Jump to:

Guildford Misc

11-page document

Date: No date
Length: 11 pages
100159009-100159019
Jump To Images
guildford_misc 0100159009-0100159019

Fields

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: 0100159009
f v~ DGF/ S/46D cop',/ FILE NOTE No. 0334 12th November, 1962 VISIT TO SWITZERLAtD November 7th-lOth 1962 Yhe main purpose of the visit was to attend with Mr. Kendrick-Jones, a meeting of the Scientific ComJaission of the Association Suisse des Fabricants de Cigarettes (ASFC) which was held at the ASFC Office in Fribourg on the afternoon of November 8th. The opportunity was also taken to accept an invitation from Dr. Waltz to visit the laboratories of Fabriques de Yabacs Reunies (F.T.E.) at Serrieres (Neuchatel) on the morning of November 9th. # Before the meeting at Fribourg~ a discussion was held with Mr. Lynham and Mr. Kendrick-Jones in order to learn the background to the meeting and to decide on the best tactics to employ. }.~r. Lynham said that my attendance was at the request of Maitre G!asson, the President of ASFC, who wished B-A.T. to provide scientific and technical assistance to counter balance the arguments of Waltz and of Schurch~ one of the major shareholders of F.Y.R. I showed t:ir. iynham a copy of my File Note No. 0330 on the conversation I had had with Todd, which had outl~ned some of Waltz's thinking. Th~s confirmed what i~!r. Lynham had already concluded were F.Y.R.'s intentions. They have recently introduced a new brand, MURATTI AMBASSADO.~, and have begun to hint a+ health questions by advertising slogans, such as "Smoke with ¢~)nfidence" or "Smoke without care" ("Fumez sans arriere-pensees"). It was suspected that Schurch had arranged to have ready a brand low in tar, nicotine and possibly phenols and now wished to pressure ASFC into adopting standard methods of ~.aloke analysis in terms of which he could quote his results or arrange to have them quoted by others - e.g. by a publication similar to "D.~ark" in Germany. F.T.R. are the only cigarette manufacturers in Switzerland to have any laboratories of consequence and, therefore~ dominate the Scientific Commission of ASFC which has been set up to propose standard methods. Other manufacturers~ for varying reasons~ are unwilling tn offer construc- tive co~nents; Burrus because of personal animosity and because their main brands, al~ough impl#ying ~ey are low tar yielders [PA;~ISIEIqHES SUPER (FILTER) and K~qY]~ in fact are high tar brands relatively speaking; Laurens, because they have very limited laboratory facilities, and other firms because they are too small to matter. I said that when this first arose, in June, I had been fetid not to accept the CORESTA standard methods and generally l;o muddy the v:ater~ and that B-A.T. was resolutely against tables of tar and nicotine yields. Mr. iynham agreed that the latter was the case but said that Schurch was quite capable of saying that if B-A.T. would not a¢cept OORESTA methods, then he would adopt any method B-A.T. cared to propose~ and Kendrick-Jones J ° . 0 0
Page 2: 0100159010
--'2 -- added that~ at the previous meeting, Waltz had stated that one of the COP~STA methods proposed was similar to %/~e T.M.S.C. and B-A.T. methods (that employing Cambridge filters and/or electrostatic precipitators) and that he was sure I would agree to this in some form. After some discussion, it was agreed that sooner or later some form of standard method would have to be adopted~ whatever delaying tactics were employed and I suggested that I agree in principle to standard methods, on some international scale, for inter-laboratory comparison, for example, for checking a process proposed by an outsider to the industry (Neuko,Lm would serve as a very good example), but that I should issue a very strong warning that no implications in the health field could be read into this and that ASFC would be very prudent to accept this idea. No attempt should be made to imply to the public in any way that a low tar or low nicotine cigarette was, i_p_Dso facto, "safer" t~mn another. It was agreed that this was the best course to foll~v in the existing circumstances. .'