0 BOA CS00.
MOWRFAL.P O.C.ANADA
July 1?, 1971
Dr . D I ton
38, P;'p;n'te rark Road,
Millbrook, Southampton S091PE
EnelanA
Dear Geoff:
We linve been reviewing the results of the souse
skin painting
tests done on small cigars at Harrogate, with a
view to planning a se-
ries of
a :ebaccous gland tests as a guide to product
development work
in C na . Our sources of information were as
follows:
1. -Your letter.of 16 March. 1971. wlth.TRC
enclosures
(J151 and 252), discussing the results of the 2
foreshortened test
series.
2. Review of TRC work, tan Ayres, V) December,
1969.
3. TRC Document ri5so, c.n. arigga. 3 December,
1968.
4. TRC Document.F1581, RET, 16 December, 1968.
jjj ji~jv,1% papor if,- pyiffsh j1wrnal of rancer.
The attached table shows a summory of the samples,
and also
includes a proposed list of samples to be tested
for us. The table
raises some queries, and also requireasome
explanations.by us--.
-Firitly. in and-l.1.8,3
pie Cl)_
_(T53 and.T54),,the cigartobac coo ate deacr Lbod
as being In granu
la.ted form,'whlle in Experiment the flue-cured
sample TA 5
is shattered. In the above contexts to there any
difference between
granulated and shattered?
In 1.1.7.4, are the actual circumferences of
the-non-staaard
sizesknowii, 'and also.the_.pqrosities of the -low
azuLhigh porosity
pap .era to thd-.noriQl tyW 1. d. ia -the- low
poracity type
virtually nonrp9-up jike cigar:.leaf of rLT?
.7
-.77
302057653
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 19
April 1999


We would he prateful for more clarifteation on
Experiment
1.1.8.3. An we understand it, sample* T44 , C3
find TS? are Irepeat
samnleft from 1.1.8.2. replacing T4, Cl and C2
respectIvelv. In
orhor wordq. whtre I'ketiment J252 refers to
sample C1 as containing
com~ogite cigar tobacco, Is this tobacco actually
in granulated
fom. ; whereas the same composite cigar tobacco In
sample T52 in In
shredded form (56 c.p.l.)?
By comparing the proposali for repeating and
extendinp
1.1.8.2, given in Document F1530, with the
information In Docu-
ment .1252, sample T53 represents F1530/1. mW T54
represents
F153n/II, but F1530/III was omitted from the
wMeriment. F1530/111 --- ----
was planned to- use cigar leaf wrapper and
shredded cigar tobacco,
and to be of cigarette. size. This sample 1.11,
when compared to
sample t57, wofil-d have covered the ettect ot the
teat wrapper.
However, sample Ht was probably left out -because
a similar compari-
son could be made between T53 and T54 using
granulated Instead of
shredded tobacco. It would help if- we knew more
details of the
wrapper used In samples C3 -and T54, nince It
seems difficult-to
-it-, 1 t-t - a t. P I rp c I p4t- uttis a c f par
J&Af wrapp~r.-
The--relAtive.-blological activity result&, wh I
Ch we have-
iticluded,. Afe tOen ftou thd Velbuil An&l~&es-
Atftn in lJoellim"to
J151 'and J252. Howevei-for the 1.1.8.3. results.
im have reex-
Orp*si-d the. comparisonw At being bad*d od -the
ebfitftl-aAmple. T44.
M-ilc:va. Utogtifte- the. tentativt -Of
V,
the experiment was termiliated s6,earkyj the,
results ge*& to Indi
cate. -that the two cigars (C3 aiULT54)
$LV4-it#ldtiV*,AttIVitjA6- 4,
that a e r
p to he not.signif-i;antly.different. despite the
dif.-
p.,a
ferencein si .ze-- This reiult. contrast* *Ith
ear4gr results. an
offecto of-eircuAferenitid In
the"ciflarette-Marles., Vi feel this
is loo' imisoruint - n6t-tb - be Nkoh4.wk&d 4t4he
VAbaedb"'Irlikod Uilt_
jt is. p6asible, 'of pourse, that', a~ chs~mKe ^in
biologft#l.--Act*vitY Is
only achleVed-at-a circui4feraftte -below
.25,-=L.'~
there- is
ference in activitv bw;yeert samples T5 2 eivid
'T53 -(i.e.- shre4ded.-v.
F'r-anul'ited f6rm) wh -a r es
I oes not appearAn'the flu:e-leuied eil
302057654
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 19
April 1999


