Tobacco and Public Health - TCSC Indonesia

LYNN T. KOZLOWSKI AND RICHARD J. O’CONNOR 41
which might be a health issue. In 1966, the FTC announced that tar and nicotine statements
were not considered health claims, and instituted its cigarette testing program
the following year. This opened the door for manufacturers to develop a cigarette that
could make health claims implicitly, rather than explicitly: the Light cigarette.
Light cigarettes
Light cigarettes were the natural extension of the tar derby of the 1950s. Since tar was
linked to lung cancer, the most dreaded smoking-related disease, smokers would naturally
be attracted to products that reduced tar to lower and lower levels. So, lower-tar
cigarettes were reassuring, particularly when combined with a consoling name such as
‘Light’ that implied fewer toxins and purity at the same time (more on this point later).
Several design changes can reduce standard tar and nicotine numbers (for a review,
see Kozlowski et al. 2001). Probably the most important is filter ventilation (Kozlowski
et al. 1998a). This introduces air into the mainstream smoke, diluting it and reducing
standard machine measurements. However, filter ventilation does not necessarily
reduce the amounts of tar and nicotine delivered to smokers, in that smokers are able
to compensate for the dilution, primarily by taking bigger puffs, or by blocking the
vents with their lips or fingers (Kozlowski and Pillitteri 1996; Kozlowski and O’Connor
2002). For brands with less than 60 per cent ventilation, small increases in puff volume
will adequately compensate for the dilution, while for heavily ventilated brands
(greater than 60 per cent), vent blocking is more important for compensation.
The Light cigarette increased in popularity in the 1970s, when Light versions of
established brands began to appear, and smokers began to switch from ‘Full-Flavor’
to ‘Light’ brands (National Cancer Institute 2001). The sales-weighted average tar
yield dropped from 21.6 mg in 1968 to 12.0 mg in 1997, a 44.4 per cent decline. See the
recent National Cancer Institute (2001) monograph on Lights for a more detailed
overview of the product and its epidemiology.
The Light cigarette took full advantage of the allowable advertising claims (Glantz
et al. 1996). Internal memos from the time show that these products were marketed
precisely to keep smokers who were concerned about their health from quitting by
offering them a ‘safer’ smoke. One Brown and Williamson employee wrote:
All work in this area [communications] should be directed towards providing consumer reassurance
[emphasis in original] about cigarettes and the smoking habit … by claiming low deliveries, by
the perception of low deliveries and by the perception of ‘mildness’. Furthermore, the advertising
for low delivery or traditional brands should be constructed in ways so as not to provoke
anxiety about health, but to alleviate it, and enable the smoker to feel assured about the habit
and confident in maintaining it over time.
(Short 1977)
Amercian Tobacco (Carlton ® ) and R. J. Reynolds (Now ® ) competed for the lowestyield
cigarette, and positioned these brands as having the lowest recorded tar and
nicotine levels (even though the hard-pack versions that measured the lowest were