rapid Titrimetric Procedure for the Determination of Nicotine, Notnicotine, and Total Alkaloids in
48
Tobacco and Tobacco Products . 7th TOB . CHEM. RES. CONF., Winston-Salem NC : Paper No. 03 .
Cundiff RH and Markunas PC (1955), Determination of Nicotine, Nornicotine, and Total Alkaloids in Tobacco . ANAL . CHEM . 27: 16501653 .
Cuzin JL, et al . (1959), L'Acte Specifique du Fumeur. Analyse de Quelquea (kandeun Paramftriquea sur une Population Reatreinte de Sujetr
Furneurs . PROC . 2nd INTERNAT . SCI . TOB . CONG., Brttssela, Belgiam, 1958 : 521-535 .
Cuzin JL, Testa A, Teata S, and Anguerra a(1963), Chemical and Biological Control of Condensates from Smoked Tobacco Treated after the
Neukomm-Bonnet Process . Z. PRAVENTIVMED . 28: 125-137 .
Dabrowaka O(1949), Nicotine, Resins, Reducing Agents In the Smoke of Polish Cigarettes from Different Flue-Cured and Turkish Type
Tobaccos . PRACE TYTONIOWE ZESZYT 149-165 .
Dalhamn T (1968), Effect of Different Doses of Tobacco Smoke on Ciliary Activity In Cat . Variations in Amount of Tobacco Smoke, Interval
Between Cigarettes, Content of 'Tar' . Nicotine, and Phenol. In Wynder EL and Hoffmann D(Editon), Toward a Less Hanvl/ul Ctgarette,
NATL. CANCER INST . MONOGRAPH 28 : 79-87 .
DeBardeleben MZ, Wickham JE, and Kuhn WF (1991), The Determination of Tar and Nicotine in Cigarette Smoke from an Historical
Perspective. RECENT ADV. TOB . SCI . 17.• 115-148 .
Derr RB, Riesmeyer AH, and Unangst RB (1937), Removal of Undeairable Constituents from Tobacco Smoke, IND . ENG . CHEM. 29: 771776.
Deutsch LJ and Jeffords AL (1994), Simultaneous Gas Chromatographic Nicotine/Water Analysis in Smoke Via Split Ic4ection on Dual Capillary
Column. . 48th TOB. CHEM. RES CONF., Greeosboro NC: Paper No . 35 .
Deutsch IJ and Robertson RM (1991), Variability in the Determination of Water in Tobacco Smoke . 45th TOB . CHEM . RES . CONF.,
Ashe.iile NC : Paper No. 21 .
DeVriea A, DeBoer M, and SchOrer D (1976), A Fully Automated Ultraviolet Method for the Determination of Nicotine Alkalaoida In Tobacco
and Tobacco Smoke Condensate . TOB . SCI . 20: 64-66 .
Diffee JT (1975), Automated Determination of Nicotine Alkaloids In Cigarette Smoke Total Particulate Matter. R&DM, 1986, No . 110 (July
2S) .
Diffee JT and Sheppard M (1971), An Automated Method for the Determination of Nicotine Alkaloids in Cigarette Smoke Using Cyanogen
Bromide . 25th TOB . CHEM. RES. CONP., Louisrille KY : Paper No. 26 .
Dobbins IT Jr (1984), Puffing Parameters : The Effects of Puff Frequency and Puff Volume Variables on 'Tar' and Nicotine Yields and on
Burning Timea of 100-mm and 120-mm Cigarettes . R&DM, 1984, No. 10 (February 27) .
Dube MF and Green CR (1982), Methods of Collection of Smoke for Analytical Purposes. RECENT ADV. TOB. SCI. 8: 422-102 .
Duggan DE, Bowman RL, Brodie BB, and Udenfiiend S(1937), A SpectroAuorometric Study of Compounds of Biological Interest . ARCH.
BIOCHEM. BIOPHYS . 68: 1-14 .
Ehriamann O(1931), Studies on Nicotine and the Denicotin'vation of Tobacco Smoke . II. Z. HYG . INFEKTIONSKRANKH . 112: 698-707 .
Federal Trade Commission (1966), News Release (2S March) .
Federal Trade Commission (1967a), Cigarettes : Testing for Tar and Nicotine Content . FED. REGISTER 32: 11178 .
Federal Trade Commission (1967b), "Tar" and Nicotine of the Smoke of 59 Varieties of Cigarettes . (November, 1967) .
Federal Trade Commiwion (1968) . "Tar" and Nicotine of the Smoke of 122 Varieties of Cigarettes .
Federal Trade Commiuion (1978), "Tar" and Nicotine of the Smoke of 167 Varieties of Cigarettes .
Federal Trade Commission (1981), "Tar," Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide of the Smoke of 187 Varieties of Cigarettes . (March, 1981) .
Federal Trade Commission (1985), "Tar," Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide of the Smoke of 207 Varieties of Domestic Cigarettes . (January,
49
1985) .
Filk H, StBrmer S, and Loeser A(1914), Untersuchungen Ober den Gehalt von Zigarettenrauch an Nikotin . ARZNEIMITTELFORSCH . 4 :
367-368 .
Finkner AL, Horvitz DO, Foradori GT, Fleischer J, and Monroe 1(1957), An Investigation of the Measurement of Current Smoking by
Individuals. UNCCH INST . STAT., MIMEO SERIES NO. 177 (July).
FiahellB (1959), The Detertnination of Moisture in the Total Solids of Cigar Smoke .13th TOB . CHEM . RES . CONF., Lexington KY : Paper
No. 17 .
Fishel JB (1960), The Determination of Moisture In the Total Particulate Matter of Cigar Smoke . TOB. SCI. 4: 198-200 .
Gaivoronachi BS, Marinescu P, and Petrute V (1978), Contributions to Nicotine Determination by Gaa Chromatography . CORESTA 1978
SYMP., Sofia, Bulgaria, CORESTA INF . BULL., Spec . Edition 1978 : Paper 5044, 113-1 l4.
Georgiev S(1969), Analytical Expression for the Amount of Total Condensate and Nicotine in the Smoke from a Single Cigarette . NAUCH .
TR. VISSH . KHRANIT . VKUSOVA PROM. PLOVDIV. 15 (Pt.p:
Giles JA (1969), Historical Review of Nicotine and Particulate Matter in the Smoke of Selected Cigarette Brands . RDM, 1969, No . 34 (May
20) .
Giles JA and Sullivan BN (1969), Modified Determination of Nicotine and Water in Total Particulate Matter of Cigarette Smoke . RDM, 1969,
No. 36 (May 22) .
Gori GB (Editor) (1976a), Report No. 1 . Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. JTu Ftrrt Set ojF.rperimental Cigarettes . DHEW Pubt. No . (NIH)
76-905.
Gori GB (Editor) (1976b), Report No . 2. Toward Less Hazardous CYgareues . 7he Second Set ojErperimenta! Cigarettes . DHEW Pubt. No.
(NIH) 76-1111 .
Gori GB (Editor) (1977), Report No. 3. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes . The 7lrtnd Set ojErperimenta! Cigarettes . DHEW Publ . No. (NIH)
77-1280 .
Goei GB (Editor) (1980), Report No . 4. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. 7fu Fourth Set of Erperimenml Cigarettes . DHEW Pubi . (NIH)
Manch (198(1).
Gori GB and Bock FO (Editon) (1980), A Safe Ctgarettet Banbury Report 3, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor NY .
Gravea H(1967), Determination of Water in Cambrtdge-Filtered Cigarette Smoke Employing Single PuffGae Chromatographic Analysis . RDM,
1967, No. 3S (July 10) .
Green CR, Conrad FW Jr, Dube MF, Harris JL, and Angel AL (1982), Dry Cigarette Chemistry . R&DR, 1982, No . S(Auguat 4) .
Griffith RB (1957), The Rapid Determination of Total Alkaloida by Steam Distillation . TOB . SCI . 1 : 130-137 .
Griffith RB and Jeffrey RN (1948), Improved Steam-Distillation Apparatus : Application to Determination of Nicotine in Green and Dry Tobacco .
ANAL. CHEM. 20: 307-311 .
Gritaiute LA and Mironova Al (1960), The Carcinogenic Action of Tobacco Tar . VOPROSY ONKOL. 6: 25-33 .
Gwynn RH (1954), Studies on Promotion of Tumour Development (Co-Carcinogeneaia) . BRIT. EMP. CANCER CAMP ., ANN. RPT . 32:
171-172 .
Gwynn RH and Salaman MH 1956), Tests of Tobacco Products for Tumour Initiation and Promotion in Mouse Skin . BRIT . EMP. CANCER
CAMP., ANN . RPT. 54.279 .
Hahn M and ilttriamann 0(1931), Studies on Nicotine and the Denicotinization of Tobacco Smoke .l . Z. HYG . INFEKTIONSKRANKHEIT
112 : 680-697 .
Hahn M and Langer H(1920), Tobacco Smoke and Nicotine and a Biological Method for the Quantitative Determination of Nicotine . Z . HYG .
INFEKTIONSKRANKHEIT 90: 22-36 .
50
Hamer D and Woodhouse DL (1956), Biological Tests for Carcinogenic Action of Tar from Cigarette Smoke . BRIT. J . CANCER 10: 49-53 .
Hammond EC (1980), The Long-Term Benefits of Reducing Tar and Nicotine in Cigarettes . In Gori GB and Bock FO (Editors), A Sq/e
Cigarette? Banbury Report 3, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor NY : 13-18 .
Hammond EC, Garfinkel H, SEidman H, and Law EA (1976), "Tar" and Nicotine Content of Cigarette Smoke in Relation to Death Rates .
ENVIRON. RES . 12: 263 .
Harbin BA and Stamey TW (1975), Automated Data Acquisition and Processing of the FTC 'Tar' Analyses . 29th TOB. CHEM. RES . CONF.,
College Patic MD: Paper No . 18 .
Harrell TO and Sullivan BN Jr (1963) . Study of Methods for the Determination of Nicotine and Particulate Matter in Cigarette Smoke . RDM,
1963, No. 49 (June 27) .
Hartung HA and Steward LL (1973), Puff-by-Puff Delivery Equations for Tar, Nicotine and Water . 27th TOB . CHEM . RES. CONF.,
Wiostoo-Salem NC : Paper No . 20B.
Harvey WR, Badg
FOR THE EASTERN .DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Civ'i1 Action'No . 96CV-5903,
) .:
$TEVEN R . . ARCH ; WILLIAM BARNES,
CIARAN McNALLY,• CATHERINE ;POTTS,°_ )
NORMA RODWELLER, BARBARA 'SALZMAN,
EDWARD J . SLIVAK'and JOHN ;_TEAaLE, )
Plaint`iffe,
) Alan Rodgman,
)
Ph .D .
THE . .AMERICAN'TOBACCO''COMPANY,
INC ., et al ;,
)
) Volume 4,
) Pages 522 - 739
)
Defendants .
- ---~
------~---------
-----------
--
)
_ _)
-
TRANSCRIPT of testimony as taken by and
before LINDA RUSSELL, :a Certified Shorthand
Reporter and Notary . Public of'the State of
North Carolina, at the offices of Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, :200 West Second Street,
Winston=Salem, North`Carolina, on Monday,
1997, commencing at . 9 :28 in the
forerioon .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 52 3
SUPREME -COURT .OF THESTATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YOR K
------- --- ------- -- --•----------PHYLLX,SSMALL and DENISE~FUBINI,
individuaJ.ly, and on behalf of )
others similarly situated,
)
Plaintiffs ,
LOkILLARD TOBACCOCOMPANY, INC ., ) Index No .
LORILLARD, .INC .( LOEWS CORPOR .ATION, ') .110949/96
)
COUNCIL FOR TOBACCORESEARCH-USA,
INC . (S,uccessor to .Tobacco Industry ~
)
Research Comma.ttee) ;, AND TOBACCO
INSTITUTE, INC .-,
Defendants .
----- - --------0 .,-- --~ :. :--------- )
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
OF NEW YOR K
__._- ,.__....___ ..,.. .--------------MARY ._ANN HOSKINS, Executrix of the )
Estate of Edwin Paul Hoskins, )
WALTINA'BROWN and DANTE AUBAIN, )
individually, and on behalf of )
others similarly eituated,, )
Plaintiffs ,
agains t
R .J .REYNOLDS TOBACCOCOMPANY, ) Index No .
RJR NABISCO, INC ., COUNCIL FOR ) 110951/96
TOBACCO. RESEARCH-USA,, INC .
)
(Succeseorto Tobacco Industry )
Research Committee), AND TOBACCO
INSTiTUTE,` INC .,
Defendants .
--~---------------------- )
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 524
SUPREME COURT OF THE 'STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-- -- ------ ---- --
-•±-------- ----- -- )
SHARLENE HOBERMAN and AUDREY HULSE, )
as Executrix, on behalf' ;of the )
Estate of Lewis Huise,' . .individually, )
and on behalf of othera .similarYy )
situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
-
against
-
)
)
Index No .
110953/96
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO -- )
CORPORATION, B .A .T . INDUSTRIES )
P .L .C ., BATUS, INC ., BATUS HOLDINGS, )
INC .,•`COUNCIL FOR :~OBACCO'RES ;EARCH- )
USA, INC . (Successor to'Tobacco )
Industry Research Committee), AND )
)
TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC .
Defendants .
)
- --- -- - ----- - -- =-------------------- -- )
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-- - -------------- -
-- --------------)
ROSE FROSINA, ELIZABETH-COLAVITO and )
ANILDA ROSS, individually, and on )
behalf of others :similar3 .y situated, )
)
Plaintiffs,
-
against
-
)
)
)
)
PHILIP MORRIS, INC ., PHILIP MORRIS )
COMPANIES, INC ., COUNCIL,FOR TOBACCO )
RESEARCH-USA, .INC . (Successor to )
Tobacco Industry Research Committee) )
)
AND TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
Defendants .
----- ------ - -- -
'WAaA
-- _--
)
- --------- -)
&`SPINELLI
(201)
Index No .
110950/96
Ln
~
J
~
m
~
w
am
992-4111
Vol .
Pg . 525
SUPREME COURT OF THE ESTATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----•-- -----------------------------)
CATHERINE ZITO, PETER`HOBERMAN, )
and GEORGE ELISSEOU, individually, )
and .on behalf of othere similarly )
situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
-
against
-
)
)
)
)
THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC ., )
AMERI:CAN,BRANDS, INC .`, COUNCIL FOR )
TOBACCO RESEARCH-USA,,INC .
)
(Succ.esaqr to Tobacco 3ndustry )
Research_Committee), ANO fiOBACCO . )
INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
)
Index No
110952/96
Defendants .
)
----------- .. ....------- .-----------=------- )
WAdA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 526
A P P E A R A N C E S :
J . D . LEE, ESQ .
422 Gay Street
. .Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
For the Plaintiffe°in Pennsylvania case
(423) 544-0101
SHELLER, .LUDWIG & BADEY
3rd Floor
.1528 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
8Y : STEPHEN A . SHELLER, ESQ .
SHERRICE A . KNISELY, ESQ .
For the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania case
(215)_790-7300
`CLIMACO, CLIMACO, LEFKOWITZ &
~GAROFOLI CO ., L .P .A .
Ninth Floor, The Halle Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
. BY : JACK D . MAISTROS, ESQ .
For the .Plaintiffa in Pennsylvania case
(216) 621-8484
GOODKIND LABATON,RUDOFF & SUCHAROW L .L .P .
100 Park Avenue
New York, New, York ' 10 017
BY : MARTI S ANN . BRACHTL, ESQ .'_
For the Plaintiffs in New York case
(212) 907-0700
-WOMBLE CARLYLE :-SANDRIDGE & RICE
200 west Second Street
;Post Office Drawer 84
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102
BY : MARTIN L .`HOLTON, III, ESQ .
For the Defendant R .J . Reynolds Tobacco
(910) 721-3600,
WAGh,' .&
SPINELLI
(201)
~
Corp . ' w
992-4111
00
Vol . 4,
Pg . 527
A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued)
JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
Metropolitan .Square
1450 G Street N .W .
Waehington, D . C . 20005-2088
BY :
:ROBERT-F . McDERMOTT, .JR ., ESQ :
''For the Defendant`R .J . Reynolds Tobacco Corp .
(202) 879~3939
MCCALL DOUGHTON & BLANCATO
633 West Fourth Street
Suite 150
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
BY : WILLIAM A . BLANCATO, .ESQ .
(910) 725-7531
For the witness Dr . Alan Rodgman
.
MILLER & MARTIN
Suite 1000 Volunteer Building
832 Georgia `Avenue
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
BY : MARCIA MEREDITH EASON, ESQ .
,,(423) 756-6600 .
For the Defendant'Lorillard Tobacco Company
WAG4A' & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 528
I N D E X
WITNESS
REcR,osS REDIRECT RECROSS
ALAN'RODGMAN, Ph :D . .
Maistros'' 532
j X H_ I B I T S
PESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION
Vol . 4, Pg . 529
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going on the
2
record . The time is 9 :28 . This is the videotape
deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D ., taken by the
4
plaintiff in the matters'of William P . Perry and
Sandra Perry, Plaintiffs, versus Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corporation, ;et al .,
7
Defendants . Case number, civil action .2-473-95 .
8
Also the case Phyllis Small, et al .,
Plaintiffs, again .st Lorillard ;Tobacco Company,
10
Incorpora,ted,-et :al ., .Defendants . Index number
11
12
Plus the case of Mary Ann Hoskins,
13
et al . Plaintiffs, .against RJR Tobacco Company,
14
et al ., Defendants . Index number 110951/96 .
15
Plus'the case of Sharlene Hoberman,
16
et al ., Plaintiffs, against Brown & Williamson
17
Tobacco Corporation,>et al ., Defendants . Index
18
number 110953/96 .
19
20
Plup the case .of Rose Frosina, et al . I
Plaintiffs, against Philip Morris, Incorporated,
21
.et al ., Defendants . Index number .110950/96 .
22
Plus the case of Catherine Zito,
23
et al ., Plaintiffs, against the American Tobacco
24
Company, Incorporated,,et al ., Defendants . Index
25
number 110952/96 .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 530
This deposition is being held at the
2
offices of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, 200 -MS : KNISELYs Excuse us . The main
4
caption is Arch .' This is what it -VIDE04RAPHERa Okay, I have that also .
o.,,
y o.u want
-me
to
. :KNISEL'Y :
8
9
VIDEOaRAPHER : Also the case of Steven
R . Arch, et al,, Plai,ntiffs, versus Brown &
10
Williamson Tobacco -~ excuse me, the American
11
Tobacco Company, Incorporated, et al ., Defendante .
12
This deposition is being held at the
13
offices of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, 200
14
West-Second,Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina .
15
16
17
18
M
.
ItNtSELY : Excuse me . Could you
read the full caption in Arch for us .
VIDEOGi2APHER : Okay . Do you want me
to start over?
19
MS . KNISELY : No .
20
VIDEOORAPHER : Arch, et al ., versus
21
the American Tobacco Company, et al . Case number
22
U,S . .District Court_EDPA 93-5903-CN .
23
This is Monday, August 4th, 1997 . My
24!
name is John Girdler ; I'-m the video specialist .
25
The court_reportex is Linda Russell .
We are here
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 531
r
in connection with ;Waga and Spinelli, with offices
located ,at' Four . . Be .cker= Farm Road, Roseland,
New Jersey .
Counsel will now state their
appearances f or"-the record, and'the court reporter
will ewear`in the witness .
MR . MAISTROS : Jack Maistros for the
pla3.ntiff .
MS .'KNISELY : Sherrice Knisely for the
10
11
plaintiffs in Arch .'
MR . LEE :
12
Martis Brachtl, here for
13
14
the plaintiffs in the New York actions Small,
15
Hoekins,' Hoberman, Froeina, and .Zito .
16
MS . :EASON : Marcia Eason for the
17
defendant Lorillard`Tobacco Company in the
18
Tennessee litigation, William and Sandra Perry
19
versus Brown & Will,iamson .
20
21
MR . BAG4LEY : Rick Bagley, legal
assistant for the -defendant .
22
MR . HOLTON : Mark Holton for RJR .
23
MR . MCDERMOTT : Robert McDermott for
24
25
Reynolds Tobacco Company .
MR . BLANCATO :
Bill Blancato
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 532
representing Dr . . Alan Rodgman .
2
ALAN RODGMAN, Ph .D .,
having been first duly sworn, was examined and
did testify as follows :
4
EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR . MAISTROSs
0
8
you?`
R
10
11
Q
12
13
pleasurable experience .
My name is :'Jack Maistros and I
14
15
represent the plaintiffs in an action pending in
16
Pennsylvania . It's the Arch case .
17
I'm going ;to ask you a series of
18
questions today . If you don't understand my
19
questions, stop me . If you, want to confer with
20
your counsel, stop',me- . ',:If 'you want to go to the
21
22
23
me, '
A.
okay?
Yes, sir .
Q . We're here,for your schedule as much
24
as`everyone elee's, and more so for yours,
25
probably .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 533
Who are you represented by .today?
1
2
Mr . William Blancato .
3
Q
Is he your only counsel today?
Could :'you
full name for me .
My name is Alan Rodgman, A-L-A-N,
7
8
R-Or-D-G-M-A-N :
Q . Would you prefer Dr . Rodgman or
Rodgman?
10
Whatever you desire .
11
You are a doctor?
12
m a Ph .D . in organic chemistry .
13
I
14
Q.
Organic chemistry?
16
Q.
What is your date of birth?
17
February the 7th, 1924 .
18
Q . Where`do you currently reeide?
15
2828 Birchwbod Drive, Winston-Salem,
19
A .
20
North Carolina .
21
22
23
24
Q
Do you have any intentions, in the
of moving, relocating?
Not that I'know of .
Are you married?
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 534
Q .
1
A.
How
long
have .you been married?
F.ifty years on .June the 7th, 1997 .
Q . Is your 'wife' employed?
4
No .
5
Q . Do you have any children?
Yes .
Q . How many?
Three
MS . BRACHTL : Counselor, could you
10
11
12
speak up, .pleaee .
MR'. MAISTROS : Sure .
BY"MR . MAISTROS
13
14
15
16 .
17{
49, 47, and 44 .
o any of your children work for
Reynolds, or have they?
All three have°worked for Reynolds in what
18
was .known as Reynolds Summer Program for children
19
of'dmployees,~loading boxcars, and so on and so
20
forth,` My youngest son is'a manager in personnel .
21
What- ' s,
22
Mark Rodgman .
23
24'
25
manager,of personnel'trainingl
o either of your other two children
work full time for Reynolds, or have they?
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 535
Yes .
Q
What years?
was in the"-Canadian Navy :£rom 1942 to 1945 .
4
was born' in
10
11
When did y
12
Q
13
1954 . . But, before that, I'moved to Canada .
14
15
°'Twenty-six-years :'
Where ; clid you attend high school?
16
17
Toronto, Ontario,' Canada ; Humberside
18
19
20
Did you .
21
221
I went i
231
24
R
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 536
1
A . I entered the-University of Toronto in honors
chemistry .
4
Q
5
University of Toronto?
6
Eight yearsi .
7
Q, And what-degrees did you obtain?
Bachelor of arts in honors chemistry, and
master of arts in organic chemistry, and a Ph .D .
10
in-organic chemistries ; '49, '51, '53,
11
respectively .
12
Q . Up until 1953,` had you done any
13
work'related to or with a tobacco company?
14
A . No, I had not .
15
16
t2
Had any of your research involved
tobacco, in any fashion, up'to 1953?
17
18
Q
What was'your first involvement with
19
tobacco?
20
A . When I was hired by R .J . Reynolds in 1954 .
21
Q . What '`month?
22
June the .23rd .~
23
24
Was that your first full-time
employment after 'college?
25
WAGA & SPINEhLI `
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 537
1
2
Reynolds?
Well, I had a peculiar circumstance that, in
1941, I obtained a summer position at the
Banting & Best Department of Medical Research .
And for t .he summers, and then during the falls and
7
winters, I worked evenings and weekends, until I
got'my Ph .D .' in 1953 . Then I worked "full time at
9
the'Banting &<Best,Department of Medical Research .
10
Q . Where is the Banting & Best Department
11
f .Medical Research?
12
-Toronto, Ontario, Canada .
13
Q : What did you do there?
was involved in the study of
14
15
carcinogenesis . ;
S2 .
16
17
was a -- did_research .
A.
What is "carcinogenesis?
18
Carcinogenesis is the,process whereby a
19
20
How ;were you involved?
carcinoma is formed_ .,
21
0.
22
Carcinoma is a tumor .
Did you do research on any specific
23
24
25
What is a
type
types of tumors?
N
:WAGA' & `SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111 .
Vol . 4, Pg . 538
materials that were used in the studies .
Q
Did you have a major goal or theme of
your :research during that period of time?
A.
The major'goal
well,-my .major goal was to
synthesize the compounds that my professor there
material that'would act as a`'vaccine against
cancer .
9
10
certain compounds?
That'a=what I was-there-for .
11
3t e s .
12
Q . Multiple-compounds? How many
13
14
compounds did you synthe'size?
Well, they,were :peculiar compounds in which
15
polycyclic hydrocarbon .`was'--linked to proteins .
16
And .I probably synthesized .-- to'be able to link
17
the,polycyclic to .the protein required a series of
18
reactions, and then the final reaction to do the
19
li:nking . And I probably did 10 or 15, I guess .
20
And, of :course, because the-material
21
wae being used in animal studies, I had to keep
22
making them again and again, because these studies
23
ran . -.f or many yeara .
24
And _what- is the -- what is the purpose
251 of making these synthesized compounds, as opposed
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 539
to using naturally .occurring compounds?
You couldn't find them naturally occurring .
Did you publish'any research?
Wheze was it published?
A . , :Sotrie of it was in the Journal of American -jimerican''CYiemical Societv,'and some was in the
annual report of the Ontario Treatment and
Research Association, which was =- did the funding
10
of ,the work . Some of .it was published -- or
11
presented before various meetings . Canadian
12
Physiological Society,'I think, was one of them .
13
Q . And that was from '47 to '53?
14
Yes .
15
Q . How did your research progress in
16
17
terms of coming up with a vaccination?
. It wasn't too'succeseful .
Q
18
19
Was`that research continued after you
left?
20
Yes .
21
Q•
22
No .
23
Q.
. Why did ° :it ,stop?
24
A . Well, .my,professor, Dr . W . R . Franks, who was
25
.a cancer research professor at the University of
WAGA & :SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 540
1
Toronto, he eventually retired, and then, of
2
course,
4
4
5
-_a couple of years ago he died .
Who was funding that research? Do you
know?
Ontario Treatment and Research Association,
think it's called . And some of it was funded by
7
the National Cancer Institute of Canada .
Q . Was there any specific type of cancer
that you were focused on, as opposed to just
10
11
cancer I
general or tumors in general?
Well, it was the vaccine, if you want to call
12
it that . It was, you know, an attempt to find
13
something that would counteract the -- the effect
14
of polycyclic in -- polycyclice in animals .
What is a polycyclic?
15
4
16
Polycyclic compound is .one with more than one
17~
Poly
18
19'
Each ring is
20
Q
21
22"
23
Q
How are' .polycyclic compounds formed,
24
or how do they get in the animal's system?
25
A . Well, in the experimental work, they were
WAaA & SPINELLI ,
(201) 992-4111
Vol .
, Pg . 54 1
injected into the animal .
2
Q . What type of animals?
A . Mice .
4
Q . Why did you use mice ?
A . Well, I had no control over what~beast was
used ; Dr . Franks was the one that selected the
7
mouse .
Q . Didyou ever use any other type of
animals ?
10
A . Some of the people in the group were studying
11
what was called Rous sarcoma, which occurs in
12
chickens . So they used chickens .
13
Q
Is there some product or proces s
14
whereby the average person would be able to relate
15
what polycyclic compounds come out of or ar e
16
created by? I mean, why -- how -- why do yo u
17
focus on polycyclic compounds ?
18
19
20
MR .'MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : Well, as I say, I was
21
doing a job for the professor . But, at that point
22
,in .time, 1947, polycyclic hydrocarbons were quit e
23
rampant in the gasoline exhaust, the foods yo u
;Ln
-
I m
24
-exhaus
effluents .from your
25 coal-fired furnaces,- ;-oi1-fired furnaces, gas-fire d
WAGA & SPINELL I
(201) 992-4111
w
Ln
W
Vol . 4, Pg . 542
furnaces, tires that are being worn out on the
Q
6
that they were in tobacco or tobacco smoke?
about°°the`--: 1950, after some of the
9
epidemiological s.tudies resu3 .ts were published,
10
there-'was an effort-to f4gure out . And then
11
Dr . :Wynder had his mouse ski .n painting work, to
12
find'out if there was .-,- what was in the cigarette
13
smoke . And of course they concentrated on the
14
po3.ycyclic hydroca,rbons right .away, starting in, I
15
gueds,
'51/'52 .
16
Q .
"They" ;; w o is they?
17
People in . the
scientists around the world
18
were -- looked at it,' an .d'`primarily because of the
19
tremendous background on the polycyclic
20
hydrocarbons that had :begun'in 1931 .
21
By who? .
22
23
i
24
25
hydrocarbons?
would say,- if you categorize them into
(201) 992-4111
&
Vol . 4, Pg . 543
different types, there ;;are ::probably about 75
different types of polycyclic hydrocarbons . Of
course,,one of the classifi-catione .,ia whether they
have two rings, three .ringp, four rings, five,
And
Q . Are they`all,carcinogenic?
No . In fact, some`of them are
7
non=carcinogenic, and eome of them will offset the
effect of carcinogenic .hydrocarbone .
Q . Are there
10
MS . KNIS.ELY :
11
want to talk with you for a second, if
12
minute?
13
we-can go off the record .
14
MR . MAISTRQS_ :
15
VIDEOQRApHER :
16
record at 9 :48 a .m .
18
a .m .
vIDE00RAPHER :
20
record at 9 :52 a :m .
21 BY`MR . MAISTROS :
22'~
Q
23
talking about .polycyclic hydrocarbons . Let me ask
24
you, first of all, of the 75 different types that
25
you`said existed ; some are cancer-producing ; is
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 544
that correct?
Yes . In mice -- or animals .
{~ . If I use'the phrase "carcinogenic," do
you equate that ;:with cancer-producing or not?
.
Carcinoma-p'ro'ducing .
Q,
Of
t :he 75 different types, are they
carc,inogenic or carcinbma-producing?
A . It depends on how you'adminiater them . There
are some polycyclic .hydrocarbons which are not
10
tuntorigenic . There are some that, if you
11
administer them one way, they will cause a
12
carcinoma, by skin painting, and another one, if
1. 3
you inject them, it will cause a sarcoma . And
14
some, ;if ;you feed them, they don't cause anything .
o the term tumorigenic or
15
16
carcinogenic is dependent on about 50 factors
17
have to be,t`aken into account .
18
19
20
Q
that
inlhether .it's carcinogenic, tumorigenic
or carcinoma-producing, is the end result cancer?
Well, if you're"talking tumorigenic, not
21
neceaearily so, be-cause the tumorigenic compound
22
could cause_a papilloma, which is not
23
benign .tumor, which is not considered a cancer .
241
25
is a
`Q . What is the major alleged link between
polycyclic hydrocarbone and tobacco smoke?
WAC3A&'BPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 545
MR . I4CDERMOTT= Object to the form of
1
the question .
BY MR .'=MAISTROS :
If you .could survey the literature
not holding you to -- from a scientific
and .-
standpoint, this opinion .
I'm asking you, out of
th,e .literature out there, the major alleged link
-bettaeen polycyclic hydro -- or polycyclic
hydrocarbons,'tobacco'amoke and disease, what is
10
the alleged link?
il
MR ._BLANCATOt
12
MR . MCDERMOTT
13
THE WZTN$SSs
14
Object to the form .
Object to the form .
You're talking now, or
1954, or '55?
15
BY MR . MAISTROS t
16
Q
Let
17
A . Well, in'view of the evidence that's been
18
cQllected over the last 40 years, the~aasociation
19
between polycyclic h,ydrocarbons and cigarette
20
smoking disease in smokers is very tenuous .
s the alleged link between polycyclic
21
carcinogenic effect,
22
hydrocarbons and smoking a
23
tumor-producing effect? What is it?
MR .
24
25
MCDERMOTT :
Ln
~
..m
Object to the form .
Compound .
(201) 992-4111
w
Ln
,-J
Vol . 4, Pg . 546
1
BY MR . :MAISTROSs
Q . I want to just understand, for th .e
next:`couple of days, if I use the word
"tumor-producing'
or "carcinogenic" or
"cancer-producing," we re,not missing each other
6
in the night because I'm thinking one thing and
7
you're thinking another . Is`there some agreed
upon format we can use that you're comfortable
9
10
'w .ith?
Yes . If you' .re going,to use the term
or "tumorigenic" or "sarcogenic,"
11
"carcinogenic"
12
think you should be aware of what goes into
13
determining'that effect .
I
And, for example, the effect of a
14
15
compound is species-dependent . Things that happen
16
in mice cannot happen in ra,ts, do not happen in
17
rabbits, guinea pigs, or monkeys, dogs . And you
18
may have eomething_happen in a,rat that doesn't
19
happen in a mouee :
Tumorigenici :t,y a.~e also
20
21
'may not happen in a male, and vice ;
i
22
animal won! t
23
versa . Tumorigenicity is also dependent on the
24
age ;of the animal, .what happens when you've got a
25
six-week-old mouseland you start the experiment
WAaA` .&,SPINELLI
i
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 547
versus what happens when you've got a year-old
2
mouse . You can tell -- you may get entirely
3
different reactions .
The other thing is the mode of
4
administration .
;Whether it's skin painting ;
varioue types of irijection, intravenous,
intraperitoneal,
Q . Those are factors that affect --
8
inhalation .
9
Those are factors that affect the
10
11
.subcutaneous injection --
tumorigenicity, ;if, you :will,
12
.Right .
13
Q . -- the compound .
14
What_ Y
15
assume, .• . .1
16
Well, tumorigenic is an all-encompassing
17
18
19
word .
That's
20
looking °for the al .l -encompassing word that I can
21
use,,that you're comfortable with, that is an
I
22
alleged adverse health risk related to polycyclic
23
hydrocarbons . What's the broadest word you can
,
24
think of today?
25
A . Well, tumorigeneaie would be one . But I say,
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 548
even<vin that case,'you've got to take into account
the factors I was trying to tell you about and
Q . ' I , apologize`.
6
-administration .makee_a,great :deal .of difference,
whether it's the substance administered neat or in
solution ; and it depends on the kind of solution,
the .+concentration, and so on .
Men are :not,mice type theory?
10
11
Yes . You,probably read that'I had written
12
that someplace, `but I` plagiarized it . If you want
13
to find-out where it is, look in something Ernest
14
Wynder wrote .
I like that quote, though .
15
Q
16
Well,
in that case, I'm sorry I wasn't
17
the .inventor .
18
Q.
I
wi11
t
19
"tumorigenesis .°',And if I ask you a question in
20
the future, that<you think it's not accurate
21
because .•I'm not using the right phrase, I'd like
22
.you to interrupt me and tell me, okay?
23
24
I
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 549
doing from 147 to 153, was there a particular type
f tumorigenesis you were looking at?
We were looking . :at the -- .there ,are four
polycyclic hydrocarbons that,_ .from -- after
1932 -- well, actually 1931, that, when they were
syntheeized,or,isoi .ated .from something identified,
th-en synthesized, there'were four polycyclic
hydrocarbons'that are considered the most potent
.,
available :' Dibenz ia ; h] anthracene
Okay .
10
11
benefit, and`partially mine, if you could do these
12
long
13
words
slower,
okay?
. Okay . Dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and those are
14
square parens, too . ; benzo[a]pyrene ;
15
3-methylcholanthrene ;
16
7, 1,2-dimethylbenz Ta] anthracene . And the "All is in
17
brackets, .
18
]. 9
20
'21,
What :do you mean by "most potent"?
Well, if you were to look at a eeries of
hydrocarbons, you get --
polycyclic hydrocarbons,
you .get some .that aren'.-t active at all, some are
22
very slightly active . In other words, you may get,(„
23
o ne : t u m o r i n a t h ous ari d mi ce . B u t ,
24
thee right concentration in the right beast and
25
administered in the right .way, will cause a large
WAGA & SPINELLI
those four ,
at
(201) 992-4111
m
I W
Vol . 4, Pg . 550
percent of tumor-bear,ing animals . And they're
used~many times as standards .
o that ; even?
6
-We11, dibenz [a, hlanthracene was ' f irst found
to be`tumorigenic in 1931 . It was synthesized by
9
10
Dr .•Fieser at Harvard and found to be tumorigenic
by Kennaway in England .
11
Q . In what beast?
12
Mouse .
13
0
14
It'was isolated from coal tar in 1932 by
15
W . Cook and his colleagues . He isolated it,
How about benzo [a] pyrene? .
16
proved its-structure by-synthesis and then showed
17
thatt it, was tumorigenic in mice .
18
Q
19
I forget the exact date'about
20
-methylcholanthrene . But the interest in
21
3-methylcholanthrene is that, for years, from 1935
22
to 1950, people : were looking at
23
-methylcholanthrene because, if you heat food
24
stuffs containing cholesterol -- cholesterol is
251 structurally similar to 3-methylcholanthrene
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 551
there-was a likelihood or a theory that you would
get 3-methylcholanthrene in your food stuffs . And
that was the reason :for the high level of cancer
f -the stomach in the United States versus places
like Japan that very`seldom had cooked meat or
things with cholestero,l in it that were cooked .
How about dimethylbenzla]anthracene?
Well, that was .-actually .the -- that was
started about the 1950s . 'it actually was thought
10
to, be just a .straight synthetic compound, until it
11
was found in .a l,ot of things, food stuffs . And,
12
of course, it is found in tobacco smoke ; but it's
13
a very small amount .
14
Q . These four, what .you've described as
15
the most potent polycyclic hydrocarbons, is that
16
still true today, that those are the,four most
17
potent?
18
would sl! y yes
19
of that, becaub+e .there `have been writings that
20
maybe an individual coimpound might be more potent
21
than`those . But .those'four have been used in so
22
many experimental systems that, if you're going to
23
do an experiment in tumorigenesis and you want a
24
control, you might pick, :=one of those four, because
25
you've got something'like 50/60 years of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 552
background to fall'back o
- And'the object, during an animal
experiment, is .you always have what's`called a
positive control, which`would include maybe one of
these four, And if something went wrong with a
certain concentration and mode of administration,
and .you didn't get .the percent tumor-bearing
animals that you usually got, you knew you were
doing the experiment wrong and you better look at
10
your procedure :' Were your technicians doing the
11
skin painting properly, or was the solution right,
12
13
or so on and 'so forth .
:
,. .
Q . Now, when you say that they were --
14
these four .were known to produce tumors back in
151
the '30s,-'31/'32, is that a specific type of
16 1
tumor? The same`for all four?
17
A . Well, here,again, if you skin paint
18
benzpyrene, I'm sure -- we might as well stick
19
with that, because that's the one you're going to
20
rattle on about for the next few days .
21
Benxola]pyrene, if you paint it on the
22
skin, will-cause`a carcinoma of the skin . But if
23
you inject it subcutaneously, it causes a sarcoma .'N
m
24
If you administer it by -inhalation, it doesn't
25
cause anything .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 553
Q . Are there percentages that have been
1
attached to these different polycyclic
3
hydrocarbons, such as 80 percent of the mice that
.are, skin painted with particular ones have
developed-tumore, or 90'percent0
6
Well, it depends on the concentration, sir .
could -- D
experiments in 1957 ;-_showed that you could start
with a certain concentration of benzo [a] pyrene
10
solution and paint mice`with a certain
11
coneentration, cut it in half, cut it in half, cut
12
it in half, and paint different groups with the
13
solutions, and .you got to a point where you had a
14
level of benzo[a]pyrene_in solution that didn't
15
cause any tumore : But that level was 300 times
16
what's in a normal cigarette . .
That was'out of Dr . Wynder's lab in
17
18
19
That would' b
20
aseume1 `
y
21
A.
22
precise figures in there ; it may be 280, it may be
23
320
24
25
In the tar from 300 cigarettes . He has the
but it :'was cloae .to 300 .
Q
So there's'a certain minimum level
that has been discovered of
WAGA& SPINELLI
- of at least some o
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 554
these polycyclic hydrocarbons, at which they do
.not, promote
--
-Every one tested has aminimum thresh -- has
3
a threshold,limit value .
5
that you were talking about had about as much
as
8
A .
you need 300 cigarettes to equal?
Benzo [a7 pyrene :
Q : Why are they referred to as "most
10
potent"? I mean, how would a,layman understand as
11
to why they're the mos`t potent? Do they all cause
12
som'p form of ;tumors at some levels?" Are they just
13
biologically more active?
14
No . As I just finished telling you, they
151
don't, .cause it at al1`levels . It is the fact
161
that, if you were'to-administer a certain number
17
of millimoles of benzpyrene versus a certain
181
number -- the same number of .millimoles of, say,
19
benzoCa]anthracene,'which is a borderline
20
tumorigenic, if it's`a tumorigenic at all . Then,
21
at a .given concentration, say, benzo[a]pyrene
Ln
22
~
~
m
might produce 8fl_percent tumor-bearing animals, ,~
.
w
23
and benzo[a]pyrene (aic) may produce 2>percent at
24
the same concentration .
25
;~
And`it was found that those four, at a
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g
555
r
certain concentration, always produced the
2
highers, versus everything else that was tested .
Q•
Are all "four of those,polycyclic
hydrocarbons you mentioned in tobacco smoke?
As far as I know, 3-methylcholanthrene has
neve,.r been found in -- well, it's been found in
cigaret-te smoke but never confirmed . A man in
8
Germany called :Krt511er reported it, but there was
some question about the accuracy of his
10
identification . Dietrich Hoffmann and Ernest
11
Wynder disagreed with his identification .
12
Q . Do you know when the other three were
13
discovered to be in tobacco smoke?
14
A . Well, as I mentioned before, there was a big
15
controversy about whether the_polycyclics were in
16
cigarette smoke, and that controversy rattled on
17
between '51, '52, 'S3 . And even as late as 1957,
18
f.or example, for benzo[aJpyxene :, Dr . .Fieser, who
19
was :probably one'of the two great-polycyclic
20
hydrocarbon chemists,in this country, did not
21
agree wit .h the evidence indicating benzopyrene was
22
in cigarette smoke : His own staff could not find
23
it, yet they could find it in coffee .
&
24
Q . Who's the other great polycyclic
25i
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 556
Melvin Newman`at`Ohio State . I believe he's
Those are -- polycyclic wizards in
almost every_country . : J . W . Cook in England, whom
I have mentioned ; Clar, in Germany, wrote several
big, huge books on polxCyclics . The French had
Lacassagne ; that's L-A-C-A-S-S-A-G-N-E ; and a
Vietnamese called Buu-Hoi, B-U-U, hyphen, H-O-I .
8
So each country had somebody who was doing
p.olycyclic hydrocarbon-~work, from 1931 to probably
10
the war time ; everything was interrupted by the
11
war .
12
Q . And who was America's?
13
`Melvin Newman at Ohio State and Louis Fieser
14
at Harvard . And Louis Fieser, of course, was the
15
chemist who did ;this chapter on cigarette smoke in
16
the :1964' ;Surgeon General's report :' . .
17
18
The three hydrocarbons that -- is it
generally accepted,they're in cigarette smoke, the
19
20
as' I'said, after --`in '57, because
21
Fieser wouldn't accept the evidence, there
22
was -- that was in the literature, there was a big ~
23
push to definitely identify them . And the -- I
24
guess the culminating thing was, in 1959,
251 Dr . Wynder and Hoffmann'published -• gave a
Vol . 4, Pg . 557
presentation and s.aid ; Well, .here's absolute
proof that it's' .from
3
it's in-cigarette smoke .
And they showed a pictu,re of some-crystals of
ben,zo [a7 pyrene, which I' m sure they found .
So
5
after ;.i67/'58, everybody accepted
th'at it was there` .
8ame as everybody accepts it's
in .your toast this morning .
Q . S forgot my toast . I did get my
oatmeal, but they forgot ~ the toast .
10
The .levels you mentioned, I'm sure
11
there's a minimum threehol .d you have to get to
12
before it .is tumor promoting . As you said, for
13
benzo [a] pyrene ,you need 300 cigarettes?
no .
14
15
With cigarettes ;~he backed off on solutions of
16
pure benzo {a] pyrene ;: And when he got to an
17
equiv;alent that-wae .many"times what was in the
18
cigarette tar that he usually used, he didn't get
19
any .
20
21
sure you may be aware .that Dr . Wynder,
22
Dr . Hof fmann, `-Fred .Bock :, Ben j amin Van Duuren and
23
Alvin Kosak have repeatedly written that, in the
24
skin painting studies with cigarette smoke tar,
25
the polycyclic hydrocarbons, as a class, can
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 558
explain no more .than,two and :a half percent of the
And J'. W . Cook, Fieser, .everybody, has
.said, for 50 years, .you oannot explain the
observed response by the polycyclid hydrocarbons .
And if you look in the -' 79 .Surgeon General, the
'82 Surgeon General
the
all say the same thing .
To .add something to this business
10
11
about the controversy : From '51, that area --
12
that :time period, I ;personally couldn't understand
13
why there was a'controversy . Because, from 1935
14
to 1950, every material that was --'had an organic
15
compound, whether,,iaas chicken` wings, or steak, or
16
isoprene,
17
every one that was he`ated at a temperature above
-'18
19
or methane, or simple organic`compounds,
500 degrees gave :a series .of polycyclics .
Q .
In
the ;'work' you were doing, which is
20
where`we started, from,'47 to ',53, were you
21'
focusing on these four polycyclic hydrocarbons?
22
Well, focusing on`thope, plus another one,
23
benzo [a] anthracene, ` which 'ie actually in smoke
24
too . It's`a borderline tumorigenic . In fact,
25
there'are probably as many reports in the
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 559
literature that it's non-tumorigenic than there
are ; that" says , it
s very mildly tumorigenic .
I also
°some of my work involves
eome,other .things besides'polycyclic hydrocarbons
5
There's nitrogent~mustards that are tumorigenic
6
compounds, and I was involved with those .
Q~
mustards?
9
We want -- there was
10
that,- if you had linked a compound -that was
11
tumorigenic to another one'that was,tumorigenic,
12
would you get addition,'synergism or cancellation?
13
And ;I was interested in the fact that -- of
14
hooking a nitrogen mustard to a polycyclic
15a
hydrocarbon and made a,series,of those compounds .
And,they really acted like the
16
17
polycyclic . Nitrogen mustard had very little
18
influence, because nitrogen mustard, as you
19
.probably are aware,' ;_for some years was used to
20
treat leukemia in .children .
21
Q . What other research were you doing '47,
Ln
22
23
53?
~
~
Well, one of the things that did prove useful i m
w
J
24
later was -- other than my experience with
25
polycyclic hydrocarbons, was my -- 'Professor
(201
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 560
Franks had a good frie.nd ;who was head of the
medical department_ot a large U .S . corporation .
They were having some"problems,with -= and asked
us to do
f ind `out~ wh'at wae the problem in a
5
tarry-like substance that .was .being emitted from
6
equipment . And I developed a,procedure to look at
7
it .
It_was,obvious, very quickly, that it
contained polycycl#,c'<hydrocarbons .c
developed a
I pay :"developed ;" :I combined
10
procedure, based
11
two procedures that were in the literature : That
12
-
I
>f .J . W . Cooky~ and`hie work on the isolation of
13
polycyclics from coa3, tar, with a procedure called
14
column chromatograpliy,''and developed a procedure
15
16
o .tsolate polycyclic hydrocarbons from a complex
mixture .
It was a much easier procedure, much
1 7_:
18
si.tnpler than the'one Cook had used .- And, of
19
course, you got to remember, in 1931 there was
20
very little known about -- they' .didn't'know what
21
they .were looking for, for one thing . And they
22
started with two tons of coal tar . .
What 'company was this?
23
©
24
The company in the United States?
25
Yes .
WAaA & SPINELLI"
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 561
I
m not at liberty to'tell you that .
This was -- you signed a
2
confidentiality agreement?,_
My boss did . Well,_it was one'of those
f;riendship things .
A.
Well, as I say,- ;there seemed to be a problem
with=a --`the tar emitted from the equipment they
10
were ueing and the effect on the ekin of some of
11
the workers .
Q . Was the problem solved?
12
I have no idea . I just gave the results to
13
A .
14
my boss, and he transmitted them to liis friend,
15
and .I don't know .w.hat wa ;s done with them .
16
Q . And the reeearch you did for that
17
particular projeCt-•was to .identify the polycyclic
18
hydrocarbons
19
20
Well, to see if they'were there, and it was a
.good guess that they were . And I did identify
21
some of them . There we're a_whole series, startin
22
with-naphthalene, N-A-P-H-T-H-A-L-E-N-E,
23
anthracene, benzpyrene, benzanthracene . . They were
24
all : there . .
Ln
25
4
And what kind . jof `skin problems was the
WAC3A : & SPINELLI
~
~
!N
m
~
w
~
w
Vol . 4, Pg . 562
1
tar;,causing : for the ' employees?
2
I have no_idea,` sir .
whatever happened to that issue, or -
today?
Yes .
8
Q10
work?
11
A . When I came .to Reynolds, I was given a
12
project to do, which I did, and which`ended . Then
13
I was asked what`I :would like to :work on ; which I
14
was-a little surprised, because usually you're
15
told,what you're'to work on . And I said : Well,
16
in view of all the stuff that's .going on in the
17
literature, I think`we should look at cigarette
18
smoke . They said" ; Go ahead ._
19
20
And, of course, with all this
'controversy on polycyclic hydrocarbons and having
21
a method to determine"them or isolate and separate
22
them, we set up a smoking system that matched, as
23
near as we could, the one that Dr . Wynder
24
described in his 1953 paper on the skin painting
25
work, the Wynder, Graham and Croninger paper .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
Vol . 4, Pg . 563
1
looked at that .diagram and built a smoking machine
2
as :close to that as we could, from the diagram,
and used .the same smoking regime that'Dr . Wynder
had used, which he had said simulated the human
smoking eyetem ; ."whichy it .,really didn't . He used
three puffs per minute, which nobody used at that
7
time ; but we copied that .
And looking at the -- putting my
procedure through the`
the cigarette smoke, we
10
isolated and identified polycyclic hydrocarbons in
11
cigarette smoke .
Q . Before we'get to Reynolds, the work
12
13
you were doing from '47, .to '53 was -- the end goal
14
was to develop a vaccine for cancer-promoting or
15
cancer -- tumor-p`ro .moting-.compounds?
16 .
A . Tumor-initiated .
Q . And between '47 and '53, you weren't
17
18
doing research to see if the compounds were
19
tumor-producing,youu were doing research to figure
20
out`a solution to combat the tumor-promoting
21
compounds, correct?
Ln
~ 1
22
23
.
~
~
~ m
That's right . .
Q . You took it :as a given, between '47
w
J
Ln
24
and ."53, that certain`polycyclic hydrocarbons were
25
cancer or tumor promoting, correct?
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 56 4
3
vaccine for animals or_humans ?
Well, I thin k
in hope that, if there was a correlation_between
tumorigenicity in animals and .the tumorigenicit y
8
in humans,,that it would .work in humans .
Q . Did :you do
10
53 ?
11
My work
12
Q .
was all chemistry, sir .
Did anyone .in your laboratory, eithe r
13
Franks or anyone else, do you'know if they studie d
14
any,polycyclic hydrocarbon effect on humans ?
15
16
. ' No , they da.dn' t :
Q . They did not ?
coupl e
17
18
history, .sir .
19
20
are subjected to polycyclie hydrocarbons and watc h
2 1
them, over a period of °time, to see what happens ?
Ln
22
For e :xample, yo u mentioned that, I
23
th.i;nk, polycyclic-hydrocarbons are' prevalent i n
24
some fuels . Has a'nyone ever done etudies to look
2 5,
at :re.finery workers, over a period of,time, to see
(201) 992-4111
~_A
Vol . 4, Pg . 565
if there's_any correlation with .the animal
studies?
~A . Well,"you have a problem with -- in some
instances, of compari'eon . °zf you'r,e .looking at
po],ycyclics and the 'effect on skin ;i if somebody
gets stuff on the skin,` tar or oi1 .'or whatever,
you may get somewhat the sajme` effect : But one of
the problems has been that, on inhalation, the -it's~been, I,think,
.very .rare circumstance has
10
anybody ever beon abie to produce lung tumor in
11
animals with inhalation of a polycyclic
12
hydrocarbon .
13
Q . I'm just asking you if you're aware of
14
any'long-term-or short-term studies that were done
15
on humans that were eubjected to polycyclic
16
hydrocarbons in the'environment .
17
No . But there was a study done in Italy,
18
before the war, 1937/'38, by Cottini,
19
C-O=T-T-I-N-z, .'and Mazzone, M-A-Z-Z-O-N-E,
20
which' they actually painted human -beings with
21
solutions of polycyclic hydrocarbons that had
22
produced tumors in animals . I .think the skin
23
painting went on for four`or`- .five months . I
24
believe it was done .with prisoners . And I believe
,.
it`was terminated when -- Labor'Day of 1939, when
25
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 566
war ..was dec'lared`between Great Britain, Canada,
Germany, Italy, and'the prisoners were shipped
into the Italian Army .
Q . Was this published research?
5
Q . Do you know if there were any
7
conclusions drawn as to .a,ny analogies that can be
made to the animal skin painting?
I don't think it`ran .long enough . I think it
10
11
12
only` ran three o,rr four months .
Q . When you'were doing your studies in
147 to '53, was it a11 .:-skin painting?
13
No . Well, I didn't do any of the skin
14
painting . I saw a lot of it . I would say there
15
were, :eome injection -- the vaccine thing was
16
tested on skin-painted animals, on
17
inttaperitoneally-injected animals,-on intra --
18
eubcutaneously-injected animals,
19
. .in't•ravenously- :injected animals . And, of course,
20
work going on_there did -- as I said before, there
21
wae one small .,group under Dr . Franks, .working on
22
the ;Rous sarcoma with chickens . Rous sarcoma is a
23
virus-caused tumor .
24
0
Was
there
a
25,1, period, was there a generally scientifically
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 567
1
accepted method of doing this testing, skin
2
guessing?
4
A :-, No . If you were
there was a pretty well-set protocol . If you were
doing subcutaneous injection, there was a
defined -- fairly well defined protocol . And that
wasiprobably due to when I was running through all
9
that stuff about-the`factors that influence
10
tumorigenesis . Between "31 and 1941 --- '31 was
11
when .i'-the first polycyclic hydrocarbon tumorigenic
12
for mouse skih`was found, and then '32 was the
13
benzpyrene in coal tar .
14
15
Between that time, people were
-synthesizing polycycliO hydrocarbons in all
16
directions, different structures, ones with methyl
17
groups dangling on them and two methyl groups,
18
three methyl groups .' And they were painting them
19
on mice, and making all sorts of wild claims . And
20
a man who was a very noted cancer .research
21
specialist in polycyclic hydrocarbons and other
22
tumorigens, Dr . . Murray .Shear -- I don't know if he
23
worked for the National Cancer Institute or the
24
predecessor of the National -- but he was asked to
25
write an article to put all this mees in
WAaA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g
568
And he
Shear and Leiterr are-the authors, in which he went
through-'and described,all the intricacies of
tumorigenesis atudies, : ;`whatl it : all meant, and so
on .and eo forth .'
7
work he had done'came the procedure, for example,
in ekin painting, that=you had various groups of
mice . `One you''called .the cage control, and all
10
you did was put them in a cage, 100 mice or 50,
11
whatever number you wanted to use, put them in six
12
to a-cage or something, and you fed them and gave
13
them water and'cleaned their cage up every day .
14
And,then you had what'was called the
15
solvent control ; you had a group of mice that
16
you -- on the shaved surface of their.a:.back, you
17
painted them with the solvent . Th,en ;you had a
18
positive control,
19
that you_wanted to<use, maybe one of the four that
20
I talked about,
21
pai.nt'ed the back with
benzpyrene,or whatever,
Ln
22
Then whatever your test, material was,
:I-
N
23
was~'the subsequent ;groupst
24
different materials,you were'testin_g
251 ten groups painted the`same way as you did with
WAGA' &,. SPINEL .L,I
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 569
1
the benzpyrene positive control .
So it was all fairly well set out that
3
way . And of course, one of the interesting things
4
is that when you all -- everybody talks about
carcinogenicity and tumorigenicity . If you look
in"`the government documents that cataloged the
7
compounds that were tested for tumorigenicity,
8
that book was first published in 1947 and the
second edition in '51, and then .another one in
10
'57, and it keeps on going . It's now -- if you
11
had them'all-together_here, they'd be as wide as
12
this-table, all stacked side-by-side . But in the
13
first 25 years,`one of the'compounds that was used
14
as the solvent was benzine .
And in the solvent controls, the -- I
15
16
didn't look at all the books some time ago, when
there was a big fuss=about benzine . But as far as
I know, there are only three-tumors that ever
appeared in something like 11,000 animals painted
with benzine . Now is that tumorigenic or not
21
tumorigenic?
22
Q . Which three tumors?
23
Pardon?
24
Q
~
~
J
~
m
~
w
Which three tumors?
OD
~
251 A . Well they were all the same type, as I
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 570
1
recall . I've forgotten what they called -- it had
a weird name .
3
Q
You mean three tumors, or three types
f'tumors, or three :gpecific tumors?
A ..
No, three animals had tumors, and I don't
know what the tumor type- ;was, out of thousands of
animals tested that way .
8
9
0
A .
What `a-tudy are you referring to?
10
11
Ve11, I say, in many studies benzine was used
12
as .the solvent . And the solvent control, if
13
benzine had been ag tumorigenic as some people
14
claim, you,certainly :would have found more than
15
three in 20 years out of the thousands and
16
thousands of animals treated .
17
Q
Is therea'a :specific paper that I could
18
.identify or go'to that would summarize the
19
majority of the work you did from '47 to '53?
20
A . (Witnese shakes head .) No .
21
Q.
Are :there .specific titles of those
22
papers you recall, as you sit here today, that I
23
could look up?
24
00
N
Well, as I-- ohe of them, I think -- the one
251 that' .s in the Journal gf American Chemical Society
WAGA & SPINELLI-
Ln
r
_J
N
~
~
w
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 571
is a compound :I prepared with -- linking thyroxine
to .dibenzanthracene .
Thyroxin, of course, is the active
amino .acid that's .in`your thyroid . But I think
someplace you' mua`t have -- in all this stuff I've
given you, you must .have a copy of all my
publications .
Even prior~ .to Reynolds?
You have everything I've ever written that
10
has been,published .
11
Which I'gather you :mustn't have looked at .
12
Or presented at meetings .
Q . And, again, up until '53, none of your
13
specific research focused on tobacco or tobacco
14
smoke?
15
None of my`work at the Banting Institute
16
nor :`my work in the chemical department nor my
17
master's or my Ph .D . or -- my bachelor's degree
18
might -- you .might say : Well
19
. . .
As it turned out years later, might
20
have had .-- been connected or had an indirect
21
connection .
22
But when I told you I was involved in' ;
23
an honors chemistry course in the University of
24
Toronto, the University of Toronto is different
251 Ontario universita.es are different from those in
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 572
1
the rest of Canada and in the United States, that,
2
when you take what's called an honors course,
particularly in science, the first three years you
take nearly all the-courses that you have to take
to graduate . Your fourth year you may have one or
two courses . And the rest of the time in your
fourth year you were assigned a research project ;
8
9
10
11
it's .sort of a mini master's .
And they believe, at the University of
Toronto, . that you should not graduate from an
.honors chemistry course or honors physics without
12
knowing how to do research . And my project for my
13
bachelor's degree was to develop a procedure to
14
prepare unsymmetrical hydrazines . The Canadian
15
government was interested in unsymmetrical
16
hydrazines because they were very fine -- thought
17
they :would be a very fine rocket fuel .
18
We1l, to get unsymmetrical hydrazines,
19
what you needed to ;do was to make -- first get a
20
nitrosamine, and then reduce it to the hydrazine .
21
So I prepared, the Canadian
22
government, and it_became part of my bachelor's
23
thesis, if you will, pounds of dimethyl
24
nitrosamine, half of'which I converted to dimethyl
25
hydrazine . And of course, at the time I did this
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 573
1
work, 1948/49, dimethyl nitrosamine was not known
2
to be tumorigenic . : It was only discovered in 1956
3
that it was-tumorigenic . But I guess I was lucky,
because I probably made 25 pounds of dimethyl
5
nitrosamine . .> I .'.m still here .
Q
6
7
And how is that arguably related to
tohacco or tobacco smoke?
10
. In 1963/64 two guys in -- two gentlemen in
11
South Africa said dimethyl nitrosamine was in
12
cigarette smoke .
Q
13
14
Who were those two?
. Serfontein, S-E-R-F-O-N-T-E-I-N, and Hurter,
15
H-U-R-T-E-R .
16
Q.
The work you were doing when you got
17
your bachelor's degree, at that point in time you
18
didn"t-know it would .have some bearing upon your
19
future work?
20
A.
21
had suggested in -'you've probably seen it -
22
something I wrote in the_late '60s -- late
23
'S0a/early '60s that the conditions in a burning
24
cigarette were such that things like dimethyl
25
nitrosamine could possibly be formed . And then
No . In fact, nobody knew until 19 -- well, I
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 574
1
two ;men in Germany, Druckrey, D-R-U-C --
2
D-R-U-C-K-R-E-Y, and Schmahl, S-C-H-M-A-H-L,
proposed the same thing, I think, in 1961 or '62 .
4
And ; subsequently, they were found .
Q . What is a nitrosamine?
5
6
A . It's an amine with a nitrosa group hanging on
it .
Q
9
Is there some alleged health problem
with nitrosamines?
10
A .~ Well, in 1956, Magee and Barnes, in England,
11
found that they were tumorigenic .
12
Q . Hae,there been any work published
13 .
since 1956_that would suggest that -- was it
14
Magee?
15
.Magee, M-A --
16
Q
17
No .
18 .
Q
19 .
20
21
22,
23
And .Barnes were wrong?
Have you ever disputed Magee and
Barnes' work?
.
Vve never done the kind .of work they did .
Q
When -- did you ever accept
that
nitrosamines were .tumorigenic?
Were tumorigenic in animals .
G,
24
0
When did you first believe that
25+ nitrosamines were tumorigenic in animals?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 575
Well, when you start reading the literature
1
after,1956 -- I forget the exact number, but
probably 350 nitrogamines have been synthesized,
used for one thing or another, and I think all but
about ten of them have shown some activity in
animals in some way or another . Mostly on
feeding .
8
Q . Mostly on what?
9
On feeding .
Of couree, .some of them are -- some of
10
11
them .are in cigarette smoke . Some of them are in
12
your ;bacon . Some of them are in your cooked
13
bacon .
Have there been similar studies, like
14
15
the polycyclic hydrocarbons, where you"need a
16
minimum level of'nitrosamines to become .
17
.tumorigenic?
18
A .
I'm sure there'have been, but I can't think
mean
19
Q
20
Nobody did like Wydner (sic) did,
21
where they kept-reducing the amount in half, until
22
they got to a
level that -Ln
23
A .
Q . Wydner .
24
25
You mean Wynder W-Y-N-D-E-R .
A.
Wynder .
W-Y-N-D-E-R .
WAaA & SPINELLI
N
~
~
m
~
w
Co
-j
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 576
1
Q .
2
N-D-E-R .
Q .
W-Y?
D-E-R .,
Nobody did any studies like Wydner,
5
that A.
7
Wynder .
Q
Wynder . Nobody did any studies -
A . The'man's`been'in the business for 47 years,
and you don't know his name?
10
Q .
He was the`first published --
11
12
0
15
16
1950 .
0
If you criticize my age, I want you to
get it'right .
Nobody"did any studies similar to him?
17
18
I thought you said me . I'm sorry .
Wynder published his first article in
13
14
41 .
A . I don't know, sir .
19
Q . You didn't do any .
20
No .
21
Q . And,, I'm sorry, what year did you say?
22
It was, '50 -- '63/'64, to be determined to be in
23
tobacco smoke?
24
25
Yeah . I think it was "63/'64 .
Then there was a big controversy of
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 577
whether it was formed actually there or formed
2
arti•factually du.ring the collection of the smoke .
it seenmed,-every time something came
4
up, .:there was a-c-ontroversy . And eventually
5
procedures were worked out .that it could not be
artifactual . It had .to be -- whatever you found
was the true`bill of .goods .
Q . Have you been deposed before today?
9
10
Yes .
Q . How many_times?
11
A . ` Well, three weeks ago, was it? Would be
12
Minnesota, in the beginning of the Arch
13
deposition . That's the only time I've been
14
deposed for smoking and health-related .
15
Q . What other types of depositions have
16
you given?
17
A . There was a deposition on a procedure that
18
Reynolds .had developed on how to expand tobacco .
19
And'in some of our .work we -- in examining
20
competitive products, we-became very suspicious
21
that :American'was using our process . And there
22
was a case invOlving-that, and I was deposed
23
during .,'-that .
24
Q
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 578
Q . Did that actually go to trial?
No . American paid up .
3
Q.
A.
5
It
was :a patent infringement case?
Yes .
Q . What process?
Expansion off tobacco .
Q . Does that have .a number on it or a
letter, G1'3?
G13 .
101
Q
How long were you deposed?
think it was two days . Day and
11
12
a half, something like that .
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
court action?
20
I have no idea .
21
Q . Other than,that deposition, have you
Ln
22
~-A
-4
ever given`any other depositions?
23
A . - There 'was a c`ase of -- about the -- about the
24
tobacco expansion business, with Philip Morris .
25
And",that was probably 15 years ago I've
(201) 992-4111
N
m
4%
Vol . 4, Pg . 579
1
forgotten the date . It was done over in
Charlotte .
Q . How long were you deposed in that
4
case7 ~ ~ ~
guess .
was
10
N
11
Q . Have you<given any
12
related to,the research you've done at Reynolds?
13
A.
14
I don't understand'"sworn etatement ."
Q . . Have you ever signed any documents
15
where somebody aeked, you to swear under oath the
16
truth .of what was'in the document, affidavit or
17
otherwise, notarized?
MR . BLANCATOs There is an affidavit
18
19
dealing with some'doCuments, privileged documents,
20
that has been provided in one of these smoking
21
health cases .
22
MS . KNISELY : Was that in Minnesota?
23
MR . MCDERMOTT
24
25
I believe that's
correct .
BY MR .' MAISTROS :
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 580
Q . We'll get into your employment history
at Reynolds, but when was your last year of
full-time employment at Reynolds?
A . Well, in 1987 -- it's a little difficult to
explain . 1987, ,Reynolds offered an incentive
retirement plan . And since -- under the
conditions of the incentive retirement, it took me
past .65 . I accepted it .
So .my last day of work was August the
10
31st, 1987 . But my .fu]1-time employment or pay
11
continued through`March<the lst, 1989 . Because
12
I-- because of my tenure at Reynolds and the
13
conditions of the' :incentive plan, I had 18 months
`14
15
continued pay, I guess_they called it . So I don't
know how you want to fit that i
MR . BLANCATO : Are we at a good point
16
17
or about to take .' a break?
18
MR . MAISTROS : Sure . Any time .
19
MR . BLANCATO : Let's take a break .
20
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
Ln
~
J
21
record at 10 :44 a .m .
m
(Recess taken from 10 :44 a .m . to 11 :00
22
~
w
~
N
23
a .m .)
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going back on the
24
25
record at 11 :00 a .m .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 581
MR . MAISTROS : The affidavit you
provided, that's in'the'Minneeota litigation, is
that a stipulation? Is`that a -- are we -MR . BLANCATO : I think -MR . MAISTROS : I don't want to stop
now, but if~we can,
.at the break, just check and
a
.7
or -- I'd just like to see it .
9
MR . BLANCATOs- Sure .
10 BY-MR: MAISTROS
Doctor,"have you given any -- whether
11
12
they were sworn or unsworn statements, any
13
statements to third parties, related to the
14
research you've done -- or you did at RJR, to
15
somebody other than your counsel? Has anyone ever
16
come up to you and eaid, "I'd like to ask you some
17
questions about what .you_did at RJR," just in an
18
informal setting?
19
Yes . I'm trying to think of his name .
20
reporter'in Greensboro, Catanosa, phoned me
21
some four or five years :back, and I refused to
22
talk to him .
23
4.
24
Well, he did a whole bunch of articles on
25
Did he do an article-eventually or
some things other people had told him .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 582
Q . Was there a particular subject or
theme that he ;was writing about?
It was"about an .incident that happened in
4
1970 .
. :
Q . And 'this was,what newspaper?
6
A . The Greensboro some ;thing or other . I don't
know the name of it .
Q
Did anyone at Reynolds tal,k to him in
series, in that'article?
I don't know if'they were -- whether they
10
11
were .at Reynolds at the`time . Some ex-employees
12
talked with him .
Q . Was the subject of that article about
13
14
the animal testing?
15
A . I guess you'd aay that .
16
0
The closing of the mice or the rat
Q
Was :it .mice or rats?
17
18
19
20
A .
Mostly mice . Did have some cats .
21
Q . Have you ever given any media or
22
newbpaper interviews'about your work at Reynolds?
23
24
25
No . Iive given presentations at scientific
meetings .
Q . Has anyone from the Justice Department
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~
_J
Vol . 4, Pg . 583
attempted to interview you?
2
was trying to think .
That would include the FBI, the U .S .
4
`Attorney .'s .Office .
About my work?
Q .
6
A.
8
Yes .
No . I had an FBI guy come and talk to me one
time ., many`years agoi because a young lady that
was working for me had applied to go in the Peace
10
Corps, and they wanted some background on her .
Q . That's the only time :you've ever
11
12
been -I think the -- to my recollection .
13
14
you know of any'current or former
15
employees at Reynolds that have been interviewed
Justice Department, including the FBI?
16
No, I don't . I don't know anybody .
17
Have you'been interviewed by anyone
18
19
from the FDA?
20
A.
21
22
No .
Q
Have you ever appeared before any
panels of the FDA to give testimony?
23
24
Have you,ever appeared before Congress
25) to}give testimony?
WAdA &-SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 584
A .
No .
R•
Have you ever appeared before any
legislative ;body to'give testimony?
5
0
Did .you ever prepare any papers that
were presented before any legislative body with
respect to the work you did at Reynolds?
A .
No .
Q . Did you ever review any papers that
10
were provided'to any legislative body with respect
11
to research that was :being done at Reynolds?
12
Can we back up a second?
13
Q .
14
15
Sure .
A . What do you call .legislative body?
Q
Like before a House of Representatives
16
or a Senate panel or congressman or -
17
.(Witness shakes head .) No . No .
18
Q
19
20
Did you prepare any papers that were
presented to any sort of governmental entity?
.' Back in the mid '60s I .prepared some stuff
21
for management that was-- much of which was
22
turned over to the FTC, :when they were getting
23
ready to implement .their procedure .-- develop and -j
~
24
implement their,procedure on the FTC tar and
' m
251 nicotine .
WAGA & SPINELLI
~
w
~
m
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 585
Is that the kind of thing you're -Q.
Yes ., something along those lines .
You prepared -- but those were papers
you did for Reynolds't hat, at the time .you
prepared them, you didn't know they were going to
be turned over to the government? Or did you?
No, I ;didn't -- I prepared them for the folks
that asked for them .
Q . And theee papers related to measuring
10
the tar and nicotine'in cigarettes, or the
1.1
labeling?
12
That, plus some of the problems that exist -
13
coexist with that procedure, many of which have
14
resurfaced again now,
15
16
Q . You mean the procedure for determining
levels?
17
Yeah . And what it``meant and so on .
18
Q.
Did
you .ever review the work of anyone
19
else at Reynolds-that was eubmitting paper or
20
statemente'or li'terature to the government with
21
respect to any iseue ;related .to smoking?
22
A . We -- back in -- around 1980, Reynolds was
23
involved in a-- a problem with one of our
24
competitor's cigarettee ; we did a large amount of
25
work on that . The,.Barclay ; I'm sure you're aware
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 586
r
of the 'Barclay incident .
And we turned over a lot
information that we had generated on the
Barclay -- Barclay being measured on the FTC
proCedure, and the Barclay as it was'being smoked
by people . We-turned all that over to the FTC .
What was'°-your role in that process?
.Q
Well, I was :director
And the people-that weree doing the work, worked
Dr . Jokin Reynolde,
for .~m
10
11
David c3ilbert ; >so on . .
Q
12
13
Q
14
Pritchard?'
15
16
Have, you ever
. . : a . ... .
Any other circumstances-you can recall
17
where you were-invo] .ved in either preparation or
18
review of documents that were submitted to
19
governmental agencies?
20
Well, I'm sure you were aware'of the National
21
Cancer .Institute study on less hazardous
22
cigarettes ; I wae-invo1ved in that . I don't know
23
whether this is pertinent or not . I audited many
. 24
of thoee meetings :and was the representative
at
25
WAGF# ~ & SPINELLI`
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 587
were -- drafts of-the reports were put together, I
2
did`a lot of proofreading and correcting, and so
onand so forth, for the 'reports, which'was `sent'back to the NCI . I don't
5
know whether, tthey r- they included some of the
changes Irecommended,' and some they didn't .
7
Is that the kind of thing-you're
looking for?
Q . Indirectly, ]
10
governmental-related, but
The ``FDA, ii
12
testimony you've never presented any papers or
13
testimony to that'agency?
14
you -= well that was FTC . So, FDA,' .you've never
15
presented any papers or teptimony?
Other than the one
16
Have you ;prepared anybody that
17
18
appeared'before any .governmental agency, such as
19
the FDA or the FTC? .
20
No . Not that I
21
Q .< In Ap .ri1. o ;f
of Reynolds
22
and some other C :O .'s, testified before Congress .
23
Did you play any role in the preparation of that
24
testimony?
25
(201) 992-4111
Ln
Vol .
Pg . 588
wasn't an employee, t)ien .
Q . Were you receiving any`money from
Reynolds in 1994?
A . I had two contracted -- consulting things
'One was to write the book on
nitrosamines, and the other was to take part in a
planning s'ession, but I-think both -- both of
those were prior to 1994 .
MR . MCDERMOTT : This was reviewed in
10
11
the~past deposition that you all participated in .
MR . :MAIS.TROS : I'm not ;getting into
12
13
that . Ijust wanted to make certain that none of
14
youx` work involved any preparation for testimony
15
that was-provided to .Congress in April of '94?
16
17
THE WITNESS : No . No, sir .
BY MR . MAISTROS
Have you assisted in the preparation
18
19
20
any witnesses thathave been deposed in any of
the`:tobacco litigation?
21
Just myself .
22
Q.
23
I needed all the help°I could get .
And':how' many times -m
24
many' times
251 Counsel to; prepare",for your deposition?
WAGA & ;SPINELLI
'
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 589
1
'©
.
: . Let's
l.t' a
we'last met, about three weeks ago . I guess I
5
probably met with them .Iour or five times, maybe
six . I don't
And i f :: you
Q
8
time you spent with your counsel preparing for the
deposition, what would .the number of'hours .be?
10
Well, a lot of -it involved those boxes .
The documents?
11
12
Yes . Carrying them back and forth from my
13
house to Mr . Blancatols office,- and back to my
14
home, and here to get'them copied, and so on and
15
so forth .
Were you paid by anyone to do that?
16
.17
supposedly was paid,by the Arch people .
if you iaant to know
18
19
20
21
0
Were you paid by Reynolds or anyone
affiliated by Reynolde"to prepare for your
N
22
depo,sition
today?
~
,m
23
24
25
Other,-than actually -physically
carrying the documenta ; how much time was spent
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 590
preparing for the depos.ition today?
A . Oh, I don't know . Maybe a dozen hours .
Q . Was there anyone other than
Mr . Brancato`,MR . MAIS TitOS
MR .
7
BY MR .`MAISTROS :
Q . -- Blancato present`at those meetings?
Sometimes Mr . McDermott, sometimes
10
Counsel :for RJR attended the meetings
11
12
with your counsel?
mean, just these two : Jones Day and
13
14
15
16
Womble Carlyle .
They're .not your attorneys, though,
4
are they?
17
18
Q, What did you discuss in those
19
20
MR . MCDERMbTT : Object . Privileged .
21
MR . .-,ShANCATO : Objection .
22
MR . MAISTROS : How is it' privileged?
23
MR . MCDERMOTT :_ He's a former
24
employee . We
re t'alking about matters that relate
251 to the defense of the caee ; we're entitled to talk
WAGA
&'SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 591
to .him on a privileged basis .
2
BY MR. . MAISTROS :
Q
Do you have
do you have a written document with Reynolds that
pertains to'the .teetimony that you've given in
Have you entered into any agreements
with Reynolds to not disclose information without
1. 0
advising Reynolds .or their counsel first?
11
No .
12
Q . And the only counsel you've retained
13
in this matter is your own personal counsel?
14
Yes .
15
Q . Reynolds' :'counsel is not your counsel?
16
As far as I kndw, they're not .
17
Q . Who is paying your counsel?
-Reynolds .
18
19
Q . Who selected your counsel?
20
I guess, - i'ndirectly, I, did .
21
Q . How, indirectly?
22
.
Well, I needed a .lawyer, and the first one
23
that came to mind was tny. `son . But he works
24
200 -miles away -and' .w.as alreadyd tied up,' and so on
251 and so forth .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 592
r
Q.
1
And :how .did you get to your current
counsel?
3
A . . Well, I guess Mr . Holton .said : There's a
young man that w .ould ;do a'good job for you .
does
work for Womble Carlyle, and so on .
Q
Holton, Reynolds' counsel?
M
Yeah .'
10
preparation for .your,deposition?
11
Well, for the Minnesota case,' they provided
12
us :with a stack of documents, a foot and a half
13
high . .
14
we ;met, what, two or three weeks ago, three weeks
15
ago . But I reaily didn't -- since you folks
16
didn't provide me with :,any, .documents, I didn't go
17
through that many .
went through those prior to the last time
18
n the ' preparation for the Minnesota
19
deposition or the Minnesota case deposition, you
20
reviewed°only documents that were,provided .by the
21
person who was questioning you?
22
A~ . I don_'t .know who provided them . They showed
23
up one day here . .
Ln
~
~
6
24
Q,
4%
Did ;you review any documents
that were
251 provided by your own counsel?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
6
~
Vol . 4, Pg . 593
An affidavit, I`reviewed, before I signed it .
Did you review any documents that were
2
provided by Reynolds' counsel?
You mean these two gentlemen?
4
©'
The reason .`I'm ;heaitating, I've been involved
in this businees" so long and I've reviewed so
can't put it in perspective of when I did
much,
what .
I guess I did,'but I couldn't tell you
10
There weren't .very many .
11
12
Did you review'any of the previous
13
that were taken in any -- any tobacco
14
15
Which'onee?
16
17
18
19
Q.
Was :that-a`'deposition or was that
court .test-imony?
20
21
22
And why did you review that?
23
Q .
24
Well,'I had hired David Townsend in 1977/78,
25' and I just wanted to see how he handled it . I had
WAGA'& SPINELLI
(201)' 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 594
seen him, a little bit on television, and I wanted
How"did'you obtain-the transcript?
I
got a copy, of it f rom Mr .
Q .' Did you ask M
the'transcript?
Yes .
I :.asked for it .
10
11
Q
Other than Dr . Townsend's court
testimony, did you`review any other testimony?
12
'For this case?
13
Q
14
did .
15
16
17
Who else?
I looked at the depo,sition of -- or the trial
18
19
20
21
1961 . .
Who i
Ochsner?
Dr .-Ochsner is one of the first two men to
22
remove lungs, either i
23
lung,,back in'the early days . Dr . Evarts Graham
24
25
- whole lung or part of a
.And Dr .
Ochsner :had a clinic
New-Orleans . Very famous man .
WAaA~& ;SPINELLI`
(201) 992-4111
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 595
r
Q
2
What prompted you to review his
testimony?
>
Well, he was a :great proponent of the fact
3
that cigarette smoking,wae the cause of lung
-canc-er . And some of the testimony in that case
6
showed that there was a fluctuation between his
7
opinion on that and the'data he presented over six
8
°or eight years,-"in half a dozen publications, of
9
his clinical findings . But he kept saying he
10
would write an article at one point, in time,
11
saying : My opinion ia, This is the cause . And
12
his clinical data said ; We can't find any
13
correlation between place of residence, and
14
occupation ; and smoking or diet . And this went
15
So he was .ul
16
And
17
course he is quoted in the '64,
18
the '79, the ".82 Surgeon General's report, and the
19
only one they .-- paper they quote is the first
20
time he ever said it in 1939, that cigarette
21
.smoking was probably the cause of lung cancer .
22
A11 the caaes-where<his clinical data didn't prove
23
that, they left out .
