Similar Uptake of Lung Carcinogens by Smokers of Regular, Light, and Ultralight Cigarettes

Abstract

Cigarette design has changed markedly over the past 60 years and sales-weighed levels of tar and nicotine have decreased. Currently, cigarettes are classified as regular (>14.5 mg tar), light (>6.5-14.5 mg tar), and ultralight (V V 6.5 mg tar), based on a Federal Trade Commission -specified machine-smoking protocol. Epidemiologic studies suggest that there is no difference in lung cancer risk among people who smoke light or ultralight cigarettes compared with regular cigarettes, but the uptake of lung carcinogens in smokers of these types of cigarettes has never been reported. We recruited 175 smokers, who filled out a tobacco use questionnaire in which their current brand was identified as regular, light, or ultralight. Urine samples were collected and analyzed for 1-hydroxypyrene (1-HOP), total 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL plus its glucuronides) and total cotinine (cotinine plus its glucuronides). 1-HOP and total NNAL are biomarkers of uptake of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone, lung carcinogens in cigarette smoke. Total cotinine is a biomarker of nicotine uptake. There were no statistically significant differences in urinary levels of 1-HOP, total NNAL, and total cotinine in smokers of regular, light, and ultralight cigarettes, whether the results were expressed per mg urinary creatinine, per mL of urine, or per mg creatinine divided by cigarettes per day. Levels of machine measured tar were available for the cigarettes smoked by 149 of the subjects. There was no correlation between levels of tar and any of the biomarkers. These results indicate that lung carcinogen and nicotine uptake, as measured by urinary 1-HOP, total NNAL, and total cotinine is the same in smokers of regular, light, and ultralight cigarettes. The results are consistent with epidemiologic studies that show no difference in lung cancer risk in smokers of these cigarettes.

Body mass index, lifetime smoking intensity and lung cancer risk

“…38 In this respect, the uptake of lung carcinogens in cigarette smoke was shown to be similar in smokers of regular, light, and ultralight cigarettes. 39 In addition, no difference in lung cancer risk has been observed in smokers of these cigarettes 40 or in smokers of mentholated compared with non-mentholated cigarettes. 41 Above all, the CSI incorporates smoking duration, intensity and time since cessation, which seem to be the most important determinants of lung cancer risk.…”

Candy Flavorings in Tobacco

“…Some, such as the "low tar" cigarette, do not result in reductions in exposure or risk (9,64,65). For other tobacco products making reduced exposure claims, reductions in some carcinogens were verified, but there were not reductions in others (27).…”

Cigarette Yields and Human Exposure: A Comparison of Alternative Testing Regimens

“…Filter ventilation-tiny perforations in cigarette filters that allow air to enter and dilute the cigarette smoke collected under machine smoking conditions-is the most prominent design element responsible for this discrepancy, but by no means the only one (12). As a consequence, the FTC/ISO machine yields bear little association with biological measures of uptake among human smokers (14)(15)(16).…”