- Page 4 and 5: Contents WHO Study Group on Tobacco
- Page 6 and 7: Acknowledgements The WHO Study Grou
- Page 8 and 9: WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product
- Page 10 and 11: Preface Tobacco product regulation
- Page 12 and 13: 1. Advisory note on smokeless tobac
- Page 14 and 15: deliberations of the TobReg and add
- Page 16 and 17: Red tooth powder India Tobacco powd
- Page 18 and 19: 1.4 Regional and global patterns of
- Page 20 and 21: • The risks associated with smoke
- Page 22 and 23: • People who continue to use smok
- Page 24 and 25: 2003; TobReg, 2004, 2007), TobReg r
- Page 26 and 27: • to understand which regional po
- Page 28 and 29: 2. Advisory note on ‘fire-safer
- Page 30 and 31: Philip Morris began exploring the d
- Page 32 and 33: amended on 23 February 2008 to incl
- Page 34 and 35: Figure 2.3 Cigarette ignition prope
- Page 36 and 37: make these products more harmful th
- Page 38 and 39: grants. There are currently six lab
- Page 40 and 41: chemicals and the toxicity of the s
- Page 42 and 43: Gunja M et al. (2002) The case for
- Page 44 and 45: Annex 2.1 Model legislation THE CIG
- Page 46 and 47: problems do not affect the results
- Page 48 and 49: administering the provisions of thi
- Page 50 and 51: (2) style, such as light or ultra l
- Page 52 and 53:
Proposed markings shall be deemed a
- Page 54 and 55:
(b) The [State entity responsible f
- Page 56 and 57:
3. Mandated lowering of toxicants i
- Page 58 and 59:
The toxicants recommended for manda
- Page 60 and 61:
The Convention also recognizes, how
- Page 62 and 63:
cigarette product differences probl
- Page 64 and 65:
that it offers little human exposur
- Page 66 and 67:
e well advised to establish their o
- Page 68 and 69:
(or for NNN plus NNK) to monitor un
- Page 70 and 71:
Figure 3.2 Benzo[a]pyrene concentra
- Page 72 and 73:
market. Setting levels for toxicant
- Page 74 and 75:
It is evident from the graph that t
- Page 76 and 77:
Table 3.2 Delivery of specified tox
- Page 78 and 79:
The availability of technology or o
- Page 80 and 81:
nicotine and multiplied by its canc
- Page 82 and 83:
This ranking of measured carcinogen
- Page 84 and 85:
potentially identifies those toxica
- Page 86 and 87:
Propionaldehyde 2.53 1,3-Butadiene
- Page 88 and 89:
Figure 3.7 Maximum, minimum and 90%
- Page 90 and 91:
included despite its low toxicant a
- Page 92 and 93:
widely in the diet and the environm
- Page 94 and 95:
1,3-Butadiene: Other than through c
- Page 96 and 97:
Health and Human Services classify
- Page 98 and 99:
nitric oxide, while nitrogen dioxid
- Page 100 and 101:
esponse is compared with that of kn
- Page 102 and 103:
Aromatic amines (2-aminonaphthalene
- Page 104 and 105:
3.6.3 Existing techniques to reduce
- Page 106 and 107:
2002). The amount of volatile compo
- Page 108 and 109:
Figure 3.10 Brown & Williamson empl
- Page 110 and 111:
Figure 3.11 Acrolein per milligram
- Page 112 and 113:
enzo[a]pyrene: a standard blend had
- Page 114 and 115:
Carbon monoxide has been a target f
- Page 116 and 117:
changes in curing and manufacturing
- Page 118 and 119:
Table 3.8 Correlation coefficients
- Page 120 and 121:
toxicants have different potencies
- Page 122 and 123:
under standardized conditions, it i
- Page 124 and 125:
The levels in Table 3.1 in the colu
- Page 126 and 127:
discussed in a previous report (Sci
- Page 128 and 129:
3.9 Issues for regulators mandating
- Page 130 and 131:
the brand changes, the complexity o
- Page 132 and 133:
3.10.2Smokeless tobacco products Sm
- Page 134 and 135:
Table 3.12 Toxicants in smokeless t
- Page 136 and 137:
Table 3.15 Concentrations of classi
- Page 138 and 139:
Cohen SM et al. (1992) Acrolein int
- Page 140 and 141:
Hecht SS (1999) Tobacco smoke carci
- Page 142 and 143:
Lesser C, Von Borstel RW (2003) Cig
- Page 144 and 145:
Rainer NB, Feins IR (1980) Filter m
- Page 146 and 147:
Tiggelbeck D (1967) Comments on sel
- Page 148 and 149:
Annex 3.1 Levels of toxicants per m
- Page 150 and 151:
Camel Light King Size 1.74 14.54 15
- Page 152 and 153:
Discretion King Size 2.13 14.46 14.
- Page 154 and 155:
Winston Light 100’s 2.11 6.94 39.
