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.
- ATC, American Tobacco Company
- EU, European Union
- FTC, Federal Trade Commission
- ISO, International Organization for Standardization
- PM, Philip Morris
- tar yields
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding: This work was performed under a Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center grant to Roswell Park Cancer Institute from the US National Institutes of Health (1 P50 CA111236) and a grant from the National Cancer Institute, 1-RO1 CA095890-01A1 “Analyzing Tobacco Documents on Cigarette Design”
Competing interests statement: KMC and LTK have provided expert testimony in court cases against the tobacco industry. KMC received travel expenses for speaking at a tobacco litigation seminar. JP has served as an expert witness in one court case against the tobacco industry for which he received monetary compensation. CAW, RO and GAG have no competing interests to declare
Ethics approval: Not needed as no human research participants were involved