24
25
A .
They left it out .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 59 6
1
Q
What prompted .you, though, to read hi s
testimony before your deposition today ?
happened to be looking at something and saw the
I had a copy of his testimonyand I remembere d
What :were`yo u
8
What wae,I looking at
Q . That you saw a
10
11
hooking at som e
some diaries that you folks copied .
Is Ochsner strial testimony among th e
12
13
documents you provided to us ?
14
15
16
17
Nobody .
18
Where is . it now ?
19
20
It's at home .
21
Ln
22
documents at home to :produce, I assume somebody
i 6
23
24
asked you to look and see what you had at home ?
Yeah .
25
(201) 992-411 1
Vol . 4, Pg . 597
1
1
home?
They're here .
Q . So Ochsner
theee boxes?
No, it isn't . No .
5
Q .' Why did you
I didn't .
MR . BLANCATOs-
-tYiat were responsive` to the : subpoena .
10
BY`'MR : MAISTROS3
A11'the .~documerits at your home, were
11
12
they provided to an attorney who went-through them
13
and decided what would be produced .to us?
14
Including the Ochsner testimony?
15
o, I didn't .
16
1?
18
What, ot:her-than the Ochsner
testimony, did you not give'`to'Mr . Blancato?
got -
19
20
on
for example, I've got files
and I think we' ;ve been through' this .
I have
21
22
23
24
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 598
Q . You didn't .pro.duce your index card in
there?
offered to, and'said they didn't want it .
THE WITNESS- ; Right?
MR . MAISTROS : I'll take it . You
still have it?
MR .'BLANCATO : No, no, no, no .
F
MR . MAISTROS : We'll discuss it at a
10
BY MR .•`MAISTROS
Q . You have-an index file of what?
11
12
What's on the indexes?
Well, there's more work -- references
13
14
perti-nent to the work I did, from 1947 probably up
15
to 1970-something,
:'75, maybe 1980 .
MS . RNISELY : If I could clarify the
16
17
record for just a .second : I believe,
18
Mr . Blancato, we,made t'he agreement and
19
-underetanding, w3,th r{egard :to the index, we would
20
not, at the present time, require Dr . Rodgman to
21
produce that .'
22
depending on'the deposition testimony with regard
23
24
We wouZd, however, reserve
o :the index, reserve the right to request the
production thereof . .
251
WAGA
MR . BLANCATOr And my position would
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4,
1
g
599
be!that we objected to : :production of that on the
grounds set forth .in the written objection . I
provided Me .-Knisely>with an example of one or two
or three of these cards,'if you still have a copy
of t.hem .
6
MS . KNISBLYs Right . And we decided
7
to disagree until ---,until Arch made a
determination, after the deposition, whether they
10
would -- or as the deposition progressed, whether
11
they would require the production of that or not .
12
And4I believe that wae the same with his
13
bibliography .
14
MR . BLANCATO : Correct .
15
MS . :KNISELY : I'm sorry .
16
BY MR .-MAISTROSs
17
4
18
19
20
21
What else did you not produce to
counsel?
That's it, as far as I know, sir . I mean, I
.didn't give you'copies-,of every issue of Tobacco
Science or every=issue of Beitragezur
22
23
T-A'-B-A-K= .S .-F-O,-R-S -C=H-S-U-N- ;G
24
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 600
I don't know about the public library, but
any good science library will have them .
Q . I tried to get in Bowman .aray ; they
wouldn't let .me in . You mean the public library
or Bowman Gray?
know,- ; x .+.ve got
figured you didn't want those .
. Books that I refer
t
MR . BLANCATO : For the record, those
10
11
books are in public domain,
12
13
THE ;WYTN$SS : Yeah . Oh, yeah .
BY MR . MAISTROS s
Q . Did_`you have any documents, other than
14
15
those that were at your home, that related to the
16
work you did while at; Reynolde?
17
A . Would'you say that again, sir . .
Q . Other than the documents you had at
18
19
your home, is there any other location where you
20
had documents related to the work you did at
21
22
A.
No . I mean, Reynolds has copies o
23
everything I ever wrote,' think .
N
i 0
~
24
Q
r
N
Between '54 and '87 or '89, did you
25 keep documents on computers?
WAaA' & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
1
N
2
Q .
3
era?
g . 601
You didn't keep any
or~
There waa'computer .otuff at -- computer
5
6
system at work,,but I didn't -things on the computer . I`don',t :know where that
stuff is now .
Q . You didn't take any computer discs or
101
keep any computer diece ;after your employment at
11
12
Did you "review any of the" documents
13
14
that you gathered .from your home specifically for
15
preparation of this deposition today?
16
Q
17
Did you re
other than the
18
Och`ener testimony and Townsand ;testimony, any
19
other testimony?
20
A.
21
No .
Q
Did`you talk to anyone'that had been
Ln
22
deposed in any of the .' .-- what I'll call "current ~
23 .
tobacco litigati, .on, ." to see what was said in their
24
depo.sitions?
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
~
w
Vol . 4, Pg . 602
Q
Dc
you know anyone, other than
yourself, who's been deposed from Reynolds?
. .Murx'ay Senkus, John Reynolds .
know several people that are going to be deposed :
Charles Green, Michael Ogden . I think
6
Dr .'DeBeth .izy has been, but I-- I haven't talked
to him about it .
Q.
8
You just-know they were deposed? You
didn't discuss any questions they were asked?
10
No .
11
Q . They didn't tell you what they were
12
asked or how fun it'was or how miserable it was?
13
A.
No .
Q.
14
15
Wallace Hayes?
haven't`seen Wallace Hayes since
16
17
18
19
How about Dr . Hayes? Do you know
1987 .
Q
Did you .`do any-thing else specif ically
in preparation-for your deposition today?
20
21
Q .' Did you meet with any attorneys, other ;
Ln
22
than your personal counsel and Reynolds attorneys? ~
23
No .
24
Q . Have you provided any sort of outlines
25
or papers to assist your attorneys in this
(201) 992-4111
I
~
m
~
~
&
Vol . 4, Pg . 603
2
Q
Are,`you being paid'in any fashion to
assist Reynolds i
this specific litigation?
I'm not being paid for anything to do with
6
this deposition .`'
0
How about in --~are you being paid in
any,fashion for tobacco litigation?
. I have been, in the past, but not for this
10
11
12
any compensation from Reynolds?
most of my
13
14
15
mentioned of specific contracts, which Reynolds
16
17
18
19
20 .
21
specifics that were .previously :,gotten into at the
22
other deposition the~ ;~other day, but I'm just
23
looking'gene'rally for time framea .
24
'89 to the present, ;have you, on and off, been a
25
paid consultant to Reynolds?
WAaA & SPINELLI
From '87
or
201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 604
1
Twice .
2
of the incentive'retixement was that -- one of the
5
conditions was that you could`not serve as a
consultant for Rey)iold,s through five"yeare after
.-' after the en'd,of ;your ; employment .
0
9
10
11
12-
Okay .
-you-are a
Womble'Carlyle,'t .hough? .
. Right .
And`'d
for•any tobacco companies, other than Reynolds?
13
14
15
confuse these two projects . You're .;not suggesting
16
that the only consulting you've done since '89 for
17
Reynolds is on those two projects . .`When .I say
18
°coneulting for Reynol :de," .`I don't care who pays
19
you . If the end benefit is going to be to
20
Reynolds, I just want to know if you're
21
still --
I!ve`done things for Womble Carlyle that I
22
presume that t he money comes through Reynolds, to
23
Womble Carlyle, to me . But those were the two
24
specific things where -- in which I had a contract
251 with R .J . Reynolds, which was -- been spelled out
WAGA .& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 605
1
before .
The work that you do for Womble
Q
Carlyle is 100 percent Reynolds?
Yes . Yes .
4
And have ; you provided documents to
5
6
7
A .
©'
those documents?"
10
11
Q
12
you're going to be an expert or fact witness in
13
the .Arch litigation?
was told I would be a fact witness .
14
Have you .been told you're going to be
15
16
an .expert or fact witness :in any other litigation?
understand I'may ..be -- supposed to be an
17
18
expert witness with Texas .
o you know what areas of expertise
19
20
you're going to .testify .on?
21
A .
22
23
24
25
Tobacco smoke composition and control .
0
Would that include the concept of
addiction or habituation?
We11, I didn't do much
anything on those
areas, sir .
WAGA & SPINELLI•
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 606
r
What's the time period
0
- I'm looking
generally for .inonths, if :you can give me months ;
have you been a
conau.1:tant to ;Womble :Carlyle?
Are we talking about .specifiC ;cases or total?
Q.
No .
That would go •back to 1984 .
Okay . So you were a
Wombl,e Carlyle while you were still a full-time
10
11
12
projects at that time .
Were you also paid by Womble Carlyle
13
14
from 184
to
87 or '89?
No . . Up till
15
16
after ; that .
17
.Q .
18
was helping them with'a couple of
Yeah .
9
you were still-on .;the payroll at Reynolds --
19
20
21
Q
You were also receiving compensation
cn
22
fro.m .Womble
Carlyle?'
~
;
and March the ~ ~
1-4
23
A .` Setween September-the lst,
24
1et,, . .,' 89, yes .
25
~
~
~
Could you ;tell` me how much you were
(201) 992-4111
Vol .
, Pg . 607
be,ing paid by Womble Carlyle .
$12 0 an hour .
2
Q
Yes .
,$140 an hour .
4
8
8
9
The ;two incidents that I had two projects
10
11
through -- with>R .J`. Reynolds R& D .
Other than : :those two . is it all
12
13
Womble Carlyle .or Reynolds?
14
A .
15
Arch?
16
17
18
19
m
20
s Ochsner,still .alive?-
21
think so,
~
~
~
%D
What prompted .you'to,be at that trial,
22
in New Orleans?
24
25
Soon after i came to ReYnolds,> in 1954, I had
wri .t'ten a
--, a report, which really,wae an update,
WAaA & .SPINELLI
Vol . 4, Pg . 608
I
1
I guess .. I'm'sure you've seen it, a report
written by Dr . Claude E . Teague in February 1953 .
And : -
than mine .'
Because of the ;things that had happened
between February '53_and when I came in June,
and
work at the-Banting & Best
8
Department of -Medical-Research, they`asked me to
10
11
update Claude's'thing -- report .
And, 'o
12
there was still the ongoing controversy of, you
13
know, the polycyclic°'hydrocarbong in smoke and so
14
on, in some of the work that had been published .
15
And'then, of course, in'late '53, Dr . Wynder and
16
his ;colleagues published the-`ekin tnouse -- mouse
17
skin painting :study .
18
I updated it .- And somehow or other
19
it got .from the research department into -- it was
20
shown to' .management, including Mr . #ienry H . Ramm,
21
the head lawyer, vice president of legal counsel .
22
And he-asked if I would help do something for the
23
law department and outside counsel, to collect and
24
critique publications dealing with the smoking and
25
health situation .
WAGA'.' . & S P I NE L L I .'
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 609
2
make a- comment here . D
number of years ., a scientific assistant, a
paralegal, assisting :I.,awyers, both in-house and
outeide ; in preparing for and defending
6
litigation .
general-terms the nature of his activities, we
regard all of that as .privileged .and off limits .
10
And ;_other than giving,you a bit of background,
11
should you choose to make any sort of a challenge,
12
we're going to claim .privilege .
Rodgman, I would caution you
13
14
to be very general in your description of your
15
activities . And
16
17
18 .{
yeare for that?
MR . MCD$RMQTT
19
20
number of ;y:ears ."
21
MR . MCDBRMOTT .
22
approximately, to 1966''or
Ln
I-A
%4
23
inte'rmittent-dutiee`thereafter . But on a regular
24
basis, for approximately a 12-year period .
251BY MR . MAISTROS :
WAGA & SPINELi,I .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 610
1
Q .
Is .that_'correct,
2
.
Yes .
What :was ;the question about 1960?
5
;The original question was why you were
in New Orleans in`1960 with Dr . Ochener .
7
Well I had
161,' whenever that tri,al was, I had been
collecting the literature and had hard copies of
161
all the .pertinent pa,pers,-and so on and so forth .
11
And with,the trial in"New Orleans, the lawyer
12
said -- both in-houee`and external said : We want
13
al1 that stuff .in New Orleans . .- You .come with it,
14
and it we need something, you find'it for us .
15
16
So I was there for that purpose, sort
gopher, I guepe, with regard to scientific
course I
17
literature . And
18
the courtroom .and watched all the goings-on, and
19
20
21
I,d d run and get ; a.
VIDEOQRAPHER : :
M
22
23
24
25
WAaA & SPINELLT_
(201) 992-4111
A .
2
June the 23rd,
;1954 .
And when did you start providing sort
Q
f legal assistance to :Reynolds?
The end of october 1955 .
5
Who hired ;you? Who ;interviewed you?
Well,,the person I was .;in most contact with
7
was' Dr .
Murray Senltus, The interview involved
it-wag a very nice .'interview system : You met
every manager and,-of course, director, . .which was
10
Dr . Kenneth H .°Hoover . And you .met Dr . Colby in
11
the library ; Dr . Markunas, head of analytical
12
chemistry ; Mr . Sprinkle was agricultural research ;
13
and "so on and . eo forth .
>
14
15
16
17
18
19
title at'that point?
He was manager . .of'the chemical research
division .
Q
Did 'they, have a health or -- health
type~department at 'that point in time?
20
21
Smoking .,and health?
22
23
Are you aware of D
24
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 612
Yes . Dr . Simmons didn't come till 1965 or
2
I think it was .in there .
Q .` And his department was referred to as
3
what?
5
Smoking ;and health?
I think it ;was called biochemistry and
I've f orgotten the exact name of it .
biological
8
0
Okay .
MR . MAISTROS : Let's take a short
10
break while they'exchange the videotape, okay?
11
VIDEOaRAPHER : We're going off the
12
record at 11 :41 :a .m .
(Recess taken from 11 :41 a .m . to 11 :47
13
14
a .m .)
15
VIDEOGRAPHER : This is tape 2 of the
16
videotape deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
17
going back on the'recor .d at .11 :47 a .m .
18
BY MR . MAISTROS :
19
Q.
20
21
Doctor, how did you hear about the
opening at .Reynolds? :;
It was an advertisement in the -- one of the
22
issues -- it's a weekly publication of the
23
American Chemical .Society called Chemical and
24
,ar}g4ineerinq Newe . And they had an ad in there
25
looki.ng for chemists skilled in isolation work,
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 613
Q •;
Had you
companies?
4
advertised?
Research chemist .
0
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
Here .
April -t,
©'
When you say you met
every -- was it
manager in the company?
.
In the research department .
Q . Was that all on April the lst or --
A . April the lst and 2nd .
Q
What was the research department in
April,of 1990 -- 1954?
18
What do you mean, "What was it"?
19
Q . What did it :consist of?
20
Well, it was .in'a new'building that had been
believe the whole procedure of
211
opened in 1953 .
22
the-opening was on .national television with John , N
23
Cameron, Swayze . It had a chemical research
24
division under Dr . Se'nkus ; biochemical division
251 under M.r . Jerry Snyder ; the analytical research
WAGA" & SPINELLI .
(201) 992-4111
~
~
~
m
~
~
N
(J1
Vol . 4, Pg . 614
1
division under Peter Markunas ; the agriculture
.regearch under Dr . Charles Sprinkle ; the flavoring
3
and product department work under Dr . Samuel
Jones ; the .science information division was
managed by Dr . Frank'G .,eColby . I don't know
6
whether`there_was .anybody else I met .
Q.
8
And they did not have a specific
division devoted to health at t'hat point in time?
10
11
particular division?
Chemical research division .
12
13
14
Oh, three or four months ago, on the phone .
15
a -in New 'York .
16
17
How was hishealth? : Do you know?
18
s not well . Hi e wife died a .little while
well, he wasn't too well anyway, and
19
20
21
22
old
What 'did you
23
A . Periodically, he'll call and-aak how things
24
are going, and we-chat : We've known each other,
25
as I say, since 1954 .
WAGA &'SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 615
,
Q
you joined?
of ; ;years .
somewhere around there .
Do you know when he left?
was thinking'_-- probably -- someplace
situation-in New York City .
thingg
Who was he consulting to? Do you
10
know?
guess, the: tobacco industry .
11
12
131
Q
What did the science information
division do in 1954?
got
14
- kept tabs of all the
15
publications on to bacco`and smoke and smoke
16
components, and anything to_do with smoking and
17,
health and,so on, and .cataioged them and, in many
18
instances, had hard copies .. And of course they
19
subscribed to a great number of journals, and
20
those .were scanned for pertinent articles . And
21
there .was a pub -- not a publication, I guess, an
22
inter -
23
research employees :,that here's some articles that
24
have just come out,, whether they be biochemistry,
in-house document that signaled to the
N
J
25
or whatever chemistry, analytical chemistry . And
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 616
that was ci.r"culat,ed, I think, twice a month,
something like that .
And then, of course, periodically they
would take the journals :that came in, you know,
once a month or twice a month, get them bound .
And there they are,` they're all up in the library .
Q . How`many,;people were in the science
information division in ' 54?_'
Q . Did that-divieion continue to exist
10
11
12
It sti11 exists .
13
Q.
14
15
And
what :,would you describe as the
overall purpose of that .division?
.
It's to provide .the -- collect and-provide
16
the staff with information pertinent to the
17
research pro j ectss_' going on .
Outside of RJR? Or inside? Or both?
18
19
Everything : .
20
When you say "provide the staff,"
21
woul they provide research scientiets,
22
yourself,
23
o the r ?
and management, both,
or one
such as
~
~
~
m
~
~
or the
I
24
A . Well,
25
they'd probably provide-summaries or -- more
WAaA
&
I think, .in"the case of management, ~
SPINELLI
(201)
~
N
OD
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 617
1
.general articles rather than ., you know, detailed
analysis . You know, :the -- for example, Reynolds
3
people published articles on the composition of
smoke and .decide the isolation identification of
5
700'compounds, 400,of which`are new and have names
that inost people,cou .l_dn 't even read, let alone
pronounce . Well,,is .management interested in
8
that? So we sent them the abstract and said 700
compounds identified, 450 for the first time, or
10 .
11
12
13
14
whatever number it was,
Q . This newsiet,ter or`memo you referred
o that went out twice a month, . .was that a -- like
an internal newsletter? Did i,t'have a title?
Well, it .wae a document that -- probably half
15
an .inch thick, and it would have the't'itle,
16
jouxnal -- couple of .lines .about what .was in thee
17
article . You know, 4eolation of -so-and-so from
18
tobacco, or isolation of so-and-so,from tobacco
19
smoke, or new and analytical procedure for
20
whatever in smoker tobacco, things like that .
21
22
Q.
Would .it -- would it have listings of
publications on anything that had to do with
bad?
23
24
251
I used-to kid D.r .`' Colby about it, because, if
it had anything
WAGA & SPINELLI
do ;with tobacco, or cigarettes,
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 618
or cigars, or something, it was in there . And I
called him one day and'said : Frank, what are you
doing?
And they :had
5
zealous,
they had picked up_ an entry from a
journal~that said,`so=-and-so company -
.I forget
was now - has Pur,chased a new ;cigar shaped
for viewing-sports events, and that was
aoodyear .?
10
11
12
Frank,',that's stretching it, cigar-shaped balloon
13
4
14
The articles he would gather and
15
summarize or circulate t o the rest of the staff at'
16
Reynolds, it would be --'<there would be health
17
issues involved, as well?
Oh, yeah .
18
19
20
differentiate,between favorable and,unfavorable
21
articles to tobacco?
All you would have .to do, sir',
22
23
24
25
D
Q
That's what' I'm asking . If the
articles is good, bad, or indifferent,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 619
whatever is there, they're in this publication?
They're in this publication .
So if there was a tobacco-related
articl$ that appeared in any journal between 1954
and .the present ;' there's a 99 to 100 percent
chance it appeared 4n a circular that was
d3stributed to the RJR staff?
Yeah, I would say so .
8
When you`eaid management -- I used
9
I don't -khow what I meant by it . What
10
thatword .
11
did .:you mean by it? .-Who's management?
12
A . - Well, I'm talking about people out
13
.know, the business manager,
- - you
outside the R & D
14
management . Every department has a management
15
I guess, has a management situation .
4
16
17
Were th,e business managers copied on
thie circular that updated the periodicals?
18
No . I , don
Colby 'was
19
20
Ln
21
22
manager, as opposed
23
A . He had, a Ph .D . in :organic chemistry from
24
Univereity in Switzerland .
251
Q . When you were hired in June of --
WAaA :& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 620
©'
chemical research department, approximately?
A .
5
20 .
7
departments, biochemical? Did it vary or
.
Yeah . For example,, the agriculture research
division,
I think, ended up with six people . They
10
didn't do any extra agriculture research, but what
11
they did was, . to attend to the funding of
12
agriculture research projects by various -- North
13
Carolina'State University'or University of
14
• Kentucky, or whatever, t .hat,g wae ',being done on
15
tobacco growing and agronomy and all that stuff .
16
And,`they monitored the :progress of the projects
17
that'Reynolds was funding in the agronomy area and
18
.-so on .
19
Now, .th.e staff in the science
20
in'formation were :a-couple of staff people ; but
21
most ., ;o£ the work was done by clerical people . Of
22
course, there .were a lot of typing, and so on and
23
so forth, that was required for keeping track .
24
-those days they had,everything on-cards .
25)
Q.
Like your index card, index system?
WAGA & 'SPINELLI
Vol . 4, Pg . 621
Q.
The five groups you mentioned that
were in existence in '54, would,there,,be one that
would look at .health'issues, even though it wasn't
designated as a, health divisiori or health
department?
Well, as I-- .a~s : .I said, when starting out at
Reynolds, the ;big controversy in terms of the
health issue, if ~you will, was, okay : Were the
If•._t'hey were, involved in
10
polycyclice~there?
11
anything, should we know it .? And if they're
12
there, should''we lower them :and get rid of them?
13
o most of that work was done in the
14
15
16
chemical division .
Q . What,did the', biochemical ` division d
that was different than what the chemical research
17
18
. A'lot of their work involved what happened
I don't know whether you know the
19
tobacco
20
procedure of
211
tobacco at auction,"you'get it so ;many pounds on
22
to
with tobacco, is,`when you buy
pallet .
! cn
f..
And it's'brought in ~
24
and .then it's stemmed and it's stored for anywhere ~
w
.
And
as
it
ages,
W
between 12 months and 24 months
25
cert :ain things happen to it that improve the
23
Vol . 4,
g . 622
flavor of the smoke .
They did,a lot of work -- what was
3
going on : When ;tobacco aged, and did you have to
age it as long as that, and so on . A l,ot of the
work involved the composition of tobacco as it
aged, and the'effect'on the flavor and consumer
7
acceptability_, and how,=it blended in with other
things in the tobacco .
That biochemical division, did that
Q
10
etay•in'existence, in one f orm or another, u
11
until you left?
12
Well, in the mid '60s, roughly, it was
called
13
14
Dr .-Aldon Nielson came, it was expanded to
15
include, not oniy biochemistry, but some
16
biological work .
17
18
19
20
21
Q.
Did
you ;;ever cross over .from chemical
research to one of .these other divisions?
Yes', in
seventy
let'p see .`
was promoted to~manager of the analytical
22
23
24
251
WAGA" & SPINELLI''
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 623
research chemist, or the section head in charge of
the emoke work .
Q . I want to just focus on the period of
time-you were exclusively in the chemistry
5
department, !54 to '75 . When you were hired, were
6
you'tolds We''re,going to have you be w'orking
7
this project o"r that project'=
on
8
or was it
10
11
Nothing specific .
12
4
Chemical research .
13
Were they ;aware of your seven-odd
14
15
yeare working wit h`polycyclic hydrocarbons?
it~was .in my resume .
16
Did they tell`you : You're going to
17
18
19
have the opportunity t
.
No .
20
21
when : you started in '54, that had the type of
22
background you had in polycyclic hydrocarbons?
23
24
25I f rame ; you were the most knowledgeable person at
WAaA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 62 4
Reynolds in terms of polyoyclic hydrocarbons ?
2
3
Didthat ever change, during the whol e
period of time you~were at Reynolds ?
I doubt if it did . . Because what eventuall y
8
happened -- or what happened wasthat, after
I
finished,my firs.t project and was'asked what
I
wanted to work on and saidemoke, over the nex t
few,years_we did ourthing on the polycycli c
10
11
history of what_happened and what we -I guess
I
12
shouldn't say "jokingly" defined as "what's th e
13
compound of .the month
14
polycyclichydrocarbona ., and the next group o f
15
compounds that were considered to be a --
16
problem or might be a''problem, were a group o f
17
compounds called aza-arenes .
18
group of,compounda that -- called the phenols, an d
things ` went fro m
a
Then it came to a
19
20
ciliaetats, and then came the'-nitrosamines, and
2 1
polonium, and so on and so forth . So, by th e
22
early '60s ,
23
finished .
most of the work on polycyclics wa s
24
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol .
, Pg . 625
Can we get
the'record to show
3
MR . LEEs
M
Steve Sheller came in, from Arch litigation,
fr-om"Philadelphia .!
0
8
agreement in .1954 when wyou joined Reynolds?
10
11
Did you have' to -gign an employment
What was .=the'nature of that agreement?
It`'s been produced . It -- it was sort of a
12 :
standard thing . Primarily, I think, protecting
13'
t .he company -- if'•you were to leave and had been
14
involved in certain ._manufacturing functions, that
15
you°weren't to tell .anybody about it till so many
I've forgotten
16
17j
18
19
it like a .Confidentiality
agreement,
20
.Yeah . But it :-- it was, primarily, I guess
21
for proprietary things to do with`manufacturing,
22
more than anything . I`don't think it ever
23
m6ntioned research and,development in it . But
24
it's been so long ago since I read it .
25 '
You never, then, had to execute any
WAGA & SPINELL`l .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 626
confidenti.ality.agreement :with respect to
2
was thinking :I-signed a document sometime
' . .80s
about the Premier--cigarette . Which I wasn't
involved with,that•much anyway .
Q . Whatever you knew, you weren't allowed
,
to disclose without getting somebody's permission
first?
Thatl s
10
Whether-i't's Exxori°or Pittsburgh
11
12
St6el or whoever .
Did you'ever actually sign a contract
13
14
for a specific length or- term of employment
15
Reynolds?
16
No .
17
Q . And the consulting -- two consulting
18
jobe-.you mentioned sPecifically for Reynolds were
19
not written documents?
201
Yeah, they were written -- they're written
21
contracts . They've already been provided .
22
MR .=MAISTROS : Have those been
23
provided?
24
THE WITNESS : Someplace
25
MR . MCDERMOTT : They were'produced in
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 627
1
2
the`- :last deposition .
BY MR . .MAISTROS
Q•
Were the agreements_with Womble
Carlyle produced?- Are .there written agreements
with Womble Oarlyle? .~,
a
we :didn't have them anymore . When .they ran out,
; .they,never renewed them and neither did I .
Q . Do you have some sort of letter
10
agreement, just confirming what your hourly rate
11
is 'or
12
13
No . Well --` yea
the f irst ' ;coupl,e,-oi' years . You' know, I do
14
15a
16
17
;_anything .
Q. .
18
19
w
From 154 '' to '75
Orleans case in the '60s tli$t you assisted on .
20
How many such cases -did you assist on when you
21
were' .in the chemistry department in that 21-year
22
period?
23
There was one in-New Orleans - - one in
I 0.
24
New Orleans, which .I, was there several times .
25
There was 'one in St . Louis .
w
I don't even remember
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 628
1
who .t:hat wae,, 'Then I was asked to provide some
2
information on occasion with -- was it Green case,
which wasn' t"agains't • Reynolds, and a Pritchard
case against somebody else . It wasn't Reynolds .
And that, as far ae '1 . :know, was it .
6
have no
I
.,g . A tobacco manufacturer?
Oh, yeah . It was
3. 0
waa''American or . :who` it waa .
W ho :asked you to assist
11
12
I don' t-`know whether it
American in
that case?
Reynolda' lawyers . They wanted a summary of
13
14
something or other ; I've even forgotten_ what it
15
was .
16
17
Q . Did you attend any portion of the
trial?
18
19
20
2i
22
Did you
23
2
25
No : Provided the stuff to_Reynolde' lawyers,
WA,GA :& SPINELLI ,
Vol . 4, Pg . 629
and then I guesg it wen:t on its way .
n the .Pritchard case, you weren't
helping Reynolds? What company were you helping?
I've forgotten . .
0
Another
were'.1ike the Lartigue .-caae, which was the case in
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
New Orleane .
a .
I
Lartigue, L-~A-12-T-I-G-U .-E, That was the case
in .:New -0rleans :
Q .
How .' .were they similar?
.
~
-They're :all smoking and lung cancer cases,
bel,ieve .
15
16
asking you .to assist=other tobacco manufacturers
17
in their lung cancer'litigat'ion?
18
A . '-No, not really . I guess z,figured they
,
19
wanted this information . I think it was pretty
20
well to do with'smoke composition and so on . I
21
had published a lot,on smoke . .
22
Did you assist in the defense of any
23
other cases'fox any other tobacco manufacturers?
24
25
Do you know whether you received any
WAGA & SP.INELLI
Vol . 4, Pg . 630
,extra :income for assisting those other tobacco
Just my rbgu ;lar .pay ;f rom' Reynolde .
Q . Where was' the Pritchard case? Is that
Louis?
No . St . Louis was against Reynolds . I don' t
know-what it --'the name "Lowell" rings -- comes
o mind, but I'm not sure about the name of
the
4
10
11
12
. They were in the '60s, early '60s, I think .
:
13
14
want to do about lunch?
THE WITNESS : It's a good time to
15
16
MR . MAISTROS : What do you gentlemen
quit•
MR . MCDERMOTT : I guesa .the witness
17
Why don't we accommodate
18
19
him . .
20
MR : MAISTROS :
It.' .s his party .
21
VIDEOORAPH$.R :
We're going off the
re off the record .
22
23 .
24
25
.m , .
to . 1 :26 : p .m . )
VID'SOGRAPHER :' We' re going back on the
WAa,A & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
r
record .at 1 :26 p .
2
Q
Dr . Rodgman, what was the first
project you worked .on at Reynolds?
5
The first project I worked on was the
synthesis of a series of compounds that might have
7
potential use .as flavorants,. These were a series
of'phenols . And what they were .looking for was
10
And
-went about synthesizing, I don't
11
know, maybe 20,- .-22•of them . However, I knew, from
12
my previous work at .the literature surveying at
13
the .Banting, that some"phenols, at high
14
temperature, convert`to quinones, another class of
15
compounds . And the Japanese had done some work on
16
quinones, mouse painting experiments and so on,
17
18
~and found them to be tumorigenic .
So-putting that together with a new
19
article : that came out while 'I wae inthe midst of
20
this, that a'man called Boutwell and his
21
colleagues,, ``thatls
22
some phenols were classified as`promoters because ~
~
B~ .-0-U-T-W-E-L-'L,-reported that
Ln
~
m
23
they . enhance the activity of polycyclic ~~
24
hydrocarbons that show ' some tumorigenicity .
~
25
w
Vol . 4, Pg . 632
f
said ; Hey, you know ;`
I,'ve nearly finished these
the grumbling~about polycyclics . Do you want to
put something that might .contribute quinones to
the "'smoke and have'another problem?
And the.y, ilooked at what I had there
They never used the
8
23 .or 22 compounda I,synthesized .,
Q.
10,
How long did that proj ect last?
A . About four months ., from June till November,
something like that ..;
12
Q.
13
being tumorigenic promoters, are there different
14
kinds of phenols?
15
V3.tamin E °
16
one of the great anti-carcinogens known .
17 .
Everybody's t'aking .it nowadays, aren't they, to
18
divert cancer :=
19
Q . Vitamin E?'
20
MR . SHELLER : I knew it .
21
THE WITNESS3
22
are phenols that are -- that are in all our food ~
23
~
stuffs .- Cloves and cinnamon are loaded with m
24
various phen,ols .
a
25 BY MR . MAISTROSi
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 633
1
2
Q . Was there-a lot of literature, a
minimal literature?' . Describe the course or the
amount of literature there- ;was on phenols in '54 .
No, it ~- the literature on phenols escalated
when they couldn't expl .a.in~the mouse-contained
data', the number of tumors they were getting with
polycyclic hydrocarbons, either benzpyrene itself
or the'total polycyclic hydrocarbon fraction of
cigarette smoke ;-thie was Dr .- .Wynder, Hoffmann .
10
Dr . ."Wright, .who was`actually my major professor at
11
the :'University of Tdronto'did the chemistry for
12
Dr . Wynder for four or five years, until
13
Dr . Hoffmann came on the scene .
They --'when they couldn't explain the
14
15
pol'ycyclic hydrocarbon results, they said :
16
There's not enough there ; that only accounts for
17
two, three percent . Said : Oh, we've got
18
promoters .
they lit on'the phenols, because of
19
20
this article by Boutwell . And then from about
21
1960, perhaps, to .1962/'b3, everything was phenol
22
promotion, plus polycyclic hydrocarbons .
23
there was only one problem with it .
24
himself and Hoffmann ehowed, .what we had already I&
; L
Except ~
That Wynder ~
~
~
251 shown : That, if you take the phenol-out of smoke,
WAGA ..& SPINELLI`
Vol . 4, Pg . 634
I
1
it°doesn't affect-the biological activity of the
smoke . So how can°you have a promoter that
doesn't promote? E
dropped after that .
Q .:
Forever?
No, it's still around . But -- you know,
there are people who°never drop anything .
8
Q
It .was then . It i
101
man :'called,Aivin Kosak published an article
11
describing all the components in cigarette smoke
12
that ;had been,reported in ,the literaturee
13
throughout the world .
14
which about .30 were<wrong,`by :the way . And phenol
There are about 90 ; of
15
it's been known for a long time . I
16
17
think it was identified in smoke someplace in
18
probably the 1930
19
20
21
Q . Have phe,nols been blamed as anything
else other than•a promo"ter?
We11, yeah, I guess some -- there has been
Ln
H
some-of the low
22
gome work done`that phenol
23
molecular weight .phenols are cocarcinogens, rather,,,
24
than promoters .
25
Do you know if Reynolds has done any
(201) 992-4111
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 635
such work?
A.
On the biological work?
Q
5
Q
or verify or dispute whether`phenols were
promoters?` :
0 , we'didn't do any work . We did do work on
the fact that they were present ; we determined
10
their levels,'which agreed :with some of the work
11
in the .litexatur$ . And we also demonstrated that
12
the filter tip that we-used, which has a substance
13
called a plaeticizer!1n .it, took out about
141
85 percent of the phenols from the smoke . That
15'
was'subsequently confirmed by four or five groups,
16
both `pro- and -anti-tobacco`.
17
Q
Has°'there been any more recent or
18
modern .work relate.d'to .phenols and their potential
19
as,'promoters? . .
20
No . Once the -
21
Hoffmann ;showedathat if you took out the phenol
22`
2 .3
from smoke that°it didn't change the biological J
~
m
:
Hey,
you
had
a
;activity of the smoke . I'd say
24
promoter that-wasn't promoting .
~
And they sort o J
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 636
Now, at one time they considered
1
2
phenol as an indicator of that class of compounds
and :its .promoting effect, but they subsequently
dropped that argument .when it was proven to be
wro~'lg .
Q . What's an'indicator?
7
Yeah . It'was like a,marker, that phenol
itself gave a clue tp the series,of-low molecular
9
weight phenola, which .usual].y,is considered about
10
five or six or eight--compounds~that are present .
11
The same thing it .eai,d about benzpyrene : It's an
12
indicator'of tumorigenic -pol .ycyclic hydrocarbons,
13
b t~Wynder and Hoffmann_'s own data show that's the
14
wrong,conceptg
W
it,your opinion ; as you sit here
7 7
5
16
today, that phenols then play no role in the
17
biological activity that is caused by cigarette
18
smoke?
19
20
been' ; done in animals, there has been some work
21
that ahows it' :doe's promote, there's some work that
22
shows .it doesn't promote, there's some work that ~
m
23
shows it's a cocarc .inogen, and some that shows it,,,
~
24
ien't-a c?ocarcinogen : And all that work has beea OD
Ln
25
WAGA & SPINELLT
(201) 992-4111
g
1
637
Well, isn't,it true that most of the
work related to cancer,research has been done in
4
re3ied upon animal studies to make, certain
conclusions with respect to compounds involved in
smoke?
9
A.
Yes . ; And of course,,one of the things is
10
about that is ;that you may, as I do, disagree with
11
trying to extrapolate from a mouse skin painting
12
experiment to inhaling smoke as an aerosol . One,
13
you've got a eolution of a thick gummy substance,
14
the`other is an aerosol .- `You can't extrapolate
That has been .a',,-- a no-no since 1941 .
15
16
4
How'did you know that -- that phenols
17
were potentially`,promoters?
18
A . This man Boutwell had this article .in the -
19
20
Q
And` `what method did he use to
determine they were po"ntial promoters?
21
Ln
22
with a level'of polycyclice that normally wouldn't
23
give a very .`high percent tumor bearing animals .
24
And if he painted t .hem .at the same time -- or
25 .
. sequentially with
solution of phenol, following
(201) 992-4111
N
Vol .
, Pg . 638
the :poiycyclic painting, then the polycyclic
seemed to behave like there was a lot more of it
3
there, or it_promoted the effect .
4
Well,'if -- and I :think your testimony
or Reynolds did not do any
6
testing on ita'own of the phenols, correct?
,Right .
Q . And if you were just reviewing
, test
10
,painting of mice, why wouldn't you tell Reynolds
11
not=to be concerned about it, because you can't
12
extrapolate`thoee results to the human experience?
13
Well, I think,`if .you read some of the things
14
wrote, that's what-I'implied in a lot of it .
15
But, then again, I also pushed, as you probablyy
16
are-aware, that I thought we should be doing some
17
biological work ourselves, because some of it was
18
actually very poorly done .
Wee had developed or, ;:if you wil.l,
19
20
acquired, a fairly good reputation`from our work
21
in chemistry of smoke ;and tobacco -- smoke
22
analysis/tobacco analyeis, and I felt-we could do
23 1
t he same thing in the biological area .
24
Q
.Why ;was the
Ln
H
~
~
m
why were the test
251 results, in and of themselves, the test results
WAC3A & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 639
1
'arising from :the'moude akin painting of the
phenols,'enough : :to-Convince you to advise Reynolds
rrot, to exp3 .ore using phenols as flavorants?
,_ Well, here again,
things that happened :in-'54, or '52, '53, '54,
'56. . Benzpyr,ene,` :for example, got to be a term
that was altnost, ;ae aCary to people as the word
cancer . And I felt : Wel1, gee, we got enough
9
problem .with thia,term .' Let's not start
10
introducing something that could go to a quinone
11
and-have another problem that would be our doing .
as I eay, .I was frankly surprised,
12
13
wher;i here' s a man'that' ;s been there three or four
14
months, walks into .research management and says :
15
Hey, . .here's some,_articles ; .I don't think we should
16
use 'these . ''And they say :
17
won't use them .
18
Q.
Who
did :you specifically talk to?
19
Dr . Senkus'and Mr . Hoover, my manager and the
20
21
22
23
0
Was your, -- was your opinion that
those shouldn't`be explored based upon your
your scientific belief that there were
24
health risks related to those compounds, or was it
25 .
based upon your belief :that it wasn't worth
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 640
1
getting into because
2
health risks related'to .itd
3
the public thought there were
Well, I thought why stir up another mess that
we were -- like the-one,we're already into with
-the'polycyclics :
mean, I ;was convinced the
had discovered benzpyrene and saya there isn't
a'problem . The American
10
Association for Canoer_Research said the same
11
12
When?
'84 . I've
t i
13
14
15
16
What 'did 'they say?
That there'a no compound`in cigarette smoke
cause of cancer . .
17
that :can be attributed_as a
18
Something in those words .
19
same` thing, Do11- .and Hill and' -- Doll and Peto
20
said the same thing . Doll is the guru of
21
statistical standings :`
J . W . Cook said the
Ln
22
I. say, Wynder and Hoffmann, '~
And ; as
..
.
.
. . ~.
..
~
~
-
. ~
. '~. F..
23
and Fred Bock, and Benjamin Van- .Duuren pr o ba bl y ~~
; ,r,
24
have said that 30 times in thee last 30 years .
25
You're`saying that'they :said that
[ IN
Ln
N
Vol . 4, Pg . 641
there cannot be a compound that is the cause of
cancer?
3
A . What they say is you cannot explain the
animal experiments on .skin painting with the
5
.composition of smoke as dictated by polycyclic
hydrocarbons or benzo[alpyrene .
That group,was not'suggesting, were
Q
they, and they did_not suggest,'that there was not
a'statisticalj.link .be;tween smoking and certain
10
forms of cancer?
11
Oh, no . Nc
12
Q . You agree that--there was definitely,
13
even by '56, a statistical link between smoking
14
and cancer?
15
A . A statistical association .
16
Q
Isn't it-,more fair to say that what
17,
that'group was, .e'aying was that"th.ere was no
18
specific compound that could be identified as the
19
specific cause of,the cancer?
20
21
22
guess you might_,say that,
after this four-month period
where you were working on phenols as a flavorant,
23
24
25
it surprised me .
was told to'drop the phenol
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 642
pxoject, that
they said : What do you want to
work on?' And I said, well -- you know, I think
it's in something I wrQte someplace : I said :
What .we're selling is smoke . I would like to do
5
work ; on amoke_ composition .
,And
because so little was known, as
I told you,'about the :article by Alvin Kosak and
8
the 90-something compounds .
So I set upFa whole . system of
10
examining smoke ;' the'smoking machine was patterned
11
after :that of :Dr . Wynder's
12
look at tobacco .smoke,And between examining the
13
composition of tobacco .~'s°moke and finding ways to
14
modify it, it t-ook 'the'next ten years .
15
16
17
Q
And we set out t
What was your beginning goal in
'-looking at smoke composition?
Well, I've already told you that I had worked
18
out a-p ;rocedure for ;,isolating and identifying
19
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from my work at
20
the' `Banting- and Best : And I was so f irmly
21
convinced that all this controversy was a bunch
22
nonsense, that the first thing I did was go after
23
the polycyclic hydrocarbons -Were-you --
24
Q
25
-- and settle the issue once and for all, in
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 643
my mind, that,they"were there in very low levels .
2
We actually`isolated the benzopyrene in
crystalline form . : First time that had"ever been
done .
Q . You were convinced that the
controversy ;was nonsense . Was that before or
after you began-at Reynolds?
Well, I really had nothing to do with medical
emok~e until I-got to Reynolds .
And, as I say,
10
when I started reada .ng -a little more about it and
11
suddenly realized some people were saying no, they
12
can't there and, yes ;'they can be there . And I
13
14
thought, the background of everything that had
..
been done since the mid '30s, there was no way
15
they could not be'there .
Q . I'm talking specifically about the
16
17
polycyclic
}That's what I'm talking about .
18
19
Carbo -- polycyclic hydrocarbons . Did
0
20
you, before you began at Reynolds, ever express in
21
writing that you-believed that t he polycyclic
22
carbohydron
23
nonsense?
24
A.
251
hydrocarbon controversy was
Ln
MR . SLANCATO ; I'm going to object to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 644
the form .
2
3
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Did you ever express, before you began
at Reynolds, orally that you believed that the
polycyclic hydrocarbon .controversy was nonsense?
Well, in my-work at the Banting, as I said, I
did :a lot of work in polycyclic hydrocarbons, and
would have "occasiori :, .to talk with my boss there,
9
Dr . .Franks . And of'° .course he was very
1, 0
knowledgeable in''polycyclics . And there were
11
12
papers that were~appearing,in some of the chemical
.,
j ournale and talkxng _about the presence of
13
polycyclics in their .;,'-- in cigarette smoke . And
14
then,there were papere .saying, well', they couldn't
15
fa.nd it .
And in our•
16
17
We11, the curves tha't'these people have, spectral
18
curves, .really don't tell you that they claim to
19
be polycyclics, really don't show that it is, they
20
were so poor, and this was Dr .'Fieser's criticism
21
in 1957 . And between us, I said : Hell -- pardon
22
my language . Heck, there's no way they can't be
23
there, from all we knew about how-they were formed
0c)
24
25
0
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 645
.controversy was . Was the controversy -2
The controversy was whether they were there
3
4
6
controversy as to whether
or not they were tumor-promoting or tumorigenic?
Well, if there was a controversy about
9
whether they were there or not there, you have to
10
prove that-they were there,to find out which ones
11
were there before you'could say : Well, if you had
12
a dozen polycyclics, which ones had ever been
13
tested?
Q . So your -- when you say this ten-year
14
15
project, you -- at the end of this ten years, were
16
you'convinced one way or-the other as to the,
17
quote, controversy,
18
A.
19
controversy in 1956 .when we isolated them .
20
unquote?
was convinced that there was no
Q . So the controversy you're referring to
21
that was resolved in your own mind -- or resolved
22
earlier but confirmed ten years later, was that
cn
23
they are there?
M
m
~
~
24
I knew that in '56 . . 1 said -- I think you're
cn
-1
251 misinterpreting my talking about --
WAGA & SPINELLI .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 646
1
2
I think I-did .
about the ten-year period . What we did,
A.
once we :were there, we .did a great deal of work on
4
how .could we diminish'them . And as -- one of the
things"that a lot of people were doing in labs all
over the place, was trying,to reduce polycyclics
7
specifically . And -l'_m sure we 'll get into the
fact that, when you .zry,that'with any class of
compounds in cigarett .e'smtike, you'run into a
10
problem .
Why were you trying to reduce them?
11
4
12
Well, here again, you had everybody saying
13
these things about polycyclics and they were
14
tumorigenic to mouse skin or on subcutaneous
15
injection, and the best way to shut up the people
16
complaining was to say, okay, let's get them out
17
of there or diminish them . They're not flavorful,
18
or at least most of them aren't . . Some of the
19
lower molecular rate :polycyclics are flavorful .
20
One of'~`them used to be ;ueed in mothballs :
21
Naphthalene .
,
,
22
Q . Was your'research to reduce the
23
polycyclic hydrocarbons related to your personal
24
Oesire•to make cigarettes-safer or to reduce the
25
controversy around polycyclic hydrocarbons?
Vol . 4, Pg . 647
A .
2
Probably part .;and parcel of both . When we
started the first,study on ways to reduce
polycyclic .hydrocarbons, we -- the polycyclic
hydrocarbons have to come from something in the
5
tobacco . Now, tkiere .had been a big controversy
whether they got there by"atmospheric pollution,
'by stuff settling on .the leaves in the fields
the big contr:oversy, well, all the
polycycl .ice came'from the cigarette paper and this
10
type of thing . 'But those
11
another group that thought,the :polycyclics came
rettee with a match, the burning
12
13
14
15
of 'tY}e wood "in '`the mat-ch, or the hexane in
the
.cigarette`ligh"ter .
Well, ` it
16
well, it come from something in the tobacco . And
17
i't was determined there were things in tobacco
18
that-'would give more polycyclics than cigarette
19
paper and so on . So,`if we got rid of those, the
20
polycyclic levels'wou1d go
21
did that was .toI extract what is called precursors .
22
down .
And the way we
Well, unbeknownst to us, for some
J
same project .im
23 .
time, Dr . Wynder was'working on the
24
And ' the way I found out that waa,because, as I
25
said, my major professor did all the chemistry
NELLI
Vol . 4, Pg . 648
with Dr . -- for Dr . Wynder, until he got
2
Dr . Hoffmann . And .I .found out that they're
working on extraction the same as we .are .
And in ..1960
Dr . Wynder, at a meeting in Atlantic City, said :
6
We'+ve given up on extraction ; it's economically
7
and :practically unfeasible .
8
Well, we had given -- we gave it up
too, for the :same -- for part of the same reason .
10
But- .the second part of the reason was that, when
11
you take out the precursors, you end up raising
12
.the :level of the non-soluble parts of tobacco,
13
like cellulose"and lignin ; they get to be a larger
14
percentage of the filler .- And one of the main
15
source of phenols Is`lignin, which is non-soluble
16
in'the`solvents that we .used . So did you want to
17
lower polycyclics and raise the .-phenols when there
18
was still a13l thie chatter abo'ut,phenols being a
19
problem?
20
The .other
21
soluble in t he solvents used for the extraction .
22
And, as we suepected, if 'you' left the nitrates
23
there, their`ratio in the residue -- : extracted
24
residue would increase, so you'd effectively
25
increase the nitrosamines in smoke . So do you
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 649
r
want to lower one thing and raise two?
So we said, "To heck with it," and
3
went on to something .else .
Q . At what point in time in your ten
4
years of your research`did you say'"to heck with
it," or was that after ten .years?
No . We did that about 1960, somewhere around
there . We looked, at .extraction for about three
years, and was actually so serious about it, we
10
had A major engineering company design a plant to
it, when we thought it was a good way to go .
12
But when we figured out that there were more -- it
13
would raise more problems than .it would solve, we
14
ended that .
Was there any -- you referred to a
15
16
ten-year period and`I just want to be clear in my
17
mind . What were you talking about,' .that ten-year
18
period?
19
Well, the ten=year period was from '54 to
20
'64', early '65, somewhere in there . . We were under
Hoover was the director
21
D
,Senkus was a manager and then he
22
of
23
was`aseistant director of, research . And we did a
24
lot~ of t-hings on_smoke-composition, polycyclics,
251 , phenols, ciliastate, nitrosamines, and we looked
WAGA & SPINELLI .
(201) 992-4111
u,
N
~
~..~
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 650
at,'different ways to ;-- ;we concentrated, mostly,
on`the polycyclic business .
3
And everything we
came,up with,~where we tried to look at -reduce things specifically, selectively, in other
5
words, only the polycyclics, only the phenols, we
ran ;into a trouble that we'-- if you lower one
thing, you were raising something else .
SO we went•to a philosophy : If you're
going-to make a safer cigarette, less hazardous
10
cigarette, lower everything as near, :in proportion
11
as you can . And the""work on, if you will, the
12
less hazardous cigarettes, everybody was looking
13
at it . And the interesting thing -- it may not be
14
interesting to you . But in 1960 D
I 15
out with an article and said the --`at this point
16
in time, the four cigarette design technologies
17
significant in making a less haza,rdous cigarette
18
are°the blend, the-'filter tip, paper porosity, and
19
reconstituted tobacco sheet .
20
. Wynder came
Now, . if you look historically at those
21
four, the first blended cigarette, called the
22
"American blend, was introduced in 1913 by R .J .
23
Reynolds Tobacco Company . And, subsequently,
24
after 1957/58,' it .was shown that a blended
251 cigarette was less -- smoke was less tumorigenic
WAGA & SPINELLI `
(201) 992-4111
1i
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 651
1
to mouse skin, its .benzpyrene content was less,
2
its phenols were less, .so on and so forth . The
-second, on filtration -4
Q . Less carcinogenic than what?
A . . Pardon?
Did you say .less carcinogenic?
R
7
Less :tumorigenic to mouee skin .
The second one, filtration, the first
success
.really .succes.sful cigarette acceptable
10
o the consumer was the Wineton, 1953, introduced
11
by`R . . .J . Reynolds Tobacco Company . There had been
12
filter .cigarettes,, but'they were 1-ess than one
13
percent of the market .
When the'Winston came out, the filter
14
15
tip cigarette took off like a skyrocket .
Well, the-other thing that the Winston
16
17
cigarette had, and wnich was also'incorporated
18
into t he other Reynolds brands, was reconstituted
19
tobacco sheet . Reconstituted tobacco :,sheet had
20
been used as a wrapper for cigars . But no
21
successful one .'had e,ver_been made that was
22
t
for
r
23
24
25
did'it . Dr . Samuel Jones invented it .
The third ' one was paper porosity, that
you lowered the tar'and nicotine and everything
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 652
1
else by having paper that let the air flow through
it fast .
So .the ;first four things that were
ever introduced, that Wynder and Hoffmann said
5
were signif .icant, all came out of R .J . Reynolds
6
Tobacco Company .
Q . Of those four items -
7
8
A.
And they were a1l copied by everybody else,
within three years of~their introduction .
Q . Those four items that you mentioned,
10
11
12
were
they originally"developed as health ideas?
they weren't . But, you know, it is, if
13
you will, serendipity, good fortune, that they all
14
worked out to be that way .
15
Q, Have,you seen any documents in your
16
employment or consulting relationship with RJR
]. 7
that would . ;suggest that- any of those four things
18
19
e,-further developed as a potential -- let me
start over .
The .'
20
21
you said`they did not start out with the
22
concept that 'they would be health-related benefits
23
to 'smoking?
24
Well, obv .iously the blend one in 1913
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 653
Q . . Did you ever see any,documents at RJR,
during your employment or during your consulting
period, that'suggested that there wouid be health
benefits to theae :four._items that ..should be
exptored?
y. ;
A ." `"Not "that- I .recall . It may have been
;merit'ioned, after•~the`-whole concept of -- when
Dr . Wynder .talked :about'lowering the tar he did
soaie''work in 1957, and at the same time he did the
10
benzpyrene work . And his conclusions were : If -it tar is the problem in smokers, then lowering
12
the tar by 40_percent would almost do away with
13
any respiratory tra'ct,problems . And that was in
14
hist testimony before the Blatnik Committee in
15
1957 .
16
17
there was a"look .at, you know,
if you increase the reconstituted
18
tob.acco sheet,
19
in agreement with what -- at least -- not i
20
agreement with, but complied with the things that
21
Dr ., Wynder was sayin.g .
22
that would lower the tar, which was
Do you )Criow of any promotional
23
campaigns that touted-either'blendg,~filter ti Pf
24
paper porosity, reconstituted tobacco°with
25
providing health benefits?
~
~
~
Im
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g . 654
No . As
anything .
The fact that
well, let's look at
reconstituted-tobacco .
. Now, ;ahat wae .introduce by 1953 . By
4
1958, everybody ;in the industry had copied, not
6
our .specific reconstituted tobacco sheet, but one
7
similar to it, that they either designed
themselves or`had,p.omebody`deeign for them, like
the"American Machine and Foundry .• Well, if you
10
look .at the curve of ;tar versus sales-weighted
11
average tar, it becomes obvious that that tar is
12
dropping, dropping, dropping ; and it's still
13
dropping : So, you know, if what Wynder says is
14
right, then we've done something in accord with
15
his wishes .
16
Q . Can you tell me any specific research
.
,
,
17
that you were assigned to in that ten-year period
18
that the goal was to~-.develop a'safer cigarette?
1962, one`of the people that worked for
19
20
me,' 'Dr . Fredricks:on, wrote a memo about tobacco
21
and how to, perhaps, generate a less hazardous
22
cigarette .
23
Put less tobacco in the cigarette .
24
25
And his philosophy or proposal was :
Ln
~
~
m
m
rn
And how do you do that .when you've go,
a certain dimension, you've got a thing that's
('201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 655
1
about the size of a pencil and it's so long, that
-you don't want toy drastically change the shape of
the,cigarette, but,how do you put less tobacco,
and'that .taking into account the filter? And he
said: Well,'make the tobacco lighter,
y
expanding it .
And in his memorandum he points out
that, not only would .this generate considerable
9
revenue, but it would also lower the tar and
10
whatever`elae you were interested in and want
11
lowered, that were -- that 'people were possibly
12
saying that was responsible for this or that .
13
And he worked on it, got the patents
14
on it . We put it in ;the cigarettes, we licensed
15
it, everybody else copied ; those that weren't
16
licensing developed one'of their own . And that's
17
one of the eight_significant technologies listed
18
by the Surgeon General as contributing to a safer
19
cigarette . That, came out of R .J . Reynolds,
20
because we had the first' patents on it .
21
22
23
Q . And it's considered safer because each
cigarette has less tobacco in it?
No . Because ,the smoke has -- the smoke
24
generated by the cigarette ; according to the -
25
you've got to go back, I think, sir, to who
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 65 6
defined the safer cigarette . And it was
a
cigarette -- the cigarette with expanded tobacc o
in it,fitted the definition of those who define d
safer cigarette . . Tar was less tumorigenic to
5
mouse skin ; tar was lowered . And the ratio of
certain ingredients to tar per milligram of tar
werelowered, and that included benzopyrene and
8
phenol and whatever else you wanted .
nd, as I. .eay, all you got to do i s
9
the Surgeon :4eneral's report for 1979 ,
10
look at
11
1981, and thereit gives you a list of eigh t
12
technologies, seven of which came out o f
13
14
15
Which isthe only one that didn't ?
not the first who incorporate d
16
ventilated filter tips into a cigarette ; I thin k
17
American Tobacco Company was . But we utilized i t
18
19
20
21
22
tip, paper`porosity, reconstituted tobacco . Wha t
.are the other four ?
in ;sequence ,
2 3
24
phenols, which, by the way, also take out volatil e
251 nitroeamines : The othex was paper additive, th e
WAC3A & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 657
1
seventh was .expanded .tobacco, and the last one
introduced was venti,lated filter tipe .
Q . Is it your suggestion that RJR did
research and used these areas to develop a safer
cigarette?
A .- Well, we -- we fitted it into the same type
of_program, if you-will~` that the National -National Cancer'Inst,itute called .their less
hazardous --'~its lees .~hazardous cigarette program .
10
11
Q . Did'RJR act,ually ._have a less hazardous
cigarette program?
12
Well, we incorporated all these things -- I
13
mean,
there was :a great deal of research that went
14
into expanded tobacco, for example . We did the
15
chemistry of the smoke, very detailed chemistry .
16
We,.did the biology~ "of -the smoke on skin painting
17
study . Our .results on the biology -- biology of
18
the smoke -- ;bioa`ssay of the . smoke were checked
19
and confirmed in the NCI study . They,were also
20
checked and,confirmed in Germany by a man called
21
Dontenville . And if you look at the definition
22
that` came out in the`late '50s of what a safer
F"
m
23
24
25
Q
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 658
cigarette"?
A . I don't have . a definition, sir .
Q . Do you believe there is a safer
cigarette?
.
We .used the definition that Dr . Wynder and
Hoffmann and Bock came-- :up with in,the '60s
early ',60s, late
50s .
Q . I'm talking about you, individually .
Do-you be3 .iede there"is a safer cigarette?
well,
10
11
cigarettes are that ;unsafe . But
Q.
12
13
14
15
- as I say, I'm not too sure
point .
Okay .~
guess that's a good starting
Do you believe cigarettes are unsafe?
, Cigarettes are .unsafe? No, I don't believe
ciga'rettes' are unsafe .
Q . : Do you believe that there are no
16
17
health risks related,to,smoking?
18
A.
19
smoking and :certain diseases .
20
21
. Well, there is t .he association between
Q.
Do
you .believe that's a valid
association?
22
MR . BLANCATO : . Object to the form .
23
THE WITNESS : I'm not that much of
24
expert, sir, on statistics . But the -- I'm
251 aseuming that the - - most of the incidences, the
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 659
methodology and :so .on, .,would indicate an
association .
BY MR . MAISTROSt
4
5
Q
The association you're referring to is
just a statistical one?
6
On the samples that were done, yes .
And the fact that you-recognize
8
there's a statistical association between smoking
and certain diseases does not convince you in
10
any way that cigarettes are unsafe or smoking is
11
unsafe?
12
I'm not sure . I won't -- I will not equate
13
association with cause and effect, if that's what
14
you're looking for .
Q . You don't think there's enough
15
16
biological, chemical, analytical research out
17
there to establish a link between smoking and
18
certain forms of cancer?
Well, you talk about biology . According to
19
.
20
the
21
Can : you induce thee aame kind of tumor by the same
22
route that you get in humans? And you can't do
23
that with inhalation of cigarette smoke . Yet you
24
can`do the .same thing_with the exposed mice, for
25
example, by inhalation to .the same level of diesel
what you should look for in bioassays
ia .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 660
exhaust fumes, at the same level as you do with
cigarette smoke, and you will get squamous cell
carcinoma in the mice that you don't .get with
4
cigarette smoke .
Q
When you were in Canada for those
6
seven years, you did :mice and rat and some chicken
7
studies?
8
A . Well, as I
Q
You were involved in them?
10
A . I was involved with them at -- I did the
11
chemistry of'the things they wanted to use in the
12
animal work .
13
Q
If during the course of those studies,
14
you were, I asoume,youu were doing those for some
15
purpose . In other words, if you saw .that
16
certain compound would cause cancer in a mouse,
17
MR .'MCDERMOTT :
18
19
I mean,
20
21
22
23
24
.relevant information to know that a
.compound
promotes tumors .in a mouse?
Weli, here again, tumor promotion is an
entirely different thing,
sir, than tumor
251 initiation .
WAGA & SPINELLI,
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 661
But beyond that point is -- we already
knew ;that the compounds that we were working with
were either very potent in the way they caused
tumors, either on skin :'painting or subcutaneous
injection or intraperitoneal injection .
Q . You were doing animal testing, were
you,not, back in '47 to °'53, so that you can draw
sonte,conclusions upon the biological activity of
c,ertain compounds? .
10
A . Well, we were interested in the fact that the
11
serum' we were ge:n.erating, the vaccine we were
12
generating, would it stop the production of tumors
13
in :the animals that, we knew we were going to cause
14
tumors in .
15
.16
Q, Let's take>4t another way . Why did
you want RJR, in '54 ., to develop it's own in-house
17
animal research laboratories?
18
A . I didn't say`that in 154 .
19
20
Q.
Okay ; when'did you say that?
A . . . I don't know . Late '50s, early '60s .
~
21
Q.
Why
did .you want R .J . Reynolds to
22
develop its own in-house animal testing in the
23
late 'S4s, earYy ;'60s? :
24
~
~
w
. Well, one of the`reasons, as I said, was, if
251 you look at what Reynolds did from 1952, when they
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 662
1
began to augment their research capability, we had
2
developed -- Reynolds had developed quite a
3
reputation in the field of tobacco composition,
tobacco and smoke a,nalysis . And then, when we got
into the smoke :composition work, where -- when I
started it in '54, by_1960, we had quite a
reputation for our skills in these .areas . And if
8
you looked at some of the stuff in the literature
9
on biology,-some of it was very poorly done . And
10
I felt : Let's do i`t, develop the expertise to do
11
it properly, and it may be more meaningful .
12
And one of the things -- you may not
13
realize this either,' that if you go to a meeting
14
and somebody's giving a talk on animal studies,
15
and!it doesn't necessarily have to be on tobacco
16
smoke, but usually we were interested in what
17
pe ople were saying in that area, and you asked a
18
question of,Dr . Wynder or Dr . Bock from Roswell
19
Park in`Buffalo, t he first thing they would look
20
and'say : Gee, there's~:Alan Rodgman from Reynolds
21
or Joe Smith from someplace else :, And they would
22
ask'the question : Was your question an outgrowth
23
ot fiomething you noticed .in your work? And of
24
course you were stuck . If you hadn't done any
25
biological work, you could .say : Well, I haven't
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 663
1
done any ; and'they'd i ust ignore your question .
Q . Up to this .,_point in time, had Reynolds
contracted with .outside laboratories to do such
4
work?
5
A . -No, I-don't think,so . I was trying to think .
6
That'didn't happen,until the '60s, I guess .
7
8
Q : Which companies -~ in the '60s, when
you decided to recommend that Reynolds develop
more biological in-house research, which companies
10
were doing biological in-house research?
11
A . . Well, when I first recommended -- or
12
recommended the acquisition of a biological
13
capability through bioassays and so on, nothing
14
happened for a while . But, then, I guess it was
15
about the mid '60s, we actually formed a group,
16
you know, that did some biological work . Not
17
necessarily all on tobacco smoke either, because
18
of some other ongoing things at Reynolds .
And`in addition to some in-house work,
19
20
we had some work done at'various -- Bio-Research
21
in Chi,cago,
22
Do you know which tobacco companies
23
were ;doing in-house biological research when
24
Reynolds was not?
25
w
. At that time I didn'
WAGA'& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol .
g . 664
Q . When`did you first recommend that
Reynolds develop biological research in-house?
MR . MCDERMOTT :
THE WITNESSs I-guess it was late '62,
really, in May_;
6
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . And when did they develop in-house
biological research?
In '65 . They started to acquire the staff .
10
And one of the problems, you know, you say -- you
11
don't jump into doing biological work overnight,
12
sir . You've got to get the staff, you've got to
13
get .a facility . A biological facility is -- is
14
not just like putting your kitchen together . ; it's
15
quite an elaborate setup . And it took time to get
16
that all done, and get the appropriate staff, and
17
get things started .' And, as I say, all of the
18
biological work that was done, underway, was not
19
all on cigarette smoke .
Q . Who was in charge of the efforts to
20
21
put_together sophisticated biological research
Ln
22
capabilities within RJR in 1965?
~
~
m
23
A.
24
N-I+E-L-S-O-.N ., I ;guess .it is .
A man called Dr . Eldon Nielson, E-L-D-O-N,
What role did you play in that
25
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 665
project?
A . None . I was just glad to see they were
getting a move on .
Q . And the primary benefit you saw, at
least, was so that'you could be more knowledgeable
when'you attended these seminars?
Well, that would have been a help . But
the~-- one of our problems had been, we do all the
chemistry of ways to control smoke and lower this
10
and that, and we sort of had to rely on people
11
doing the same thing outside and then seeing what
12
they did with the animal work, their animal work,
13
because they could do both . This way, if we were
14
.doing them both in-house, we could probably speed
15
up our knowledge reserve, and so on and so forth .
16
Q . And is it your testimony, that prior
17
to the development of this biological laboratory
18
in 1965, that Reynolds did not have'any in-house
19
capabilities to either confirm or deny the
20
biological work that'was being done by third
21
parties?
22
23
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : I don't think they did .
24
25
BY MR . MAISTROS :
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 666
When I say Reynolds, I mean either
0
in-house or by contracting it out .
m really -- I don't remember them going
outeide .
I think they may .have for some things,
but I don't'remember them going outside .
Q . When, if,you could put the year -- if
you could put a year to it ; if it's an unfair
question, tell me . When do you think Reynolds
first had the capabilities to personally examine
10
the biological activity of smoke?
Probably -- oh, ;I'11 say '60s . Let's say it
11
12
took them a year and a half to get everything
13
staffed and so on . Probably late '66 or early
14
167, somewhere in there .
15
Q . And the in-house biological research
16
that was developed in`'66/'67, did that continue
17
through the time you left RJR?
18
19
.
No . The -- some of the biological work was
terminated in 1970 .
20
Q, What "some" of it?
21
Pardon?
22
Q . What "some" of it?
23
Well, I'm sure you're referring to all the
24
fuss about the 1970 supposed closing of a Mouse
25
House . But there were several things going on in
WAaA .&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 667
the biologica] . areatthat -- for example, we were
in the proc'ess of considering a liaison with a
,pharmaceutical .Gompany ; Warner Lambert, I think it
was . We also were doing biological work -- and
with that regard ; we were -- had looked at some
forget whether they came from
6
compounds
7
tobacco or smoke, ._ We were looking at the
8
biology -- bioaseay of them as
9
cho.lesterol-reducing compounds . And so there were
10
I
several people working-on that .
The`n, .there was another group who were
11
12
working on what was called the isomerase project,
13
Which actually wa`s`a bacteriological project of
14
way to convert'glucose to a mixture of glucose and
i5
fructose . And,~ nowa;days, if you look at Coke or
16
Pepsi or soft drinks or ice cream, you'll notice
17
that t hey all .contain what's called liquid sugar,
18
which is a mixture of glucose and fructose,
19
produced by a similar system . Reynolds has its
20
own
21
called Penick `& 'Ford .
22
developed'its own system for a company
Now,` Penick & Ford was also a seller
23
'starch compounds, and`some of them, of course,
24
were> used in `foods,' ,some' were used as coatings on
25
paper, so on .' So they were a group testing the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 668
compounds that were used -- that would have been
2
3
taken in by people .
And then . .t here were, of course, people
4
working on the effects of cigarette smoke . And
5
then there was another group -- the Council for
6
Tobacco Research was'looking for a smoking machine
to use, to expose'animals to inhalation . It's
8
called the "nose only exposure method," where the
beast gets the smoke"`right at his nose and mouth .
10
11
And `Reynolds designed one .
So there were people -- biological
12
people working on the design of that machine with
13
people from the electronic -- electrical
14
department . And'all the companies, I think, made
15
one . I think Lorillard had one, we had one -- I
16
don't know if Philip Morris had one or not . But
17
it`ended up the Council for Tobacco Research
18
didn't pick any of ours, they picked a machine
19
called the Walton smoking machine .
20
So, contrary to what has been said
21
about what went on in the -- all these articles in
22
the newspaper that the whole biological group was
23
terminated, ' it was terminated because they were ~
24
all'' .working on cigarette smoke, their notebooks
I cn
N
m
~
OD
251 were taken and''`dest"royed ; it was a bunch of m
WAGA'& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 669
nonsense . And if you want to take :the time, I
2
think I could go .through and demonstrate to you
3
how-much nonsense it`really was . If I haven't
already .
For example,` they said the only people
terminated were biological . There were at least
eight people who were not biologically oriented .
Some of them were analytical chemists, some of
9
them were organic chemists, working on a flavorant
10
synthesis, analytical chemists, wasn't terminated .
11
And ; :the other thing abnut it was .there were about
12
12 people, including Dr . Nielson, who stayed on
13
after that, all biologi .cally oriented, except one .
14
Q . Who's that?
15
A man called Fred Wendelboe . He was doing
16
some analytical .chemistry for the biological
17
people .and went to the -- back to the
18
biological -- went back to the analytical group .
19
But the interesting thing is that some
20
f .the .people in :the biological area, they were --
21
according to people,who said everybody was gone,
22
a`re still there . In .fact, one of them is giving
23
two papers at the Tobacco Chemists Conference next
24
week .
25
Who is=that?
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 670
1
2
Riley Davis . Riley, R-I-L-E-Y, Davis . Fred,
Wendelboe is still there .
The-other interesting thing, the same
4
people who were saying Reynolds was so nasty in
5
getting rid of all this stuff about smoking and
health, three of,them came back : Dr . Bruce,
Dr . Colucci, and Dr . Simmons . And Dr . Simmons is
still there .
9
~things were so ;ugly? :
MR .`BLANCATO : Would this be a good
10
11
time for a break?
MR . MAI9TROS : Just a couple of
12
13
14
15
And"why would you come back if
minutes .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . What` was so"uglyo
mean, one-of those three
16
17
peo, ple said that~_th .ey destroyed his notebooks,
18
which he had to admit wasn't true' . He was the one
19
that gave the_ .interviews that said everybody in
20
21
R . Who'e that?
22
Colucci .
Ln
~
I
MR . MAIS .TROSs Do you want to take
23
24
25
J
F-+
m
a ;
, ~
~
CO
break?
N
MR . BLANCATO : Yes .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 671
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
record at 2 :23 p .m .
(Recess taken from 2 :23 p .m . to 2 :40
p .m,)
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going back on the
record at 2 :40 p .m .
7
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q.
Dr,; Rodgman, in 1970, the biological
research laboratory, if you will, at RJR was
10
shut down, was it not?
11
Yes .
12
Q . Where was it located?
13
A . It was located across the street from the -
14
the main research building .
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q . What was the building called where
biological research was done?
. People called it "the Mouse House," but it
probably had a more sophisticated name .
Q.
Was there anything else in the
building, other than biological research?
21
Not that I know of .
22
Q
23
Were there any employees in the
.building, other .than biological research
24
employees?
25
A . Well, now,'it depends on when you were there .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol .
Pg . 672
For example, the people that were working on the
2
design of the inhalation smoking machine would go
over there and they'd pop animals in and they
wouid adjust things in :the computer, and so on and
But I was never really that much
7
involved, so -- other than that one thing, I don't
who wae in another building .
know who
Q . Who made t he decision to close the
10
biological research laboratory referred to as the
11
"Mouse Houee
12
A . `` I have no idea
13
Q
Who .was,in charge of biological
14
research in 1970 at Reynolds?
15
A .` Dr . `Eldon,Nielson . ;
16
Q
What happened with the animals that
17
were being biologically researched at the Mouse
18
House?
19
I have no idea .
20
Q . Never heard any stories?
21
No .
22
Q•
23
24
25
Not even rumors, hearsay, cocktail
party conversation?
I don't,even remember reading it in the
articles in the Greensboro newspaper, when there
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 673
were five articles, I think, spread over a week, a
page and a half each .
3
4
Q :,
Did you`ever see any memos that
described why the Mouse House was shut down?
5
N
6
Q
Do you`know if they did any research
in the Mouse House that would establish a link
n between cigarette smoke and any form of
9
tumors or
cancer?
10
No .
11
Q . Do you know what kind of biological
12
13
14
research they were doing in the Mouse House?
. Would you rephrase that, please?
Q . Do you know what kind of biological
15
research they were"doing in the Mouse House?
16
A . Well, as I,mentioned before, they were doing
17
some things on cholesterol reducing drugs, on
18
inability or toxicity of starch derivatives that
19
would be in food .' And of course this isomerase
20
thing, they had,to make sure that the liquid sugar
21
you ended up with was -- didn't have bacteria in
22
it, the one that was causing the isomerization .
23
And I'believe they did some work on ciliastasis,
24
cigarette smoke and ciliastasis .
25
Q . What is ciliastasis?
WAGA & SPINELLI
, Ln
~
~-4
~
~
, ,0p.
OD
' Ln
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 674
Well, the cilia are small, little hair-like
things that are in your lung . And I guess the
3
best :-way to describe them is they move in the -synchronously,` like a wave, you know . On the
surface of -- the tips of these things is -- is a
layer of fluid . And if you get anything in your
lung, particles, smoke particles,
8
.dugt, these
little cilia wiggle in a rhythmic motion and move
that : fluid with,the . particles` in it up -- and you
10
end`up swallowing them . It brings them out of
11
your lung and you swallow them .
12
Well, it had been this -- after the
13
demise, if you wi11, .-,of the polycyclics, the
14
aza-arenes, the phenols, the next group were the
15
ciliastats, which were ;primarily in the vapor
16
phase of smoke, not in-the particles . And there
17
was some work .on that .
18
The exposure to these ciliastats, done
19
in vitro with clam cilia or a piece of lung tissue
20
extirpated out of a ;rabb .it, exposure to these
21
vapor phase parts of smoke slowed these down ;
22
sufficient concentration ended
23
their little waving motion . In other words, you
24
were -- the claim was that the ciliastats in smoke
25
hindered the clearance mechanism of the lung .
WAGA & SPINELLI
stopping
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 675
1
And, as a result of that, one of the -- it was
2
written up a great deal in the Readers Digest and
3
so' .on, as the same time as the Lark cigarette
came
out,'which had a,carbon filter which was supposed
;o take the ciliastats out of the smoke .
Well -- I think they were doing some
work :'on that . I'm not sure of that, but I believe
they were .
Unfortunately, by 19 .-- the end of,
9
10
1968 -- well, let,me,back up a little .
1965, Lawrence Cook-and I did some
11
12
experiments that showed that the compounds that
13
are supposedly responsible for ciliastasis or this
14
impairment,never reached the lung, or-very little
15
of them .
16
17
18
They're all dissolved out of the mouth
the saliva, and then the laryngeal, and the
fluids coating the larynx .
We reported that, wrote it up ; it's in
19
some reports . But some other workers in Europe,
20
Da].hamn,' Edfords and Rylander, did it very
21
sophisticated ; very fancy equipment . Got
22
23
: essentially the same numbers that we did for the v+~
~
compounds that are considered ciliastats . And, as '0
24
a result, by the 1969,,1970, the whole carbon
25
filter cigarette'thing fell apart . It ended up
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 676
1
with -- I don't know, 13 brands going down to two,
2
the Reynolds' brand and the L & M brand, Lark and
3
Tempo .
And what-they were doing over in
the -- I think one of the things they may have
been doing, we had also found, Lawrence Cook and
that if you pass the smoke through a moist
8
system, that the water would take out the
9
ciliastats . In fact, there was a commercial
10
cigarette made with :that principle, that
11
encapsulated water .was included in the filter tip,
12
and before you smoked the cigarette, you crushed
13
the filter . The water came out of the capsule,
14
and when you smoked it through -- smoked the
15
cigarette, all the ciliastats were taken out .
But thatl all fell apart when it was
16
171
shown that the ciliastats, or very little of them,
18
ever got to the lung .
19
20
Q
Now,
did RJR do research to establish
that ciliastats : nevex'.' got to the" lung?
just told you .
21
Where is that published?
22
23
It's not published .
24
Q.
25
Well, shortly thereafter, Edfords and
Why
not?
(201) 992-4111
Vol .
, Pg . 677
Rylander-came out with their publication, and
there it was .
R
3
So'is it like medically not subject to
debate that ci3iastats -don't get to the lung?
I didn't say they didn't get to the lung . I
said the level that :>gets to.the lung is very much
reduced . Only about--a querter of them get there .
Q.
How'many .cigarettes do you have to
smoke befor,e you .get`a level that gets to the lung
10
.that matters?
I have no'' idea .
11
12
13
A .
No . The thing is, the effect disappears
14
between cigarettes .
15
Q .
16
The effect disappears between cigarettes .
17
Q . Is there any health d :isease that you
Pardon
me?
18
would feel comfortable, sitting here today,
19
acknowledging as related to smoking?
20
MR . MCDSRMQTTs . "Related"?
21
MR . MAISTROS : Related .
22
THE WITNESS : I still didn't hear you?
23
24
25
WAaA ;& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 678
it .
s there any .adverse health
3
consequence, that you feel comfortable discussing
today, ;that is related or associated with smoking?
MR .' BLANCATO : Object to the form .
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
8
around so much
10
11
Let me
4.
12
There are certai•n people out there
13
14
15
that you've referred to as zealots or
I never used that word .
I forget what word you used,
16
17
opponents, proponents of theories, or anti-smoking
18
people, that would suggest that there are certain
19
diseases related to emoking . Are you aware of
20
21
Well,`I've already said that there were
m
22
epidemiological-studies that indicated an
23
association .
24
Is there any health disease or adverse
251 health consequence that you, sitting here today,
WAdA`& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 679
1
feel comfortable stating that you believe, you
personally, not RJR, you personally believe is
caused by smoking?
4
5
o, I can't -think of anything .
Q . So as far as you' .re concerned, there
6
are .no adverse health consequences-that are caused
7
by smoking?
MR . MCDE,RMOTT : Object to the form of
9
the question .
THE WITNESS : Here, you come back to
10
11
.thie business of association and cause . It's been
12
my training that you cannot prove cause and effect
13
with statistics . You can prove association, but
14
not cause and effect . .
15
16
BY MR . MAISTROS
Q.
Okay . So if I paint a million mice
17
with compounds that's contained in tobacco smoke,
18
and one million get cancer, you can draw no
19
conclusions from that, related to the human
20
experience?
21
. Only if you were to paint the human the same
22
way and get the same-response . And by the way,
23
there has been a akin painting study done with
24
humans and cigarette .smoke .
25
Q . The`prisoners you•talked about?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 680
no . No .' That was with benzpyrene .
1
Who did the .human skin painting study?
2
There was a mari'here in the United States, in
1956 . .,: It's in Wyndev's boo•k ; he's got it
described . He did it for three or four months,
and then they'quit, : because they didn't see
anything .
I was surprised at reading that,
because I had~never realized that reference was in
10
11
existence .
Q
Give me something that the average,
12
common :person can relate to that would establish
13
the distinction that you see'between association
14
and cause .
15
A . : Well, I think part ;of my problem, sir, is
16
that -- as I mentioned, I was collecting and
17
critiquing literature for the law department, and
18
whether it's`a fortunate`position or an
19
unfortunate position, by the time of the trial in
20
New Orleans, the Lartigue case, I had read
21
something like 20-something thousand articles on
22
all aspects, pro and con,`of smoking and health .
23
By the time I got out of that job and it was
24'
actually turned over to Dr . Frank Colby,
25
probably had read 40,000 articles .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 681
Now, whether I am right or wrong --
1
the average person gets his knowledge from a front
page of the newspaper, a magazine, Time magazine
or whatever . If he`reads 52 issues of Time a
ye.ar, maybe three or five of them will have
smoking articles in . So z,think it's very
. ..difficult to pin down and say : Well, the average
8
,person should know :what Alan Rodgman knows, or
9
vice ::verea . So I'm•not in a position to say what
10
the ` average person would f eel about it . I don' t
11
know if'that answers your question .
12
4•
13
The other thing`about it, if you -- to jump
14
from aesociation'to cause and effect, maybe I'm
15
being the ultimate scientist, but there are
16
inconsistencies, even in the_epidemiological
17
studies considered taboo, to even say there's
18
something wrong with them .
19~
I've mentioned the Ochsner case . Why
20
is not Ochsner ever mentioned in the Surgeon
21
General's report, other than his first paper that
22
says cigarette smoking is associated or caused
23
by -- is a cause of lung cancer? All his
24
contradictory clinical data is omitted . Why does
25
Dr . Doll and Hill, in their first study, say they
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 682
can't explain why "the incidence of lung cancer
among people who said they did not inhale is
3
greater than,that in the people who say they
4
inhale .