~ MEETING AT FRI~OURG~ 8th November 1962 Present: Mtre Glasson M. de Buman Dr. P. Waltz Dr. Eberle Dr. Ceschini Mr. Kendrick-Jones D.G.F. President Secretary F.T.R. Burrus iaurens B-A.T., Extension Suisse Mtre Glasson, a French speaking Swiss Lawyer and parliamentarian, is a determined personality who would seem to brook no nonsense and who ran the meeting with a firm hand. No minutes had been circulated of the previous meeting on September lOth and, after a short speech of welcome, Glasson read a brief recapitulation of the terms of reference of ~,e Co~aission as agreed at that meeting, viz. that the Co~nission were to act as a scientific service to ASFC, and that they were to produce a standard met~md for smoke analysis to be adopted unanimously, preferably by July 1963. This might be based on a CORESYA method and that one using the Cambridge filter looked as though it ~uld be acceptable. Glasson stressed that the Commission was to act independently and that their views in no way committed either ASFC or the member companies they represented. [Kendrick-Jones pointed out later that this was probably in order to circumvent the Burrus-F.T.R. antagonisms]. Glasson went on to say that the responsibility of the Cognission did not extend to medical or statistical work in the first instance. However, he listed a number of points. l. He, personally, felt the need of united scientific advice from the industry chemists. 2. He wished to give a report to ASFC on the Co~mission's activities. .....4. 0 0
Page 3: 0100159011
-3- o He asked whether the problem should be attacked by the industry acting in concert, or whether there should be an independent ASFC laboratory. He, personally~ did not think ASFC needed its o~n laboratory. 4. Therefore, he had adopted the agenda of catologing %/le tasks of the Cor~uission first and then giving an order of priorities. He tl~en opened the meeting to discussion of the agenda. Waltz at once submitted a document to Glasson which he said listed the most urgent tasks for collaboration in the order of priority. Copies of this document were not submitted to the other members, who did not have any opportunity of seeing it. Waltz listed %/~e tasks as i. Standard methods of analysis of smoke for~- (a) Nicotine (b) Water in smoke (c) Benzpyrene (d) Phenols # o~ (.Presumably smoke condensate was included by implication). He said that this would be the simplest of the problems and he offered himself as co-ordinator of the metl~ds. He suggested they should be published in the reputable Swiss journal on Foodstuffs and Nutrition, over ~e signatures of the Commission members~ thus serving notice to the public that the Swiss tobacco industry had adopted agreed methods. o Possibly simultaneously with action on i., he suggested the Commission should consider the possible importance of nitrous fumes and nitros- amines in smoke. . 4~ Analysis of smoke for terpenes, which looked as if they would become of some importance in consideration of co-cardinogenesis. Waltz said here that he did not exclude work on the medical plane entirely - merely from the firs% stage in the work of the Co~ission. He then proposed the creation of a co-ordinating centre for information, along the lines of T.M.S.C., T.I.R.C. or the Forschungsstelle, headed by a scientifically qualified man (Statistician, Hygienist, Pathologist) who would assist the President in public relations in which scienti fic matters were concerned. Q The co-ordination centre could disseminate reports of scientific and journalistic information and co,~nent, along the lines of the T.I.R.C. hand-outs (a copy of which Waltz produced), which could act as a suitable brief for Glasson. In the course of this, he produced a newspaper cutting announcing the T.M.S.C.-London School of llygiene joint project on Cardio-respiratory research. Glasson had not heard of this and questioned me about it, saying that the industry 0
Page 4: 0100159012
-4 - was very courageous to come out into the open but questioning whether it was not at least a partial admission of the case that smoking caused lung cancer. In reply, I dealt with the theory of the "susceptible minority" and explained that this project was one aspect only of an integrated three-pronged progra~:~e, designed to provide further information on the whole question of smoking and health. Glasson then turned to me and asked me for ,ny comments on Waltz's proposals. In my reply, I started by taking Waltz's points in the reverse order. I said I attributed greatest importance to the creation of the information centre, headed by a man of the type outlined. He would be invaluable to ASFC in keeping them informed of the relative importance of varying., attacks on the industry. On the subject of standard methods, I agreed that the creation of these within the industry was necessarf for inter- laboratory comparisons. On an international scale they could be of the highest value in refuting spurious claims made by inventors attempting to blackmail the industry. I indicated