Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wailer, R. E
Right arrow Articles by Froggatt, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wailer, R. E
Right arrow Articles by Froggatt, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Medical Bulletin 52:193-205 (1996)
© 1996 The British Council

research-article

Product modification

Robert E Wailer, Former Scientific Secretary and Peter Froggatt, Former Chairman

Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health UK

Address for Correspondence: Robert E Waller, Department of Health, Wellington House, 133–155 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG, UK

Abstract

For more than 20 years there has been a coherent programme of product modification in the UK, involving the introduction of low tar brands of cigarettes and the gradual reduction in average tar yields over the whole range of manufactured cigarettes. The sales-weighted average tar yeild has declined from 20.8 mg/cigarette in 1972 to 11.0 mg/cigarette in 1993. To some extent potential benefits to established smokers have been offset by thier tendency to ‘compensate’ for reduced nicotine yield. Investigating such aspects has formed one part of wide-ranging research programme to monitor effects of modified products on health. Collectively the studies show benefits in terms of smoke intake and health outcome related to reduced far cigarettes, but the success achieved in reducing average far yeilds and narrowing the range has limited opportunities to detect differential effects.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ThoraxHome page
M J Jarvis
Trends in sales weighted tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields of UK cigarettes
Thorax, December 1, 2001; 56(12): 960 - 963.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
M. J. Jarvis, R. Boreham, P. Primatesta, C. Feyerabend, and A. Bryant
Nicotine Yield From Machine-Smoked Cigarettes and Nicotine Intakes in Smokers: Evidence From a Representative Population Survey
J Natl Cancer Inst, January 17, 2001; 93(2): 134 - 138.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
S. May and R. West
Do social support interventions ("buddy systems") aid smoking cessation? A review
Tob. Control, December 1, 2000; 9(4): 415 - 422.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
N. Gray
Reflections on the saga of tar content: why did we measure the wrong thing?
Tob. Control, March 1, 2000; 9(1): 90 - 94.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.