Now, the American Cancer Society
5
6
sloughed that off and said : Well, the people
7
didn't understand the difference .between inhaling
8
and .not inhaling .
B
t Doll and Hill then went
on to do a study that,was a prospective study, in
.
.
.
. .
. 3
.
,
.
.
10
which they started out with people, 57,000 to be
11
precise, that'they were going to get their smoking
12
habits and see what happens to them . They never
13
asked the question about`inhaling .
Now, you .may say, well, people might
14
15
not understand again ; but this was 57,000
16
physicians . You can't tell me'that you got 57,000
17
physicians that do not know the difference between
18
inhaling and not .inhaling .
And, of-course, if you want to look at
19
20
the chemistry, which I'm much more familiar with,
21
if you want to take the ;time, I can give you at
22
23
24
25
Ln
F-A
a
m
Dr .
. Bock,
Van Duuren made an
on-t e front page -of the
newspapers that axe"wrong, some of which we showed
(201) 992-4111
~
~
Vol . 4, Pg . 683
1
were wrong, some of`which they showed were wrong,
2
but they, to this day, have never retracted a one .
3
4
Q . Why is your former employer agreeing
to FDA regulation of nicotine?
MR . MCDERMOTT : Objection . No
foundation .
THE WITNESSs I don't know whether is
7
or not .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
10
Q . Let's°assume that the newspaper's
11
correct and they've agreed to be regulated by the
12
FDA as a drug . Why would they do that?
MR . MCDERMOTT : Objection . No
13
14
foundation .
THE WITNESS : I'm not an expert in the
15
16
nicotine . All I would say, that I think it's a
17
mistake .
18 BY MR . MAISTROS :
19
20
Q .' Which is a mistake? You think they
should be settling these cases?
21
MR . BLANCATOs Object to the form .
22
MR . MCDERMOTT : Objection . No
23
foundation .
THE WITNESS : You want a personal
24
25 1 opinion?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 68 4
MR . :MAISTROS : Yes .
1
THE WITNESS : No .
3
BY MR . MAISTROS :
4
You think the settlement's foolish?
5
MR . BLANCATO : Objection to form .
6
THE WITNESS : I think it' s
inappropriate .
BY MR ;MAISTROS s
Why do you think its's inappropriate ?
9
10
11
A.
just think it'sinappropriate .
Q . You don't think there's any reaso n
12
that the tobacco-companies should ever agree to
13
any regulation of its product by the FDA ?
14
15
16
MR . MCDERMOTT : . Objection :
foundation .
THE WITNESS : If you go.back in time,
17
at one time there was"a serious consideration of
18
the FDA handling tobacco products the way they do
19
other things, and some people had proposed that .
20
AndI don't know -- I don't think the tobacco
21
companies really had said much either way . But
22
the FDA said : We-don't want to do it . We don't
23
have the time ; we don't have the facilities ; w e
24
don''t have the knowledge .
25+ And that's history, sir . Bac k
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 685
1
sometime -- look up sometime in the '70s .
Q . Do you think that t he defense that's
2
3
asserted by the tobacco company's Freedom of
Choice -- first .of all, are you aware of the
defense, Freedom of Choice?
6
A.
No . I'm not'that familiar with what's been
all this
Q
9
Do you know what the defense of the
tobacco companies is in the Arch litigation?
10
No, I do not .
11
Q . You've not served in any capacity as a
12
consultant in the Arch litigation?
13
Only by being here .
14
Q . Have you assisted Womble Carlyle in
15
the :defense of the Arch case?
16
A . . By being,here ; I don't'know if this is
17
-helping them or hindering them . I don't know what
18
the -- what's involved in the Arch case, frankly .
19
Q.
Have :you ever :written any memorandum
20
to`your managers, supervisors, higher-ups at
21
Reynolds, where you espouse the opinion that there
22
were health risks rel,ated to smoking?
23
. I have written things to them pointing out
24
that these views are held otherwise, and we should
25
be paying attention to them .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 686
1
Q . But have you written anything
2
forget what other people have espoused . Have you
3
written anything where .you said I, Dr . Rodgman,
believe that the following health risks are
5
related to smoking?
6
A . Not that I remember .
7
Q . So, I just<want to understand the
playing field we're on'.
You start from the
proposition that you don't personally believe
10
there'are health risks related to smoking?
MR .-MCDERMOTTs Object to the form of
11
12
the question . You're misstating or not accurately
13
summarizing his prior testimony . It speaks for
14
itself .
MR . MAISTROS : Tell me if I'm
15
16
misstating -THE WITNESS : I think I've already
17
18
spoken to that .-
19 BY MR . MAISTROSs
20
21
Q . Do you have grandchildren?
A . Yes .
22
Q . Any of them smoke?
23
No .
24
Q . Do you have any concerns if they
251 started to smoke?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 687
My sons - don' t smoke .
2
Wou1d yo:u have any ;concerns if your
Q
g I randchildren smoked?
I believe that's their parents' problem, not
It wouldn't`concern you one way or
Q
another if your grandchildren .smoked?
. Well, at their :present age ; .some of them are
three years old .
10
11
Q . The ones that are old enough to smoke,
would it concern you if they started to smoke?
12
Not particularly .
13
Q
14
151
Did you ever do any research to
determine why people smoke?
That was outside my expertise, sir .
16
Most of my work'has been on composition of smoke,
17
control of it .
18
Q . What do you mean by "control"?
19
Just what we've'been talking about : Lowering
20
the composition delivery from'a cigarette,
21
compounds in the tar, and so on and`so forth .
22
Q . Any of the papers that you did on the
23
composition of amoke, did you turn those in to the
24
legal department for review?
25
A . Did I?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 688
Yes .
2
A ..
No .
Q.
Anyone ever .review your work before it
was`published?
5
Oh, there was a set routine, that you
6
prepared the manuscript, submitted it to your
7
manager, manager took it to the director of
research, and then the-director of research either
9
10
-11
approved-it there or, if he had some concern, he
might take it on .
Did you ever submit any documents that
0
12
were returned, edited by anyone in the legal
13
department?
14
Edited?
Yes .
15
16
17
0
Q . Did you ever .have any manuscripts
18
returned, where suggestions were made that, when
19
you expressed certain views by anti-smoking
20
advocates, that you would highlight they were the
21
views of anti-smoking advocates as opposed to just
22
the views of a third person?
23
24
Ln
F-A
~
N
m
No .
MR . MCDERMOTT : Would you read back
251 the question . There was a noise here . I didn't
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ob
Ln
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 689
quite hear the middle part of it .
MR . MAISTROS : He said, "No," but she
can do it again .
(Record read)
5
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q
7
Agreement?
8
A .
Now, have you heard of the Gentleman's
. .~Yee .
Q . What is the Gentleman's Agreement?
We talked about it at the last part of this
10
A.
11
deposition . It was .:-- I heard about it in a round
12
about way . But no in-house animal work was part
13
of it, I think .
Did Reynolds abide by the Gentleman's
14
15
Agreement?
MR . MCDERMOTTs Objection .
16
171
foundation .
THE WITNESS : As far as I know .
18
19
BY MR . MAISTROS :
20
Q.
21
22
What was the reason for the
Gentleman's Agreement?
Ln
I have no idea .
MR . MCDERMOTT :
23
~
~
~
Objection .
m
~
24
25
Foundation .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g
690
Q . Did you hear of a gentleman's
agrefement with respect to a safer cigarette?
A . I don't quite know what you mean .
Q . Was there ever a gentleman's
agreement, to your knowledge, with respect to, if
one tobacco company developed~a safer cigarette,
they'd share that-knowledge with other tobacco
companies?
.
Oh . I was ~-,trying to think if -- Dr . Colby
10
and I gave a talk . That may have been in that --
11
so,me parts Frank put'in .
12
Q . Some parts what?
13
.A . Some parts of the talk D
14
th'at 'may have, been in there .
15
Q . Talk to who?
16
Management .
I'm sorry .
Colby put in . And
What year?
17
18
19
Did` -- I
20
21
into -- back into the biological work . That's
22
when Dr' . Hayes showed,, ., up .
23
Q . You espoused more in-house biological
24
research in '62 . And then there was no biological
25
research, for whatever reason, in '70 . And then
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 691
1
when did°Reynolds get'back into biological
research in-house?
It was about '83 ; I guess . There again, I
Dr . Hayes was hired, and he had to acquire
got. 5
a staff, and was . set up to,do all this stuff,
Q-
Why was there no in-house biological
research from 1970 to '83?
9
A . Whenever we needed it, we contracted it .
10
Industrial :Bio-.Test, in Chicago, and
11
12
Bio-.Reeearch .'in Montreal, and I don't know where
13
else, if there was anywhere else .
Q
14
15
Did Reynolds have facilities in other
countries that did .biological research?
16
Q.
17
Did Reynolds contract with university
18
or outside hospital medical personnel to do
19
biological research,'from 170 to '83?
20
A.
21
done in Industrial Bio-Test, and then the one done
22
at Bio-Research -- well, there were several done
23
at .Bio-Research in Montreal . One was a --
24
Industrial Bio-Test was a tobacco'substitute --
25
No . The only ones I know about are the one
well, both of them were tobacco substitute . Then
(201) 992-4111
~
~
~
~_A
m
,P.
cn
im
w
Vol . 4, Pg . 692
1
2
there was the . .expanded tobacco biological work .
Q . Have those reports been published and
3
provided, to your knowledge?
4
A . I don't know . I don't have them .
Q.
Industrial .Bio-Test, did they do
and 9
10
11
and it include the chemistry of the smoke of the
12
eubstitute .
Well, unfortunately, just at that
13
of
14
time, Industrial°Bio-Test got into all sorts
15
trouble with -- I don't know who it was, FDA or
16
somebody, because of something,they had done with
17
some agricultural chemicals they_had_approved or
18
not approved or should°have been'approved or
19
whatever . And most of,. the people that were
20
involved got fired, so it was never .finished .
21
'Q
Did you .ever see any published reports
22
of Industrial"Bio-Test?
23
A, Did I ever<see'any?
24
Yes .
Ln
0
14
on our work?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 693
Yes .
3
0
Do you know .if Industrial Bio-Test did
any testing to determine if any of the compounds
5
in cigarette smoke promoted tumors, caused cancer,
were tumorigenic?
7
N
8
Q .
They did a lot of work on ciliastasis .
But they didn't publish any reports?
Well, they sent the reports to Reynolds .
10
Q
Do you~know where those are?
11
A . They're in the boxes I gave you . Some of
12
them . I think they"confirmed what Lawrence Cook
13
and I had found, that :ciliastats were taken out in
14
the oral cavity .
Q
15
16
Why di`d Reynolds get back into
in-house biological research in 1983?
Well, here again, it was a management
17
upper management change in R & D . First
18
change
19
one was 1980, then it was 1982/83 . And I -- so
20
D
21
presentation - said we ; .should get into
22
bio-behavioral type things about smoking, and why
23
people smoked and how they smoked, and so on and
Colby and I - I<did., actually, the
m
~
24
w
so forth . And it was approved .
25+
VIDEOdRAPHERs
WAGA &`SPZNELLI
M
m
Maistros, we have
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 694
five minutes left on the videotape .
2
3
BY MR . MAISTROSs'
Q . Did you ever hear any reasons or
explanations as to why_ ;Reynolds did not have
in-house biological,research from '70 to '83?
Well, not -
nobody ;came up and said : Alan,
here=-are the reason.s .
8
But what happened was, if
you thought about it,'that -- to set up a
biological system for various -- for a great
10
number of things is`very expensive .' And you could
11
contract it to a,,univergity lab or a commercial
12
lab and they have everything in place ; they have
13
staff, all expert in certain things, whatever
14
you're looking for . And it ended up being much
15
less expensive to do some things like that than to
16
set up a whole system -in your in-house, and
17
maybe use it tw-ice, and then have to go on to
18
something else .
19
So, you know, in the -- for example,
20
as I mentioned, we did,some of the tobacco
21
substitute work by a contract lab . And, by the
22
way, all of that wae confirmed in the NCI study,
23
the puffed tobacco work, and so on .
24
Q ." In 1970, Reynolds had'in-house
251 biological research .already in existence, did they
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 695
not? So we're not talking about startup costs .'
A . Well, they did -- they weren't set up to
do -- if you did do mouse .skin painting, for
example, you need a tremendous amount of space .
For example, if you have, as I said, cage
controls, solvent controls, positive controls,
test things, you usually do it with 100 or so, 150
mice a piece, and you put six to a cage, and
you're talking an awful lot of space and room, and
10
so on and so forth .
Q . In all`the papers that you did in the
11
12
boxeis-over there, did you ever do a memo to anyone
13
suggesting the reason that there shouldn't be
14
in-house biological testing is the economics?
15
A.
16
No .
Q.
Did
you .ever see a memo, in those six
17
boxes sitting over there, where economics was the
18
reason there was-no`in-house biological research?
19
Well, one of the reasons, for example,
20
that -- here, X had nothing to do with that .
21
That -- the situation aroee in 1970 with the --
22
doing away with the -- if you will, the Mouse
23
House . It actually started in late 1968, when, if
24
you're aware, there was sort of an austerity
25
program ; things weren't going quite as well as
Ln
m
~j
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 696
1
they could have . We were told, for example, in
2
late 1968 : in your`planning for 1969 and '70, do
not budget any new staff acquisitions or
4
replacement of etaff'who are leaving because of
5
retirement or whatever :
Well that budget was prepared for '69 .
And then, of course, it was again -- started to
prepare,it in late '69 for '70 -- well, several
9
10
things happened . I had mentioned Penick & Ford in
the starch work that was biological work .
Well, Reynolds was getting rid of
11
12
Penick & Ford . The deal with Warner Lambert, the
13
company that was sort of interested in our
14
anti-cholesterol business, fell through . And so,
15
with the austerity thing and the collapse of the
16
Penick & Ford starch business -- now,
17
Penick & Ford also had some interest in our
18
isomerase business, and the agreement ended up
19~
there that Penick & Ford would have the rights to
20'
the isomerase patent in the United States and we
21
wouid-have it in the rest of the world . I don't
22
know whether they ever'did license it, but we did .!
23
MR . MA 'ISTROS : We're going to have to :
24
change tapes, okay?
251
THE
WITNESS : Okay .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 697
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
record at 3 :16 p .m` . We're off the record .
(Recess taken from 3 :16 p .m . to 3 :37
VIDEOGRAPHER : ; This is tape 3 of the
5
6
videotape d,eposition of„'A] .an Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
going back on_the ;record at 3 :37 p .m .
BY MR . MAISTROS ;`
D,
Rodgman, let me see if I can
10
expedite_today and the rest of tomorrow in some
11
fashion . Maybe ao .
There are six boxes sitting over
12
13
here with documents'`in them . Are you familiar
14
with-those documents?
15
I think so .
16
Q
Were all those documents produced by
17
you in'response to document requests in this
181
litigation?
19
A.
20
.' Yes .
Q . And all those documents were kept by
21
you in,the regular and .ordinary course of your
22
business at Reynolds? .
23
24
25
Well, as I remember, some of them are some
things I wrote since I left Reynolds .
Q
Okay .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 698
MR . BLANCATOa Did you testify
earlier, some are from before?
THE WITNESS : That's right . Some of
them are from my work in -- for example, reprints
of some of my publications, prior to coming to
Reynolds in 1954 . And then there's some work -publications that I actually published on my Ph .D .
thesis, and I actually .wrote them -- or wrote my
part of it as late, ;as 1959 when I was at Reynolds,
10
with my professor Dr . George F . Wright at the
11
University of Toronto .
12
13
BY MR . MAISTROSs
Q . Is it fair to say that . the vast
14
majority of documents 'in° those six boxes,
15
including the ones that .would be dated between
16
1954 and 1989, are related to your work at
17
Reynolds?
18
Yes .
19
Q.
And :that,the vast-majority of such
20
documents were created and kept in the ordinary
21
course of business at Reynolds?
22
23
Q . And are copies of original documents
24
that were . kept 'at Reynol `de?
25
A . Yes .
WAGA .&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 699
And you have no reason to believe that
2
any of those documents in there are other than
3
what they appear to be in terms of copies? None
4
are fabricated,
in other words?
No . Why would I do that?
6
7
Q . I wouldn't suggest you would, but
silly questions, lawyers have to ask .
You wouldn't object, then, to the
introduction of any of those six documents, (sic)
10
in terms of either being authentic copies or kept
11
in`the ordinary course of business --- six boxes of
12
documents?
13
MR . MAISTROS :
14
Can we have a
15
stipulation to that, other than hearsay and
16
relevancy?
17
MR . MCDERMOTT : We're going -- I mean,
18
I haven't looked through every document in those
19
boxes, and so .I can',t stipulate, in gross, that
20
they're all business'records or that they're --
21
that t hey're properly authenticated : But we're
22
not going to be unreasonable . We're going to --
23
we're going to take a sensible and civilized view
24
of the contents of,those boxes . If they're
25
business records, I'm sure we can work out an
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
N
m
IN
Ln
Vol . 4, Pg . 700
1
accommodation . If`you"ve got some stuff that you
2
want to examine overnight and you ask me about it
3
or ask Dr . Rodgman about it specifically, that's
fine . I'm not going to stipulate that six boxes,
5
in gross, are :business records, however .
THE WITNESS : For example, along that
7
line, my -- I`believe ; someplace .in that mess, is
a copy of my application for employment at
Reynolds . Now, is that a-~ ;where .does that fit?
10
11
12
MR . MAISTROS : Historically
interesting, but probably irrelevant .
MR . MCDERMOTT : You've also got some
13
calendars that I think .are largely personal and so
14
"fort'h . Again, we're'-not going to be -- we're not
15
going'to be obstructionists, but --
16
MR . MAISTROS s Let me` ask you this,
17
and 'the reason I' m' doing it ° on the record is to
18 :
hopefully -- it,was toaexpedite, not to prolong
19
.this . Rather than have me take the witness
20
through all those documents and say, yes, this a
21
copy that -- while I produced at Reynolds . If we
22
can,at least have the agreement, if it's sent to
23
him, :`eent by him or he,'s copied on it and it's got
24
something that says it wae Reynolds-affiliated,
25
then we won't be getting a business record
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
r
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 701
objection or hearsay objection .
MR .,'MCDERMOTT : Let me suggest this .
We're going -- we're going to be back tomorrow
morning ;with'this"witness . I m : not involved in
the case directly ; : .I'm not sure what .the history
6
has been between the parties at ;this point . Let's
get'Mr . Belasic'on-the phone at 4 :30, after we let
8
the witness go, and we'can take a look at the
boxes ourselves, and make, maybe, a more sensible
10
determination w,ithout wasting the witness' time or
11
the court reporter's time on this, and we can put
12
stuff on,the record in-the morning . All right?
13
14
15
MR . MAISTROS : Okay . Or possibly at
4 :30 .
BY MR . MAISTR,OSt
16
Q.
17
18
Now
-
MR . MCDERHOTT : Possibly 4 :30 .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
19
Q . -- you mentioned two studies or two
20
projects you were-involved in at Reynolds,
21
separate and apart from the consulting work you've
22
done for Womble, right?
23
A.
Ln
r
V
Ln
24
4
25
Well, here again,
Was one of those in 1994?
can remember things in
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 702
1
1954 that I can't remember from yesterday . But
one of them was a book on nitrosamines I wrote .
The .other is a-- there was a gentleman called
Dr . ;;,Dennis .Regan, who . ;wanted a planning meeting -research planning meeting, and he invited several
retirees to it : . And there was some small amount
of preparation for,the meeting and some things I
wrote for the meeting and presented at the
9
10
meeting, and I got paid for that, and so on and so
forth . So those are the two things -When was that latter meeting?
11
12
Well, both'.of them have-to have been after
I guess . Because I had that five-year
13
14
restriction on being able to do work for Reynolds
15
until the five years up was after my'retirement .
16
So -'- I mean, the information -- the contracts
17
have been provided, and how much I was paid, and
18
all this -- and the books are in there .
19
20
Q . So all the results of those two
projects are in .those six boxes?
21
Someplace, yeah .
22
0
•You were reviewing Dr . Townsend's
23
trial testimony from the Florida case earlier ; do
24
you remember that? .
25
A . Yeah .
WAaA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 703
Was there anything in there that -- as
2
you .were reviewing it, that you agreed with or
disagreed with, that you remember as you sit here
today?
5
Well, I agreed with a lot of what he said .
6
Q.
Was there anything that you can recall
that you disagreed with?
Not really . I didn't read it that closely,
9
Mr . ;Maistros . I just want'ed to see how -- I had
10
seen him on television . And, of course, I hired
11
Dr . Townaend . And -- he's a very brilliant young
12
13
14
15
knew ;he would do .a good job, anyway .
You were not aware he was going to
te .stity in that case, before he did so?
I knew he wae`getting ready for something,
16
but I didn't know which one it was until, all of a
17
sudden, I looked at the television and there he
is, being asked questions .
In '54 to 165 you've already testified
what you were primarily involved in . Were there
other projects you were working on, that you
22
haven't testified .about,
in that time period?
23
Well, as I<say, we were doing the smoke
24
composition -- if I may, let me run through .
25
Polycyclic,,-- discounting the phenol
WAGA & SPINELhI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4 , Pg . 704
synthesis thing, it was polycyclic work ; we did
some work on the aza=arenes ; which are nitrogen
compounds that are structurally similar to the
polycyclic hydrocarbons ; then we did the phenol
work ; we did the ciliastat work ; and we started to
do some work on nitroeamines in the '63/'64 era .
And then -- and, here, I've forgotten
8
the date,
we had a shift in management .
Mr . Hoover retired ;`Dr . Senkus became director of
10
~research ; and a new man, the vice president of
11
R& D, Dr . Willard Bright became vice president of
12
R& D . And he had a bit different attitude about
13
what we should be doing and what we shouldn't be
14
doing . He was very interested in acquisitions,
15
and he was the one that triggered the
16
Penick & Ford thing and the Warner Lambert thing .
17
And he also got :us involved in a tobacco
18
substitute study'for a material called Sutton
19
20
21
22
4
-Sutton?
A .' Sutton, S-t7-T-.T-O-N .
So the tobacco work -- or tobacco
23
smoke work and our tobacco composition studies
24
were, sort of dropped in favor of some of the new
25
things he wanted done . And for the next several
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 705
ye'ars, my group, which I wasn't familiar with, you
know, studied, not only the Button .smoking
3
material, but,a smoking material manufactured by
Celanese, and that's called Cytrel, C-Y-T-R-E-L,
5
and emoking materiai manufactured in England
called_New Smoking Material, by Imperial Chemical
and Imperial Tobacco Company .'
And we looked at these, and we had
8
9
problems with all of them . And over the next --
10
between 1965 and maybe 1970, early '70's, a young
11
man called Jack'White,•developed a smoking tobacco
12
substitute that was better than any one we could
13
buy or license or whatever . And we did all the
14
smoke work on it and so on, the animal work .
And we never used it, because there
15
16
were thirteen brands introduced in the United
17
Kingdom with NSM 3mperial smoking material and the
18
Cytrel, and within nine months every one of them
19
hadn't sold enough to make a penny . So we never
20
did`market and put it in our cigarettes .
21
R.
Do you k~ow°if ff there was nicotine in
Ln
~
V
22
23
~.A
those materials?
Not per se, no . And, of course, nobody ever
m.
~
Ln
N
J
24
marketed a cigarette made of 100 percent smoking
251 material .' It was always blended with 80 percent
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 706
1
tobacco or 70 percent tobacco or 90 percent
tobacco .
Q . When you say "not per se," you mean
3
4
what nicotine there was, was from the natural .
5
tobacco that appeared in the product?
A.
.Right . These things are all cellulose
derivatives, mixed with a bunch of inorganic clays
and .whatnot, or salt .
Q.
Was the .primary interest of your
10
supervisor the fact that it would be a tobacco
11
substitute and reducee the cost of the product, or
12
it .would reduce the biological activity of the
13
product?
14
A . Well, actually'the cost of most of the
15
tobacco substitutes, the -- except for the one we
16
developed in-house, the cost of the'three we could
17
have bought cost more than the tobacco .
18
19
20
Q . So what was the primary goal, then, of
developing
Well the primary goal was to -- would this be
21
an`additional_way that -- to add to the eight
22
technologies that would be acceptable in the
23
generation of a less hazardous cigarette . And,
24
well, the Cytrel, for example, was tested in the
25
NCI study that ran from '68 to '78 and, despite
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 707
I
their claims,'it was-worse than tobacco, in terms
of producing tumors on mice and so on .
Q.
4
Has anyone
when you say that there
were thirteen brands .that They were introduced in England .
Commercially?
Commercially .
And how "long were they .on the market?
Oh, some`of them were out there -- most of
10
them were gone within nine months . I happened to
11
when --
12
nine-month, ten month after they had been first
13
introduced, and I finally found a,pack ; but I had
14
to go into eleven-tobacco~stores in London to find
15
a pack . And the'fel,low said : Here, take it . He
16
didn't even :~harge me ., He'said : It's the last
`17
one-I've got, and it's~been sitting here for five
18
months .
19
20
21
Q . And how long did you work on a
potential tobacco substitute?
Well, I said, we worked on the Sutton one, we
22
worked on the° .NSM, we worked on the Cytrel .
23
didn t do an awful lot ;of work on the NSM ; most of
24
that work was some really fundamental .smoke work,
25
tar and nicotine -
_well, not nicotine . Tar,
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 708
carbon monoxide and .so on .
That one we did quite a bit of work on
2
panel evaluation' . That was one of the problems
with all those three,that -- whether`they were
alone-or mixed with tobacco at various levels, the
parieaists just didn't cotton to them, smoking a
cigarette, per se . But`t he,other thing that they
8
didn't like was, if somebody was in the room, side
9
stream smoke was very obnoxious, in terms of an
10
.of flodor, that it smelt ,like, 'burning paper .
11
Nobody liked to have .that .
Now, the one we developed in-house,
12
13
and we panel-tested it,'and the people didn't
14
know, of course, that it was ours . It didn't have
15
a taete'problem, and it did all the things that we
16
had hoped it would do . And so`it would have been
17
a W
18
patented . And I' :mFaaure, if you look at the
19
patents, you'll see .what it is ; it's a puffed
y to' make money ..
_ so
20
21
And of' course we had it
0
Did :'you'personally believe that these
22
potential tobacco eubet'itutes :would result in a
23
safer cigarette?
24
~Well, we were hoping, that when we looked at
251 the!Sutton material and the Cytrel material, that
WAaA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
Pg . 709
it_ would be another way to do things that were in
the definition that had been laid out in the '60s
by W.ynder, Hoffmann, Bock and all that bunch .
Q . But you personally didn't believe, in
your heart of hearts, that it mattered anyway, did
you?
Well, what Is was looking for is, if that's
f course,
10
11
t
sales-weighted average, we kept dropping it,
the industry kept dropping that
12
13
in -- the requfrement that Dr . Wynder and others
14
had said :
15
go :"_away . Well we dropped it 40 and then they said
16
not'enough . We dropped it another 40 ; not enough .
17
You, know, where do you stop?
18
Q . Are you talking about the FTC testing
19
method or -
20
Right .
21
Q.
22
Drop it 40 percent and the effect will
When`you say that the -- you kept
23
dropping the tar content, that's -- and you've L,
~
;_j
testified about that on a couple occasions today . m
24
You!re talking about the FTC testing method?
25
Right .
WAaA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 710
Q . Had you done, in fact, research that
1
2
would indicate that the FTC testing method was ann
inaccurate method to test tar content of
c,igarettes?
MR . MCDERMOTTs Object .t o the form of
THE WiTNESS : "it -- the way it's done,
what you get is,what you get .
BY MR . MAISTROSs
10
11
But nobody smokes that way .
A.
.Nobody smokes that way . We told them that in
12
They don't
13
And, now,
14
15
everybody's complaining that the FTC doesn't
16
the people don't smoke the way the machine smokes,
17
eo, ;therefore, there's something wrong with it .
18
And we had told ;them that in 1963, '64, '65 . And
19
they came out in`1966 and said : You will do the
20
analysis this way, period . And that was that .
21
22
Q
do -
Has there ever been any discussion at
Reynolds about whether or not Reynolds has an
23
.obligation .to advise the_public on its cigarettes,
24
or otherwiae, that the FTC yields published on the
25
ciga.rettes, don't mean a .whole lot?
WAGA & SPINELLI'
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4
g . 711
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS :, You know, what
management wants to`do about that is their
business . You know, you usually don't tell the
FTC too much .
8 BY MR . MAISTROSs
Q . Did yo'u ever tell management that
10
perhaps RJR should consider"publishing what it
11
believed to be more realistic tar and nicotine
12
yield numbers on its cigarettes?
13
A . Well -MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the .form of
14
15
the :question . No foundation . .
16
THE`WITNESS : The number that .you get
17
is all right, except people don't smoke that way .
18
Now, there may be one person in ten that smokes
19
exactly the same as the smoking machine . But, you
20
know, if you were to,smoke a cigarette in Alaska
21
at 20 below zero
22
23
24
25
BY MR .`MAISTROS :
Q, I would hope you would be doing
e'omething other than A .' -- and compared it to smoking one at Key West
WAGA .&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 712
at 90 degrees and 100 percent humidity, that's
2
going to be entirely different than smoking a
3
cigarette at the FTC parameters .
And the other thing, that if you, say,
have three cigarettes, just take an example, at
20 milligrams delivery of tar, depending how those
cigarettes`were made,j those tars could be entirely
different . And`they know that ; it's all in the
NCI'report of -- on the less hazardous cigarettes .
10
Q . Again, though -- and you can say you
11
disagree if it's the case with the premise of my
12
question . But did you ever suggest to anyone at
13
RJR that the results that you determined at age --
14
not you, but that RJR determined, the tar and
15
nicotine content of cigarettes and how it differed
16
from the FTC, that those results should be
17
published?
18
Well, which smoker would you pick?
19
Q . Well, didn't you do tests that
20
indicated that the average smoker took in more tar
21
and nicotine than would be established by the FTC
22
testing method?
23
A . I don't -- I don't know about -- that might
24
have been done after'I left . I don't know .
25
Q . Did you''view or did you ever express
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g . 713
the-opinion, while-you were at RJR, that the
2
FTC-published reductions in tar and nicotine
3
indicated that RJR was producing a safer
4
cigarette?
Well, the FTC never .said that .
6
Q
9
10
11
Is the fact that a cigarette is lower
in tar and nicotine indicative that it's a safer
ciga,rette,, An your''opinion?
Well, that's one part of the -- well, the
12
nicotine was :never mentioned in the original
13
definition . But that is one part of the overall
14
definition that,came oLtt .in the late '59 --
15
'50s/early '60s . 0ne of the parts is that the tar
16
is re'duced, the tumorigenicity -- specific
17
tumorigenicity of the,tar'is reduced and the level
18
of certain. components relative to tar are reduced .
19
Q . Do you concur in the assessment that,
20
if you have lower tars, you're going to have a
21
safer cigarette?
22 ;
I don't know . You know, you'd have to say :
cn
J
F-A
231
What kind of tar? And .there again -- for example
24
if,,you looked at the F-- the NCI work, which
25
involves a hundred and-something experimental
(201) 992-4111
m
Sch
Ln
nJ
M
Vol . 4, Pg . 714
cigarettes, you would make your choice -- for
2
example, you could have a 20-milligram cigarette,
take one of their-samples -- and here I'm just
giving you an example, and I'm sure the numbers
5
aren't going to be the same as in those four
reports .
But .you could take a 20-milligram
8
cigarette that had -- and let's just pick a
figure, ten nanograms of benzpyrene per cigarette .
10
Now,-if you had any health concerns, would you
11
pick that cigarette,_20 versus 10, versus another
12
c.igarette that, say, had 15 milligrams of tar but
13
20 .mi1 -- 20 nanograms of benzpyrene? Which would
14
you pick? Would you ;pick the -- it depends on
15
whether you're concerned about tar per se or the
16
polycyclics per se .
17
18
19
But the number you get ,from the FTC
does not tell you what the'composition of that tar
And when we tried to tell the FTC that in the
20
mid '60s, they'said all you're trying to do i
21
make your produCt tsound good . And that's the lastj
-
Ln
~
22
we heard of it until'people, in the last five or ~
23
_
Im
six years,, have started to say : Well, you know, !Ln
24
there's a problem here . And actually, the problem
25
came up in 1980, with the Berkley cigarette --
(201) 992-4111
N
~
Vol . 4, Pg . 715
Barclay cigarette .
Q
A .
4
What' prob],em?
Well, the .Barclay cigarette, when you smoked
it on the -- in the FTC method, you got a certain
tar yield . But when ;the smoker smoked it, and was
forced to smoke exactly the same as'the smoking
machine'- that can be done by appropriate
mechanics - because of the way the lips press down
on the filter tip, which had some grooves in it,
10
theJsmoker was`taking in twice as much'as the FTC
11
method :ehowed on the Phipps & Bird smoking
12
machine'. And
13
the FTC .'
14
15
things you'were doing between 1954,and '65 .
Well, as'I say, in -- well, we got to the
16
17
substitute thing, which actually ran from the late
18
'64s -- .,- I guess '65 Is when we got into the
19
substitutes .
20
There was a time there, and I'm sure,
21
if you look at some of the reports I wrote, I
know
22
there was a question- :that came up in the - - f rom
23
M
24
things we had done . Well, I think, at one time,
25
we ."'looked to perhaps fifteen different kinds of
O'Fallon about publishing/not publishing
WAGA `& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 716
filters that had been proposed for their effect on
certain smoke components . And every one did not
perform like the patent said it would .
Well, there's a report on each one of
4
those, or maybe some that are combined, the
two-in-one reports, but how can you publish
something that shows -- ends up being a failure?
_ The,`journal won't take it .
Then if you look, for example -- I
10
went to a lot of meetings in conjunction with my
11
research work and in connection with my providing
12
infbrmation to the law department . I guess, over
13
the_years, I went to .a dozen AACR meetings, and
14
half a dozen American Cancer Society meetings, the
15
Heart Association meetings and so on . And these
16
are reports to management of what things I had
17
picked up there,•what people had said, and so on
18
and"so forth . Well, you don't publish those .
So when,you back off on the, oh, I
19
20
don't know, hundred or so reports I wrote, you can
21
find'out, about half of them wouldn't be
22
publishable anyway .` And the ones we did -- many
23
of the ones .we did publish, of course, are in the
24
literature or presented at meetings .
251
Q.
Do you recall any titles, off the top
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~
1 1-4
Vol . 4, Pg . 717
your head, that published, that indicated that there was health
3
4
hazards 're,lated to smoking?
No, I didn' t .
Q . Are there any, out of the six boxes
over there, published reports that you authored,
that indicate health ;consequences re,lated to
smok'ing?,
Not in so many words . Now, we did publish
10
some components in smoke that subsequently were
11
shoivn to have a problem .
12
Q . I'm specifically talking about papers,
13
where the topic or theme or conclusion was that
14
there was a health_risk related to amoking . Do
15
you recall publishing any such papers?'
16
No . No " I did not .
17
Q . You reviewed a lot of papers, did you
18
not,-that reported links between smoking and
19
20 .
21
22
23
24
25
lot of the chemical stuff .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 71 8
Q . Any>of the -- specifically there was
research, was therenot, biological testing, that
established a purported link between cigarette
smoke and its compoundsor components and advers e
health consequences .
literature ?
Yeah . Bu t
I was in the chemistrybusiness .
Now, as I say, the people in the bio bunch, they
looked at ciliastasia, and so on . At one time -10
I mentionedthe work Lawrence Cook and I had don e
11
about the ciliastasis and finding it -- most of i t
12
wasabsorbed in the mouth, the ciliastats . Now ,
13
guess that's biological, because we did it with
14
people .
15
Q . What chemical research did you try to
16
duplicate ?
17
A . . Well, we weren't duplicating any ; we were th e
18
first to find out that the ciliastats were
19
absorbed in the mouth .
20
Q . Separate'and apart, from the
21
.ciliastats,, did you attempt to duplicate any of
22
the chemical studiesthat were done and then
23
publi.shed in the literature, that showed a link
24
between cigarette smoking or the compounds i n
251 cigarette smoke and adverse health consequences ?
WAGA &SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 719
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : Well, it was a long
question . But,_for example, there were claims of
e'o,-much volatile nitrosamines or tobacco specific
nitrosamines in cigarette smoke .- We looked at it,
and the work published_in the collection procedure
0 avoid-artifactual formation of
8
nitrosamines during the analysis, used ascorbic
10
the collection system, which
11
was supposed to :prevent artifactual .formation of
12
the`nitrosamines ; and which it did .
13
° Well, the ;people at Reynolds -- we got
14
wondering about some of the values they were
15
getting for the nitrosamines, so they looked at
16
it . And in the .collection of cigarette smoke you
17
hav.e a epecial kind of filter that the smoke
18
impinges on and :is collected, 99 .9 .percent . And
19
the people at Reynolds decided to put ascorbic
20
acid on the pad . Well, when they did that -- the
21
levels of nitrosamines reported by everybody else,
22
prior to that, was about 25, 30 percent less,
23
depending on which one,you were looking at . And
24
what was happening, you were preventing the
25
artifactual formation right on the~pad before you
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
w
1~
I
Vol . 4, Pg . 720
ever took it,to the ;analysis . And that's been
2
confirmed in a lot of laborat-ories .
o, there's a great deal made of how
3
much the nitrosamines are in smoke, and -- but,
you know, is it relevant when most of the numbers
6
in the literature, except the ones published since
that`article by=Rey,nolds,,are wrong ; they're not
8'
only wrong for cigarette smoke, they're wrong for
9
bac:on and anything .else you see with nitrosamines .
10
If it .would make you feel any better, your bacon
11
has about 30 percent less than what everybody has
12
been telling you .
13
14
15
. 16
17
Q . What were your official titles between
154 and ' .65?
I was a senior research chemist from 1954
until 1965 . When Dr
back up a littI le . .
Mr . Hoover had a peculiar philosophy .
18
19
20
Bright came -- well, let me
There was director of_research, there were the
-managers, and ;there . ;were-the troops . The troops
21
were divided into eenior research chemists, or
22
biologists or`b,io-chemists, research chemists,
2
asbociate research chemists, .technicians . There
~
Ln
24
was .no administrative people below manager,
~
251 supervi.sors .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 721
Dr :'Bright came, and he didn't like
that . Well, also, :another thing, the place was
.getting larger, .more : ;p.eople . And he set up a
system where you had a manager, section head, a
group leader', -and then the :-troops . And when he
came, I was made a sect-ion head in charge of the
What year?
A . 1965, 1 guess, is when he came .
10
soon after he came :
Q . And how long were you section head?
11
12
He did it
.
Well, in 19 --'I got to get this straight .
the spring of 1973, my
13
14
boss, who was, at that time, the manager of the
151
chemical research, was Dr . Anders Laurene . He was
16
sent off to take a,management course at the
17
University of North Carolina over at Chapel Hill
18
for six months . And then`he was assigned to do an
19
orientation through the -- the development
20
department . And while he was gone, .I was acting
21
manager of the chemical research division .
22
23
When`he came back, I went back to
being section head . And then, the next spring and
24
75,
251 analytical divieion, which, at the time, I thought
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 722
1
was an odd choice, not knowing that they already
had plans . And then, the spring of '76, I was
3
made :director of research .
Q : Director` of research for all of
Reynolds?
Tobacco .
6
And then, in 1980, when we had the
massive organization -- reorganization, our R & D
9
was split into six divisions, instead of just
10
being research and development . I got the task of
11
being director of-fundamental research .
Q . As opposed to what other type of
12
13
14
research?
. Well, there was fundamental research
15
director, applied research director, analytical
16
research director, process engineering,
17
administration -- what was t he other one? There
18
were six•
19
Q . New products?
20
Oh, yeah .. It wasn't new products, it was
.Just products . So you had fundamental,
21
products .
22
applied, and products .
23
24
25
0
A.
And you were in charge of which one?
Fundamental .
Q
Unt il when?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 723
Until I retired .
2
Q
o are we`using the '87 date, then?
3
Right .
Q . From '80 to '87, was there one group
that looked at health aspects, as opposed to
6
another group?
Well, in '83, sometime in there was when we
got Dr . Hayes on board, and I set up the whole
biobehavioral/biological system there . So from
10
then till, I guess, now, that's what they're
11
doing .
12
13
Q.
looking at health issues?
assume they're related, to some -- I don't
14
15
16
'83 till now, ;biobehavioral/biological
knOw`what their projecte are, actually .
Q
What division under research was
17
biobehavioral/biological?' I mean, was that under
18
one of these six research groups?
19
. No . Actually, when they formed the
20
biobehavioral division, which was in '82, some
21
it was actually put in fundamental ; I had John
22
Reynolds and John Robinson and those people
23
wo .rking` for me .' Then, when Wally Hayes came, they ', m
24
moved it from fundamental into the more
25
biologically-oriented part .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~
~
N
Ln
Vol . 4, Pg . 724
Q,.
During .this period of time, were you
familiar with the creation of key issues?
3
MR . MCD.ERMOTTs Object to the form of
thel .queetion .
BY MR . MAYSTROSs
Do you know what a key issue is?
What's an RJR key issue?
If they sell cigarettes .
s that one of the key issues?
10
11
A . ' I've -- I was trying to think- that I' had seen
12
something on that, but I really can't spell it out
13
in .the language I think you're looking for .
Q . - Did you ever participate in a project
14
15
or .* process whereby key issues were identified by
16
RJR~
17
Some of the reports in those six boxes
18
19
over there,have "key issues" written on them and
the langua,ge "varies, '' and we' re going
20
21
to-get into them tomorrow . But I want to ask you,
22
generally, 'if you- know . :how that came about, the
23
development of the key issue concept .
241
May I ask a question?
25
Q
Sure .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4
g . 725
A . Is this a document where the issues are what
happens in the world and how Reynolds would
respond?
Q . Yes, thatts some of them .
Okay . Well, that was -- they started, I
guess, in the early '70s, as I remember . And
everybody pitched in and gave suggestions of, you
know, what would happen -- what would Reynolds do
if something happened in another tobacco company,
10
or happened in North America, or happened in the
11
world, and so on and'so forth . How would we
12
respond? And for some ;years Dr . Teague put --
13
assembled everything and put them together, and
14
they`were distributed to upper management, to get
15
16
• their .views . And -
Q . You did not participate in that
17
process?
18
A . _ Oh, I-~ I chipped in with some suggestions
19
here .and there . . And then, .of course, when
20
Dr .'Teague left R& D, I ended up, I think, doing
21
the last one or two, assembling them myself . If
22
that's the paper you're talking about .
23
Q . For example, and we'll get into
24
specific
ones tomorrow, but there's -- there's
.
25
specific research projects that are set up, and
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4,
g . 726
1
then there's a goal or a key issue identified as
2
the basis for that project that it relates to .
And there's been some testimony in the past that
4
every research project had to have a key issue
assigned to it . Are you familiar with that
6
concept at all?
7
I guess I never thought about it in that
8
terms, but it sounds'logical . As I remember, some
things in those key issue things were never done .
10
11
Q.
Were you -- during the period of time
that you were at Reynolds, were you ever demoted?
12
13
Q
Were you ever written up for any
14
incidents that you view as an infraction or a
15
demotion?
16
No . I was fired .
17
Q . ; By Reynolds?
18
By Mr . Hoover .
19
Q . What year was that?
201
Oh, about 1963 .
211
Q
How long were you fired?
m
22
Fifteen mihutes .
23
0
24
There had been an unpleasant incident in the
What was that over?
251 research department that we usually don't like to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 727
talk about . And when Mr . Hoover went to the
weekly meeting over at the head office, main
office, somebody said : Hey, what about so-and-so?
And he was furious .
And he came back and called me into
his office, and I didn't know what he was talking
You
7
contact with anybody on the board because of your
10
11
contact with,Mr : Ramm . Get your stuff out of
.
here .
You disclosed something that happened
Q
12
in re .eearch that he thought .
13
I didn't .
e thought you .dieclosu
14
thought .I did . . So I asked him, I said :
15
16
Why don't you phone Mr . Ramm and ask him the last
17
time I talked to him, and I can tell you exactly
18
when it was .
19
Q . What did he think you disclosed?
20
Well, as Z say, it was this unpleasant
I
21
22
23
24
R
Well,,what was the unpleasant
incident?
. Well, somebody was supposed to have
done some
251 analysis and just wrote down numbers .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 728
Q.
On .what`research project?
Well, it wasn't . It was -- when you buy
tobacco, we used to get a sample of all the
pallets of tobacco and_,analyze .them for tar -- for
nicotine and sugar . So that, if :nicotine was
6
high, we could remove it and if -- so we could do
the .blending . And'this fellow was -- rather than
run them, he just wrote down numbers, and it
happened to be one set of tobacco was from an area
10
in the south here where it had been very hot, very
11
little rain . And when that happens, the tobacco,
12
ina_tead of being `two 'and' a half percent nicotine
13
will
- it may jump'to six .
14
And the-person who had turned in the
15
samples to .him knew that we had a whole bunch of
16
samples, five or six or eight, I forget the
17
number, that probably were going to be around four
18
or five, and they had to be cataloged for nicotine
19
removal . And when he got the usual numbers, two,
20
two and a half percent, he put in some -- we have
21
-to have -- we happened to have some low
22
experimental tobaccos from NC State and you put in
23
some more high, and they all came back 2 .2, 2 .3 .
24
Of course he was fired, right then and there,
25
but -- you don't get that very often .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 729
i
And so Mr . Hoover phoned Mr . Ramm, and
1
M
3
. Ramm confirmed`the :exact time I had spoken to
him, which had been three months before, and said :
A1l-right forget about"leaving .
{~ . The -- who was the gentleman that was
6
tired?
Oh, he was a technician . I've forgotten his
name .
Q . Now, we''11_ ;get into this tomorrow, I'm
10
certain, but you mentioned that, if the nicotine
11
is too high, you`have to remove it . Are you
12
familiar with that`process?
13
A . Yes .
14
Q . How's the nicotine,removed?
i5
Exposure to steam and ammonia . And you can
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
take it down to any value you want .
Q .` By adjusting the amount or the timing
f the steam and'ammonia?
Well, it's the way it rolls through the
conveyor belt, timing on the conveyor belt -Q . How long,has RJR treated its tobacco
with` "ateam and" ammonia?
I think the first report
on it is someplace
around 1958 .
Q . Were they still doing that when you
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 730
le'ft in ' 87?
assume so, if they -- if you had high
nicotine tobacco from a hot, dry summer or
something .
Q . The only occasion that RJR would treat
nic -- or tobacco with 'steam .and'ammonia was when
they had high nicotine•content?,
A . Well, only that'part of the`tobacco . Now,
they'did have a reconstituted tobacco sheet they
10
11
treated with ammonia .
Q . That's a different process though,
12
correct?
13
A . Right .' It also reduces the nicotine .
14
Q . The process of applying steam and
15
ammonia to the tobacco to reduce the nicotine, you
6
said you could get the nicotine to 'whatever level
17
you wanted . -Within_what degree of error?
18
A . I really =- I'm -- you know,•I never was
19
involved in the engineering of, that . But the
20
objeot was that`, if, you'had -- here again, you
21
have to have some understanding .of how you blend
22
tobaccos . You .don't go out and buy .a year's
23
tobacco . And of cou,r.se it's,always aged for -- in
24
storage` :sheds for maybe 12 months to two years, to
251 let all' .the things go on that goes on when tobacco
WAGA & ::
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 731
a ged
. You .don't take all that tobacco two
years .later, say, .and use it .
What you do is you combine tobaccos
from three .consecutive years and you juggle it so
that the nicotine change is a minimum . And if you
have -- well, just say you have flue-cured tobacco
from Georgia that's two and a half percent
nicotine, and flue-cured tobacco from someplace in
North Carolina where it's five, you remove the
10
nicotine f rom the five percent nicotine tobacco
11
and bring it down to the two and a half, or a
12
little less, depending on whether you, over the
13
years, want t o keep reducing it . Because,
14
usually, what happens is, as things go by, the
15
ni`cotine sort of para11e1s .the tar .
16
But,the'-- I've been interested in
17
some of the things I've heard about nicotine on
18
the news and so on . And what some people should
19
find'out is that, when you bring tobacco in from
20
the market, the first thing you do is stem it .
21
And when you stem 'it, you keep it at -- keep it
22
moist so it doesn't shatter . And when it goes
23
down the conveyor belt, the stems go in one
24
direction, the cut lamina go in the other . But if
25
you measure the nicotine from the time you put it
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 732
on',that conveyor belt to the time it comes off the
2
other end, you've lost two percent of your
3
nicotine .
Then when you store it and age it for
5
12 monthe, .two years, you've got to bring it out .
6
And to take it out of the containers so it doesn't
7
fragment, you again moisten it, warm it, run it
8
through the conveyor belt for a certain period of
9
time, and you lose another couple of percent
10
nicotine -- a percent of the percent you've got
11
there .
12
So when you puff tobacco -- all you
13
got to do is look at the'NCI study where they used
14
our puffed tobacco, Philip Morrie' puffed tobacco,
15
North Carolina State . Every state where puffed
16
tobacco was used, the nicotine is down 40 percent .
17
So when you take tobacco that has been
18
losing nicotine because of the way you process it,
19
then you put in a tobacco that's been expanded and
20
21
has lost nicotine, the nicotine in that cigarette j Ln
.
~
;~
is going to be less'than the tobaccos that you
22
bought to put in it .
23
Ln
And I can -- might tell you one other
24
thing, if you're interested . Is that, if Reynolds
25
or anybody else want to increase the nicotine to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4,
g . 733
the'consumer, there are two ways to do it . And
they could make afortune .
Q . How° is that?
Don't put cellophane around the pack .
Because, as a cigarette dries out, the nicotine in
the smoke increases . The only reason the
cellophane'or the protective material around the
pack is to ;prevent moisture loss . As the moisture
goes'down, the nicotine in the smoke goes up .
10
Now, why would you --
11
Q . What's the second way?
12
Is to leave out half the humectants . If you
13
drop the humectants`from, say, five percent to two
14
and a half percent, the nicotine in smoke will go
15
up . And glycerine is expensive . Propylene glycol
16
is expensive .
17
Q .
Why .is Reynolds, then, concerned in '(n
_
.i
18
the initial process -- I assume youfre talking im
i
19
about the initial process whereby they have to ~
L"
20
21
remove nicotine of high nicotine yield tobacco?
Well, the object is to keep the product, from
22
year to year, from-quarter to quarter, fairly
23
uniform so the consumer does not all of a sudden
24
see a big'change . Now, you might say : Well, they
25
could .increase it gradually . But all .you have to
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 734
is look at the sales-weighted average data and
it's obvious that from -- well, from 1954 to the
current time, the nicotine has been,dropping
gradually in every` :cigarette marketed in this
5
country .
6
Q . Is there a process you're familiar
with that Reynolds employs when the-nicotine
8
content is too low in .the tobacco?
can't think-of one, but T ; ;could think
10
of a .solution .to it .
11
What's that?
s mix low'tobacco -- low nicotine tobacco
12
13
with one that's'slightly above average, and
14
average it .out . . I don't know whether they do
15
that .
16
17
Q •manufacturing process?
18
19
20
21
22
Weren't you,identified as an expert
ir
the .manufacturing process in the Texas case? L,
t,,
23
24
You weren't?
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 735
Did you ever read what your expert
1
designation was,in that case?
Yeah . I don't believe I am .
4
t2 .
You're. not an expert in,the production
process?
6
Q . Do you know what methods, if any, have
8
been employed'by Reynolds to attempt to control
9
the nicotine level _in the tobacco, other than the
10
one you've testified to about the steam and
11
ammonia,
12
here again ;,I come'back to the eight
13
significant technologies . Foz .example, you can
14
control the nicotine .-in the smoke by controlling
15
the blend . You can control the nicotine in the
16
smoke by controlling'the efficiency of the filter,
17
which removes the total particulate matter which
18
contains the nicotine .
19
You can control it by increasing or
20
juggling the amount of reconstituted tobacco which
21
is ).ow in nicotine . The more you put in, the
Lq
H
22
lower your nicotine . You can reduce it by the
23
degree of air .dilution you use, by perforated
24
filters or by porous cigarette paper .
25
_j
r
Q . Doesn't Reynolds -- doesn't Reynolds,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 736
1
at the beginning of the process, have a specific
2
nicotine content that it's striving to achieve at
the end of the process for every particular type
4
of cigarette they're selling?
I don't really know that .
I mean, I look in the supermarket and
0
7
see all these different brands of cigarettes,
from Reynolds, for example, and they .all have
different t-ar and nicotine yields . I assume
10
that"s not by accident-that they end up that way
11
in those particular packages .
12
would imagine :that the big thing they try
13
to do ie'control the tar, and ;the nicotine falls
14
where it may .
You know, talking about nicotine
15
16
17
18
19
well, maybe I won't say that .
Q
ao'ahead . This is the end of the day ;
it~'-s~'your opportunity to say -Do you ever wonder why the FTC equation is as
20
Why?
21
22
23
24
25
Wet TPM,equals tar, plus water, plus
nicotine?
MS . BRACHTL : Would you repeat that?
I couldn't hear you back here .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4
g . 737
THE WITNESS : The FTC equation for
calculating tar is wet TPM equals tar, plus water,
plus nicotine . In other words, tar is water-free,
nicotine-free, wet TPM . And the reason it's that
wa-y is 'cause, if you read the 1964 Surgeon
aene-raY's report, nicotine essentially is given a
clean .bill of health . So the two ingredients in
wet,TPM, that was obvious to everybody at that
tinie had no concern :with health, was wa,ter and
10
.nicotine : And that equation is still the same to
11
this day .
12
13
MR . MAISTROS : Okay . We're going to
b.reak .until tomorrow morning . Nine o'clock?
14
MR .-MCDERMOTT : Yeah .
15
VIDEOaRAPHER : We're_going off the
16
17
record at 4 :30-p .m .
(Deposition adjourned at 4 :30 p .m .)
18
19
20
Ln
21
~
22
23
24
25
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 4, Pg . 738
I
U~T RAT
1
Alan Rodgman, Ph .D ., do hereby
2
3
certify that I have'read the foregoing transcript
of my testimony, taken on Monday, August 4, 1997,
and have signed it subject to the following
changes :
PAGE'
LINE
CORRECTION
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
211 DATE :'
22
Sworn and subscribed to before me on this
23
d a y o f -------~------------
24
NOTARY PUBLIC
------------------------------
25
WAGA & SPINELLI -
(201) 992-4111
m
Vol . 4, Pg . 739
1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF YADKIN
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Linda N . Russell, a'Notary Public in and
5
for the State of North Carolina, do hereby certify
6
that-there came before me on Monday, August 4, 1997,
7
the person hereinbefore named, who was by me duly
sworn to testify to the truth and nothing but the
9
truth of his knowledge .concerning the matters in
10
controversy in this cause ; that the witness was
11
thereupon examined under,oath, the examination
12
reduced to typewriting under my direction, and the
13
deposition is a true record of the testimony given
14
by the witness .
15
I further certify that I am neither
16
attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed
17
by, any attorney or counsel employed by the parties
18 hereto or financially interested in the action .
19
~
~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my ~
2V
L_
a
E~~
"a
""~F
„"4
LlanGiaanCx ZlLL17Ce~d 'illy ~LLl~:iai
21
12th day of August .1997 .
~
I
1
1hi ..+
a
.+. .+tha
aava.a+.~.vL i vv~+,
22
23
24
North t~tpia i VWkin
UNDA N.
RUSSEL
~
-N~wPiei;,, ~'Li
da N . Russ 11, Notary Public
#ly Oommfssbri EzDiros a-2S•qt„~,~,, , j Commission Expires 8/25/97
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
. ii~
LAWYER'S NOTES
Pwo6
I*
LINB
LAWYER'S NOTES
LIN6
0
LAWYER'S NOTES
Pwoe
O
LIN6
LAWYER'S, NOTES
PAGE
LIN6
I
0
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Civil Action No . 96CV-5903
STEVEN R . ARCH, WILLIAM BARNES, )
CIARAN McNALLY, CATHERINE POTTS, )
NORMA RODWELLER, BARBARA SALZMAN, )
EDWARD J . SLIVAK and JOHN TEAGLE, )
CERTIFIED COPY
)
Deposition of :
)
vs .
)
Alan
Rodgman,
)
Ph .D .
THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, )
INC ., et al .,
)
Volume
5,
) Pages 740 - 1024
Defendants .
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
----------------------------------)
(Caption continues . . .)
CONFIDENTIAL
TRANSCRIPT of testimony as taken by and
before LINDA RUSSELL, a Certified Shorthand
Reporter and Notary Public of the State of
North Carolina, at the offices of Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, 200 West Second Street,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, on Tuesday, August 5,
1997, commencing at 9 :50 in the forenoon .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
741
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------)
PHYLLIS SMALL and DENISE FUBINI, )
individually, and on behalf of )
others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
against
)
)
LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, INC ., ) Index No .
LORILLARD, INC ., LOEWS CORPORATION, ) 110949/96
COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH-USA, )
INC . (Successor to Tobacco Industry )
Research Committee), AND TOBACCO )
INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
)
Defendants .
)
------------------------------------)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------)
MARY ANN HOSKINS, Executrix of the )
Estate of Edwin Paul Hoskins, )
WALTINA BROWN and DANTE AUBAIN, )
individually, and on behalf of )
others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
against
)
)
R .J . REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, ) Index No .
RJR NABISCO, INC ., COUNCIL FOR ) 110951/96
TOBACCO RESEARCH-USA, INC .
)
(Successor to Tobacco Industry )
Research Committee), AND TOBACCO )
INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
)
Defendants .
)
------------------------------------)
0
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
742
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------)
SHARLENE HOBERMAN and AUDREY HULSE, )
as Executrix, on behalf of the )
Estate of Lewis Hulse, individually, )
and on behalf of others similarly )
situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
against
)
Index
No .
) 110953/96
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO )
CORPORATION, B .A .T . INDUSTRIES )
P .L .C ., BATUS, INC ., BATUS HOLDINGS, )
INC ., COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH- )
USA, INC . (Successor to Tobacco )
Industry Research Committee), AND )
TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC .
)
)
Defendants .
)
-------------------------------------)
•
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
•
-------------------------------------)
ROSE FROSINA, ELIZABETH COLAVITO and )
ANILDA ROSS, individually, and on )
behalf of others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
against
)
Index
No .
) 110950/96
PHILIP MORRIS, INC ., PHILIP MORRIS )
COMPANIES, INC ., COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO )
RESEARCH-USA, INC . (Successor to )
Tobacco Industry Research Committee) )
AND TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
)
Defendants .
)
-------------------------------------)
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
743
SUPREME COURT OF THE ESTATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------)
CATHERINE ZITO, PETER HOBERMAN,
)
and GEORGE ELISSEOU, individually,
)
and on behalf of others similarly
)
situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
- against THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC .,
AMERICAN BRANDS, INC ., COUNCIL FOR
TOBACCO RESEARCH-USA, INC .
(Successor to Tobacco Industry
Research Committee), AND TOBACCO
INSTITUTE, INC .,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Index No .
110952/96
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants .
-------------------------------------)
•
•
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
744
A P P E A R A N C E S :
J . D . LEE, ESQ .
422 Gay Street
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
For the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania case
(423) 544-0101
SHELLER, LUDWIG & BADEY
3rd Floor
1528 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
BY : STEPHEN A . SHELLER, ESQ .
SHERRICE A . KNISELY, ESQ .
For the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania case
(215) 790-7300
•
CLIMACO, CLIMACO, LEFKOWITZ &
GAROFOLI CO ., L .P .A .
Ninth Floor, The Halle Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
BY : JACK D . MAISTROS, ESQ .
For the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania case
(216) 621-8484
GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW L .L .P .
100 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
BY : MARTIS ANN BRACHTL, ESQ .
For the Plaintiffs in New York case
(212) 907-0700
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
200 west Second Street
Post Office Drawer 84
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102
BY : MARTIN L . HOLTON, III, ESQ .
For the Defendant R .J . Reynolds Tobacco Corp .
(910) 721-3600
•
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
745
A P P E A R A N C E S ( Cont inued )
•
JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
Metropolitan Square
1450 G Street N .W .
Washington, D . C . 20005-2088
BY : ROBERT F . McDERMOTT, JR ., ESQ .
For the Defendant R .J . Reynolds Tobacco Corp .
(202) 8 7 9 - 3 9 3 9
MCCALL DOUGHTON & BLANCATO
633 West Fourth Street
Suite 150
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
BY : WILLIAM A . BLANCATO, ESQ .
(910) 725-7531
For the witness Dr . Alan Rodgman
•
MILLER & MARTIN
Suite 1000 Volunteer Building
832 Georgia Avenue
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
BY : MARCIA MEREDITH EASON, ESQ .
(423) 756-6600
For the Defendant Lorillard Tobacco Company
m
•
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
746
I N D E X
WITNESS
DIRECT
CROSS
REDIRECT
RECROSS
ALAN RODGMAN, Ph .D .
Mr . Maistros 747
Mr . Sheller 806
Mr . Maistros 990
E X H I B I T S
EXHIBIT
Exhibit 1
MARKED
.
761
847
•
Exhibit 7 .
7A .
7B .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
859
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
859
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
871
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
898
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
901
903
903
910
928
937
Exhibit 12A .
12B .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
940
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
951
951
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
954
972
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
996
996
•
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
747
r
•
1
2
ALAN RODGMAN, Ph .D .,
having been previously sworn, was examined and
3
testified further as follows :
4
VIDEOGRAPHER : This is day two of the
5
videotape deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
6
going on the record, Tuesday, August 5th, 1997, at
7
9 :50 a .m .
8
9
EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Good morning, Dr . Rodgman . How are
10
•
•
11
you?
12
A . Fine . And before we start, I'd like to
13
correct one thing from yesterday .
14
Q .
Okay .
15
A . I had mentioned that in those boxes, wherever
16
they are, there were two notebook -- or material
17
from two notebooks about my publications . And
18
last night I was -- remembered that there is one
19
publication that is not in there . It's a paper
20
that Dr . Charles Green and I prepared for last
21
year's Tobacco Chemist Conference symposium . And
22
the symposium papers are published in a journal
23
called Recent Advances in Tobacco Science . And
24
our paper is in volume 22 .
25
The reason the copy isn't in there,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
this is not a very well bound book . And if you
2
were to open it to copy it, the article is
3
170-something pages long, you would have to do
4
that for every double page to go on an
5
eight-and-a-half by eleven sheet . That book will
6
fall apart .
7
Now, if you want a copy, you can get
8
it from the North Carolina State University
9
library ; they have all the back available copies
10
of that journal, probably back to volume 9 or 10 .
11
Before that, they run out of them .
And, of course, the authors are given
12
13
five copies each, but I've given four of mine
14
away . So I only have the one left .
15
thing you want to correct from six hours .
17
A . Pardon?
Q . That's pretty good if that's the only
19
thing you want to correct from six hours .
20
A . Well I thought somebody would say : He did
21
something last year and it's not in there, and
22
picky, picky, picky . So I thought I'd correct it
23
right here and now .
24
•
Q . That's pretty good, if that's the only
16
18
25
748
Q .
Not
me .
Let me ask you about the six boxes of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
documents . Where did they originally come from?
2
Were all these at your house, originally?
3
A .
4
•
Yes .
Q . How did it come to be that you had
5
documents -- six boxes of documents at your house?
6
A . Well, some of them, I think, if you look at
7
them, were prepared since I retired, and some are
8
copies of the formal reports I wrote while I was
9
at Reynolds . And because of the peculiar way I
10
worked, during the daytime -- or normal working
11
hours -- for many years at Reynolds I was a lab
12
man . I did my research at the bench from 7 :30 in
13
the morning till five o'clock at night . And I did
14
a lot of my writing at home in the evenings ; much
15
to my wife's regret, I sometimes would write until
16
two o'clock in the morning . And in order to do
17
that, I would have pre -- previous reports I had
18
written so I could refer to the references, and so
19
on and so forth .
20
Q•
21
over to?
22
A . When?
23
24
•
749
25
And who did you turn these documents
MR . McDERMOTT : Asked and answered .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Originally . Your attorney or RJR's
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
attorney?
2
A .
Mr . Blancato .
3
4
MR . McDERMOTT : I believe we went into
this yesterday .
5
•
MR . MAISTROS : I'm trying to
6
establish -- yesterday we had some objections to
7
conversations with you and attorney/client
8
privilege, and I'm just trying to establish how
9
there's an attorney/client privilege there . And
10
I'll get to that very shortly .
11
MR . McDERMOTT : Well, the providence
12
of these documents was reviewed yesterday . And,
13
again, if there is concern about using time
14
efficiently, I suggest we get into new areas .
15
16
MR . MAISTROS : Well
. . .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . What is the attorney/client
17
18
relationship, if any, that you have with
19
Mr . McDermott? Do you have any attorney/client
20
relationship with Mr . McDermott?
21
A . Well he, I guess, represents Reynolds .
Q . And you are not currently an employee
22
•
23
of Reynolds, are you?
24
A.
25
750
Ln
~
a
~
m
~
Ln
o.
No .
Q . So I want to know -- take me through
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
the conversations you've had with Mr . McDermott
2
concerning this case .
3
751
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . Counsel is
4
well aware of the fact that attorneys for
5
corporate entities are allowed to consult former
6
employees under an umbrella privilege, in order to
7
determine facts and prepare a defense . We are
8
invoking privilege .
9
If you've got something you want to do
10
that doesn't deal with my conversations relating
11
to litigation, you can pursue that . If you want
12
to deal with other conversations Dr . Rodgman has,
13
that's fine . But it is absolutely specious to
14
suggest that I cannot communicate with Dr . Rodgman
15
about events that occurred while he was an
16
employee that are not covered by privilege .
17
That's nonsense .
18
BY MR . MAISTROS :
19
Q•
And you -- do you consider yourself a
20
private person in this litigation?
21
A . I consider myself a private person, I guess .
22
I'm here because I was deposed .
23
24
Q . Do you consider yourself as working
for Reynolds in this litigation?
A . No, not really . No .
,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
Q . And you're not being paid in any
2
fashion in the Arch litigation ?
3
A . I was not paid for Minnesota ; I'm not being
4
paid in Arch . In fact, I'm probably the only one
5
around this table that's not getting paid .
Q.
6
The documents were not provided to -
7
from you to Mr . McDermott or any other RJR
8
attorney, they were provided to your personal
9
counsel, correct ?
10
A . That's right .
Q.
11
12
Do you know what he did after he go t
them?
13
14
MR . BLANCATO : Well, he doesn't have
to disclose any priv -- that would be privileged .
15
BY MR . MAISTROS :
16
Q .
Do you know what he did after he go t
17
the documents ?
18
A . He arranged for them to be copied .
19
Q .
20
2 1
75 2
Do you know what he did after that ?
MR . BLANCATO : Well, wait a minute .
You know -
22
MR . MAISTROS : How is that privileged?
23
I'm trying to establish how the documents got from
~
I.-
N
m
•
24
the garage to this room . If you can tell me ho w
25
they got from the garage to this room, do that .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
m
CO
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
THE WITNESS : From the garage --
2
MR . MAISTROS : I don't know how that's
3
privileged .
4
THE WITNESS : What garage are you
5
talking about?
6
BY MR . MAISTROS :
7
Q . Your house, whatever . Where did you
8
store them?
9
A . There --
10
11
MR . McDERMOTT : Object . Asked and
answered .
MR . MAISTROS : Let's speed this up .
12
•
13
BY MR . MAISTROS :
14
t2 •
15
Can you tell me how the documents got
from your possession to this room?
16
MR . BLANCATO : Can I answer it?
17
MR . MAISTROS : If you know .
18
MR . BLANCATO : They were given to me .
19
We had them photocopied . A set was made for the
20
Reynolds attorneys, and the set that was here
21
yesterday was Mark Holton's extra set of those
22
photocopies . It should be the same -- a duplicate
23
set of what was sent to Ms . Knisely .
24
•
753
25
MS . KNISELY : Actually, I might be
able to shed some light on that, if I might .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
conversations with McDermott and Mr . Holton, as
3
well as Mr . Blancato, and please correct me if I'm
4
wrong, those documents -- those documents were
5
originally provided to Mr . Blancato ; but I also
6
understand Mr . Blancato then provided them, prior
7
to the first deposition of Dr . Rodgman, to Womble
8
Carlyle, and most particularly, Mr . Holton went
9
through them originally to review for privilege,
11
as well as work product .
The two -- possibly one to two boxes
12
were provided at the last deposition . Our office
13
was advised that there were three to four other
14
boxes that had -- were being withheld for the
15
purpose of reviewing them again for privilege by
16
Reynolds' counsel . We were provided a subsequent
17
list of those withheld documents, minus any
18
privileged and a privilege log .
19
•
From what I understand in my
2
10
•
754
We've also been supplied a
20
supplemental privilege log, because I understand
21
Dr . Rodgman has reviewed his documents at home and
22
provided, I don't know who first, with copies of
23
two additional documents . And we received last
24
Fri -- Thursday or Friday, from Mr . Belasic, an
25
additional supplemental privileged log for two
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
•
2
Now, we were not advised of that by
Mr . Blancato . The privilege log did not come from
4
Mr . Blancato . I also understand that the copies
5
of the documents were made here at Womble Carlyle .
Now, I also understand that perhaps
7
Dr . Rodgman may or may not have been present
8
during various review processes of the documents .
9
Is that all accurate?
10
MR . BLANCATO : No .
11
MR . McDERMOTT : I don't know the
12
extent to which it's accurate or not . But let me
13
suggest, to the extent you all are concerned about
14
time, this does not concern Dr . Rodgman, as such .
15
The lawyers can spar among themselves over breaks
16
and after Dr . Rodgman goes . If this is how you
17
want to use your time with the witness in the
18
chair, we can have lawyers talking all day long .
19
I suggest it is not a particularly fruitful
20
expenditure of time, however .
21
•
additional documents .
3
6
•
755
MS . KNISELY : I believe Mr . Maistros
22
was trying to go into the questioning of the chain
23
of custody of the documents and Dr . Rodgman's
24
knowledge of that .
25
MR . McDERMOTT : And I --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
•
2
MS . KNISELY : And I think that's
perfectly appropriate .
3
MR . MCDERMOTT : And I believe you will
4
find that Dr . Rodgman doesn't know that the
5
documents passed from his hands, as indicated, and
6
it was Mr . Blancato who was providing further
7
information . Use your time as you wish .
8
9
•
0
MR . MAISTROS : I will offer -- I will
offer, once again, to a stipulation that the --
10
insofar as authenticity is concerned, that we have
11
a stipulation on those six boxes of documents . I
12
don't think we've put that in the record . You've
13
declined that, just so the record is clear .
14
25
756
So I will go through, and you can take
15
a break if you want to do this . I want you to go
16
through the six boxes today and tell me which ones
17
you have problems that aren't authentic, aren't
18
original -- or copies of originals, and you would
19
dispute are not of business records of Reynolds .
20
You can do that at lunch, you can do it tonight, I
21
don't care when you do it . I'm not going to take
22
the time up today . But unless we get a
23
stipulation, I want you to go through those six
24
boxes .
1
THE
WITNESS : Sir, I've been through
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
4
those six boxes .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . And you believe they're all business
records of Reynolds?
5
6
7
0
757
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Other than the ones that you did
8
before you joined Reynolds and the ones that you
9
did after you joined Reynolds?
10
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form .
11
THE WITNESS : Well, I wasn't sure what
12
you folks really wanted . And I think you'll find,
13
for example, obituaries of my two mentors at the
14
University of Toronto . You'll find an award I was
15
given for -- the testimony I was -- for an award I
16
was given for my participation in Little League
17
programs, and things like that . I just put it all
18
in there and you've got it .
19
MR . McDERMOTT : And, again, we're not
20
claiming any of those documents are fraudulent .
21
So as to authenticity, what you said is not
22
correct .
23
We spoke last night, outside, after
24
the deposition, about breaking the documents down
25
into categories . Those documents which are
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
clearly copies of Reynolds' materials and
2
Reynolds' records we're not going to be picayune
3
about .
4
•
•
There are materials in those boxes,
5
however, which are not business records of
6
Reynolds . We talked about segregating them
7
categories ; we can do that now or later . But to
8
suggest that we are responsible for your not
9
having examined the documents and been a little
into
10
bit more systematic about how we treat these
11
documents is again nonsense . I suggest that we
12
use this witness' time more efficiently than we
13
are doing now .
14
758
MR . SHELLER : I just want to put
15
something on the record that -- I would note that,
16
when we had the conversation with the judge's law
17
clerk, Judge Newcomer's law clerk, Mr . Blancato
18
was agreeable to allow me to question the witness,
19
rather than bother Judge Newcomer on vacation or
20
have the other law clerk intervene, when
21
Mr . McDermott interfered and told Mr . Blancato to
22
wait for the second law clerk's call at 11 :00 a .m .
23
to see what he said . I would also note that I
24
watch Mr . McDermott constantly coaching
25
Mr . Blancato .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Mr . McDermott, if you want to
1
2
represent Mr . Rodgman, why don't you change seats
3
with Mr . Blancato . Otherwise, I suggest that
4
Mr . Blancato, if he really is Mr . Rodgman's
5
counsel, that you leave him alone and stop
6
interfering with his decision processes .
MR . McDERMOTT : I will respond to this
7
•
8
nonsense after Dr . Rodgman is gone . If you keep
9
giving speeches, Mr . Sheller, I will not
10
kindly on your petition for more time .
11
you've burned that bridge already .
12
BY MR . MAISTROS :
13
Q .
look
I think
Dr . Rodgman, I would like to take you
14
through the manufacturing process and your
15
knowledge of the same at Reynolds during the years
16
you were there, okay?
You have been -- I'll show you --
17
18
we'll mark it later . I only have one copy . It's
19
a designation of yourself that was provided in the
20
Texas litigation . And I'd ask you, before I have
21
it marked, have you seen that document before?
(Witness reviews document)
22
•
759
23
Ln
A . I saw this a couple of minutes before we met ~
~
m
24
here this morning .
,P.
Ln
J
25
Q .
Who
WAGA & SPINELLI
showed
you
that?
"'
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 760
A . The gentleman here .
Q . Which gentleman?
A .
Mr . McDermott .
Q . And what was his purpose of showing
you that?
A . Well, because yesterday it was -- you had
mentioned that I was supposed to be an expert in
manu -- things about manufacturing . And I said
something to the effect that I was not an expert .
Now, this business about manufacture,
10
11
the one that was -- the opinion list that was sent
12
to Texas does not have that in there .
I did not write this . I didn't --
13
14
15
•
I've never seen it till this morning .
Q . Are you suggesting, then, that the
16
designation that's in this exhibit, which we'll
17
mark Rodgman Exhibit 1 for purposes of this
18
deposition, is accurate? You are going to testify
19
concerning the design, construction, manufacture
20
of cigarettes?
21
A . Well, I think, someplace down later on in
22
there, it says familiarity with manufacturing
23
processes in general . And I would agree that I
24
know a little bit about it, but I am not an expert
25
in the manufacture of cigarettes .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
•
2
3
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 was
marked for identification)
BY MR . MAISTROS :
4
Did you know you were going to testify
5
in Texas with respect to the design, construction
6
and manufacture of cigarettes?
7
A . As I say, this -- I saw this, this morning .
8
It's different from the one that I had seen
9
earlier, which is three pages long .
10
•
MR . McDERMOTT : For the record,
11
counsel, this is a preliminary disclosure which
12
was produced some weeks ago in accordance with the
13
case management order where the final list of
14
Dr . Rodgman's opinions was filed, or at least
15
provided to opposing counsel last week .
16
17
•
761
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Do you have knowledge concerning the
18
design, construction and manufacture of cigarettes
19
at Reynolds?
20
A . Well, that's an all-sweeping statement, sir .
21
I know -- as I say, I know a little bit about the
22
manufacturing . I know a little bit more about the
23
design . As you know, most of my work has been
24
involved in the smoke composition, it's con -- and
25
its control .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
762
r
1
2
manufacturing process?
3
A . Well, as I mentioned in my testimony
4
yesterday, when you buy tobacco on the auction
5
market, the first thing you do, you bring the
6
tobacco in to the facility, stemery . You
7
moistened it ; you warm it so it doesn't fragment ;
8
you cut out the stems . You store the lamina
9
separately from the stems, and they're stored in
10
sheds for various periods of time, usually from 12
11
to 15 months, up to two years . And while they're
12
in the storage shed, the tobacco slowly changes in
13
certain ways .
14
0
Q . And what do you know about the
And when it's withdrawn from the shed
15
at the appropriate time for manufacture, it's
16
taken out of the containers, it's moistened,
17
warmed ; it's called "reordering ." And if you're
18
talking flue-cured tobacco or burley, then you
19
start your blending process . It's done in --
20
usually in two lines : Part of the blend is done
21
in one line, part in another . Because you also
22
have to bring in Oriental tobacco and Maryland
23
tobacco . Oriental tobacco comes from abroad and
24
has to go through customs, and so on and so forth .
25
And at that point, the stems, of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
course, can be used to make reconstituted tobacco .
2
That is incorporated in part of the blend . And
3
part of the tobacco, the flue-cured burley part,
4
is expanded . And that whole thing comes together
5
and mixed, and it's cut . And there you have the
6
blend for the -- what goes into the cigarettes .
7
S
763
And that -- the last thing that's done
8
on the cigarette is called -- the cutting and
9
casing operation is when the casing materials and
10
flavorants are added and the cigarette blend is
11
all ready to be run through the cigarette-making
12
machine .
13
And at that point it's put in hoppers
14
to feed the cigarette-making machine . It runs
15
through the cigarette-making machine ; the paper's
16
wrapped around it and stuck together . The filters
17
are inserted into the cigarettes in pairs .
18
Cigarettes are cut -- the tobacco rod
19
part is two units long and it's cut in the middle,
20
and the double filter is dropped in between and
21
they're attached . And at that point the thing is
22
cut in half and -- through a very neat, little Ln
N
J
•
23
device that Reynolds invented . The one set of ~
24
cigarettes is flipped over so they're all facing Ln
J
to
25
the same way, and then they're inserted in
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 764
packages . The packages are sealed . The packages
•
are incorporated into the cartons, and the cartons
are incorporated into big cartons, and they're
shipped out the door .
Q . At what point in the manufacturing
process does Reynolds know that a certain tobacco
is going to end up in a certain brand of its
cigarettes?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
10
the question .
11
•
THE WITNESS : Sir, I have very little
12
knowledge about the precise nature of blends and
13
how they're put together .
14
BY MR . MAISTROS :
15
Q .
16
Do you know what's added to the
cigarettes in the manufacturing process?
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
17
18
the question .
19
20
21
22
•
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
question .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . What compounds?
23
A . I know something of the -- what goes into the
24
casing material .
25
Q . Do you know if there's a compound
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
that's applied to the tobacco itself during any
2
portion in the manufacturing process?
3
A . Would you say that again, sir .
Q . Is there a compound that's applied to
4
5
the tobacco itself during the manufacturing
6
process?
7
A .
8
9
10
11
•
Q . What compounds?
A . Well, glycerin, propylene glycol, licorice,
sugar, cocoa, and then the flavor formulation .
Q .
Anything
else?
A . Well, during the expansion of the tobacco
13
there is an agent used in the expansion -- or was
14
used ; it's no longer used at Reynolds .
16
17
Q .
What's
that?
A . It's Freon 11 .
Q . And what years was Freon 11 used?
18
A . 1969 to sometime after I left Reynolds . I
19
don't know when they quit using it .
20
•
Yes .
12
15
765
Q . What is Freon 11?
21
A . Freon 11 is similar to the material that's in
22
your air conditioner -- car air conditioner and
23
your refrigerator . It's called a
24
chlorofluorocarbon .
25
Q . Who developed the process to use
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 766
Freon 11 during the manufacturing process?
A . The original work was done by Dr . James D .
Fredrickson in the laboratory . And then two other
gentlemen developed the engineering aspects of the
process -Q . What was the original -A . -- Moser and Stewart .
Q .
I'm
sorry . What was the first one?
A . Moser, M-O-S-E-R ; and Stewart, S-T-E-W-A-R-T .
Q .
10
•
What
was
--
11
A . And there were two patents issued to these
12
gentlemen ; one the theory part and one the
13
engineering part . They were issued the same day
14
and are sequential in the patent list .
Q . This process went till sometime after
15
16
1987?
17
A . I don't know when they quit using Freon 11 .
18
19
20
Q . Do you know why they quit using it?
A . Because of the ozone question .
Q .
What
was
the
ozone
question?
Ln
J
21
A . Well, freon is a very -- well, extremely m
~
Ln
22
inert substance . That's, you know, why it's N
23
used -- how it became used as a refrigerant .
