An extremely compensatible cigarette by design: documentary evidence on industry awareness and reactions to the Barclay filter design cheating the tar testing system

Abstract

Background: The Barclay cigarette (Brown & Williamson) was introduced in 1980 in the USA in the most expensive launch in history. In the USA and around the world, Barclay was later determined to have a grooved filter design that was compromised by human smokers in the normal act of smoking, but that was measured as ultra-low tar using the standard tar testing protocol. Objectives: To evaluate whether Brown & Williamson knew of the compensatability of Barclay during the design process and before it was released; to evaluate initial responses of competing tobacco companies to Barclay, before complaints were made to the Federal Trade Commission in 1981. Methods: Internet databases of industry documents (Tobacco Documents Online, Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, Brown & Williamson Litigation discovery website, Guildford and major company websites) were searched using key words, key dates, and targeted searches. Documents related specifically to the development, evaluation and release of the Barclay cigarette and related to the responses by competing tobacco companies were examined. Results: Documents indicate the manufacturer was aware of Barclay design problems and was planning, before release, to respond to criticism. Competing companies quickly detected the filter groove stratagem and considered developing their own similar filter, but eventually backed off. Conclusion: The design problems with Barclay were readily understood by cigarette manufacturers, including the maker of Barclay, before official governmental evaluations occurred. Testing involving measured exposures to human smokers may in the end be crucial to identifying problems with novel cigarette designs.

How do different cigarette design features influence the standard tar yields of popular cigarette brands sold in different countries?

“…As parties to the treaty meet to decide on the regulation of tobacco products, they might strongly consider requiring manufacturers to disclose basic information about cigarette design. Arguments about trade secrets ought to be ignored, as reverse engineering is routinely performed by the manufacturers on competitors’ products, often within days of introduction 29. The WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation (TobReg) has already recommended the following list of design parameters and is preparing guidelines for the FCTC Conference of the Parties: aerosol particle size, filter ventilation, filter length, filter fibre residues, filter charcoal content, cigarette circumference, paper porosity, percentage of reconstituted tobacco, percentage of expanded tobacco, moisture content and product firmness 30.…”

Beyond light and mild: cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey

“…Previous research indicates that many smokers perceive these “lower tar” products, commonly labelled as “light” and “mild” brands to be less harmful. The terms “light” and “mild” have now been banned in more than 50 countries 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 ; however, recent evidence suggests that removing these terms from packs resulted in only modest reductions in false beliefs about the risks of different cigarette brands 11 . One potential explanation is that manufacturers have replaced “light” and “mild” with words such as “silver” and “white”.…”

Human electroencephalography and the tobacco industry: a review of internal documents

“…An additional experiment (n=10) assessed a collection of commercial cigarettes under controlled smoking conditions and determined that nicotine concentration strongly predicted evoked-potential latency (figure 2). An exception was the controversial Barclay brand, which was designed to facilitate human smoke delivery at a level greater than indicated by standard machine testing 50. The researchers observed ‘…the results obtained with Barclay are greatly at odds with what would be predicted on the basis of F.T.C.…”