I was thinking particularly of the Neukomm/Bonnet process. However, I disagreed with Waltz regarding publication. Yhis could be done discreetly and the greatest care must be taken to underline the fact that in no conceivable way did these imply any suggestion or claim that this had any bearing on the health question. I suggested that possibly the adoption of highly efficient filters might lead to low tar, but that if any causative agent was found in the gaseous or vapour phase~ the public might be deluded into a state of security. I mentioned that Y.M.S.C. was very cognizant of this danger and because of this were considering exactly what factors of smoke should be characterised. Yhe interaction of particles with the lung and the dependence of smoke particle sixe on humidity were factors which were of the highest importance, but which we were entirely unable at this time to measure. Throughout my reply, Glasson was nodding his head affirmatively. When I had concluded, Waltz surprisingly said that he agreed with this attitude. Eberle and Ceschini also agreed, but Ceschini added that work with standard methods would be difficult in his case because of meagre laboratory facilities and equipment. The President then turned to the type of scientific advisor who would be suitable. Eberle did not believe it was a full-tlme job and suggested a Privat-Dozent of ~edicine, preferably located in a University town. He said the man should be independent of ASFC. Waltz disagreed with this and said it would be a full-time appointment~ entailing a lot of reading, public relations Work and co-ordination of research effort. He thought Zurich would be a good centre from which to work, because of the small-to?m character of Fribourg (where the offices of ASFC are situated). 0 0
Page 5: 0100159013
-5- In rep]y to Glasson, t indicated that I agreed with Waltz that it should be a fuZZ-time appointment, adding that I could not see how the appointee could, or should, be independent of ASFC. I mentioned that independent Privat-dozents could cause trouble in the future (as had Neukomm in the past). At this point Glasson mentioned that Neukomm had not succeeded in his attempt %o be promoted Director of the Centre Anti-Cancereux de la Suisse romande and was withdrawing from the cancer research institute. Ceschini agreed with Waltz and me but stressed the claims of Geneva over Zurich, mentioning the University facilities and the Battelle Institute. The meeting agreed that the appointee should probably best be qualified in Social Medicine and Hygiene, preferably older than thirty, with research experience. I said that the choice depended upon a knowledge of local conditions as judged on the spot - a statistician , could be useful if the attack was going to be malnly epldemlologlcal~" Glasson remarked that he liked the public relations flavour attached to a Hygienist, implying health, whereas a "Pathologist implied death. He wehtoa to say that the hygienist would be of considerable help on the public relations side in directing the disbursement of research funds, at which Hberle bridled considerably, doubting the wisdom of disbursing any funds for research. The meeting then turned once again to the question of a standard method. Waltz introduced the. subject saying that agreement on this subject was urgently important, as he knew that the Swiss Federal Health Authorities are about to propose one. If ASFC could get in first there was a good chance that the Health Authorities ~,~uld adopt this and, in this way, the industry could ensure that the standard method, which was inevitable, would at least be acceptable. He began to list the features on which agreement would be required, as follows:- (a) Method of preparation of the cigarette, smoking conditions (puff volume, puff duration, puff interval, stub length), trapping devices, etc. (b) (c) Methods of analysis for water, nicotine in tobacco, nicotine, benzpyrene and phenols in smoke. Filter efficiencies. He proposed that CORESYA smoking conditions be adopted, e.g. 35 ml. puff, two seconds duration, once a minute, with a butt length o£ 23 rams. or filter length + 8 rrm., which ever is the larger. He dealt ~rith the smoke collection devices and~ as in the proposed CORHSYA protocol, sugg ested"- (i) Cold trap as the ultimate reference. 0 0 M/I
Page 6: 0100159014