24
However, when freon vaporizes -- it's a liquid ; it
25
boils at a very low temperature . When it
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
•
1
vaporizes, it rises through the atmosphere and is
2
so inert that very little happens to it until it
3
gets into the stratosphere . And then it comes
4
apart on the effect of intense sunlight . And,
5
supposedly, part of the degradation products
6
combined with oxygen -- combined with ozone in the
7
stratosphere and -- convert ozone, which is a
8
trimolec -- triatomic form of oxygen, breaks it
9
down into regular oxygen . And when that layer
10
thins, the ozone layer thins, more types of
11
sunlight can get through to the earth's surface .
12
And that's supposed to cause all sorts of
13
problems .
So, some years back, I forget the
14
15
exact year, there was a move to diminish --
16
decrease the use of ozone freon -- Freon 11 and
17
Freon 12, which were the two main compounds used
18
in refrigeration .
Q . Was there -- prior to '69, was there
19
•
767
20
expansion of tobacco at Reynolds?
21
A.
22
was . Dr . Fredrickson did the work in -- I believe
23
it was '63 that he actually did the lab work,
24
looking at a whole variety of solvents that could
25
be used in the expansion process .
No . That's -- well, experimentally there
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
768
And from then till 1968/'69, we were
1
2
looking at -- Reynolds was looking at the
3
incorporation of expanded tobacco into blends and
4
whether the consumers would accept this . And they
5
did, on test panels and market testing and so on .
6
And it was, I believe, introduced into Reynolds'
7
products -- it was either late '68 or early '69 .
8
9
Q . And do you know if there were other
expansion processes being used, other than the use
10
of Freon 11?
11
A . Well, when we came up with the expanded
12
tobacco, it was -- I don't know whether you're
13
familiar with how competitors look at each other' s
14
products, but when somebody has a -- products are
15
monitored frequently by competitors . And of
16
course it did not take long for some of
17
competitors -- what they do is you take a bunch of
18
cigarettes, and you cut the paper off, and you
19
have a pile of tobacco . And you have some
20
technicians, who are usually very skilled at it,
21
and they pick out the burley tobacco, the
22
flue-cured tobacco, the oriental tobacco, the
23
reconstituted tobacco sheet, and say : Look, you
24
know, what's Reynolds got in this blend? Or we
our
Ln
~
~
N
m
~
Ln
0
25
OD
4~1
look and say : What's Philip Morris got?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Well, it's obvious, when they picked
1
2
apart the Winston in 1968 or '69, whenever it was
3
issued, they got a fifth pile . You know, what's
4
this tobacco that's all fluffy? And so everybody
5
knew that we had expanded tobacco .
Now, people had been trying to expand
6
7
tobacco for years . They could succeed in
8
expanding stems, but no one had been able to
9
expand the lamina of tobacco - that's the leaf
10
part - until Dr . Fredrickson discovered how to do
11
it .
12
769
And, of course, soon after that, some
13
other people -- Philip Morris came up with an
14
expansion process of its own . Prior to that, we
15
elected to -- if anybody wanted our process, we
16
would license our expansion process to anybody who
17
was willing to pay the licensing fee . And the
18
Japanese tobacco company, which is an immense
19
company, licensed it ; Lorillard licensed it, L & M
20
licensed it . Eventually our process was licensed
21
in probably 25, 30 countries around the world .
22
But Philip Morris elected not to
23
license it, our process . And that's because they
24
had been responsible, primarily, for all the
patents on expansion of stems, and I think they
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
were a little miffed that they had worked so long
2
trying to expand tobacco, had been successful in
3
stems and unsuccessful with lamina . And I think
4
there's a bit of pride there .
So they had developed a process
5
6
their own - it involved the use of different
7
expansion agent - and used that in their own
8
c i garettes .
Q.
9
10
•
Which agent?
Back to my original question ; maybe
Q .
you misunderstood it .
Did RJR use any other expansion
13
14
process,
other than Freon 11?
15
16
18
working,
McDERMOTT :
MR .
MAISTROS :
During what
time
19
is .
'69 to when you ceased
consulting or advising RJR, whatever it
20
•
MR .
f rame ?
17
21
of
A . It was -- it was called ammonium carbonate .
11
12
770
THE
WITNESS :
Well, when I left they
were still using Freon 11 .
22
BY MR . MAISTROS :
23
Q.
24
RJR
25
A . Well,
Ln
~
Was that the only expansion process
J
N
m
~
Ln
CO
m
use d?
we kept looking at different things .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
i
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
For example -- as I say, Dr . Fredrickson looked
2
at -- and I think if -- you probably have it
3
someplace, his report in 1963 ; he must have looked
4
at 15 different solvents . And there was a problem
5
with them, and primarily in manufacturing, that
6
some of the solvents -- for example, ethyl alcohol
7
will work ; hexane will work ; pentane will work .
8
9
But one of the problems is, here you
have this facility to expand tobacco with pentane
10
or hexane, and I'm sure you know that they are
11
components of gasoline . And they're -- hexane --
12
gaseous hexane and air is a very explosive
13
mixture .
14
And -- but Freon 11 was designed in
15
edict by Boss Kettering at General Motors to be
16
inert, non-flammable and usable in a car engine
17
for air conditioning of the car . So it does not
18
burn ; it's not explosive ; it has very little -- in
19
fact, it was so inert it has
20
biological effect on anything . And so we -- of
21
the 15 or 20, I forget the exact number that
22
Dr . Fredrickson looked at, we ended up using
23
Freon 11 .
24
0
771
25
very little
Q . Did Reynolds test the biological
effects of Freon 11 before it incorporated it in
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
772
1
the manufacturing process?
2
A . Well, we didn't need -- we did . But we
3
didn't really need to, because Freon 11 is the --
4
was a patented or copyright, whatever -- a product
5
owned by DuPont . And they had done so much work
6
on the biological properties of Freon 11, Freon
7
12, that acceptance of their data -- but we did do
8
some things to see how it affected tobacco smoke .
9
4•
Were studies done to determine
10
biological effect of taking Freon 11 through the
11
respiratory system?
12
A . Not by us . But Philip Morris -- not Philip
13
Morris, DuPont had done that .
14
In fact, the FDA had approved -- I
15
don't know whether any of you have had -- have
16
asthma, but for many years there were little
17
propellant gadgets with medication in them that
18
you placed against your nostrils and pressed the
19
button and, psst, psst, you got shots of the
20
medication plus the propellant .
21
Well the propellant, in most
22
instances, was either Freon 11 or a mixture of
23
Freon 11 and 12 . And that had all been checked
24
out by the FDA and so on . And in using those
inhalers, the amount you got on one squirt was
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
something between 25 and 35 milligrams, which
2
would -- say, 25 milligrams is 25 million
3
nanograms, which was the equivalent of what was in
4
the smoke of many, many cigarettes, but less than
5
a nanogram of Freon 11 in the smoke of one
6
cigarette after we made it .
Q . Did -- to your knowledge, did DuPont
7
•
773
8
test Freon 11 in a state after it had been burned,
9
such as in a smoking process?
10
A .
11
Triangle, there was a group that was doing work on
12
various things . And I don't know whether you
13
remember that, at one time, there was a big
14
problem with -- in Philadelphia, with what turned
15
out to be called the Legionnaire's disease . And
16
the cause of Legionnaire's disease was -- the
17
first cause was that an air conditioner or
18
refrigerator had malfunctioned and there had been
19
a fire, that the Freon 11 or 12, what was ever
20
used in the refrigerator, had decomposed or
21
something during this fire, generating phosgene,
22
which was a World War I gas used by the Germans to
23
kill Allied troops . And that was supposed to be
24
the cause of Legionnaire's disease .
25
No . But over at Triangle -- Research
Well, this group over at Research
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
Triangle took Freon 11 and studied its effect on
2
combustion, studied its effect on -- in cigarette
3
smoke, and the formation of cigarette smoke, and
4
so on and so forth, and found that it does not
5
generate phosgene . But -- and then, of course,
6
Legionnaire's disease was found to be an entire -
7
caused by a bacteria of some type, which -- whose
8
name escapes me .
9
Q . What year was that research done?
10
A . Over at the Triangle? Oh, early '70s, I
11
would say . I forget .
But we did in-house -- one of the
12
13
things we worried about was the effect of -- would
14
Freon 11, during the com -- smoking process, form
15
phosgene . Because, if you look at the structure
16
of phosgene, the structure of Freon 11, it's
17
obvious that, given the right circumstance, it was
18
possible .
19
•
774
So we did a study, great detail ; we
20
had to develop all the analytical procedures for
21
it, to determine nanograms of phosgene, and so on
22
and so forth, in smoke . And we conducted it --
23
could find no phosgene in the smoke of a cigarette
24
made with expanded tobacco, with a lot more freon
25
than would be in a commercial product . We had
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
that checked by a contract lab, Industrial
2
Bio-Test . They came up -- they couldn't find it .
3
And as I say, the group over in Research Triangle
4
couldn't find anything wrong with -- at least
5
phosgene generation .
6
Then a man in Germany, because we were
7
going to license our process in Germany, he looked
8
at the question, because I had given presentation
9
to several companies in Germany on our process as
10
part of the licensing ploy . And he was intrigued
11
by it all . And -- and he was a physical chemist .
12
•
775
And he took -- looked at the thing
13
from phosgene and the conditions in a burning
14
cigarette and said : You folks didn't need to do
15
the experiments . That if you just looked at the
16
thermodynamic calculation, it's impossible to
17
generate freon -- phosgene from freon in a burning
18
cigarette .
19
20
21
Q . Let me just cut you off for a second,
because I know time is a concern .
The question was that, prior to using
22
Freon 11 in the tobacco manufacturing process, Ln
N
~
23
first, did Reynolds do any testing to determine m
24
the effect of burning of the Freon 11? ~
4~-
•
N
25
A . I just told you .
WAGA & SPINELLI
1
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
Q . I don't think you answered my
question .
3
Prior to the use of Freon 11 in the
4
manufacturing process, did RJR do any testing to
5
determine the effect of burning the freon?
6
A . Between 1963 and 1970, sir, we did the
7
phosgene work ; we did what's called a material
8
balance study .
9
•
If you end up with a cigarette blend
10
that's got so much -- a certain percentage of
11
expanded tobacco and that expanded tobacco has so
12
much freon on it - and here we're talking
13
nanograms, parts per million - that we examine
14
what happened to that freon during smoking ; where
15
did it end up? Obviously, if it didn't form
16
phosgene, it exits the smoke -- exits in the smoke
17
as Freon 11 itself . And we determined what was in
18
the mainstream smoke, the sidestream smoke, how
19
much was retained in the cigarette filter, so on
20
and so forth, and could account for everything in
21
the Freon 11 business of where it ended up in the
22
smoke . That was all done before it ever went into
23
the cigarette .
24
•
776
25
Q•
Did you determine if there were any
other compounds that were created during the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
777
1
burning process as a result of the addition of
2
Freon 11?
3
A . I just finished telling you . Freon 11 is so
4
inert that -- if it won't form phosgene, it won't
5
form anything else . Now, we could account for, in
6
our material balance study, if you had -- and here
7
I'll just pick a figure, because I'm sure you have
the document that I wrote -- put together on the
9
•
10
say you had ten nanograms of Freon 11 on a
11
cigarette . You get so much in the mainstream
12
smoke, so much in the sidestream smoke, so much in
13
the -- the tobacco part of the butt, so much in
14
the filter tip . And then, in the way you
15
determine this, there was some Freon 11 on the
16
walls of the gadgetry where you collect the smoke,
17
which is a very small amount .
18
nanograms to start with, we could account for all
19
of it .
20
•
T13 process, and I've forgotten the numbers . But
So if you had ten
MR . McDERMOTT : Let me point out,
21
counsel, that the report Dr . Rodgman just referred
22
to is, in fact, attached as an exhibit to the
23
first part of this deposition, and a lot of this
24
was covered in detail in the initial part of the
25
deposition . But you may use your time as you
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
w
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
•
2
choose .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Did you do any tests to determine the
3
4
effect of Freon 11 -- or the burning of Freon 11
5
on nicotine content or yield of the tobacco?
6
A .
7
You -- you asked about freon itself . But,
8
obviously, if you have expanded tobacco in a
9
cigarette, you have less tobacco in the cigarette .
No . The -- part of the -- well, indirectly .
10
Correct? Then, when you smoke that cigarette,
11
you're going to get less
12
•
778
nicotine in the smoke .
And if you look at the Surgeon
13
General -- not the Surgeon General, I'm sorry, the
14
National Cancer Institute study, they repeated and
15
confirmed the effect of our expansion process,
16
Philip Morris' expansion process, and the one
17
developed at North Carolina State, which was
18
actually a freeze-dried tobacco that was expanded .
19
All of them were significant in their
20
contribution, if you will, to a less hazardous
21
cigarette, but all of them dropped the nicotine in
22
the smoke . And that's in the data and -- by our
23
National Cancer Institute .
24
Again, though, the primary motivation
S 251 behind expanded tobacco was not to drop nicotine,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
was it?
2
A . Well, I think I mentioned yesterday, when we
3
talked about the technologies, if you read
4
Dr . Fredrickson's proposal --
5
Q . I'm going to cut you off because I
6
want a specific answer to this specific question .
7
Did RJR develop the expansion process to reduce
8
nicotine or did they do it so that they could --
9
A . If you let me answer the question, sir .
10
•
There's one -- two purposes for
11
expanded tobacco . One, money . The second was to
12
design a cigarette that would have reduced total
13
particulate matter in the smoke . And if you
14
reduce the total particulate matter in the smoke,
15
you would reduce the nicotine .
16
17
Q . What was the first purpose of
expansion of tobacco? Out of the two .
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . Asked and
18
19
20
21
answered .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . It was money, wasn't it? The primary
22
purpose was money?
23
A . Well, he had two things in his report .
24
779
Q.
Wasn't the primary purpose of the
0 25+ expanded tobacco process -
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
780
I
1
2
A . No, it wasn't .
Q . It wasn't money? It was to reduce the
3
particulate matter?
4
A . No, it -- I will say that -- make -- make
5
them equal, if you want .
6
Q . I invite you on a break to go over the
7
six boxes of documents and show me one where
8
reduction of particulate matter was mentioned
9
above money .
10
MR . MCDERMOTT : Objection .
11
MR . BLANCATO : Objection to form .
12
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . The very first document that ever was
created that discussed Freon 11 and the expansion
15
of tobacco, do you know if it ever mentioned the
16
goal of reducing the particulate matter in the
17
smoke?
18
A . Well, as I say, Dr . Fredrickson's first memo
19
didn't mention any specific solvents, because he
20
didn't know which ones would work, if any .
21
Q . Didn't his first memo say that the
22
primary advantage of expansion of tobacco was to 1-n
~
~
use less tobacco in the cigarettes and thereby m
~
increase the profits to Reynolds? Ln
23
24
m
25
A . I don't know whether he had it that -- you
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
probably read it more recently than I have, but I
2
don't remember him saying it that way .
3
•
manufacturers' processes that they used to expand
5
tobacco?
6
A . Yes . We looked at ammonium carbonate .
Q . How did -- I'm sorry .
8
A . We looked at carbon dioxide puffing, which
9
actually other people looked at . Nitrogen was
10
used by some people . And of course -- we did not
11
spend much time looking at the process North
12
Carolina State University had, the freeze drying
13
procedure .
14
Q . The ammonia process, what's the full
15
name, do you know, that you mentioned?
16
A . Pardon?
17
Q . The ammonia process that you
18
mentioned, what's the full name?
19
A . Well, it's -- ammonium carbonate is the
20
expansion agent, mixture of ammonium carbonate and
21
ammonium bicarbonate .
22
•
Q . Did you examine the other tobacco
4
7
781
Q . And which companies were using that
23
process?
24
A . Philip Morris ended up with the U .S . patent
25
for it .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
S2 •
Did you study how the ammonium
2
carbonated -- carbonate affected nicotine content?
3
A . We -- we looked at the ammonium carbonate as
4
an ex -- expansion means . I don't know whether --
5
a man called Charles D . Mays did the work on the
6
ammonium carbonate expansion . I don't know what
7
he looked at in terms of nicotine .
8
9
But the chances are that, if you -looking at the ammonium carbonate puffed tobacco
10
that was involved in the National Cancer Institute
11
study, that the nicotine level in the tobacco was
12
reduced . And I have -- I would take a guess that
13
Charles Mays found the same thing when he did --
14
checked it at Reynolds . But I -- I can't say that
15
for sure .
16
Q . Did you explore the possibility of
17
Reynolds using the ammonium carbonate method of
18
expansion?
19
A . No -- well, let me back up on that .
20
•
782
At -- at -- when we were looking at
21
various expansion methods, of course we were very
22
pleased with the Freon 11 exercise .
23
Dr . Fredrickson looked at other things, and one of
24
them happened to be ammonium carbonate .
25
In fact, if you look at the patents
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
issued in the -- I think it's Belgium, Reynolds
2
has the first patent on -- was issued a patent on
3
ammonium carbonate before Philip Morris . We did
4
make a mistake, I guess you would consider it a
5
mistake, that we decided not to file a patent in
6
the United States, and Philip Morris -- I think
7
the rule is you have to file -- if you have a
8
foreign patent, you've got to do it within a year .
9
Philip Morris filed the patent in the
10
United States, so they had the patent on ammonium
11
carbonate puffing . And -- even though ours, in
12
Europe, preceded theirs .
13
But we had looked at it ; we looked at
14
many things . We looked at carbon dioxide as a
15
puffing agent and --
16
Q . And you said you looked at nitrogen?
17
A . Now, somebody else had reported nitrogen . We
18
checked to see how that would work . It's a little
19
difficult to handle, because, to get it to work,
20
you have to have liquid nitrogen, and liquid
21
nitrogen is -- requires a temperature of, I don't
22
know, minus 270-something degrees .
23
•
783
Q . Do you know who was using nitrogen
24
process?
25
A . I don't know whether anybody was using it .
i
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
It was reported that it would expand tobacco . I
2
don't know if it was in a patent or what .
3
•
Q . Did you -- are you saying that
4
Reynolds didn't seriously explore the use of
5
nitrogen to expand tobacco ?
6
A . Well, we looked at it . As I say, from
7
1970 -- '68, '69, till I left, they were still
8
using Freon 11 . And so were all the people that
9
licensed it from us .
1 0
Q .
processes for tobacco that was sold and markete d
12
overseas?
13
A . No .
Q.
To your knowledge, then, the onl y
15
expansion process Reynolds has ever used is th e
16
Freon 11?
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; misstates
17
18
prior testimony .
THE WITNESS : Until I left . I think
19
20
I've said that about five times, sir .
When I left Reynolds in 1987, they
21
•
Was Reynolds using any other expansio n
11
14
22
were using Freon 11 . And if they're using
23
anything else since then, I have no idea what it
24
would be .
25
78 4
BY MR . MAISTROS :
WAGA & SPINELLI
1
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 785
Q . Do you know who was using carbon
dioxide expansion?
A . A company called Airco was the one that
pioneered the use -- or at least pushed the C02
expansion of tobacco . And that was another case
where Reynolds had actually been the first to look
at C02 expansion and decided not to proceed with
it because it took rather bulky machinery, and so
on and so forth, and was no less effective
•
10
than was -- than our process . And, of course,
11
subsequently, Airco got the patent on it, I
12
believe --
13
Q . Do you know if Reynolds ever used
14
ammonia or any compound related to ammonia in the
15
manufacturing process, other than -- let's
16
back up .
In any fashion, were you aware that
17
•
18
Reynolds used ammonia in the manufacturing
19
process?
20
A . Well, I think I said yesterday, they used
21
ammonia to denicotinize high nicotine tobaccos
22
down to whatever level they wanted . And I can't
23
think of the date, but at one time they were
24
using -- ammoniating their reconstituted tobacco
25
sheet .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
•
1
Why did they use ammonia on their
2
reconstituted tobacco sheet?
3
A . Well, they were trying to -- in the Philip
4
Morris products, the -- their reconstituted
5
tobacco sheet is made by an ammoniate -- ammonia
6
process . And when Marlboro be -- began to look
7
like such a winner, we wondered, well, should we
8
do something to our sheet to -- to imitate the
9
ammoniated effect of the Philip Morris sheet, and
10
we obviously couldn't use -- without royalties and
11
so on, the procedure used by Philip Morris, which
12
involved treatment of the sheet material with an
13
ammonium salt .
14
Q . Do you know why Philip Morris did
15
that?
16
A . I guess they wanted a sheet of their own .
17
•
Q•
786
Q .
No . What is the chemical effect of
18
adding ammonia salt to the reconstituted tobacco?
19
A . Well, the addition of the ammonium salts to
20
the -- you're not adding them to the reconstituted
21
tobacco . What happens is that stems -- stemmed
22
material have some compounds in it that are
23
calcium salts of pectic acid, P-E-C-T-I-C . And
24
you want to get that calcium away from the pectic
25
acid . So if you treat it with a compound, one of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
the ammonium phosphate salts, the ammonia replaces
2
the calcium as the pectic acid -- to make an
3
ammonium salt of pectic acid, instead of the
4
calcium salt . And the calcium combines with the
5
phosphate part of the ammonium phosphate that you
6
added, and calcium phosphate is very insoluble in
7
water . So the ammonium pectate, now, can be made
8
into a sheet much easier and a much nicer sheet
9
than the calcium pectate material .
10
11
That's what I got out of the patent
they had .
Q . Well, how did that affect the
12
•
13
popularity of Marlboros?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
14
15
the question ; no foundation .
THE WITNESS : I have no idea why it
16
17
18
affected the popularity .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Why did you mention Marlboros?
19
•
787
20
A . Well it's their main -- major product . And
21
as I say, we did the same kind of thing that
22
everybody does : We looked at their product, and
23
all of a sudden they had a reconstituted tobacco
24
that was different . About 1968, I guess, it was,
25
'69 .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q . And did you find or did you discover
2
any effect that the ammonia -- ammonia process
3
that Philip Morris used had an effect on the
4
nicotine yields of the tobacco?
5
A . I don't know what they looked at, sir .
6
7
8
9
788
Q . You didn't look at that?
A . I didn't look at that .
Q . Did Reynolds look at that?
A . I don't know what they looked at . I think
10
they were interested in the sheet, per se . And,
11
of course, the one thing about -- when you make a
12
sheet, like reconstituted tobacco, you're actually
13
starting something that's rather low in nicotine
14
anyway . Stems have much less nicotine than the -
15
the lamina .
16
Q . Do you know if Reynolds did any
17
studies to determine if Philip Morris was
18
controlling the amount of nicotine yields of its
19
reconstituted tobacco?
20
A . I don't know whether we did or not .
21
Q . Did Reynolds do any independent work
22
on the effect that ammonia had on nicotine yields? cn
N
-j
23
Separate and apart from looking at Philip Morris .
24
A . If it did, I don't recall .
m
OPb
•
m
to.
25
Q . Do you know if Reynolds did any work
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
789
to determine the effect that any compound had on
the nicotine yields of cigarettes?
A . There was a study, I believe it was done by
Miss Janet Wheeler, putting various additives
in a
filter tip to see the effect on -- how it would
affect the nicotine level in smoke . Like acetic
materials put in the filter tip, would that -nicotine is a basic compound . And'my vague
recollection is that, when you use some of these
10
additives, you got to -- have a problem with
11
acceptability on test panels . But it's been years
12
since I even thought about that .
13
Q . Do you know if Philip Morris did any
14
research to determine the effect that its
15
additives had on the nicotine yields of these
16
cigarettes and the end product nicotine yields?
MR . McDERMOTT : Excuse me . Your
17
18
question was Philip Morris?
19
MR . MAISTROS : I'm sorry . RJR .
20
THE WITNESS : Would you say that
21
22
23
again, sir .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Do you know if RJR did research to
24
determine the effect that any of its additives had
25
on the nicotine yields of the tobacco, other than
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
790
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
the filter one you just mentioned?
2
A . Well, in an indirect way . For example, we
3
did a study on use of humectants, glycerol and
4
propylene glycol, part of the casing material for
cigarettes . And of course'your main concern with
6
the humectants is that they help the cigarette
7
retain its moisture level at manufacturing . And
8
of course, being here in the south, when you
9
manufacture cigarettes in Winston-Salem and then
10
11
problem sometimes that there they're locked in a
12
truck and they're driving through areas that are a
13
hundred degrees Fahrenheit . So you -- you don't
14
want to lose moisture from your product .
15
So we were looking at the advisability
16
of raising or lowering, or doing whatever, with
17
the humectants . And, of course, one of the things
18
•
you ship them to California or wherever, you have
.that happens, if you increase the humectants
19
level, and more of humectant gets into the
20
and the humectant turns out as part of
21
you weigh as total particulate matter and ends up
22
as being in the calculation, the FTC tar -- part
23
of the FTC tar number, then what happens is, as
24
you increase the humectants from, say, three to
25
four to five to six percent, the nicotine level in
WAGA & SPINELLI
smoke
the -- what
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
791
1
the smoke goes down . That was just an observation
2
we made, that you could control nicotine by the
3
use of various levels of humectants .
4
But the primary purpose of -- oh, I
5
think at one time we increased the level of
6
humectants . It was not to lower the nicotine, but
7
it was primarily to make sure our products retain
8
their moisture for a longer period of time .
9
Because what happens, if you lose moisture from
10
the cigarette and the moisture loss is -- gets --
11
gets over a percent or two, that is it drops, say,
12
from 12 to 11 to 10, the tar level goes up and the
13
nicotine level in smoke goes up . And it gets to a
14
point where the smoke is very irritating .
15
Q.
Did RJR do studies to determine
16
whether or not the tar levels could be reduced,
17
independent of reduction of the nicotine levels?
18
A . Well, here -- let me go back, 1980 . In 1980
19
there was a conference on less hazardous
20
cigarettes, called the Banbury Conference, and
21
Dr . Russell from England gave a presentation
22
there . And one of his theses, which he had
23
proposed sometime in the '70s, I forget the exact
24
date -- M .A .H . Russell is his name . He, in
25
England, and a man called, I believe, Jarvik,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
792
1
J-A-R-V-I-K, in this country, proposed that the
2
safer cigarette should encompass lowering the tar
3
and leaving the nicotine alone, or lowering the
4
tar and raising the nicotine . And we looked at
5
that, and there was problems with it about -- when
6
you got an imbalance in the tar to nicotine ratio,
7
the cigarette became very harsh and the consumer
8
said no, no, no .
9
10
VIDEOGRAPHER : Mr . Maistros, we have
five minutes left on the videotape .
11
12
THE WITNESS : Well, if you gentlemen
don't mind, I'd like a break .
13
14
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
record at 10 :51 a .m .
(Recess taken from 10 :51 a .m . to 11 :07
15
16
a .m . )
17
VIDEOGRAPHER : This is tape 4 of the
18
videotape deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
19
going back on the record at 11 :07 a .m .
20
21
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q.
Dr . Rodgman, so I'm clear on this,
22
when you were talking about Philip Morris'
23
addition of ammonia to the reconstituted tobacco
24
sheet, was it your understanding, or is it your
25
understanding, that the only purpose in doing that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5,
1
was to make the sheet easier to work with?
2
A . That was in the patent .
Pg
793
3
Q . Did you ever have any information that
4
there was another purpose behind adding ammonia to
5
the tobacco?
6
A . I didn't .
7
8
Q . Did anyone at Reynolds?
A . Not that I know of .
9
Q . And when you left, was Reynolds adding
10
tobacco to its sheets -- I'm sorry, adding ammonia
11
to its reconstituted tobacco sheets?
12
A . Not all of it . They had two variations of
13
reconstituted tobacco sheet, and I'm sure you've
14
heard of them . One's G7, the one that was
15
invented in nineteen fifty -- first used in '54 ;
16
and G7A, which was the ammoniated one . And I
17
don't know how much they used of either .
18
19
20
Q . Do you know what years G7A was used?
A . No, I don't .
Q . And do you know what the purpose of
21
Reynolds adding ammonia to the reconstituted
22
tobacco process was?
23
24
25
Ln
A . I believe they were thinking, well does this ~
~
m
have anything to do with the acceptability and ,p
m
m
sudden surge in the sales of Marlboro? Was it W
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 794
something that the consumer liked? And they were
seeing, I guess, if they could match it .
That's a speculation on my part .
Q . You don't know of any research that
was done to determine if the ammonia being added
to the reconstituted tobacco sheet affected the
amount of nicotine yield of the tobacco?
A.
No . The only thing I know, sir, is that --
and, here, I'm not an expert on nicotine ; I think
10
you're quite aware of that .
With every case I've seen that --
11
12
where you add ammonia or ammonium salt or ammonia
13
solution to a tobacco, you end up with less
14
nicotine in that tobacco than you started with .
Q . How about free nicotine? Do you know
15
16
what the concept of free nicotine is?
17
A . Yes . And I think, if you read the deposition
18
that went on here two weeks ago, three weeks ago,
19
you'll get a good idea of my view on free
20
nicotine .
Q . Does anyone share your view in the
21
22
chemical world?
23
A.
24
.
25
Yes .
Q.
Who?
A . That the free nicotine is a calculated
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
795
number?
Q . Okay, we can start there . Who shares
3
your view that the free nicotine is a calculated
4
number?
5
A . I think everybody realizes it's a calculated
6
number . As far as I know, there's no chemist that
7
has ever isolated -- identified free nicotine in
8
mainstream cigarette smoke .
9
Q . Was the -- to your knowledge, the
10
primary purpose Reynolds added ammonia to the
11
reconstituted tobacco was to attempt to duplicate
12
Marlboro?
13
A . That was my understanding .
14
Q . Is it your understanding that the
15
only -- only manner in which ammonia is added in
16
the manufacturing process is in this reconstituted
17
tobacco process?
18
A . I have no idea if it's added any other way .
19
And you've got to remember, too, up until 1980,
20
the R & D part of Reynolds was R & D . And there
21
were a lot of things went on in development
22
that -- where I was in research, that I had very
23
peripheral knowledge of . I was aware of some
24
things going on, but had no basis of knowledge of
25
the reasons for it or the reasons not to do things
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
i
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
or to do things .
2
And then, as I said before, in 1980,
3
research and development was split into six parts,
4
and the process engineering and applied work was
5
entirely separate from my work in fundamental .
6
And I had enough to do with fund -- directing
7
fundamental research, that -- to be worried about
8
what other people were doing . And --
Q.
9
Between 1953 and 1980, did R -- R & D
10
do any research on nicotine?
11
A . I wasn't there in '53 .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
796
Q .
A.
I'm
sorry . What year did you join?
1954 .
Q . Between 1954 and 1980, did R & D do
any research in nicotine?
MR . MaDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : Yes .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . What research?
21
A . In the late 'SOs, two men at Reynolds -- well
22
one was actually a manager, the other was a lab
Ln
f-~
~
23
chemist, Dr . Markunas and Mr . Robert H . Cundiff
24
developed a -- an improved analysis of nicotine in',P .
rn
N
25
tobacco and cigarette smoke that became used by
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
~
N
Vol . 5, Pg .
797
1
1
almost every tobacco company in the world . It
2
took several years' research to develop that
3
process .
4
In fact, it was one of the reasons
5
that his development of a variety of analytical
6
methods for tobacco and tobacco smoke, which
7
included nicotine, nornicotine, and so on, that
8
Mr . Cundiff was awarded the -- a very prestigious
9
prize for his work in analytical chemistry .
Q . What other research?
10
11
A . In 1960, Benjamin Van Duuren and his
12
colleagues reported the identification of three
13
polycyclic aza-arenes, A-Z-A, hyphen, A-R-E-N-E-S,
14
in cigarette smoke . And these are -- have been
15
reported to be tumorigenic to mouse skin . And
16
Dr . Van Duuren studied nicotine pyrolysis to see
17
if these compounds arose from nicotine during
18
heating . And he said that they were, the three of
19
them .
20
However, we looked at the pyrolysis of
21
nicotine and couldn't find these three compounds .
22
And subsequent to 1960, from 1963 to 1992,
23
seven -- eight different studies had been
24
conducted and published, including some by
25
Dietrich Hoffmann and some from the U .S .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Government . But nobody can reproduce those
2
findings of Benjamin Van Duuren, either with
3
respect to those compounds in smoke or the
4
pyrolysis of nicotine .
5
6
798
And the reason I mention it is these
compounds are listed by EPA and Wynder and
Hoffmann as being three significant tumorigens in
8
cigarette smoke ; and for '63 to '92, in eight
9
different studies, in three different countries,
10
nobody can find them .
11
Q . And what -- what work were you doing
12
that would have piqued your interest to look,
13
after '87, at whether nicotine promotes tumors?
14
A . After '87? I wasn't there in '87 .
Q . What -- why are you still researching
15
16
what reports are out there on nicotine and its
17
potential tumor causing effects between '87 and
18
'92? Just as a --
19
A .
20
21
22
Who?
Q .
You .
A . I was reading the literature, see .
Q . After '87, when you left Reynolds, you
23
still kept up on the scientific literature of
24
tobacco?
25
A . Tobacco smoke .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
S
Q.
Were there any cases, litigation or
2
legal matters that you were consulting on, between
3
'87 and the present, that you haven't testified
4
about?
5
A . Not that I -- not that I know of .
6
Q•
And going back to my original
7
question . Were you aware that Reynolds was doing
8
studies subsequent to Van Buren's (sic) study to
9
determine --
10
A . Van Duuren .
Q . Van Duuren's study, to determine if
11
•
799
12
his results could be duplicated?
13
A .
14
pyrolysis, we went on to other things .
No . When we couldn't find it in the nicotine
15
Q . Did, to your knowledge, Reynolds ever
16
do any research to determine if nicotine promoted
17
tumors, caused tumors, was tumorigenic?
18
A.
19
No .
Q . Are you aware of any other research
20
that was done at -- in R & D between '54 and '87
21
with respect to nicotine?
22
A . Well, I'm not really aware of any research .
23
When I came to Reynolds in 1954, I was shown a
24
facility that was not too far from here - it's w
25
gone now - where Reynolds recovered nicotine from
Ln
WAGA & SPINELLI
~
~
a
(201) 992-4111
~
m
Vol . 5, Pg . 800
scrap tobacco and stems, and this was before the
days when -- in the manufacture -- preparation of
reconstituted tobacco sheet, Reynolds didn't use
all its stems . And they used part of the stems in
this facility ; they would treat it with alkali and
distill off the nicotine and sell the nicotine to
the company that made -- I'm thinking Black Leaf
40, which people use it on their rose bushes .
Q . A bug killer?
10
11
A . Bug killer .
Q . Do you know during what period of time
12
Reynolds continued to sell nicotine to that
13
company?
14
A . I -- I don't know when it quit or -- or it
15
was probably before -- maybe 1960 they quit . It
16
was probably earlier . Because, as their increased
17
use of the stems occurred, there was less and less
18
stems to process .
19
Q . If R & D wasn't doing nicotine
20
research, what entity within Reynolds would have
21
been?
vn
22
N
v
A . If it wasn't done in R & D, I don't know m
23
where it would have been done .
bN
24
25
rn
N
rn
Q . But when -A . There was some work done -- now that I think
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 801
about it, it wasn't done at Reynolds, it was done
•
at Bowman Gray School of Medicine . And it was the
first use of the radial-labeled nicotine to see
what happened to nicotine in a mammalian body .
I'm not too familiar with the work,
but it was done by a man called Dr . Wolff,
W-O-L-F-F . And the results were presented at
several of the earlier Tobacco Chemists
Conference, and which the first one, I believe,
10
was 1947 . And he presented several papers over
11
the years, between '47 and early '50s . I've seen
12
abstracts, but I didn't hear the papers .
13
Q . What is the largest particulate
14
compound that's contained in the cigarette smoke?
15
A . Largest particulate?
Q .
16
17
A . How do you mean "large"?
18
19
20
21
22
Yes .
Q . Greatest quantity .
A.
Water .
Q . And what about after water?
A . Nicotine .
Q . And between 1954 and 1987, is it your
23
testimony that there were no studies, other than
24
those you've testified about, with respect to how
25
nicotine interacts with the human body?
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; no
1
2
802
foundation .
THE WITNESS : Well we didn't have any
3
4
biological facilities, you know, '65, '66, '67, in
5
there . So as far as I know, no .
6
BY MR . MAISTROS :
7
Q . And Reynolds, to your knowledge, other
8
than the Bowman Gray study you just mentioned, did
9
not contract with any outside agencies to
10
determine how nicotine interacted with the human
11
body?
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; no
12
13
foundation .
THE WITNESS : I don't know .
14
15
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Are you aware of any work that
16
17
Reynolds did to determine if nicotine had an
18
effect on the central nervous system of humans?
19
A .
20
No .
Q . Did you prepare any literature,
21
reports, memorandum, that addressed the role
22
nicotine plays in tobacco smoke?
23
A . Not specifically on nicotine . I may have
24
mentioned nicotine . But not a report devoted to
25
the effect of nicotine during smoking, that I can
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
recall .
Q . As you sit here today, do you know
what role nicotine plays on the smoking process?
4
5
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . Vague .
6
7
8
9
THE WITNESS : Say that again, sir .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Do you know what effect or what role
nicotine plays on the smoking process?
10
MR . McDERMOTT : Same objection .
11
THE WITNESS : On the smoking process?
12
13
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . I don't want to limit it to tobacco,
14
smoke, smoking process ; so I use "the smoking
15
process" as a catchall phrase .
16
A . Well, the smoking process is the process
17
whereby tobacco is converted to smoke and
18
nicotine -- some nicotine is transferred to --
19
from the cigarette to the mainstream smoke, and
20
some is transferred to the sidestream smoke, and
21
some is decomposed . That's the role of nicotine
22
in the smoking process .
23
803
Q . Do you know what role nicotine plays
24
insofar as interaction with the human body is
25
concerned?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A . I have no idea how nicotine works in the
2
human body . You're way outside my area of
3
expertise, sir .
4
Q . Who was the most knowledgeable person
5
at Reynolds between '54 and '87, with respect to
6
the role nicotine plays in the smoking process?
7
A.
8
9
John
H . Robinson .
Q . Was he within research and
development?
10
A . He came to research and development -- the
11
research department about 1978, '77, somewhere in
12
there .
13
Q . And you eventually were director of
14
research and development?
15
A . I hired John Robinson . I was director of
16
research, sir . I heard somebody saying something
17
on the phone that I was the grand guru of
18
R & D, and I wish you'd get it straight .
19
804
all
Q . When you were director of research,
20
you were John Robinson's supervisor?
21
A . I was -- well, I was director of research,
22
and John Robinson's manager was John Reynolds, who
23
reported to me .
24
Q . And were you copied on the reports
25
that Robinson was preparing, insofar as he was
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
doing research on nicotine?
2
A .
3
of years he was there, he wasn't particularly
4
working on nicotine per se . The -- one of the
5
large projects he was working on was the Barclay
6
problem, which lasted for a year and a half .
7
Someplace in 1981 it was all finished ; they turned
8
over the information to the Federal Trade
9
Commission .
10
•
Yes . Well, his first work in -- first couple
Q . Did you review Dr . Robinson's work on
11
nicotine?
12
A . I can't remember whether he did very much
13
nicotine work while I was director of research .
14
Q.
Did
Dr . Robinson have to obtain your
15
approval before commencing any research projects,
16
when you were director of research?
17
A . Well, it was usually done through the
18
manager, from Dr . Reynolds .
19
•
805
Q . Have you written any papers,
20
memorandums, research reports that address the
21
contentions made by some people out there that
22
Reynolds and other tobacco companies manipulate or
23
control the level of nicotine?
24
MS . EASON : Object to the form .
25
THE WITNESS : Would you say that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
again, sir .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
3
Q . Are you aware there's allegations
4
floating out there that tobacco companies,
5
including Reynolds, manipulates and controls the
6
level of nicotine in its tobacco products?
7
A . I'm aware there -- that's been said .
Q . Have you ever written any papers,
8
9
documents, memorandum that address that issue?
10
A.
11
came up after I retired .
No . I think most of the manipulation thing
12
13
MS . KNISELY : May we go off the
record, please?
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
14
15
record at 11 :28 a .m . We're off the record .
16
17
(Recess taken from 11 :28 a .m . to 11 :44
a .m . )
18
19
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going back on the
record at 11 :44 a .m .
20
21
22
23
806
EXAMINATION
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
Dr . Rodgman, my name is Steve Sheller
and I'm one of the counsel for the plaintiffs, and ~
J
H
24
•
I ' m go i ng to ask you some additional questions .
~
4~-
m
25
Mr . Maistros will be back asking you questions N
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
when I'm done with my portion of the deposition .
2
And hopefully it won't be too long .
3
In terms of the compounds that are in
4
tobacco smoke, the Cambridge filter system, which
5
is used by the Federal Trade Commission to measure
6
particulate matter in tobacco, you're familiar
7
with that?
8
A . Yes, I am .
9
Q .
Okay . And that -- what does that
10
measure in terms of tobacco smoke? Just
11
particulate matter?
12
A . It -- the Cambridge filter pad was designed
13
that, when smoke impinges on it, it takes out
14
99 .9-something percent of the particulate matter
15
that strikes at the vapor phase gas components go
16
through .
17
Q . Now, you say, the vapor phase gas
18
components . Can you explain what the vapor phase
19
gas components are in generality? What -- what is
20
that, as distinguished from particulate?
21
A . Well --
22
0
807
Q . I-- I know we know, but this is for
23
the jury .
24
A . Okay . Cigarette smoke is, of course, an
25
aerosol . It's little liquid droplets, balls,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
808
1
little liquid balls, spheres, whatever you want to
2
call them, suspended in a vapor . And when you
3
pull smoke through the cigarette, it goes through
4
the cigarette, tobacco rod, and the filter . And
5
then, if you're collecting the smoke on a
6
Cambridge filter pad, like in the FTC procedure,
7
the particulate matter impinges on the Cambridge
8
filter pad and it stays there . The vapor phase
9
components continue on through and are expelled,
10
11
unless you're specifically studying those .
And if you look at the particulate
12
phase of cigarette smoke versus vapor phase, what
13
happens is, obviously, when you're smoking -- take
14
a puff on the cigarette, you're pulling air
15
through the lit end . So what goes through the
16
Cambridge filter pad, the vapor phase components
17
of course is : The nitrogen that was in the air,
18
it doesn't burn, or very little of it does ; the
19
unconsumed oxygen ; plus carbon monoxide, carbon
20
dioxide, helium that was in the air, acetaldehyde,
21
formaldehyde .
22
23
There are probably four or five
hundred components in the vapor phase that go
Ln
~
J
F-+
m
~
ON
N
24
i
25
~
through the -Q . That go through the filter?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A . Right . And, fortunately, every -- almost
2
everything in the vapor phase is known .
3
0
Now, if you look at the vapor phase
4
versus the particulate phase, in a normal
5
cigarette, with nine-tenths of a gram of tobacco
6
or so, the vapor phase -- well, the total smoke,
7
counting what impinges on the -- stays on the
8
Cambridge filter pad and what goes through it, is
9
roughly 500 milligrams . And if the particulate
10
matter is a 20-milligram -- well, say,
11
20-milligram TPM cigarette --
12
13
14
15
Q . Tar per -A . Four hundred -- 480 is gas phase, of which
probably -- nearly 400 milligrams is unused air .
Q .
Okay . So -- let -- let me understand .
16
The -- there's 500 milligrams --
17
A . Uh-huh .
18
809
Q . -- approximately, that goes through
19
the Cambridge filter .
20
A . Well, no . The total smoke generated from a
21
cigarette in ten puffs or eight puffs, whatever it
22
takes, would be about 500 milligrams . Twenty
23
milligrams of total particulate matter,
24
480 milligrams of vapor phase components, of which
25
about 400 is air .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
810
Q . So there's about 80 milligrams of
1
2
something in the vapor?
3
A . Yeah . Well, if you have a TPM of 20, you
4
could take a rough guess that your carbon monoxide
5
will be 20, plus or minus one milligram .
6
Q.
Okay . But let -- let me kind of get
7
these numbers straight . And I was not good in
8
chemistry . I want you to understand that .
9
A . Uh-huh . I'm just giving you approximations .
10
Q .
11
to go very --
12
A . Let's say, take a 20-milligram TPM cigarette .
13
14
15
16
17
18
No . No, I understand . So, I'm going
Q . That's a tar per milligram .
A .
No .
Q . What does TPM stand for?
A . Total particulate matter .
Q.
Matter . Total particulate matter .
A . Okay .
So 20 milligram total particulate
19
S2 •
20
matter .
21
A . Right . Okay .
22
And -- and then, if you're speaking
23
about the non-air components that go through the
24
filter pad, like acetaldehyde, and so on and so
25
forth, then the ones that are the most plentiful
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
811
)
1
are carbon monoxide ; which, as a rule of thumb, if
2
you know the TPM, the carbon monoxide will
3
probably -- that number, plus or minus one or two
4
milligrams, so you're looking 18 to 22 . The
5
carbon dioxide, as a rule of thumb, will be about
6
twice that, two and a half times that . And those
7
are the most plentiful components in the vapor
8
phase .
9
10
And of course you have acetaldehyde,
and so on and so forth . And then you --
11
Q .
Okay . Let me -- let me -- so the
12
vapor phase consists of -- let me get this
13
straight . You've got 500 --
14
A . Total smoke matter .
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q . Total smoke matter .
A .
Right .
Q . TSM I'm going to call that .
A . Okay .
Q . Then of that 520 -A . Say -- let's say 20 .
Q . Approximately 20 .
A . Twenty would be TPM .
Q . That's what gets onto the filter?
A . The Cambridge filter, right .
Q . Then there's 480 left .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
812
(
1
A .
2
3
Q .
A.
4
5
Right .
Approximately .
Ri g ht .
Q .
A.
And
of
that
air?
Roughly .
7
A.
8
whatever, krypton .
Nitrogen, and oxygen, and helium, and
Q . I thought that's Superman .
9
10
So 80, I'll
11
A.
12
is C02,
13
Q .
Right . So
15
A .
19
A.
20
about
21
write
40 equals C02
this
down .
--
Which is carbon -
-- dioxide .
Carbon monoxide would be the same as
the TPM,
20 .
Q .
A.
let me
Dioxide .
Q.
18
probably half of it
Two -Q .
A .
is stuff?
carbon dioxide .
Forty equals -- of 80,
16
say,
Right . And of that 80,
14
22
400 is
Q . Roughly four --
6
17
480,
Well,
Twenty .
you've got
And what's the other
20?
-- probably the next highest
Ln
23
F~
component in the vapor phase is acetaldehyde,
m
24
which is about one milligram . Then everything 4~*
rn
N
!
251
after that goes down, milligrams -
WAGA & SPINELLI
CO
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 813
Q . Is that where they talk about benzines
and all those other things that --
A . Yeah, they're way down there, in micrograms
and nanograms, and so on and so forth .
Q .
Okay . Now --
A . And in that 80, it -- rough -- roughly 80
that we said were non-air components, there are
about four or 500 compounds -- 400 compounds that
have been identified .
10
Now, if I wanted to make a cigarette
Q.
11
to reduce the tar per milligram at that 20 that's
12
collected on the Cambridge pad --
13
A . Right . Right .
14
15
Q . -- could I vaporize some of those
things and get them out of there?
16
17
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
18
19
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
question .
20
21
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form of
the question .
22
23
THE WITNESS : I don't quite
understand -- you mean --
~
~
-3
~
m
~
N
0
24
9
25
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, I want to turn it -- I want to
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
lower -- I want to have less gook . I want to get
2
it out of the gook stage and turn it into the air
3
stage, the vapor stage .
4
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
5
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
6
the question .
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
8
9
Q . How would I do that? Could I vaporize
it, could I do something to it to -- to do that?
10
A . Well the best way is to have the cigarette
11
burn differently .
12
814
Q.
Okay .
13
A . And you could do that by air diluting filter .
14
And if you -- there's a mathematical correlation
15
between percentage air dilution as imposed by
16
filter tip ventilation and the particulate matter .
17
Because, what you're doing is -- normally, with a
18
normal cigarette, you would pull 35 milliliters of
19
air into it, according to the FTC procedure . If
20
you air dilute it ten percent through the little
21
holes in the filter, then ten percent of the air,
22
which would be three and a half milliliters of
23
air, would come through the little holes ; and then
24
the remainder, 31 and a half milligrams, would
25
come through the cigarette . Which means that you
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
would form less material that would impinge on the
2
Cambridge filter pad .
Now, if you went to 20 percent,
3
4
then - -
5
Q . Well, would that material go into the
6
air? Where would it go?
7
A.
8
9
What?
Q . The less -- material that didn't get
on the Cambridge filter .
10
A . It's because -- no . It's because you didn't
11
generate it .
12
13
14
Q . You didn't -- it didn't get generated .
A . Right .
Q .
Okay . Now, is there any way to
15
generate it, but turn it into vapor?
16
A . Uh --
17
18
19
20
21
22
_
815
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
Generate what?
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . In the four -- the 500 -A . Well, you see, sir, the -- the --
23
Q . The 400 air stuff that you take
24
through the filter, that the filter doesn't
25
pick up, which includes the 80 --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A .
Right .
Q . -- 80 milligrams that we talked
2
3
about .
4
A . No, what would -- you would have to do
5
6
MR . MoDERMOTT : Let me just --
I object -
7
8
MR . SHELLER : Please let me ask a
question .
9
•
MR . McDERMOTT : Yes -- I object to the
10
form of the question . It is vapor already . So
11
your question is : How do you turn the vapor into
12
vapor?
13
14
MR . SHELLER : No . No, we're talking
about the 20 part TPM .
15
THE WITNESS : Okay . Okay .
16
MR . MCDERMOTT : Well, then, will
17
18
you -BY MR . SHELLER :
19
Q . I'm -- I'm -- I'm designing a
20
cigarette that I want'to know -- you're -- you're
21
a cigarette engineer, right? Design --
22
A .
23
24
25
816
No . I'm an organic chemist .
Q . An organic chemist . All right .
So you -- well, I'm asking you, as an
organic chemist -- and I did take organic
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
chemistry ; that was one of the few chemistry
2
courses I took . But if I wanted a --
3
A . You've got to -- let -- let me back up, if
4
you want to learn about what's on the Cambridge
5
filter pad .
6
What's on the Cambridge filter pad are
7
things that are relatively non-volatile when they
8
hit that Cambridge filter pad .
9
Q . All right .
10
A . Now, things like acetaldehyde, formaldehyde,
11
air, components, nitrog -- they are gaseous or
12
vaporous ; they go through .
13
Now, because the particles, these
14
little balls, are whizzing down the cigarette,
15
they hit the Cambridge filter pad, and the
16
Cambridge filter pad is designed to stop
17
everything above a certain size . Well, above a
18
certain size is almost everything that is-not
19
little molecules like the air . So they hit the
20
Cambridge filter pad and are impinged there .
21
22
23
24
817
Now, what's in that 20 milligrams is
all the things that are non-volatile at the ~
_j
temperature that they impinge, which usually is 30 m
~
or 40 degrees, a little above room temperature -- W
w
251 all right . I mean, let's get to the point .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
818
Benzpyrene does not vaporize at room
1
2
temperature or 40 degrees . You -- to vaporize
3
benzpyrene, you got to get it to 350 degrees
4
centigrade . So, theirs stick there now . You
5
cannot -- there's no way you can vaporize
6
benzpyrene, for example, or -- to get it to go
7
through as a vapor at 30, 40 degrees . So it's
8
going to impinge .
What you do, you control the design
9
of
10
the cigarette so what comes through and hits that
11
pad is less . And you can do that by what you put
12
it -- how you design your filter tip, how you
13
design the -- use expanded tobacco or
14
reconstituted sheet . And -- and, of course, if
15
you look at the FTC -- well not FTC, the
16
sales-weighted average for tar, from 1955 to the
17
present time, it's been dropping .
Q . Well, I understand that . But what I'm
18
19
trying to understand is -- let's -- let's talk
20
about benzpyrene, for example . Is that in the
21
TPM?
22
A . Uh-huh .
Q . That -- that never gets vaporized .
23
24
25
A .
No .
Q . The cigarette doesn't burn at a high
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
81 9
1
enough -
2
A . And by the way, I'm sure you may b e
3
heading for -- because you cannot find nicotine in
4
the vapor phase of a cigarette ; it's on the pad .
5
6
7
Q . Right .
A . So, therefore, it's not --
Q-
Your view -- now, benzpyrene -- wha t
8
deg -- can only vaporize at how many degree s
9
temperature?
10
A . What --
11
Q . 350 degrees ?
12
A . Yeah . You have to get it above its melting
13
point . And it melts --
14
Q . Right . And cigarettes never burn at
15
350 degrees ?
16
A . Well, yeah, the burning temperature of a
17
cigarette, out of the fire cone, is 850 degrees
18
centigrade .
19
Q . 850 . Well, wouldn't some of that
20
benzpyrene then be vaporized ?
21
A . Well, it's not formed at the 850 degree
22
temperature . It's formed back in the cigarette,
23
where the temperature is lower . And the thing is,
24
the benzpyrene, because of its nature, gets into
25
the particle .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
820
1
Q . Well -- well I understand that . But
2
suppose, now -- I'm being very simple here . I'm
3
at the end of my cigarette butt and it's -- the
4
burn is down at the bottom near the filter . Are
5
you -- you telling me that none of that benzpyrene
6
is vaporized?
7
A . It's probably vaporized during the
8
formation -- during its formation . Benzpyrene
9
isn't in tobacco .
Q . I know, during the formation . And
10
11
you're saying none of that benzpyrene is going to
12
get through that filter, according to you?
13
A .
14
15
No .
Q .
Okay .
And you're saying, you don't know
16
any way to vaporize that tar per milligram, that
17
20 that the pad gets, that -- now, I
18
a cigarette that I want -- what -- what's in that
19
tar per milligram? You got benzpyrene --
want to make
20
MS . EASON : Objection .
21
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . Total
Ln
22
23
24
25
particulate matter .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Total particulate matter .
A . Total particulate matter --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Q .
1
2
I'm
821
sorry . I used TPM before .
A . -- there are 4400 known components -Q . What are the major ones? Nicotine?
4
A . Nicotine, water .
Q . Which -- is nicotine, the ma -- that's
5
6
the most --
7
A .
Water . Water .
Q . Water is the main thing? So --
8
9
A . Nicotine .
Q . Then after that? What's the next big
10
11
ones?
12
A . The saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons ; which
13
is a series of about 80 compounds, but they act as
14
if they were one .
15
Q .
I
see .
16
A . And they probably represent a fair -- let me
17
correct one thing .
Well, the third one I would put down
18
19
would be the humectants, glycerin and propylene
20
glycol .
21
Q.
Okay . Now, let me ask you something .
22
The water -- how much of the 20 TPM is water?
23
A . About eight percent .
24
25
Q . And how much is nicotine?
A . Six or seven, depending on the cigarette .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q .
I
see . And how much is whatever that
2
word was?
3
A . Humectants?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
822
Q . No, the one be -- poly -A . Oh, the saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons?
Q .
Yes .
A . Probably three or four percent .
Q . And then humectants?
A . And, see, that will be dependent on the
tobacco, because those are in tobacco .
Q.
Uh-huh . What are humectants?
12
A . The glycerin and propylene glycol are used to
13
help the cigarette retain its moisture
14
transport from manufacture to the consumer, and
15
across the country, and so on .
16
during its
Q . What's the usual amount, approximate?
17
A . In smoke? Probably a couple of a percent .
18
Two percent .
19
20
Q . All right .
Now, is there any way, that you know
21
of, that nicotine can get vaporized so it doesn't
22
get counted on that pad?
23
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
24
the question .
25
BY MR . SHELLER :
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
Vol . 5, Pg .
Q .
2
TPM .
A . No, I do not know .
Q . Do you know whether ammonia vaporizes?
3
4
As
823
A . Ammonia is in the gas phase of smoke .
Q.
5
Right . But does ammonia free the
6
nicotine from the salt? The TPM?
7
A . As far as I know, no .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to form .
8
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . What is that calculated amount of
10
11
nicotine you were talking about in the prior
12
deposition in Ju -- I think it was in July or
13
June? What is that? Is that an amount that
14
people calculate as in the vapor?
15
A.
16
calculation . It's based on the pH of the smoke .
17
And I say, as far as I know, nobody has ever found
18
free nicotine that went through that filter --
19
Cambridge filter pad .
20
No . They -- as I say, it's a funny
Q . But they -- but they calculate that --
21
that there is some amount going through there,
22
right, because of the ammonia ; isn't that true?
23
24
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : No . They calculate
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
824
)
•
1
that -- in the smoke that you take in there may be
2
free nicotine, according to that calculation .
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
4
Right . That's not on -- that doesn't
5
get picked up on the pad, right?
6
A . Well, it gets picked up on the pad 'cause
7
none goes through, sir .
Q.
8
9
10
--
A . You don't smoke a cigarette through a
Cambridge filter pad .
Q . I understand .
11
12
Well
A . Personally .
13
Q . Are you saying that the Cambridge
14
filter pad picks up all the nicotine that's in the
15
smoke?
16
A .
17
Yes .
Q.
Okay . And you're positive of that?
18
A . I have never seen a report where somebody has
19
reported nicotine, per se, in the vapor phase of
20
the mainstream smoke .
21
Q . But people believe that nicotine is in
22
the vapor phase because of ammonia, don't they?
23
Many scientists .
24
A . No, they don't .
25
Q . They don't . Where do they believe it
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
Vol . 5, Pg .
825
1
is? They believe it's not in the vapor phase?
2
A . No, they don't believe it -- I think you're
3
missing the point about this calculation with free
4
nicotine and nicotine in the vapor phase .
5
Q.
Uh-huh . Right .
6
A . If nicotine is free and in the vapor phase,
7
it will go through the Cambridge filter pad .
8
9
10
11
Q.
Right .
A . But none does, so it can't be in the -- can't
be f ree .
Q . So you're saying, if nicotine is free,
12
it will be in the --
13
A . Vapor phase .
14
Q . -- vapor phase and not counted in the
15
filter . But you're saying, to your knowledge,
16
none is in that vapor phase, right?
17
A . Right .
18
Q . So you don't agree with those who
19
believe that a substantial amount of nicotine is
20
in the vapor phase . You disagree with that view .
21
A . I keep telling you, sir, that nobody has been
22
able to measure it .
23
Q . I understand that . But that's --
24
because no one has measured it, you're saying it's
25
not there . Right?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
0
21
the
A . It's not in the vapor phase that goes through
filter
pad .
Q . Now, has Reynolds ever tried to
3
4
measure it?
5
A . Yes .
6
7
Q .
10
Q . When you were there?
A . Yeah . When I was there . I wasn't involved
in it .
Q .
11
12
When?
A . Oh, I forget when .
8
9
Who
was?
A . Somebody in analytical .
Q . Who was that?
13
14
A . Probably somebody like Patrick Cooper,
15
who
.
Q . And did you ever see a report from
16
17
Patrick Cooper, saying : I tried to measure the
18
,
nicotine and -- to see if it's in the vapor phase,
19
and I tried and tried and tried and couldn't do
20
it?
21
A.
22
other people that have done it and have tried it
23
and tried it .
24
25
826
No . There are reports in the literature by
Q . Now, you do use ammonia to free the
nicotine from the tobacco stems . You did that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
back in the '60s . Remember, you said that? How
2
does that work?
3
A . I didn't say I used ammonia to --
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
4
5
the question .
6
7
8
THE WITNESS : -- free tobacco from the
stems .
BY MR . SHELLER :
9
10
Q .
Not tobacco, nicotine .
A . Nicotine from the stems .
11
Q.
Well, remember, you were talking about
12
selling the nicotine
13
A . I didn't say I used ammon -- they used
14
ammonia . They didn't use ammonia .
Q . They didn't . What did they use?
15
16
827
A . Sodium hydroxide .
17
Q . Sodium hydroxide . Well, I thought you
18
said somewheres that they used ammonia, before, to
19
free -- to get nicotine out .
20
A . That was the denicotinization process .
21
Q.
Okay . And how did ammonia take out
22
the nicotine in the denicotinization process?
23
A . Well, ammonia is more basic than nicotine,
24
and nicotine is present in tobacco as a salt . And
25
it --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 828
Q .
But
--
A . -- frees the nicotine, which temperature
drives off, and it's burned or collected or
whatever .
Q . It frees the nicotine into a
collectible air which is then -- what -- how does
it get back into a fluid or a salt?
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Once it's freed by the ammonia .
10
•
11
A . Well, in that case, it's -- there's enough
12
ammonia there to keep it going, to keep it as free
13
nicotine .
14
Q .
I
see .
15
A . There's nothing else there, like the smoke
16
particles, to get the nicotine -Q . What does it look like? Have you
17
18
seen it?
19
A .
A . Nicotine -- yeah, I've seen free nicotine .
Q . What does it look like?
22
23
24
25
What?
Q . The free nicotine in --
20
21
ever
A .
Water .
Q .
Water . Is it wet?
A . I wouldn't advise putting your finger in it .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 829
Okay .
Now, if that -- and you've never done
any -- to your knowledge, no one's ever tried to
heat that water to see if it vaporizes?
A . Heat what water?
MR . MCDERMOTT : Excuse me . What
water?
8
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . The nicotine water, that looks like
10
water .
11
A . Nicotine vaporizes .
12
13
Q .
Hmmm?
A . Nicotine will vap -- you can boil nicotine Q . It will vapor --
14
15
A . -- and it boils like water, and it gives off
16
an equivalent of steam .
Q .
17
Right . So you don't know whether
to see if
18
Reynolds has ever tested the product
19
in the cigarettes the vapor that -- the nicotine
20
that's freed is vaporized?
MR . MaDERMOTT : Object to the form .
21
22
BY MR . SHELLER :
23
24
Q . And gets through that Cambridge
filter?
251
WAGA
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection, asked and
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
answered .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You don't know .
To your knowledge, that's been tried
4
5
and they never found anything?
6
A . As I have said repeatedly, sir, no one has
7
found, either at Reynolds or elsewhere, free
8
nicotine passing through that Cambridge filter
9
pads from the mainstream smoke of the cigarette .
10
Q.
Okay . Now, we talked about ammonia,
11
in terms of vapor -- can vaporize things,
12
nicotine, right? You agree it can vaporize it -MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
830
BY MR . SHELLERt
Q . -- if it's boiled?
A . You're wandering around . I can't follow you .
Q.
Okay . Well, let me try another
question .
Is there anything else in the tar that
is freed by any additives -MR . BLANCATO : Objection -BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . -- similar to, for example, the way
nicotine is freed?
Ln
~
~
~
m
~
m
~
m
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 831
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the
question .
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
The TPM -- the total particulate
Q•
matter? I'm sorry about the tar .
A . Well, as far as I know -- you're talking
about freeing nicotine in the TPM . As far as I
know, there's no free nicotine been found in TPM .
Q . Well, how about in the cigarette? Is
10
there any -- it frees it from the salt?
11
A . As far as I know, there's no free nicotine in
12
tobacco .
13
Q .
I
see . So the ammonia does nothing to
14
the nicotine . It doesn't free it in the tobacco
15
in the cigarette, but it will free it in the
16
tobacco that you're going to sell for bug killer .
17
A . Pardon?
MS . EASON : Objection .
18
19
20
21
BY MR . SHELLER :
~
~
Q . It will free it in the tobacco that
you're going to sell for bug killer?
J
N
m
~
m
~
J
22
MR . BLANCATO : Object to form .
23
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to form .
24
THE WITNESS : As I said, we didn't use
25
ammonia to make the -- free the nicotine for sale .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
832
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, what did you do with the free
nicotine that you freed with the ammonia?
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
THE WITNESS : We burned it .
5
MR . MCDERMOTT : Ditto .
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You burned it?
9
10
11
12
Yeah .
Q . Why did you burn it?
A . What would we use it for?
Q . Bug killer .
13
A . Well, you got to remember, in one case you
14
had a controlled or contained system . It looked
15
like a large liquor still, where you cook the
16
stems with the alkali and the nicotine distilled
17
over, and you caught it in suitable vessels . But
18
this is being done in a huge belt . Nic -- tobacco
19
is going along a belt . And you're dealing with
20
great volumes of air and ammonia and nicotine .
21
it's either collected and disposed of, or actually
22
burnt at an outlet .
23
24
25
Ln
N
Q . And has that always been the case, ~
S)
they
were
burning
~
~
A . I don't -- I don't know whether they still do0D
WAGA & SPINELLI
it,
at
Reynolds?
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 833
it or not . There are probably rules against it
now .
Okay . When did -- when you'were
there, up to, what, 1987, did they always burn all
that nicotine?
A . Sir, I saw it done once on an orientation
tour, back in the early '60s, and that's the only
time I ever saw them do it .
Q . So you really don't know what happens
10
to that free nicotine --
11
12
13
14
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . -- after that . You have no personal
15
knowledge of what happened .
16
A . I have no personal knowledge what they did
17
after that one time I saw it ; I didn't know what
18
happened before that .
19
20
Q . Is there anything else that -- in the
21
processes you're familiar with, in the chemistry c„
N
~
that goes into cigarettes, that frees anything
~
m
22
else besides the nicotine from tobacco?
0.
m
10.
ko
23
A . Well -MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
24
251 the question .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 834
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
THE WITNESS : I think you may be
confused about something . You sound as if we
ammoniated every pound of tobacco we bought .
5
BY MR . SHELLER :
I didn't say that .
Q .
A . We only ammoniated the tobaccos -- we removed
the nicotine from tobaccos when the nicotine was
very high . Which, in some years, if the normal
10
crop or the crop that was going to be used were in
11
the range that we normally used, there was no
12
denicotinization . It was only those crops that
13
arose out of a situation where it was very hot,
14
very dry, and you ended up with a tobacco that was
15
six percent nicotine and you didn't want that .
16
Q.
Right . There were two times ammonia
17
was used ; I think you already pointed that out .
18
One with -- is that G7A --
19
A . Right .
20
Q . -- product, which is actually put into
21
the cigarette, and then the other is the
22
denicotinization process you talked about .
23
A . Right .
24
Q . No, I understand that .
I'm talking about, is there anything
25
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
else, similar to ammonia, or does ammonia also
2
free any other salt-type thing like nicotine or
3
any other product in this tobacco?
MR . MoDERMOTT : Object to the form of
4
5
the question .
6
BY MR . SHELLER :
7
Q . To your knowledge .
8
A . You know, the -- tobacco contains several
9
compounds similar to nicotine, and there --
10
11
12
13
14
15
Q .
What
are
they?
A . Nornicotine .
Q . Does it free that?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : Well, I think you're
16
trying to trap me into this "free" business . it
17
will, if you're denicotinizing tobacco with
18
ammonia to reduce the nicotine, it will also
19
reduce the nornicotine, in the same way .
20
835
BY MR . SHELLER :
21
Q . Well, I want to know : I've got that
22
~
tar . And I'm trying to get out of the tar, free ~~
23
24
stuff from it, for whatever purpose .
Is
there
~
~
m
~
anything else that you know of, in the chemistry ~
251 that's used in Reynolds' products, that frees
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
anything other than the nicotine and the
2
nornicotine?
3
4
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question .
5
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
6
MS . EASON : Objection to the form .
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
8
Q . From that tar .
9
I don't follow the question, sir .
10
Q . Well, let me -- what's . -- give me --
11
in the tar itself, what -- the main thing in the
12
tar, you said, is water, 80 percent . Let's take
13
the saturated, what do you call them, alo --
14
A . Aliphatic hydrocarbons?
Q .
15
Yeah . Is there anything that can free
16
them?
17
A . They are free .
Q . They are free?
18
19
836
A . They are free .
Q .
20
I
see . So they're in the partic -- is
21
there anything that vaporizes them?
22
A . That's --
Ln
Q . Hmmm? Is there anything that can
23
24
vaporize them?
25
A .
~
~
N
Yeah .
WAGA & SPINELLI
~
~
~
m
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 837
Q.
What?
A . That's how they get in the smoke .
Q.
I
see . Are all of them picked up by
the filter?
A . Yes -- well, I shouldn't say "all" of them .
There are saturated aliphatic -- aliphatic
hydrocarbons that are very low molecular weight,
like methane or ethane, and they go through in the
vapor phase . It's only when you get up to about
10
eight or ten carbons that they stick on the
11
filter . And it's a matter of molecular weight and
12
size .
13
Q . Well, if I wanted to design a
14
cigarette to reduce the amount of particulate
15
matter that gets on that filter and yet get the
16
smoker to take it in -- the smoke, get
17
that 480 milligrams of stuff that goes in the
18
smoke -- is that it, milligrams?
19
A . Uh-huh .
20
Q.
21
How could I do it?
A . I don't understand -MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
22
23
it into
the question .
THE WITNESS : I don't understand what
24
251 you mean .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 838
1
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . I want to get around that filter .
Get what around the filter?
Q . I don't want the Cambridge filter
counting everything that I got in my cigarette .
How would I do it? You don't know how to do that?
MS . EASON : Objection to the form .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : I -- I still don't get
10
11
12
13
14
what you mean .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, let me make it a little simpler
for you .
If I turned ammonia into my cigarettes
15
16
and I had -- 6 to 7 percent of it was particulate
17
matter, but I was able to vaporize it, still get
18
it in -- in the body of a human being, and reduce
19
that 6 to 7 percent to 2 percent, wouldn't that
20
fool the .Cambridge filter? I'm being very clear
21
with you, not hiding anything, throwing it right
22
to you . Wouldn't it fool the Cambridge filter?
23
MS . EASON : Objection .
24
THE WITNESS : Which 6 or 7 percent are
25
you talking about, sir?
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
839
BY MR . SHELLER :
2
You told me a few minutes ago that 6
S2 •
3
to 7 percent of the total particulate matter
4
picked up on the filter, the Cambridge filter, is
5
nicotine .
6
Right .
7
Q
You said 3 to 4 percent is this other
8
thing I can never pronounce, and you said
9
8 percent is water . And then -- and isn't it true
10
that, if I'm able to vaporize a good portion of
11
that nicotine into -- it's not going to get on
12
that filter, right?
13
A .
Right . But I say --
Q . Well, you're saying that you never
14
15
counted it .
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . Objection
16
17
let him answer .
THE WITNESS : No . I said that nobody
18
19
20
has been able to measure it .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
21
I
see . Is there anything else that
22
can vaporize things that nobody's been able to
23
measure that was in that tar -- that particulate
24
matter?
251
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 840
the question .
THE WITNESS : Nornicotine .
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
Nornicotine . How about anything else?
Q .
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : I can't think of
anything .
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
10
Q . You're a chemist, now . You mean you
11
can't tell me anything that you could do to that
12
particulate matter that could vaporize -A . I've told you -- I've told you how you
14
15
16
control the particulate matter . It doesn't -Q . I understand what you told me . But
now -MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
17
18
19
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . -- I want to design a cigarette that's
20
going to trick that filter .
21
A . Well, if you can design it, we'll be glad to
22
hear from you .
23
24
Q . I know you would . That's been
Reynolds' business, hasn't it?
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
25
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
841
the question .
2
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
MR . SHELLER : Does he have the
4
materials now that I asked to be copied?
5
MR . HOLTON : We have the first batch .
6
THE WITNESS : I think it's time for
7
lunch, isn't it?
8
9
MR . SHELLER : What time is it? Do you
want to take a break?
10
MS . EASON : It's after 12 :00 .
11
THE WITNESS : 12 :21 .
12
MR . SHELLER : Do you want to take a
13
break?
14
MR . BLANCATO : Sure .
15
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
16
record at 12 :19 p .m .
17
18
MR . McDERMOTT : I'd like to respond to
Mr . Sheller .
19
20
VIDEOGRAPHER : Do you want to stay on
the record?
21
22
23
24
•
25
MR . SHELLER : I don't want to let him
respond .
MR . McDERMOTT : Or we can do it when
we get back from lunch, either way .
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
1
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
video record at 12 :19 p .m .
2
3
MR . SHELLER : Do it now . Get it done
with .
4
5
6
842
VIDEOGRAPHER : Do you want this on the
record?
MR . McDERMOTT : Yeah, I did want to
respond on the record . I just didn't want -8
9
10
11
12
•
13
be on the -- does it have to be on the video?
MR . McDERMOTT : No, it doesn't have to
be on the video record, like we do it here .
VIDEOGRAPHER : So we're going off the
video record at 12 :19 p .m .
14
MR . McDERMOTT : And you can leave,
15
Alan . I wanted to respond very briefly to two
16
charges which were leveled at the beginning of the
17
deposition today . See if I can get my notes here
18
to make sure I copied them down .
19
Oh, first, that I was coaching
20
Mr . Blancato . I believe that was a reference to
21
my touching Mr . Blancato's arm at a point where
22
Ln
~
~
~
m
Reynolds' attorney/client privilege, and I was
~
m
anticipating questions dealing with Mr . Rodgman's Ln
CO
23
24
•
MR . SHELLER : Well, it doesn't have to
25
there were questions that first dealt with
personal attorney/client privilege .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 843
I view it as the obligation of every
lawyer to protect and preserve attorney/client
privilege . And to do otherwise is to bring the
profession into disrepute, which, I regret to say,
it, more and more, seems to deserve, in the
public's eye . I do not regard that as
interfering .
Which brings me to the second charge
that was hurled, and that is that I was somehow
10
interfering with the conduct of the deposition .
11
I invite Mr . Sheller to review the
12
transcript at his leisure and come up with any
13
instances in which I was interfering with this
14
deposition . As to the proposition that I was
15
interfering with the progress of the case in some
16
fashion by indicating my preference to
17
Mr . Blancato with respect to review by another law
18
clerk, we are parties to the proceeding, and
19
Mr . Blancato is not .
20
21
That protective order or case
Ln
~
management order was negotiated between the ~
m
22
parties . I regard what t h e p l a i n tiff' s
23
attempted to do there as a breach of the order .
24
We will abide by the -- I won't call it "ruling,"
25
but the "suggestion" of the law clerk . But I do
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
'~
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 844
not regard what I have been engaged in here as
anything like interference . I regard the
statements on the record, with the witness
present, as specious, frivolous interference and a
waste of time . I hope we can avoid this in the
future . I don't think it's necessary, the conduct
of this deposition, or to the practice of law in
general .
MR . SHELLER : I will not comment
10
11
further .
(Lunch recess taken from 12 :21 P .M . TO 1 :24 P .M .)
VIDEOGRAPHER : We are going back on
12
13
14
the record at 1 :24 p .m .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, where we left off before, I
15
16
was asking you a couple of questions about ammonia
17
and particle size and that sort of thing .
What's the smallest particle that the
18
19
Cambridge filter system will pick up? If you
20
know .
21
A . I don't know . It's -- it's very small . I
22
know where to find the answer ; it's in an article
23
by Bradley Ingredthsen from R .J . Reynolds -COURT REPORTER : I'm sorry, Doctor . I
24
25
didn't hear you .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
845
THE WITNESS : Bradley Ingredthsen,
I-N-G-R-E-D-T-H-S-E-N, from R .J . Reynolds .
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . When was that written -- or published?
I'm sorry .
A . Oh, about eight or ten years ago .
Q . So somebody at Reynolds, Bradley -A . Ingredthsen .
Q . -- actually measured or knows how
10
to --
11
A . Yes . He got a very prestigious prize for his
12
work on the aerosol nature of cigarette smoke .
13
Q . Where is that published?
14
A . Recent Advances In Tobacco Science, and I've
15
forgotten the-year . I don't know whether it's in
16
here or not .
17
Q . Now, Reynolds, when they ammoniate
18
tobacco, there's a couple of processes, one is
19
process gaseous and the other -- another is
20
aqueous? You've heard about that?
21
A . Well, there was some experimental work done
22
on various ways to ammoniate tobacco .
23
Q . And which Reynolds -- which process --
24
does Reynolds --
25
A . I have no idea .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
846
Q . You say you have no idea? I see .
You've never said in a memorandum that
3
they ammoniate their process using a specific
4
process, in a 1994 or subsequent memo? Did you --
5
or am I mistaken?
6
A . I'm not sure whether I did or not . I -- I
don't know what they're using now, if anything .
8
9
MR . MCDERMOTT : Is your question
directed to today or at any point in time?
10
MR . SHELLER : At any point in time .
11
BY MR . SHELLER :
12
Q
In 1994, did you believe they were
13
using an aqueous process?
14
A . I don't know what they were using . I know -
15
I say they -- they had been experimenting, when I
16
was there, with various ammonia salts, ammonia
17
gas, ammonia solutions, and so on . But
18
19
20
.
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
I
see .
All right, Doctor, at this point I'm
21
going to refer you to a document that was produced
22
by you a few weeks ago called "FTC Smoking Method
23
Used For 'Tar' And Nicotine Data," dated
24
August 30th, 1994 .
25
MR . SHELLER : And we're going to call
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
this -- what exhibit are we up to? Exhibit 2?
2
COURT REPORTER : Yes, it is .
3
MR . SHELLER : For today .
4
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2 was
5
6
7
marked for identification )
BY MR . SHELLER :
t2•
And, Doctor, what was this documen t
8
authored by you for ?
9
A . Well, there was some questions about the FTC
10
procedure had come up, about what did the FTC tar
11
number mean and so on . And there were criticisms
12
of the FTC tar number, that it wasn' t
13
representative -- representative of what many
14
smokers would take in, because all smokers smoke
15
differently and the machine smokes rigidly .
And I got intrigued by this because I
1 6
•
84 7
17
was involved, back in the '60s, in this stuff .
1 8
And some of the criticisms that kept appearing in
19
the newspaper and then some of the Time magazine
20
and all this stuff about the validity and whatnot
21
of -- or what the meaning was in terms of the
22
smoker . And I thought, well, these people are
23
complaining about things that we told the FTC in
24
1964, 1965, and they just said we don't want to
25
listen to .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
848
I
1
2
3
Q . Who did you prepare this document for?
A . For myself .
Q . So this has never been distributed or
disseminated anywhere?
5
A . Well, one of the gentlemen at R &
6
out, is a good friend of mine . And I heard he was
7
going to participate in a -- some meeting on the
8
FTC thing . And I said to him : Do you want to
9
look at this? And he did . And I gave him a copy .
10
11
12
Q .
Was
that
D,
I found
Dr . Townsend?
A . That's Dr . Townsend .
Q . Did you give him this to use for his
13
preparation as an expert witness in the Connors
14
case in Jacksonville, Florida?
15
A . I didn't know he was ever involved -- well, I
16
do know that he was involved in Florida ; I
17
wouldn't know it was the Connors case .
18
No . This was actually because there
19
was a meeting in -- outside Washington,
20
Gaithersburg or someplace .
21
22
Q . Who was participating in this meeting?
Did he tell you?
23
A . Well, it was a -- an NCI or FTC meeting .
24
was open to the public . I don't know who went .
25
wasn't there .
WAGA & SPINELLI
it
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~
~
m
Vol . 5, Pg . 849
Q .
Was he going to testify?
A . He was
supposed to give some presentation at
it . Whether he did or not, I'm not sure .
Q . So he may or may not have used this
paper for his presentation?
A . I don't know whether he gave a presentation .
I just finished telling you that, sir .
Q.
I see .
Did anybody at Reynolds pay you for --
10
A .
`
13
this?
Q.
11
12
For
--
for the time you
spent doing this
paper?
A .
No .
Q.
14
So this was not part of your hourly --
15
A.
16
that, 30 years after all of this stuff came out
17
and we had told them, item after item after item,
18
all of these things became : Gee, we've never
19
heard of this before . And the FTC knew all about
20
it, back in 1964, '65 .
21
No .
Q.
I say, I was just intrigued by the fact
I
22
Ln
N
~
~
m
see .
Now, Doctor,
in your
-- on the first
23
page of the document,
on page 1 .
24
numeral page, it's --
I'm referring you to . You
25
say the "Statement of
Purpose ." And it starts out
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
Not the roman
(201)
992-4111
~
m
orn
Ln
Vol . 5, Pg . 850
roman numeral one, "Intended Use of Smoking Method
Results, A Statement of Purpose" . And then you
say : (Reading)
The results from the FTC
analysis of the "tar" and
nicotine yields in the
mainstream smoke from
cigarettes marketed in the
U .S . was intended to
accomplish the following :
10
To permit the catalog --
11
12
cataloging of sequential
13
listing of the cigarettes for
14
their MS, mainstream, yields
15
of these two smoke entities
16
[and in parentheses there's
17
some dates] generated under
18
standard and reproducible
19
conditions . Subsequently a
20
third MS entity, CO, was
21
added to the FTC listing
22
(FTC, 1981) .
And then the second purpose, you say,
23
24
was : (Reading)
251
To
WAGA
permit
&
the
SPINELLI
consumer
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 851
who wished to continue
smoking to select a cigarette
whose MS 11 tar --
Is that what that stands for?
A . No, it was my lousy typing . It's supposed to
be a quote -- quote mark .
Q .
I
see . (Reading)
MS tar --
A . If you use a typewriter, the quote mark is
10
right next to the "1" .
