Inducing Low Tar/Nicotine Cigarette Smoking in Women

Abstract

Sixteenfemate smokers participated in a study of'safer cigarettes' and bought their cigarettes from the experimenters at less than prevailing prices. Half received an economic incentive for purchasing cigarettes delivering progressively less tar and nicotine: the other half paid the same price regardless of brand purchased. Subjects were not required to change brands. Twelve of the sixteen subjects completed the twelve-week study. Significant reductions in tar and nicotine intake, which persisted for more than six months beyond the twelve-week study period, occurred in both groups. The differences between the two groups in tar and nicotine intake were not significant. A control group of seven female smokers showed little change in tar and nicotine intake over the same twelve-week period, and only modest changes in the subsequent six months. Neither the number of cigarettes smoked nor exhaled carbon monoxide levels (measured in a subsample of participants) increased as the subjects switched to lower nicotine levels.

Nicotine's role in smoking: An analysis of nicotine regulation.

“…Nevertheless, information regarding rate of smoking following nicotine manipulations continues to be reported alone or in combination with other measures of exposure. In naturalistic studies smoking rate may be selfmonitored (e.g., Foxx & Brown, 1979) or recorded on the basis of returned cigarette butts (Freedman & Fletcher, 1976) or empty cigarette packages (Jaffe et al, 1978), whereas in laboratory studies it is measured directly (Jarvik, Popek, Schneider, Baer-Weiss, & Gritz, 1978).…”

“…Cigarette butts can provide additional information on smoking topography as well as on nicotine exposure. Butt measures reported in laboratory and naturalistic studies include butt weight (Jaffe et al, 1978;Lucchesi, Schuster, & Emley, 1967), butt length (Adams, 1978;Turner, Sillett, & Ball, 1974), and butt nicotine analysis (Ashton, Stepney, & Thompson, 1978;Freedman & Fletcher, 1976). Changes in butt weight and/or length that correspond to experimental manipulations suggest alterations in smoking topography.…”

“…The measurement of the gases ingested during smoking not only provides information on the absorption of harm fur gases to the blood stream but, by extrapolation, may also provide information on nicotine absorption. These gas measures include expired carbon monoxide (CO; Jaffe et al,1978;Prue, Krapfl, & Martin, 1981) measured with a mechanical device such as an Ecolyzer (Energetics Science, Inc., Elmsford, NY), carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) measured in blood samples (Hill & Marquardt, 1980;Russell, Wilson, Patel, Cole, & Feyerabend, 1973), and thiocyanate (SCN), a metabolite of hydrogen cyanide gas, measured in blood, urine, or saliva (Frederiksen, Martin, & Webster, 1979;Prue, Martin, & Hume, 1980;Prue, Martin, Hume, & Davis, 1981). We consider these measures to be indirect, since nicotine exposure can only be inferred from them.…”

“…All reported no increase in rate when subjects smoked the low T/N brands and concluded on the basis of a yield times rate calculation that T/N exposure was reduced except for Prue, Krapfl, and Martin (1981), who arrived at the same conclusion via carbon monoxide and thiocyanate measures. Jaffe et al (1978) offered weighted rebates to subjects for smoking lower T/N cigarettes. Although there was no increase in rate or calculated nicotine levels, subjects smoked proportionately more of the low T/N cigarettes on the basis of a butt weight measure.…”

“…The average cigarette currently sold in the United States delivers far less nicotine and tar than one produced a decade ago, which continues a trend that began in the mid 50s (Jaffe, Kanzler, Cohen, & Kaplan, 1978;Wynder & Hoffmann, 1979). According to a recent Surgeon General's report (U.S. Public Health Service, 1981), the sales-weighted average nicotine yield per cigarette declined from 2.3 mg in 1954 to 1.3 mg in 1975, and for "tar" the decline was from 38 to 19 mg We wish to acknowledge John Kirkpatrick for his input and help with the initial stages of the literature review.…”