"1961 memo from Arthur D. Little acknowledging cancer causing elements in cigarette tobacco (Pit. Exh. G(1))"
"1961 memo from Arthur D. Little acknowledging cancer causing elements in cigarette tobacco (Pit. Exh. G(1))"
March 15, 1961
Bates #: 2021382496/2498
Here's the PDF file
Arthur D. Little, Inc
CONFIDENTIAL
LIMITED
March 15, 1961
L & M - A PERSPECTIVE REVIEW
1. There are biologically active materials present in cigarette tobacco.
These are:
- a) cancer causing
b) cancer promoting
c) poisonous
d) stimulating, plesurable, and flavorful.
- a) filtration (treated carbon, etc.)
b) treatment for removing precursors, CN elimination
c) addition as a reactant (urea for No2).
4. The cancer-causing materials apparently are in many substances that are pyrolyzed but seem to be associated with tobacco in greater concentration than for primarily cellulose.
5. There appear to be variations in radically different methods for preparing tobacco in the biological measurements.
6. There are many forcs which continue to emphasize that L & M is in the tobacco business, not the pleasure business. Any shift from being in the tobacco business will have to be accomplished by avoiding these major pressures. A means is emerging is it correct? Can it be accelerated?
7. The use of C.T.S. not as a product but as a concept opens a way of having a tobacco cigarette and at the same time exploring a great deal about the causative factors in cigarettes and at the same time not having to face major opposition for not using tobacco.
8. Perhaps one of the reasons that an emphasis on the little poisonous molecules was avoided was that filtering them out seemed a major threat to the other gas phase materials that are added as flavoring agents.
We know that gaseous molecules can be preferentially removed compared to aerosol particles. The use of filters to remove all gases may remove odor and flavor components. For this thera (sic) is some evidence that the cigarette is becoming more a flavor principle than a truly tobacco product alone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur D. Little Inc
CONFIDENTIAL
LIMITED
L & M -2-
9. What the causative presursors in tobacco are is not well known. The low-temperture pyrolytic demonstration of long term biological activity suggests precursors that are molecularly sizable and different from the little-molecula-polymerization view which is amploy demonstrated by the enhanced P.N.A.H. found at high temperature pyrolysis fractions now on long term test.
So there is the suggtestion of two mechanisms for causative agent products:
- 1) low temperature formation
2) high temperature polymerization, but what good is this? Weve known it for several years --so what?
11. The C.T.S. variation even with tobacco suggest that we are not yet getting the contolling concepts. Are they in part physical? Some pressure bomb work is planned but it has been slow to date.
Are the effects from chemical precursors?
12. The naturally occurring class of tobacco phenols are possible precursors, e. g. chlorogenic acid, rutin, and caffeic acid.
13.By extraction of tobacco fractions with solvents, etc., we should be abl to take out many tobacco materials and recombine them in the C. T. S. process onto solka floc to give them an acceptable tobacco cigarette whose short and long term effects can be tested. A.D.L. can do the same adding the extracted components to Kleenex to make cigarettes for short term testing
14. The promoting materials, e. g. esters, small phenols, ie., in Kleenex or C. T.S. cigarettes, etc., should be looked at in the same manner, but the short tem tests may be harder to interpret.
15. Chemical treatments have not been too successful on tobacco. Perhaps the acid treatments are a help. Others are doubtful.
16. The chemical reagent additives to tobacco have been without marked effect except to the nitrates. The nitrates act at the time of decomposition probably in the conden----- phase, but certainly prior to the formation of the aerosol of smoke. The nitrates do not cut down activity by the action of the oxides of nitrogen in spite of the fact that these oxides do react with the smoke condensate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
CONFIDENTIAL
LIMITED
L & M -3-
17. Other reagents including cobalt compounds are essentially without major interesting effect.
18. Nitrates added to tobacco are not commercially attractive.
19. The making of a C.T.S. cigarette is commercially acceptable and perhaps economically competitive with normal tobacco.
20. Are we not on the march to a dissembled tobacco cigarette that we reassamble via the C.T.S. process to minimize the biological effect. If this is true, what about the patent situation? A.M.F. has the strongest position. L&M has a position with C.T.S. if it is with tobacco and with their own loop-hole binders. But what about C.T.S. with only fractions of tobacco and with a base of cellulose, e. g., solka floc? Are we not already late in the concept sense?
There are two patent emphases:
1) patent a C.T.S. assembling process where the assembling hs the entire range of freedom and where the concept is controlled.
2) patent ways of doing it, of getting in binders, making binders in the process of treatments, e. g. pressure, explosion, etc.,and all the little details that hold an entre but may not make it exclusive.
21. What are the flavor problems if a C.T.S. assembly process is possible that reduces biological activity?
22. Cant this approach be introduced as a part composition with normal tobacco as well? Like, 50% regular C.T.S. and 50% solka floc C.T.S. with safe additive to be equivalent to the nitrate added product currently experimental long term?
23. What about 22. but nitrating the regular tobacco only to give ED 50s in the range of 40-60 in comprison to the current controls of 15? The 1/3 to 14 activity would be a good claim!
24. Is it possible that the above reduces the activity of all but the high-temperature little-molecule effects? What do nitrate cigarettes do long term when the smoke condensate is obtained from the Durham 700 C-1000C pyrolysis?
25. Isnt the above the most optimistic view of the possibilities for this product since 1954?
26. How can we plan to mush at an accelerated rate to tie down these concepts?
***********************
Return To:
Sarokin/Haines Decision
***********************
Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage / Resources Page / Health Page / Documents Page / Culture Page / Activism Page
***********************
END OF DOCUMENT