Q.
11
I
see . (Reading)
-- and/or nicotine yield
12
13
was compatible with his/her
14
concerns about the effects of
15
cigarette smoking on his/her
16
health .
17
It was never anticipated
18
by the FTC or by the
19
cigarette manufacturers that
20
the FTC lists could serve as
21
a means to catalog or rate
22
cigarette smokers .
23
24
"Smokers"?
A . "Smokers," right .
251
Q . So those were the two basic purposes,
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
right?
2
A . Well --
3
Q
4
And
--
A . That's what the FTC said .
5
Q .
Right . Where did the FTC say that
6
were the two purposes? Is that in -- you quote
7
from a notification from the FTC that appears on
8
page 9 . Is that where you believe that
9
information is reproduced? Referring to the
10
March 25th, 1966 --
11
A . Yeah . That's it . Mr . O'Shea's letter?
12
13
(Discussion off the record)
BY MR . SHELLER :
14
Doctor, your -- your testimony, and
15
Dr . Townsend's, I believe, at the Connors case,
16
was that the FTC, in 1966, required the cigarette
17
manufacturers to list the FTC Cambridge filter
18
figures for tar and nicotine ; is that correct? Is
19
that your understanding?
20
A.
21
analysis was to be done according to the way they
22
said it should be done . I don't know whether the
23
cigarette -- as a matter of fact, I think the FTC
24
does the listing, doesn't it?
25
852
No . I think the FTC rule was that the
Q . Well, so -- is the -- did the FTC,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 853
Federal Trade Commission, require the cigarette
manufacturers, in 1966, to anywheres list the tar
and nicotine levels according to the Cambridge
filter system on anything?
A . I think it -MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . No
foundation .
THE WITNESS : I think it ended up on
some packs .
10
BY MR . SHELLER :
11
Did the FTC require that it appear on
Q•
12
the packs of cigarettes?
13
A . I don't know what the FTC required or didn't
14
require, sir . All I know is that the analytical
15
method was to be thus and so . No argument .
16
17
Q . Did they require that?
A .
What?
18
19
20
MR . McDERMOTT : What?
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . That it had to be by that analytical
21
method .
22
A . That's what the letter says, doesn't it?
23
Q .
I
And is there anywheres in the letter
24
25
see . I see .
where they -- well, in looking at your page 9 .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 854
And let's read what you say on page 9 .
(Reading)
The Cigarette
Advertising Guides
promulgated by the
Commission -MR . McDERMOTT : Excuse me . Let me
raise a point of order . There looks like may be
an elliptical period . I don't know whether that
indicates some matter has been omitted or not .
10
Maybe, before you read this in and represent it
11
be the entire letter, we can clarify that .
12
MR . SHELLER : What, the three dots?
13
MR . McDERMOTT : Yeah .
14
MS . KNISELY : Actually, the three
15
dots -- the elliptical is in the actual letter
16
itself .
17
18
19
to
MR . McDERMOTT : Okay . Thank you .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
Okay . (Reading)
20
The Cigarette
21
Advertising Guides
22
promulgated by the Commission
23
in September 1955 provided
24
that no representation should
25
be made that [in quotes] "any
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol .
g.
855
brand of cigarette or the
smoke therefrom is low in
nicotine or tars
. . . when .it
has not been established by
competent scientific proof
applicable at the time of
dissemination that the claim
is true, and if true, that
such a difference or
•
10
differences are significant ."
11
On the basis of the facts now
12
available to it, the
13
Commission has determined
14
that a factual statement of
15
the tar and nicotine content
16
(expressed in milligrams) of
17
the mainstream smoke from a
18
cigarette would not be in
19
violation of such Guides, or
20
of any of the provisions of
21
law administered by the
22
Commission, so long as they
23
-- in -- (1) [according to
24
your page nine] no collateral
25
representations (other than
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
factual statements of tar and
2
nicotine contents of
3
cigarettes offered for sale
4
to the public) are made, and
5
(2) the statement of tar and
6
nicotine content is supported
7
by adequate records of tests
8
conducted with the Cambridge
9
Filter Method, as described
10
in an article entitled
11
"Determination of Particulate
12
Matter and Alkaloids (as
13
nicotine) in Cigarette
14
Smoke," by C .L . Ogg, which
15
appeared in the Journal of
16
the Association of Official
17
Agricultural Chemists, 47,
18
No . 2, 1964 . It is the
19
Commission's position that it
20
is in the public interest to
21
promote the dissemination of
22
truthful information
23
concerning cigarettes which
24
may be material and desired
25
by the consuming public .
WAGA & SPINELLI
856
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 857
Did that letter require -- is that
what you base your view, that this letter, issued
by the FTC in 1966, was the commission directing
the tobacco industry that the only way they could
list tar and nicotine levels was by the Cambridge
method?
A . Yes, that's right . That's the way it was . I
mean, this is an edict from the FTC .
Q .
I
see .
10
A . And you kept saying "you have written" . I
11
haven't done -- I didn't write that --
12
Q . No, no, I'm reading it .
Now, this letter doesn't require you
13
14
to list anything on your packs does it?
15
16
17
18
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . Dr . Rodgman .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
Dr . -- Reynolds, does it? It doesn't
19
require Reynolds to list anything, does it? Read
20
it, please .
21
22
MR . BLANCATO : Well, objection .
BY MR . SHELLER :
23
Q . Doesn't the letter say that, if the
24
Commission has no problem, no objections to you
25
doing that, if it's supported by the Cambridge
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
method?
2
A . That's right .
Q.
3
858
Okay . Did the tobacco -- you say the
tobacco industry objected to that?
5
6
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question .
7
8
THE WITNESS : No, I didn't say that .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . I thought you said they did object to
9
10
that .
11
A.
12
the rest of the article, that we pointed out to
13
the FTC that the method they were offering did do
14
what they asked about ranking cigarettes, but it
15
was very incomplete in what else it --
No . I said they objected -- and if you read
Q.
16
Well,
Dr . Rodgman, I believe you had
17
written a memo, and it was entitled -- it appears
18
as appendix B in your FT -- in your article here
19
that you gave to Mr . -- Dr . Townsend . And you
20
say -- it's entitled "A Short Explanation and
21
Analysis of Methods for Measuring Tar and Nicotine
22
in Cigarette Smoke," right?
23
A .
24
Yes .
You're familiar with that one?
251 A . Yes, I'm familiar with that .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 859
Q . Now, you give -- you wrote that in
1965, in January . And who did you give that to at
that time?
A . 1965? Where did you get that date?
Q . It says January/February 1965 . You
say
.
MS . BRACHTL : Where are you in the
document?
MS . KNISELY : Page 37 .
10
11
MS . BRACHTL : Thank you .
BY MR . SHELLER :
12
Page 37, Doctor . In fact, I'll give
13
you a draft of the agreement and the original that
14
was produced for us in your boxes . The draft will
15
be 4, and the actual article 5 .
16
MR . McDERMOTT : What's 3?
17
MR . SHELLER : Oh, we don't have 3? We
18
didn't mark that yet . It's 3 and 4 .
19
20
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Numbers 3 and 4
were marked for identification)
21
MS . EASON : Just for clarification,
22
could you please read into the record the Bates
23
numbers that are stamped .
24
MR . SHELLER : There is a Bates number
251 on it .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
MS . KNISELY : On one of them, I
believe .
3
MR . SHELLER : No, on both of them .
4
The draft is 501013245 . And the -- I assume the
5
final, because it's undated, 501013225 .
6
7
(Discussion off the record)
BY MR . SHELLER :
8
9
Q . Now, Documents 3 and 4, Exhibits 3 and
4, those are your documents .
You prepared them,
10
right? They were given to us in the boxes that
11
you produced a few weeks ago .
12
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
13
the question .
14
BY MR . SHELLER :
15
16
17
18
Q . Did you prepare those?
A .
Yeah . Yes, I did .
Q . Now, who did you give these
documents -- this document to at Reynolds?
19
20
21
860
MR . BLANCATO : Which one?
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Exhibit 4, or 3, whichever you gave .
22
Did you give one or both? One is listed as a
23
draft with a date and the other is undated .
24
MR . McDERMOTT : Do you have a time
Ln
N
~
N
G
~
m
~
m
251 frame?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
MR . SHELLER : 1965, I presume .
2
THE WITNESS : I don't know whether I
3
4
5
gave them to Dr . Senkus or Mr . Ramm,
861
Henry Ramm .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Do you know if those documents were
Q•
6
ever given to anybody at the Federal Trade
7
Commission?
8
A . I don't know whether they were given in
9
exactly this form, but I -- my understanding was
10
that some of the information in them were provided
11
to the FTC .
12
13
14
Q . Do you know which information?
A . No, I don't, sir .
Q .
I
see . Well on page -- how do you
15
know what was given -- something was given to the
16
Federal Trade Commission?
17
A . There were some documents about the
18
collaborative submission to the Federal Trade
19
Commission that had some of this stuff in it .
20
And -- which, you know, you don't ask the vice
21
president of legal counsel : Did you submit what I
22
gave you?
23
MR . SHELLER : Have the documents that
24
were submitted to the Federal Trade Commission
25
been produced in the -- any discovery materials?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
1
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
MR . McDERMOTT : Sitting here, I have
no idea .
3
4
862
MR . SHELLER : Could you find out?
Because we've searched and we cannot find them .
5
MR . McDERMOTT : All right . Well, why
6
don't you put the inquiry in writing to Mark
7
Belasic, since I'm -- because I'm not continuously
8
involved in this case .
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
10
Dr . Rodgman, in page 3 of the --
11
MR . McDERMOTT : Let me also suggest,
12
however, that the information, I'm sure, is
13
available through the records of the FTC, as well,
14
as another way of obtaining this information .
15
16
17
18
MR . SHELLER : They may be . They may
be .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . On page 3 of the documents, do you
19
know which one you gave to Mr . -- Dr . Senkus? Was
20
it that -- was it the draft or the one that has no
21
date on it?
22
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
23
the question .
24
BY MR . SHELLER :
25
Q . They both say the same thing ; there's
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
no difference .
2
A . Yeah . I assume that the one had no -- not
3
the draft on it . In fact, I didn't think they
4
were the same .
5
Q . Well, if there is a difference, I
6
didn't pick it up . You can tell --
7
A . Well, if you didn't pick it up, you missed
8
11 -- 8 pages of it .
9
Q . Oh, I'm sorry . Oh, you're talking
10
about the appendix . No, I wasn't --
11
A . Well, that's part of the memorandum, isn't
12
it?
13
Q . No, you're right . I meant the body of
14
the document itself, not the appendix .
15
A . Well, that's part of the body of the
16
document .
17
18
Q.
Yeah, you're right . You're right .
You got me .
19
20
863
Now, Doctor, on page 3, you say :
(Reading)
21
The conclusion is
22
therefore inescapable, that
23
labeling the amount of "tar
24
and nicotine" on a cigarette
25
package cannot give to the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
smoker meaningful information
2
as to the amount or
3
composition of the total
4
solids and nicotine he
5
receives from the cigarettes
6
he smokes . He is more likely
7
to be misled than informed .
8
That was your opinion then, Doctor?
9
10
A . Yeah . Not mine -- not only mine, but it's -but expressed by other people since then .
Q . And your opinion today is the same ; is
11
12
that correct?
13
A . That's right .
Q . And it hasn't changed through all
14
15
these years?
16
A .
17
smokers who smoke in a different way to what's
18
smoked in a machine .- In fact, the machine does
19
not inhale -- exhale, I'm sorry . But people do .
20
864
No . It -- you cannot compare three different
Q .
Now,
Doctor
21
A . I might recommend that, if you want more
22
information on this, you read the report of the
23
Froggatt Committee, which is in -- sometime in the
24
1980s, when Dr . Froggatt says exactly the same
25
thing as we said in 1965 .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q . And this has always been Reynolds'
2
view also since you've been there?
3
A . Well, I haven't heard anybody come out and
4
say that they went along with doing the analysis
5
the way we were told to do it .
6
7
865
Q . Now, did Reynolds ever -- now, you say
that the -- this letter of March of 1966 from the
FTC required you to do it -- the -- the tar and
9
milligram system the way you des -- the Cambridge
10
system, correct?
11
A . That's what the FTC said to do .
12
Q.
Right .
Did Reynolds ever submit another
13
14
procedure recommendation as to how to get
15
information on tar and nicotine levels? Did they
16
make a recommendation of any type?
17
A . Well, we had provided some information before
18
that letter came out . And I don't know whether
19
anybody did after that . I -- you know, you're
20
fighting the FTC . We had a little bit of a
21
problem that -- for example, if you read Ogg's
22
Ln
N
method, for that -- at that time it was a very ~
m
&b
good analysis for nicotine .
23
24
Q .
That
was
1964?
251 A . Right . But, eventually, you know, when
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
866
1
people are testing cigarettes that are on the
2
market, our competitors or experimental cigarettes
3
or cigarettes designed in-house, that was a very
4
slow procedure . And as you know, the FTC equation
5
is wet TPM is tar, plus water, plus nicotine .
6
And people like analytical chemists at
7
Reynolds and other places determined that you
8
could get as accurate nicotine values and water
9
values by doing it with -- it's called gas
10
chromatography . And the beauty of a gas
11
chromatography system is that you can do it
12
automatically . You can do -- load up a carousel
13
with 50/60 things to be measured and just turn it
14
on and let it run .
Q . Did the FTC ever tell you, you
15
16
couldn't use that method?
17
A.
18
using it .
19
20
Q .
A .
They
did .
Yeah .
Q . So when did -- is that what you now
21
22
No . We persuaded them, and they ended up
use
to
label
your
packs?
Reynolds
packs?
u,
~
~
m
23
24
~
---
A . I don't know what they use . I don't know ~
CO
N
whether they label packs or not . But they do use
25 the analytical procedure of gas chromatograph .
---- --- - _ - _ WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
Q . When did that come into effect?
A . Oh, I don't know .
3
Q . When you were there?
4
A . Well, I was there -- excuse me . I can't put
5
a year on it . It was probably -- well, let me
6
look . I might be able to get it for you . Let's
7
see here .
'8
(Witness reviews document)
9
Okay . Well, I thought it was in here
10
on the -- on page 21 . Oh, okay . Okay . Okay . C .
11
Page 24, there's a footnote "Gas Chromatographic
12
Method ." And if we run back in time, I believe
13
you'll see that the 1973, under "Nicotine
14
Determination," a man called Randolph, that is
15
1973/1974, has a little "C," which indicates that
16
was a gas chromatographic method that was
17
described -- well, in fact -- well, there's
18
actually some before that . Put i believe that was
19
the one that may have been presented, written up
20
and --
21
Q . So that was of a -- known about since
22
1973?
23
A . I think so . I may be wrong about that .
24
•
867
25
Q . Give or take a little bit .
A . But the people in Europe and what -- the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
i
Vol . 5, Pg .
868
1
CORESTA method and so on, eventually everybody
2
went to gas chromatographic method . If you've
3
ever done a water and smoke by the old fashioned
4
method, I won't say it -- I guess I wouldn't say
5
it the way I would think it . It's very difficult .
6
Q . And that's more accurate than the
7
Cambridge method, right?
8
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
9
the question . Misstates prior testimony .
10
THE WITNESS : It's not -- the
11
determination of the water, sir, has nothing to do
12
with the Cambridge method .
13
14
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
I
see .
15
A . The Cambridge method is the collection . And
16
when you get -- the old days, you took the
17
Cambridge pad, you got rid of the particulate
18
matter from the Cambridge pad, and you used one
19
part of it to determine the nicotine by the
20
Griffith/Still method and you did the water in the
21
other part by what's called the Karl Fischer
22
titration .
23
The way we did it with the modified
24
method, you took the stuff off the Cambridge
25
filter pad, the same way, and you put it in the -
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
869
I
1
and did it by gas chromatography and calculate the
2
water and nicotine .
3
In fact, the old method really didn't
4
do nicotine . It expressed alkaloids as a lump .
5
And, of course, nicotine was 90 percent of the
6
alkaloids, so they just assumed it -- or called it
7
nicotine . But the new method gave it -- the
8
nicotine its value, and actually you could get the
9
nornicotine value, if you wanted it .
10
t2 •
Did the new method also take into
11
account the variations among smokers?
12
A . Sir, the new method involved the same smoking
13
procedure outlined by the FTC method, which says
14
you will collect the cigarettes, you will
15
condition them at such-and-such temperature for
16
such-and-such a humidity, you will smoke them on
17
the machine in the laboratory designed . It had
18
nothing to do with the -- relating them to the
19
smoking ; it was just as wrong then as it was
20
before .
21
Q . Well, can you tell me, if the FTC was
22
so wrong, why were they asked to give you
23
permission to use that method?
24
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
870
r
•
1
BY MR . SHELLER :
2
Q
3
A . What letter?
4
5
6
7
Isn't that what that letter does?
MS . EASON : Objection to the form .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . That March 1966 letter . Isn't that
giving the tobacco industry the right to use that
method if they want to use it?
9
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
10
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form .
11
MR . SHELLER : You want to read it?
12
THE WITNESS : The letter says you will
13
14
15
16
use it that way .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q•
The letter doesn't say you will use
it . Where does the letter say -- point --
17
MR . McDERMOTT : The letter requires
18
every public statement, with respect to tar and
19
nicotine, to employ that method, and it encourages
20
the use of the method and the information . But
21
the record and the letter speak for itself . Let's
Ln
22
23
move on .
MR . SHELLER : No . Your representation
24
of the letter is not correct . Would you -- does
25
the witness -- we're going to mark a copy of the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 871
letter . We'll have the letter read .
MR . McDERMOTT : You've already read
it MR . SHELLER : Exhibit 5 . No, the
letter is a little different .
MS . EASON : You have a representation
that the letter was identical .
MS . KNISELY : No, no . I said that the
stars -- Mr . McDermott had raised the issue of
10
whether that star pattern was in the original or
11
whether it was an ellipsis that they had removed
12
words .
MR . McDERMOTT : Well, let's use the
13
14
letter, then . Do we have copies?
MS . KNISELY : There were copies made,
15
16
and I assumed everybody took their copy .
MR . SHELLER : Where are the copies for
17
18
the witness, please? Here's one for you .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 5 was
19
20
marked for identification)
21
22
(Discussion off the record)
BY MR . SHELLER :
23
Q . Now, Doctor, would you tell me -- and
24
you read me the words that the Commission used in
25
its letter that said you must use the Cambridge
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 872
method at all times to list tar and nicotine on
cigarettes . Would you read the words that say
that?
A . Well, I think it's implicit in the way that
they said this is the method .
Q . Implicit? Can you point to me any
words in the letter that say you have to use this
method, and you must list the tar and nicotine
levels on the cigarettes?
10
11
MR . McDERMOTT : Object . Compound .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Does the letter require you to list
12
•
13
the tar and nicotine levels on the cigarettes?
14
A . No, it doesn't .
15
16
17
Q .
A .
It
No .
Q . What does it say? if it --
18
•
doesn't .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
19
the question .
20
BY MR . SHELLER :
21
Q . Does it say, if you want to use the
22
tar and nicotine levels on the cigarettes, that
23
you can, using the Cambridge method, without
24
objection of the FTC?
25
A . Yeah . It says here : (Reading)
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
The statement has to be
2
supported by adequate records
3
of tests conducted by the
4
Cambridge filter method .
5
873
Q.
Right . So they say they won't do
6
anything to you about false advertising if you do
7
it that way?
8
A . Well, I don't know about advertising, sir . I
9
don't --
10
11
Q . Well, that's what this is all about,
isn't it, false advertising, sir?
12
13
MR . McDERMOTT : Let the witness finish
his answer, please .
14
15
16
17
18
19
MR . SHELLER : I'm letting him finish
his answer .
THE WITNESS : I'm not in the
advertising business .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . The tobacco industry had -- isn't
20
it -- do you remember that history about there
21
being a -- a tar and nicotine derby in the '50s
22
and '60s? And the FTC was getting concerned about
23
false advertising, right?
24
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
MS . EASON : Objection to the form of
2
the question .
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . So didn't the tobacco -- do you
4
5
remember that?
6
A.
7
Yes .
Q . And didn't the FTC say they were going
8
to look into false advertising?
9
A . They did, in 1957 .
10
Q.
Right . And didn't the tobacco
11
industry want to have the ability to put tar and
12
nicotine levels on cigarettes and not be
13
threatened with false advertising claims?
14
A . I don't know that, air .
15
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; no
16
foundation .
17
BY MR . SHELLER :
18
Q . Didn't the tobacco industry seek
19
permission from the FTC to do it this way, with
20
the Cambridge system?
21
A . Not that I know of .
22
Q . You don't remember . You don't know or
23
you don't remember?
24
A . I don't know .
25
874
Q . You don't know .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
S
875
Now, Doctor, in looking at your quote
2
in the memo on page 9, would you please look at
3
number -- the letter . And you quote in the middle
4
of the body of the letter "no collateral
5
representations" . And would you read that from
6
your page 9 . it says number one . Just that one
7
number one part .
8
A . Yeah, I've read it .
Q . Could you read it for the camera, out
9
10
loud .
11
A . I've already read it, sir .
12
Q . I know, but I'd like you to do it
13
again .
14
A . Why in --
15
16
Q . I'll tell you why .
A . (Reading)
No collateral
17
18
representations (other than
19
factual statements of tar and
20
nicotine contents of
21
cigarettes offered for sale
22
to the public) are made .
23
Q . Now, would you read Exhibit 5, which
24
is the actual copy of the letter . To the camera,
25
please .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
876
A . (Reading)
2
No collateral
3
representations, other than
4
factual statements of tar and
5
nicotine contents of
6
cigarettes offered for sale,
7
are made, expressly or by
8
implication, as to reduction
9
or elimination of health
hazards .
10
Q . Could you read it again . I think you
11
12
left out a couple of words .
13
A . (Reading)
No collateral
14
15
representation, other than
16
factual statements of tar and
17
nicotine contents of
18
cigarettes offered for sale
19
to the public, are made,
20
expressly or by implication,
21
as to reduction or
22
elimination of health
23
hazards .
Q . Why did you leave out --
24
251
MR . McDERMOTT : I move to strike the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
877
last question and answer .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Why did you leave out the part
4
"expressly or" -- in your article that you gave to
5
Dr . Townsend -MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form .
6
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . -- "expressly or by implication, as to
9
10
reduction or elimination of health hazards"? Why
was that left out?
MR . McDERMOTT : I object to the form
11
12
of the question . You're misstating prior
13
testimony .
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MR . SHELLER : I'm not misstating
anything . You can answer it .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
Why was that not in your
A . I probably just goofed, sir .
Q . You goofed .
A . Umm .
Q . Well, isn't it true that the FTC
22
didn't want any representations, expressly or by
23
implication, as to the reduction of elimination of
24
health hazards by reason of the -- this late
25
information about tar and nicotine?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 878
A . That's what they said in the letter .
Q . That's what they said .
Now, would you look back at page 1 of
your article .
A . Uh-huh .
And the second point that you made at
Q•
the top is :
(Reading)
To permit the consumer
who wished to continue
10
smoking to select a cigarette
11
whose MS tar [mainstream tar]
12
and/or nicotine yield was
13
compatible with his/her
14
concerns about the effects of
15
cigarette smoking on his/her
16
health .
That wasn't what the FTC was saying could
17
18
be done, isn't that correct, according to this
19
letter? There could be no implication of that
20
drawn permitted .
21
A . Well not in the advertising .
22
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
23
the question .
24
BY MR . SHELLER :
25
Q . Oh, not in the advertising .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
879
1
A . That was what the whole list was put together
2
for .
3
Q . So the implication then, from the
4
tobacco industry's point, was that -- that's why
5
the list was put together?
6
7
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
8
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
9
MR . McDERMOTT : No foundation .
10
11
12
13
THE WITNESS : You've lost me with your
question .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, wasn't the intent of Reynolds to
14
have the public draw the implication that there
15
was, by lowering tar and nicotine levels, a
16
reduction or elimination of health hazards?
17
18
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . No foundation .
19
20
21
22
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
question .
THE WITNESS : If you look back at why
this was done, why the FTC got into the act, it
Ln
~
23
started in 1957 with Dr . Wynder, who said, from
24
his animal work, that if you kept backing off on
25
treating the mouse skin with cigarette smoke
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
-J
r
Ob
m
W
cn
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
condensate, you got to a point where you didn't
2
get any tumors on the mice . And he said, if this
3
is translatable to the smoker, if -- then,
4
reduction of the tar from cigarettes by 40 percent
5
would significantly lessen the possibility of
6
respiratory tract cancer .
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
9
I
see .
A . And that was the reason the FTC got into the
10
business of : All right, if you lower it, and if
11
people are concerned one way or another --
12
Q . Well do you know why the FTC got into
13
it? Were you there at a meeting?
14
A . Well, I read what they were talking about,
15
back then . it was all over .
16
Q . Weren't they talking about false
17
advertising from the tar and nicotine derby that
18
was going on --
19
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
20
the question .
21
BY MR . SHELLER :
22
23
24
•
880
Q . -- in the '60s?
A . I don't know that, sir .
MR . BLANCATO : Object .
25 BY MR . SHELLER :
WAGA & SPINELLI
1
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q .
2
You
don't
881
know .
Now, isn't it true that in 1964 the
3
Surgeon General, for the first time, came out with
4
a report that said cigarettes cause cancer?
5
A . Well, it's -
S2 •
6
Was that the first report?
7
A . Well, t hat was the first Surgeon General's
8
report . And that really spurred the FTC to get
into the act, putting -- in fact, the government
10
agency had said this, and with the work of
11
Dr . Wynder, they put it altogether and said :
12
Let's have a list .
Q . So -- and the tobacco industry would
13
14
benefit from that list because the public, who
15
might have stopped smoking, was led to believe
16
that, because the tar and nicotine levels were
17
being lowered, the cigarettes were now safe or
18
safer?
19
20
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question . No foundation .
21
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
22
MS . EASON : Objection to the form of
23
the question .
24
BY MR . SHELLER :
251
Q . Isn't that correct?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
882
J
1
A . I don't know that, sir .
Q . Isn't that what the tobacco industry
contended?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
6
7
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
question .
8
MR . BLANCATO : Objection to the form .
9
MR . McDERMOTT : No foundation .
10
11
12
THE WITNESS : Not that I know of .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q•
Isn't it true that the tobacco
13
industry wanted to keep the public smoking, and
14
not stopping as a result of the Surgeon General's
15
report about cancer?
16
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
17
the question .
18
BY MR . SHELLER :
19
Q . Isn't that correct?
20
MR . McDERMOTT : No foundation .
21
THE WITNESS : I don't know that, sir .
22
23
24
25
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You didn't know that, the tobacco
industry didn't want to do that?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
1
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
THE WITNESS : You got to remember, in
1964 I was a bench chemist .
3
4
5
6
7
MR . McDERMOTT : Dr . Rodgman -BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You were a bench chemist . How about
in 1970?
MR . McDERMOTT : Excuse me . Just a
8
minute . Gentleman, Dr . Rodgman, when I interpose
9
an objection, please wait until I finish my
10
objection . It will be easier on everybody here,
11
including the court reporter . And please give me
12
a chance to object, because your questions are
13
getting outrageous .
14
MR . SHELLER : My questions are not
15
outrageous ; they are very true . You know, you
16
always object when things start sticking you in
17
the chest . Why don't you just say "objection" and
18
allow the witness to testify . I understand your
19
problem and I would be troubled too, if I was
20
Reynolds' counsel . Don't laugh, it's true .
21
22
0
883
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Now, Doctor, if you look at your
23
report, Dr . Townsend, on page 27 --
24
A . This report wasn't to Dr . Townsend .
25
Q . Well, the one you gave Dr . Townsend .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
•
2
A . What page?
Q . Twenty-seven . Now, do you see the
3
chart that you prepared at the bottom of the
4
report, "Table 9" you call it?
5
A . Uh-huh .
6
7
Q . And in Table 9 -- and we're going to
mark this table at a separate exhibit .
MR . SHELLER : Call it -- what number
8
9
am I up to?
10
COURT REPORTER : Six .
11
MR . SHELLER : Six .
12
13
14
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . In Exhibit 6, Table 9, you define it
as : (Reading)
85-millimeter Winston
15
16
and Marlboro : Comparison of
17
FTC carbon monoxide,
18
nicotine, and 'tar' yields at
19
standard and more 'realistic'
20
smoking parameters .
21
884
What were the "more realistic smoking
22
parameters" that you figured out to use here?
23
A . This was from a report written by somebody at
24
Reynolds, I believe .
25
Q . What are realistic smoking conditions?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
885
r
1
According to Reynolds . .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
2
3
the question .
THE WITNESS : Sir, this was just a
4
5
table that, when you change the smoking regime,
6
you got the higher numbers .
7
8
9
10
11
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, is this a report by a Dr . Rix
that you're referring to, at Reynolds?
A . It may be .
Q . You cite that in the body of your
12
report?
13
A . Right .
14
Q . And what does he describe as more
15
realistic smoking conditions?
16
A . It has those -- the parameters are listed
17
there .
18
Q .
What
are
they?
19
A . Sixty-five-milliliter puff, two-second puff,
20
one puff every 45 seconds .
21
Q . And what was the FTC standard?
Ln
FA
22
23
24
25
A . Thirty-five, two, and once a minute .
Q .
I
see .
And now you took that material
~
~
m
~
~
m
~
prepared -- done by Dr . Rix and converted it into
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 88 6
1
a table? Or is that table right from his article ?
2
A . I've forgotten . It may be -- probably
taken -- he may have had it in a little different
4
5
format .
Q . And what he did is he -- or you -- I'm
6
not sure who did the table, now . But the table
7
you used from Reynolds says "FTC smoking
8
conditions for Winston and Marlboro comparisons,"
9
right? That's -- Marlboro is made by Philip
10
Morris ?
11
A . That's right .
12
13
14
Q.
And Winston by Reynolds, right ?
A . Right .
S2 Q .
And the -- and according to the FT C
15
tar levels from the FTC standard, the Winston was
16
20 .6 tar, and there's a parenthesis there, 20 .9 in
17
parenthesis, and it refers to a note A . Do you
18
know what that refers to ?
19
A . It was the percent difference between the
2 0
Winston and Marlboro .
2 1
Q.
And the Marlboro was at 16 .3 . And th e
22
FTC nicotine level for Winston was 1 .43 milligrams
23
and for Marlboro it was 1 .08 . And the carbon Ln
24
monoxide for the Winston was 19 .1 and for Marlboro m
25
16 .2 ; is that correct ?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A .
887
Right .
Q . But when it was done according to
3
realistic conditions, smoking conditions -- and
4
that's the title in the chart, right?
5
A . Right .
Q . The Winston was actually
6
7
35 .7 milligrams in tar and 2 .35 milligrams
8
nicotine ; is that correct?
9
A.
Yes .
Q . Can I ask you a question? Is that
10
11
exactly pretty much the same as the 1955
12
16 milligrams of tar and nicotine for the
13
cigarettes in those days?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
14
15
the question .
THE WITNESS : Well -- no . The --
16
17
well, they're comparable, but done under
18
different -- under --
19
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Pretty close, though?
20
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . Let him
21
22
finish his answer, please .
MR . McDERMOTT : Let him complete his
23
24
answer .
251
THE
WITNESS : In 1955, of course, the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
numbers that were -- are in the graph, I'm sorry,
2
were done with the top figures .
3
4
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . With the "top figures" . What do you
5
mean? The 35 .
6
A . Close to that .
7
8
Q . The realistic ones, right?
A . Right .
9
10
MR . McDERMOTT : No, no, no, no . Just
the opposite .
11
12
•
13
888
MR . SHELLER : No . I think he -would -- would you -BY MR . SHELLER :
14
Q . As I understand it, in 1955 the
15
Winstons were approximately 35 milligrams of tar,
16
weren't they?
17
A . Yeah . But they were determined by a
18
35-milliliter puff .
19
Q . They were?
20
(Witness nods head .) Yeah .
21
Q .
I
see .
22
A . I mean, if you look back historically at the
23
smoking parameters, which were set in 1936 by some
24
people at American Tobacco and everybody used it
25
worldwide, more or less, it was 35-milliliter
i
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
889
1
puff, one puff a minute, two-second duration . And
2
the numbers -- say, Winston, Camel, whatever
3
cigarette you're talking about in '55, were
4
determined with that .
5
Q . How do you know that? Is that -- the
6
1955 numbers that Reynolds had was based on a
7
35-milliliter puff?
8
A . Yes . There was some slight difference in the
analytical procedure for nicotine .
10
Q . What was the difference?
11
A . Well, I had just gotten at Reynolds at that
12
time . But I believe they were using a
13
modification of the Griffith/Still thing that
14
Mr . Cundiff had incorporated . After all, there
15
was no really set method by that -- at that time .
16
17
18
Q . So, then -A . And --
Q . -- your -- your point that the --
19
you're responding to Dr . Wynder and Dr . Hoffmann .
20
If you use realistic figures, are you able to tell
21
the jury that there -- that you can actually
22
conclude that there's a lowering of tar and
23
nicotine in the realistic conditions of smoking
24
today?
25
A . Well, what -- you don't compare apples and
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
890
1
oranges . If you're going to make a comparison,
2
let's be fair . If you're going to say these are
3
the conditions we will use in the smoking machine,
4
let's compare the '55 cigarette done the
5
6
same way .
Q . But you're not doing that .
A . Pardon?
Q . You said it wasn't -- you don't know
8
how it was -MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
9
10
the question .
11
BY MR . SHELLER :
12
Q . It wasn't -- if you're going to
13
compare, how do you know what the realistic
14
conditions would have shown in 1955?
15
A . Well, if you use these numbers, if you use
16
those numbers on a'55 cigarette, presumably you
17
would have got higher numbers than are in the
18
graph .
19
Q . Presumably . I thought you don't use
20
calculated, you like to be realistic, you want to
21
know what they are . Remember, we went through
22
this with nicotine? You don't like using
23
calculated numbers?
24
25
MR . BLANCATO : Let's not harass the
witness, please .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
MR . SHELLER : I'm not harassing him .
2
He's the one who talks about calculated numbers .
891
MR . McDERMOTT : You're asking the
3
4
witness to apply a different regimen, to
5
hypothesize an answer, and then you're criticizing
6
him for trying to respond to your question?
MR . SHELLER : Well, he's the one who
7
8
criticizes the people who wanted to figure out the
9
nicotine levels by calculating them .
MR . McDERMOTT : This is nonsense .
10
11
Let's MR . SHELLER : Well, I understand . I
12
13
14
15
understand nonsense to you, maybe .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Now, Doctor, so what you're really
16
saying today, that if you use realistic conditions
17
for determining tar and nicotine levels, you have
18
to make an estimate of what those conditions would
19
have been in 1955 to determine whether or not the
20
tar and nicotine levels were actually lower
21
today --
22
A . Well, you'd use -- you'd use the same
23
conditions . Wouldn't you?
24
25
Q . Well, you would ; but you didn't .
You're saying you don't know what the realistic
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
conditions of smoking would have shown in 1955 .
2
Unless these aren't the realistic conditions in
3
1955 .
892
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . Are you
4
5
talking about the values they got here for tar and
6
nicotine --
7
MR . SHELLER : Uh-huh .
8
MR . BLANCATO : -- or are you talking
9
about 35-milliliter puffs? Or --
10
MR . SHELLER : I'm only trying to
11
figure out what realistic conditions existed for
12
smoking in 1955 .
13
THE WITNESS : Well, I said, if you're
14
going to make a comparison, you would use these
15
realistic conditions that are listed here by
16
Dr . Rix for the 1955 cigarette .
17
BY MR . SHELLER :
18
Q . Why would you assume those are the
19
realistic conditions for smoking a cigarette in
20
1955?
21
A . Well, I think, if you notice, they're in
22
quotation marks .
23
Q.
Right .
But
why
N
N
would
--
wouldn't
m
24
somebody who got their adequate dose of nicotine -J
m
25
in 1955 with the higher, quote, tar and nicotine
Co
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
J
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
levels you talk about, have a different realistic
2
smoking level?
3
A . They may or may not .
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
4
5
question .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
6
7
the question .
8
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You don't know the answer to that, do
9
10
you?
11
A . Well, as I have said repeatedly, sir,
12
everybody smokes differently .
Q .
13
Right . And you don't -- do you know
14
what the realistic smoking conditions were, as
15
you -- in 1955?
16
A.
17
No . And I don't know what they are now .
Q.
Well, apparently Dr . Rix and you
18
reached the conclusion in this 1994 article as to
19
what they were .
20
A . I was summarizing some of the work --
21
22
23
24
25
893
Q .
For
now .
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . Please let
the witness finish his question .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Isn't it true, Doctor --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
894
I
MR . McDERMOTT : You cut the witness
1
2
off . Let him finish his answer, counselor .
MR . SHELLER : Fine .
4
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Do you have something to finish, sir?
5
6
A . As you notice, I'm just reporting what
7
Dr . Rix reported .
Q.
8
9
I
see . You don't agree with him?
A . I was reporting what Dr . Rix reported .
Q . Do you agree with him or disagree with
10
11
him?
12
A . I assume he found what he found .
13
Q . Do you agree with him?
14
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
15
THE WITNESS : I don't know how you
16
17
18
mean, "agree" .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Do you think he was right?
19
A . Well, I said, he -- I assume that what -- the
20
experimental data he found, he found .
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Do you think he was right? That's a
simple yes or no . Can you answer -MR . McDERMOTT : In what respect?
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Do you think these are realistic
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
895
r
1
conditions? Do you think -- do you have any
2
reason to disagree with Dr . Rix?
3
A . I don't know -- I don't know why he picked
4
the realistic conditions that way . I have no
5
idea .
Q . Did you ask him?
6
7
A .
Q . He worked for you, right?
8
9
No .
A . At one time .
Q.
10
Yeah . And, in fact, this report was
11
done when you were director of --
12
A . Research .
Q . -- research, right? And so he worked
13
14
under you?
15
A . Right .
Q . Did you tell him then : There's
16
17
something wrong with your report?
18
A.
19
20
No .
Q .
I
see .
Doctor, just to make it clear, you
times, that you kept
21
have testified today, several
22
meeting Wynder and Hoffmann's conditions of
23
dropping nicotine and tar levels - when I
24
"you," I mean Reynolds - over the years . Yet,
25
this document, that you have, would indicate that
WAGA & SPINELLI
say
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
896
1
the tar and nicotine levels for realistic smoking
2
are con -- are at the same level, at least of
3
whatever the measurement was in 1955, as they were
4
then ; isn't that true?
5
6
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection to the form
of the question . Misstates prior testimony .
7
MR . BLANCATO : Objection to the form .
8
THE WITNESS : Well, here again, this
9
is -- this is -- if you ran the '55 cigarette by
10
what Dr . Rix called realistic conditions, you
11
probably would have got numbers much higher . And
12
if you plotted them over the years, the curve
13
would still drop the way it is . All you'd have
14
done is move your baseline .
15
16
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, how can you say that? There's
17
different smoking compensation factors involved .
18
You talked about it in your report, why smokers
19
compensate and how they smoke differently .
20
You have no basis, do you, for making
21
a claim that realistic smoking conditions for the
22
same cigarettes in nineteen-fifty -- the
23
cigarettes that were in effect in 1955 were, in
24
fact, the number that Dr . Rix used in his report
based on the cigarette smoke in 1979 .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
897
A . No, I don't .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESS : The -MR . SHELLER : Did you get the answer?
COURT REPORTER : Uh-huh . "No, I
6
7
don't ."
VIDEOGRAPHER : Mr . Sheller, we have
8
9
five minutes left on the videotape .
MR . SHELLER : What we'll do at this
10
11
point is let's -- let's mark the next document
12
we're going to refer to, which is the -- where's
13
that one?
14
15
16
MR . McDERMOTT : Just a point of order .
Have you now made arrangements
to make this Table
exhibit?
17
MR . SHELLER : Yes .
18
MR . McDERMOTT : So it's going to be
19
20
MR . SHELLER : Yes .
21
MR . McDERMOTT : All right . Has that
22
23
MR . SHELLER : Not yet . All right .
24
(Discussion off the record)
25
1
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 6 was
1
2
marked for identification)
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
3
4
record at 2 :22 p .m .
(Recess taken from 2 :22 p .m . to 2 :42
5
6
898
p .m .)
VIDEOGRAPHER : This is tape 5 of the
7
8
videotape deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
9
going back on the record at 2 :42 p .m .
10
11
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
Dr . Rodgman, if Reynolds disagreed
12
with anything the FTC was doing about its method
13
for measuring tar and nicotine levels, did
14
Reynolds ever go to court to argue against what
15
the FTC was doing?
16
A . I don't know .
17
Q . Did they ever ask for a hearing before
18
the Federal Trade Commission about it?
19
A . I don't know .
20
Q . Well, we know that tobacco industry
21
and Reynolds are not shrinking violets, are they,
22
when it comes to litigation?
23
24
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
Ln
~
J
N
m
~
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form of
J
P.
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
the question .
2
BY MR . SHELLER :
3
Q . Isn't that true?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
4
5
the question .
6
BY MR . SHELLER :
7
Q . So if it's something they didn't like,
8
they wouldn't hesitate to take on the Federal
9
Trade Commission, would they?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
10
11
the question .
MS . EASON : Object to the form of the
12
13
question .
14
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
15
MR . McDERMOTT : No foundation .
16
THE WITNESS : I don't know .
17
899
BY MR . SHELLER :
18
Q . Isn't it true they're taking the Food
19
and Drug Administration to court because the Food
20
and Drug Administration has said that nicotine is
21
a drug? And they're in court right here in North
22
Carolina, their own ballpark, right?
23
MS . EASON : Object to the form .
24
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
the question ; no foundation .
THE WITNESS : I don't know .
2
3
4
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . You don't know?
MR . McDERMOTT : Dr . Rodgman, just a
5
6
900
moment . Let me finish my objection .
Counsel well knows Dr . Rodgman was an
7
8
employee at Reynolds from 1954 to 1987 . He's here
9
to answer factual inquiries with respect to that
10
time period .
If you want to give little speeches
11
12
about what the tobacco industry has done, that's
13
fine ; but it has nothing to do with Dr . Rodgman or
14
the information in his possession . You're wasting
15
our time, and this line of questioning is
16
improper .
MR . SHELLER : Well, I don't think it's
17
18
improper . I think the jury is entitled to know
19
that the -- Reynolds can go to court in
20
North Carolina any time they wanted to if they
21
didn't like what the Federal Trade Commission was
22
doing . And they didn't .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
23
24
the question . That's why God made closing
25
argument .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
MR . SHELLER : Oh, yeah?
1
2
3
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q•
Now, the next exhibit that I'd like to
Report
4
mark is "Comments, Re FDA Nicotine
5
General" . Dated -- it says "Revised 11/2/95" .
6
Did you re -- prepare that report?
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
MR . SHELLER : Can you give the witness
a copy of it? I believe copies were made .
MR . BLANCATO : What's the exhibit
number on this?
MR . SHELLER : This will be 7 .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 7 was
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . That was in your documents that you
16
gave us, Doctor .
17
A . Yes, I prepared this .
18
901
Q . And what was the purpose of re --
19
preparing this?
20
A . I was asked to read the -- some report from
21
the FDA or some comments about the FDA, did I have
22
any thoughts of what they had written and anything
23
I might come up with that might be usable to
24
respond to them . And I -- as you know, it's sort
25
of choppy . I just put this together and --
~
r
J
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 902
Well, who asked you to put this
Q•
together?
A.
The folks at R & D .
At Reynolds?
Q.
A .
Yes .
Q .
So this was prepared for Reynolds . So
you were doing work for Reynolds in 1995, then ; is
that correct?
A.
10
No . I just did it for -- I wasn't paid for
it .
Q . You weren't paid for it .
11
12
you were doing work for them .
13
A.
16
17
MR . MoDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . Misstates prior testimony .
BY MR .
SHELLER :
Q . Now, you had testified that you were
18
not an expert on nicotine .
19
A . That's right .
20
21
But
(Witness nods head .)
14
15
I see .
Q . Yet, Reynolds is asking you to give
the m a
repor t on n i co ti ne ?
Ln
N
22
A . Well, they knew that I had considerable
23
background in the literature .
24
most of it is things pulled out
25
I don't consider my
WAGA & SPINELLI
And ,
as you notice ,
of the literature .
-- still don't consider myself
(201) 992-4111
~
~
m
~
~
N
CO
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
an expert on nicotine .
Q . Would you look at what appears to
3
be -- I'm sorry . I have two different reports .
4
And I -- which one -- let me just see which one
5
you do have . Do you have the one marked 11/25/95
6
or 11/2/95?
7
A . Well, I've got them back-to-back here .
8
9
10
903
Q .
Okay . Look at the one marked
11/25/95 .
A . Uh-huh .
MS . KNISELY : Actually, when they were
11
12
doing the copying, they put them, obviously,
13
together .
14
MR . SHELLER : That's all right .
15
MR . McDERMOTT : Do you want to keep it
16
as one exhibit? Or do you want 7A,'7B or --
17
MR . SHELLER : It doesn't matter .
18
MS . KNISELY : Why don't we make it 7A
19
and 7B .
MR . SHELLER : Okay . So the
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments
.
(Plaintiff's Exhibits Numbered 7A and
7B were marked for identification)
(Discussion off the record)
BY MR . SHELLER :
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
904
Q . Now, Doctor, on page 1 of the revised
11/25 report, it states : (Reading)
Tobacco treated with
3
4
ammonia/steam (the process
5
used by RJR to reduce the
6
nicotine level in
7
high-nicotine tobaccos)
produces the following
changes in the tobacco .
9
So, remember I asked you before if you
10
11
knew what system RJR was using?
12
A . Yeah . I'd forgotten about that, sir .
Well, that case was the
13
14
denicotinization case, which has always been
15
ammonia and steam .
16
Q .
I
see .
17
And is there anything in these two
18
reports that you now disagree with or think is
19
incorrect?
20
A . It's been some time since I've looked at
21
them . As I say, they were sort of pulling things
22
together that might be of use in responding to the
23
FDA . And I'd have to read them . As you notice,
24
it's very choppy . It wasn't one of my better
25
efforts .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
Q . Well, do you see the portion under
that, it says : (Reading)
In the mainstream, MS,
3
4
from the ammonia treated
5
tobacco?
6
7
A . Right .
Q .
It
says : (Reading)
On an equal weight of
8
tobacco smoke basis, the
9
10
nicotine delivery is lower in
11
the mainstream from the
12
processed tobacco than in the
13
mainstream from the control .
Is that correct?
14
15
A . That's usually the case with ammoniated
16
tobaccos .
Right . Well, how did you measure
17
Q.
18
that, though?
19
A . Well, there's a set analytical procedure for
20
measuring nicotine in tobacco .
21
Q . How did you measure it in the
22
mainstream smoke? MS, is it -- what is that?
23
A . Mainstream smoke .
24
25
905
Q . I thought you can't measure it in
mainstream smoke?
WAGA & SPINELLI
j
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
2
the question . You're misstating the witness'
3
testimony .
4
5
6
7
8
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Only by particulate?
A . Yeah, it's in the -Q . Just the particulate matter .
A . It's the nicotine done by the FTC procedure .
Q .
I
10
see .
So, you don't know, then, whether
11
there's more nicotine in the smoke, then, because
12
you -- you'd have to calculate a value for that,
13
right?
14
A . I -- I don't get the message .
15
Q . If you treat tobacco with ammonia to
16
reduce the nicotine, this is your -- you're
17
reducing levels of nicotine, right, so you're
18
saying?
19
A . Right .
20
Q . And you're treating the tobacco with
21
ammonia, right?
22
A . Right .
23
24
906
Q . And there's still ammonia in the
tobacco that's treated, right, left in there?
A . A little bit .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
Q .
A
little
907
bit .
Do you know what portion, if any, of
3
that nicotine, after burning or pyrolysis, remains
4
in the smoke that's not picked up by the filter?
5
A . We're back to that again? As I said this
6
morning, the -- we looked at some very clever
7
chemists, both in our company and others, tried to
8
determine free nicotine, if that's what you're
9
trying to get, or nicotine, per se, in the vapor
10
phase that passes through the Cambridge filter
11
pad, and nobody has been able to find it .
12
And just to maybe round off and make
13
you feel better about it . If you have a reservoir
14
or a flask with nicotine in it that leads to a
15
Cambridge filter pad holder with a Cambridge
16
filter pad in it, and you vaporize the nicotine
17
and let it go along, so that when it hits the
18
Cambridge filter pad that it's about the same
19
temperature as the Cambridge filter pad in the FTC
20
procedure, you collect a lot of the nicotine on
21
the -- Cambridge filter pad . If you then check
22
what can go through the filter pad - because
23
there's nothing else to hold it, there's no acids
24
or anything - we can detect down to nanograms,
25
micrograms of nicotine that will come through
Ln
~
J
~
m
0.
J
N
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
W
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
that, and we could never find it with cigarette
2
smoke .
3
I
see . So anybody who finds it is
4
mistaken?
5
A . In the mainstream smoke that goes through to
6
the filter pad?
7
8
9
Q .
Uh-huh .
A . I've never heard of anybody who's found it .
Q .
I
see .
10
A . As I said, it's been looked at by everybody
11
that I can think of .
12
Q . So you're saying there's no such thing
13
as free nicotine, the way I'm referring to it, in
14
this smoke that's not collected in the filter .
15
A . There is no nicotine that goes through the
16
Cambridge filter pad . And if it goes through the
17
Cambridge filter pad, it has to be nicotine by
18
itself . No salt .
19
Q.
No
salt . And you're saying, to your
20
knowledge, no nicotine by itself, free of salt,
21
does not go through that pad or it does?
22
A . That's right, it does not go through .
23
24
i
Q.
25
908
Q . It does not go through .
A . I guess that's -Q . But you're not an expert on nicotine,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 909
but you know that .
A . Well, I -- I know that -- I happened to have
some people that looked at that for about a year
and a half and tried all sorts of very fancy
methods .
The reason we did it is the -- some
people at Tennessee Eastman found out a way to
measure free ammonia in smoke, and we thought it
was adaptable to free nicotine . But it doesn't
10
work . They couldn't get it to work . Hoffmann
11
can't get it to work .
12
•
Q . Well, do you know any researchers at
13
Reynolds, like Dr . Robinson or -- who actually can
14
measure increased levels of nicotine -- I forget
15
what they're called -- indicators in the urine?
16
Cotinine levels, is that --
17
A . Well, a lot of the things that Dr . Robinson
18
has done on nicotine metabolism and so on were
19
done after I left . I don't know --
20
21
22
Q . You don't know about that?
A . I don't know about -Q . So you don't know whether Dr . Robinson
23
has actually found that nicotine in
24
ammonia-treated tobacco has higher levels than in
25
the control without it?
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
2
MR . MCDERMOTT : Object to the form of
3
the question .
4
5
6
THE WITNESS : I think you're jumping
from apples to oranges again, sir .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . I'm talking about the way Dr . Robinson
7
8
measures things .
9
A . I don't know . I just finished telling you, I
10
don't know how he measures .
11
Q .
don't
know . You don't know . All
right .
13
A . I mean, if I don't know, I don't know . I'm
14
sorry, I can't -- I won't make up an answer for
15
you .
16
I understand . I understand .
17
MR . SHELLER : This is going to be the
next exhibit I refer to .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 8 was
19
20
21
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, this is a report that you
22
251
You
12
18
0
910
Ln
1~
23
prepared in 1956, September 28th . Do you recall ~
24
preparing that? It's called "RDR, 1956, No . 9" .
And
it's
Exhibit
WAGA & SPINELLI
8 .
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
MS . BRACHTL : Give us a second to
catch up with you .
3
4
(Witness reviews document)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Did you prepare that report?
5
6
911
A . Oh, yes .
Q . So you recall it .
7
Would you please look at page 36 .
9
This was when you were a young chemist, right,
10
Doctor?
11
A . When I was young?
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q . Some 41 years ago .
A .
Right .
MR . MCDERMOTT : We were all young .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Now, Doctor, in the discussion it
says : (Reading)
18
The main interest in .the
19
presence of the polycyclic
20
aromatic hydrocarbons in
21
cigarette smoke condensate is
22
that many of these compounds
23
are known to be carcinogenic
24
to various species of
animals . The current
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
controversy concerning the
2
influence of cigarette
3
smoking on the increasing
4
incidence of cancer of the
912
lung in the human male (and
6
it lists a bunch of numbers] .
7
Animal data indicate there is
8
a carcinogenic factor in
9
cigarette smoke condensate .
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . You've
10
11
skipped over a portion of the -MR . SHELLER : "However, animal
12
13
data" -MR . BLANCATO : No, beyond that --
14
15
before that : "It has not yet been settled ."
MR . SHELLER : Where are you reading
16
17
18
19
f rom?
MR . BLANCATO : After the numbers in
the parentheses end .
20
MR . SHELLER : Oh . (Reading)
21
Has not yet been
22
settled -- the increasing
23
incidence of cancer of the
24
lung in the human male has
25
not yet been settled .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
However, animal data indicate
2
that there is a carcinogenic
3
factor in cigarette smoke
4
condensate . This
5
carcinogenic factor resides
6
mainly in the neutral
7
fraction of the smoke
8
condensate and is produced
9
primarily by the pyrolysis --
10
THE WITNESS : Pyrolysis .
11
MR . SHELLER : (Reading)
-- pyrolysis of the
12
13
tobacco during the smoking
14
process .
Is that a true statement?
15
MR . McDERMOTT : Is that now, or was it
16
17
18
913
then?
BY MR .
SHELLER :
Q.
19
Was it then, and is it today?
Well, the carcinogenic factor that causes
20
A.
21
skin cancer in mice is probably due to that . It's
22
true now as
it was then .
Ln
Q.
23
24
A.
Would you change that any way today?
The last two sentences? (Reading)
However, animal data
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
~
~
m
~
~
N
kD
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
indicate there is a -- there
2
is a carcinogenic factor in
3
the cigarette smoke
4
condensate .
5
6
7
Q.
No . Is there any part of it you'd
9
A . No, I wouldn't change that . Because you can
12
still do it with mouse skin .
Q . Now, on the top of page 37, you say :
(Reading)
13
It has been demonstrated
14
that the carcinogenic
15
activity of the whole
16
condensate -- condensate, or
17
the hexane-soluble, neutral
18
fraction, is apparently much
19
greater than that due to the
20
individual carcinogenic
21
hydrocarbons, anthracene,
22
pyrene, chrysene?
23
24
•
A . No, are those the two --
change?
11
S
Q . You'd change that?
8
10
914
A . Chrysene .
Q . (Reading)
25
1, 2-benz --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A . "Benzanthracene" .
Q . Do you want to help me here? I can't
2
3
pronounce these things .
4
A .
5
m 3,4-benzpyrene" .
Q . (Reading)
6
-- present . Three --
7
these explanations of this
8
apparent anomaly appear
9
plausible at present .
And then it lists the following :
10
11
915
(Reading)
The carcinogenic
12
13
activity of the
14
hexane-soluble, neutral
15
fraction (or whole
16
condensate) is due mainly to
17
some hitherto unknown
18
powerfully carcinogenic
19
polycyclic aromatic
20
hydrocarbon .
A synergistic effect is
21
22
obtained from the known
23
hydrocarbons . This fact --
24
phenomenon has been described
25
by numerous workers in the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
cause -- case of the
2
polycyclic aromatic
3
hydrocarbons .
Some compound present in
4
5
the neutral fraction of
6
cigarette smoke condensate is
7
behaving as a cocarcinogen
8
either for some compound in
9
cigarette smoke or for some
10
compound present as a
11
pollutant in air .
(Witness reviews document)
12
Do you agree with those? Anything you
13
14
disagree with?
15
A . Well, I now know, for example, that number 1
16
is wrong .
17
916
Q . Number 1 is wrong?
18
A . That the -- there was a proposal that,
19
because they could not explain the fact with the
20
known polycyclic hydrocarbons that would cause
21
tumors on mouse skin, they couldn't explain what
22
they were getting with cigarette smoke condensate,
23
that Dr . Wynder and Dr . Wright - Dr . Wright
24
happened to be my major professor - had proposed
25
that there is some other polycyclic hydrocarbon in
WAGA & SPINELLI
.
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
smoke that's as potent as benzo[a]pyrene, at --
2
but present at 25/30 times the level of
3
benzo [a] pyrene .
4
917
Q . We went through that before . So this
5
is the same thing before?
6
A . Well, no, this is different .
The -- or there was a polycyclic
7
8
hydrocarbon, which was 30 times more potent than
9
benzo[a]pyrene, present at the same level as
10
benzo[a]pyrene . And Dr . Wright, who I say was my
11
major professor, spent 18 months looking for what
12
they call the super carcinogen and, of course,
13
never found it .
But then, I say, looking back at what
14
15
we know now, back to 1956 -- and in the mid '70s
16
the group at USA -- USDA in Athens, Georgia, under
17
Dr . Chordik did the most complete study of
18
polycyclic hydrocarbons in smoke ever done and
19
could account for the whole fraction . And there
20
was no compound potent, like benzpyrene, present
21
at 30 times the level or no super carcinogen .
22
Q.
Well
--
23
A . So that is, you know, a premise that was in
24
the works at that time, and went down the drain
25
subsequently .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
Q .
I
918
see . Is two and three correct?
A . The --
Q•
Synergistic effect .
4
A . In a way it is . Because what was found
5
shortly after 1956 -- for example, if you have
6
benzpyrene at a given amount and paint mice with
7
it, you get a certain number of tumors . But then,
8
if you paint another group of mice with the same
9
amount of benzpyrene but with a non-tumorigenic
10
polycyclic, like anthracene, the tumorigenicity
11
goes down . In other words, it's not synergism,
12
it's inhibition . And, of course, this was not
13
known when I wrote this .
14
Q . How about synergistic effects? How
15
about --
16
A . That has never been demonstrated with
17
polycyclic hydrocarbons .
18
Q . Has it been demonstrated with other
19
substances and stuff?
20
A . Not that I know of .
21
Q . Well, did Reynolds, to your knowledge,
22
ever do any studies on animals, either by contract
23
or otherwise, to see if the various constituents
24
of smoke, when mixed together in different
25
mixtures --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
919
r
1
A .
No,
didn't .
Q . -- create a synergistic effect?
2
3
we
A . No, we didn't .
Q . You didn't . Do you know if anybody
4
5
did?
6
A . Oh, yes .
7
Q .
8
A.
A . Well -Q . He says it does, doesn't it?
11
12
Dr . Wynder .
Q . And what did he say?
9
10
Who?
A . It doesn't say synergism .
Q . It doesn't? So if Dr . Wynder and
13
14
Dr . Hoffmann agree with you, you're going to have
15
a problem with it?
16
A . No, I don't have a problem with it . Because
17
they -- what they did -- at the time they did the
18
experiment, there were, I don't know, a dozen
19
polycyclic hydrocarbons which had some degree of
20
tumorigenicity to mouse skin . And they figured
21
out how much was in the smoke condensate . And
22
they added -- and I forget whether they doubled Ln
~
~
23
the amount or tripled it . I forgot . I think it m
~
~
.
w
was doubled
Ln
24
251
In
other
words,
WAGA & SPINELLI
if
they
had
X
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
nanograms of benzpyrene, they put 2X . And they
2
said, when you painted the skin of the mice with
3
this enhanced thing, you got double the tumors --
4
not quite double, but --
5
6
920
Q . But that was an enhancement .
A . -- but -- yeah .
The thing was, it was done by four
7
other laboratories and nobody could confirm it .
9
Q .
I
Well how about -- do you know what
10
•
11
the -- what do you understand, from your
12
background, are the tumor promoters in cigarette
13
smoke?
14
A . Well, the tumor promoters were -- the first
15
group that was proposed were the phenols .
16
Q . Are they still -- some of them still
17
in smoke?
18
A . Well, I don't -- yeah . They're always in
19
smoke .
20
•
see . I see .
Q.
I
see .
21
A . And the thing was, as I said yesterday, that
22
several people have shown that, if you have a
23
smoke condensate intact and you paint it on mice
24
and get a certain number of tumors, if you then
25
prepare that same smoke condensate in a way that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
921
1
strips out the phenols from the smoke, paint that
2
on mice, you get the same number of tumors . Which
3
means that there's no -- the promoter, that they
4
claimed, is not promoting .
5
Q .
I
see .
6
A . And Dr . Van Duuren at -- I think he's at
7
New York University -- showed that actually the
8
phenol, which some people call promoters, actually
9
inhibited the behavior of poly -- of
10
11
12
13
14
15
benzo [a] pyrene .
Q . Is nicotine a tumor promoter?
A . Not that I know of .
Q . You don't know that?
A . Huh-uh .
Q . Did you know that it was Dr . Minna
16
from a medical school in Texas, who was funded by
17
the Council for Tobacco Research, concluded that
18
nicotine was a tumor promoter?
19
A . No, I did not .
20
Q . You didn't know that .
What are the other tumor promoters?
21
22
A . There are a couple of the indoles --
23
substituted indoles in smoke that have been shown
24
to
be
tumor
--
~
J
W
25
Q . How about nitrosamines? Is that a
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
J
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
carcinogen or a tumor promoter?
2
A . It's a tumorigen, yeah .
3
Q . It's actually not just a promoter? It
4
actually causes cancer?
5
A . Right .
6
7
922
Q . Do you know if anybody has painted
nitrosamines on animals and gotten tumors beyond
the skin? In other words, of the lung and other
9
parts of the animal's body .
10
A . Usually they don't -- because of the fact
11
that painting -- skin painting with nitrosamines
12
has -- but many of them done and rather fruitless,
13
they don't get tumors on the skin --
14
Q . I didn't ask about skin tumors .
15
A . -- and, as you pointed out, they do get them
16
elsewhere .
17
Q .
I
see .
18
A . So most people who study nitrosamines don't
19
paint them, they feed it .
20
Q . They feed it .
21
22
Well, if you -- how about painting -cn
has Reynolds ever looked at humans to find out, -J
N
m
23
24
those who smoke, if they're, you know, getting AD .
-J
those nitrosamines in their mouth, whether it o
251 causes tumors in the lungs or someplace else?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A .
No . Reynolds has not done that kind of work .
Q . Anybody? In the tobacco industry?
2
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; no
3
4
foundation .
THE WITNESS : I don't know .
5
6
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Wouldn't that be logical and important
7
8
to look into?
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
9
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection ; no
10
11
foundation .
MS . EASON : Objection .
12
13
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Your answer?
14
No . Well, there have been speculations that
15
A.
16
they're causative, but nobody's shown it .
17
Q.
I
see . Nobody's studied it for the
18
humans .
19
A . Not with humans . But he also --
20
Q . Well, we know if we put them on a
21
mouse it will get cancer of the lung, right?
22
A . Yeah . But it's not the type caused by --
23
it's mostly attributed to smoking .
24
25
923
Q.
I
see . Adenomas, though, right?
A . Well, you get mice that are --
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Q . What kind of cancers do they get of
1
2
924
the lung?
3
MR . McDERMOTT : Counselor, you keep
cutting the witness off . Would you let him finish
5
his answer .
6
MR . SHELLER : I'm letting him finish .
7
MR . MCDERMOTT : No, you're not . The
8
record will reflect that . Let him finish .
THE WITNESS : Will you let me finish?
9
10
If you won't, I'm leaving .
11
MR . SHELLER : I'm letting you finish .
12
THE WITNESS : I'm finished .
13
MR . SHELLER : Good .
14
BY MR . SHELLER :
15
Q . Doctor, at the -- sir, as I understand
16
it, then, you know of no testing that Reynolds has
17
done to take, say, a tumor promoter and
18
nitrosamines and test them together to see if they
19
increase the risk of cancer in animals .
20
A.
21
they've ever done it . Unless they've done it
22
since I've left .
23
24
No . I don't -- I don't know -- I don't think
Q . Now, Doctor, at the last paragraph
here you say : (Reading)
Since it is now well
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 925
established that cigarette
smoke does contain several
polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons -A . Where are we?
Q.
Page
37 . (Reading)
In considering the
potential and actual
carcinogenic -- (you say]
10
actual carcinogenic activity
11
of a number of these
12
compounds, a method of either
13
complete removal or almost
14
complete removal of these
15
compounds from cigarette
16
smoke is required .
Do you now disagree with that view that
17
18
you had in 1956?
19
A.
20
when there was a big controversy about all this,
21
saying that it would be opportune to remove -- to
22
cut down the argument and the bad press we were
23
getting .
24
25
No . You got to remember, this was written
Q . Well, you don't say that there . You
say -- you were a young scientist then, trying to
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
do the right thing, right? You weren't worried
2
about the controversy ; you were worried about what
3
was right, weren't you?
4
A . Well, the other thing, too, sir, is that,
5
when I wrote something like that, the people knew
6
what I was talking about .
Q .
7
They
9
did . 1956 .
By the way, I looked in your
8
background . I saw, when you were a young man, you
10
taught Sunday School, didn't you?
11
A . I did?
That's what it said, somewheres . You
12
13
didn't teach Sunday School? Do you belong to
14
church?
15
A .
16
Yes .
Q . Which church?
17
A . If it's any of your business, I'm an
18
Episcopalian .
19
20
21
22
*
926
Q . Do you believe in God?
MR . BLANCATO : Objection . This is -BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, Doctor, I'm just asking you . If
23
you know that something is a carcinogen, don't
24
you -- you don't believe anymore that it's
25
required to be removed -- complete removal or
Ln
N
~
N
~
~
~
N
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
927
1
almost complete removal of these compounds from
2
cigarette smoke is required? You don't believe
3
that anymore? Is that true?
4
A . Well, I believe in what we have done . If you
5
look at what we have done, we have reduced it
6
substantially in cigarette smoke over the years .
7
And the fact that that has been done has gotten,
8
actually, commendation from the Surgeon General .
Q .
9
I
see .
You got a letter to that effect from
10
11
him?
12
A . No, it's in the Surgeon General's report .
Q . Oh, I see . Now --
13
14
(Discussion off the record)
15
MR . McDERMOTT : Are we moving to a new
16
exhibit?
17
MR . SHELLER : Yes . We're moving to --
18
THE WITNESS : If you'll excuse me, I'm
19
going to go to the restroom .
20
MR . SHELLER : Sure .
21
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
22
Ln
record at 3 :15 p .m . .
FA
J
(Recess taken from 3 :15 p .m . to 3 :24
23
24
25
p .m . )
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going back on
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
m
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
record at 3 :24 p .m .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q.
Doctor, I'm going to give you a lette r
4
that you wrote to Dr . Hoover, Dr . Kenneth Hoover,
5
in July -- on July 25th, 1962 . And this would be
6
Exhibit 9 .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 9 was
7
8
marked for identification )
(Discussion off the record )
9
MR . SHELLER : While they're waiting ,
10
11
I'll just -
12
BY MR . SHELLER :
13
92 8
Q .
Kenneth Hoover is who ?
14
A . He was the director of research when I came
15
to Reynolds, and I guess he was director till 1965
16
when Dr . Willard Bright took his place .
17
Q . Now, you were making a submission of
18
abstracts of papers to be presented at the 16th
19
Tobacco Conference Research Conference, in
20
Richmond, Virginia, in September 1962 .
21
A . Right .
22
Q.
And you had to get permission fro m
23
Dr . Hoover as to what you could present ; is that
24
correct ?
25
A . Yes .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
929
Q . And in it -- and I take you down to
2
the third paragraph . It says : (Reading)
The findings presented
3
4
in this manuscript have been
5
described in RDR, 1962,
6
No . 14 .
7
And you say : (Reading)
The discussion given in
8
9
-
the RDR of the testing of
10
indoles and carbazoles for
11
carcinogenic activity has, of
12
course, been deleted from the
13
manuscript, even though all
14
of these tests gave negative
15
results . The review of other
16
heterocyclic nitrogen
17
compounds identified in
18
tobacco smoke, example, [and
19
again, my pronunciation is
20
not great] pyrido indole
21
methyl-something . Indole
22
dibenz acridine -- [on and
23
on] was omitted from our
24
manuscript because of the
25
reported carcinogenic
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
activity of the latter three
2
compounds .
3
A . Right .
4
Q . Why did you feel compelled to have to
5
omit any compound that could be carcinogenic from
6
this presentation?
7
A . Well, we didn't omit any, we just didn't
8
discuss them in the presentation, their biological
9
activity in the presentation .
10
•
930
Q . Well, why didn't you want to do that?
11
A . Well, as I explained to you before . If you
12
look at the last ones, dibenz[a,h,]acridine,
13
dibenz [a, j] acridine and dibenz [c, g] carbazole . If
14
you notice the date on this is 1962 . These were
15
the three aza-arenes that had been reported in
16
1960 by Benjamin Van Duuren . And as I said
17
earlier, they had been described as tumorigenic to
18
mouse skin . But they're -- already some question
19
as to whether they were in cigarette smoke .
20
And as I said, Dr . Wynder, if you look
21
at his book and some of his writing in his review
22
articles, they couldn't find those . And then,
23
since then, seven other studies done in Germany,
24
Japan, the United States, they can't find them .
25
So -- and the other thing is, sir,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
this was a -- not a biological conference, it was
2
a chemist conference . And they were primarily
3
interested in chemical analysis, chemical
4
identification, and not on the discussion of
5
biological issues .
Q . Well, "May we" -- you say, "May we
6
7
submit the manuscript to Tobacco Science for
8
Publication?"
You were submitting it, not just to
9
10
the conference, but you were submitting it to
11
Tobacco Science for Publication . Weren't you
12
planning to do that?
13
A . Yes . And it was published .
Q . It was published . With the omission
14
15
of any compound that was thought to have --
16
A.
17
No .
Q . -- carcinogenic activity in cigarette
18
smoke .
19
A . Not compounds we had identified .
20
931
Q . Not ones you had identified .
21
A . That other people had discussed . And I say
22
here, Tobacco Science was primarily a chemical
23
journal .
Ln
r
J
~
m
~
J
J
24
Q . Well, how about -- were there any of
25
these compounds that you agree were still -- are
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
still in tobacco smoke and are carcinogenic?
2
A . The norharmane and harmane, the first two
932
there, are, if you will, borderline tumorigens,
4
5
and they're in tobacco smoke .
Q . So, your description, then, was you
6
were going to admit -- omit even the ones that
7
even today you agree are borderline carcinogenic?
8
A . Omit discussion .
9
Q . Was that the standard practice at --
10
11
THE WITNESS : I guess .
13
MR . McDERMOTT : Okay . I'm sorry .
15
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Was that the standard practice, to
16
omit any compound -- discussion of compounds at
17
any of these Tobacco Science conferences that were
18
carcinogenic compounds at that time?
19
A . At this particular one, it was . This
20
conference .
21
251
Dr . Rodgman, had you finished your answer?
12
14
~
MR . McDERMOTT : Excuse me .
Q . How about after that?
22
Ln
A . Well, I'm sure you've mulled through all my ~
23
~
m
reports on the composition of smoke, including the ~
24
~
ones on the polycyclic hydrocarbons, and so on and co
so
forth . By sometime in 1965, we had presented
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
almost all of that stuff at different conferences .
2
Carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic, inhibitory,
3
promoting, and --
4
Q . How about publishing them?
5
A . Well, by the time we got to presenting
6
them -- the whole thing -- are you listening?
7
,~
933
Q.
Yes . I didn't forget . I'm here .
8
A . That -- when we determined the polycyclics
9
and identified them, we then set out on a -- as
10
you know, a series of studies of ways to reduce
11
polycyclics in cigarette smoke, which involved the
12
extraction procedure I mentioned before, the
13
addition of combustion additives, the use of
I I_I I
14
filter tip additives, the effect of things in
15
paper and so on . And one of the major reasons we
16
had not published too much about the polycyclics,
17
since our work was fairly sophisticated, that --
18
this would have been a pretty good clue to anybody
19
that, if Reynolds knows that much about
20
polycyclics, they're probably doing something to
21
reduce it, and what are they doing?
22
As I told you before, many of the
23
methods that -- where we were looking at selective
24
reduction of class of compounds, whether it be
25
polycyclics or phenols or what have you, ended up
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
934
1
in causing other problems that -- you know, you
2
solve one problem, or partly solve it, and then
3
you raise several others . And by the time we
4
finished all that work and went to the premise
5
that, if we're going to do something with smoke,
6
let's lower everything uniformly, or as nearly
7
uniformly as we can . Most of what we had found
8
had all -- was already published . I think, by the
9
time we got to that point in time, in the -- '65,
10
or whenever it was, there was only one compound
11
that I had found that was not in the literature,
12
and I wasn't too sure of that one either .
13
That was carcinogenic?
Q.
14
A . I don't know -- it may be borderline
15
carcinogenic .
16
17
What one was that?
Q.
A . A compound called cholanthrene .
Q . Did you ever publish on that?
18
No . It appeared in something else, shortly
19
A.
20
thereafter .
21
Q . How long thereafter?
22
A . Oh, I don't know . A year or two . You
23
usually wouldn't --
24
25
Q .
Doctor
--
Ln
~
~
N
m
~
~
Ln
m
MR . BLANCATO : Finish your answer .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 935
MR . McDERMOTT : Doctor, finish your
answer .
MR . SHELLER : A year or two
thereafter, I think he said .
THE WITNESS : But, here again, you
know, by this time,
there were -- by 1965, there
were probably a hundred polycyclics in smoke .
'What more would one do?
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
10
I
Doctor, wouldn't it have been
11
12
appropriate for Reynolds to say : There are
13
carcinogens in tobacco smoke -MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
14
15
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . -- and here they are, that we have -
16
17
that have been reported by others? Rather than
18
saying, publicly : We're going to deny that we
19
know about them .
20
MR . BLANCATO : Object to form .
21
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
22
the question . Assumes facts not in evidence .
23
THE WITNESS : I don't understand .
24
!
see .
! c„
N
~
m
~
BY MR . SHELLER :
251
Q . Well, why didn't -- is the only reason
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
936
,
1
Reynolds never told the public that there are
2
carcinogens in our smoke and published it was
3
because others, outside of the tobacco industry,
4
had published that information and, therefore,
5
there was no need for Reynolds to acknowledge it?
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection, no
6
7
foundation .
THE WITNESS : Well, as I say, we
8
9
10
0
eventually did acknowledge it . And I gave it four
times .
11
MR . BLANCATO : Objection .
12
THE WITNESS : Twice in Georgia, and
13
14
15
16
over here in Greensboro, North Carolina, and once
here at Wake Forest University .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . In a publication?
17
A . No, a presentation . As I say, everything had
18
been published by that time . But --
19
Q . When did you -- there were four times
20
you did this . When was it?
21
A . I think -- the first time, I think, was '65,-
22
somewhere in there .
23
Q . So you agreed that there were
24
carcinogens in tobacco smoke?
25
A . Well, as -- as I've said, many, many times
WAGA & SPINELLI
Ln
N
(201) 992-4111
1
Vol . 5, Pg .
937
I
1
here, sir, there are carcinogens in tobacco smoke
2
that are carcinogenic to mouse skin .
3
Q . Doctor, I'm going to give you a
4
report . We're going to refer to this as Exhibit
5
10 .
6
7
8
9
10
11
•
description, please --
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 10 was
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . This is entitled "The Smoking
.and
12
Health Problem, A Critical and Objective Appraisal
13
of RDM, 1963, No . 4 ." The copy where it's marked
14
"voided by KHH" .
15
(Discussion off the record)
16
MR . McDERMOTT : Do you want to do the
17
same thing? Do you want to do an A and B here?
18
Or you're not going to use
19
.
MS . KNISELY : I don't know if we'll
20
get to the next one, but we can just give it a
21
different number .
22
•
MS . EASON : May we please have a
MR . McDERMOTT : If memory serves, I
23
think these are already in the record for this
24
deposition from the first session .
25
MS . KNISELY : Not that particular one .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
I
938
MR . LEE : Only in the boxes, not
1
2
individual . I talked about it . It was never
3
introduced . And they're not on top --
4
MS . KNISELY : It's not been attached,
not that particular one .
6
MR . McDERMOTT : All right . I thought
7
it was introduced in the Minnesota deposition, the
8
Minnesota portion, was it not?
9
MS . KNISELY : No . The one attached to
10
the subpoena -- the Arch subpoena was ; but that
11
did not have the "voided KHH° on it .
12
13
MR . McDERMOTT : All right .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, you, in this -- do you recall
14
15
this report?
16
A . Oh, yes .
Q . And this -- what do you mean by
17
18
"voided by KHH°?
19
A .
20
21
22
Mr . Hoover voided it .
Q .
Meaning
what?
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . Asked and
Ln
N
~
~
answered . This was all gone into --
m
23
24
BY MR . SHELLER :
He rejected it ; is that correct?
IN
~
~
~
MR . McDERMOTT : Objection . Asked and
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
answered . This was all gone into at length by
2
Mr . Lee .
3
4
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q .
All
right . The -- page 7 of the
5
report -- and before I get to that, let me
6
introduce another exhibit, 'cause I'm going to ask
7
you to refer to them together . This is a 1962 --
8
it says "RDM 1963 No . 1," also voided by KHH .
MR . McDERMOTT : I believe that's
9
10
Number 4 .
11
MR . SHELLER : Previously Number 4?
12
MS . KNISELY : No, I don't think it is .
13
THE WITNESS : The one that's got
14
"first" on the top is number 1, 1963 . The one
15
that's got second -MR . McDERMOTT : Yeah, but let me see
16
17
this one .
18
THE WITNESS : It's the short one?
19
MR . McDERMOTT : Is that a "one" or a
20
"four"?
THE WITNESS : That's a "one" and this
21
22
one's the "four" .
MR . McDERMOTT : Okay, I'm sorry . I
23
24
~
939
25IBY
Un
r
misspoke .
~
~
~
MR . SHELLER :
WAGA & SPINELLI
J
F-'
0
Ln
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
Q . Now, Doctor, I want you to look at
page 4 of what's number 1, research report 1 .
3
4
MR . BLANCATO : Are you going to mark
this short one as an exhibit?
5
MR . SHELLER : Yes .
6
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 11 was
7
8
940
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . If you look at E, the "Evidence to
10
Date
m
on report number 1, you say : (Reading)
11
Obviously the amount of
12
evidence accumulated to
13
indict cigarette smoke as a
14
health hazard is
15
overwhelming . The evidence
16
challenging this indictment
17
is scant . Attempts to shift
18
the blame to other factors
19
(example, air pollutants)
20
necessitates acceptance of
21
data similar to those denied
22
in the cigarette smoke case .
23
MR . MeDERMOTT : I'm not going to
24
object at this time, but I will point out this was
25
covered in the first session of the deposition .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
941
r
MR . SHELLER : Not this particular
1
2
statement .
3
MR . HOLTON : Oh, yes, it was .
4
MR . SHELLER : You'll see, when I get
5
to it .
6
MR . HOLTON : Not the variation .
7
MR . SHELLER : Right, not the
8
9
variation .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Now, Doctor, that's what you said in
10
11
your first report . And then, if you look at page
12
second (sic) of your -- this one, 1963 report,
13
number 4, when you -- what did you do? Did you
14
resubmit it to Mr . -- to Dr . Hoover?
15
A .
No . No .
16
MS . EASON : What page are you on?
17
MR . SHELLER : Page 7 .
18
THE WITNESS : If you had read the
19
deposition, you'll find why there are two . You
20
haven't read the deposition .
21
MR . SHELLER : Yes, I have .
22
THE WITNESS : Well, do you know why
23
24
25
there are two, then?
MR . SHELLER : I may not remember it
accurately, I'm sorry .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
942
THE WITNESS : Well, if you notice, one
1
2
is very brief ; no citations . And the reason they
3
were written this way is, I knew management --
4
scientific management would appreciate the longer
5
version annotated, and so on and so forth . And
6
the other one, if it marched on outside of the
7
research department, that people wouldn't want to
8
have a whole bunch of numbers rattling around, and
9
a long bibliography, and so on and so forth . So
10
one is a -- if you will -- a brief summary of the
11
other one .
12
13
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Well, Doctor, look at the top of page
14
1 of the report number 4 .
15
A . Uh-huh .
16
Q•
17
paragraph :
You say on the top of the page, first
(Reading)
This report is an
18
19
extension of a companion
20
memorandum, which presented
21
my position as briefly and as
22
concisely as possible .
The
23
Ln
~
~
two memoranda have identical m
24
schematic organizations .
25
mentioned before, if
As
~
Ln
00
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
943
r
1
requested, a thorough,
2
fully-documented exposition
3
of the ideas will be
4
prepared .
Is that why this -- is there any
5
6
inconsistency between these two?
7
A.
8
the other . And, if you notice, they fairly well
9
follow the same plot and --
No . As I say, one was a shorter version of
10
Q . Well, on page 7 -- could you look at
11
page 7 of the report 4 . "The Evidence to Date,"
12
which is now being amplified in your report 4, you
13
say : (Reading)
Obviously the amount of
14
15
evidence accumulated to
16
indict cigarette smoke as a
17
health hazard is
18
overwhelming .
