Unfiltered Filters?

"The cigarette industry has done a grave disservice to the smoking public [by] publicizing the filter-tip smoke as a health protection." So saying last week, the House Government Operations Committee, headed by Illinois Democrat William L. Dawson, angrily lit into the U.S. tobacco industry. The committee found, after study and hearings, that cigarette makers boosted filter-tip sales from 1.4% of the market in 1952 to better than 40% today by playing on the cancer scare with "deceptive" and "misleading" ads. Actually, said the committee, "the filter cigarette smoker is, in most cases, getting as much or more nicotine and tar than he would get from the regular cigarette the advertisers have persuaded him to abandon--for his health's sake."

Looser & Stronger. The committee conceded that the industry at first tried to put out effective filters. But when smokers found the cigarettes too weak, "first, the filters were loosened to permit a larger number of smoke particles to get through. Second, the blend was changed to include more of the stronger, heavier-bodied tobaccos." In 1952 P. Lorillard Co. (Kent) designed a filter that let in only i milligram of nicotine, 9 milligrams of tar; unfortunately, the sales did not reflect the effectiveness, and last year, said the committee, Kent's new filter let through double this nicotine and tar content. Similarly, Liggett & Myers' L & M brand had only 1.5 milligrams of nicotine, 11 milligrams of tar in 1955; two years later, L & M showed almost a 70% increase in nicotine, more than a 33% increase in tar. "Amazingly," noted the committee, "it then announced 'the miracle of the modern miracle tip.' "

Every major cigarette maker did the same. R. J. Reynolds changed the filter on its Winston brand until in 1957 it let through 3.8 milligrams of nicotine, 22 milligrams of tar v. 3 milligrams of nicotine, 22 milligrams of tar for unfiltered king-size Chesterfield. The percentages are similar for Marlboro, Viceroy, Tareyton, Parliament and the rest of the popular filters. Net effect: "The public has paid premium prices of 2-c- to 6-c- per pack . . . for 'protection' they did not receive."

Old Figures? Hearing the blast, the U.S. tobacco industry quickly replied. Said P. Lorillard President Lewis Gruber: "Our advertising has been and is scrupulously honest and truthful. Our claim has been a simple statement of fact--Kent filters best of all the leading filter brands. These are facts, and they are documented." Added R. J. Reynolds President Bowman Gray: The figures used in the congressional report were published in a magazine (Consumer Reports) in March 1957; since then, Reynolds has improved its filter to reduce nicotine by 32%, tars by 27%. "It would appear that the figures quoted in the committee's report were hardly the latest available."

As for the Federal Trade Commission, which is supposed to supervise all advertising claims, it, too, came in for its share of criticism. The Congressmen accused FTC of failing "to approach the problems of false and misleading advertising with vigor and diligence," called its actions "weak and tardy." In answer, the FTC said that it had scheduled a conference of cigarette manufacturers to develop uniform standards for testing cigarettes.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.