News | More Resources | Home | Conferences

Annotations of documents gleaned from the British American Tobacco Company (BATCO) and BAT Industries documents at the Minnesota Tobacco Industry Document Depository. There are twenty-six boxes, (18 from BATCO, and 8 from BAT Industries (mainly financial statements, which should be of interest to those tracking industry structure). The material in Minnesota represent about ten percent of a larger cache in Guildford, England, also now open to the public. The box numbers here refer only to this Minnesota Select Set but the Bates numbers should be equivalent.

1. 4 June 1984, Summary of presentations, unsigned, "Summary of presentations to the BATCo Board on 21st/22nd May 1984," BAT (File no. J1275) 100590028 - 048.

   Various "projects" are summarized briefly, including Project Rio (to produce cigarettes with lower "biologic activity," see Stanton Glantz, et al., The Cigarette Papers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976) pp. 146-151), and Project LOCO (to lower carbon monoxide). An interesting point comes under the heading of "Smoke inhalation and retention."

   Notable quote: "Nicotine, although nominally associated with the particulate phase, is almost totally absorbed even during shallow inhalations. However, the level of tar retention during inhalation can range from 30-90% of the material inhaled.... The differential retention of tar and nicotine was discussed in terms of the potential for future product development."

2. 18 April 1986, memo, unsigned, "Research Department: Highlights of the first quarter of 1986," BAT (File no. J1363) 100567395.

   Research on adding nicotine in its optically active isomers in search of a non-tobacco, non-combustible nicotine generator.

   Notable quote: "Problem: Since nicotine is a poison, artificially adding it to tobacco or other material, and getting volunteers to smoke it, may produce ethical/medical problems." [NB. One may fairly ask why supplying free-based nicotine in tobacco is any less an "ethical/medical problem."]

3. June 1984, conference summary, unsigned, "Nicotine conference, Southampton, 6th-8th June," BAT (File no. J1454) 100571372.

   This one page summary is quoted in its entirety by Glantz, et al., Cigarette Papers, pp. 95-96. Here is the most explicit BAT statement about nicotine: that it is the driving force behind "an acceptable degree of satisfaction," a neurologic sensation that also serves as a cue-stimulus-reward function. Also acknowledged is the role of pH and control of levels of nicotine, especially for artificial cigarettes. The summary also is clear that smokers smoke to maintain a certain level of nicotine, perhaps with an additional transient peak superimposed. Finally, it is nicotine delivery that drives sales of cigarettes.

   Notable quotes: "Many smokers appear to obtain 12-14 mg. of nicotine per day from their cigarettes. Cigarettes which have a delivery of less that 0.7 mg. of nicotine per cigarettes as measured on a smoking machine, do not achieve large volume sales."

4. 20 January 1987, research note, "SB", "Note on recommendation for future research interests given at the 2^nd meeting of the Scientific Research Group – Montreal, August 6-8, 1986," BAT (File no. J1463) 101002985 - 990.

   Considerable knowledge is displayed here, based on BAT's own research, on nicotine receptors in the brain, receptor-binding antagonists, and functions of the receptors. Hope for the role of nicotine in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases is expressed. The pharmacokinetics of nicotine are described in detail.

   Notable Quote: "The 'compensation' theory of smoking suggests that smokers increase the 'vigour' of smoking low-tar cigarettes because they are attempting to obtain their habitual dose of nicotine."

5. 13 November 1985, Draft public relations piece, Burson-Marsteller Marketing Communications, reviewed by "Lorimer," "Smoking and health - the issues answered published by British American Tobacco Company (Hong Kong) Ltd," BAT (File no. J1490) 100986072 - 083.

   A hapless draft, marked up in hand-written marginalia criticisms by two reviewers.