19
20
A . Yes, I said that . And I explained it before .
Q.
Right . Now you say : (Reading)
However the evidence
21
22
from epidemiological,
23
pathological, biological and
24
chemical studies . Supporting
25
the proposition that lung
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
cancer is caused by or
2
associated with cigarette
3
smoke, is paralleled by
4
similar evidence supporting
5
the proposition that lung
6
cancer is caused by or
7
associated with air
8
pollutants . In some
9
instances, the evidence seems
10
to be stronger in support of
11
cigarette smoke as a
12
causative or associated
13
factor ; in other instances
14
the evidence seems to be
15
stronger in support of air
16
pollutants as a causative or
17
associated factor .
944
(You then go on and say]
18
19
Any criticism leveled at the
20
lung cancer-cigarette smoke
21
proposition, statistical
22
studies cannot prove
23
cause-and-effect
24
relationships between two
25
factors, mice are not men,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
945
y
1
(criticism of biological
2
evidence) .
3
You say : (Reading)
4
Metaplasia and
5
hyperplasia do not become
6
cancerous (a criticism of the
7
pathological evidence) ; and
8
no experimental evidence to
9
show that any cigarette smoke
10
constituent is carcinogenic
11
to human lung tissue at the
12
level present in cigarette
13
smoke (a criticism of the
14
chemical evidence) is equally
15
applicable to the lung
16
cancer-air pollutant
17
proposition .
Is that how you amplified it then?
18
19
A . Well, as you can see, one is much longer than
20
the other . And, of course, as I explained before,
21
that my concern was that -- when I said evidence
22
was overwhelming, is all we were hearing was one
23
side of the arqument . And this is late '62/early tj
24
'63 .
251
And
as
I
said
WAGA & SPINELLI
before,
my
concern
was
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~_j
_j
~
m
Vol . 5, Pg .
946
1
we had developed a pretty good reputation for
2
being good chemists . And what I wanted to do, and
3
what this is really aimed at, is persuade
4
management to let us get into biological work .
5
Q.
Right .
6
A . And -- because I felt, with the competence of
7
the people we had or people we could acquire, that
8
if we could be that good in chemistry - and we
9
were considered very good in chemistry r then we
10
could do the same thing with the biological
11
studies . And already, by this time, in 1963, we
12
had demonstrated in-house -- unfortunately we
13
hadn't published some of it . But many of the
14
assertions in the -- that -- in this overwhelming
15
evidence was wrong .
16
17
18
Q . All right, sir .
Doctor, look at your recommendations
on page 14 . And you say : (Reading)
Recommendations : After
19
20
consideration of the evidence
21
available
22
smoke-health problem and the ~
23
Company's obligation to its
24
customers [and you have an
on
the
cigarette
Ln
r
~
asterisk there] it is
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
•
1
interesting to note remarks
2
like "Why don't 'they' do
3
something about the liquor
4
industry? After all, there
5
are an estimated four million
6
Americans classified as
7
alcoholics . Alcoholism not
8
only is a health hazard to
9
the drinker but also causes
10
untold anguish to his
11
family ." Or "What about the
12
meat-packing industry and the
13
supposed relationship of
14
saturated animal fat to
15
cholesterol-caused
16
circulatory disorders and
17
heart disease? After all,
18
many more persons die of
19
heart disease than lung
'20
cancer ." These remarks [and
21
this is your statement] may
22
have some justification, but
23
attempts to minimize our
24
obligations by pointing an
25
accusing finger at others is
WAGA & SPINELLI
947
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
no solution to the cigarette
2
smoke-health problem!
3
A . Right .
Q . Do you agree with that today?
4
5
6
A .
Yeah .
Q . Then you go on to say, after you say,
7
"To its customers, stockholders, and employees :"
8
(Reading)
It is recommended that
9
0
10
facilities, animals, and
11
personnel (where necessary)
12
be acquired to study
13
948
biological cigarette smoke,
14
tobacco, tobacco and
15
additives .
This recommendation has
16
17
been made previously by
18
Teague, by Rodgman [and it
19
lists -- you list all these
20
dates] . Data from such
21
studies may be invaluable, if
22
government restrictions are
23
imposed as a result of the
24
conclusions of the Surgeon
25
General's Committee on
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
949
,
1
Smoking and Health . It is, I
2
believe, more urgent than
3
ever that we acquire
4
dexterity in biological
5
techniques .
Do you still agree with that today?
6
7
A . Yes . And of course we do have biological
8
things in place, now, some of them .
9
Q . And between 1970 and '84 you had none,
10
right?
11
A . Well, we did a lot of contracting outside .
12
13
Q .
I
see .
Then you say, on page 15 : (Reading)
It is recommended that
14
15
data already available on
16
physiologically active
17
cigarette smoke components,
18
example, polycyclic
19
hydrocarbons, phenols be
20
published . It is recommended
21
that analytical procedures
22
concerning such components be
23
published . These
24
recommendations are made
25
because I believe they
WAGA'& SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg
950
t represent the best answer to
1
2
the questions : What effect
3
would immediate publication
4
of these data have on this
5
Company's economic status?
6
What would be the effect on
7
this Company of not
8
publishing these data now,
9
but being required at some
10
future date to disclose such
11
data, possibly in the
12
unfavorable atmosphere of a
13
lawsuit?
What happened? Did they agree with you?
14
15
Did Mr . Hoover -- Mr . Hoover voided this, didn't
16
he?
17
A . Right .
18
MR . McDERMOTT : Counselor, I don't
19
mean to rain on your parade, but this has been
20
covered already, and this is getting repetitive
21
and quite time consuming .
MR . SHELLER : By the way, I'm going to
22
23
give you a letter that Dr . Teague wrote to
24
Dr . Hoover .
251
MS . KNISELY : If you want to mark
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
these next A and B?
THE WITNESS : By the way it's not
2
3
Dr . Hoover, it's Mr . Hoover .
4
MR . SHELLER : Mr . Hoover . All right .
5
THE WITNESS : Believe me, there's a
6
difference .
7
MR . SHELLER : That's obvious .
8
MS . KNISELY : One is typewritten and
9
one is handwritten, if you want to mark the next
10
number A and B .
MR . SHELLER : Okay . What number are
11
12
we up to? 12 A and B .
MS . EASON : And which is the A and
13
14
951
which is .the B?
15
MR . SHELLER : A is the typewritten
16
version, the letter from Dr . Teague to Kenneth
17
Hoover -
18
MR . McDERMOTT : This is 11 A and B?
19
MR . SHELLER : Right . And 11 -- 12 .
20
And the handwritten is -- 12 is the handwritten
21
copy by Dr . Bruce .
22
(Discussion off the record)
23
(Plaintiff's Exhibits Numbered 12A and
24
25
12B were marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q .
Now,
Doctor,
2
supervisor, right?
3
A . At one time .
4
Q .
At
one
952
Dr . Teague was your
time .
5
And what was he at this time, in 1963?
6
A . He was manager -- 1963, he was manager of the
7
chemical research division . He was my boss .
8
Q . And he says : (Reading)
I believe he has a right
9
10
to be heard, despite my
11
honest disagreement with him
12
on certain minor points .
13
Accordingly, I recommend that
14
the reports be accepted and
15
distributed . I also might
16
suggest that copies be made
17
available to members of our
18
legal department .
And he's referring to "RDM, 1963, No .
19
20
and °RDM, 1963, No . 4 .°
21
A . Right .
MS . EASON : For the record, which
22
23
1"
version
were
you
reading?
~
0,
00
MR . SHELLER : I was reading the typed
24
251 version .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 953
MS . EASON : Thank you .
2
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . And even though Dr . Teague supported
you, he -- Hoover rejected it too . Did Hoover
tell you why?
A . He called me in -- actually, they were all
typed and of course had been assigned a number -you might as well hear the whole story .
And in those days we didn't have Xerox
10
copiers . We had an original and five or six
11
carbons . And he had the typed version on his desk
12
and a couple of copies of my -- if you notice,
13
this typing on the ones we just finished, it's
14
pretty terrible . And I have to -- I was never
15
much of a typist . I did these at home .
And he said, "Alan, I'm not going to
16
17
issue these ." And he didn't say why . And I
18
noticed the copies on his desk . I didn't know if
19
there were two copies or three copies there with
20
the "voided KHH" on it . And I just reached over
21
and I said, "Okay, if you're not, then these are
22
mine," and walked out .
So these -- I think, if you look in
23
24
the list of RDM's, you'll find a place there where
25
these two are voided .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
just voided them?
3
A.
5
No .
Q . All right .
Doctor, I'm going to give you a report
6
that you wrote in 1964 that wasn't voided by
7
Hoover, apparently . It's an analysis of cigarette
8
smoke condensate, summary of an eight-year study .
9
10
•
Q . So he really didn't tell you much, he
2
4
954
MR . McDERMOTT : Hang on . Do we have
copies of that?
11
MS . KNISELY : Yes, you do .
12
MR . HOLTON : We don't have that one
13
copied, do we?
14
MS . KNISELY : Yes, you do .
15
(Discussion off the record)
16
BY MR . SHELLER :
17
Q . Doctor, would you please refer to --
18
this is RDR number 1964, Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 .
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 13 was
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . And I'm referring you now to page 56,
entitled "Discussion" .
You start a rather lengthy discussion,
and you say : (Reading)
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
During the past decade
1
0
2
and a half, considerable
3
scientific evidence has been
4
presented which relates
5
tobacco smoking, particularly
6
cigarette smoking, to
7
specific diseases . This
8
evidence consists of four
9
types : Namely, statistical,
10
pathological, biological and
11
chemical . Our studies have
12
been concerned solely with
13
955
the latter - the chemical
14
composition of smoke . For a
15
consistent picture to be
16
painted of the tobacco
17
smoke-disease problem, the
18
evidence from each discipline
19
must agree with that from the
20
other three . With respect to
21
the composition of tobacco
22
smoke, are our chemical
23
evidence and the chemical
24
evidence reported by others
25
consistent with the reported
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
statistical, pathological,
2
and biological data?
3
You asked this question .
4
And then I take you over to page 58,
956
where you say -MR . McDERMOTT : Hang on, let me catch
6
7
up with you . All right .
BY MR . SHELLER :
9
Q . (Reading)
The known composition of
10
11
tobacco smoke is not
12
inconsistent with the
13
statistical finding that
14
cigarette smoke may be
15
associated with lung disease,
16
heart disease, et cetera .
The next paragraph, you go on and you
17
18
say -- and -- I'm sorry, lung cancer, heart
19
disease, et cetera .
You then say in the next paragraph :
20
21
(Reading)
The known composition of
22
0
23
tobacco smoke is not
24
inconsistent with the
25
pathological findings that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
fluorescent components of
2
cigarette smoke --
3
MS . KNISELY : Biological .
4
MR . SHELLER : (Reading)
5
-- are absorbed b y
6
respiratory tract tissue, or
7
that metaplasia and
95 7
hyperplasia are produced in
9
the respiratory tract by
10
cigarette smoke, or that
11
ciliastatic -- ciliastasis is
12
produced by cigarette smoke .
13
Then you go on and you say : (Reading)
The known composition of
14
15
tobacco smoke is no t
16
inconsistent with the
17
biological findings, that
18
cigarette smoke is
19
carcinogenic, cocarcinogenic,
20
and ciliastatic .
21
You say, on page 59 : (Reading)
22
It is often argued that
23
the amount of benzo [a] pyrene
24
or arsenious oxide i n
cigarette smoke i s
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
958
r
1
insufficient to account for
2
the observed carcinogenicity
3
of cigarette smoke . This, of
4
course, is true! But no one
has yet conducted the obvious
6
experiment to determine
7
whether the amounts of the
carcinogenic polycyclic
9
0
hydrocarbons plus the amounts
10
of the carcinogenic
11
heterocyclic nitrogen
12
compounds plus the amount of
13
arsenious oxide plus the
14
amounts of the cocarcinogenic
15
phenols and fatty acids are
16
sufficient to account for the
17
observed biological results .
18
Calculation has indicated
19
that the known carcinogens
20
and cocarcinogens in tobacco
21
smoke -- in cigarette smoke
22
can account for about
23
90 percent of the observed
24
activity . Such a mixture
25
could behave synergistically,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
additively, or inhibitively .
2
It is obvious that concern
3
with relative concentration
4
in cigarette smoke of one, or
5
at most, of a few of the
6
components is ridiculous . As
7
an absolute criterion of
8
safety insofar as health is
9
concerned, chemical analysis
10
of cigarette smoke, while
11
highly suggestive, is
12
physiologically meaningless .
13
14
You then -- I take you to page 62 . You
say on page 62, number 7 : (Reading)
None of the --
15
16
17
959
You say several things ; I'm just pointing
out to you one of them . (Reading)
None of the chemical
18
19
data acquired in our study or
20
in studies conducted
21
elsewhere is inconsistent
22
with
23
pathological, or statistical m
24
data
25
smoke as a health hazard .
reported
biological,
~
v
~-•
~
~
WAGA & SPINELLI
indicting
cigarette
~
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 960
Recommendations . Future
1
Work, 1 .
2
All additives of tobacco
3
4
smoke should be tested
5
biologically for their
6
adverse effect, if any, on a
7
host .
Was that ever done by Reynolds?
8
9
A .
Q . Your recommendations .
10
11
The additive thing?
A . Well, the additive thing was eventually done .
Q . All additives were tested on a
12
13
biological host?
14
A . They were tested in the Ames test .
Q . All of them?
15
16
A . As far as I know .
Q . As far as you know .
17
18
19
A .
Dr . Chin Lee was the --
Q.
Oh . Okay . And how about your other
20
recommendations about -- that it's ridiculous if
21
you don't mix the different things together? Do
Ln
N
N
-j
22
6
you recall that?
23
A . Well, that's an interesting exercise, because
24
at one time I thought that would be really the way
25
to look at it . And in looking at some
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
~
-j
rn
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
calculations done by one of the masters in the
2
cancer field, I thought, well, if we have this
3
number of polycyclics that are tumorigenic to
4
mouse skin, and if we had this number of this
5
compound and these compounds, what kind of an
6
experiment would you have to do?
7
961
Well, I plotted it all out and I was a
8
little stunned to find, to do the experiment
that
9
I thought would be the ultimate in solving the
10
question or showing the effect would require three
11
times the number of available mice at all the
12
laboratory supply companies in the United States,
13
because of the extent .
14
And then it goes over the cost . In
15
those days, it doesn't sound like much, but I
16
think I figured it out : It cost about
17
$12 million . And I just -- you know, nobody's
18
going to do that .
19
And, of course, some of the things I
20
suggested there -- although, I -- I have a little
21
problem . I don't know where I got that
22
90 percent . But that's all right .
23
Q . So it was never done, because it cost
24
too much ; is correct?
25
A . Well, nobody ever did it .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
962
I
•
Q . Nobody ever did it .
1
2
A . And --
Q . Except it's done on humans .
3
4
MR . BLANCATO : Object to the form .
5
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form .
6
MS . EASON : Objection .
7
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Isn't that correct, Doctor?
8
9
A.
What?
Q . It's done on humans . Every human who
10
11
smokes is a human guinea pig .
12
A . I wouldn't say that, sir .
Q .
13
14
A.
No?
No .
15
MS . EASON : Object to the form .
16
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form .
17
18
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . So you'd, rather than run the test and
19
spend the money, which was $12 million in 1964 --
20
A . Well, I never proposed that to anybody, sir .
21
Q . -- because it was too expensive .
22
MR . McDERMOTT : Object . You're
23
mischaracterizing his testimony . He said it would
24
take three times the number of animals that
25
existed in the United States, laboratory animals .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
963
r
1
2
Q . Laboratory . How many animals would it
3
take, Doctor?
4
A . Well, I forget the -- in here I used 100 mice
5
per group . And it was in the hundred thousands of
6
animals . Well, you can phone some of the animal
7
supply place and say, "Well, you know, if I were
8
to need so many animals by such-and-such a date,"
9
they were nowhere close to what you need .
10
'
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . How did you determine that? Did you
11
contact anybody who had knowledge to do this
12
testing, to give you an estimate on how many
13
animals they need and what the cost would be?
14
A . Well, as I say, the way I looked at it -- and
15
it was very simplistic ; I was just curious . That
16
if you had compound A, B, C, D, E, whatever - they
17
listed them - what was their effect singularly?
18
What were their effect in pairs? What were their
19
effect in triplets? And you can see, it just
20
snowballs .
21
Q . How about sticking to just triplets?
22
A . Well, I say, I was doing -- I mean, you're
23
asking me something I did 33 years ago and say
24
"Why didn't you do so-and-so?" I didn't do it .
25
Q . And Reynolds never did it . And to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
964
r
1
your knowledge -
2
A.
3
to anybody .
No . I never even turned that calculation in
Q . And to your knowledge, no one in the
4
5
tobacco industry --
6
A . Nobody in any place has ever done it .
Q.
7
Now, Doctor -- you say Dr . Chin did
8
9
10
11
Right .
Ames testing?
A .
Dr . Chin Lee .
Q . Chin Lee, on additives that are in
12
tobacco?
13
A . He -- he looked at all the components of
14
flavor formulations, I understand .
15
Q . Well, which ones? Do you know?
16
A . I don't know that much about all the -- the
17
flavorants by name . I know a few of them .
18
Q . You don't know whether Dr . Chin Lee
19
actually looked at all of the additives in
20
tobacco, do you?
21
A . Well, I used to see some of the things he
22
wrote that he did . And of course, in those days,
23
a lot of the flavorants and the flavor formulation
24
were coded, for obvious reasons . And there were
25
75, 100 of them, and he had run them all and found
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
965
r
1
no problem with all of them .
Q . Seventy-five or a hundred .
2
3
A . Something like that .
Q . Additives .
4
Now, how many additives are there in
5
6
tobacco?
7
A . Additives in tobacco?
Q.
8
9
A . Tobacco per se?
Q . In cigarettes .
10
11
Uh-huh . Do you know?
A . Well, I just told you .
Q . You said there was only 75 or 100?
12
No . There may be 75 or 80, whatever the
13
A.
14
number of compounds used in flavor formulation .
15
But'each blend -- brand, I should say, not blend,
16
has its own flavor formulation, and there may be
17
40 in this brand and 50 in this, and 30 in this .
18
And -- but they'll be different ones .
19
Q.
I
see . Well, are you able to tell the
20
jury today whether Reynolds tested all the
21
additives for Ames testing, that's mutagenicity on
22
animals
in
their
cigarettes?
~
a
23
A . Well, as far as I know, Chin -- Dr .
Lee
did
24
0
it . But then we had another experiment that ~
251 actually was a much simpler one and more
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
m
Vol . 5, Pg . 966
meaningful, I guess, if you will, in terms of
product .
Q . What was that?
A . Well, this will take a little explanation .
And we did it with five products . But let's just
concentrate on one product .
Q . When you say "a product," you mean a
cigarette brand?
A .
10
Yeah . Like Winston or -- I'm sure you've
seen this someplace . It's all written up .
Q . Is that the one where you found --
11
12
when you tested one of your products,
13
half percent of the mice got skin cancer?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form --
14
15
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Is that one of the tests you did?
16
MR . McDERMOTT : -- of the question .
17
18
You're interrupting Dr . Rodgman's answer .
19
Dr . Rodgman, complete your answer .
20
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . I'm just asking if that's one the --
21
!
37 and a
No . This is -- this was a mutagenicity test,
22
A.
23
Ames test, done by a contract laboratory, with
24
unimpeachable reputation . And what we did was
25
very simple .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
967
r
1
We had the Winston cigarette, as it is
2
marketed, which has a certain amount of what we
3
call casing materials and a flavor formulation .
4
Then we had the Winston cigarette with the casing
5
materials, no flavorants . Then we had some
6
Winstons made with no casing material, and the
7
flavorant formulation the same as on the marketed
8
product . Then we had the Winston cigarette with
9
no casing, no flavorings .
10
And the Ames test showed that, when
11
you took out the flavorants of the -- the casing
12
material, the mutagenicity went up . And the
13
minute I saw the results, I -- I won't say I
14
panicked, but I was a little thunderstruck . Until
15
it hit me . We already knew why it went up,
16
because six -- it just went up a little bit .
17
Six or seven percent of this tar,
18
which is used in the -- or TPM, which is used in
19
the Ames test, is humectants, glycerol and
20
propylene glycol, and they are non-mutagenic . So
21
we -- you weren't getting those in the smoke, you
22
didn't have -- their dilution effect . So the
23
mutagenicity went up a few percent .
24
25
Flavorants had no effect on
mutagenicity .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q . Doctor, you did this with Winston .
2
What other products?
3
A . Winston, Vantage, Now, Camel and something
4
else ; there were five brands .
5
Q . Did you do it with any of the other
6
brands?
7
A . Well, if you did it five times and you get
8
the same answer --
9
968
Q . But in all instances there was
10
mutagenicity, right?
11
A . Well, cigarette smoke itself is mutagenicity .
12
Q .
I
see . I see .
Did you do any other test --
13
14
biological testing, other than the Ames test, on
15
any of your products? The biological testing
16
A . Well, we did the biological testing on puffed
17
tobacco, we did it on one of our tobacco
18
substitutes .
19
20
Q . On your product line .
A . Well
I was trying to think if one of our
21
22
23
24
. . .
products was the control for a substitute test we u+
~
did .
Q.
I-You
I
don't
just
don't
-know?
-J
m
4
~
~P-
251 A . I've forgotten, apparently .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Q . There's a whole lot of biological
2
tests that one can do, right, on a product?
3
A . Right . And of course the one that is part
4
and parcel of the definition is mouse skin
5
painting .
6
Q . And that wasn't done on your products,
7
other than -- which one did you did do -- which
8
product did you do the mouse skin painting?
9
A . Well, we did it on the tobacco substitutes .
10
969
Q . On the substitute .
In a prior exhibit, it's already been
11
12
marked, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1056 . I'll have to
13
show you the one that I have, 'cause it's the only
14
copy I have handy .
15
You -- you had said that you didn't
16
recommend testing the mixtures of the different
17
parts of the tobacco smoke . I'd like you to look
18
at page 2 . And this is a -- April 16th, 1982,
19
from you, is it Dr . Giles, Dr . Colby and
20
Dr . Nystrom are "Misters" there?
21
A . Giles is a Mister .
22
Q.
To
Dr . DiMarco . And who's
23
Dr . DiMarco?
24
A . He was vice president of R & D . He had just
25
come to Reynolds about that time, early '82,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
something like that .
Q .
You
say : (Reading)
3
Project Area 3 . In
4
spite of its high complexity,
5
most of the chemical
6
carcinogenesis literature
7
deals with experiments
8
involving one - or at most
9
two - 'carcinogens' (plus
10
cocarcingoens, promoters,
11
et cetera) ; the real-life
12
situation is obviously much
13
more complex than this .
14
Therefore, we propose
15
standardized animal
16
carcinogenesis tests
17
involving varying proportions
18
of first, three chemical
19
carcinogens and, later, four
20
chemical carcinogens,
21
et cetera, to,determine
22
interrelationships more
23
closely related to real-life
24
situations .
25
970
First, who was Dr . Giles -- or was it
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
971
I
1
Mister? I'm mixed up . Is that a Mister or
2
Doctor?
3
A . Yeah, he was at one time -- he was manager of
4
analytical research at one time .
5
6
Q .
I
see . Is he a doctor?
A . Mister .
7
Q .
Mister . And who is Dr . Colby?
8
A . He was head of the science information
9
division at that time .
Q .
10
At
1982?
11
A . Right . And -- and Dr . Nystrom worked under
12
him at the library and eventually became manager
13
of the science information division .
Q . And what was your com -- position at
14
15
the time?
16
A . Director of fundamental research .
Q . Did Reynolds ever do what you
17
18
recommended?
19
A .
No .
Q . They give you a reason why not?
20
No . You got to re -- well, this was written
21
A.
22
because Dr . DiMarco had just gotten there and we ~
-j
23
were showing him some of the things -- or
24
outlining some of the things that we thought ~
I-A
~
0.
J
251 should be done . And some he did, some he didn't .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
972
1
And, of course, he eventually got us back into the
2
biological work again .
Q . But he didn't do this, did he?
3
4
A . I'm sure they didn't do this, no . They had
5
other things they wanted to do, I guess .
Q . Do you know if any -- anybody has ever
6
elsewhere .
7
done that? In the tobacco industry or
8
A . I don't think it's ever been done anyplace .
9
MS . KNISELY : Do you have the copies
10
of the RDR's index -- '54 to '91? I think they're
11
out on the table .
12
(Discussion off the record)
13
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 14 was
14
15
marked for identification)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, while we're waiting for one
16
17
more exhibit, I would like you to look at what I
18
am now marking exhibit, whatever, 14? And it's
19
entitled "R & D Long-Range Planning, Smoking and
20
Health : Product and Smoke Components, Dr . Alan
21
Rodgman, October 8, 1976 ." Is that a report that
22
you prepared?
23
A . I assume so . Let me look at it .
Ln
H
J
~
6
MR . McDERMOTT : Do we have copies of ~
24
25
this?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
MS . KNISELY : We don't . Sorry about
1
2
that .
3
4
MR . HOLTON : Shall we go make some
copies?
MR . SHELLER : We didn't know we were
5
6
going to get to it . That's the problem .
MR . HOLTON : Shall we go make some
7
8
973
copies?
THE WITNESS : I'm only going to refer
9
10
to one sentence . It's not going to be a big deal .
11
MR . McDERMOTT : Okay . What's the date
12
13
14
15
on that?
THE WITNESS : October the 8th, 1976 .
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Doctor, look at page 43 . Now, is this
16
a document you've prepared? Has your name on it?
17
I mean, the whole document .
18
A . I assume so . I mean, it's got my name in the
19
front and my signature . Sometimes you get
20
something like that and it may be a combination of
21
different people working on it .
22
23
Q . Would you look at the top of page 43 .
It says (Reading)
I .A ., Product .
24
25
Condemnation of nicotine as a
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
health hazard by some
2
smoking-health proponents
3
increased demand for
4
low-nicotine tobaccos,
5
probability of occurrence
6
70 percent .
And then you say "Qualitative" over in
7
8
the right . (Reading)
Lowered "tar" and
9
10
nicotine on established
11
brands ; if lowering of "tar"
12
and nicotine progresses too
13
far, customers weaned from
14
smoking with subsequent sales
15
decline .
Is that your statement?
16
17
18
974
A . Yes, sir .
Q . Why would lowering tar and nicotine on
19
established brands too far wean smoke -- wean
20
customers from smoking with subsequent sales
21
decline?
22
A . Well, it has been shown that, in many
23
instances where people have come out with a very
24
low tar cig -- very low nicotine cigarette or a
25
zero nicotine cigarette, that they just don't
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Ln
~
~
~
m
Vol . 5, Pg .
975
r
1
2
sell .
Q . Why did you use the word "wean" them
3
from smoking, rather than "stop" them from -- they
4
just won't buy it? What did you mean by that as
5
this -- you don't say "they won't buy the
6
cigarette," you say it will "wean" them from
7
smoking .
8
A . Well, it may be a--
9
10
11
Q . That's your word, right?
. Right . That's my word .
Q . You could have used different
12
language, couldn't you have?
13
A . Oh, certainly .
14
Q . What did you -- do you mean by "wean"?
15
A . Well, I think you know the meaning of "wean,"
16
don't you?
17
18
19
(Discussion off the record)
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . Now, Doctor, I'm giving you a list of
20
RDRs, that's research reports, from 1954 to 1991
21
of Reynolds' research department reports . I'm
22
only -- because -- yeah, mark the whole thing,
23
because we'll refer to others . But I'm only, for
24
now, because I know time is short --
25
I want to refer you to page -- there's
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
976
r
1
no page number . Nineteen -- the year 1970 . Did
2
you make that list, Doctor?
3
A .
4
5
6
No .
Q . Who made that list?
A . The library .
Q . So this is a list from the Reynolds
7
library . And they gave you a copy of it? How did
8
you have, in your possession, a copy?
9
A . Well, if you look back, about 1976, '75 --
10
let's see, where are we? 1970, '71, '72 . The
11
typewritten part . When I took over as director of
12
research, there was a folder -- Dr . Senkus had
13
been my predecessor, and before him, of course,
14
was Mr . Hoover .
15
And if you notice -- I'm sure you've
16
looked at some of the RDR's/RDM's . And at the
17
bottom of the last page there's a distribution
18
list, and usually it's to the authors, the
19
manager, the director of research, and a couple of
20
copies to the library . And if it's a report that
21
has patentability things in it, it may go to the
22
patent lawyer .
23
Well, periodically Mr . Hoover, and
24
then subsequently Dr . Senkus, they got all these
25
copies and -- and had them on file . But,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
obviously, we've only got so much filing space,
2
and there were two copies up in the library, so
3
periodically they would tell their secretary "get
4
rid of so -- so many years of this stuff" .
5
977 '
And -- and I'm sure you've noticed in
6
several places it says -- for example, on -- you
7
flip the page, "1954, destroyed 4/9/57" . And that
8
means they took those copies from Mr . Hoover's
9
files and destroyed them .
10
Well, they kept the list of all these .
11
And when I took over from Dr . Senkus, I happened
12
to get this folder, and here's this list of -- of
13
the RDR's, and there was a similar list for RDM's .
14
And I thought, gee, this is a handy thing to have
15
to check things .
16
So, after that, I went up to the
17
library and they had a ledger book that, as new
18
RDR's were phoned in, the secretary or the
19
clerical person up there would say, "Give me the
20
title," and they would write down the date and
21
assign it a number and write it down . That's why
22
it's all handwritten .
23
And then I'm sure you'll probably come
24
across places where you may see something crossed
25
out . Well what would happen is somebody would
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
978
1
phone up and get an RDR number or RDM number,
2
suddenly have reservations or a problem with what
3
they were going to write, phone up and say, "Hey,
4
void that one ; I'm going to redo it," or give it a
5
new title or something . And then you'll notice,
6
sometime later on, there may be something with a
7
very similar title . You know, sometimes an
8
experiment goes wrong and you get it screwed up .
Q . I understand .
9
Look at the year 1970 in this list, in
10
11
the typewritten part .
12
A . Uh-huh .
Q . And from 1970 it says "Smoking
14
exposure studies, not in file . E .R . Fluck ."
15
There's a checkmark next to that one . Whose
16
checkmark is that?
17
A . I don't know .
18
MS . EASON : For the record, could you
19
please read the Bates number that appears on that
20
page .
21
MR . SHELLER : There is none .
22
MR . McDERMOTT : Yes, there is
23
MS . EASON : Yes, there is .
24
MR . SHELLER :
25
.
Ln
J
N
Not
on
the
page
m
~
J
I'm
~
looking at .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
979
I
MR . McDERMOTT : 501524764 . If you
1
2
look on the cover -- it's probably covered by your
3
hand .
MR . SHELLER : Oh . Okay . Sometimes
4
5
these help .
6
MS . BRACHTL : Repeat that .
7
MR . SHELLER : 501524764 .
8
MS . BRACHTL : Thank you .
9
BY MR . SHELLER :
Q . So you don't know who put that
10
11
checkmark there?
12
A .
No .
Q . And what does it mean, "not in file"?
13
14
Is that your writing?
15
A.
No . I don't know whose writing that is .
Q . Then you -- there's a checkmark at
16
17
number 4 . An attempt to establish a simple
18
procedure for determination of a drug's addicting
19
properties . And that says, "not in file," and<
20
there's a checkmark .
21
A . I have no idea what it --
Ln
23
N
Q . And then there's a checkmark -- and ~
m
these are the only three checkmarks on this whole ~
24
page . (Reading)
22
251
Number
15,
WAGA & SPINELLI
"Development
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
of a New Screening Procedure
2
Which Detects and
3
Differentiates Major and
4
Minor Tranquilizing and
5
Sedative Hypnotic Activity ."
6
"Not in file" .
7
You don't know why, on the entire page,
8
those three have the words "not in file" written
9
next to them and checkmarks next to them?
980
No . I notice, over the next page, number 25
10
A.
11
has a checkmark beside it but "not in file" is not
12
written on it . So I don't see any connection .
13
Q . Well that's "90-day Toxicity Study on
14
Glucose Fructose Syrups"?
15
A . Well, I think that's a good example of
16
showing the people were wrong . I said the only
17
thing the bio division was doing was smoke
18
studies .
19
Q.
20
21
Right . But that's in the file, huh?
A . Well, 319 is not a smoke study either .
Q . Would you mind telling me why -- who
22
are Thompkins and Thornloe? Do you know, who are
23
the authors?
24
A . They were some -- they were some of the
25
people that were let go in the '70 incident .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Q . Are they still around, alive? Do you
1
2
know?
3
A . I don't know .
4
5
981
Q . How about -- well, Thompkins also did
number 15 .
6
Now, do you know why Reynolds is
7
researching an attempt to establish a simple
procedure for determination of a drug's addicting
9
10
properties?
A . I have no idea, sir .
11
Q . Do you know why smoking's exposure
12
studies from E .R . Fluck -- where's Fluck these
13
days? Do you know? E . R . Fluck?
14
A . He left -- he actually wasn't in the group
15
that left in 1970 ; he had already left . He had
16
done some work on ciliastasis, but I don't know
17
whether that's what it refers to or not .
18
Q . Where is he now?
19
A . I have no idea . I mean, you're talking 27
20
years ago, sir .
21
Q . Well I -- I just was -- so you have no
22
idea why those three studies are not in the file .
23
A . Well, I don't know what you call by "in the
24
file" and in whose file or --
25
Q . Who would know where those studies
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
982
r
1
are?
2
A . I think the first place to check was with
3
Reynolds' library .
4
I
see . And where are the -- you think
5
the originals would be in the library?
6
A . I would assume so .
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Q . They'd still be there, right?
A . They should be .
MR . SHELLER : Could I have them
produced, please?
MR . McDERMOTT : Document production
has long since ended .
MR . SHELLER : We only found these
14
boxes six weeks ago, and we had to go -- and only
15
had them delivered a couple of weeks ago . And we
16
need to -- we can't get production of things we
17
don't know about . We didn't know this witness had
18
this material .
19
•
Q.
MR . MCDERMOTT : This material has
20
nothing to do with the underlying studies, which
21
have been available . Document production has
22
concluded . If you want to make a request to
23
Mr . Belasic -- I'm not the regular attorney in
24
this case . Put it in writing and give it to him,
25
and we'll respond .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 983
MR . SHELLER :
Okay .
MR . McDERMOTT : But we don't engage in
document production exercises in a third-party
witness deposition .
MR . SHELLER : All right . At this
point I'm going to let Mr . Maistros go forward,
and I will press the issue with Mr . Belasic and
see if we have to -MR . McDERMOTT : All right . Let me
10
raise a question, and you have me at a bit of
11
disadvantage here .
MR . SHELLER : I know, you wanted to
12
13
leave at 4 :30 .
MR . McDERMOTT : No . That's -- that's
14
15
not a problem . I'm not going to raise my schedule
16
as a barrier to your going forward .
Ordinarily, when two attorneys
17
18
question, one questions and completes his
19
questioning and the other begins, and that ends
20
it, and you don't do tag-team, switching back and
21
forth .
MR . SHELLER : Oh . I'm finished with
22
23
Dr . Rodgman .
MR . McDERMOTT : Has that practice not
24
251 been observed in this case? I just want to know
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
what -- sequential testing . Jack is coming
2
back - MR . SHELLER : Yes . And I'm not going
3
4
to be questioning again .
MR . McDERMOTT : That doesn't precisely
5
6
respond to my question . Mr . Maistros, having had
7
his turn at bat, does he get another turn at bat?
MR . SHELLER : No . He's not going to
8
9
984
repeat anything that I've repeated .
MR . McDERMOTT : That is not my
10
11
question either . Does he get a second opportunity
12
to question under the protocol that you all been
13
following --
14
MR . SHELLER : It's not a second
15
opportunity . Don't play games now, Mr . McDermott .
16
We -- to let me question because I wanted to get a
17
few hours - and I said it to the judge's law
18
clerk - and that Mr . Maistros would then continue .
19
And I said it to the judge's law clerk . And I
20
told that to you, that I only wanted a few hours .
21
MR . McDERMOTT : Are you representing
22
to me, on the record, that has been the practice
23
in this case, that the attorney first questioning
24
is then followed by the second attorney, the
25
second lead attorney designated under the case
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
985
1
management order, and then the first attorney gets
2
to return and ask additional questions?
MR . SHELLER : It depends on the
3
4
situation . We've already done this before, by the
5
way .
6
MR . MAISTROS : We have done this on
7
numerous occasions . I don't know why it was
8
agreed to and I wasn't a party to it, but it's
9
happened at, I would guess, more than half the
10
11
depositions that I attended .
THE WITNESS : I thought there were
12
only supposed to be two, if I may stick in my ore .
13
Now you're the third .
14
MR . McDERMOTT : On the strength of
15
your representation that this sort of
16
switching-off has taken place before, I will
17
permit you to continue, but without prejudice
18
the ability of my partner, who is not here and who
19
is not reachable, Mr . Belasic, to raise objection
20
to this procedure and deem the deposition closed
21
as of this point . But I will not -- I will not
22
stop things, for the moment .
23
to
MR . BLANCATO : I would like to go
24
ahead, while you're moving, Mr . Sheller, and put
25
something on the record about the discussion
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
objection that I raised this morning and that
2
Mr . McDermott raised this morning based on
3
pretrial order number one, joint case
4
management --
5
6
COURT REPORTER : I'm sorry, I can't
hear you . Based on what?
7
8
MS . BRACHTL : Rustling the paper is
extremely distracting .
9
•
MR . BLANCATO : I'm sorry . Based on
10
pretrial order number one, joint case management
11
plan entered in the Arch case, particularly
12
paragraph roman numeral VI-D-1, which said that :
13
(Reading)
Each side shall
14
15
designate not more than two
16
attorneys to take the lead in
17
conducting the examination of
18
the deponent .
19
It's my position and, I believe,
20
Mr . McDermott's position that Mr . J . D . Lee was
21
the first attorney to be designated to take the
22
lead in questioning this case, and that
23
Mr . Maistros was the second, and that Mr . Sheller
24
25
986
Ln
~
was therefore the third and, under the terms of ~
m
this order, should not have been permitted to ~
N
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
•
987
question the witness .
We've made a telephone call to the
3
judge's chambers, learned that the judge is on
4
vacation, and spoke with his law clerks, who
5
recommended that Mr . Sheller be allowed to go
6
forward . We agreed to abide that recommendation
7
and not disturb the judge on his vacation . But I
8
want to make it clear that, by agreeing to that
9
recommendation or allowing -- following that
10
recommendation by the law clerk, I don't waive any
11
objection to the procedure you followed here
12
today . And it's my position that your questioning
13
was improper under the orders governing this case .
14
MS . BRACHTL : This is Martis Brachtl,
15
for the record . I need to make a statement while
16
we are at this transition point .
17
We cross-noticed this deposition in
18
the New York action . It's 4 :30 . It's my
19
understanding that the Arch deposition will not
20
finish today, and we, in New York, have not been
21
able to ask any questions, and we will do so when
22
you let us know the date to resume the deposition .
23
Th an k you .
,
~
-J
24
MS . EASON :
May
I
also
make
a
r
m
Ob
~
25 statement for the record, that I believe that the m
w
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
Perry case preceded your case .
MS . BRACHTL : So you're saying that
2
3
Perry should go before --
4
COURT REPORTER : I can't hear you .
5
MS . EASON : Mr . Lee had designated the
6
Perry case for his case before your intervention .
7
I think that, even though he's not present, you
8
probably need to discuss with him if he has any
9
questions and if he would like to reconvene for
10
Perry .
MR . McDERMOTT : All right . Let me put
11
12
•
988
in my two cents worth once again .
As far as I'm concerned, the Arch
13
14
deposition is going to conclude today . And I will
15
leave it to negotiations with my partner,
16
Mr . Belasic, if he wishes to permit a
17
continuation . And, of course, I can't speak for
18
Dr . Rodgman or his counsel .
Plaintiffs in Arch have had more than
19
20
ample opportunity to explore any relevant issues
21
they wished, and they've spent some time doing
22
that, other time in ways that we can quibble
23
about
.
Ln
J
F4
24
•
25
Be that as it may, as far as I'm m
~
concerned, this deposition in Arch will be ~
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
concluded as of the end of today, subject to
2
Mr . Belasic having a kinder review of things .
3
We've had three attorneys . The thir d
4
attorney has completed his examination, and we're
5
now going back to number two . This is highly
6
irregular and quite protracted .
98 9
MS . BRACHTL : Regardless of what
8
happens in the Arch case, whether it finishes
9
today or doesn't finish today, it's clear that
10
New York won't get to go today . So we'll talk to
11
you about another date .
12
THE'WITNESS : I want to go home . I
13
mean, I've been here for four days, listening to
14
all this stuff . Do I have a say in this ?
15
16
MR . McDERMOTT : Would you like to
confer with your counsel ?
17
MR . BLANCATO : Let's take a break .
18
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
19
record at 4 :30 p .m .
20
2 1
22
0
(Recess taken from 4 :30 p .m . to 4 :3 9
p .m . )
VIDEOGRAPHER : This is tape 6 of the Ln
23
videotape deposition of Alan Rodgman, Ph .D . We're
24
going back on the record at 4 :39 p .m .
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
or.
CO
cn
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
990
I
EXAMINATION (Continued)
1
2
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q.
3
4
Dr . Rodgman, how are you?
A . I'm tired .
5
Q . I'll try not to be duplicative of
6
either my previous questions or Mr . Sheller's
7
questions . I'm sure I'11 be reminded, if I am .
I'd like to mention a couple of
8
9
topics, first of all,
and ask you if -- what your
10
knowledge is of these topics, okay?
11
A . Yes, sir .
Q . You ever hear of a project called
12
13
Project RAN, R-A-N?
14
A .
15
16
17
Yes .
Q . What was Project RAN?
A . Reduced Ames numbers .
S2 •
What does that mean?
18
A . Well, in the test for mutagenicity, they --
19
what is used is the test that was developed in
20
1973 by Dr . Bruce Ames, and it was used to test
21
the mutagenicity of compounds . And, for a while,
22
it was thought to be a -- an alternative to
vn
23
24
•
25
lung -- large-scale lung -- running biological H~
m
studies, but there wasn't a complete coordinatioi,p .
00
m
or relationship between mutagenicity and
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
991
r
1
tumorigenicity . But it's a way to get a result on
2
something very quickly ; it takes a week or less
3
than -- I never ran it ; Dr . Chin Lee did all that
4
work in-house .
5
And there was a project to develop a
6
cigarette whose smoke condensate showed reduced
7
Ames numbers . And the Ames numbers are usually
8
proportional to some of the components in the
9
tobacco smoke .
10
11
Q . What was that project?
A . Pardon?
Q . What was the project that you
12
13
mentioned? You said there was a project to
14
develop a cigarette .
15
A .
16
Q . No, you said there was a project to
17
develop a cigarette with reduced --
18
A . R-A-N was the project .
19
Q . That was to develop a cigarette
20
with -- with reduced --
21
A . Well, it was a -- the -- yes . It was to
22
develop a cigarette with reduced Ames numbers, and ;
23
it was called Project RAN .
24
•
R-A-N .
25
Q . What was the name of the actual
cigarette that was developed?
WAGA & SPINELLI
J
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
A . I don't think there was one developed . If
2
there was -- if anything was developed, it was
3
probably incorporated in something I know nothing
4
about .
Most of that work - I don't know what
5
6
date you have on that - was started just about the
7
time I was leaving . It may have started in '86 .
8
It was not done in fundamental R & D -- in
9
fundamental research . And I believe a fellow
10
called Dr . William Rice was in charge of it .
Q.
11
•
Okay . Have you heard of Project XDU?
12
A . If I have, I don't -- I don't know it by
13
those initials . I mean, I don't know exactly what
14
it does or what it's supposed to do . I may have
15
heard of a project -- I don't know of an XDU .
16
Q.
Have you heard of Project R-E-S-T?
17
A . I have a feeling I should -- I've heard the
18
name someplace recently, but I couldn't tell you
19
what it does .
20
Q.
Reestablishment of solubles ; does that
21
ring a bell at all?
22
A . No, it doesn't ring a bell .
Q
23
24
•
992
25
A.
Have you heard of Project EW?
No .
Q . What was the Chemosol study?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
993
r
1
A . Oh, the Chemosol study . The Chemosol study
2
was based on a patent -- issued to a man called
3
Bindig, B-I-N-D-I-G, a German . He obtained
4
patents in Germany, Canada, and the United States .
5
And sometime in the late '60s, this patent was
6
issued in the United States, and some noted
7
government officials found out about this patent .
8
And what it involved, sir, was the
addition to tobacco of citric acid, which is
10
already in tobacco, dissolved in water containing
11
some deuterium oxide and -- heavy water .
12
Well, we had looked at the patent and
13
figured well, this is not going to do anything .
14
Because the amount of citric acid -- that's a very
15
plentiful component of tobacco ; it's about two and
16
a half/three percent of tobacco is citric acid .
17
And Bindig recommended adding enough citric acid
18
to the .tobacco to, say -- and here I'm just
19
picking a figure . Say it was 3 .00 percent citric
20
acid, that when you put what he recommended, it
21
would be 3 .002 . And the amount of deuterium oxide
22
he recommended adding was like doubling the water
23
that comes out of your tap at home . And this
24
Chemosol additive was supposed to reduce the
25
tumorigenicity of cigarette smoke condensate to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
J
N
m
Vol . 5, Pg . 994
mice, and the benz -- polycyclic hydrocarbon
content of the smoke .
We -- I looked at it, from my
background, and said to management : It isn't
going to do a darn thing . Philip Morris' people
looked at it, they told their management it isn't
going to do a darn thing . American's people
looked at it, Lorillard, and so on . But these
three very powerful individuals in the government
10
said : You will do it .
And at a cost of three years' time and
11
12
several million dollars, Reynolds made the
13
cigarettes with Chemosol people standing there,
14
watching how the cigarettes were made .
The animal work was done, which takes
15
16
about two years . The chemistry was done on the
17
smoke with regard to polycyclic hydrocarbons,
18
principally benzo[alpyrene .
And, here, I've
19
forgotten the exact numbers,
but there was one
20
mouse difference between the control and the
21
Chemosol-treated cigarette,
22
experimental error, because you could have a
23
difference of three and not make a difference .
which is within
The benzpyrene difference was
24
0 251 micrograms per gram of condensate versus
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
.84
.83,
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
995
which is an experimental error .
Now, this is all written up by James
2
3
Gargis in a reputable journal . He did all the
4
work .
5
And the, of course, the high-powered
6
officials, as soon as they learned this -- their
7
aim was, if it had worked, they would buy the
8
patent from Bindig and charge the tobacco industry
9
royalties . And of course, when it didn't work,
10
11
the whole thing dropped .
And if you're wondering who one of the
12
major proponents of it is, it was Hubert H .
13
Humphrey . The father of the man pushing Minnesota
14
all over the place, from the tobacco company .
15
And you may say : Well how does Alan
16
Rodgman know this? In 1968 or '69, when this
17
started, the monitoring of this whole experiment
18
was done by Dr . Eldon Nielson . And when he left
19
in -- Reynolds, late in 1970, I was assigned to
20
take his place on the monitoring committee, which
21
included Dr . Robert Carpenter from Philip Morris
22
and Dr . Preston Leake from American Tobacco
23
Company, and myself replacing Dr . Nielson .
24
25
And after Gargis published his work,
the Chemosol people had enough nerve to say :
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
i
Vol . 5, Pg .
996
r
1
Well, the cigarettes weren't made properly . And
2
they stood there and watched every step of the
3
preparation . And the Reynolds factory is just up
4
the street from here . And agreed that everything
5
was done properly .
Q . Let me show you what's been marked as
6
7
Exhibit 16 .
8
9
MR . MAISTROS : I don't know if there's
a quick way to pull that or not .
10
MR . HOLTON : This is -- this is not in
11
those boxes . This was produced by Reynolds . So
12
we need to make copies .
13
MR . MAISTROS : Well, while you're
14
doing it, then, please make this one as well . I
15
have two of this, if that's enough . You want
16
more?
17
18
19
20
21
MR . McDERMOTT : Yeah, let's make a
couple of copies .
MR . MAISTROS : Let me put a sticker on
it, first, Mark .
(Plaintiff's Exhibits Numbered 15 and
Ln
22
23
!
16 were marked for identification)
BY MR . MAISTROS :
24
Q . While they're making those copies, if
25
you wouldn't mind browsing -- let me see if -- if
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
997
r
1
that's the -- that will be the next one . Maybe we
2
can save some time if you read it now :
3
(Witness reviews document)
4
The document I've marked as Exhibit
5
16, is it not?
6
A.
Yes .
7
8
Q . It's dated January 4th, 1978?
A .
Right .
9
10
Q .
A .
to
you?
Yes .
11
12
It's
Q . And it's from a D . H . Piehl?
A .
Dr . Donald Piehl .
Q . Who was Dr . Piehl?
13
14
A . He was manager of the chemical research
15
division .
16
Q . What was your title on January 4th of
17
1978?
18
A . Director of research .
19
Q . And take a minute to look at this
20
document . Do you recall receiving this document
21
on or about January 4th of 1978?
22
A . Yes, I -- yes, I did, sir .
23
24
Q . And is this a document that appears to
~
be a complete and accurate copy of the document °~°
w
251 you received on or about January 4th of 1978?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A . I assume so . Page numbers seem to be all
2
right .
998
Q . And was this document kept by you in
3
4
the ordinary course of business as an employee of
5
Reynolds?
6
A . I don't know whether I kept it in my file or
7
not . I really don't know . I've forgotten if I
8
did .
Q . What do you mean by your file? You
10
mean in those six boxes over there?
11
A . Yeah -- no . I don't think it was in those
12
boxes . It may have been, but I don't think it
13
was .
14
Q . But, you do recall receiving this
15
document on or about January 4th of '78?
16
A . Yes . I mean, I wouldn't swear to the date,
17
but I remember seeing this before .
18
Q .
What is the objective that Dr . Piehl
19
advises you that he had in '77/'78?
20
A . This is the taste of nicotine, the tar and
21
nicotine ratios . Those ones, you mean?
22
Q . What is the stated objective,
23
underneath "Objective"?
24
A . (Reading)
The ultimate goal of
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
this research is to provide
2
the means to maximize smoker
3
satisfaction for all Reynolds
4
cigarette brands, with
5
particular emphasis on low
6
"tar" cigarettes .
999
Q . And then the four specific objectives
7
8
that he lists below there . First one is :
9
(Reading)
Determine the taste
10
11
characteristics of nicotine
12
in factors that affect its
perception .
What's the second objective of head of
15
chemical research at RJR in 1978?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
16
17
the question .
THE WITNESS : I didn't understand you,
18
19
sir .
20
BY MR . MAISTROS :
21
Q•
Well, I'm reading below the heading
m Specific '77/'78 objectives," correct?
22
that says
23
A . Right .
24
25
Q . What's the second listed '77/'78
objective by Dr . Piehl, manager of chemical
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1000
research at RJR?
2
A . (Reading)
3
Determine the means to
4
alter and control "tar" and
5
nicotine ratio and increase
6
nicotine transfer efficiency .
8
nicotine transfer efficiency"?
9
A . Well -- I'd have to read this again . I
10
don't
.
Q . It's on the second page .
11
(Witness reviews document)
12
13
A . I assume that's what he meant, is what he
14
wrote there . On page 2, item 2 .
Q . On the second page, Dr . Piehl goes
15
16
into some detail explaining what he means by
17
nicotine transfer efficiency?
18
A .
19
meant because that's what he wrote .
20
Yes . I assume -- I assume that's what he
Q . What's the first paragraph, second
21
sentence say underneath that?
22
A . First paragraph?
23
24
0
What did Dr . Piehl mean by "increase
Q
7
25
Q . If you could just read slower for the
court reporter .
A . (Reading)
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
It has been demonstrated
1
2
that blending alone can
3
greatly alter T/N ratio,
4
while, to date, other
5
techniques such as adding
6
nicotine or other additives
7
have been less expedient .
8
9
department -- or the chemical department doing in
'77/'78, that related to adding of nicotine?
11
A . I think they're shown on page 3 . And the
. .
Q . Why was RJR doing research in '77/'78
13
with respect to adding nicotine to tobacco?
14
A . Well, a lot of this was experimental . I
15
don't know whether -- I'm pretty sure it was never
16
included in a product . But I guess he wanted to
17
see how it behaved under different circumstances .
18
•
Q . What research was the chemistry
10
12
1001
Q . Do you know what the "Reynolds' number
19
one cigarette" is? It's referred to on the third
20
page, second paragraph .
21
A . Which paragraph, sir?
22
Q . Third page, second paragraph . Last
23
line refers to "Reynolds' number one cigarette"
24
A . No, I don't know what that is .
25
Q . Are you suggesting that, in 1978, the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
only addition of nicotine that Reynolds was doing
2
to its tobacco was experimental?
3
A . As far as I know .
1002
This was about the same time as the
4
5
thing I mentioned yesterday to you, was when
6
people like Dr . Russell in England and Dr . Jarvik
7
here - maybe it was this morning I mentioned it were recommending leaving the nicotine alone and
9
reducing the tar, or reducing the tar and
10
increasing the nicotine . And that was discussed
11
by him at the Banbury Conference in 1979, which
12
was published in 1980 .
And, subsequently, there were problems
13
14
with consumer acceptance or test paneling of such
15
prototypes . And as far as I know, we dropped
16
them .
17
Q . And the third objective listed on the
18
first page says what?
19
A . (Reading)
Define the optimum
20
21
nicotine level in cigarette
22
smoke required to maximize
23
smoker satisfaction .
24
Determine the existence of a
25
minimum or a threshold value
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
of nicotine required for
2
satisfaction .
Q.
3
Was
1003
Dr . Piehl advising you of this
4
objective to get your approval or just to advise
5
you of what he was doing?
6
A . He was just telling me what -- some of the
7
things they were looking at that would run from
8
'77 into '78, possibly .
Q . And do you know if Dr . Piehl carried
0
10
these studies forward, that is, to determine the
11
minimum or threshold value of nicotine required
12
for satisfaction?
13
A . I really don't remember it . But, you know --
14
but, you know, if he did, I'm sure there's a
15
report on it .
16
Q . On the fourth page of this document,
17
do you see where he is listing the -- it's under
18
the heading "Optimum and Threshold Nicotine
19
Values" . The heading is on the previous page .
MR . McDERMOTT : I'm sorry, where are
20
21
you?
22
MR . MAISTROS : On page 3, he's got the ~
~
~
23
heading "Optimum and Threshold Nicotine Values," m
24
but it caries over to page 4 on the second
25
paragraph .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . He states that : (Reading)
The preliminary data
3
4
above apparently reveal an
5
optimum nicotine value of
6
.12 milligrams per puff .
7
These results should be
8
regarded as unconfirmed at
9
this point . However, it is
10
of interest to speculate,
11
since the value for Winston
12
has usually been over
13
.15 milligrams puff and the
14
value for Marlboro
15
.13 milligrams puff or less .
16
Were you aware in 1977/'78 that Dr . Piehl
17
was doing that research?
18
A . I'm sure I was . I notice, on the preceding
19
page, they were talking about the consumer study,
20
and I was trying to think of where that was
21
conducted . It wasn't in Winston . It was
22
someplace else .
23
1004
Q . Do you know if consumer studies were
24
done, subsequent to this period of time, to
25
determine the minimum nicotine values that were
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
l
Vol . 5, Pg .
1005
1
acceptable to consumers?
2
A . They may have, sir . I don't remember them .
3
I think that's one of the things that
4
everything -- this is '78, of course ; a couple of
5
years went by, we were into 1980, and the whole
6
R & D thing got changed around and things were
7
dropped . Don Piehl became a director . And I
8
really don't remember some of this work, if it was
9
done .
Q . When you would do -- did you do,
10
11
yourself, consumer tests with test cigarettes?
12
A.
13
most of my work was in the chemical end . I was
14
trying to think .
15
No . I -- when I was involved experimentally,
You might say it was sort of test
16
paneling, consumer testing, is when we were
17
looking at the substitutes, the Sutton smoking
18
material, as I mentioned before and the -- we had
19
a problem with some of our test panels who are --
20
people who had become very perceptive to tobacco
21
smoke . And they really couldn't tell us much on
22
tobacco substitutes, particularly when the
23
cigarette was a hundred percent . They didn't know
24
what to look for .
25
And so we had some small groups that
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1006
I
•
1
we sort of trained, they were in-house groups, to
2
test substitutes .
3
4
5
•
That's really the only one I was
involved with in the Sutton smoking material .
We had supposedly bought a finished
6
product, but we really ended up having a year-long
7
research exercise to improve it and get the right
8
formulation for the Sutton thing . And so we had
9
to keep testing it and changing the manufacturing
10
process . And I had about six or eight people that
11
did all that . That was -- but they were all
12
in-house people, not external .
13
14
Q . Could you look at page 4, at the
bottom . Dr . Piehl states : (Reading)
It has also usually been
15
•
16
assumed that smoke pH
17
determined "free nicotine"
18
content of the smoke, and it
19
is calculated on that basis .
20
However, recent evidence
21
suggests that "free nicotine"
22
in the mouth is determined by
23
the pH of the smoker's
24
saliva .
25
Do you know if any work was done,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
subsequent to this date, to either verify or
2
confirm that hypotheses?
3
A . I think -- and this -- we went through this
4
with Mr . O'Fallon . That there's a report by
5
Dr . Rix on this subject -- at least it's also in
6
the report by Dr . Rix, that it was done with some
7
experiments in which human saliva was tested with
8
nicotine salts . And the saliva -- the pH of the
9
saliva is the controlling factor, not the pH in
10
11
•
the smoke or anything like that .
Q . In this same period of time, wasn't
12
Reynolds doing other testing to determine how to
13
increase the ability of the nicotine to transfer
14
into the human respiratory system?
15
A . If it was, I don't remember it .
16
1007
Q . Do you know what I mean by -- do you
17
have a specific understanding of what Dr . Piehl
18
meant by "nicotine transfer efficiency," separate
19
and apart from this memo you just read?
20
A . Yes . It's -- tobacco has a, you know,
21
certain level of nicotine in it and -- for
22
example, in -- just taking a one-gram tobacco
23
cigarette, if it's got two and a half percent
24
nicotine in it, that means you've got
25
25 milligrams of nicotine in the tobacco . And,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1008
1
normally, maybe 1 .5 milligrams of that would end
2
up in the mainstream smoke and maybe twice that in
3
sidestream smoke, and the rest of it's destroyed .
And so the transfer is, say -- one and
4
5
a half milligrams from 25 is the transfer rate of
6
nicotine from -- to tobacco to the mainstream
7
smoke .
Now, one of the things that could
8
9
possibly be involved in some of these things that
10
we were doing that, when you puff tobacco, the
11
nicotine level goes down in the puffed tobacco ;
12
which, at some -- at one point, was 15/16 percent
13
of the blend . So, actually, your total nicotine
14
in the tobacco blend is down .
Then, when you increase the level of
15
16
reconstituted tobacco sheet, the total nicotine in
17
the overall blend goes down . And to -- if you had
18
been making a cigarette, for example, that
19
delivered 1 .3 or 1 .5, whatever number you were
20
looking for, and you ended up having, say -- in
21
one case had 25 milligrams of nicotine in the
22
tobacco, and the other you had 20, well, if you Ln~
23
~
increased the transfer rate, you could keep m
24
n i cot i ne
~
OD
251
Q .
i n th e smo k e
at the same level .
Okay . Let's start, first, the
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
~
Vol . 5, Pg .
•
1
principle that expanded tobacco has the effect of
2
reducing the nicotine content of the tobacco .
3
A . It does .
4
5
6
Q . Before it's burned, correct?
A . Before it's burned .
Q . And Reynolds had to develop a means to
7
compensate for that reduction of nicotine, did
8
they not?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
MR . MaDERMOTT : Object to the form .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . In the reconstituted tobacco .
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question .
THE WITNESSs Are you suggesting they
added nicotine to the -BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Well, I don't want to limit it to
18
adding nicotine, because no one's going to admit
19
that, I'm sure .
20
21
1009
What I'm looking at is did Reynolds
engage in other processes whereby the nicotine
F-A
1J
22
that was lost during the expansion process could
23
be regained by some other process later on?
24
A . Not that I know of . As I say, I think I just
25
explained it, that -- by increasing the transfer
N
m
0
CO
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
N
Ln
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
rate, you could make less nicotine in the tobacco
2
behave as it had before .
3
4
Q . That -- that's much more accurately
worded than I attempted .
You have less nicotine in the tobacco ;
5
6
but, because you increase the transfer rate, the
7
exact same amount of nicotine enters the human
8
system, correct?
9
A . Yeah -- pretty well . I mean, you could --
10
you could arrange it that way . I don't recall
11
that it was actually
12
•
ever done that way, but
.
Q . When the tobacco is expanded, and
13
before the tobacco is burned, there's less
14
nicotine, correct?
15
A . Right .
16
1010
Q . After the tobacco is burned, expanded
17
tobacco, didn't Reynolds have to devise a method
18
whereby the end product in the human system
19
remained some sort of constant to the pre-expanded
20
tobacco?
21
A . Well, you've got to remember one thing, that
22
expanded tobacco was not the whole blend . You had
23
unexpanded tobacco in the blend . So you're not
24
looking at a great difference of the total --
25
total nicotine in the tobacco -- as I say, it
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 1011
might -- we've reconstituted tobacco sheet,
juggling it and so on .
(Ms . Eason leaves deposition)
MR . MAISTROS : Let me show you what
I've marked as Exhibit 17 .
(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 17 was
marked for identification)
MR . McDERMOTT : Let me ask a question
here . I see that counsel for Lorillard in another
10
case has just left . This is marked as
11
confidential under the Arch protective order . Is
12
the -- is the practice to type up this portion of
13
the transcript separately and not circulate it to
14
counsel for other defendants, or what? I'm not
15
sure how you all have been treating confidential
16
documents .
MR . MAISTROS : Let me keep this short ;
17
18
we're running out of time . Protocol has been :
19
You decide what you want to do, run it by Belasic,
20
he calls us and we sign off on it . Whatever
21
the -- the defendant's desire has been .
22
MR . McDERMOTT : All right .
23
MR . HOLTON : Is that part of the
24
review -
251
WAGA
MR . MAISTROS : I'm not sure it's part
&
SPINELLI
1
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1012
1
of it ; it's just as a courtesy . I have
2
represented that I will not share a deposition, my
3
notes, the transcript, anything till that's
4
resolved .
MR . McDERMOTT : All right, we'll take
5
6
it up with Mark, so we don't waste time here .
7
He'll get back in contact with you .
8
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . Exhibit 17, which I've showed you, is
9
10
dated January 30th, 1978?
11
A . Uh-huh .
12
Q . It's Bates stamped on the right
13
508880315 through 508880316, correct? And there
14
is a -- in between, a 3158 that somebody wrote on
15
in handwriting . Do you see that?
16
A .
17
Yeah .
Q . Now, it appears as though, on my copy
18
at least, the way it was produced, that pages 1, 2
19
and then a page in the middle was just reversed ;
20
it should be at the end .
21
A . Yes .
22
Q . Would you agree, though, that this
23
appears to be a complete three-page document of
24
report authored by Thomas Perfetti and Lawrence
25
Hayes, and --
WAGA & SPINELLI
a
(201) 992-4111
Ln
H
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
A.
Right .
Q . -- copied to you?
2
3
A . Right .
Q . And do you recall receiving this
4
5
report on or about January 26th of 1978?
6
A . I really don't . But if my name was on there
7
I probably did .
Q . And again, at this point in time you
8
9
1013
had supervisory responsibility over both Perfetti
10
and Hayes, correct?
11
A . Right .
Q . Is there any relationship between
12
13
Lawrence Hayes and Wallace Hayes?
14
A .
15
No .
Q.
What does the summary of this report,
16
which you were copied on state, on the first page?
17
A .
(Reading)
Chemically-bonded
18
19
ammonia as the pectate amide
20
and nicotine as the pectate
21
salt into ammoniated
22
reconstituted sheet should
23
improve the nicotine transfer
24
and flavor of RJR tobacco
25
products .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 1014
Q . Were you aware, that on or about this
date, that Perfetti and Hayes were working on
improving the nicotine transfer and flavor of RJR
tobacco products through the use of ammoniated
reconstituted tobacco?
A . I knew they were working on it . This was the
time we were -- I believe, around the time we were
working on the ammoniation of our reconstituted
tobacco sheet and -- in an attempt to see if we
10
could figure out why Marlboro was doing so good --
11
so well .
12
•
Q . Did you agree that -- and I'll read
on the first
13
from -- I'm reading from the document
14
page, underneath "Memorandum" . Fourth line :
15
(Reading)
It is known that ammonia
16
17
is used to break down the
18
pectin in tobacco .
Is that a generally known principle in
19
20
January of '78?
21
A . Well, that was the -- the basis -- somewhat
22
the basis for the Philip Morris patent, except Ln
J
H
23
they use ammonium phosphate not ammonium gas or m
A
00
24
aqueous ammonia .
So
it
had
been
known
for
W
~
9 251 some time, you know, since 1967 .
WAGA
&
SPINELLI
(201)
992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
Was it known by you and others at RJR
1
2
that : (Reading)
It is believed that
3
4
pectin chemically binds the
5
ammonia and available
6
nicotine as the amide and
7
nicotinic salt -- I'm
8
sorry -- amide and pectin
9
chemically binds the ammonia
10
and available nicotine as the
11
amide and nicotinic salt,
12
respectively?
13
A . Well, that was a theory . I don't know
14
whether you know what a CIM is .
15
Q .
What's
a
CIM?
16
A . It's a conception of invention memorandum .
17
And what it is, is a -- an idea that Lawrence
18
Hayes and Tom Perfetti had to -- as sort of an
19
outline of a possible invention .
And if you notice, there's a lot of
20
and "it is believed" and so on in this .
21
°mays,"
22
What they're saying is : Is this possible and
23
should we look at it?
24
25
1015
Q . Why was Reynolds interested, in '78,
in creating an invention or a patent related to
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1016
1
enhancing nicotine transfer?
2
A . Well, it may -- it may have been -- these are
3
individual concepts, sir, that, whether Reynolds
4
was interested in this or not, had no bearing on
5
the fact that Thomas Perfetti and Lawrence Hayes
6
made this proposal . Whether we were seeking a
7
method of this or not, I don't know .
8
9
But there were a lot of times -- if
you look at the conception of invention
10
memorandum, there were a lot of things that were
11
proposed over the years, and some of them Reynolds
12
had never expected (sic) an interest in . I think,
13
if you look through the list -- in fact, somebody,
14
one time, suggested : Hey, we should have colored
15
cigarettes, orange and pink and so on, to match
16
the ladies wardrobe . Well, Reynolds never
17
expressed an interest in that . Somebody just
18
thought it might be a good idea and proposed it .
19
Q . And was the underlying premise of such
20
an invention, or a potential invention, that,
21
because of the process used to make reconstituted
22
tobacco, you lost some of the nicotine?
23
24
25
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . No foundation .
THE WITNESS : Well -- say that again,
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
3
•
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . I'm trying to figure out why -- what
was the premise behind the desire to figure out a
5
method to increase nicotine transfer . Would --
6
A . Well, as I say -- as far as I know, any time
7
you ammoniate the tobacco, whether it be sheet
8
or -- or tobacco itself, like burley or
9
flue-cured, you lose ammonia -- lose nicotine .
10
And I say again that, if you do that, you get an
11
acceptable reconstituted tobacco sheet that's
12
ammoniated . If you -- that has lost nicotine
13
if -- there's a possibility the ammonia will help
14
in increasing the transfer of nicotine and
15
maintain it at what it had been before you lost
16
the nicotine .
Q . Earlier, I got into this in some
18
detail with you .
19
the purposes of expanding tobacco was to reduce
20
the end compounds that were produced during the
21
smoking process, correct?
22
A . Yes .
23
•
sir . I'm sorry .
4
17
1017
. But you explained that one of
Q . At least in so far as nicotine was
24
concerned, although the nicotine content of the
25
tobacco itself may have been reduced as a result
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
of the expansion process, wasn't it the goal of
2
Reynolds to make certain that the nicotine that
3
ended up in the human system was not reduced?
MR . McDERMOTT : Object to the form of
4
5
1018
the question . No foundation .
THE WITNESS : Well, I guess all I can
6
7
go -- say about that is, if -- when you go back to
8
when we introduced expanded tobacco - it was in
9
'68/'69, sometime around there, the cigarette was
10
made - it was the Winston - with about ten or --
11
eight to ten percent expanded tobacco . And
12
nothing was ever done at that point to either
13
increase the transfer of nicotine or to add
14
nicotine . They just sold the product and people
15
bought it .
16
17
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . And is it your testimony -- if you
18
know, was anything similar done, such as the
19
ammoniation process, to increase the transfer of
20
nicotine from '68 to the present?
21
A . Well, as I -- as I said, ammoniation usually
22
reduces the nicotine, and it also increases the
23
transfer . So if you've lost nicotine and
24
increased the transfer, you may have offset some
25
of the effect of the loss .
WAGA & SPINELLI
1
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1019
Here again, I have no idea that -- you
1
2
know, if you lost a small percentage -- dropped
3
the nicotine in the tobacco from two and a half to
4
two percent, whether the ammonia would drive
5
enough nicotine over to make up for what it -- was
6
lost . There's a possibility it could ; but there's
7
a possibility it wouldn't, either .
Q . Does the FTC testing method, that
8
9
10
you've discussed previously, measure the nicotine
content of the tobacco smoke?
11
12
13
MR . MeDERMOTT : Object to the form of
the question . Asked and answered .
BY MR . MAISTROS :
Q . It does, doesn't it? In some fashion
14
15
it measures the nicotine content?
16
A . Right .
Q . Does it measure the transfer
17
18
capabilities of the nicotine?
19
A.
20
tobacco . You got to analyze the tobacco in the
21
mainstream smoke if you want to figure out the
22
transfer rate .
23
24
No . Because they don't ever analyze the
MR . BLANCATO : Dr . Rodgman, it's about
5 :20 . You said you want to go to about 5 :15 .
If
251 you'd like to go a little longer, it's up to you .
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
2
1020
THE WITNESS : Do you want to finish
this one?
3
MR . MAISTROS : Let me ask you this .
4
Your answer is what your answer is ; we'll debate
5
it with Belasic later . Are we stopping at 5 :15
6
because of the witness' desires or because counsel
7
believes we should stop?
8
9
MR . BLANCATO : No . Dr . Rodgman just
blurted out, before the last break, he's going to
10
go to 5 :15, and that's the first I heard of it .
11
It's really up to the witness .
12
13
14
THE WITNESS : I mean, I've been here
four days .
MR . MAISTROS : I understand . I'm not
15
going to debate it, because it's not going to
16
accomplish anything ; the judge isn't here . I will
17
say on the record that there are numerous
18
documents I'd like to go through with this
19
witness, have them identified, try to get a
20
stipulation that they're business records, and ask
21
him questions about . It will take longer than I'm
22
sure he's willing to sit here for the rest of the
23
day or evening to do . And I would --
24
25
MR . BLANCATO : How long do you think
it will take?
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg . 102 1
MR . MAISTROS : It's at least anothe r
1
2
day .
And I would request -- rather tha n
3
4
debate it here on the record, is we'll discuss it
5
with Belasic . The record is what it is, and
6
somebody wiser than me can decide .
I just want to note for the record
7
8
that there is previous testimony about how much
9
time he spent preparing for the deposition . I'm
10
sure you all agree he's an important witness . And
11
I think, if you take the total time of the Arch
12
examination as opposed to whoever was doing it
13
from Minnesota, including my time yesterday,
14
Steve's time today, Doctor -- or J . D . Lee's time,
15
that it's probably not as much as Minnesota's
16
time .
THE WITNESS : They took exactly te n
17
18
hours .
19
MR . MAISTROS : I'm guessing we're -
20
THE WITNESS : What are you on, tap e
21
what?
22
MR . MAISTROS : Close . Close .
23
THE WITNESS : So you're over te n
24
hours . And that doesn't count the hour and a half
25
that Mr . Lee --
WAGA & SPINELLI
i
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1022
r
MR . MAISTROS : It accomplishes nothing
1
2
by us debating it . But I am not done and I would
3
object if the position is going to be taken that
4
this is the end of the deposition . You've
5
preserved all your objections as to why it should
6
be .
7
8
9
VIDEOGRAPHER : We're going off the
record at 5 :24 p .m .
(Deposition adjourned at 5 :24 p .m .)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
JURAT
I, Alan Rodgman, Ph .D ., do hereby
2
3
certify that I have read the foregoing transcript
4
of my testimony, taken on Tuesday, August 5, 1997,
5
and have signed it subject to the following
6
changes :
7
1023
PAGE
LINE
CORRECTION
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
DATE :
22
Sworn and subscribed to before me on this
23
day of -----------------•
24
NOTARY PUBLIC
------------------------------
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
Vol . 5, Pg .
1
1024
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF YADKIN
2
3
4
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Linda N . Russell, a Notary Public in and
5
for the State of North Carolina, do hereby certify
6
that there came before me on Tuesday, August 5,
7
1997, the person hereinbefore named, who was by me
8
duly sworn to testify to the truth and nothing but
9
the truth of his knowledge concerning the matters in
10
controversy in this cause ; that the witness was
11
thereupon examined under oath, the examination
12
reduced to typewriting under my direction, and the
13
deposition is a true record of the testimony given
14
by the witness .
15
I further certify that I am neither
16
attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed
17
by, any attorney or counsel employed by the parties
18
hereto or financially interested in the action .
19
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my
20
hand and affixed my official notarial seal, this the
21
12th day of August 1997 .
22
~~.~y. e1e6 T
WIti.13C 5;?:I
23
24
N oth ~ r.rdina . Yadkin Cou
ELI .
LIN Notsry Pubsc
My Commfssbn Expl__ rex_ Q•~?
----------T -----I ------- -Linda N . Russell, Notary Public
My Commission Expires 8/25/97
25
WAGA & SPINELLI
(201) 992-4111
EXHIBITS
4
Arch, et al . vs . The American Tobacco Co ., et al.
Civil Action No. 96-5903-CN
4
As Attachment to Deposition of.•
ALAN RODGMAN, PH . D . Tuesday, August 5, 1997
(VOL . 5)
0
I
I
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit Nos . 1 - 17
PREPARED FOR :
MARTINL. HOLTON, III, ESQUIRE
PREPARED BY:
WAGA & SPINELLI.
FOUR BECKER FARM ROAD
ROSELAND, NEW .IERSEY 07068
Phone : (201) 992-4111
CONf1DE1-11 1 AL
njn°
Subject: 5.okin9-itealth Research ProOrIR
' Dete : April 16 . 1982
Alem RodpKan
J . A . Gtl es
F . 9 . Colby
C . it . Mystro+e
Tos Or . G . R, Dlrkrco
t
in response to your request, this .eoorandua outlines opportunities
for a substantial research proOrem related to the tookin and health
controversy . In the ekta, these are tn eddition to outs~de tndnstrrsporsored research (see Appendix A) end do not necessarily coestder
past 1lrftations .
Concerning the outside Industry- and RJR•sponsored reseerch the
following reco .meadattoas are ottered :
o, RJJtT ALO oersonael be more Intimately inrolved In decisions
VAapt, discussions end monitoring ef thtpr oQress of this
~Y!lbardh . tn the post, these activities Aave been ltatted
~ to R 1e9e1 personnel sad/or upper w ne9e .ent with 1t«tted
''••tlu~to devote to tbe saokinp•Meelth controversy .
Rf0 aersoanel be involved in the conteaplated euJor RJR
to fund iundiaental research on diseases alleged to be
ted to saokinq without, however, necesserily involvinQ
tn' as such .
Rt0 personnet be sore involved in the existing RJRirted pro0rAe on basic research adetnistration by Kessrs .
eier and tecon .
,_.._ _ . elopAent ot detailed reco~anendettons= t .e ., prol ect proposels/
wlthiri+iRMeElrort ttee tri .e is essentially impossibte because of the
bresdt/iq;,p*doinp bfoe~edtcel research which t•pects on the se~oktn9 and
hea)th~l[troYersy . The attached tables of contents froa the lest coeprehensiYfT~ir eon lienerai's Report (1979) illustrate this breadth .
of aress have beea identified which constitute gaps or
weekain the present state of knowled e . Eecb Is addressed below
with a<~;d~ stete~Kat ot background and t~e, pyerill thrust of research
~eor~t~. It~1s clear that soeu of this research could be eonducted tn-house,
ire facilities not presently on h :nd . Other areas will be
best addressed by tuadia9 competent outside researchers aad, providing
RJA tohnicel support as appropriate .
i
t
I
/
V
V
•
nPN /OnV eM-AMe,1pe
.. ..
r4AuwY/rra•~~C~~XH181T~
pwv[ ....~..~/A ]>
WiLLIAM C . L .AB0ROt
RCgIilTtRC• rRor• RCPORTtII
s
•2•
PROJECT AREA I1 :
The literature contains ewvr studies on animal (rouse skin, tnstil•
lation, Inhalation, etc .) tests of Individual s+noke components and/or
smoke lroctions, shacing positive or negative results with reference to
the so•called Initiation and/or pro.otion of earclnogenesls . 1fe propose
to test all knorm s .oke eoweonents (present above a certain Qusntitative
level~ for entl•earttao?enle ectivlty In one or sort general eerclnogenes s testing systems s
a) Initiation phase
b) prowtion phase, etc .
tw"
.(
,w n-;rr
::Zc A
~~
'"
~
~ _
,~a.
maan~
PROJECT ABE/l Itt
lbst of the titerature on chemical carctnogenests isqltcttly or
explictt suaes that results of experiments with a high level ef a
cheRlc~~r dsinp relatively few antalt, can be extrapolated to a
reei•1 e situttion . There is also to date unresolved controversy
r+bethe eAeral toxteolo4tul prtnctple that there is a threshold
level substance's biological action, does or does not apply to
carcinogenes s . therefore we propose standardized enial circtnoeeacsis
tests, tftereAt species, iRvolving different strength proups of
ehee~k tno9enf wet~ es 'strong' earelnogen~ s, "aediua• arciaoQens,
•n0 ret eas tetttnp e~xle~u . tolereted dou9es involving a
.oS anisa1=,1/(e levels of ax~ chemical entittes
~
i volvp~
n a=r ~~ue+bol=r
tSoee of tbe:e axpertants e~
pi~rrea underwn~r tl~rou~h see,e Oovern .ent tunded researct:.) Ye
ther st to exaanQ these projects to test the validity of the
~ aifo th• hypothesis of chemical earcinolenesis .
"" PRQJECT' /1 :
tn'ttde of its bi9h complexity, =st of the c,heoical carclno-•
9eneststtt+erature deals with experiments involving one • or at srost
~ two •`n=" (p1us co•carcinotens . prOpotSrf, ete .)s the real~ life songls ObvloNsly «ucb ebre complex then this . Therefere
We pro~andardited eniewl earclnopeneslt tests Involving
=w+vP varying proportiont of first, three chemical carcinogens and leter,
four cIM~MRI earcinoQens etci, to deteraine lnterretationships more
closely related to reat•1{fe stwttons .
PROJECY AREA 84 :
ozb
r
*-Awau
' One of the chief antagonists of smoking, tn the past, has published
rouse skin tests, elaiMing to show that 'tar' frorn c!~arettes to whi~,h
nitrate has been added, proved_less carcinog+nic_tn these tests . Hore
recently_, that seae tea~e has elUiaed thet high nitrate tobaccos yield
©
ille9ed toainer+tise ea Cinogenieity . ~lherittore .wa roposetto teste
A
•3-
high nitrate versus low nitrate tobiccos 1n a suitable, to be developed .
aniwl imalation sodel which wt11 assay simultaneously the so•called
'putfculate aed gas phasa' of cigarette uroke .
Mt4JECT AMA IS :
,,
.
relitlirely 1loitea nuaber of studiei~bii sbownthit ir~antait
experiaents the results are very contradictory and roy not depend on the
chemical and/or other factors which an experiAentsr wiy ennt to tett*
but on the design protocol of the study, and, most specifically, oa the
rethode by whlch the anixul : are 'hendled" . Thsrefore we propose to
deterrine effects of vurinp handling procedures such as caging, feedin9,
foAdiinp, itrefs, etC ., on the outco .oe of animal models ettperiaeats
related to diseases alleged to be associated with s .okin4 .
Mo,1ECT AM fi :
.
TMire'~are some li .ited epfdeafelo0tCa1 data iR the litsrature
Mhich ~{odi te that prepupt women have a~eReral cencer Incidence
way be oir~ xpected' levels . Therefore we suggest to determine
plVrsf 1 parametert of prepnency which euy have a eancer preventing
sffectiF: ,,~
l~~
pROJEC~ /7 !