-6- (ii) Electrostatic precipitation, using the Cigarette Components unit. (iii) Cambridge filter. }le added here that besides tile American Tobacco unit (i~-" dia.) and the T.~I.S.C.-B-A.T. unit (2~" dia.) there was now available commercially from Phipps & Bird, the General Cigar Co.~ unit of even larger diameter. He, personally, now preferred the largest unit. He added that some changes had been made at Budapest but that these were theoretical in character. He himself had not been there and did not explain the changes. In reply to his comment that he was sure I would agree to the Cambridge filter method, I admitted that at Hamburg I had recommended the T.~.S.C. standard method as it then stood, because of my belief in the value of , international collaboration. I now was sorry to have to back-track 6n my stand then, but since that date there had been developments, especially in the field of analysis of smoke for phenols~ which had left me very much less happy about the GOPJESTA methods. I again referred to the T.M.S.C. study group and said I would prefer to await the outcome of this later collaborative work, before committing myself to any one method~ as frequent changes in published standard methods could only bring the industry into ridicule. Waltz agreed that matters were in a state of flux but urged the adoption of s provisional "standard" method (in quotation mmrks) in order to stave off the Federal Health Authorities. In reply~ I suggested that, in order to give the industry the necessary time for a mature considera- tion of the problems, Glasson should approach the Authorities, putting the point to them and suggesting they await the industry action. In this way, ASFC might be able to forestall the impos[tion of unacceptable methods. Glasson replied that while it was possible, it might be politically difficult to raise the matter. Finally, after much discussion, I reluctantly agreed v~th the provisional adoption of the CI]RHSTA "standard" using Cambridge filters and electrostatic precipitation as alternative forms of smoke collection. The test would comprise a number of sets of five cigarettes each. Waltz then proposed thatthe samples of filter-tipped cigarettes be prepared by the 'hethod of substitution" according to Staub and Furrer. [This method entails ~le smoking of two sets of cigarettes~ one, the normal filter-tipped cigarette and the other, a const~Jcted plain cigarette made by attaching in place of ~]e filter-tip~ an equal length of tobacco rod taken from a third cigarette. All sets must be matched for weight and pressure drop.] I objected to this on t~;o counts. I saw no need for measuring filter (XD (ZD
Page 7: 0100159015
-7 - efficiencies, but if it were considered desirable, then I preferred the direct method of measurement in which the material in the filter, and that passing the filter, was measured. Because of the difficulty of extracting the tar from filters and of blanks due to plasticiser and additives, I proposed nicotine as the index of efficiency. Waltz did not agree to this because of differences in efficiencies for different substances and could not accept that a standard cigarette would do for the assessment of efficiency, e.g. as between filter suppIier and manufacturer. [The reason for this was revealed during the visit to his laboratories.] Samples were to be conditioned under the OORESTA protocol at 65~ R.H. To this I raised immediate objection. I assumed that R. & D.E. at Southampton would be called on to assist B-A.T. (Extension Suisse) and all our conditioning was carried out at 56-58~ R.H., which was norm~l for Virginian tobacco. I recognised that Continental air-cured tobacco required a higher humidity but could not see an easy way to provide it. As had been anticipated, Waltz immediately revised the requirements to 60 + 5% R.H., a compromise solution ~:.hich is almost impossibly wide. By this time, Glasson was becoming restive. The end of the meeting, originally scheduled for 5.00 p.m., had been extended to 6 p.m.~ and this was approachihg. The remaining points were briefly touched on. Water estimation should be either by Karl Fischer reagent, or by use of near Infra-red spectroscopy, the latter being the method preferred by F.T.R. Nicotine estimation would be by spectrophotometr~ c techniques and the only differences were likely to lie in %J,e choice of distillation procedure. F.T.R. use Kuhn's method, B-A.T. uses Willit's~ Eberle and Ceschini seemed unsure of :~hat they used. It was agreed that every- one would supply Waltz with a copy of the standard method which they use, in order to see whether a measure of agreement could be obtained. Glasson then proposed that a further meeting be held in order to define the methods more exactly. }le wished to report to ASFC in mid- December and, therefore, suggested