Are low tar and mild or light cigarettes less addicting or harmful?
Many cigarette brands use the words 'light' and 'mild' as part of their name. These cigarettes may have lower tar and nicotine readings displayed on the pack, but the tar and nicotine yield of these brands when smoked is actually much higher.
These same words may also relate to taste in a smoker's mind. 'Mild' tasting cigarettes have often had flavourings and other chemicals added to the cigarette to mask the taste. It is of concern that these cigarettes may be more appealing to children and young people, because of additives such as sugar, honey, cocoa etc.
What is clear from research is that ‘light’ and ‘mild’ cigarettes are no better for you than any other brand. The switch, particularly by women, to 'light' and 'mild' cigarettes may go some way to explaining an increase in the type of lung cancer that is found deeper in the lungs.
How they work
For decades, Cigarette companies have marketed ‘light’ and ‘mild’ cigarettes as a less harmful, less addictive product. These cigarettes are designed to deliver less tar and nicotine, even though they contain the same tobacco as is used in full-strength cigarettes. Cigarette manufacturers manipulate nicotine and tar yield in their cigarettes mainly by inserting ventilation holes in the filter.
 |
The tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide (CO) levels of Australian cigarette brands is monitored by machine testing in a laboratory - giving rise to the numbers on the packet. These 'smoking machines' take puffs of cigarettes and measure nicotine intake and tar and CO output. |
|
When the machine smokes these cigarettes, all the holes are clear, and air is drawn in as the cigarette is smoked, which affects the readings given by the machine. |
|
When smokers smoke these same cigarettes, they usually cover up the holes with their fingers - they usually don't know they're there, or what they do. When these holes are blocked, the tar and nicotine yields from these 'low tar' cigarettes increases. Smokers will also inhale more deeply and more frequently in order to compensate and ensure they inhale enough smoke to achieve satisfactory nicotine 'hits'. |
What the tobacco companies knew…
The tobacco industry has known since the 1970’s that machines smoke differently than people. Litigation in Canada and the USA has made available thousands of previously secret tobacco industry documents that show the depth of the tobacco industry’s deception.
1. The tobacco companies knew about the role of nicotine in making smokers ‘compensate’ in order to get the same dose
| "The smoker ... who smokes to maintain a constant blood level of nicotine is most likely trying to avoid the unpleasant sensations that he feels when he is not smoking. Without a cigarette he will become nervous, irritable and likely to make mistakes in his work. Such a smoker is likely to compensate for changed delivery if given a cigarette brand with different standard machine smoked deliveries to his usual brand so that as far as possible he maintains a constant blood level of nicotine." (BAT Co., 1978) [1] |
2. The tobacco companies deliberately marketed low tar cigarettes as a safer alternative. The tobacco companies knew that marketing ‘light’ and ‘mild’ cigarettes to customers would give them a false sense of smoking a ‘safer’ cigarette, resulting in many smokers switching over instead of quitting
| "All work in this area should be directed towards providing consumer reassurance about cigarettes and the smoking habit. This can be provided in different ways, e.g. by claiming low deliveries, by the perception of low deliveries and by the perception of "mildness". Furthermore, advertising for low delivery or traditional brands should be constructed in ways so as not to provoke anxiety about health, but to alleviate it, and enable the smoker to feel assured about the habit and confident in maintaining it over time." (BAT Co., 1977) [2] |
3. The tobacco companies failed to disclose this information to the public, and in fact intentionally withheld it.
| “It is felt that the time is close when government agencies world-wide will take more notice of compensation - and of the scale of the differences, for a given commercial product, between smoking machine numbers and the dose of smoke actually obtained by smokers.” (BAT Co., 1981) |
[1] David Creighton BAT Co. Compensation for Changed Delivery, 27th June, 1978. Source: Minnesota Trial Exhibit 11,089
[2] PL Short, BAT Co. Smoking and Health Item 7: the Effect on Marketing. 14th April 1977. Minnesota Trial Exhibit 10,585.
[3] British American Tobacco, “Research Conference, Pichlarn, Austria, 24-28 August 1981“ (minutes), document classified as “restricted,” available in the Guildford depository at Bates numbers 109882558-574, or on-line at
Quitting 