'weak lunp' hypothesis . It has been postulated that
ia of lcmp eancer, other respiratory system eaaesrs,
hrente breeehiti : . atc. . are essentfallr oeoale who in
__ s Mould lwve betA affected by pulaoniry tbbeiYUlosfs,
ci--- lwre an fa-bor+a 'weak tunp• . Therefore we propose to
Iete tber or aot en :yrwatie or other piraaoters can be tdeatftied
W ch terNfne that an individuel has a'penetiully' determined
sus ty to lung diseases in 9eneral,
PROJEcu.0A
is:
.
A'ili"*ity of scientists working on non•wwliQnent chronic
respi .• diseases believe 1n a hypothesis that~~ eo is due
to a 1atbalance in poi .onery eniy.es in that smoking, through an
oxidative effect, either proaotes depradatfon of the protein laycr of
elastic 1ong tissue framework, end/or inhibits lung constituents,
which prevent such destruction . Therefora we suggest to Investigate
which saokscoa1 onent or coeponents or fraction •if any'eould
exert the so-ulled 'oxidetiw' effect postulated by the 'elastese'
egplt4se.x1~pothtsis . This project could possibly be done in•tiovse,
If proper aefwl facilities were available .
.
a
0
x
i
.
.
.
.
,~
1W
~
~ ~-- ---------_ _-____--_ ._._.- -- - - -- -- -- ---- - -
PRAJECT AREA IQ :
C1aiMs that carbon monoxide an0 ntcotine eey be responsibte for the
association between saohinp and urdiovesculer disase ere ottee made .
These clai .o are given support by oxperiments conducted with either
carbon sonoxide or nieotine separately .
ihere is some evidence In the literature wl :ich suggests that nicotine
ewy actually counteract soNe of the physiological effects of carbon
etonoxide . It is suggested that tM synergtsm andJor anteWisNS between
carbon monoxide sad nicotine be tested In snieel eadels using a battery
of epecitic cardtovaculer parameters .
-: nv
Pao,>ECT
AREA
tla:
Certain Individuals may be oore suscepttibte to s .okinp sssociated
resptr and other diseases . The suscepttblllty may be reflected in
the 0gtui~ties of these individuals . It /s, theretore .
prsPo d~, et the tesMinoZO01N1 protilet of se~okers and aon-sMOktrs
harir~ihete dtstases be tmrestlpated and Eo.pered to Mealtl~y non•saokcrs .
as wel~aeet healthy sNOker : .
.
rRDJl~~b /11s
v. ••r " MW*sous one million + men Anericen tancer Socie~r (Ita :onond) stqQy
Is 61 ted as the a~or evidence of the association bet+teen lun4
~cancse~oicfn9 . Noa+ever, the study has beeR criticized and is knarn
"'°to ~ butlt•iA b/eses, inconststeectes In the data, support for
~the ttonel 1{tpotbes/s, ttc . (You will recall that the consti~+sau tutt 1 tMstsproposes that the hiOher 1evels of the diseases
Itr,v,t ess with saokip ts due to the fact ttat sookers are different
« . kir:ds ple than non•s+rokers, i .e ., they ara eare vnlnerable
eons 1 types .) It 1s proposed this an en•de th study of the
. : raw to carried out In ordcr to expose these veeCne :ses etc .,
and r+llablt study of similar or larger scope be desi9ned to
i
:+
;. test,,1D~'~constitutlonel hypothesis . (Potential cost ) S2 tailiton/year
, ; for ~ ysers . )
t
i
i
~
E+
t
~
'
Much evidence exists india tin9 thatQe nettc susceptibility fs an
leportant factor In chronle diseases assoeieted with sMokiaq . It Is,
i therefore, proposeA that as epide+aioloQtcal study be conducttd of the
; causes ot deat * in tirst and seeond back 9eneration biood repitives of
smkers and non•sokers having sote allepedly ukoking associated dtsease, o ~
such as lwy cancer, other respiratory cancert, chronic bronchttis, ~
emphysea, etc .
v
~
V
}
.;.
PROJECT AREA 813 :
Evtdence iw= been presented sup4est1n9 that sihokin9 my affect the
R+etaboilsa of cheRicals In mn . These effects eoy be desirable or
undesirable and tuy be quite different In certain indtviduils . tt ts,
therefore, proposed that the e~etabolisw or a coor+Otnated, ltatted number
of cher1ci11y different non-toxtc substances be determined in groups of
smokers, as well as In groups of non•taokers .
PROJECT AREA 114 :
~
.,~ .
A major thrust against the tobacco industr hit been claims of
alleged effects of slde :trem s.oke . These iac~ude both Naltw claims,
as will as those due to ennoyance or ct~~rette s .oke in the at .osphere .
This problem could be alleviated by techniques which would remove the
anaoyence etrects of cigarette s+.oke . it is proposed that we spopsor
electrtcal/eaecAsntcal research oo tnexpensive, energy efficient and
uaobtrmtve equipeent for removing cigarette s .oke and cigarette saoke'
odors fpfthe Indoor indestrtal, public, and home environments .
M
'*
~
~ t!~t
r unS
e ocyi ot r
• Knp,
e ttr Rpent
at !
np,1 anc
d lttt
r- ont
d t on
i Ap
Engtne~nc . IASIIRAE) us recently released aew standards for
rentti requ raeents for smoking and non•smoktng, areas tn Industrial
butldt The raqutreN eat : tA arees whert snottap ts pemtttea 9reatly
qacree apital investment and subsetuent operattn9 costs tor the
:ainildt ~ltneertn9 and other studies should be undertaken to test
~adt,e ve ty ot these requirewrentt end new e~etAodt of dea11w9 with these
'8 ~eQui t Moula be reseerched .
..AIxsul4
k•
Attaclaents
D
APVERDIx A
WR7tEKT MUNC-NEA1T11 RESEARCN VENICLES
Two tyDes of projects are twwed by the Council for Tobacco Research .
There ere also Plens vnder consideratlon by R,MT to cowatt svbstantial
fuRds to fundaoe, :tal research ion diseases alleged to be associated with
s.*kinR .
The e+ost t .portent effort by the Meriun Industry ts eide through
the Council for Tobacco Research-USA 1n New York . This orRaRi :ation
handles generally t•ro types of projects :
a) Cener.l projects eDO+''ored by an independent peer
~~i9rouD of scientists, the •Scientific Advisory
,.•, .
b) Specill projects ~enerally inltiatel, discussed and
. approved p~r tndvitry counsel and/or outside litigating
w,a,, attorneys lror firfss such as dacob, /~elinper i iinne'ant
frSbok . 14sr4y i RacoA .
Ati:.. . .
Es
Ses ::J. .
!L ."••i •t!:
r
.215 546_0942 .,,_•
7j~i*/97 MON 17 :52 FAX
5HELLER,
L&
B
au . 1~~a
P. 2
.
ALAN RODGMAN, Ph .D
~•
Dr. Rodgman was, formerly employed In the Research and Development Department
at R.J. Rqnolds Tobacco Company ("Reynolds") . He is a fact witness who may also offer
expert testimony . Dr. Itodgrnan has a A .A . in chemistry and qs, M .A, and Ph.D in organic
~ chemistry from the Unlversity, of Toronto . He vka$ employed„iii scarlous capacities at .
' Reynolds from 1954 undl •1987.
.
Dr. Rodgman is expected to testlfy or opine concerning the development over time
of scientific knowledge relacing to smoking and healrh. Dr. Rodgrnan is ('Itrther expected mw
testify cottcernitig historical activities of the Research and Development bepatbrae~nt at
Reynolds, includfng research conductad by or for Reynolds, in the areas of smoking sad
health, including the subject of the constituents of cigarette staoka,
Dr. Rodgman fs further expected to testify concerning the design, aoasttvstion atyd
manufacture of cigarems, incluoiag tbe state-of-the-art in c,igarette design, and goveromattal
regutatioA/pazticipation with respect thereto . Dr. Rodgtnan ts expected to tes} ify dtat, In the
design of cigarettes . Reynolds speciticaUy. and rhe manufacturers of cigarettes generally,
have responded both to the scientific criticisms of cigarettes and .the demands of smokers.
Indeed, the tobacco irbdustry, ineludina Reynolds, were leaders in inventing or developing
such cigarette designs .
Finally, Dr. Rodgman may be asked to comment upon the opinions expressed by
other witncsses, as well as the evidence upon which they rely, to the extent that such
opinions and evidence related to his areas of expertise .
Dr . Rodgman will base his testirnony on his education . training and experience, his
review of scientific information and literature concerning the subject matter described above
that are reasonably relied upon by members of his profession, his review of documents from
Reynolds concerning the subject matter described above made in connection with the expert
opinions he itatends to offer in this case during the tenure of his em131oyinent at Reynolds
and, as appropriate, documents either produced by other defendants in this fawsuit
concerning cigarette design or relied upon by plaintiffs experts oA these subjects, and his
review of testimony atld . evidence in this case .
~
FTC SMOKING METHOD
USED FOR
" TAR"
AND NICOTM
DATA
Alan Rodgman, MA, Ph.D .
2828 Birchwood Drive
Wiaston-Salem, NC 27103 3410
30 August , 1994
Ln
~
~
~
m
~
HEALTH ASPECTS OF POORLY DEFINED "TARS"
OBTAINED FROM TOBACCO BY A VARIETY
OF METHODS
APPENDIX B :
INFORMATION PROVIDED RJRT MANAGEMENT
IN THE MID-1960s FOR COMMUNICATION TO
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION re ITS
CIGARETTE MS "TAR" AND NICOTINE
LABELING PROPOSAL
35
7
APPENDIX C: DETERMINATION OF "TAR" YIELD FROM
ULTRALOW-"TAR" CIGARETTES :
SPECTROPHOTOMETRY
44
REFERENCES
46
m
FTC SMOKING METHOD USED FOR "TAR" AND NICOTINE DATA
SUMMARY
In the mid-1960s, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its intention to have cigarette packs
labeled with the "tar" and nicotine yields from the packaged cigarettes because of the reports issued between 1950
and 1964 on the following :
• The dose-response relationship reported in retrospective and prospective studies on the association
between smoking and lung cancer
• The production of epidermal carcinoma in laboratory animals skin-painted with cigarette smoke
condensate (CSC)
• Reports that nearly all the tumorigenicity of tobacco smoke resides in the CSC
• The demonstration of a dose-response relationship between the amount of CSC applied to the animals'
skin and the number of tumor-bearing animals (TBA)
• The demonstration of the presence in CSC of extremely small quantities of several polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and aza-arenes reported to be tumorigenic to the skin of laboratory animals
• The publication in 1964 of the Advisory Committee's Report to the Surgeon General Report in which,
on the basis of the evidence noted above, cigarette smoke - particularly its particulate phase - was
classified as a health hazard of sufficient importance to warrant appropriate remedial action
To rank cigarettes marketed in the U.S . according to their MS "tar" and nicotine yields so the consumer
could select, from the labeling data, the cigarette that spoke to his/her individual smoking-health concerns, the FTC
proposed the development of a precisely defined protocol which would permit the reproducible determination of
yields of cigarette mainstream smoke total particulate matter (MS TPM), MS TPM nicotine, and MS TPM water,
and "tar," the latter entity to be calculated from the equation
MS TPM - MS "tar" + nicotine + water .
Both the FTC and the cigarette manufacturers recognized from the very beginning that the FTC's publication of
cigarette "tar" and nicotine yields was to serve solely as a ranking of the cigarettes . ?he values determined had
nothing to do with ranking the smokers and were never intended to do so.
The details of the analytical procedure specified by the FTC in its protocol and how some of them differ from
human smoking parameters are shown below :
•
®
FTC SMOKIlKG PARAMETERS vs HUMAN SMOKIIVG PARAMETERS
Param¢ler or Condition
FTC Soecification
Smoker
• conditioning ojthe cigarette prior to smoking and analysis
• time of conditioning, hr • 24
• temperature of conditioning area, °C
• 23 .9 (75•F)
• relative humidity (RH) of
conditioning area, %
0
• nature oJthe smoking machine
• 20-port
• variable ; depends on individual
smoker
• variable ; depends on environment
encountered by Individual smoker
• variable; depends on environment
encountered by individual smoker
• NA
• major smoking parameters=
• variable ; dependent on individual
smoker
• variable; dependent on individual
amoker
• variable ; dependent on individual
smoker
• puff volume, nd
• puff duration, aec
• puff frequency, no ./min
• other smoking parameters
• depth of Insertion of cigarette in
holder, mm
• 11
• temperature of smoking laboratory,
eL.
• RH of smoking laboratory, %
• number of cigarettes to be smoked
• butt length of a non8ltered cigarette
to be smoked, mm
• butt length of a filtered cigarette to
be smoked, nun
• method of trapping q f TPAf
• 23
• overwrap length + 3
• Cambridge filter pad
• variable ; dependent on individual
smoker
• variable ; dependent on
environment encountered by
Individual smoker
• variable ; dependent on
environment encountered by
individual smoker
• NA
• variable ; dependent on individual
smoker
• variable ; dependent on individual
smoker
• oral cavity and respiratory tract
• analytical procedurea jor determination oJTPM, TPM nicotine, and TPM water jor calculation of cigarette "tar" yield
• TPM, mg/cigt
• nicotine in TPM, tttg/cigt
• gravimetric
• originally the Griffith still
procedure ; later a OC
procedure
• NA
• NA
• water in TPM, mg/cigt
• originally, Karl Fischer
titration; later a CiC
procedure
• NA
• 100
• 0
• 50-90
• 10-s0
• 7PM behavior
• TPM retained by trap, %
• TPM emitted from tap, %
' Theae are essentially the values described In a publication issued almost 30 years before (Bradford et al ., 1936) and used in
USDA studies in the early 1960s (Ogg et al ., 1962 ; Ogg, 1964).
•
iv
The FTC was adamant about the details of its smoking procedure . Its analytical protocol was written almost
on "tablets of stone" despite the fact that personnel from the individual cigarette manufacturers informed FTC
personnel that the consumer may be more misled than informed by the "tar" listing for a variety of scientifically
valid reasons . Each of the reasons was communicated to the FTC by representatives of one or more members of
the Industry . Information communicated from the Industry to the FTC included the following :
• The smoking parameters defined in the FTC protocol are not those of either an average smoker or of most
individual smokers (see preceding Table) .
• The FTC "tar" yield determined for, a specific cigarette brand is not the "tar" yield to which the
individual smoker is exposed because each individual consumer does not :
condition his cigarettes prior to smoking as is specified in the FTC protocol for cigarettes to be
analyzed ; the moisture content of the consumer's cigarettes is dependent on moisture content at time
of manufacture, transportation conditions, shelf time, time between opening of the pack and
consumption of the last cigarette ; ambient conditions while smoking the cigarettes successively,
smoke a cigarette in a regimented fashion ; thus, the number of puffs, the pressure drop across the
cigarette, its burning temperature will vary from smoker to smoker and with individual smokers from
cigarette to cigarette,
smoke each cigarette under conditions identical with those in the FTC procedure,
retain the total intake of MS TPM as does the smoking machine .
• The "tars" from two different cigarette brands that yield the same amounts of "tar" are not
compositionally the same .
• Specific "tar" components from a cigarette brand that yields say 30 mg of "tar" are not present at twice
their level in the "tar" from a brand that yields 15 mg of "tar". The cigarette design technologies used
to control "tar" yield also markedly influence the MS composition, including that of the "tar ."
Since the implementation of the FTC procedure in 1967, cigarette have changed markedly because of the
introduction of new design technologies . Also, consumers' smoking regimen has changed since the mid-1960s and
is substantially different from the 35-m1 volume, one 2-sec puff per minute specified by the FTC .
The FTC protocol is no longer appropriate for analysis of many current cigarettes, particularly those with
low- and ultralow "tar" yields . Despite the fact that these inadequacies in he FTC procedure were pointed out by
the Surgeon General in his 1979, 1981, and 1982 reports, the FTC has made no effort to modify the major smoking
parameters (puff volume, duration, frequency) prescribed in its procedure for "tar" and nicotine determination to
counteract these criticisms . However, the FTC has made several other changes in the FTC procedure : It has
incorporated carbon monoxide (CO) determination into its procedure and CO values are now reported in the FTC
reports on "tar" and nicotine yields of cigarettes marketed in the U .S . The FTC also approved the use of automated
gas chromatographic procedures for the determination of the nicotine and water in the MS TPM . These latter
modifications were demonstrated to be significant improvements (less time consuming, less expensive, more
accurate) over those originally dictated in the FTC protocol . These improved analytical procedures were proposed
by Industry R&D personnel, not by FTC personnel .
Detailed studies involving 1979 85-mm Winstons and Marlboros, 1984 100-mm Winstons, and 1984 120mm Dawn cigarettes of the effect on MS "tar" and nicotine yields of changing the three major smoking parameters
revealed the following :
• Variation in puff duration has little effect on the "tar" and nicotine yields of the 85-mm Winston or
Marlboro . -
v
• Variation in puff volume or puff frequency has a significant effect on the two yields . Increasing either or
both increases the "tar" and nicotine yields .
• The "tar" and nicotine yields for the 85-mm Winston were greater than those for the 85-mm Marlboro .
• For a given increase in puff volume or frequency the "tar" and nicotine yields increase for both the 85mm Marlboro and the 85-mm Winston but the % difference between the Marlboro and Winston "tar" and
nicotine yields decreases .
Thus, if the FTC does modify the three major smoking parameters, particularly increasing the puff volume and puff
frequency, the "tar" and nicotine yields for marketed cigarettes will increase over the values obtained currently .
To reiterate several points mentioned previously : the following aspects of the protocol for the so-called FTC
procedure for the determination of cigarette MS nicotine and "tar" yields (and subsequently carbon monoxide yield)
should be remembered :
• The final protocol was a product of the FTC which dictated every detail of the protocol .
• Its implementation was ordered by the FTC .
• Its purpose from the very beginning was to rank marketed cigarettes according to "tar" or nicotine yield
to permit the consumer to choose a cigarette whose deliveries satisfied his/her concerns about the effect
of cigarette smoke on the smoker .
• The "tar" and nicotine yield data obtained by use of the FTC smoking and analytical procedures were
never considered by either the FTC or the cigarette manufacturers as a means to somehow rank smokers .
vi
FTC SMOKING METHOD USED FOR "TAR" AND NICOTINE DATA'
I. INTENDED USE OF SMOKING METHOD RESULTS
A. Statement of Purpose
The results from the FTC analyses of the "tar" and nicotine yields in the mainstream
smoke (MS) from cigarettes marketed in the U.S. were intended to accomplish the following :
To permit the cataloging or sequential listing of the cigarettes for their MS yields of
these two smoke entities (c, f. FTC, 1967b, 1978) generated under standard and
reproducible conditions. Subsequently, a third MS entity, CO, was added to the FTC
listing (FTC, 1981) .
• To permit the consumer who wished to continue smoking to select a cigarette whose
MS lltar" and/or nicotine yield was compatible with his/her concerns about the
effect(s) of cigarette smoking on his/her health .
It was never anticipated by the FTC or by the cigarette manufacturers that the FTC lists could .
serve as a means to catalog or rate cigarette smokers .
The following factors were known or suspected from the very beginning of discussions
among the FTC and the representatives of the cigarette manufactureres on a standard,
reproducible procedure for the determination of cigarette MS "tar" and nicotine yields :
• Individual smokers do not smoke a cigarette under the precise smoking regime
dictated in the FTC procedure .
• Unlike the smoking machine used in the FTC procedure, individual smokers may
miss one or more puffs during the smoking of a cigarette because of involvement with
other activities (writing, telephoning, discussing, etc .).
• Unlike the smoking machine used in the FTC procedure, the individual smoker does
not smoke his/her cigarette to the butt length dictated in the FTC procedure for
untipped and filter-tipped cigarettes .
• Unlike the smoking machine used in the FTC procedure, the individual smoker
exhales a portion of the MS .
• It is highly probable that the per milligram compositions= of the MS "tars" from two
~'I1ro original FTC procedure for smoking cigarettes to determine "tar," nicotine, and water deliveries in mainatream .moke (MS) (values
first reported in 1967 ?PTC, 1967), was subsequently modified for the simultaneous determination of MS carbon monoxide (cf . FTC, 1981)
2 In addition to the differences between the compositions of the particulate phases, the compoaidons of the vapor phases will differ .
1
different brands of cigarettes whose "tar" yields are 20 mg are entirely different .
• It is highly probable that the per milligram compositions' of the MS "tars" from two
different brands of cigarettes whose "tar" yields are 20 and 2 mg, respectively, are
entirely different .
B. Other Analyses Similar to FTC Smoke Analysis
In the U.S. there are numerous analyses of consumer products similar to the FTC
analysis for "tar" and nicotine in cigarette mainstream smoke (MS) :
• Composition of vitamin pills in terms of weight or units of Vitamin A, vitamin C,
thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin D, vitamin B,,, etc .
Even though the analysis for the levels per pill of various vitamins appears on
the label, the consumers absorption of the each vitamin will depend on the
individual consumer's metabolism . The label listing only indicates how much of
each vitamin is ingested when the consumer swallows the pill, not how much is
actually effective in and beneficial to the consumer .
• The urban and highway mileage per gallon of gasoline expected for an automobile
model tested under certain driving regimes representing the average driving habits of
and conditions encountered by the American driver, e .g., 20 mpg under urban
conditions, 28 mpg under highway conditions . These two mileages are listed annually
for each new automobile model and are listed in numerous publications as information
to enable a potential automobile buyer select the automobile of his/her choice .
Depending on his/her driving skills, individual drivers may get more or less mpg
than the reported 20 mpg in city driving and more or less mpg than the reported
28 mpg on the highway.
• The mileage rating of automobile tires, e .g., 40,000-mile tires, 50,000-mile tires .
These ratings are determined by testing the tires under specified driving conditions
and ensuring that they are periodically and properly maintained during testing .
Here again, how many miles are obtained with a given set of tires depends on
the driving skills and habits of the owner, the terrain over which the tires are
driven, and whether or not the tires were maintained at proper inflation and
rotated according to prescribed schedule .
• The content of fat in dairy products expressed as % butterfat .
• The levels of various components in foodstuffs are determined by approved analytical
procedures and the results listed on the marketed packages, e .g., on the package of
•
3 In addition to the differences between the compositions of the particulate phases, the compositions of the vapor phases will differ .
2
a popular cereal are listed the amounts per serving of protein, fat (saturated, fat
(unsaturated), carbohydrate, cholesterol, sodium, potassium, iron, zinc, magnesium,
calcium, copper, phosphorus .
It is known that the nutritional effect of each of these components is not the
same for each consumer but depends on the individual consumer's metabolic
processes.
II.
CHRONOLOGY
A. Introduction
While the concern about the particulate phase of cigarette mainstream smoke (MS)
received particular emphasis in the early 1950s, numerous investigators between the late 19th
century and the early 1950s had commented on its possible effect on the health of the smoker
(see Appendix A) .
Six major events in the 1950s and early 1960s escalated the concern about the MS
particulate phase' and triggered the FTC's proposal to have the U .S. cigarette manufacturers
report the "tar" and nicotine deliveries of individual cigarette brands :
• The epidemiological data from both retrospective and prospective cigarette smoking
studies that indicated a dose response relationship between the number of cigarettess
smoked per day and specific disease entities, particularly cancer of the lung (see
summary of the epidemiology studies in the Advisory Committee's report to the 1964
Surgeon General (USPHS, 1964)] .
• The first reported production of skin carcinoma in susceptible strains of laboratory
animals painted periodically with massive doses of mainstream smoke cigarette smoke
condensate (MS CSC) prepared under conditions more or less simulating the human
cigarette smoking regime' (Wynder et al ., 1953a, 1953b, 1955, 1956 ; Wynder and
Wright, 1957) .
• Reports that nearly all the tumorigenicity (mouse-skin painting) of tobacco smoke
4 Even though they differ in composition, MS total particulate matter (rpM), cigarette smoke condensate (CSC), and "tar" (water- and
nicotinafree TPM as detined by in the FTC procedure) became almost equivalent when referred to In d'ucuuiona of the effects of cigarette
MS particulate phase on the health of the conaumer .
s Fewer than two dozen cigarette brands were marketed In the U .S . in the 1950s and their per cigarette deliveries of "tar" and nicotine were
t hese values showed
remarkably uniform, ranging from 33 to 40 mg "tar" and 2 .7 to 3 .0 mg of nicotine . In the late 1950. and early 1960s t
progressive decreases .
6 To collect large amounta of cigarette smoke condensate for the akin-painting studies, the puff frequency used was three puffs per minute
rather than one puff per minute, the frequency closer to that used by smokers . The MS was trapped in Dry lce-chilled vessels .
3
resided in the MS CSC' . The MS vapor phase was subsequently shown to possess
very little tumorigenicity .
• Reports that the MS CSC contained several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
and aza-arenes' previously demonstrated to be tumorigenic to mouse skin and several
phenols, nontumorigenic per se, previously reported to enhance or "promote" the
tumorigenicity of tumorigenic PAHs applied to laboratory animals at subtumorigenic
levels (see summary in Wynder and Hoffmann, 1967) .
• Reports from several laboratories (Wynder et al ., 1957a, 1957b ; Bock et al ., 1962)
that carcinoma production showed a dose response in laboratory animals skin-painted
with various levels of cigarette smoke condensate and that no carcinomas were
generated below a certain dose level .
The publication of the Advisory Committee's report to the 1964 Surgeon General
(USPHS, 1964) in which it was stated that "Cigarette smoking is a health hazard of
sufficient importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action ."
The latter event provided the FTC with an official statement of the government's position
on tobacco smoking, particularly cigarette smoking, and a virtual mandate to require the
reporting of the "tar" yields from all U .S . cigarette brands .
In response to these reports, the U .S. cigarette manufacturers subsequently marketed
newly designed cigarette brands which provided a range of "tar" (and nicotine) yields, thus
enabling the consumer to choose a brand whose "tar" yield satisfied his/her concern about
smoking and health .
It should be noted that at the time of publication of the 1964 Report of the Advisory
Committee to the U .S. Surgeon General, nicotine in cigarette MS was not considered to be a
significant health hazard . It was stated (USPHS, 1964) :
Nicotine is rapidly changed in the body to relatively inactive substances with low toxicity . The
chronic toxicity of small doses of nicotine is low in experimental animals. These two facts, when
taken in coqjunction with the low mortality ratios of pipe and cigar smokers, indicate that the
chronic toxicity of nicotine in quantities absorbed from smoking and other methods of tobacco use
is low and probably does not represent an important health hazard .
7 MS CSC, closely related compusitionaily to the nnaterial subsequently defined as "tar," was reported to contain numerous tumorigenic
(mouse skin) polycyclic aroroatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as benzo(a1PYrend (Bap), tumorigenie au-arenes, and tobaeeo-speeifie IK
nitrosamines (rSNAs) such as N-nitrownornicotine (NNN) and 4-(*methyWunsamita)-t-(3-pyridinyi)-1-butanone (NMq . It is claimed
that the PAHs are responsible for the tumorigenicity of CSC to mouse skin, but their concentntions in CSC account for less than 296 of
the observed response . The renuinder of the observed tumorigenicity In such studies has not been accounted for . The /Knitrosamines are
organ specific tumorigene and play little, if any, role in the tumorigenicity of CSC to mouse skin .
~ Of all the groups itrve Wgating the aza-arenes in tobacco nnoke, none has been unable to duplicate the findings of Van Duuren et al . (1960a,
1960b) who reported the presence of dibenz[a,hjact4dine, dibenz(a,JJacddine, and 7R-dibenzo(c,glcarbazoie (see Rodgman, 1991, 1994) .
4
Subsequently, however, nicotine was alleged not only to be involved in coronary and
circulatory problems but also it was defined as the precursor of several tumorigenic tobacco and
MS components, the so-called tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNAs) such as N'nitrosonornicotine (NNN) and 4-(N-methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone (NNK)
(Hoffmann et al ., 1984, 1985, 1991a, 1991b ; Hoffmann, 1989) .
Soon after the publication of the 1964 Surgeon General's report (USPHS, 1964), the
following events occurred :
• The FTC began its activities to implement a labeling system for "tar" and nicotine
yields from cigarettes marketed in the U .S. As communications between the FTC and
the cigarette manufacturers proceeded, RJRT R&D personnel provided management
with pertinent information on the status of the analysis of MS for 'tar" and nicotine
(see Appendix B) . This information was used in attempts - obviously all
unsuccessful - to dissuade the FTC from pursuing its plan of implementing cigarette
pack labeling .
• The FTC alerted the U .S . cigarette manufacturers of its intentions (FTC, 1966),
vigorously pursued the implementation of an appropriate analytical method for the
determination of MS TPM, defined MS "tar" in terms of MS TPM, water, and
nicotine (Equation 1), promulgated the protocol of FTC procedure for the
determination of MS "tar" and nicotine yields (FTC, 1967a ; Pillsbury et al ., 1969),
and published the first FTC list of the MS "tar" and nicotine yields from 59 cigarette
brands marketed in the U .S. (FTC, 1967b) .
TPM = "tar" + nicotine + water Equation 1
The FTC procedure originally incorporated the best aspects of various methodologies
developed during the preceding three decades and subsequently was modified slightly
to include new and improved analytical techniques such as the determination of TPM
water and nicotine by gas chromatography . E.g ., the FTC procedure included the
smoking parameters (puff volume, duration, and interval) of Bradford et al. (1936),
collection of TPM on the Cambridge filter (Wartman et al ., 1959), pertinent aspects
of TPM nicotine analysis of Pfyl et al ., (1927), Pfyl (1933a, 1933b), Willits et al .
(1950), Griffith (1957), Ogg et al . (1962), Ogg (1964) and TPM water analysis of
Holmes and Cridlin (1960), Crowell et al. (1961), Jarrell and Wickham (1961, 1962),
Sloan and Sublett (1964, 1965), Schultz and Spears (1966) .
Because many of the analytical procedures to define the yields of cigarette MS TPM,
nicotine, water, and "tar" had been used for some years in the laboratories of
Tobacco Industry members in their product development studies, R&D representatives
from five of them° collaborated on a publication (Bates et al ., 1967, 1968) in which
9 L&M, Inc ; BdtW Tobacco Corp . ; American Tobacco Co . ; RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. ; Philip Morria, Inc .
5
appropriate and Industry acceptable procedures for the determination and reporting
of MS TPM, TPM water, and TPM nicotine were described . The procedures were
essentially identical with those presented in the FTC protocol (Pillsbury et al ., 1969) .
• At the 1967 World Conference on Smoking and Health, a workshop involving some
30 presentations was devoted to the subject "Toward a Less Harmful Cigarette"
(Wynder and Hoffmann, 1968) . About two-thirds of the presentations dealt with the
composition and alleged adverse effects of "tar" in experimental situations .
• Under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute Smoking and Health Program, a
study, "Toward a Less Hazardous Cigarette," was implemented in 1968 and
continued for more than a decade . The summary report on the study was issued in
1980 (NCI, 1980) . R&D personnel from several of the major U .S. cigarette
manufacturers10 served on the NCI Tobacco Working Group as private citizens
knowledgeable in cigarette design and tobacco and tobacco smoke analysis,
composition, and properties .
1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984
Numerous technologies
introduced sequentially from the
mid-1950s to the late 1960s were
incorporated into cigarette design
to control MS delivery and
composition. All are considered
to contribute to what some have
characterized as a "less
hazardous" cigarette when
included in cigarette design
(USPHS, 1979 ; NCI, 1980 ; Gori
and Bock, 1980 ; USPHS, 1981) .
These technologies include :
50
3 .0
45
n,tar Tlp.
Raoonatftut.d Tob .ooo She .t
P.p.r Additt...
P.per Porosity
~
lspaad .d Tobaooo
1.
V.nUlatlon
40
I
0
~
35
e~e
30
~
ir
.!
42.5 °
-l 2 .0
25
20
8
15
r
- Tar
••••••••• Nicotine
10
5
.0
• tobacco blend and 0 1956
. 1960
L 1964
L L
1968 L
1972L
1976
L1980
AI
1984 0
weight
• tobacco rod length and Figure 1 . "Tar" and Nicotine Deliveries, Sales Weighted Average
Basis
circumference
filter tips (material type
and additives)
• processed tobaccos (reconstituted tobacco sheet, expanded tobacco)
• paper (type and additives)
air dilution (increased paper porosity, filter tip perforations) .
The chronology of introduction of these technologies and their effects on sales weight average
10 LdtM, Inc . ; B&W Tobacco Cocp . ; P. Lodllard Co., Inc . ; RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co . ; Philip Morsis, Inc .
6
nicotine and "tar" yields are shown in Figure 1 . Over the years, the introduction and use of
these technologies in concert and to various degrees in cigarette design have provided the
consumer with a great variety of products whose number has increased from about a dozen in
the early 1950s to nearly 200 presently . The cigarette is a system : All the technologies used
in cigarette design are interactive . Le., inclusion of or change in the level of use of any
particular technology may require other adjustments in the cigarette design to maintain certain
attributes acceptable to the consumer . In contrast, by current technology, SS delivery is
controlled almost totally by tobacco blend and weight . The SS is not subjected to filtration, the
effect of filter-tip additives which specifically remove certain MS components from MS (phenols,
volatile N-nitrosamines), or air dilution effects .
In a continuation of their earlier reported mouse skin-painting studies, Wynder et al .
(1957a, 1957b) examined the effect of application of lower and lower total annual doses of MS
CSC on tumor production in skin-painted mice . They reported that skin painting of mice with
a total annual dose of 10 g/mouse produced papilloma in about 60% of the mice ; at a total
annual dose of 7 .5 g/mouse the percentage of papilloma-bearing animals was reduced to about
35 % . Only a small percentage (< 10%) of papilloma-bearing animals (but no carcinomabearing) animals was observed when the total annual amount of MS CSC applied was less than
5 g/mouse; further reduction of the annual dose to 3 g/mouse resulted in no papilloma- or
carcinoma-bearing mice . These data are presented graphically in Flgure 2 . Thus, in this study,
reduction of the total annual dose from 10 g/mouse to 3 g/mouse reduced the percentage of
tumor-bearing animals from 60% to 0% . This represents a 3 .3-fold reduction in the dose of the
applied material, CSC .
so
r
ro
These data from the doseresponse study (and the threshold
limit value for MS CSC) were
subsequently reported several 30
times by Wynder and Hoffmann ~
(1962, 1963, 1964, 1967) who ~ 40 stated in 1964 and again in 1967
: ,~ „
It is apparent that a V
reduction of
tumorig enic t0
components can be
most readily
°a
}~f
3
4
6
e
7
s
Y
10
accomplished by arams of Cisaratta smotce/llouae/Year
reducing the total Figure 2 . Relationship of Tumor Yield and Dose (Wynder et al .,
amount of smoke con- 1957b)
densate. . . to which one
is exposed . This has
been clearly shown
experimentally by doseresponse studies
[Wynder et al:, 1957a, Wynder and Hoffmann, 1962a, 1962b ; Bock et al., 1962] .
7
Wynder and Hoffmann (1965) determined the effect of MS CSC dose on tumor yield by
conducting lifetime sldn-painting studies in mice (50 mice per dilution) with various dilutions
of CSC-acetone suspensions. The results are shown in FIgure 3 . Skin painting with a fixed
volume of successive dilutions of a 50% CSC-acetone suspension reduced the percent tumorbearing animals from 45% with a 5096 suspension to 34 % with a 33% suspension, to 2036 with
a 25 % suspension, to 8% with a 10% suspension, and to 2% (one tumor-bearing mouse) with
a 5% suspension, i.e., a 10-fold dilution of the CSC-acetone suspension produced a 25-fold
diminution in % tumor-bearing animals . From their results, Wynder and Hoffmann (1965)
noted:
It is apparent. . .from
laboratory studies . . .that so
exposure to tobacco
smoke condensate and
tumor yield are
quantitatively
correlated .
51
A few years earlier,
Wynder (1961) had commented on
the effect of dose reduction on
tumor yield in laboratory animals
painted with CSC . Because he
used much more reasonable doses
of CSC in his slcin painting,
Passey in England was unable to
confirm the findings of Wynder et
al. (1953a,, 1953b) . Wynder's
- 60X
-- 33X
-- -
$ax
109
5%
................ .`
.~ , ,
1 s a 7
0
0
m
.
.
11
/u
..-•
.
13
. .. . . .
14
_._. . ..-
1s 16 17 ls
YONTHS
explanation was as follows :
Figure 3 . Tumor Response to Different Doses of Cigarette Smoke
What reAlly happened
Condensate in Acetone (Wynder & Hoffmann, 1965) .
was that y applied
too weak a coneentration of to smoke
condensate to his
animals. Of course,
since tobacco ke is
only a weak carc ogen
to begin with, if u
dilute its concentra too markedly, it is no wonder that you do not obtain any cancer . It would
be just like a human , ing smoking one or two cigarettes a day without inhaling it . His risk of
developing lung cancer`would certainly also not be greater than that of a non-smoker . . .
[From] a study which we have done on the dose response of different amounts of smoke condensate to the
production of skin cancer in mice . . . (y]ou will note that, if we applied to the mouse 5 g or less per year
of tobacco smoke condensate we were not able to produce any cancers . This of course explains the failure
of Dr. Passey_to repeat our work . But it clearly shows that tobacco smoke condensate is not a very strong
carcinogen .
8
The importance of dose (exposure) was reiterated in tlie same language by Wynder and
Hoffmann in their lengthy 1964 review article (Wynder and Hoffmann, 1964) and 1967 book
(Wynder and Hoffmann, 1967) on tobacco :and tobacco smoke:
Since 1953, when the first large-scale prod4ction of epidermoid cancer was reported, many
investigators have verified these findings . Some ri~ativeftndings (Shotadze, 1953 ; Gwynn, 1954 ;
Passey et al., 1954; Kakhiani, 1955 ; Hamer and Wbpdhouse, 1956 ; Gwynn and Salaman, 1956)
are largely, if not exelusively, a result of tnadequate~dQse . (Emphasis addedr AR)
.,
Wynder and Hoffmann (1964, 1967) also noted that Gritsiute and Mironova (1960)
reported only 3 (1 .7%) tumor-bearing animals (TBA) out of 174 animals treated with between
1 .4 and 2 .6 g of CSC over a 10-month period whereas their own studies gave 44% TBA in
animals treated with 11 .7 g of CSC over a 15-month period . When the difference in treatment
time is disregarded, a dose reduction ranging from 4 .5 to 8 reduced the % TBA by a factor of ~
26!
Because of the dose-response relationships reported in the human epidemiological studies
and the dose-response relationships in the biological studies conducted with CSC-painted
laboratory animals, the FTC proposed that the consumer should know the "tar" deliveries of
marketed cigarettes in order to make an informed choice of his/her brand, depending on his/her
degree of concern about the reported relationship between smoking and certain disease entities .
In the period 1964-1966, numerous memoranda were prepared in which reasons for the
FTC not to continue with its efforts to label cigarette packages were outlined . The salient points
advanced by RJRT R&D personnel to dissuade the FTC are summarized in Appendix B . These
arguments and similar ones advanced by other Industry members were unsuccessful .
On 25 March 1966, the FTC (FTC, 1966) announced it had sent identical letters to each
of the major U .S . cigarette manufacturers in regard to factual statements of "tar" and nicotine
content on labels and in advertising of cigarettes :
Gentlemen :
. The Cigarette Advertising Guides promulgated by the Commission in September 1955
provided that no representation should be made that "any brand of cigarette or the smoke
therefrom is low in nicotine or tars * * * when it has not been established by competent scientific
proof applicable at the time of dissemination that the claim is true, and if true, that such difference
or differences are significant ." On the basis of the facts now available to it, the Commission has
determined that a factual statement of the tar and nicotine content (expressed in milligrams) of the
mainstream smoke from a cigarette would not be in violation of such Guides, or of any of the
provisions of law administered by the Commission so long as (1) no collateral representations
(other than factual statements of tar and nicotine contents of cigarettes offered for sale to the
public) are made, and (2) the statement of tar and nicotine content is supported by adequate
records of tests conducted with the Cambridge Filter Method, as described in an article entitled
"Determination of Particulate Matter and Alkaloids (as Nicotine) in Cigarette Smoke," by C .L .
Ogg, which appeared in the Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Vol . 47,
No. 2, 1964- It is the Commission's position that it is in the public interest to promote the
9
/
dissemination of truthful information concerning cigarettes which may be materia) and desired by
the consuming public .
By direction of the Commission. Joseph W . Shea, Secretary .
During discussions between U .S . cigarette manufacturers and the FTC in the mid-1960s,
it was pointed out by industry representatives that labeling cigarette packs with the amounts of
MS "tar" and nicotine delivered by the cigarette smoked under standard laboratory conditions
would not inform the smoker of the precise amount or composition of the "tar" received during
his/her smoking of the cigarette (see Appendix B) .
The reporting of nicotine as a separate MS component derived from the fact that it and
water are the two most plentiful components in MS TPM . In the early 1960s when the FTC
began its efforts to require "tar" and nicotine reporting, extensive studies were underway to
define MS composition . The number of identified MS components had increased from about 80
in 1954 (Kosak, 1954) to about 800 in 1965 . Currently, the number of identified components
in MS exceeds 4,500 . Thus in the early 1960s, MS "tar," except for nicotine and water, was
a poorly defined material .
B. Origins of Smoking Parameters (Puff Volume, Puff Duration, Puff Frequency, etc .)
As noted previously, the FTC's desire to catalog cigarettes by their "tar" and nicotine
delivery stemmed from the various claims in the scientific and medical literature that certain
health problems arose in cigarette smokers as a result of their inhalation of the components
constituting MS "tar" and the dose response relationships reported in epidemiological studies
with smokers and biological studies with laboratory animals . The following relationship has been
used for over three decades to calculate the value of the "tar" delivered in cigarette MS :
total particulate matter = "tar" + nicotine + water
The values for the major smoking parameters (puff volume, duration, and frequency) can
be traced to the publication of Bradford et al. (1936) who selected a puff volume of 35 ml, a
puff duartion of 2 sec, and a puff frequency of 1 puff/60 sec . Actually, only the puff duration
of 2 sec 'was similar to that observed with cigarette smokers . The other two values were less
than the observed average puff volume and frequency . The values for these three cigarette
smoking parameters persisted for the next three decades .
For a given cigarette brand, the FTC numbers for "tar," nicotine, and more recently
carbon monoxide are obtained via a precisely defined smoking regime and analytical methods
[preconditioning of cigarettes (23 .9°C; relative humidity, 60% ; conditioning time, 24 hr) ;
smoking parameters - 35-ml puff volume, 2-sec puff duration, 1 puff/min ; 23.9°C, 60%
relative humidity, cigarette smoked to a defined butt length].
In contrast to the rigorously defined FTC smoking and analytical procedures for the
determination of cigarette MS "tar," nicotine, and more recently carbon monoxide :
10
• Few smokers, if any, in the smoking of a cigarette take in the TPM amount found
in the FTC determination .
• Few smokers smoke their cigarettes to as short a butt length as in the FTC procedure .
• Because of involvement in other tasks, the smokers often place their cigarette in an
ash tray for a brief time, thus missing one or more puffs on the cigarette . Few
smokers take the number of puffs obtained for a given cigarette brand in the FTC
procedure. The smoking machine used in the FTC method is relentless ; it never
misses a puff on the cigarette under test!
• Whereas the smoking parameters (35-ml puff, 2-sec duration, 1 puff/min) in the FTC
procedure are those originally proposed by Bradford et al . (1936), proposed again by
Ogg (1964), accepted by the tobacco industry (Bates et al ., 1967, 1968) and the FTC
(FTC, 1966 ; Pillsbury et al., 1969), individual smokers varied considerably from the
FTC-dictated values, e .g., puff volumes ranged from 32 .8 to 53 .4 ml, puff durations
ranged from 1 .53 to 2 .77 sec at 1 .8 puffs/min in a study conducted close to the time
of the FTC activities (Adams, 1966) .
• In contrast to human smokers, the smoking machine used in the FTC procedure does
not "exhale. " It has been reported in numerous studies that individual cigarette
smokers vary considerably . They were found to exhale between 10 and 75 % of the
TPM inspired during the puffs taken to consume the cigarette, thus retaining between
25% and 90% of the inspired TPM" (cf., Piehl, 1970) .
Another problem, long recognized by tobacco scientists but ignored by the FTC, is the
fact that the MS "tars" from two different cigarette brands delivering the same weight of "tar,"
e.g., 25 mg, may be quite different compositionally because entirely different technologies were
incorporated in the design of the two brands to achieve the 25-mg "tar" delivery. Examples of
this are found in the reports of the National Cancer Institute on its 10-year study on "less
hazardous" cigarettes . Various cigarette design technologies were investigated to determine their
effect on MS yield, MS chemical composition, and MS CSC biological activity (mouse-skin
painting) (Gori, 1976a, 1976b, 1977, 1980 ; NCI, 1980) . Overall, the relationships among
tobacco blend compositions, MS compositions, and biological activities of the CSCs from nearly
100 test and some 30 standard and reference cigarettes were studied . Nine of the cigarette
samples showed "tar" yields ranging from 27 .0 to 27 .4 mg. As shown in Table IA, despite the
uniformity in "tar" deliveries from these cigarettes, their MSs - both the particulate phases and
vapor phases - were quite disparate compositionally as shown by the data, normalized to "tar"
yield, and the ranges listed for the normalized data .
t~ % retentiona of MS TPM much lower then the 90% described in the literature were reported by Whisnant and Stevenson (1969c) at RJRT .
In a detailed in-houae studies at RJRT R&D, .rooken were found to retain between SO and 65 % of the TPM inspired .
11
Table 1
Variations In Mainstream Smoke Composition for Cigarettes Delivering 27 .2 f 0 .2 mg of "Tar"
AnalyldCigt. No. Id,'
1-23°
II-42'
1I-44'
1II-74a
III-81'
IV-26'
IV-31a
IV-67°
Range
27.4
1 .007
1 .39
19.7
27.3
1 .004
1 .93
14.1
27.4
1 .007
1 .80
15 .2
27 .4
1 .007
1.80
15.2
27.3
1 .004
1 .91
14.4
27.0
0 .993
3 .25
8.3
27.1
0 .996
0 .89
30.4
27.2
1 .000
1 .84
14.8
27.0-27. 4
Per Cigarette Dedvery
`Yar" i mg
'tar"P'taq.d"
nicatinei mg
'Yar"/nioot6ne
27.4
1 .007
2 .07
13 .2
0.89-3 .2 3
8.3-30 . 4
Amount ofComponent Relative to "Tar "
BaPj
µg/g
BaA °
µglg
pheaol
mg/g
ocresol
mg/g
aoetaldehyde
mg/g
HCN
mg/g
NO'
mg/g
0.91
1 .40
3.95
0.72
39.1
0 .68
0 .92
2.98
0.51
42 .6
0.58
1 .08
3.83
0.62
37.9
0.79
0.90
3.90
0.63
36.1
1 .04
1 .49
4.28
0.77
38.4
1 .18
1 .64
4.62
0.79
39.9
0.72
1 .01
4.85
0.72
19.6
0.82
1 .00
3.07
0.57
25.1
0.64
1 .42
6.10
nd
34.9
0 .38-1 .1 8
0 .90-1 .64
2 .98-6 .1 0
0.51-0 .79
19.6-42.6
6.11
9.6
4.2'
8.0
12.2
9.4
12.0
8 .7
13.3
10.8
12.1
10.0
9.8
33.7
13 .0
11 .3
12.5
12.8
9.8-13 .3 °
8.0-33 .7
Tschnology Investigated; other notes :
' I!i contained double the nitrate level of control blend SRH-I (1).
° Higb deosity reooos<itutad tobacco (RTS), slurry process (1 b
` Dupllcate aatnplea ofoonttol blend SE&I1(2}
° Cantrol blend SEB-III (aoatained 3 .2 Bti glyoaol) (3).
' Olycerol omitted from control blend SEB-1II (3).
Full redum of cut rolled burley rtmn (4).
a Niontine in SFR-IV blend adjuRed iuâ–º that dgarette delivered MS nicotine at 1 .0 mg/ciQl. (4).
" SEB-IV blend with 1 .3l5 of m additive to reduoe MS iartstion.
' MS "ur' and nicotine deiamined by the FTC prooedure .
BaP - benno[a]pynaw t BaA - benz[a]anthraome
~ Subeaquaot HCN malyua for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th series involved an improved and more accurate analytical prooedura
° Becauae of analytical problem . HCN data from SEB-1 samples were omitted from ranga
In the original e epocts, nrtrogien oiddea were expnxsed as NO= . Sinoe it has been demwstrated that more than 95 %
of the nitrogen oxides in tobacco smoke is nitric oxide (NO) (5), the nitrogen oxddes data were recalculated accordingly .
Table 2
Variations in Mainstream Smoke Composition for Cigarettes Delivering 25 .5 f 0 .4 mg of "Tar"
tlaaavtolCiai Nu. jx
11-53~
ID-73`
-ITI g2°
fII-93e
IV-13t
IN'-29a
[uV,-32a
$em
25 .9
1 .016
0 .38
68 .2
25 .5
1 .000
1 .67
15 .3
25 .5
1 .000
1 .78
14.3
25 .1
0.984
1 .18
21 .3
25 .4
0.996
0.16
158.8
25 .1
0.984
2.02
12.4
25 .7
1 .008
1 .91
13.5
25 .1-25 .9
Per Cigarette Detivery
"tar" ° mg
`har"PYarW3 "
nivulvne ° mg
"lar'Yniaatide
25 .9
1 .016
1 .68
15.4
0.16-2 .02
12 .4-159
.4mount ofComponent Relative to "Tar"
BaP I
µg/g
BoAJ
µglg
pheaol
mg/g
otresol
mg/g
aataldehyde
0.72
1 .20
4 .35
0.78
41 .1
0.54
0.87
3 .26
0.57
35.0
1 .06
1 .56
4.05
0.86
46.0
1 .16
1 .54
4 .89
0.82
41 .8
1 .56
2 .35
3 .71
0 .73
36 .7
0.76
1 .03
4 .99
0.40
30 .6
0 .78
1 .05
4 .44
0 .59
39,2
0 .66
1 .72
3 .53
0 .63
39 .3
0 .54-1 .56
0 .87-2 .33
3 .26-4.99
0 .40-0 .80
30.6-46.0
HCN ~gg
NO ° mg/g
7 .e
9 .2
11 .3
2.0
12.6
10.5
12 .0
10.8
9.7
7 .4
11 .1
10.9
12 .7
11 .4
12 .6
11 .4
9.7-12 .7'
2.0-11 .4
Technology fmrutlgated .• other nota:
•
' Cigarotte faFxioetad with SRR-1 Mend and medium panMity, citrrtetrcated parer (1).
° Cigaralte fabricated with Iow-0loat6te flue aued tobacco grown with nonnal nitrogea feftifuatian (2) .
' Contr+ol SE&III blend (3).
° SEB-III blend with added cocoa (1 .0 %) (3).
' Tobaoco subatituta (Cytrelm):SEB-III blard - 30:70 (3).
~ Datioatiaized SEBd1I blend (3) .
' SEB-IV control blend (4) .
h MS "tar" and niootitta detecmined by the FTC prooedure .
' BaP - beivo[a]pyrene ~ BaA - benz[a)anthraane
k Subsequent HCN analysea for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th series involved an improved and more aoourate analytial
p~a
' Hecaux of analytical problem, HCN result from SEB-1 sample 1-2 was omitted from range .
'" In the origina/ repocts, nhrog,ea o)ddes were expressed as NO3 . Sinx it has been demaostnnad that more tban
95% of Ihn nilrulgnn uxides 6n tubauw wrxukn ia nilriu oxide (NO) (S), the nilnVe oxidex data were reuslwlatexl
aooordingly.
~ . Gori, G .B. (Editor) Report No . 1. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The FJrst Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW Publ. No . (NIH) 1976, 76-905 .
2. Gori, G .B. (Editor) Report No. 2. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The Second Set of
Experimental Cigarettes. DHEWPubI. No. (NIH) 1976, 76-1111 .
3. Gori, G.B. (Editor) Report No. 3. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes The Third Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW Publ. No. (NIH) 77-1280.
4. Gori, G.B . (Editor) Report No. 4. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The Fourth Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW PubG (NIH) March (1980) .
s. Cooper P.J. ; and Hege, R.B. The Oxidation of NO to NO= in Cigarette Smoke . 32nd Tob . Chem. Res.
Conf., Montreal PQ, Canada, 1978 : Paper No . 34 .
Ln
N
~
N
CO
m
-j
Table 3
Component:"Tar" Ratios of Deliveries of Selected Components in Fresh Mainstream Smoke
from Commercial Cigarettes Designed to Yield Different "Tar" Levels'
AnalytelCigt . Type
Cigt A (NF) b
Cigt B (F)
Cigt C (F)
Cigt D(P17
20.1
2 .04
15 .6
1 .50
6 .8
0 .81
0.90
0.15
1 .00
0 .10
1 .30
1 .55
3 .21
6.37
1 .00
0.10
1 .14
0.20
0.65
47.69
1 .00
0 .12
1 .79
1 .78
4 .81
77.06
1 .00
0.17
2.44
4.46
14.67
113 .3
50.10
21 .14
31 .28
11 .54
40.15
8 .26
73.67
19.22
2.08
4 .56
3 .96
10.11
Per Cigarette Delivery
"tar"
nicotine
mg
mg
Amount of Component Relative to "Tar"
"tar"
nicotine
benzo[a]pyrene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosopyrrolidine
N'-nitrosoanatabine +
N'-nitrosoanabasine
.N'-nitrosonornicotine
4-(N-methylnitrosamino)-1(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone
catechol
g/g
919
µg/g
µg/g
µg/g
µg/g
µg/g
µg/g
mg/g
' Dats from Adanu et aL (g .
"NF - nao6haed dgarene; F - 6ha4ipped aguatta
PF - perfaated 6halippad dgaette
~ . Gorl, G.B . (Editor) Report No . 1 . Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The F7rst Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW Publ. No. (NIH) 1976, 76-905.
2. Gori, G.B. (Editor) Report No. 2. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes . The Second Set of
Experimental Cigarettes. DHEW PubL No. (NIH) 1976, 76-1111 .
3. Gori, G .B . (Editor) Report No. 3. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The Third Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW PubL No. (NIH) 77-1280.
,. Gori, G .B. (Editor) Report No. 4. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. The Fourth Set of Experimental
Cigarettes. DHEW Publ. (NIIQ March (1980) .
s. Cooper P.J. ; Hege, RB. The Oxidation of NO to NOZ in Cigarette Smoke . 32nd Tob. Chem . Res.
Conf., Montreal PQ, Canada, 1978 : Paper No. 34.
6. Adams, J .D. ; O'Mara-Adams, K.J. ; Hoffmann, D . To)dc and carcinogenic agents in undiluted
mainstrcam smokc and sidcstrcam smoke of different typcs of cigarittcs . Carctnogenesis 1987, 8,
729-731
TABLE 1A : VARIATIONS IN MS COb1FOSITION FOR CIGARETTES
DELIVERING 27.2 ± 0.2 mg OF "TAR"
AxWYtc/Sjai .Ns,
L-o:
L-=
I-C
II-W
IDZ4°.
ID w
1.:3e
w-31'
27 .4
27.4
27 .3
27 .4
27 .4
27.3
27 .0
27 .1
e
Am
Per Qgareae Dellrery
"ur"' cog/ci8t
27.2
27.0-27 .4
•'ur' y' 4ary,e„
1 .007
1 .007
1 .004
1 .007
1 .007
1 .004
0.993
0.996
1 .000
nkotinet mg/clgt
2.07
1 .39
1 .93
1 .80
1 .80
1 .91
3 .25
0.99
1 .94
0.89-3 .25
"ar"/nicotine ratio
13 .2
8 .3
30.4
14.8
8 .3-30.4
19 .7
14.1
13 .2
15 .2
14 .4
Amount oJ Component Re(ative w'7or••
BaPi
Itg/j*
0 .91
0 .68
0 .58
0.79
1 .04
1 .18
0 .72
0 .82
0 .64
0 .58-1 .18
BaAt
µg/g
1 .40
0 .92
1 .08
0 .90
1 .49
1 .64
1 .01
1 .00
1 .42
0 .90-1 .64
phenol
aWg
3 .95
2 .98
3 .83
3 .90
4.28
4 .62
4 .88
3 .07
6 .10
2 .98-0 .10
ocrerol
mg/=
0.72
0.51
0.62
0 .63
0.77
0 .79
0.72
0.57
ad
0 .31-0 .79
aceWdehyde ng/g
39 .1
42 .6
37.9
36 .1
38 .4
39.9
19 .6
25 .1
34 .9
19 .6-42 .6
HCN
n4g/j
6 .11
4.21
12.2
12 .0
13 .3
12 .1
9.8
13 .0
12 .5
9 .8-13 .3°
NO'
aS/j
9 .6
8 .0
9 .4
8.7
10.8
10 .0
33 .7
11 .3
12 .8
8 .0•33 .7
Technofogy tnvrrdgaad; other norer:
• 1-6 coataiued double the nitrate level of control biend S8&I (God, 1976a) .
I
so
3~
~
b High density reconstituted tobacco (ATS), slurry procew (God, 1976a) .
° Duplicate samples of control blend SBB-11(Ciod, 1976b) .
~
C
L
~
J
e Control blood SB&lII (contaiaed 3 .2 !i glyceroq (Ooei, 1977) .
i
S1
~
• Olyceroi omitted fmm control blood S88-m (God, 1977) .
r Full retura of cut rolled burley aems (()ori. 1980) .
~
S
3
s Nieotine In SB&N blood adjusted so that eigareua delivered MS nicotine at 1 .0 mg/cigt (Ciorl, 1980) .
~ S8B-N blood .vith 1 .5 % of an additive to reduce MS irdtation .
t MS "tar" and aicodns determined by the FTC procedure .
J B.P = benzo(aJpyeww k BaA - beoz(a)aat6ncane
~ Sub .equent HCN aaalysas foe the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th asria involved an iaaproved and nwn accurate analytical procedure .
m Becauss of analytical probbm, HCN data fi= S88-1 smopies Mm omitted 6om raa`e .
° In du oeiSiaal roports, aioropa osid .a .rorev exprewd as NOp Sioce it hu been deawa°trated that more than 9S9i of the
nitrogeu oxides In tobacco soatA is s3teia oxide (NO), dw nierojea oxides data were recalculated aoooedaqtly .
In the same NCI study, another set of eight cigarette samples whose "tar" yields were
equivalent at 25 .5 f 0.4 mg showed similar disparate compositions in their MS particulate and
vapor phases (Table IB) .
12
TABLE 1B : VARIATIONS IN MS COMPOSITION FOR CIGARETTF.S
DELIVERING 25.5 t 0.4 mg OF "TAR"
,AnaIXJ2/S'
.tio.
L-Z
D'-
r
L3£9
IYUL&
Bi!oe4
Per agarette Deuvery
"tar"e mg/cigt
25 .9
25 .9
2S .S
25 .5
25 .1
25 .4
25 .1
25 .7
25 .1-25 .9
"tar"/"urtp,.q•'
1 .016
1 .016
1 .000
1 .000
0 .984
0 .996
0 .984
1 .008
nicotined mg/cigt
1 .68
0.38
1 .67
1 .78
1 .18
0 .16
2 .02
1 .91
"tar"/nicotine ratio
15 .4
68.2
15 .3
14 .3
21 .3
158 .8
12 .4
13 .S
12 .4-158
~
~ ;.
0 .16-2 .02
Amount oj Compor+ent Relatrve to "Tar"
Ba0
µg/g
0 .72
0 .54
1 .06
1 .16
1 .56
0 .76
0 .78
0.66
0 .54-1 .56
BeAI
µg/g
1 .20
0 .87
1 .56
1 .54
2.35
1 .03
1 .05
1 .72
0 .87-2 .35
4,99
4 .33
3 .53
3 .26-4.99•
0 .40
0 .59
0 .63
0.40-0 .80
phenol
mg .r
.".,3;
3 .26
4.055
4 .89
3 ;71
acreaol
mg/g
0 .78
0.57
0 .86
0 .82
0.73
acetaldehyde
mg/g
41 .1
35 .0
46 .0
41 .8
36 .7
30 .6
39 .2
39 .3
30 .6-46 .0
HCN
mg/g
7 .8k
11 .3
12 .6
12 .0
9 .7
11 .1
12 .7
12 .6
9 .7-12 .7'
NO1O
mg/g
9 .2
2 .0
10.5
10 .8
7 .4
10 .9
11 .4
11 .4
2 .0-11 .4
9.I
Technology tnvest/gated; other notes:
' Cigarette fabricated with SEB-I blend and medium porosity, citrate-treated paper (Gori . 1976a) .
b cigarette fabricated with low-nicotine flue cured tobacco grown with normal nitrogen fertilization (Oori, 1976b) .
° Control SEB-III blend ~(t3~ori, i~~'7):
e SEB-III blend with addZd-o" (1 .0 %) (Gori, 1977) .
• Tobaceo substitute (GytreN) :SEB-m blend - 30:70 (dori, 1977) .
t Denicotinized SSB-III blend (Qod, 1977) .
a SEB-IV control blend (God, 1980) .
b MS "tar" and nicotine determined by the FfC procedure .
I BaP - benzo[alpyrene 1 BaA - benz[a)anthracene
4 Subsequent HCN anaiyaea for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th aeriea involved an improved and more accurate analytical
procedure.
t Beeau.e of analytical problem, HCN result from SEB-I sample 1-2 was omitted from range .
m In the original reports, nitrogen oxldes were expressed as NO= . Since it has been demonstrated that more than 9596
of the nitrogen oxides in tobacco smoke ia nitric oxide (NO), the nitrogen oxides data were recalculated accordingly .
Cigarette design technologies for the cigarettes listed in Tables 1A and 1B included RTS
inclusion, stem inclusion, tobacco substitute inclusion, nitrate enhancement, humectant (glycerol)
effect, tobacco additives, e .g., cocoa, nicotine adjustment, use of high porosity citrate-treated
cigarette paper . Several of these together with other technologies (expanded tobacco, perforated
filter tips, filter-tip additives) have been used in concert and to different degrees to attain specific
"tar" yields . ranging from 0 .1 to over 40 mg .
•
Another anomaly ignored was the fact that the "tars" from different types of cigarettes
i .e ., those cigarettes rated ultralow-, low-, medium-, and high-"tar" on the basis of "tar" yields
determined by FTG analysis, may be quite different compositionally . The consumer smoking a
15-mg "tar" cigarette is inhaling "tar" entirely different in composition from the "tar" in the
13
.'
I
MS of a cigarette whose "tar" yield is 20 mg or 7 mg . Examination of the data (Adams et al.,
1987) in Table 2 for four different U .S. commercial cigarettes indicates the significant variations
in individual component : "tar" ratios for several MS components of interest .
TABLE 2: COMFONENT :"TAR" RATIOS OF DELIVERIES FOR
SELECTED COMPONENTS IN FRESH MAINSTREAM
SMOKE FROM COMMERCIAL CIGARETTES DESIGNED
TO YIELD DIFFERENT "TAR" LEVELS'
CiQt A(NF1°
Per Cigarette Delivery
. . r„
ta
mg/cigt
mg/cigt
nicotine
Amount of Component Relative to "Tar"
. .tar,t
g/g
20.1
Cigt B (F)
15 .6
Cigt C (F)
Cigt D(PF)
6 .8
0 .90
2 .04
1 .50
0 .81
0 .15
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
nicotine
g/g
0 .10
0.10
0 .12
0 .17
benzo[a]pyrene
Ng/g
1 .30
1 .14
1 .79
2 .44
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Ng/g
1 .55
0.20
1 .78
4 .56
N-nitrosopyrrolidine
.Ug/g
3 .21
0 .65
4 .81
14.67
N'-nitrosoanatabine +
N'-nitrosoanabasine
llg/g
6 .37
47 .69
77 .06
113 .33
N'-nitrosonornicotine
IiS/g
50 .10
31 .28
40.15
73 .67
4-(N-methylnitrosamino)-1(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone
Ng/g
21 .14
11 .54
8 .26
19 .22
catechol
mg/g
2 .08
4 .56
3 .96
10 .11
' Data from Ad .ma er al . (1987) .
b NP - nonfiltered ; F- filtered; PF - perforated filter
14
III. REPRODUCIBLE ANALYTICAL METHODS
Between the Bradford et al. (1936) publication and the implementation of the FTC
smolring method for the determination of cigarette MS "tar" and nicotine yields, there were
other analyses used for this purpose . The details of the five most commonly used procedures are
summarized in Table 3 . Other details of these procedures plus comments on the events occurring
at the time of the FTC's involvement in the "tar" and nicotine labeling are summarized in
Appendix B .
TABLE 3 : METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF TOTAL SOLIDS AND NICOTINE
L&M Tobacco Co .
Method (Keith and
The Consumer Newsome, 1956,
Union's Method Cambridge Filter 1957, 1958 ;
Smoking Wolman Method (Consumer Method (Wartman Foster D . Snell Newsome and Keith,
Condjtiona, ete . (Wolman . 1953) Reoorta . 1955) sr al. . 1959) Method (Kimball) 1936 . 1957)
cigarette length 47 variable ; depends 47 variable ; depends variable ; depends on
smoked, nvn on length of on length of length of cigarette
cigarette being cigarette being being tested
tested
tested
butt length, mm variable ; depends 23 variable ; depends 23 variable ; depends on
on length of on length of length of cigarette
cigarette being cigarette being being tested
tested
tested
number of puffs number required to number required to number required to number required to 14
consume 47 mm of attain 23-mm butt consume 47 nun of attain 23-mm butt
cigarette length cigarette length
puff
puff
puff
no ./min
volume
duration
33
2 .0
frequency,
I
35
35
2.0
1
1.
35
2 .0
1
44
1 .9
2
lab temp ., °C 25° not specified not apecified not specified 23 .90
lab RH, %- 45% not specified not specified not specified 60%
cigarettes
per determination
smoked
5
8
10
5
10'
cigarette selection selected for selected for selected for selected for selected for
uniformity in uniformity in uniformity in uniformity in uniformity in
moisture content, moisture content, moisture content, moisture content, moisture content,
cigarette aize (if cigarette aize (if cigarette size (if cigarette size (if cigarette size (if
feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feasible), weight,
firmneu, and other firmness, and other firmness, and other firnuxaa, and other firmness, and other
chancteriatica characteristics characteristics characteristics characteristics
15
Table 3. Continued :
Smoking Wolman Method
Conditions, etc . (Wolman . 1953)
The Consumer
Union's Method
(Consumer
Reoons. 1935)
Cambridge Filter
Method (Wntnun
er o1 . . 1959)
Foster D. Snell
Method (Kimball)
L .dcM Tobacco Co .
Method (Keith and
Newsome, 1956,
1957,1958 ;
Newsome and Keith,
1956, 1957)
determination of SoHds (designated
total solids as tars in the
publication) are
determined by
gravity deposition
of smoke over 25
m1of0.1N
sullbric acid . The
mixture is extracted
with chloroform,
and the chloroform
extract Is heated to
evaporate the
chloroform . The
residue Is then
heated, or dried,
for 3 hr at 100°C.
The weight of
remaining material
after the heating ia
reported as tars .
Smoke for determination of both
nicotine and solids
Is absorbed in
acidified alcohol .
One portion of the
acidified alcoholic
solution Is diluted
with water, then
extracted with
chloroform. The
aqueous layer ia
nude alkaline and
re-extracted with
chloroform. The
two chloroform
extracts are combined, and the
chloroform
removed by
evaporation to yield
the tar, which Is
weighed .
Cigarette MS Is
collected on a glass
fiber filter material,
Cambridge filter
medium CM-1 13 .
The weight of
material retained in
the filter represents
total solids (total
particulate matter) .
Part of the material
retained on the
Cambridge filter Is
water. Thus . this
method includes
water In the value
for total aolida,
whereas the
Wolman Method
and the Consumers
Union Method do
not.
.
To determine soUds
(tar content In the
communi-cat'wn),
smoke is collected
in acidified alcohol .
The alcohol
solution Is heated
on a steam bath
(100'C) to
evaporate the
alcohol. After
about 5 hr, the
residue is heated in
the beaker at
105°C for 7 hr.
The weight of
material remaining
in the beaker Is
designated as the
tar content.
The smoke in this
method is retained
on an a-cellulose
trap . The a-cellulose
Is washed with hot
acidic methanol . The
solution Is extracted
with chloroform . To
deter-mine soUds
(termed tar in the
publications), the
chloroform solution
is evaporated on the •
steam bath and
heating is continued
for 3 hr at 105°C .
Tar value is
determined by
weighing the
residue .
determination of Solids for deter•
nicotine mination of
ntcodne are
collected over 10
ml alcohol acidified
with sulfuric acid
in a 300-m1
1Cjeldahl flask.
Solution ia treated
with alkali and then
steam-distilled . The
distillate Is treated
with silicotungstlc
acid to precipitate
the silicotungaute .
The silleotungatate
Is aeparated and Is
ignited to an ash
whose weight Is
used to calculate
the nicotine valueb .
Another portion of
the acidified
alcoholic solution is
treated with base
and steamdistilled .
Mcodne in the
steam distillate Is
measured spectrophotometrically.
To determine
nicotine, the
Cambridge filter
with the retained
solids is extracted
with 0.1 Nsulfuric
acid . The solution,
after washing with
chbroform, Is
made alkaline and
Is steam-distilled.
Nicotine in the
steam distillate Is
determined either
by the aiGcotungstio
acid method or by
the spectrophoto•
metric method .
To determine
nicodne, an aliquot
of the acidified
alcohol solution
containing the
smoke solids is
heated to remove
the alcohol, the
residue Is made
alkaline and Is
steam-distilled.
Wlcodns is determined gnvimetrically in the steam
distiWte (siGcotungstic acid
method) .
The extracted
methanol solution is
made alkaline and is
steam-distilled .
Mcodnt is determined In the steam
distillate spectrophotometrically.
' The authors recommended that three to six such determinations be carried out and the results averaged .
b Since other alkaloids coprecipitate with nicotine as silicotungstates, thia determination yields the alkaloid or total alkaloid
value .
•
16
Table 4 summarizes the chronology of the various analytical procedures proposed and
used for the determination of cigarette MS "tar" and nicotine yields .
TABLE 4: MAINSTREAM SMOKE "TAR" AND NICOTINE DETERMINATIONS
The Pre-FTC Era'
The FTC Era
T6e Ultralow-"Tar" Era
Wolman Method (Wolman, 1953)
FTC Methodab (FPC, 1%7a)
Spectrophotometcic Methodad : For
determining "tar" yield of cigarettes
designed to deliver < 2 mg/cigt
Consumer Union's Method - No . I
(Consumer Reports, 1955)
ISO Methods (ISO, 1986, 1987s, 1987b,
1989a,198b)
Cambridge Filter Method (Wartman et al.,
1959)
CORESTA Methods (CORESTA, 1966s,
1966b, 1966c, 1966d, 1969s, 1969b,
1986, 1987, 1989s, 1989b)
Foster D. -Sneil MethoJ (Kimball)°
DIN Methods (Verband, 1965)
LecM Tobacco Co . Method (Keith and
Newaome, 1956, 1957, 1958; Newsome
and Keith, 1916, 1957)
UK Methods (Bentley and Burgan, 1961)
' For complete details on these five methods, aee Appeodt : B .
b FTC methods Incotporate contributions of Bradford et al. (1936), Griffith, (1957), Wartman et ol . (1959), Ogg et al .
(1960, 1962), Ogg (1964) ; rf. Bates et al . (1967, 1%8) .
° 7he Reader'r Digest (Riia, 1950; Norr, 1952; Miller and Monahan, 1957s, 19S7b, 1957c, 1958s, 1958b, 1959, 1961, 1966,
1968• ; Miller, 1958, 1%2 ; Ratcliff, 1959) in ita continued attack against cigarette smoking had retained Foster D . Snell,
Inc . to determine the "tar" and nicotine yields from U .S . (Miller and Monahan, 19S7b, 1958s, 1958b, 1959, 1961, 1966)
and Canadian (Miller and Monahan, 1957c) cigarettes .
d For details on these methods, aee Appmdbc C .
• in thia article, Miller and Monahan (1968) cite FTC (6TC, 1968) not Foater D . Snell data .
IV. DI]FFERENCES BETWEEN FTC AND OTHER METHODS
Debardeleben et al . (1991) presented a very fine review of the determination of "tar"
and nicotine in cigarette smoke from an historical point-of-view . They included discussion of the
following topics and how certain procedures eventually were included in standard methods of
analysis such as the FTC procedure and the CORESTA and ISO procedures :
• Smoking machines
• Smoking parameters
- the origins of puff volume, puff duration, puff interval, butt length'=
• Smoke trapping systems (cold traps, Cambridge filter pad)
12 DeBardeleben et al . (1991) nude no mention of the depth of insertion of the cigarette into the cigarette holder . It was eventually set at
I 1 nun (7/16 in) . This insertion depth ensured that in most products with perforated filter tipa, the perforations were not covered, i .e . .,
the perforations were external to the cigarette holder .
17
~ Analytical procedures
- water (Karl Fischer titration, gas chromatography)
- nicotine (silicotungstic acid method, spectrophotometric methods,
titration, gas chromatography) .
Table S summarizes information from Bradford et al . (1936), Wynder and Hoffmann
(1967), Johnson (1986), DeBardeleben et al., (1991), and others on the similarities and
differences in the smoking parameters used by various investigators or institutions in the
determination of cigarette MS "tar" and nicotine .
Table 6 compares the smoking and parameters and analytical procedures prescribed for
use by the cigarette manufacturers (Bates et al ., 1967, 1968), by the USDA (Ogg et al ., 1964),
and by the FTC (1967b).
18
(A
TABLE 5: SMOKING PARAMETERS PRESCRIBED FOR USE IN VARIOUS
DETERMINATIONS OF CIGARETTE MS "TAR" AND NICOTINE
Source
p~
Bradford
CORESTA
24
puff volume, ml
35
35 t 0 .3'
33 t 0 .25"
35
33
35
3S t 0.5
35 t 0 .5
puff duration, .ec
2 .0
1 .8-2 .2 f 0 .0t3'
2 .0 t 0.05b
2
2
2
2 t 0.2
2 t 0 .2
puff fcequency, puff/min
1
1°
1°
1
1
1
1'
l
bua lenyt6, mm
23
23
OW + 3•
23
OW + 3•
23
OW + 3'
20
OW + 3a
30
OW + 31
23
OW + 3'
F+81
F+Br
F+Bt
OW+Sh
17.5
17.3
17.5
17.5
17 .5
17 .3
aample aize, no . of ci8areaea
200
100
ia.eRion depth, mm
11
11
air flow, mVaec
17 .5
PPl
3m
4Qe
FM
TPM trappinp tyatem
CFI+i
SSPti
CFFi
BSFt
CF14
ESpk
CFFi
CFpi
CFpi
TPM water analyaia
llC'
KFl•
Oct
KEtm
Oct
KFI°
Oct
OC1
KFl°
Oct
GC1
QC1
ClC!
Od
OCi
OSpo
ad
OSpo
laboratory conditions
22'C
60% RH
22'C
60% RH
22'C
60% RH
22•C
60% RH
23 .9'C
60% RH
23 .9'C
60% RH
ci8arette conditioning
22'C
60% RH
22•C
60% RH
22•C
60% Wi
22'C
60% RH
24 hr @
23 .9'C
60% RH
24 hr 0
23 .9'C
60% RH
TPM nicotine andyaia
STAF"
K1tN
' ptrior w 1989 ` Atter 1989
° 1 puff every 60 t 1 aec ° 1 puff every 60 t 0 .5 aac
• OW - overanp ; 23 mm or overweap + 3 mn% whichever Ia longer
r F - flher ; 23 mm or Sher + 8 mm, whichever Is loag .r
e For cipralba s 75 nM 20 aom a oveewpp + 3 me% whichever ia lon8er
k For ci8aauea > 75 mm,10 mm ar ovenvap + 5 mm, whichever ia looSer
1 OW m overnc .pp 30 mm or aver.vrap + 3 mm, whichever ia lon`er
J CFP - Cambridje mter pad k BSP ~ electroatado precipitation
~ OC - gas cbromatojrapby ~ KFT ~ Karl Fiacber BtnBoo
e BTAp - ailioowo8 .dc aaW pencedur.
o OSP - OeitFith still procedure. 'lbis procedure was uaed for war yean In the U .S . but .vaa
replaced by a ps cbeom .w;eapbio met6od, wbsequeofly approved by the FTC
19
KF I°
TABLE 6: COMPARISON OF SMOKING PARAMETERS PRESCRIBED FOR
USE BY THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY (BATES et al, (1967, 1968),
OGG et ot. (1964), AND THE FTC (1967b) IN THEIR
DETERMINATIONS OF CIGARETTE MS "TAR" AND NICOTINE
Source
Parameter
Bslgs ti.el,
2u
Fn
puff volume, ml
35 t 0.5
35 t 0 .5
35 f 0 .5
puff duration, sec
2 .0 t 0 .2
2 ± 0.2
2 ± 0 .2
puff frequency, number
l per 60 ± 1
I per 60 ± l
I
butt length, mm
NP: 23, 30b, or 47
F- OW+3°
F+OW+3°
NF : 30
F:OW+3°
NF - 23
F- OW+3d
air flow, ml/sec
17 .5
17 .5
17 .5
sample size, no . of cigarettes
200'
200
100
ineertion depth, mm
11
11
1l
TPM trapping system
CFFr
CFFt
CFFr
TPM water analysis
Kb'1'e
KFre
GC6
K1TTe
()Ci
TPM nicotine analysis
GS>J
GSFi
GSPi
()Cb
laboratory conditions
23 .9 ± 1 .1°C
60 f 2%RH
23 .9°C
60%RH
23 .9°C
60%RH
cigarette conditioning
variablet at
23 .9° ± 1 .1°C
60t2%R13
24 hr at
23 .9°C
60%RH
24 hr at
23 .9°C
60%RH
' NF - nonfiltered cigarette ; F - filtered cigarette
6 30 mm or overwrap + 3 nun was the preference of Bates er al (1967, 1968)
° OW - overwrap ; 30 mm or overwrap + 3 nun, whichever Is longer
d OW - overwrap ; 23 mm or ovenvrsp + 3 mm, whichever Is longer
• 40 determinationa on S cigarettes
r CFP - Cambridge filter pad
e KFT - Karl Fischer titration
b OC - gee chromatography ; the procedure of Schultz and Spears was recommended
~ Eventually a gas chromatographic procedure was implemented in the FTC procedure to
determine water and nicotine In the particulate matter
1 OSP - Griffith still procedure
k it was recommended that cigarettes be conditioned under laboratory conditions
specified until they "come to moisture equilibrium with the atmosphere of the
conditioning chamber ."
Both prior to and after the implementation in 1967 of the FTC analytical procedure for
cigarette MS "tar" and nicotine, numerous investigators reported on their determinations of total
particulate matter, water, nicotine, and "tar" in cigarette MS . References are indicated in Table
7. Surprisingly, most of the studies conducted pre-1967 dealt with methods of determining
20
TABLE 7: CHRONOLOGY OF ANALYSIS OF MS TPM AND NICOTINE AND
WATER IN MS TPM
tinatlon TPM Nicotine Determtnation TPM Water Determination
Pre-193Q
~.
~ ~ I{iaeling, 1882s, 1882b
\, Lowenthal, 1892
~ Schmidt, 1904
Theodorovita, 1905
~ Warburg, 1906
Biederbeek, .1908
\ Toth, 1908, 1909
Toth and Krampera, 1910
Van Leeuwen, 1919
Hahn and Langer, 1920
Bogner, 1921
Popp,1922
Baumberger, 1923a, 1923b
Ptyl and Schmidt, 1927
Wenuach, 1928
Winter.tein and Aronaon, 1928
_/n •
193Qs
•
Preiu, 1936 Bodnar, 1930s, 1930b
Heiduachaka, 1930
Batu and Toole, 1931•, 1932a', 1932b'
Hahn and IfiriamaM, 1931
Kovalenko, 1931
Malaquin, 1931
Pydki, 1931a, 1931b, 1932 .
