BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
The Dark Side of Light Cigarettes?
September 25, 2006 3:21 PM
Light cigarettes can deliver a higher level of toxicity than their regular counterparts, according to a former director of research at Phillip Morris. That allegation is at the center of a legal battle between tobacco companies and light cigarette smokers, who scored a major legal victory today when tens of millions of light cigarette smokers were granted class action status in a lawsuit that could cost tobacco companies hundreds of billions of dollars.
The lawsuit centers around the allegation that tobacco companies have fraudulently marketed light cigarettes as a safer alternative to regular cigarettes, when the companies knew that wasn’t the case.
A former director of applied research for Phillip Morris told ABC News that light cigarettes can actually be more toxic to smokers than regulars. They are a "very nasty trick" according to Bill Farone, the former director of research at Phillip Morris.
"If you’re used to smoking a Marlboro regular and you switch to a light, what you end up doing is simply sucking a little harder," said Farone. "You end up getting about the same amount of tar, the same amount of nicotine."
Farone added that because of the chemical changes that occur during the burning of the cigarette, a light cigarette can actually deliver higher levels of many other cancer-causing materials. "That’s been documented and you can see it in some of the chemistry," he said.
Farone also says that Phillip Morris has known all along that light cigarettes are not a safer alternative to regulars. "There’s no doubt that Phillip Morris knew the properties of its products then and does now."
Phillip Morris and other tobacco companies say they plan to appeal today’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2004, differs from other tobacco litigation in that the plaintiffs are not seeking damages for health problems, but instead claim that they’ve been defrauded by the tobacco companies.
"This case involved smokers who are not seeking to recover for personal injuries, who continue to smoke 'light' cigarettes and who paid no more for Marlboro Lights cigarettes than they would have paid for regular Marlboros," said William S. Ohlemeyer, Phillip Morris’s associate general counsel.
On their website, Phillip Morris acknowledges that some researchers have found smokers inhale just as much tar and nicotine from light cigarettes as they do from regulars. They also add: "The amount of tar and nicotine inhaled will be higher if, for example, a smoker blocks ventilation holes, inhales more deeply, takes more puffs or smokes more cigarettes."
The company also says, however, that they do not claim that light cigarettes are a safer alternative. "PM USA does not imply in our marketing, and smokers should not assume, that lower-yielding brands are safe or safer than full-flavor brands. There is no safe cigarette," says the website.
Tobacco prevention advocates, however, say that the tobacco industry knows that most smokers believe light cigarettes to be safer than regulars.
"Light cigarettes are probably the most serious public health fraud that has ever been perpetrated on the American public," said Matthew Myers, President of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Myers blames the lack of government regulation of the tobacco industry for allowing cigarette makers to advertise and promote their light cigarettes as 'lights' even though they can be just as dangerous as the regulars.
"The tobacco industry’s products and claims are fundamentally unregulated," he said, "and the industry has successfully resisted regulation for 40 years."
September 25, 2006 | Permalink | User Comments (25)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Where on the pack or in the advertisements does it say "lights" are safer? You people that ask how to join a lawsuit because you thought there was a safer way to smoke are utter morons.
Posted by: RUkiddingME | Nov 12, 2006 11:18:46 AM
Been smoking for 64 years starting with full flavor to filters,to lights and than ultra light for the last 20 years leading me to think there was less tar and nicotine and ofcourse saver.I am now more addicted than ever with no hope of giving them up. I now suffer with copd, emphasema, and avacular necrosis. Coughing and choking on a daily basis. I am in need of immediate help and can't find the answers. Someone,..... anyone please HELP!!!!!
Posted by: Eugina | Dec 1, 2006 6:53:04 PM
I have been smoking for 24 years. I was told that i have copd and I'am only 39,i was not a heavy smoker. yes i am tring very hard to quit. i do want to know what my rights are on this matter. please let me know. By the way my dad was a heavy smoker and when i found out from the specialist she said that ive been smoking since i was a baby.
Posted by: joanne | Mar 15, 2007 5:47:06 PM
Prejudice will always be a part of society
Posted by: continent | Sep 24, 2007 9:47:00 PM
I think people need to take personal responsibility for what they do. There is nothing fraudulent about lights, they are still cigarettes and they are BAD for you period. I smoke, and I have never seen a box of lights that has stated they are "better" for you. In fact, they have had a hazardous warning for years on all types. I have smoked regulars as well as lights and chose to smoke lights because they are easier on the throat. I never assumed they would kill me slower. Anybody who thinks so is an idiot. Cigs are BAD FOR YOU, if you don't know that by now, then you are an idiot. If you choose to smoke anyhow, as I do, then you take your chances and deal with it. This is like somebody suing because they thought 89 octane gasoline was less flammable than 93 octane. This country seriously needs to do something about these frivolous lawsuits because it is seriously getting absolutely ridiculous.
Posted by: smoking is bad | Aug 27, 2009 12:01:37 PM
Post a comment
