Xn the United :`States District Court

Published on July 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 84 | Comments: 0 | Views: 823
of x
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

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 iu► 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'

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