Wenusch, 1931a, 1931b
Heiduachaka and Poat, 1932
Molinati, 1932
Nagy, 1932a, 1932b
Hofmann, 1933°
Nagy and Dickmann, 1933a, 1933b
Pfyl, 1933a, 1933b
Pyriki, 1933, 1934, 1935
Schloumann, 1933
Toole, 1933
Kopericu, 1934
Pretu, 1934, 1935, 1936
Wenuach, 1934s, 1934b, 1934c, 1934d,
1934e, 1936a, 1936b, 1937a,
1937b
Wulfert, 1934a, 1934b
Bodnar et at ., 1935
Jensen and Haley, 1935
~
Hofmann,
1942b
Pyriki,
1943
Griffith and Jefl'rey, 1948
Dabrowaka,
1949
~
~
--j
~'
S
tp
J
tp
21
Table 7. Continued:
TPM Nicotine Deterrnination
TPM Water DeterminatioC
19SOs
Schmihl et at., 1954b
Schmihl, 195Sb
Schmihl and Schneider, 1955b
Keith and Newaome, 1956, 1957
Aksu and Fneroan S, 1958s, 1958b
Morgareidge, 1958, 1959
Trifu and Dumitreacu, 1958s, 19S8b,
1959
Wartman and Harlow, 1958
McConnell et at., 1959b, 1960P
Monod and DuPont, 1959
Staberg, 1959
Wartman et at ., 1959
Willita ct at., 1950
Marchand and Zenard, 1951
Cundiff and Markunaa, 1953', 1955'
Laurene and Harrell, 195Sb
Cogbill et al ., 1959
Fiahel, 1959
izawa and Kobashi, 1956
lzawa et at ., 1956s, 1956b
Grittith, 1957d
Aksu and Enercan S, 1958s, 1958b
Laurene and Harrell, 1958"
Mathur, 1958
Trifu and Dumltreacu, 1958s, 1958b
Wartman and Harlow, 1958
Kuhn, 1959b
Pleaaanta et al ., 1959b
Staberg, 1959
Waltz er al., 1959b
L2&
Bentley and Burgan, 1961
Bock et at., 1962
Ogg et at., 1962
Harrell and Sullivan, 1963t
Smith and De Souza, 1963°
1964 biopm (fatnn/'r Reporr
Ogg, 1964
Okada and Shibayama, 1964b
Senkus, 1960
TTokura and Furakawa, 1964
Rodgman, 196Sa, 196Sb, 1965c
Yamazaki tt at ., 1965
CORESTA, 1966a
Batea et at., 1967, 1968
MOller and Moldenhauer, 1967
Wynder and Hoffmann, 1967r
Dalhamn, 1968
CORESTA, 1969a
Georgiev, 1969
Gilea, 1969t
Gilea and Sullivan, 1969
Ogg, 1969
Viart, 1969
Barkemeyer and Seehofer, 1960b
Ogg ct al ., 1960, 1962
Kuhn and Marek, 1961
Aamua et al ., 19626
Pyriki and Moldenhauer, 1962
Artho and Grob, 1963, 1964d
Harrell and Sullivan, 19631
Seehofer and Borowaki, 1963a
!%{ SSageaai (ienerol'c Report
Mann et al., 1964°
Ogg, 1964
Senkua, 1964t
Tokura and Funkawa, 1964
Lyerly, 1965a°, 1965b°
Pyrikl and Moldenhauer, 1965a, 1963b°
Rodgnun, 1965s . 1965b, 1965c
Verband,1963
Yamazaki et al., 1965
Lyerly and Gilleland, 1966
CORESTA, 1966b, 1966c, 1966d
Harvey et al., 1966' , 1967'
Bates et al ., 1967, 1968
Lyerly 1967°
M811er and Molden6auer, 1967
Wynder and Hoffmann, 1967t
Dalhamn, 1968
Charles et al ., 1969b
Pillsbury et at., 1969
CORESTA, 1969b
Georgiev, 1969
Gilea, 1969r
Gilea and Sullivan, 1969
Ogg, 1969
22
Crowell, 1960b
Fishel, 1960
Holmea and Cridlin, 1960
Crowell et al ., 1961b
Jarrell and Wickham, 1961°, 1962°
Ogg et al ., 1962
Harrell and Sullivam, 1963r
Waltz et al., 1963b
1964 b5ogoow Gsewertil'c Reporr
Neurath et al ., 1964
Okada and Shibayama, 1964s, 1964b
Sloan and Sublett, 1964°, 1965°
Neuath, 1966
Neurath er al., 1966
Schultz and Spears, 1966°
Thome, 196Sa°, 1965b°, 1966°
Bates et al., 1967, 1968
Graves, 1967°
Wynder and Hoffaunn, 1967r
CORESTA, 1969a
Table 7. Continued :
TPM Determination
TPM Nicntine Determination
TPM Water Detennination
1970s
Ogg and Schulz, 1970
Smit, 1972b
Hartung and Stewart, 1973
Norman, 1973, 1974
Rothwell and Grant, 1974t
Harbin and Stamey, 1975
Williamson et al., 1975
Bronnemann et al ., 1976r
Hammond et al., 1976
Keith, 1976
Owen, 1976
Wakeham, 1976
Burton et al., 1977
Maeda et al ., 1978
Rix, 1979
Cano et al., 1970°
Ogg and Schulz, 1970
Sadler et al., 19704
Diffee and Sheppard, 1971°
Bourlas and F.aperdy, 1972b
Hartung and Stewart, 1973
Schulz and Seehofer, 1973
Randolph, 1973°, 1974°
Rothwell and Orant, 1970
Wagner and Thaggard, 1974°, 1979°
Diffee, 1975
Roberts, 1975°
Williamson et al ., 1975
Bourlas et al ., 19766
DeVriea et al ., 1976"
Watson et al., 1970°
Hartung and Stewart, 1973
Roberta, 1975°
Rix, 1979
Bmnnemann et al ., 1976"
Hammond et al ., 1976
Keith, 1976
Leonetti and Carugno, 1976°
Lyerly and Greene, 1976°
Owen, 1976
Wakeham, 1976
Campbell, 1978
Oaivoromchi et al., 1978°
Maeda et al., 1978
Ma.kninec et al ., 1978a
Rix, 1979
1980.r
Hege, 1980b
Norman et al., 1980a, 1980b
Thomaa, 1980b
Herning et al ., 1981
McMurtrie et al., 1981
Sloan and Curran, 1981b
Wald et al ., 1981
Yama111100, 1981
Baakevitch and Ferrer, 1982
Dobbina, 1984
Yamamoto et al., 1984
ISO, 1986
Johtuon,1986t
Williamson et al., 1986s, 1986b
ISO, 1987s, 1987b
CORESTA, 1989a, 1989b
Shoffner and Ireland, 1980°, 1982°
McMuttrie et at., 1981
Wald et al ., 1981
Yamamoto, 1981
Baskevitch and Ferrer, 1982
Dobbins, 1984
Yamamoto et al ., 1984
CORESTA, 1986°, 1989b°
ISO, 1989a°, 1989bb
•
23
CORESTA, 1987°, 1989b°, 1990'
ISO, 1987a, 1987b
Table 7. Continued :
TPM Determination TPM Nicotine Determination TPM Water Determination
1M
Yamamoto et al ., 1990 Ayres et at ., 1990b Deldardeleben et al ., 1991t
DeBardeleben et al., 1991t Yamamoto et al., 1990
DeBardeleben et al., 1991t
Deutach and RobeR.on, 1991°
Deutech and Jefton, 1994°
• Titrimetric method b Spectrophotometic method °(3aa chromatognphic method
d Distillation method ° Extraction method t Review
a High pressure liquid chromatograph
nicotine or total alkaloids in cigarette MS . Those described post-1967 include improved
procedures (e .g., gas chromatographic methods instead of gravimetric, titrimetric, or
spectrophotometric procedures for nicotine ; gas chromatographic methods instead of the Karl
Fischer titrimetric method for water), spectrophotometric methods for determination of "tar"
in the MS from ultralow-"tar" cigarette, automation of existing procedures, reviews, and the
like.
VI . HISTORICAL TRENDS
1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984
A. Sales-Weighted
Average MS "Tar"
Deliveries
50
3 .0
45
1711.r Tlpe
Raoonaututad Tobacco Sbaat
40
From the mid-1950s
through the late 1980s, the salesweighted average "tar" yield of
U.S. cigarettes has declined as
shown in Figure 4 .
This decline in "tar" yield
is the result of inclusion of various
combinations of these technologies
to varying degrees in the design of
cigarette. As noted previously,
these technologies include :
Papar Addithes
Papar Porodty
i:panded Tobaaoo
35
V.atllatlon
30
25
~ . . . . . .... . . . .
~ • . .. ..~
15
- Tar
••••••••• Nicotine
10
5
0I I I I I
L_
I I I
0.0
1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984
Figure 4.
• tobacco blend and weight
• tobacco rod length and
circumference
• filter tips (material type and additives)
"Tar" and Nicotine Deliveries, Sales Weighted Average
Basis
24
• processed tobaccos (reconstituted tobacco sheet, expanded tobacco)
• paper (type and additives)
• air dilution (increased paper porosity, filter tip perforations) .
In Figure 4 are indicated the approximate dates when these technologies were introduced
and subsequently became used routinely thoughout by U .S . cigarette manufacturers .
It has been noted by the U .S . Surgeon General (USPHS, 1979, 1981, 1982) that the
following changes in the properties of the "tar", actually CSC, accompanied the decrease in
sales-weighted average "tar" produced by inclusion of the various technlogies in cigarette
design:
• The BaP per mg of CSC decreased over the same time period .
• The tumorigenicity, as measured in mouse-skin painting studies, of the MS "tar" (CSC)
decreased over the same time period .
B . Sales-Weighted Average MS Nicotine Deliveries
From the mid-1950s through the late 1980s, the sales-weighted average nicotine yield of
U. S. cigarettes has declined as shown in Figure 4 .
This decline in per cigarette nicotine yield is also the result of inclusion of the various
technologies to varying degrees in the cigarette design .
VII. EFFECT OF VARIATION OF MAJOR SMOKING PARAMETERS ON FTC MS
"TAR" AND NICOTINE YIELDS
An individual cigarette smoker generally does not consume his/her cigarette by the major
smoking parameters (puff volume = 35 ml, puff duration = 2 sec, puff frequency = 1 puff/60
sec) defined for use in the FTC smoking procedure . Data are available from several RJRT inhouse studies to show the effect on MS cigarette "tar" and nicotine yields of keeping two of the
three parameters constant and varying the third .
In 1979, Rix (1979), using Response Surface Methodology, conducted a detailed study
on the effect of puff volume, duration, and frequency on puff number plus the MS TPM, MS
nicotine, MS water, MS "tar," and MS carbon monoxide yields from 85-mm Winston and
Marlboro cigarettes . Table 8 summarizes the 'tar" and nicotine data on the 85-mm Winston .
"Tar" and nicotine yields are increased by increasing the puff frequency and by increasing the
puff volume. Examination of the data in Table 8 reveals that of the three major parameters
changes in the puff duration have the least effect on MS "tar" and nicotine yields: See
comparisons of Sample No . 17 vs Sample No . 18 and Sample No . 1 vs Sample No. 3 where the
puff durations of 1 .5 vs 2 .5 sec were studied .
TABLE 8: THE EFFECT OF VARIATION IN SMOKING PARAMETERS (PUFF VOLUME,
DURATION, FREQUENCY) ON THE FTC "TAR" AND NICOTINE YIELDS
FROM AN 85-mm W7W!nN
Puff Puff Puff FTC
Samole No. Volume, ml Duration, sec Freauencv "Tar" . ma
FfC
tlicotine . ma
No . of
rt
16
35
1 .5
30
42 .1
2 .26
15 .2
1
3S
1 .3
60
23 .7
1 .60
9 .3
16
35
1 .5
30
42 .1
2 .26
15 .2
17
60
1 .5
30
62 .2
2.85
12 .2
3S
2 .S
30
38 .7
2 .31
13 .5
60
2 .S
30
61 .1
2 .72
11 .4
3S
2 .S
60
24 .1
1 .43
9.1
60
2 .5
60
41 .8
1 .96
8.4
2
18
3
20
11
47.5
2 .0
30
43 .9
2 .21
10 .8
S/l0°
47 .5
2.0
45
40 .7
2 .11
10 .3
47 .5
2 .0
60
32 .4
1 .81
8 .2
2 .0
43
24 .0
1 .48
12 .5
47 .5
2 .0
45
40 .7
2.11
10.3
68 .8
2 .0
4S
50 .7
2 .31
9 .1
13
26 .3
S/lOb
14
2
35
2 .5
30
38 .7
2 .31
13 .5
©
35
2 .S
60
24 .1
1 .43
9 .1
18
2 .S
30
61 .1
2 .72
11 .4
20
2 .S
60
41 .8
1 .96
8.4
17
60
1 .5
30
62 .2
2 .85
12 .2
cn
N
18
60
2 .5
30
61 .1
2 .72
11 .4
J
N
m
~
OD
26
W
Table 8. Continued :
l
35
1 .5
60
23 .7
3
35
2 .5
60
24,1
1 .60
9 .3
1 .43
9 .1
' Data are from Rix (1979) who also presented similar data for the 85-mm Marlboro . Rix also presented data on the
yields of TPM, TPM water, and carbon monoxide .
b Data represent the average "tar^ and nicotine yields from Samples Noa . 5 through 10.
Rix (1979) also compared the effect on the carbon monoxide, nicotine, and "tar" yields
from the 85-mm Winston and 85-mm Marlboro of changing the major FTC smoking parameters
(35-m1 puff volume, 2 .0-sec puff duration, 60-sec puff frequency) to more "realistic""
smoldng conditions (65-m1 volume, 2 .0-sec duration, 45-sec frequency) . Table 9 summarizes
the results obtained . At the higher puff volume and frequency, the % differences between the
Winston and the Marlboro become less for MS "tar" and nicotine yields, with the Winston yield
being the higher . In the 150-page report by Rix, there are numerous plots of the relationships
between carbon monoxide, nicotine, and "tar" yields and puff volume, duration, and frequency
for the 85-mm Winston and Marlboro . Also included are plots (2-sec puff duration, 1 puff/min)
of the "tar"/nicotine ratios vs puff volume for the following brands : Winston, Camel, Vantage,
Now, More, Real, and Marlboro .
TABLE 9 : 85-mm WJVSTiDN AND MARl.8OR0: COMPARISON OF FTC CARBON
MONOXIDE, NICOTINE, AND `-TAR" YIELDS AT STANDARD AND MORE
"REALISTIC" SMOKIING PARAMETERS
cjgg agg
FTC "Tar",
ale/ciat
FTC Nicotine,
me/ciet
FTC CO,
m !Q Ciat
"Tar"/Nicotine
Rado
FTC smokfng condidons (3J-ml pkQ', 2.0-sec puff durotion, one pi}D'every 60 see)
WAsron
20.6 (20.9)'
1 .43 (24 .3)
19 .1 (15 .2)
14.4 (-4.8)
Marlboro
16 .3
1 .08
16 .2
15 .1
' ReallsNe" snaokIng eondidons (6J-rnd pqf. 2.4see pr}Q'durotion, one pr{Q'every 45 sec)
Wlnsron
35 .7 (15 .7)
2 .35 (16 .8)
33 .9 (15 .3)
13 .2 (-2 .6)
Marlboro
30.1
1 .93
28 .7
15 .6
' Numbers in parentheses represent % difference between WINSTON and MARLBORO :
% Difference - 100(Wtnsron - Marfboro)l Wlnrton
In a similar study on the 100-mm Winston and the now defunct 120-mm Dawn, Dobbins
(1984) elected to vary the puff volumes at different puff frequencies with the puff duration
•
13 Whether the "realistic" conditions for 1979 smokers would apply to current (1994) smokers is not known . Two years later, Henning et
at. (1981) observed that filter cigarette smokers took a 35 .9- to 47 .8-m1 puff of 1 .94 to 2 .06 wc every 26.9 to 30 .0 sec .
27
•
maintained throughout at 2 .0 sec because of the findings of Rix (1979) on the minimal effect of
variation in puff duration . His data on number of puffs plus MS "tar," and MS nicotine yields
are summarized in Table 10 . In addition to the data summarized, Dobbins also reported the MS
TPM and TPM water yields for the cigarettes . The effects of variation of puff volume (puff
duration and puff frequency constant) and puff frequency (puff volume and puff duration
constant) observed for the 100-mm Winston and the 120-mm Dawn were similar to those
reported by Rix for 85-mm Winston and 85-mm Marlboro .
Rix (1979)
Dobbins (1984)
Herning et al.
(1981)
,
cigarette type
85-mm filtered cigarettes
100-mm and 120-mm
filtered cigarettes
smokers of filtered
cigarettes
puff volume, ml
26 .3, 35 .0, 37 .5,
60.0,68 .8
15, 25, 35, 40, 45, 55
35 .9-47 .8
puff duration, seo
1 .15, 1 .5, 1 .0, 2.5, 2 .85
2.0
1 .94-2.06
puff frequency, sec
30, 45, 60
30, 45, 60
26 .9-30 .0
Sm4king Parameter
28
TABLE 10: THE EFFECT OF VARIATION IN SMOKING PARAMETERS (PUFF VOLUME,
FREQUENCY) ON THE FT C "TAR" AND NI COTINE YIELDS FROM A 100-mm
W11VSTrIN
Puff
Volume. ml
Puff Puff
fluration. aeo Freauencv
RCC
"Tar" . me
FTC
Nicotine, mQ
No . of Puffi
15
2 .0
30
13 .5
1 .08
20.7
1S
2 .0
45
10 .0
0 .81
15 .2
15
2.0
60
7 .8
0 .63
12 .0
2 .0
30
23 .2
1 .77
18 .4
2 .0
45
17 .4
1 .19
13 .5
2 .0
60
13 .8
1 .02
11 .1
35
2 .0
30
30.6
2 .24
16,6
35
2 .0
45
23 .0
1 .72
12 .6
35
2 .0
60
18 .6
1 .36
10.5
1 40
2.0
30
32 .0
2.32
16 .0
45
2 .0
30
34 .6
2 .44
15 .8
45
2 .0
45
25 .9
1 .89
12.2
45
2 .0
60
21 .3
1 .52
10 .1
SS
2 .0
30
38 .0
2 .68
14.2
SS
2 .0
45
31 .4
2 .09
11 .4
55
2 .0
60
24 .1
1 .62
9 .4
25
' Data from Dobbina (1984)
29
VIII. RELATIONSHIP TO HUMAN SMOKING
USPHS, 1979 :
The "tar" and nicotine content of cigarettes is measured by machines which smoke cigarettes
according to a predetermined puff rate, butt length, duration of puff, and volume of puff . An
individual smoker does not necessarily consume cigarette in this standardized manner .
Depending on the makeup of the cigarette, the wet particulate matter that issues with the [MS]
from the butt end amounts to 0 .2 to 9 .0 percent of the weight of the [MS] . The. ..FTC issues
reports semiannually on the "tar" content of all U .S . commercial cigarettes . In those reports
"tar" is defined as total particulate of [MS], minus water and nicotine, and is determined by
smoking cigarettes under standard conditions in a 20-channel machine [Pillsbury et al ., 1969] .
[From 1955 to 1977], the "tar" and nicotine contents' of cigarettes have declined . This trend is
illustrated in [F'igure 5] which depicts the sales-weighted average "tar" delivery per cigarette
from 1955 to 197T. . . For the years after 1967, periodic measurements of cigarette "tar" by the
[FTC, 1967b] permit reliable calculations of sales-weighted average "tar" delivery .
•
From 1954, sales-weighted average "tar" decreased from approximately 37 mg to approximately
23 mg . Although this change paralleled the rapid increase in filtertip market share, it also reflected
a decrease in the "tar" content of both filtertip and nonfilter cigarettes . . . Since 1966,the salesweighted average "tar" has continued to decrease . . . The observed decreases in sales-weighted
"tar" have been paralleled by declines in the sales-weighted nicotine [yield] per cigarette .
a A cigarette does not have a"tu" content; Its MS does.
b FiQnre S is in an extension of that ahown In the 1979 Surgeon General's report (USPHS, 1979) ;
it represents data from 1954 through 1985 .
USPHS, 1981 :
There is evidence that machines that measure "tar" and nicotine content are not suitable for
measurements of smoke from lower "tar" and nicotine cigarettes with perforated filter tips . . .and
that the "tar" and nicotine in the inhaled smoke may be more than indicated by the test
procedures .
The FTC ratings of "tar" and nicotine yields measure an implied risk to the smoker . Smokingmaehine"data guide experimenters in elucidating the mechanisms of induction of smoking-related
disease . Absolute levels of smoke constituents my be very important for experiments, so the
experimenter must have reliable information about the comparability of machine and human
smoking . The use of machine data to monitor risk has somewhat different requirements . If the
relative yields of different cigarettes are not greatly affected by smoking conditions, present
smoking-machine standards will be adequate to indicate relative risk of new cigarettes . We know,
however, that the relative yield of many constituents is affected by butt length, puff frequency,
and degree of ventilation . We need to determine how the variations in these smoking parameters
affect relative yields of the several substances in smoke that are of toxicological interest .
Methods for determining "tar"' and nicotine yield were developed before very low yield
cigarettes were an important segment of the market . It is questionable whether existing procedures
can measure accurately the "tar" delivery of the cigarettes yielding 0 .1 mg of "tar." Other
techniques giving acceptable results must be developed . Procedures for determining "tar" yields
30
•
of low magnitude through measurement of fluorescence have been recommended (Thomas, 1980) .
[see Appendix C, this memorandum]
USPHS, 1982 :
The composition of the [MS] and [SS] depends greatly on the smoking conditions and the methods
of collection and analysis . This has long been realized; more than 20 years ago, standardized
smoking conditions were established for machine measurements of cigarette smoke [Wartman et
al., 1959] . Since then, the . . .FfC, research institutions, and the U .S . cigarette industry have used
the same standardized parameters for cigarette smoking [Bates et al ., 1968 ; Pillsbury et al .,
1969] . . . The standard cigarette smoking conditions reflect the average smoking habits of a male
smoker of nonfilter cigarettes as determined 25 years ago (Brunnemann et al ., 1976] . The average
smoking parameters recently recorded for filter cigarette smokers were one puff of 1 .94 to 2 .06
seconds duration, repeated every 26 .9 to 30 .0 seconds, with a puff volume of 35 .9 to 47 .8 ml
[Herning et al., 1981] . Nevertheless, FTC-standard cigarette smoking conditions continue to be
used for comparisons of tar and nicotine yields in the smoke of present cigarettes and those made
years and even decades ago .
The trends for the
sales-weighted average
tar and nicotine
deliveries of U .S .
cigarettes since 1955 . . .
are shown in [Figure
5] . . . During this time,
the percentage of filtertipped cigarettes in
U .S . cigarette
production increased
from 18 .7 to 90
percent . . .
1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984
50
3 .0
45
~
~
~
171ta Ttpr
R4ooo.ttlut.a ToDaooo Sh ..t
Pap .r Addlu...
Pap.r PoroalLy
lspaadad Tobaoao
40
35
2 .5 °•!
2 .0
v.nw.u.o
30
~
25
S5
20
a
15
-
~'`~
...
Tar
••••••••• Nicotine
The reported data are
5
based on measurements
obtained by machine
I
1
1
I
0
0 .0
smoking of cigarettes
1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984
under standard
Figure S . "Tar" and Nicotine Deliveries, Sales Weighted Average
conditions . As
Basis
discussed before, these
conditions may have
reflected the average smoking habits of individuals 25 years ago, but today [1982] they appear to be
representative of less than 10 percent of U .S . smokers .
1
I
I
Despite the repeated criticisms and deficiencies noted above (USPHS, 1979, 1981, 1982)
of the FTC analytical procedure for "tar" and nicotine yields, a procedure imposed on the U .S .
cigarette manufacturers (FTC, 1966, 1967), no serious attempt has been made by the FTC
during the past decade to modify the analytical procedure it put in place in 1967 . Because of a
B&W uniquely filtered cigarette product that behaved differently when smoked in the holder on
•
31
the FTC-recommended smoking machine and when smoked by mouth", an attempt was made
to introduce a new holder that would circumvent the problem . The original rubber diaphragm
holder on the FTC smoking machine is still in use.
IX. PERTINENT EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA : DO PEOPLE WHO SMOKE
REDUCED-"TAR" CIGARETTF.S HAVE A LOWER INCIDENCE OF
SMOKING-RELATED DISEASE?
In 1976, Hammond et al. (1976) described the decrease in mortality ratios in lownicotine, low-"tar" smokers compared to high-nicotine, high-"tar" smokers for lung cancer .
Several years later, Hammond (1980) wrote :
Wynder and I drafted a resolution that . . .was quoted in the Congressional Record [U .S . Congress,
1967] and by the Surgeon General . It said, "The preponderance of the scientific evidence strongly
suggests that the lower the 'tar' and nicotine contenN [sic] in cigarettes, the less harmful would
be the effects . . . The statement has been relevant ever since . Today I would change this wording .
Instead of saying that "the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests," I'd now say "the
preponderance of scientific evidence very strongly suggests" and I'd leave the rest of the wording
unchanged .
' A cigarette does not have a"ur content" ; its MS does .
In a comparison of the cellular changes (hyperplasia, metaplasia, carcinoma-in-situ) found
in the respiratory tract of smokers who died from lung cancer during the periods 1955-1960 and
1970-1977, Auerbach et al . (1979, 1980) reported that the epidemiological data reported by
Hammond et al. (1976) were paralleled by pathological data . They reported :
Although we do not have the tar and nicotine content [sic] of the cigarettes smoked by the subjects
in this study, all those who died in the 1955-1960 period had to have smoked cigarettes up to the
time of their death that were higher in tar and nicotine, than those who died during the years
1970-1977 . . . [F]or the last 5-10 years of their lives none of the 1970-1977 group could have
smoked cigarettes with as high a tar and nicotine content [sic] as those smoked by the 1955-1960
group .
Whenever we have found an early microscopic invasion in the tracheobronchial tree
epithelium in our previous studies of lung cancer cases, it was always next to and probably arose
from an area of carcinoma-in-situ . The changes in the cigarette over the 15 years from the time
the average group A person died [the 1955-1960 group] to the time the group B people died [the
1970-1977 group] has resulted in the changes demonstrated. . . These changes seem to be the result
of decreased tar and nicotine and they correlate with epidemiological data already presented . . .
With regard to reduced-"tar" cigarettes, Wynder (1980) noted :
A number of retrospective epidemiological studies have shown a decreased risk of disease
associated with filtered cigarette smoking . . . In our studies we calculated risk among persons who
smoked filtered cigarettes . . . [T]he risk of developing either epidermoid lung cancer or larynx
•
1s Mouth smoking of the cigarette generated much higher "tar" yields than when the cigarette was smoked In the FfC smoking
machine because of compression by the smoker's lips of longiwdinal dou In the filter tip .
32
cancer is reduced up to 33 % in long-term (Z 10 yr) smokers of filtered cigarettes, compared to
smokers of nonfiltered cigarettes.
The retrospective study from our group included more than 1000 cases of lung and larynx cancer
and showed a reduction in risks among long-term filter cigarette smokers of 10 years or more of
between 25 % and 33 % for both men and womea . . . This finding has been confirmed by the
prospective studies of the American Cancer Society . . . ([¢1 discussion to Russell (1980a)]
I
~
~
_j
~
m
OD
~
m
33
ITEM TO BE INSERTED :
In 1964, nicotine was essentially given a clean bill of health in the first Surgeon
General's report on smoking and health (USPHS, 1964) . Fifteen years later, nicotine was not
described in overly adverse terms. E.g., in the 1979 Surgeon General's report it was stated :
For the habitual smoker, the smoking of a cigarette is a rewarding experience ... Because of the
myriad compounds present in cigarette smoke, it should be kept in mind that the pharmacological
effects of smoking are not related solely to nicotine ; rather, it is the combined effect of the whole
smoke . Nevertheless, nicotine is generally accepted as the principal constituent responsible for
cigarette smokers' pharmacologic response. . .
Because "tar" rather than nicotine was considered to be the most hazardous part of the
particulate phase of MS, there was an era when it was proposed to fabricate a "less hazardous"
by redesigning it to deliver a substantially reduced "tar" level but deliver the same or an only
slightly reduced nicotine level, i .e., decrease the "tar" :nicotine ratio (Russell et al., 1973,
Russell, 1976, 1980b ; Schacter, 1978) . Russell et al. (1973) noted :
[T]he least harmful cigarettes for heavy smokers may be those with high, rather than low, nicotine
yield. . .
[A] cigarette with a high nicotine yield would enable heavy smokers to curb their tobacco
consumption, and harmfulness would be further reduced if, at the same time, the tar and CO
yields were low . . . To reduce tar yield without lowering the nicotine yield presents a challenge to
cigarette technology but is one which the skill and resources available are no doubt capable of
meeting . . .
and Russell (1980) in a conference on "safer cigarette" design wrote :
[A] low-tar, low-CO, but medium-, rather than low-, nicotine cigarette might reduce tar and CO
intake more than occurs with low-tar, low-CO, low-nicotine cigarettes . It might also be more
acceptable to smokers .
A problem with this concept was consumer acceptance when "tar" :nicotine ratio was less than about 7 . The
consumer re " from inhaling because of the harshness of the MS . Perforated filter-tip
cigarettes with" 1" :nicotine ratios between 9 and 11 or other filtered and nonfiltered cigarettes
with "tar" :ni e ratios above 10 are not perceived as too harsh to smoke's .
•
1s The following ia my recollection of In-house experiments conducted by Harris with a modified NOW with 2-mg "tar" delivery : Its
nicotine delivery was enhanced by nicotine ask addition to the blend so that'4ar" :nicotine ratio was decreased from about 9 to about 3 .
Even though the MS nicotine delivery per cigarette was about 0 .6 mg and the MS nicotine delivery per puff was only about 0 .1 mg,
panelists repotted the modified cigarette to be totally unacceptable because of the harshness of the smoke . Cigarettes with deliveries of
18 mg "tar" and 1 .5 mg nicotine (a "tar" :nicot'ux ratio of 12 and a per puff nicotine delivery of about 0 .1S mg) are rated acceptable .
34
APPENDIX A : HISTORICAL COMMENTS ON THE POSSIBLE HEALTH
ASPECTS OF POORLY DEFINED "TARS" OBTAINED
FROM TOBACCO BY A VARIETY OF METHODS
Prior to the first production of carcinoma in laboratory animals skin-painted with the tar
from cigarettes smoked under conditions supposedly simulating human smoking (Wynder et al .,
1953a, 1953b), there were various comments and studies described in the literature on changes
produced in laboratory animals by application of various tobacco products (tars, juices, extracts)
and the possible relationship of tobacco smoke tars to respiratory tract cancer . No malignant
tumors were produced in studies with tobacco tars or any other industrial tars such as coal tar
prior to 1915 when Yamagiwa and Ichikawa (1915, 1918, ef . summary 1965) developed the
procedure to produce tumors in laboratory animals skin-painted with coal tar solutions . Between
1915 and 1953, numerous studies were described of attempts to produce tumors with v' t~tS e~S
tobacco products . None of the tobacco products (tars, extracts, etc .) in a smoking
process simulating the human smoking of cigarettes . Table APP A-1 summarizes representative
tobacco product studies conducted between 1880 and 1953 and their results .
TABLE APP A-i : MISCELLANEOUS TOBACCO TAR STUDIES PRIOR TO
WYNDER et al. (1953a, 1953b, 1955)
Year
Event
1880 Tillmanns (1880) suggested that tobacco amoke particulate matter was of interest in cancer research from an etiological
standpoint because it possibly contained the aenx products of incomplete combustion as In coal tar and aoot .
1900 Broach (1900) observed cellular proliferation in guineas pigs painted with "tobacco juice ."
1911 Wacker and Schminke (1911) iqjected tobacco tar from pipes into rabbits and reported cellular proliferation .
1915,1918 Yamaglwa and Ichikawa (1915, 1918) produced carcinoma in robbta by repeatedly painting their sMn wlth a solution
ojeoaf tar. 7hts was the first nporred tneident ojthe production ojearetnoma In laboratory animals and was the basLs
for the all the research on chemical tumorigenesls In subsequent years .
1923 Hoffman et al. (1923) reported that tobacco tar which was not nicotinatree produced strong acute toxic aymptoma
when painted on mouse akin .
1928 Helwlg (1928) reported that rabbits injected with tobacco tar from pipes developed extensive cellular proliferation ;
mice akin-painted with the same solution developed ulceration at painting site .
1930, 1931 Roffo (1930, 1931) painted 30 rabbits with a tobacco tar, one rabbit developed a tumor . Roffo claimed that this was
the first production of cancer In a laboratory animals with a tobacco tar . However, his tobacco tar was obtained by
destructive distillation of tobacco, not In a smoking process (cf. Wynder st al., 1953 ; Wynder and Hoffmann, 1964,
1967) .
1932 Bogen and Loomis (1932) concluded that tobacco tar did not possess the necessary irritating or stimulating properties
to induce cancerous growths when painted on mouse skin .
Cooper et al . (1932) collected tobacco tars from tobacco mechanically smoked at 400-500°C and at 700-800°C and
applied the tars as 10-50% aolutiona in benzene, ethanol, or glycerol . Only one tumor-bearing animals was observed .
He concluded that tobacco was relatively unimpoetant In cancer causation, especially when the data were compared
with those obtained with aimila coal tar solutions.
1935 Schurch and Winteratein (1935) reported that mice treated with cigar tobacco tar or cigar tobacco tar fractions did not fLn ,
develop cancer either treated with the tar or tar fractions alone or subjected to a combination of tar treatment plus
v
irritation (thermal or mechanical) .
~
_
G
1P
tb
tO
N
35
Table 1 (Appeadibt A) . Continued:
1937 Taki (1937) reported a squamous cell tumor on the skin of mice treated with a tar extracted from tobacco pipes .
1946 Jaffe et al . (1946) questioned the validity of Roffo's results because of the fact he had used a destructive distillate of
tobacco rather than a tobacco tar generated by a smoking process .
1949 National Cancer Conference panel (American Cancer Society, 1949) reported that the tobacco smoke tar painted on the
skin of Strain A mice, injected subcutaneously, or itoected intravenously did not induce tumon of the lung (adenomas)
or any other organ .
1953 Shotadze (1953) treated mice (lower lip) with a tobacco pyrolyate for 1 l months . No precancerous or cancerous
conditions were observed .
1953, 1955 Wynder er al. (1953a, 1953b, 1955) rreported the production of carcinoma In laboratory animals (highly tusceptible
mouse strain) painted with massive doses of cigarette smoke condensate generated under conditions simulating human
smoking conditions .
• The Strain A mouse is extremely susceptible to development of lung adenoma; 90% of them will die with adenoma
of the lung .
•
36
APPENDIX B: INFORMATION PROVIDED RJRT MANAGEMENT IN THE
MID-1960s FOR COMMUNICATION TO THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION re ITS CIGARETTE MS "TAR"
AND NICOTINE LABELING PROPOSAL
Below is presented the essentials of a 1965 memorandum prepared for RJRT management
by Rodgman (1965c) . It incorporates information from memoranda by Senkus (1964) and
Rodgman (1965b) and a draft memorandum by Rodgman (see also 1965c) .
A Short Explanation and Analysis of Methods for Measuring "Tar and Nicotine"
in Cigatette Smoke fJan/Feb . 19651
Introduction
Suggestions have been made from time to time that cigarette packages should indicate the
amount of "tar and nicotine" produced by smoking of the cigarettes in the package . Even if it
were established that "tar and nicotine" have some relationship to health, there is no method by
which a smoker can be accurately informed of either the amount or the composition of the "tar
and nicotine" he receives from the cigarette he smokes .
The term "tar and nicotine" requires clarification . Cigarette smoke consists of the particulate
phase and the gas phase. The particulate phase has been referred to in scientific and other
literature by a variety of terms, such as tars, smoke solids, solids, total solids, particulate matter,
total particulate matter, smoke condensate, total smoke condensate, and smoke condensables . One
of the components of smoke solids is nicotine ; the nicotine fraction of smoke solids is sometimes
referred to as alkaloids, or total alkaloids . It seems more meaningful to use the term "total solids"
instead of "tar," and such term will be used in this memorandum .
Summary and Conclusions
Various methods exist for determining in the laboratory the total solids and nicotine in the
smoke from cigarettes smoked by a machine under laboratory conditions. Although the different
methods produce different results, one method could be arbitrarily selected as the standard . But
the total solids and nicotine received by any individual smoker would vary from that produced by
the smoking machine in the laboratory using the same brand of cigarettes, even if it were assumed
that the cigarettes smoked by the individual and those smoked in the laboratory are exactly alike .
This is because the smoking habits of individual vary, and because the conditions under which
cigarettes are smoked vary .
•
It may not be assumed, however, that cigarettes smoked by the smoking machine in the
laboratory are the same as the cigarettes of the same brand purchased by the smoker . Because of
unavoidable variations in the manufacture and storage of cigarettes, differences exist in the
tobacco, paper, filter, and condition of cigarettes so that measurements of total solids and nicotine
in the smoke of one sample of cigarettes will differ from measurements obtained with another
sample of the same brand, assuming that all possible steps are taken to assure as much uniformity
as possible . The measurements appearing on a package of cigarettes would relate to the cigarettes
used in the test and would not be accurate as applied to the cigarettes contained in the package .
Even if two cigarettes of the same brand, or of two different brands, were to deliver precisely
37
the same amount of total solids, variations in the cigarettes, in smoking habits, and in smoking
conditions would generate total solids in the smoke of one of the cigarettes composed of different
quantities and kinds of chemical compounds from those found in the total solids from the other
cigarette . Since it is not known which, if any, chemical compound in the total solids is harmful,
it is not helpful to the smoker to furnish him a quantitative measurement of total solids, especially
one which, as has been stated in the two preceding paragraphs, cannot be accurate .
The conclusion is therefore inescapable that labeling the amount of "tar and nicotine" on a
cigarette package cannot give to the smoker meaningful information as to the amount or
composition of the total solids and nicotine he receives from the cigarettes he smokes . He is more
likely to be misled than informed .
Methods for Measuring Total Solids and Nicotine
The following five methods for measuring total solids and nicotine are described in Table
APP B-1 :
(1) The Wolman method [Wolman, 1953]
(2) The Consumer Union's method - No . 1[Consumer Reports, 1955]
(3) The Cambridge filter method (Wartman et al., 1959]
(4) The Foster D . Snell method' [Kimball]
(5) The Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company method [Keith and Newsome,
1956, 1957, 1958; Newsome and Keith, 1956, 1957] .
•
It should be recognized that a number of variations of such methods are possible, and there may
be other methods . Those described [below], however, appear to be the ones most commonly
reported.
The five methods described in Table APP B-1 have not been compared on the same lot of
cigarettes . Three of the methods, however, have been compared by Keith and Newsome (1957a,
1957b, 1968) . The results of such comparison show distinct variations and were reported to be
as follows:
Consumer Union' .
Method - No . I
Foeter D. Snell Method
L.dcM Tobacco Co . Method
Solids, rtg/ciyt
18 .8
34.2
19.1
Nicotine, nglclat
2 .2
2 .9
3 .S
It is of course clear even apart from such comparisons that the various methods described in Table
APP 13-1 necessarily will produce different results because they do no start with the same smoking
conditions .
Generally speaking each of the methods require five to ten cigarettes for testing purposes . The
cigarettes are smoked by machine, which is designed to retain 100% of the particulate phase of
the smoke . Each method proceeds on the basis of smoking the cigarette using a fixed volume of
puff, a puff of specific duration,a fixed frequency of puffing, and a specific amount of the
cigarette to be smoked . All methods other than that of Liggett & Myers use a 35-m1 volume puff .
The most common duration of puff is two seconds, and the most common frequency of puff is one
~P
Co
~
Ln
~ The Foster D. Snell Labontory performed many of the cigarette smoke anelyaes for ?he Reader's Digest .
.
38
Ln
~
~
~
per minute . The Wolman method and the Cambridge filter method2 smoked a fixed length of
cigarette (47 mm) regardless of the length of the cigarette being smoked and regardless of whether
it is a filter cigarette or not . Some of the methods smoke to a predetermined butt length, e .g ., 23
mm ; in such methods the length of cigarette smoked would vary depending upon the initial length
of cigarette being tested and whether or not it is a filter cigarette . The Liggett & Myers method
smokes fourteen puffs of each cigarette, so that the number of puffs taken determines the length
of the cigarette smoked .
TABLE APP B-1 : METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF TOTAL SOLIDS AND
NICOTINE
1.&M Tobacco Co.
Method (Keith and
The Consumer Newsome, 1956,
Union'a Method Cambridge Filter 1957, 1958 ;
Smoking Wolman Method (Consumer Method (Wattman Foster D. Snell Newsome and Keith,
Conditions . etc . (Wolman . 1953) Reoocta . 1955) ft ol . . 1959) Meth (Kimbalb 1956 . 1957)
cigarette length 47 variable ; depends 47 variable ; dependa variable ; depends on
smoked, mm on length of on length of length of cigarette
cigarette being cigarette being being tested
tested
tested
butt length, tnm variable ; depends 23 variable ; depends 23 variable ; depends on
on length of on length of length of cigarette
cigarette being cigarette being being tested
tested
tested
number of puffs number required to number required to number required to number required to 14
consume 47 mm of attain 23-mm butt consume 47 mm of attain 23-mm butt
cigarette length cigarette length
puff
puff
volume
duration
puff
no ./min
35
2 .0
35
35
2 .0
frequency,
l
3S
44
2 .0
l
1
1 .9
1
2
lab temp ., °C 25° not specified not specified not specified 23 .9°
lab
RH,
%
45%
cigarettes
per determination
not :peeified not specified not specified 60%
smoked
5
8
10
S
10°
cigarette selection selected for selected for selected for selected for selected for
uniformity In uniformity in uniformity In , uniformity In uniformity in
moiature content, moisture content, moisture content, moisture content, moisture content,
cigarette size (if cigarette aize (if cigarette size (if cigarette aize (if cigarette uze (if
feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feasible), weight, feaaible), weight,
firmness, and other firmness, and other firmness, and other firmness, and other firmneu, and other
characteristics characteristics characteristics characteristics characteristics
2 It should be noted In the Cambridge filter method as outlined by Ogg et ai . (1962) the cigarette under teat is smoked to a 30-mm butt
length . Further modificitiona of this method, including length of cigarette to be smoked, are under consideration by the Analytical Methods
Committee of the Tobacco Chemists' Research Conference .
39
Table APP B-1 . Continued :
Smoking Wolman Method
Conditiona, etc . (Wolman. 19531
•
The Consumer
Union's Method
(Consumer
$Sports . 1955)
Cambridge Filter
Method (Wartman
t! 9
Foster D. Sne11
Method (Kimball)
L&M Tobacco Co .
Method (Keith and
Newsome, 1956,
1957, 1958;
Newsome and Keith,
1916, 1957)
determination of Solids (designated
total solids as tan in the
publication) are
determined by
gravity deposition
of smoke over 2S
m1of0.1N
sulfuric acid . The
mixture Is extracted
with chloroform,
and the chloroform
extract ia heated to
evaporate the
chloroform . The
residue is then
heated, or dried,
for 3 hr at 100°C .
The weight of
remaining material
after the heating ia
reported as tars .
Smoke for determination of both
nicotine and solids
is absorbed in
acidified alcohol.
One portion of the
acidified alcoholic
solution is diluted
with water, then
extracted with
chloroform . The
aqueoua layer ia
made alkaline and
re-extracted with
chloroform . The
two chloroform
extracts are combined, and the
chloroform
removed by
evaporation to yield
the tar, which is
weighed .
Cigarette MS is
collected on a glass
fiber filter material,
Cambridge filter
medium CM-! l3 .
The weight of
material retained in
the filter represents
total solids (total
particulate matter).
Part of the material
retained on the
Cambridge filter ia
water. Thus, this
method Includes
water in the value
for total solids,
whereas the
Wolman Method
and the Consumers
Union Method do
not.
.
To determine solids
(tar content In the
communi-cation),
smoke Is collected
in acidified alcohol .
The alcohol
solution is heated
on a steam bath
(100°C) to
evaporate the
alcohol . After
about S hr, the
residue is heated in
the beaker at
105°C for 7 hr.
The weight of
material remaining
in the beaker ia
designated as the
tar content.
The smoke in this
method is retained
on an a-cellulose
trap . The a-cellulose
is washed with hot
acidic methanol . The
solution is extracted
with chloroform . To
deter-mine soltds
(termed tar in the
publications), the
chloroform solution
is evaporated on the
steam bath and
heating is continued
for 3 hr at 105°C .
Tar value is
determined by
weighing the
residue .
determination of Solids for deternicotine mination of
ntcodne are
collected over 10
ml alcohol acidified
with sulfuric acid
in a 300-mi
i(ieldahl flask .
Solution Is treated
with alkali and then
ateatn-0iatilled . The
distillate ia treated
with ailicotungatic
acid to precipitate
the ailicotungatate .
The ailicotung.tate
la separated and ia
ignited to an ash
whose weight Is
used to calculate
the nicotine valueb .
Another portion of
the acidified
alcoholic solution is
treated with base
and ateam-diadlled .
Mcodne in the
steam distillate ia
measured apectrophotometricdly .
To determine
nicotine, the
Cambridge filter
with the retained
solids Is extracted
with 0. 1 N aulfitric
acid . The solution,
after washing with
chloroform, ia
made alkaline and
is ateam4iatilled .
Nicotine In the
steam distillate ia
determined either
by the silicotungstic
acid method or by
the apectrophotometrie method .
To determine
nicodnt, an aliquot
of the acidified
alcohol solution
containing the
smoke solids is
heated to remove
the alcohol, the
residue ia made
alkaline and is
ateam-diatilled .
Mcodne ia determined gravimetrically in the steam
distillate (silicotungstic acid
method) .
The extracted
methanol solution is
nude alkaline and is
steam-distilled .
NTcodnt Is determined in the steam
distillate apectrophotometrically .
' The authors recommended that three to six such determinations be carried out and the results averaged .
b Since other alkaloids coprecipiute with nicotine as ailicotung .tatea, this determination yields the alkaloid or total alkaloid
value .
•
40
From the foregoing it is apparent that each of the methods has adopted arbitrary smoking
habits for the smoking machine, which habits do not correspond with the habits of each individual
smoker . The volume of puff taken in smoking [Derr et al ., 1937 ; Cigarette Components, Ltd .,
1957 ; Schur and Rickards, 1955, 1957 ; Cuzin et al., 1958], the frequency of puffs [Derr et al .,
1937 ; Cigarette Components, Ltd ., 1957 ; Cuzin et al., 1958 ; Staub and Furrer, 1957 ; Bentley and
Burgan, 19613, and the duration of the puff [Derr et al ., 1937 ; Hilding, 1956 ; Schur and
Rickards, 1955, 1957 ; Cuzin et al ., 1958 ; Staub and Furrer, 1957 ; Bentley and Burgan, 1961]
vary among individuals. The length of the cigarette smoked, or the butt length to which cigarettes
are smoked also varies among smokers [Hilding, 1956 ; Cigarette Components, Ltd ., 1957; Schur
and Rickards, 1955, 1957 ; Finkner et al ., 1957; Bentley and Burgan, 1961] . These variations
necessarily mean that the amount of total solids and nicotine collected by the smoking machine
is not the same as what individual smokers receive .
It is obvious of course that all smokers do not retain 100% of the particulate phase as a
smoking machine is designed to do . The degree of inhalation differs appreciably among individuals
(Cigarette Components, Ltd ., 1957] . Moreover, smokers who inhale hold the smoke in the lungs
for different times, some exhaling more quickly than others [Mitchell, 1962] . The Amount of
particulate phase retained in the lungs obviously depends in part upon the time elapsing between
inhaling and exhaling . Smokers who do not inhale admit the smoke to their mouths ; the duration
of retention of the particulate phase in their mouths obviously affects the extent of retention of
solids [Mitchell, 1962] .
Other variations between smokers include the following :
• The burning temperature of cigarettes varies from smoker to smoker because of
differences in smoking habits [Cuzin et al ., 1958] .
• The pressure drop across a cigarette differs from smoker to smoker [Bradford et al .,
1936; Hilding, 1956 ; Schur and Rickards, 1955, 1957 ; Staub and Furrer, 1957 ; Cuzin
et al ., 1958] .
• The total number of puffs per cigarette and the time necessary to consume a cigarette
varies from smoker to smoker [Hilding, 1956 ; Bentley and Burgan, 1961] .
Successive puffs of an individual on the same cigarette may differ with respect to puff
volume, puff duration, and frequency, degree of inhalation, temperature change by puffing, and
pressure drop produced by smoking [Staub and Furrer, 1957] . The manner of smoking successive
cigarettes by an individual may also vary . These differences include length of cigarette consumed,
total number of puffs per cigarette, and time required to consume a cigarette (Staub and Furrer,
1957] .
All of the variations so far mentioned have been the subject of comment in the scientific
literature, and all would affect the amount of total solids and nicotine received by the individual
smoker as compared with a smoking machine . In addition, there are other variable factors, which
have not been reported in the scientific literature and which may affect the amount or composition
of total solids and nicotine delivered to or retained by a smoker . Some of the factors are :
• Smoking at very low temperatures and very low humidity . These conditions would
prevail in the winter in the northern states .
• Smokin,g at reduced pressure, e .g., in the mountainous states . There is some indication
41
NUMBER CONTROL PAGE
BATES NUMBER
NOT USED
517104899
that the rate of burning of a cigarette will differ depending upon the altitude at which the
cigarette is smoked .
• Smoking in areas which are either abnormally humid or abnormally dry.
• Smoking from a pack which has been opened for more than a day . The cigarettes may
lose appreciable moisture under and conditions . Although loss of moisture will not affect
weight of solids produced per cigarette', it is believed to affect the chemical composition
of smoke.
Variations in Cigarette s
The following variables affect the yield of total solids per gram of tobacco product consumed
and the composition of the smoke and total solids :
• Tobacco [Wynder and Hoffmann, 1963, 1964] .
Since tobacco is an agricultural commodity, it is not homogenous . Its characteristics vary from
leaf to leaf of the same plant and within the same leaf . And of course a variety of types, grades,
and blends of tobaccos are used in the manufacture of cigarettes, such as flue-cured, burley, and
Turkish tobaccos, and blends of such tobaccos .
• Processed tobacco (Wynder et al., 1959 ; Nicod, 1961 ; Cuzin et al, 1963 ; Uhlman,
1963] .
Just as different tobacco types and blends yield different amounts of total solids, homogenized
tobaccos (reconstituted tobacco sheet), on a per gram of processed tobacco consumed, yield
different amounts of total solids than does tobacco . Extraction of tobacco decreases the yield and
alters the composition of the total solids in MS and alters . Steaming of tobacco produces similar
changes .
• Number of cuts/inch [Wynder and Hoffmann, 1964] .
With the same tobacco type or the same blend, increasing the number of cuts per inch decreases
the total solids in MS .
• Filtration and pressure drop [Wynder and Hoffmann, 1960 ; Bock et al., 1962 ; Ayres et
al., 1963 ; Waltz and Hausermann, 1963] .
The higher the degree of filtration the lower the total solids ; the higher the pressure drop, the
lower the total solids. The efficiency of filters of the same design will vary from filter to filter
depending upon the construction or the manner in which the filter tow is packed.
• Paper porosity [Schur and Rickards, 1955,1957 ; Lipp and Van Hooy, 1962 ; Wynder and
Hoffmann, 1964] .
The cigarette paper which is normally supplied to the cigarette manufacturer usually has an
3 This has been shown to be Incorrect . Loaa of moisture from the tobacco filler affech the yields of both "tar" and nicotine .
• The study by Green et a! . (1982) showed that moisture loss from the cigarette filler had profound effects on the MS composition .
42
appreciable range of porosity . The solids in MS usually decrease as the porosity increases .
• Number of pt~`'s taken to consume a given length of cigarette [Newsome and Keith, 1956,
1957 ; Segelken et al., 1962] .
E.g ., burley tobacco buras at a greater rate than other tobacco types ; thus, a different number of
puffs are required to consume the same cigarette length of burley, flue-cured, and Turkish
tobaccos .
• Moisture content of cigarettes [Newsome and Keith, 1956, 1957 : Sato et al ., 1961 ;
Wynder and Hoffmann, 1964] .
The age of the cigarette, e.g., the length of time on the retailer's shelf, may affect the moisture
content of the filler.
• Variations in amounts of total solids and nicotine In each puff [Lindsey, 1959, 1962 ;
Kotin and Falk, 1960 ; Wynder and Hoffmann, 1961 ; Ayres et al., 1963] .
It has been suggested in the scientific literature that the amount and composition of total solids in
later puffs markedly exceeds that in earlier puffs [Lindsey, 1959, 1962 ; Kotin and Falk, 1960] ;
other investigators report finding very little difference between the mounts in the early and late
puffs [Wynder and Hoffmann, 1961 ; Ayres et al ., 1963] .
• Additives on tobacco [Alvord and Cardon, 1956 ; Lindsey et al ., 1959 ; Bentley and
Burgan, 1960 ; Candeli et al., 1960; Wynder and Hoffmann, 1961 ; Cuzin et al., 1963 ;
Scherback et al., 19631 .
The amount of total solids and composition of MS and solids vary with the amounts of additives
such as licorice and glycerol . It is impossible to apply these to tobacco uniformly .
• Humidity of analytical laboratory [Newsome and Keith, 1956, 1957 ; Sato et al ., 1961 ;
Wynder and Hoffmann, 1964] .
It is quite obvious that some of these variable are interdependent, e .g., filtration, paper porosity,
cuts/inch, filling capacity, and pressure drop .
Chanaes in the Comcosition of Smoke and Total Solids
It has been pointed out that the amount of total solids and nicotine produced by smoking can be
changed by a large number of variable factors, including the type of tobacco, the efficiency of the filter,
and the porosity of the cigarette paper. As has been mentioned in connection with such factors, they (and
probably others) may also change the ratio of various components of the smoke . As a result, the ratios of
the components in the total solids may be different .
m
43
f- APPENDIX C : DETERMINATION OF "TAR"' YIELD FROM
ULTRALOW-"TAR" CIGARETTES: SPECTROMETRY
The following paragraphs, slightly modified, are from a 1988 memorandum written
by Rodgman :
In the mid-1950s, Watson (1954) investigated the fluorescence of cigarette smoke and related
the difference in fluorescence between inhaled and exhaled cigarette MS to the degree of
particulate matter retention and the possible relationship to lung cancer causation . At the same
time, Schmghl and co-workers reported on their studies of the fluorescence of cigarette MS,
particularly with respect to the fluorescence of its particulate matter (SchmBhl et al ., 1954 ;
SchmAhl, 1955 ; SchmAhl and Schneider, 1955) . In fact, they used this analytical procedure to
estimate the degree of absorption of MS by the smoker during consumption of the cigarette . From
their fluorescence measurements on inhaled and exhaled MS particulate matter, Schm1hl et al .
(1954) estimated that as much as 90% of the MS particulate matter was retained in the lungs and
bronchi during deep inhalation. Subsequently, Wynder and Hoffmann (1960) claimed they had
confirmed the findings of SchmAhl et al . Neither Watson nor SchmBhl commented on the findings
of Bruce (1941) who reported that there was no correlation between fluorescence in general and
carcinogenicity .
/
Bentley and Burgan (1958) described the use of fluorescence techniques to estimate the levels V/
of several PAHs, including BaP, in a PAH-rich fraction derived from CSC . The use of
fluorescence spectroscopy to estimate PAHs (or BaP) is not surprising : UV fluorescence
spectroscopy was used by Hieger (1930, 1933) and Cook et al . (1932, 1933) in their concentration ~Ie ,/
of the PAHs in coal tar and the isolation of BaP and other tumorigenic PAHs from the PAH-rich
coal-tar fraction in the early 1930s .
However, it should be noted that the fluorescence of a solution of cigarette MS particulate
matter is not due solely to the PAHs contained therein . E.g., Duggan et al. (1957) noted in their
study of the fluorescence properties of compounds of biological interest that, in addition to the
PAHs and structurally similar heterocyclic compounds, many classes of compounds such as
phenols, aromatic amines, and conjugated polyenes exhibited pronounce fluorescence properties .
All of these classes of compounds are now known to be present in CSC . Glycerol and propylene
g.lycol, major tobacco additives which appear in MS, are .UV transparent at the absorption or
fluorescence wavelengths used .
McConnell et al . (1960r'used fluorescence techniques in their method to evaluate the
efficiency of various cigarette filtefs-in particulate matter removal from MS . They did note that
the fluorescence intensity of solutions of cigarette MS particulate matter was linearly proportional
to the weight of MS particulate matter . However,'ate the high-"tar" deliveries (about 30 mg/cigt)
of the 1960 cigarettes, it was noted that the gravimetric method was more rapid and slightly more
accurate than the fluorescence method . A similar procedure ftc described by Smit (1972) in his
determination of filter tip efficiency for particulate matter removaTfratQMS .
Burton et al. (1977) confirmed the findings of McConnell et al . (1960) on the linearity
between fluorescence and particulate matter weight and also noted the fluorescence method was
more accurate and less time consuming for low-"tar" cigarettes than the gravimetric method used
in the FTC procedure . Three years later, Thomas et al . (1980) described an automated method,
base on fluorescence technology, for the determination of FTC "tar" in the MS of low-"tar"
delivery cigarettes .
r
r
P/
r
ILe UV absorption method described by Sloan and Curran (1981) for estimation of per
cigarette "tar" yields is similar to the UV fluorescence procedure . A modification (Hege, 1980)
of the Sloan-Curran UV procedure was used at RJRT R&D in low-"tar" studies and in Premier
studies (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co ., 1988). K
45
X. REFERENCES
Adams PI (1966), Measurements on Puffs Taken by Human Smokers . 20th TOB . CHEM. RES. CONF., Winston-Salem NC : Paper No . 3l .
Adams P1, (1976), Changes in Personal Smoking Habits Brought About by Changes In Cigarette Smoke Yields . PROC . 6th INTERNAT. TOB .
SCI. CONG., Tokyo, Japan, 1976 : 102-108.
Aksu S and Enercan S(19S8a), New Apparatus and Method for Determining Nicotine and Total Tar in Tobacco Smoke . INHISARLAR
ENSTITULERI RAPORLARI 7.• 202-209 .
Aksu S and Enercan S (1958b), The Amount of Nicotine and Tar In the Smoke of Cigarettes Made from Blended and Some Individual Turkish
Tobaccos . INHISARLAR ENSTITULERI RAPORLARI 7.• 210-215 .
Alvord ET and Cardon SZ (1956), The Inhibition of the Formation of 3,4-Benzpyrene in Cigarette Smoke . BRIT . J . CANCER 10.- 498-503 .
American Cancer Society (1949), Discussion Panel Moderated by tkhsner A, Heston WE, and DeCamp PT. PROC. 1st NATL. CANCER
CONF : 203 .
Artho AJ and Grob K(1963), Distribution of Nicotine between the Vapour and Particulate Phases of Cigarette Smoke . 17th TOB . CHEM. RES .
CONF., Montreal PQ, Canada : Paper No . 10 .
Anho Al and Grob K (1964), Nikotinabsocption aus dem Cigarettenrauch . Z. PRAVENT.-MED. 9• 1425 .
Asmua E, Hbhne R, and Kraetsch J(1962), Photometrische Beatinunung von Nicotin und Pyridin im Tabaknuch . Z. ANAL. CHEM. 187.• 3337 .
Auerbach 0, Hammond EC, and Garfinkel L (1979), Changea in Bronchial Epithelium in Relation to Cigarette Smoking, 1955 - 1960 va 1970
- 1977 . NEW ENG. J. MED . 300: 381 .
•
Auerbach 0, Hammond EC, and Garfutkel L (1980), Changes in Bronchial Epithelium : Then and Now . In God GB and Bock FO (Editors),
A Sqfe Q'garerraT Banbury Report 3, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor NY : 141-154 .
Ayres CI, Fordyce WB, and Hughes 1W (1963), Cigarettes : The Potential of Tobacco to Produce Smoke . 17th TOB. CHEM. RES. CONF.,
Montreal PQ, Canada: Paper No. 07.
Ayres PH, Shreve WK, and Coggina CRE (1990), Use of a Near-Infrared (NIR) Device for the Determination of Nicotine in Smoke Presented
to Animals ia lnhalation Studies. 44th TOB. CHEM. RES. CONF., Winaton-Salem NC : Paper No. 63 .
Barkemeyer H and Seehofer F (1960), Zur Spektrophotometrlschen Bestimmung des Nicotins in Tabak und Tabakrauchkondensaten . Z .
LEBENSM. UNTERSUCH. U. FORSCH . 112:S0-S2 .
Batu L and Toole E(1931), Microtitrimetric Determination of Nicotine in Tobacco Smoke . ANGEW . CHEM. 44: 682-683 .
Barta L and Toole E(1932a), lrJber den Nikotin- und Ammoniakgehalt des Cigarettentabakrauches . ANGEW . CHEM. 4S: 43 .
Barta L and Toole B(1932b), Ober den Nikotin- und Ammonlakgehalt des Cigarettentabakrauches . ANGEW. CHEM . 46: 671-673 .
Baskevitch N and Ferrer G(1982), Modification of the Nicotine :Tar Ratio through the Use of Reconstituted Tobacco . CORESTA 1982 SYMP,,
Winston-Salem NC, USA, CORESTA INF. BULL., Spec. Edition 1982: Paper STI, 31 .
Bates WB, Griffith RB, Harlow ES, Senkua M, and Wakeham H (1967), Detetmination and Reporting of Total Particulate Matter, Water in
Total Particulate Matter, and Nicotine In Cigarette Smoke . VIRGINIA J. SCI . 18: 130-135 .
Bates WB, Griffith RB, Harlow ES, Senkus M, and Wakeham H (1968), Determination and Reporting of Total Particulate Matter, Water in
Total Particulate Matter, and Nicotine in Cigarette Smoke . TOB . SCI . 12: 192-196.
Baumberger JP (1923a), The Nicotine Content of Tobacco Smoke . J . PHARM . EXP . THERAP. 21 : 35-46 .
Baumberger JP (1923b), Amount of Smoke Produced from Tobacco and Its Absorption in Smoking as Determined by Electrical Precipatation .
J. PHARM. EXP. THERAP . 21 : 47-57 .
46
Bentley HR and Burgan JO (1958), Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke . i . 3,4-Benzpyrene . ANALYST 83: 442-447 .
Bentley HR and Burgan 10 (1960) . Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke . m . The Inhibition of the Formation of 3,4Benzpyrene in Cigarette Smoke . ANALYST 8S: 727-730 .
Bentley HR and Burgan 10 (1961), Cigarette Smoke Condensate : Preparation and Routine Laboratory Estimation . Research Paper No. 4 : Second
Edition . TOBACCO MANUFACTURERS' STANDING COMMITTEE, Loadon UK .
Biederbeck 1 (1908), New Investigation of the Absorption of Nicotine and Ammonia from Contaminated Air and Tobacco Smoke . Theeia,
Wurzburg University : 1-26 .
Bock FO, Moore GE, Dowd JE, and Clark PC (1962), Carcinogenic Activity of Cigarette Smoke Condensate . Biological Activity of Refined
Tar from Certain Branda of Cigarettes . J. AM. MED. ASSOC . 181: 668-673 .
Bodnar J(1930a), Composition of Tobacco Smoke and Denicotinization of Tobacco . TERMESZETTUDOMANYI KOZLONY 62 : 397-404 .
Bodnar J(1930b), Composition of Tobacco Smoke and Denicotinization of Tobacco . TERMESZETTUDOMANYI KOZLONY 62: 443-W .
Bodnar J, Nagy VL, and Dickmann S (1935), Uptake of Nicotine by the Human Organism during Smoking : Fate of Nicotine . BIOCHEM. Z .
276: 317-322 .
Bogen E and Loomis RN (1932), Tobacco Tar : An Experimental Investigation of Its Carcinogenic Action . AM. J. CANCER 16: 1315-1521 .
Bogner H(1921), Determination of the Nicotine Content of Cigarette Smoke . Medical Inaugural Dissertation, Erlangen .
Bolm F(1930) .On Smoke, Nicotine Umit Values, and the Nicotine Determination Method of Pfyl and Schmitt . Z. UNTERSUCH . LEBENSM .
59. 602-606 .
Bourlaa MC and Eapetdy RC (1972), The Determination of Nicotine in Particulate Matter Using Citric Acid and Bromomaleic Acid . 26th TOB .
CHEM. RES. CONF., Wiltiamaborg VA : Paper No . 24.
Bourlas MC, Thomaa CE, Eaperdy RC, and Kuhn WF (1976), The Determination of Nicotine in Particulate Matter Using Citric Acid and
Bromomaleic Acid . BEITR. TABAKFORSCH. 8: 334358 .
Bradford JA, Harlan WR, and Hanmer HR (1936), Nature of Cigaret Smoke : Technic of Experimental Smoking . IND. ENG . CHEM . 28: 836839 .
Bradford JA, Harlow ES, Harlan WR, and Hanmer HR (1937), Nature of Cigaret Smoke : Volatile Bases and Acids . IND . ENG . CHEM. 29:
45-50.
Brauer K (1930), Determination of Nicotine in Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke . CHEM. ZTG . SJ: 354-355 .
Braun C(1931), Estimation of Nicotine in Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke . PHARM . ZENTRALHALLE 71 : 209-213 .
Broach A(1900), Theorotiache und experimentelle Unterauchungen zur Pathogenesis und Histogenesis der malignen Geechwulste . ARCH.
PATH . 162: 32-84 .
Bruce WF (1941), J . AM . CHEM SOC . 63: 304.
Brunnemann KD, HofGttann D, Wynder EL, and Gori (3B (1976), Detenmination of Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide In Cigarette Smoke .
A Comparison of International Smoking Conditiotu . In Wynder EL, Hoffmann D, and flori GB (Editors), Mod{/yfng the Rtsk jor rhe Smoker .
Proc . 3nd World Coqj. on Smoking and lfeolrit. DHEW Pttb1. No. (NIH) 76-1221, Voi .1t 441-449.
Button FQ, Veal JT, and Phelps DW (1977), Analysia of Cigarotte Tars Using Fluorescent Spectroscopy . NATL . MTG., AM . CHEM . SOC.,
New Orlana LA: Paper No . 31 .
Campbell DR (1978), Determination of Nicotine on Cigarette Filters or Cambridge Pads . RDM, 1978, No . 6(Febnury 13) .
Candeli A, Lindsey AJ, and Persaud K (1960), Catta di Sigarette al Sulfammato di Ammonio a Idrocarburi Cancerigeni . BOL . SOC . ITAL.
BIOL . SPER. 96: 4S24S4 .
Cano JP, Catalin 1, Badrd R, Dumaa C, Viala A, and t3uillerm R (1970), DEtenmination de la Nicotine par Chromatographie en Phaze Ciaseuse .
47
II . Applications . ANN. PHARMACEUT . FRANC. 28: 633-640 .
Charles JL, Stahr HM, and Ikeda RM (1969), Automated Determination of Nicotine In Total Particulate Matter of Cigarette Smoke . TOB. SCl .
13: 3458 .
Cigarette Componenta, Ltd . (1957), Cigarette Smoking : Study of Certain Aspects of Human Smoking Habits . CIGARETTE COMPONENTS,
LTD. PAMPHLET (October) .
Cogbill EC, Wartnun WB Jr, and Harlow ES (1959) . Cigarette Smoke . II. Some Variable Affecting the Water Content of the Particulate Phase .
TOB. SCI . .f: 136-138 .
Consumer Reports (1955), Cigarettes : A Three-Part Report . CONSUMER RPTS. 20 (2) : 56-74.
2
Cook JW, Hewett CL, and Hieger I(1932), Coal-Tar Constituents and Cancer . NATURE 130: 126 .
Cook JW, Hewett CL, and Hieger I(1933), Isolation of a Cancer-Producing Hydrocarbon from Coal Tar . II . Isolation of 1,2- and 4,5Benzopyrenea, Perylene, and 1,2-Benzanthracene . J . CHEM . SOC . 395-398 .
Cooper EA, Lamb FWM, Sanders E, and Hiret EL (1932), The Role of Tobacco Smoking in the Production of Cancer . J . HYG . (London)
32: 293-300 .
CORESTA (1966a), Standard Method No . 1 : Recommended Methods for Machine Smoking and for the Determination of Cigarette Smoke
Condensate . CORESTA SCI . COMM. SMOKE STUDY GROUP, Lea Rasses, Switutiand: 1-9.
CORESTA (1966b), Standard Method No . 2a Recommended Method for the Determination of Total Alkaloids as Nicotine in Tobacco .
CORESTA SCI. COMM. SMOKE STUDY GROUP, Lea Rasaee, Switzerland : 1-3 .
CORESTA (1966c), Standard Method No . 3 : Recommended Method for the Determination of Total Alkaloida in Tobacco Smoke Condensate .
CORESTA SCI. COMM . SMOKE STUDY GROUP, Lea Ruaee, Switreaiand : 1-2 .
CORESTA (1966d), Standard Method No . 4 : Recommended Method for the Determination of Nicotine Alkaloid Retention by Cigarette Filters .
CORESTA SCi . COMM . SMOKE STUDY GROUP, Lea Rauea, Switzerlaod : 1-4 .
CORESTA (1969a), Standard Method No .10 : Machine Smoking of Cigarettes, Detecmination of Crude and Dry Smoke Condensate . CORESTA
INF. BULL. 1969 (1): 24-33 .
CORESTA (1969b), Standard Method No . 12 : lkterminationof Alkaloids in Cigarette Smoke Condensate . CORESTA INF. BULL.1969 (2):
7-8 .
CORESTA (1986), Recommended Method No . 7 : Determination of Nicotine in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes by Gas Chromatographic
Analysis . CORESTA INF. BULL . 1986 (3/4) : 39-41 .
CORESTA (1987), Recommended Method No . 8 : Determination of Water in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes by Gas Chromatographic
Analysis . CORESTA INF. BULL .1987 (!) : 21-23 .
CORESTA (1989a), Recommended Method No . 22: Routine Analytical Cigarette-Smoke Machine Specifications, Definitiona and Standard
Conditions . CORESTA INF. BULL. 1989 (4) : 28-53 .
CORESTA (1989b), Recommended Method No . 23 : Determinadon ofTotal and Nicodne-Free Dry Particulate Matter Using a Routine Analytical
Cigarette-Smoking Machine . Detentdnation ofTotal Particulate Matter and Preparation for Water and Nicotine Measurements . CORESTA INF.
BULL. 1989 (4): 54-85 .
CORESTA (1990), Recommended Method No . 1S : Cigarettes - Determination of Water in Smoke Condenaatea - Karl Fischer Method .
CORESTA INF. BULL .1990 (2) : 11-16 .
Crowell EP (1960), Determination of Moisture In Total Particulate Matter of Cigarette by Near-Infnred Spectrophotometry .14tL TOB . CHEM .
RES. CONF., VVinaton-Salem NC : Paper No . 30 .
Crowell EP, Kuhn WF, Resnik FE, and Varsel CJ (1961), The Determination of Moisture in Total Particulate Matter of Cigarette Smoke by
Near-Infrared Spectrophotometry . TOB . SCI .1: 3437 .
Cundifi'RH and Markunas PC (1953), A Rapid Titrimetric Procedure for the Determination of Nicotine, Notnicotine, and Total Alkaloids in
48
Tobacco and Tobacco Products . 7th TOB . CHEM. RES. CONF., Winston-Salem NC : Paper No. 03 .
Cundiff RH and Markunas PC (1955), Determination of Nicotine, Nornicotine, and Total Alkaloids in Tobacco . ANAL . CHEM . 27: 16501653 .
Cuzin JL, et al . (1959), L'Acte Specifique du Fumeur. Analyse de Quelquea (kandeun Paramftriquea sur une Population Reatreinte de Sujetr
Furneurs . PROC . 2nd INTERNAT . SCI . TOB . CONG., Brttssela, Belgiam, 1958 : 521-535 .
Cuzin JL, Testa A, Teata S, and Anguerra a(1963), Chemical and Biological Control of Condensates from Smoked Tobacco Treated after the
Neukomm-Bonnet Process . Z. PRAVENTIVMED . 28: 125-137 .
Dabrowaka O(1949), Nicotine, Resins, Reducing Agents In the Smoke of Polish Cigarettes from Different Flue-Cured and Turkish Type
Tobaccos . PRACE TYTONIOWE ZESZYT 149-165 .
Dalhamn T (1968), Effect of Different Doses of Tobacco Smoke on Ciliary Activity In Cat . Variations in Amount of Tobacco Smoke, Interval
Between Cigarettes, Content of 'Tar' . Nicotine, and Phenol. In Wynder EL and Hoffmann D(Editon), Toward a Less Hanvl/ul Ctgarette,
NATL. CANCER INST . MONOGRAPH 28 : 79-87 .
DeBardeleben MZ, Wickham JE, and Kuhn WF (1991), The Determination of Tar and Nicotine in Cigarette Smoke from an Historical
Perspective. RECENT ADV. TOB . SCI . 17.• 115-148 .
Derr RB, Riesmeyer AH, and Unangst RB (1937), Removal of Undeairable Constituents from Tobacco Smoke, IND . ENG . CHEM. 29: 771776.
Deutsch LJ and Jeffords AL (1994), Simultaneous Gas Chromatographic Nicotine/Water Analysis in Smoke Via Split Ic4ection on Dual Capillary
Column. . 48th TOB. CHEM. RES CONF., Greeosboro NC: Paper No . 35 .
Deutsch IJ and Robertson RM (1991), Variability in the Determination of Water in Tobacco Smoke . 45th TOB . CHEM . RES . CONF.,
Ashe.iile NC : Paper No. 21 .
DeVriea A, DeBoer M, and SchOrer D (1976), A Fully Automated Ultraviolet Method for the Determination of Nicotine Alkalaoida In Tobacco
and Tobacco Smoke Condensate . TOB . SCI . 20: 64-66 .
Diffee JT (1975), Automated Determination of Nicotine Alkaloids In Cigarette Smoke Total Particulate Matter. R&DM, 1986, No . 110 (July
2S) .
Diffee JT and Sheppard M (1971), An Automated Method for the Determination of Nicotine Alkaloids in Cigarette Smoke Using Cyanogen
Bromide . 25th TOB . CHEM. RES. CONP., Louisrille KY : Paper No. 26 .
Dobbins IT Jr (1984), Puffing Parameters : The Effects of Puff Frequency and Puff Volume Variables on 'Tar' and Nicotine Yields and on
Burning Timea of 100-mm and 120-mm Cigarettes . R&DM, 1984, No. 10 (February 27) .
Dube MF and Green CR (1982), Methods of Collection of Smoke for Analytical Purposes. RECENT ADV. TOB. SCI. 8: 422-102 .
Duggan DE, Bowman RL, Brodie BB, and Udenfiiend S(1937), A SpectroAuorometric Study of Compounds of Biological Interest . ARCH.
BIOCHEM. BIOPHYS . 68: 1-14 .
Ehriamann O(1931), Studies on Nicotine and the Denicotin'vation of Tobacco Smoke . II. Z. HYG . INFEKTIONSKRANKH . 112: 698-707 .
Federal Trade Commission (1966), News Release (2S March) .
Federal Trade Commission (1967a), Cigarettes : Testing for Tar and Nicotine Content . FED. REGISTER 32: 11178 .
Federal Trade Commission (1967b), "Tar" and Nicotine of the Smoke of 59 Varieties of Cigarettes . (November, 1967) .
Federal Trade Commiwion (1968) . "Tar" and Nicotine of the Smoke of 122 Varieties of Cigarettes .
Federal Trade Commiuion (1978), "Tar" and Nicotine of the Smoke of 167 Varieties of Cigarettes .
Federal Trade Commission (1981), "Tar," Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide of the Smoke of 187 Varieties of Cigarettes . (March, 1981) .
Federal Trade Commission (1985), "Tar," Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide of the Smoke of 207 Varieties of Domestic Cigarettes . (January,
49
1985) .
Filk H, StBrmer S, and Loeser A(1914), Untersuchungen Ober den Gehalt von Zigarettenrauch an Nikotin . ARZNEIMITTELFORSCH . 4 :
367-368 .
Finkner AL, Horvitz DO, Foradori GT, Fleischer J, and Monroe 1(1957), An Investigation of the Measurement of Current Smoking by
Individuals. UNCCH INST . STAT., MIMEO SERIES NO. 177 (July).
FiahellB (1959), The Detertnination of Moisture in the Total Solids of Cigar Smoke .13th TOB . CHEM . RES . CONF., Lexington KY : Paper
No. 17 .
Fishel JB (1960), The Determination of Moisture In the Total Particulate Matter of Cigar Smoke . TOB. SCI. 4: 198-200 .
Gaivoronachi BS, Marinescu P, and Petrute V (1978), Contributions to Nicotine Determination by Gaa Chromatography . CORESTA 1978
SYMP., Sofia, Bulgaria, CORESTA INF . BULL., Spec . Edition 1978 : Paper 5044, 113-1 l4.
Georgiev S(1969), Analytical Expression for the Amount of Total Condensate and Nicotine in the Smoke from a Single Cigarette . NAUCH .
TR. VISSH . KHRANIT . VKUSOVA PROM. PLOVDIV. 15 (Pt.p:
Giles JA (1969), Historical Review of Nicotine and Particulate Matter in the Smoke of Selected Cigarette Brands . RDM, 1969, No . 34 (May
20) .
Giles JA and Sullivan BN (1969), Modified Determination of Nicotine and Water in Total Particulate Matter of Cigarette Smoke . RDM, 1969,
No. 36 (May 22) .
Gori GB (Editor) (1976a), Report No. 1 . Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. JTu Ftrrt Set ojF.rperimental Cigarettes . DHEW Pubt. No . (NIH)
76-905.
Gori GB (Editor) (1976b), Report No . 2. Toward Less Hazardous CYgareues . 7he Second Set ojErperimenta! Cigarettes . DHEW Pubt. No.
(NIH) 76-1111 .
Gori GB (Editor) (1977), Report No. 3. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes . The 7lrtnd Set ojErperimenta! Cigarettes . DHEW Publ . No. (NIH)
77-1280 .
Goei GB (Editor) (1980), Report No . 4. Toward Less Hazardous Cigarettes. 7fu Fourth Set of Erperimenml Cigarettes . DHEW Pubi . (NIH)
Manch (198(1).
Gori GB and Bock FO (Editon) (1980), A Safe Ctgarettet Banbury Report 3, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor NY .
Gravea H(1967), Determination of Water in Cambrtdge-Filtered Cigarette Smoke Employing Single PuffGae Chromatographic Analysis . RDM,
1967, No. 3S (July 10) .
Green CR, Conrad FW Jr, Dube MF, Harris JL, and Angel AL (1982), Dry Cigarette Chemistry . R&DR, 1982, No . S(Auguat 4) .
Griffith RB (1957), The Rapid Determination of Total Alkaloida by Steam Distillation . TOB . SCI . 1 : 130-137 .
Griffith RB and Jeffrey RN (1948), Improved Steam-Distillation Apparatus : Application to Determination of Nicotine in Green and Dry Tobacco .
ANAL. CHEM. 20: 307-311 .
Gritaiute LA and Mironova Al (1960), The Carcinogenic Action of Tobacco Tar . VOPROSY ONKOL. 6: 25-33 .
Gwynn RH (1954), Studies on Promotion of Tumour Development (Co-Carcinogeneaia) . BRIT. EMP. CANCER CAMP ., ANN. RPT . 32:
171-172 .
Gwynn RH and Salaman MH 1956), Tests of Tobacco Products for Tumour Initiation and Promotion in Mouse Skin . BRIT . EMP. CANCER
CAMP., ANN . RPT. 54.279 .
Hahn M and ilttriamann 0(1931), Studies on Nicotine and the Denicotinization of Tobacco Smoke .l . Z. HYG . INFEKTIONSKRANKHEIT
112 : 680-697 .
Hahn M and Langer H(1920), Tobacco Smoke and Nicotine and a Biological Method for the Quantitative Determination of Nicotine . Z . HYG .
INFEKTIONSKRANKHEIT 90: 22-36 .
50
Hamer D and Woodhouse DL (1956), Biological Tests for Carcinogenic Action of Tar from Cigarette Smoke . BRIT. J . CANCER 10: 49-53 .
Hammond EC (1980), The Long-Term Benefits of Reducing Tar and Nicotine in Cigarettes . In Gori GB and Bock FO (Editors), A Sq/e
Cigarette? Banbury Report 3, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor NY : 13-18 .
Hammond EC, Garfinkel H, SEidman H, and Law EA (1976), "Tar" and Nicotine Content of Cigarette Smoke in Relation to Death Rates .
ENVIRON. RES . 12: 263 .
Harbin BA and Stamey TW (1975), Automated Data Acquisition and Processing of the FTC 'Tar' Analyses . 29th TOB. CHEM. RES . CONF.,
College Patic MD: Paper No . 18 .
Harrell TO and Sullivan BN Jr (1963) . Study of Methods for the Determination of Nicotine and Particulate Matter in Cigarette Smoke . RDM,
1963, No. 49 (June 27) .
Hartung HA and Steward LL (1973), Puff-by-Puff Delivery Equations for Tar, Nicotine and Water . 27th TOB . CHEM . RES. CONF.,
Wiostoo-Salem NC : Paper No . 20B.
Harvey WR, Badg