We would Lilze to compare the biological
activities of a
series of small ciR&rr.. by uNInp, -rho sAacemaq
plaftd tomt ilt Hamburg
or poRnIbly Huntingdon. with four objectives, all
stommIng from
our nrndunt development programme.
1. To compare some of our current comercial
product[%
(Old rorr Tipped rigarillos, Old Port Colts and
Vintos Cigarillos).
r,, i-ecoinnatv th,- effect of cigar circumference
alone.
keeping other pnrametern constant a-% far as.
vossible-.
3. To recompare shredded and the
ttered tobacco in cipars.
4. To compare wrapper-bitkdot combinations df
wl-dely
differing porosities. together with a single
highly porous wrapper.
The proposed list of our samples is Included in
the
table. Sample I is a control RAT cigarette (CMIA2
flut-cured blend,
normal si2e of cut circumference and paper).
Sample 2 is our own
control flue-cured cigarette; this will have
Plavers Mild tobacco
blend. cut a-c 45 c.p.t., with 25 "Mcircumference
and our standard
non-vetproof Paper (porositv IS-0 r-reiner-
seconds). We have not
included a sample of our cigar tobacco made into
cigarette form,
Lave been well cove red-previ oug 1 v, e.g.
In 1.1.9.2 anti
..Sample 3 represents. o4r cooftrcial Old Pdtt
Tipped
J
CiRarillo, with its cigar blend, O?,K...vWjkn nT
bisiddr airA.ConAral.-
saoled 4_.~S_Ww '6
&
AN
show the effect of cigar circumferencealdne. Smple
5 conscltuted:
our Old Port 'Colts Cigarlllos,~Tcljgar blend,W).
while Gamoleg
4 and 6 ideallv dhould-differ fro= it oilyin
circumference (to be
C
the,912es of our -.old- Port Tipped. and Vinton
Cigartllos).. -We,
believe that -samples .4 ana 5 c same- elze,.of
4 a be made with the
shattere&to
!~!~co although for,_6,,_,,he,_t* 0
FE tpf
47 i~ilik"iiie
J 1. 1 Ur. and wrapper- Lader-combirAtion
will,.not"
propdrtlons~~ b
be'-identic4l" for the 3 &=plan'. --Rovever, for
4metipal purpoot
~this is the-Ams'"hat can-be schiave4 lit cigars.
302057655
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 19
April 1999


Comparison of samples 5 and 7 will show the effect
of
shattered v. shredded tobacco form In cip&rs.
Smitples 5 arj&t
Op
will comnare the effects of extr-ems 6f poroattv
of the wrapper-
binder combination. In 5, the wrapper and binder
are virtuallv
n,ln-rorotis. while in R, the 2 wrappetO Ott
identical (Rapaport 1).
and are verv high1v porous (7~12 Greiner-seconds).
In sample 9o
the-porosity Is even higher. since It will have
only one wrapver
(Rapaport I). Sanple 10 represents our Vintos
Cigarillos with its
own filler in nomal shredded form, amd a somewhat
leas porous
Rapaport II wrapper-binder combination (poroaltv
of both, 10-15
Greiner-seconds).
We would welcome vour criticiess end suggestions
on
these-proposed comparisons end the possibility of
schedultog them
for sebaceous gland tests.
We would also like to know If we will be billed
for these.
tests and if so how much. These tests Say b4k of
some interest to
ITG and they may possibly be interested 16 sheribg
a part of the
cost. As mentioned prevtounly,.our preference
would be to. have
the t-sts t~atiled tvitt by RATA00hurlt.
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 19
April 1999