Friday, December 7th~ at 9.00 a.m. at 5ribourg. I indicated that I thought I would be able to be present. Just before the meeting was adjourned, Waltz urged Glasson to discuss the whole question with the Federal Health Authorities as he believed the publication of the standard method was ir~ninent. Although I did as much as I could to delay the adoption of a standard, I was forced to concede that a provisional "standard" be w~rked on. Any other course would have been illogical in view of the T.M.S.C. adoption of a standard method and the present aim of elaborating the character!sation of tobacco smoke. I believe ~at my warnings, regarding the dangers of reading health implications into this, were acknowledged by Glasson and 0 0
Page 8: 0100159016
-- 8 -- that care will be taken to see that this is written into the preamble to the final protocol, when published. In one amusing respect, I believe my presence was a success. At the end of the meeting, Eberle took me on one side and said "Thank God you came and put t~ case against Waltz". Outside the meeting, Waltz expressed a similar sentiment and said how glad he v:as I had counteracted Eberle's negative approach. VISIT TO THE LABORATORIES OF EABRIQUES DE TABAC RHUNIHS~ SERRIERES FRIDAY, NQVF_~IB, ER 9IH 1962 The Laboratories consist of two sections. One is the Research Laboratory, situated in the main administration building and the other.'[s the Quality Control Section, on the first floor of the main factory. Research Laboratory The staff consists of Dr. Waltz, Dr. Hausermann and four assistants (one male and three female). The space comprises a large office for Waltz, in which the library is to be found, a smaller office for Hausermann, an instrument room and a single laboratory (about 15 feet by 35 feet). The library consists of a number of current tobacco periodicals, chemical journals, Nature, B.M.S., the Lancet and Cancers text books on tobacco technology and chemistry~ and a collection of books on Tobacco history, such as might be made by a wealthy dilettante in the subject, e.g. the Bibliographic Catalogue of the Arents Library on Tobacco in New York, "The Mighty Leaf" by Compton MacKenzie, etc. For their size, the laboratories are lavishly equipped with instruments, e.g. Perkin-Elmer "Infracord" infra-red spectrophotometer, Beckmann DK-2 recording U.V. Spectrophotometer, automatic fraction collector, air conditioning cabinet. They are to receive a ~Aettler automatic individual weigher. The smoking machine in use was designed and built at F.T.R., and details have been published in "Beitrage zur Tabakforschung". A Seehofer-Barkemeyer smoking machine and one designed by Staub (the RADAC) were also available. The F.T.R. machine may be purchased from Baumgartner for about £800. It seems a compact and robust equipment, which smokes all the cigarettes into one collector, and operates on ~,e principle of constant volume using a piston pump. The puff volume cannot readily be changed from, e.g. 35 ml. to 25 ml.} but small adjustments for varying pressure drop on the cigarettes can be made. Details were taken of t~o pieces of equipment made in Switzerland which seem quite cheap, yet reliable. One was a rotary film evaporator and the other was an integral nicotine still and electric steam generator. m CD 0
Page 9: 0100159017
-9- quality Control Section This is in a single room, about 20 feet by 30 feet, which acco~nodates the technician in charge (equivalent to HtIC qualification) and about nine to ten girls. They appear to measure physical dimensions of the cigarettes, print, etc. ~ pressure drop, moisture content, paper tensile strength and porosity, ends stability (by tumbling cigarettes loosely in a rotating cube) and cigarette profile, using the Jaquet profile machine. In this instrument the cigarettes are pushed in turn, between t~o rollers, one of which is weighted and can move up and do~m, according to the resistance to squashing of the cigarette. The movement of the weighted roller is magnified by a system of levers and is recmrded continuously on a strip of paper. As a result of discreet questioning, it v~uld seam that it is mainly used for measuring the location of densed ends and for rejecting unacceptably soft cigarettes. Limit lines can be set on the chart and , any cigarette which exceeds these is rejected into a second receiver. ." The tally of rejected cigarettes can be found easily. Thus ~2nile it does not integrate firmness in any way, it might well be used to monitor production for softness. Cigarettes are also submitted to tobacco analysis for nicotine and to smoke analysis for anhydrous condensate (e.g. smoke less water, determined • by Karl Fischer reagent), and for nicotine. A Unicam SP.5OO U.V. Spectzo- photometer is available for this, and the F.T.R.