S. R. Evelyn (Dr.)
SRE/LAP/46D-10
fir. R. S. Wade,
Imperial Tobacco Limited,
P,0 Box 6500,
ftn~real,
P.Q.,
Canada,
H3 C 3L6
Dear Bob,
0 R=8
L.C.F.B.,
2 uHA
RX _VK
.......... . .......
PA 5 "; ..... . .........
copy
........................
...................
23 flarch, 1984
TOBACCO ADDITIVES
Further to your letter of 14 February and our
telephone
conversations I have now put together a commentary
and some key
papers relating to the transfer of flavours and
the nonsense of
pyrolysis studies.
In view of the time element, I am sending a copy
by post
and one by hand with Ian Ayres.
I must say that I am still a little surprised that
the
Industry has not managed to convince the
Department of Health
and Welfare that pyrolysis of moist flavours is a
nonsense.
Their proposal to include inhalation toxicity of
the combustion
products is difficult to understand. Nevertheless,
although it
is not explicit, a second reading suggests that
they are using
'words' to reinforce a requirement for inhalation
toxicity tests
on cigarettes with and without added flavours. I
have had a
quick check but find that we do not have a direct
comparison of
such cigarettes in one experiment. In your
discussions it
would be worthwhile trying to find out whether
they are 'harping
back' to the NIC results on cocoa. If this is the
case I
consider we could rebut their argument and you
could seek the
help of P.M.
I trust this is helpful.
Yours sincerely, CZ)
S. R. EVELYN C7*\
enc
cc Dr. L. C. F. Blackman.
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 9
November 1999