- Page 156 and 157:
Gipsy King Size 2.28 16.81 97.65 64
- Page 158 and 159:
Winston Light 100’s 54.79 29.59 3
- Page 160 and 161:
Gipsy King Size 53.99 34.69 37.04 1
- Page 162 and 163:
Winston Light 100’s 79.91 177.17
- Page 164 and 165:
Gipsy King Size 68.08 82.63 92.02 2
- Page 166 and 167:
Winston Light 100’s 37.67 20.55 0
- Page 168 and 169:
Gipsy King Size 4.34 17.09 0.40 75.
- Page 170 and 171:
Winston Light 100’s 5.04 52.05 38
- Page 172 and 173:
Gipsy King Size 4.84 46.95 342.25 1
- Page 174 and 175:
Parliament 100 Filter soft pack/CEM
- Page 176 and 177:
Propionaldehyde Brand Butyraldehyde
- Page 178 and 179:
1R4Filter Kentucky Reference 51.04
- Page 180 and 181:
Parliament 100 Filter soft pack/CEM
- Page 182 and 183:
Brand Styrene Toluene Ammonia Total
- Page 184 and 185:
1R4Filter Kentucky Reference 16.45
- Page 186 and 187:
Parliament 100 Filter soft pack/CEM
- Page 188 and 189:
Brand 2-Aminonaphthalene 3-Aminobip
- Page 190 and 191:
1R4Filter Kentucky Reference 10.22
- Page 192 and 193:
Parliament 100 Filter soft pack/CEM
- Page 194 and 195:
Brand Hydroquinone Phenol Resorcino
- Page 196 and 197:
1R4Filter Kentucky Reference 57.81
- Page 198 and 199:
Parliament 100 Filter soft pack/CEM
- Page 200 and 201:
Brand Chromium Nickel Arsenic Selen
- Page 202 and 203:
1R4Filter Kentucky Reference 6.50 1
- Page 204 and 205:
Catechol Crotonaldehyde Brand Benze
- Page 206 and 207:
Brand NNN NNK NAT NAB Nitrogen oxid
- Page 208 and 209:
Brand 1-Aminonaphthalene 2-Aminonap
- Page 210 and 211:
Annex 3.2 Basis for calculation of
- Page 212 and 213:
and 100 ppm, with a control group o
- Page 214 and 215:
w per day and females at 50 mg/kg
- Page 216 and 217:
Remarks on the study Species, strai
- Page 218 and 219:
Lowest dose causing significantly i
- Page 220 and 221:
Lowest dose causing significantly i
- Page 222 and 223:
Remarks on the study Species, strai
- Page 224 and 225:
Annex 3.3 Calculation of toxicant a
- Page 226 and 227:
Catechol 48.8 61.6 65.4 104 0.01 0.
- Page 228 and 229:
Table A3.2 Cancer and toxicant non-
- Page 230 and 231:
Selenium ND ND ND ND - - - - 20 - -
- Page 232 and 233:
Catechol 50.1 53.9 54.6 104 0.01 0.
- Page 234 and 235:
Table A3.4 Ranking of toxicants in
- Page 236 and 237:
Table A3.8 Ranking of toxicants in
- Page 238 and 239:
Some of the calculated T25 values a
- Page 240 and 241:
Annex 3.4 Correlation of toxicant y
- Page 242 and 243:
Table A4.5. Correlation coefficient
- Page 244 and 245:
Nitric oxide 0.364 0.403 0.604 0.41
- Page 246 and 247:
1-Aminonaphthalene -0.052 0.036 -0.
- Page 248 and 249:
1-Aminonaphthalene -0.135 -0.262 -0
- Page 250 and 251:
1-Aminonaphthalene 0.102 0.095 0.11
- Page 252 and 253:
4-Aminobiphenyl 0.865 0.971 1.000 .
- Page 254 and 255:
3-Aminobiphenyl . . . . . . . . . .
- Page 256 and 257:
4-Aminobiphenyl . . . . . . . . . B
- Page 258 and 259:
NNN 0.447 0.480 -0.438 0.588 0.138
- Page 260 and 261:
N´-Nitrosoanabasine 0.596 0.476 0.
- Page 262 and 263:
N´-Nitrosoanabasine 0.437 0.532 0.
- Page 264 and 265:
Pyridine 0.782 0.801 0.498 0.743 0.
- Page 266 and 267:
Resorcinol 0.645 0.614 0.744 1.000
- Page 268 and 269:
N´-Nitrosoanabasine N´-Nitrosoana
- Page 270 and 271:
Figure A4.3 Correlation scatterplot
- Page 272 and 273:
Percentage of median value for bran
- Page 274 and 275:
Percentage of median value of brand
- Page 276 and 277:
Percentage of median value of brand
- Page 278 and 279:
Percentage of median value of brand
- Page 280 and 281:
4. Recommendation on cigarette mach
- Page 282 and 283:
problematic but potentially valuabl
- Page 284 and 285:
5. Overall recommendations 5.1 Harm
- Page 286 and 287:
Significance for public health poli
- Page 288:
egulatory approaches which mandate