Correct if I am wrong. Did the cigarette companies actually advertise their products
that were 'light' or 'low tar' were safer than than their regular (full strength brands).
(post regulatory restrictions)
Actually it was the Public Health Service (along with the FTC methods) that made that assertion:
S. Rept. 110-512 - TRUTH IN CIGARETTE LABELING ACT
In 1964, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
issued the first Surgeon General's report on the health risks
of smoking. The report concluded that cigarette smoking was a
cause of lung cancer in men.
Two years later, the Public Health
Service announced that most scientific evidence suggested that
lower levels of tar and nicotine would produce a less harmful
effect on consumers. In 1966, the
FTC initiated two actions to
encourage manufacturers to disclose comparative tar and
nicotine yield information to consumers. First, the Commission
lifted the ban on nicotine and tar advertising but made future
industry factual statements conditional:
Statements would be
required to support tests conducted in keeping with the
Cambridge Filter method, and they could not include assertions
of reduced health hazards. Second, the Commission authorized
the creation of a laboratory designed to analyze cigarette
smoke and sought public comment on suggested changes to the
Cambridge Filter method. Analysts often refer to the modified
Cambridge Filter method adopted by the Commission as the ``FTC
method.''
So some of the companies started to include tar ratings in their ads and labels, but no 'assertions of reduced health hazards' as above. It was the gov't that promoted that low tar was less harmful, not the cigarette companies. That changed...
When it was found that light cig smokers smoked more, then the hammer came down on lights and ultralights and the claim that the cigarette companies were "lying" when in fact it was the Public Health Service and the FTC who encouraged the cigarette companies to post the low tar figures.
The other thing was that while lowering tar, they also suggested lowering nicotine, which ended up being the cause of people smoking more, so when the cigarette companies maintained the low tar but increased the nicotine to prior levels, they were accused of making cigarettes "more addictive"
...when they were actually losing sales by returning to the original level of nicotine - meaning people smoked less cigarettes than they did with light and ultralight cigarettes.
I replied to you a while back:
22nd Century Launches New RED SUN® Extremely Nicotine Website
...on this citing this link:
http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/13/m13_1.pdf
"Faced with the continuing exposure of large numbers of
smokers to the cancer-causing substances in tobacco smoke,
public health
authorities made the valid conclusion that cigarettes that delivered less tar
to smokers would be likely to produce less cancer as well (
U.S. Congress,
1967), and the effort to produce and market low-tar cigarettes began to
gather momentum."
"
With the endorsement of lower tar cigarettes by public health authorities
in the 1960s (U.S. Congress, 1967), cigarette marketing began to focus
on machine-measured tar deliveries. Tobacco industry research and engineering
efforts recognized that at least two directions were possible with the
development of either a health-image (health reassurance) cigarette or a cigarette
with minimal biological activity (one that would actually produce
less disease) (Green, 1968)."
All that said, you are not going to stop some people from saying that the tobacco companies "lied" and "made cigs more addictive", and convince them those steps were started by gov't entities, which the tobacco companies followed, then were attacked for following them. lol....