   Notable quotes: "I think this [??] have to go to R&D as well as legal. But I'm not very happy with it as it stands anyway." "Most studies on smoking and pregnancy suggest that important biological and social factors do affect birth weight and pre-natal mortality, and not smoking.... Such differences were only found among mothers coming from poorer families, in poorer environmental conditions [handwritten notes: 'Such as in Paddington area!' 'Co. Stance on smoking pregnant women?']." "Does smoking by children and youth affect their growth [handwritten notes: ' what!' 'Smoking is for adults'] ?" " The amount of tobacco smoke in the air is minimal [handwritten: double underscore] because it is immediately diluted and dispersed. Also these tobacco smoke substances do not have any significance on human health [handwritten note: '?! Such as nitrosamines – must be put into context"]." "No one is claiming that smoking is in itself a healthy pursuit, any more than eating a fatty meal or crossing a road congested with traffic is a 'healthy' activity [handwritten notes: "?!' '?NO'].

6. 9 September 1984, research summary, "AJN", "Nitrosamines," BAT (File no. J1491) 100986677 - 689, with two hand-written reviews.

   The report appears to be put out by someone at Gallahers, denying that nitrosamines (NNN, NatB, NAB, and NNK) are not in a sufficient amount in tobacco smoke to be a problem, and not for humans even though they are known carcinogens in animals. The second reviewer's handwriting is too faded to read except for the final paragraph:

   Notable quote: "They state that there is no evidence that such compounds are carcinogenic in man. This could be said to be the case for the majority of accepted carcinogens, we do not test things on mna, the list of proven human carcinogens is in fact very short. Thus this statement in the paper is really of little help. In fact, with the tobacco nitrosamines, there is some evidence that they do have the potential to elicit tumours in man (reprint attached) thus making the Gallahers' statement somewhat out of place!"

7. 18 December 1986, memo from P. Sheehy (CEO BAT Industries) to "Mr. Crawford" from Brown & Williamson's Canadian affiliate "Imasco", BAT (File no. J1755B) 101432832 - 833.

   Responds critically to Crawford's view that fundamental research was needed to produce an "improved" (i.e., "safer") cigarette. (For "Imasco" see Box 16, File K762, 109359966.) The document is marked "secret" and "confidential".

   Notable quotes: "I cannot support your contention that we should give a higher priority to projects aimed at developing a 'safe' cigarette (as perceived by those who claim our current product is 'unsafe') by either eliminating, or at least reducing to acceptable levesl, all components claimed by our critics to be carcinogenic. The BAT objective is and should be to make the whole subject of smoking acceptable to the authorities and to the public at large since this is the real challenge facing the industry." "There are many issues that contribute to the overall acceptability of smoking. Understandably, the causation issue in relation to several diseases is important and we have to take note of all relevant publications that can throw light on this issue.... The Group has several research projects, mainly in the combustion area, that should enable us to alter our product if good reason exists. This encompasses components such as nitrosamines and free radicals but extends to the ability to genetically alter tobacco leaf, for instance in its propensity to form tar.... I believe your objective is probably unattainable – no matter what can be done in chemical terms (and I believe this to be very limited) there will continue to be strong vocal factions that seek to denigrate the product and they are likely to continue to move the goal posts away from whatever initial target we were able to achieve. A second practical objection is that in attempting to develop a 'safe' cigarette you are, by implication in danger of being interpreted as accepting that the current product is 'unsafe' and this is not a position that I think we should take.... Where we part company from the Imasco approach is that we do not believe that there is a sufficiently high chance of a successful outcome to justify committing the very large scale of resources that would be necessary to pursue the direct but arguably over-simplistic approach which your people are proposing. This is why I cannot support this line of research."

   V15 October 1984, research summary, D.M. Warburton (Department of Psychology, reading University, UK), "Nicotine and the Smoker," BAT (File no. J1925) 101000615 - 653 (excerpt only taken).

   Major review of the literature whose abstract indicates that nicotine has positive effects in making people more efficient and reducing stress, a pharmacokinetic agent much safer than other stimulant or sedative substances. An anonymous reviewer has left one hand-written marginal note on the abstract page.

   Notable quotes: "In spite of the considerable publicity about the health hazards of smoking, people continue to smoke and so smokers must consider that the risks are outweighed by smoking's benefits [handwritten note: 'unless they are addicted!']."