DATE
4 N 198
_,~:s E TO
Dr. M.J. Hardwick
British-American Tobacco Co.. Ltd.
GR & DC
38 Regent's Park Road
Millbrook, Southampton S09 1PE
England.
Ref.: MJH/K.P.N./46B-10
Dear Mike,
Imperial Tobacco LimitediLimit6e
October 31, 1983
3810, rue St-Antoine 51rert
hlontr6a),P.Q. H4C. I B.S
(514) 932-G1W
P.O. Box 6500 C.P.
Montriml, P.Q. 113(; 31.6
Cable/Uble'Tclimp*
Telex/T&Iex 05.5-6067.1
Pat has asked me to reply to your letter of
September 19th
regarding John's amplification of Work Area 13.
Vacations and the
disruption caused by the partial reconstruction of
our building have
contributed to the delay in responding to your
request. ,
John has done a very creditable job of outlining
what will
obviously prove to be a very difficult area. His
proposal to review some
of the work that has been done in the past in the
light of present
conditions is I believe a correct approach. It
also serves to illustrate
the difficulty in coming up with something that is
really new and will
hopefully result in a climate where new ideas will
emerge.
His Intention of limiting a machine development to
simple test
rigs that can be used to prove principles and
provide sufficient products
for small scale subjective and objective testing
isgood, We have too
often, in the past, attempted the development of
sophi sticated machinery
before ascertaining if there was a genuine product
need.
From our point of view we would tend to give
higher priority
to products where the consumed can perceive a
genuine plus. Our second
priority is in the area of product changes which
would counter anti-
smoking efforts followed by cost saving activities
CXD
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 9
November 1999


ks a result we will follow with interest the
development of
techniques whereby different structures can
betested along with variable
density, variable composition and multiple section
cigarettes. With
respect to annular cigarettes we worked on this
sometime ago but became
somewhat discouraged at the difficulties
associated with surrounding a
5.6 mm diameter core with a 1 mm annulus for a
50:50 cigarette or even
the problems of controlling an approximate 2 mm
annulus around a 4 mm
diameter core for a 75:25 cigarette. Perhaps with
John's test rigs the
products can be sufficiently controlled to
determine if they will
satisfy a consumer need and then the production
problems can be worked
out.
With respect to the suggestions for increasing the
% void 14
fraction either with structured sheets or non
tobacco fillers we have not GJ06t~
nearly exhausted the weight savings that can be
obtained through process
modifications, and our current policy is to shy
away from additives. We
would put a low priority on these ac'tivities.
Turning now to the programme on filter technology,
although
our present workload precludes any active
development in this area we will
follow with interest studies on the value of
modifying smoke puff profiles
and the smoke pattern entering the smoker's mouth.
These could be of
potential value.
Controlling the delivery of specific smoke
components, and I
assume this refers to some of the "nasties" is not
an active issue here.
We are having some problems with Carbon Monoxide
but I believe they can
be solved without resorting to the CSFI filter at
this time. Similarily
the heat embossing of tippings has not stirred up
much interest. Low cost
filters as typified by the polypropylene
developments appear to have
greater application in countries such as Brazil
than in Canada.
Summing up I would reiterate our order of
priorities:
1) Efforts to find a product plus /"
2) Programme which would improve the health image
of cigarettes
3) Economics. ,#-
I hope this will be of some help to you in walking
the narrow
line between fostering a climate where novel
product technology can emerge
and keeping an eye on practicality without
stifling creativity. Good luck.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
S.M. Candlish
CXD
--_j
4--
ON
CO
BATCO document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 9
November 1999