HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kozlowski, L T Articles by Cummings, K M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kozlowski, L T Articles by Cummings, K M

Maximum yields might improve public health—if filter vents were banned: a lesson from the history of vented filters

¹ Department of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
² Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA
³ Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA

Correspondence to:
Lynn T Kozlowski
PhD, Department of Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University, 315 East Health and Human Development, University Park, PA 16802, USA; ltk1{at}psu.edu

Filter ventilation is the dominant design feature of the modern cigarette that determines yields of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide on smoking machine tests. The commercial use of filter ventilation was precipitated by the 1964 United States Surgeon-General’s report, further advanced by the adoption of an official Federal Trade Commission test in 1967, and still further advanced by the inclusion of a gas phase (carbon monoxide) measure in 1979. The first vented-filter brand on the market in the United States (Carlton) in 1964 and the second major vented-filter brand (True) in 1966 illustrate this. Ultimately, filter ventilation became a virtually required way to make very low tar cigarettes (less than 10 mg or, even more so, less than 5 mg tar). The key to the lower tar cigarette was not, in effect, the advanced selective filtration design characteristics or sophisticated tobacco selection or processing as envisioned by experts (although these techniques were and are used); the key to the very much lower tar cigarette was simply punching holes in the filter. We propose that the banning of filter vents, coupled with low maximum standard tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields, would contribute to making cigarettes much less palatable and foster smoking cessation or the use of clearly less hazardous nicotine delivery systems. It may be necessary to link low maximum yields with the banning of filter ventilation to achieve public health benefit from such maxima.

Abbreviations: ATC, American Tobacco Company; EU, European Union; FTC, Federal Trade Commission; ISO, International Organization for Standardization; PM, Philip Morris

Keywords: policy; cigarettes; ventilation; tar yields; compensation

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W E Stephens Dependence of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields on physical parameters: implications for exposure, emissions control and monitoring Tob. Control, June 1, 2007; 16(3): 170 - 176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Hammond, F. Wiebel, L. T Kozlowski, R. Borland, K M. Cummings, R. J O'Connor, A. McNeill, G. N Connolly, D. Arnott, and G. T Fong Revising the machine smoking regime for cigarette emissions: implications for tobacco control policy Tob. Control, February 1, 2007; 16(1): 8 - 14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]