Cigarettes with defective filters marketed for 40 years: what Philip Morris never told smokers: Table 1

Abstract

Background: More than 90% of the cigarettes sold worldwide have a filter. Nearly all filters consist of a rod of numerous ( > 12 000) plastic-like cellulose acetate fibres. During high speed cigarette manufacturing procedures, fragments of cellulose acetate that form the mouthpiece of a filter rod become separated from the filter at the end face. The cut surface of the filter of nearly all cigarettes has these fragments. In smoking a cigarette in the usual manner, some of these fragments are released during puffing. In addition to the cellulose acetate fragments, carbon particles are released also from some cigarette brands that have a charcoal filter. Cigarettes with filters that release cellulose acetate or carbon particles during normal smoking conditions are defective.Objective: Specific goals were to review systematically the writings of tobacco companies to: (a) identify papers that would document the existence of defective filters; (b) characterise the extent of the defect; (c) establish when the defect became known; (d) determine whether the defect exists on cigarettes marketed currently; (e) assess the prevalence of the defect on cigarettes manufactured by different companies; (f) define whether the knowledge of the defect had been withheld by the tobacco company as confidential and not disclosed publicly; and (g) ascertain the feasibility of correcting or preventing the defect.Methods: Document searches utilised databases of the scientific literature, medical journals, chemical abstracts, US Patents, Tobacco Abstracts, papers presented at tobacco meetings and court documents.Results: Sixty one documents of Philip Morris, Inc were selected for study because they disclosed specifically the “fall-out” of cellulose acetate filter fibres and, for cigarettes with charcoal filters, carbon particles from cigarette filters. The term “fall-out” was defined in 1985 laboratory protocols of Philip Morris, Inc. as “loose fibers (or particles) that are drawn out of the filter during puffing of the cigarette”. As early as 1957, the health concern of inhaling cellulose acetate fibres released from cigarette filters was addressed by Philip Morris, Inc. A 1962 document reported the results of laboratory tests conducted by Phillip Morris, Inc that compared the “fall-out” of cellulose acetate fibres from the filters of their cigarettes (Marlboro) and cigarettes of their competitor (Liggett & Meyers). A 1997 overview by Phillip Morris of documents addressing the “fallout of carbon particles and cellulose acetate fibers from filters” stated that they were “essentially routine reports” of cigarette filter assays, and referenced a “Filter Fallout” memo written in 1961—more than 40 years ago. Most likely these tests are being conducted presently as illustrated by a 1999 report that details the revisions of the “fall-out” protocol of Phillip Morris, Inc and reports the results of tests that measured the discharge of cellulose acetate fibres and silica gel from beta cigarettes with a new type of filter. Our analysis of the “fall-out” tests results presented in the 61 “fall-out” documents showed that filter fibres and carbon particles were discharged from the filters of all types of cigarettes tested. These cigarette types (n = 130) included both coded cigarettes and popular brand name cigarettes. No publications were found in the scientific literature of the “fall-out” studies. Thus, the results of the “fall-out” studies are thought to have been withheld as confidential to Philip Morris, Inc. We have identified also other companies that have tested recently cigarettes for defective filters. In addition, our searches have shown that simple, expedient, and inexpensive technologies for decontaminating cigarette filters of loose cellulose acetate fibres and particles from the cut surface of the filter have been developed and described in 1997 and 1998 US patents. What is more important is that these patents also define methods for preventing or reducing the broken plastic-like fibres that arise during cigarette making. Many US patents (n = 607; 1957 to 2001) have been awarded for cigarette filters. Some of these inventions describe novel materials and unique filtration schemes that would eliminate or minimise the discharge of filter materials into mainstream smoke.Conclusions: We have shown that: (a) the filter of today's cigarette is defective; (b) Philip Morris, Inc has known of this filter defect for more than 40 years; (c) the existence of this filter defect has been confirmed by others in independent studies; (d) many methods exist to prevent and correct the filter defect, but have not been implemented; and (e) results of investigations substantiating defective filters have been concealed from the smoker and the health community. The tobacco industry has been negligent in not performing toxicological examinations and other studies to assess the human health risks associated with regularly ingesting and inhaling non-degradable, toxin coated cellulose acetate fragments and carbon microparticles and possibly other components that are released from conventional cigarette filters during normal smoking. The rationale for harm assessment is supported by the results of consumer surveys that have shown that the ingestion or inhalation of cigarette filter fibres are a health concern to nearly all smokers.

The epidemiology of asbestos-related diseases

“…Similar observations are reported from the US, with SMRs of 120. New grounds for concern appear after the discovery of defective cigarette filters causing the release of cellulose acetate-fibres during smoking [26]. The size of these fibres is similar to that of carcinogenic asbestos fibres.…”

Existing technologies to reduce specific toxicant emissions in cigarette smoke

“…Recent tobacco trade publications have noted a trend towards greater use of charcoal and predict more widespread use of charcoal and other “granular additives” to reduce vapour phase components 119. However, as Pauly and colleagues have pointed out, this has a potential downside 120 121. Charcoal filters can emit numerous small inhalable carbon particles during puffing, which may become embedded in lung tissue.…”

Playing hide‐and‐seek with the tobacco industry

“…The most common reasons for invalidating a report and/or requiring rewriting are: (1) discoveries of inaccuracies in data, (2) erroneous interpretation of data, (3) purposeless speculation on data, (4) needless interpretation of previously reported data and/or discussions, (5) undue delays in finalizing reports, (6) confidentiality of contents, and (7) several miscellaneous reasons.… (Senkus, 1969) Laboratory bench books and electronic records (e-mails) are additional examples of records that are noticeably missing, despite tobacco companies' document retention policies requiring such material to be retained (Pauly et al, 2002;U.S. v. Philip Morris, I, 2004a, b).…”

“…These works have exposed the tobacco industry's knowledge of the grave health consequences of its product, the systematic public denial of that knowledge, and industry activities to increase consumption of tobacco while fighting government regulation and public smoking restrictions. Although the destruction of documents and suppression of research have been reported previously (Cummings, Morley, Horan, Steger, & Leavell, 2002;Glantz, Slade, Bero, Hanauer, & Barnes, 1996;Kluger, 1996;Pauly, Mepani, Lesses, Cummings, & Streck, 2002), the endemic concealment of information by the tobacco companies or their representatives, of which document destruction was just one facet, has yet to be fully discussed in the peerreviewed literature.…”