-Baumgartner smoking machine is used. The cigarette conditioning cupboard ~.~rks on the saturated salt solution principle and is a cheap modification of a refrigerator cabinet. {'b temperature control is exercised. A rapid moisture meter, based on the Brabender-Bem~tdesson principle of continuous weighing in a hoT. chamber~ was undergoing test. It takes twenty minutes per test. T~o electronic or electric moisture meters are used, although Waltz said they had a Panelektric continuous moisture meter on the production lines. Although Panelektric~ a Viennese firm, went bankrupt, Quester now make the units. Moisture testing is done in fan-ventilated electric ovens, standardised throughout the Group, using aluminium tins which are open during the test. They are closed using a tightly fitting lid with a conical flange and are allowed to cool %0 room temperature in the laboratory. The reference card carries all details of the sample and of the weighjngs and is filed as a permanent record. General It is intended in the near future to locate the offices, Research Laboratory and the Q.C. Section together in an area of 400 square meters (more than twice what is available at present)~ alongside the present Q.C. laboratory. In this way, various items of equipment can be shared. During the visit, we met Mr. Schurch and discussed with him the course of the meeting the previous day. He was in agreement with the suggested cz) O
Page 10: 0100159018
- i0 - appointment of a "Swiss Dr. Weber". I questioned whether the Swiss Cigarette Industry could support research on Smoking and Health, but Schurch was sure it could, mentioning a yearly advertising expenditure of 8-11 million francs and seeing no difficulty in finding money for the hygienist and for possible research. Later Waltz was discussing different methods of smoke collection and produced a table of comparison for four American-type blended filter tip cigarettes, AMBASSADOR, REGENT, DIANA (9 and A~D~BORO). These showed AMBASSADOR to have the lowest yield of smoke condensate, phenols and vapour phase and %hat, in general, reduction in tar meant reduction in vapour phase. I referred briefly to the methodology we were developing and which Backhurst spoke about at the Tobacco Chemists' Conference, which Waltz had attended. He had not heard the paper delivered~ but seemed not very interested in the idea of a product coefficient as a means of characteris~ng tobaccos. He then referred %0 the discussion we had had during the meeting at Fribourg on filter efficiencies. He could not accept the idea of nicotine as being a sufficient index for the measurement as they had found that smoke from different tobaccos gives different filter efficiencies for the same filter. I expressed surprise at ~,is and~ although Ayres has found the same phenomenon at R. & D.H., succeeded in deceiving Kendrick- Jones and, presumably, Waltz. I tried to obtain more information as to the way the change depended on tobacco type, but apart from saying that it could be as great as 25% difference, Waltz was not forthcoming. It indicates a measure of the competence of the F.T.R. laboratories to have found the difference. Throughout the visit9 Waltz was very affable and concealed nothing, as far as I could tell, unless there were further laboratories which we were not shown. I do not believe this to be the case, however. In thanking him for his courtesy, I invited him to get in touch wil:h me if he came to England, when I would invite him to Southampton. Discussion with Mr. Lynham On our return to Geneva, we gave M~. Lynham an account of the meeting and of the visit to F.T.R. Mr. Lynham interpreted for me the probable reactions which the proposals would receive from the member companies of ASFC and we discussed how it ~ould be possible to restrain F.T.R. from making health claims at some future date. A total ban on this approach to advertising is written into the institution of ASFC and, provided that the methods are similarly qualified in th~s way, it vmuld take a unanimous vote of ASFC to amend the constitution. This would be most unlikely to happen. We discussed possible ways in which B-A.T. might guard against low tar claims made by F.T.R. and I was asked about the findings in Project Trafalgar. Geneva have so far not received copies of the results, but 0 0

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: