Federal Trade Commission

Report of "Tar," Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide of the
Smoke of 1249 Varieties of Domestic Cigarettes
For the Year 1995

This report contains data on the "tar," nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields of 1249 varieties of cigarettes manufactured and sold in the United States in 1995. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) obtained the test results from the five largest cigarette manufacturers in the United States. These companies are: Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation; Liggett Group, Inc.; Lorillard, Inc.; Philip Morris, Inc.; and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Inc.

The Tobacco Institute Testing Laboratory (TITL), a private laboratory operated by the cigarette industry, conducted most of the "tar," nicotine, and carbon monoxide tests for these varieties. The Commission collected the results of the TITL testing directly from the individual companies under compulsory process. Generic, private label, and other brands not widely available were not tested by TITL. The Commission obtained the information on these other brands directly from the manufacturers, pursuant to compulsory process. Results of such non-TITL testing are indicated by asterisks. The methodology, processes, and procedures that the five cigarette companies and TITL employ are identical to those the Commission, in its own testing lab, had followed in the past.(1) Harold Pillsbury, the former director of the FTC laboratory and currently a contractor to the Commission, had unrestricted access to the TITL laboratory to review TITL's testing methodology and protocols and to monitor the actual testing process. TITL provided the results to the respective cigarette companies, which then provided TITL's data regarding their own brands to the FTC in response to compulsory process.

The cigarettes were tested using the Cambridge Method. The FTC approved this methodology, and it has been the standard for cigarette testing since 1966.(2) The testing was subjected to the conditions prescribed by the FTC in Federal Register, Volume 32, Number 147, Page 11,178, dated August 1, 1967. With regard to the testing of carbon monoxide yield, the conditions are specified in Federal Register, Volume 45, Number 134, Page 46,483, dated July 10, 1980. The conditions prescribed in the FTC's 1967 announcement are the following:

1. Smoke cigarettes to a 23 mm. butt length, or to the length of the filter and overwrap plus 3 mm. if in excess of 23 mm.;
 
2. Base results on a test of 100 cigarettes per brand, or type;
 
3. Cigarettes to be tested will be selected on a random basis, as opposed to "weight selection";
 
4. Determine particulate matter on a "dry" basis employing the gas chromatography method published by C.H. Sloan and B.J. Sublett in Tobacco Science 9, page 70, 1965, as modified by F.J. Schultz' and A.W. Spears' report published in Tobacco Vol. 162, No. 24, page 32, dated June 17, 1966, to determine the moisture content;
 
5. Determine and report the "tar" yield after subtracting moisture and alkaloids (as nicotine) from particulate matter;
 
6. Report "tar" yield to the nearest whole milligram and nicotine yield to the nearest 1/10 milligram (32 Fed. Reg. 11,178 (1967)).

The 1980 FTC announcement contained specifications regarding a new testing methodology to determine the carbon monoxide (CO) and nicotine yield of cigarettes. These specifications are the following:

1. Determine CO concentration using a 20-port sequential smoking machine described by H.C. Pillsbury and G. Merfeld at the 32nd Tobacco Chemists Research Conference, October 1978;
 
2. The concentration of CO will be reported as milligrams per cigarette;
 
3. The present method for "tar" and nicotine determination will be modified to use the method described in an article entitled, "Gas Chromatographic Determination of Nicotine Contained on Cambridge Filter Pads," by John R. Wagner, et al., as presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, October 1978 (45 Fed. Reg. 46,483 (1980)).

TITL reported, and the FTC's contractor confirmed, that an independent company under contract to TITL obtained the tested cigarette samples. Under its contract, this company purchased two packages of every variety of cigarettes in 50 geographical locations throughout the United States. If not all varieties were available in every location, one or more additional packages of cigarettes were purchased in the areas where the respective varieties were available. This procedure of selecting cigarettes for testing replicates the one used by the FTC. Cigarettes used in the test represented cigarettes sold in the U.S. at the time of purchase in 1995.

The "tar" and carbon monoxide figures are rounded to the nearest milligram (mg.). Those figures with 0.5 mg. or greater are rounded up, while those with 0.4 mg. or less are rounded down. The nicotine figures are rounded to the nearest tenth of a milligram. Those with 0.05 mg. or greater are rounded up; those with 0.04 mg. or less are rounded down.

Cigarette varieties with assay results of "tar" below 0.5 mg. per cigarette and of nicotine below 0.05 mg. are recorded in the table as <0.5, and <0.05, respectively. The table does not differentiate, nor are actual ratings provided for these cigarettes, because the currently approved testing methodology is not sufficiently sensitive to report these components at lower levels.

The following varieties are the lowest in "tar" yield as tested by TITL:

     BRAND-NAME  DESCRIPTION           TAR  NIC CO
     ----------  --------------------- ---- --- --- 
     CARLTON      KING F HP ULTRA-LT   <.5  .05 <.05
     NOW          KING F HP            <.5  .05 <.05
     NOW          100 F HP             <.5  .05 <.05
     CARLTON      100 F HP LT MEN      1    .1  1 
     CARLTON      100 F HP LT          1    .1  1
     CARLTON      100 F HP SLIM MEN    1    .1  1
     NOW          KING F SP            1    .1  2
     CARLTON      KING F HP LT         1    .1  2
     NOW          KING F SP MEN        1    .1  2
     CARLTON      KING F SP LT MEN     1    .1  2
     BRISTOL      KING F SP LOWEST     1    .1  2
     CARLTON      KING F SP LT         1    .1  2
     MERIT        KING F HP ULTIMA     1    .1  2
     CAMBRIDGE    KING F SP LOWEST     1    .2  2
     MERIT        KING F SP ULTIMA     1    .1  3

NOTE: F - Filter, HP - Hard Pack, SP - Soft Pack, 
      LT - Light, MEN - Menthol

Those ranking the highest in "tar" yield are the following:

     BRAND NAME          DESCRIPTION           TAR  NIC CO
     ----------          --------------------- ---  --- ---
     BRISTOL             KING NF SP            27   1.7 16
     ENGLISH OVALS       KING NF HP            26   1.9 15 
     COMMANDER           KING NF SP            26   1.7 15
     BASIC               KING NF SP            26   1.6 15
     TAREYTON HERBERT    KING NF SP            25   1.6 16
     LUCKY STRIKE        REG NF SP             25   1.5 17
     OLD GOLD            KING NF SP STRAIGHT   24   1.7 14
     GENCO*              KING NF SP            24   1.7 NA
     CAMEL               REG NF SP             24   1.7 17
     PREMIUM BUY*        KING NF SP            24   1.7 NA
     GENERALS*           KING NF SP            24   1.7 NA
     GRIDLOCK*           KING NF SP            24   1.7 NA
     BEST BUY*           KING NF SP            24   1.7 NA
     ALL AMERICAN VALUE* KING NF SP            24   1.7 NA
     SHENANDOAH*         KING NF SP            24   1.7 NA
     TOP CHOICE*         KING NF SP            24   1.7 NA
     BRONSON*            KING NF SP            24   1.7 NA
     GPA*                KING NF SP            24   1.6 NA
     SUMMIT              KING NF SP            24   1.5 16 
     PRIME               KING NF SP            24   1.5 16
     PALL MALL           KING NF SP            24   1.5 16
     CLASS A             KING NF SP            24   1.4 16
     GEN/PRIVATE LABEL   KING NF SP            24   1.4 16
NOTE: NF - Non-Filter, HP - Hard Pack, SP - Soft Pack 
* indicates brand tested by the manufacturer rather than by TITL.

On April 13, 1983, the Commission announced it had determined that its then testing methodology for "tar," nicotine, and carbon monoxide understated the measured deliveries for Brown & Williamson's Barclay cigarettes. Therefore, Barclay cigarettes were removed from the Commission's reports for "tar," nicotine, and carbon monoxide until a new, accurate methodology could be tested and adopted.

On July 25, 1986, the Commission informed Brown & Williamson that as a result of a review of data presented by Brown & Williamson regarding "tar" and nicotine rating for two varieties of Barclay cigarettes with a new filter, the Commission would authorize, under certain conditions, the following legends for advertising purposes:

1. For Barclay King size:
 

3 mg. "tar," .2 mg. nicotine
avg. per cigarette as authorized by FTC.

2. For Barclay 100's:
 
5 mg."tar," .4 mg. nicotine
avg. per cigarette as authorized by FTC.

On September 9, 1997, the Commission issued a notice requesting public comment on proposed revisions to the testing method used to determine the tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide ratings of cigarettes. The proposed methodology would require that each cigarette variety be tested under two different sets of smoking conditions, rather than the single set used under the current system. The revised test method would produce tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields using both the current testing parameters and more intensive smoking conditions, thus producing a range of potential yields for each cigarette. The Commission also requested comment on: (1) the feasibility of generating the upper tier of ratings through mathematical formulas, rather than actual testing on a smoking machine; and (2) the usefulness and feasibility of two different legends that could be used in advertising to disclose the ratings.

Table 1 of this report displays the average tar and nicotine values, calculated on a sales-weighted basis, from 1968 through 1995. The Commission included Table 1 for the first time in its Report on the Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide of the Smoke of 1206 Varieties of Domestic Cigarettes for the Year 1994 (1997). 

                            TABLE 1
              SALES WEIGHTED TAR AND NICOTINE YIELDS
                           1968-1995
              YEAR        TAR (mg.)   NICOTINE (mg.)
              1968        21.6        1.35
              1969        20.7        1.38
              1970        20.0        1.31
              1971        20.2        1.32
              1972        19.9        1.39
              1973        19.3        1.32
              1974        18.4        1.24
              1975        18.6        1.21
              1976        18.1        1.16
              1977        16.8        1.12
              1978        16.1        1.11
              1979        15.1        1.07
              1980        14.1        1.04
              1981        13.2        0.92
              1982        13.5        0.89
              1983        13.4        0.88
              1984        13.0        0.89
              1985        13.0        0.95
              1986        13.4        0.93
              1987        13.3        0.94
              1988        13.3        0.94
              1989        13.1        0.96
              1990        12.5        0.93
              1991        12.6        0.94
              1992        12.4        0.92
              1993        12.4        0.90
              1994        12.1        0.90
              1995        12.0        0.87

Endnotes:

1. The Commission determined in early 1987 to close its laboratory. The Commission found that closing the laboratory was necessary for several reasons, chiefly, the cost of the laboratory was significant, and the Commission would have had to commit significant additional funds to continue the program. The Commission was also persuaded that the information could be obtained from other sources, and other means were available to verify the accuracy of industry testing results.

2. As discussed infra, the Commission recently issued a notice requesting public comment on proposed revisions to the current testing method.