AD little and L&M 1960

8/8/2019 AD little and L&M 1960

1/4

M E M O R A N D U M

To : C . Kensler7 . LothropP . ThayerH . Pars

PLAINTIFF'SCase : L & M Date: October 25, 1960Subject: Fourteenth Tobacco ConferenceEXHIBIT

Knal rI t 53

Page : 1

The general tone of the Fourteenth Tobacco Conference in Winston-Salem. NorthCarolina, on October 13-14, 1960, was that of escape from the really hard problemsof tobacco research to problems where people and companies were prepared to appearpublicly . The new Wake Forest Campus is beautiful, clean, fresh . and new. Theovertone in several discussions was that the Reynolds interests (and the Southern3aptists) had bought the college, put it in new quarters, and the maturing processaway from its sponsors had not yet begun .R. J. Reynolds, as a local manufacturer, had a sponsoring role for the conferencein Winston-Salem and contributed six papers out of 31. Their choice of aspeakerfor the conference dinner was a return engagement (He spoke of seven years agowhen the conference was last at Winston-Salem.) of a South Carolinian Chamber ofCommerce type who talked about many things, no one of which followed from theother and never touched on tobacco, except in the vein that tobacco made it allpossible . The "I believe in America . . ." avoidance of tobacco issues was in contrasto Gross' brave stand of "Thirty Years of the Fifth Estate" in Durham of two yearsago and Hockett's forthright (but shaky in the hands) stand that the involvemen tof tobacco as a causative agent in lung cancer had not been proved last year inLexington, Kentucky.Bob Hockett was much in evidence at the meetings . He says that they have somevery good research . The problems are not technical ; they are public relaions(whatever that means) . I presume this is along the lines of recen staemensby Dr. LttleMcKeen Catell or Dean Davies were not in evidence, although Fred 0. made a jokeabout the possibility of Dean's showing up on the second day .Fred Darhis was friendly and very interested in what was said in Cambridge abouthis dedication. He was all smiles about New Orleans and honed it was a stepforward. Marcus Hobbs was friendly but pretty remote from the Liggett & Myersdelegation. Thirteen people were there: Darhis, Saes, Mold, Kith ?hilipoeWilliams, Chen, Shipp, Samfield, Moore, Derrick, Gannon, as a oar_ial list . Thefriendliness was excellent, even with J . Mold who I feel can hold out on us forour sterol troubles but who does not seem to have held out .The papers (the program is being circulated with one copy of this memo) can bedivided into groups, most all of ~,h il`n were either craft-knowledge directed .e .g., filtering, or non-critical chemical knowledge. There were no mentions oflung cancer, 3,4-benzpyrene, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, treatments, orany indication that anyone cared about these problems ; in Durham two years agothe English first talked about the use of Cu(N03)2 and other salts as treating agen

From . , _ R .'.. . . ` '~ ' .. . .gainer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Bldg ./Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LG0044839


2/4

M E M O R A N D U M

To : C . Xensler:v . LotaropF . Thayer? . Pars

Case: DeSubject : Tobacco Conference Continued

Page :

John Williams from Liggett & Myers reported on beryllium in cigarette tobaccos asfound by a fluorometric procedure but found none in the smoke . The Blowing valueswere reported:

aright 0 .015 ppm on cigarette weight3urley 0 .05Turkish 0 .07Maryland 0 .07 5

Of the 0.27ppm beryllium found in a cigarette the following distribution was foundAsh 0 .17Butts 0 .10Smoke 0.00

The method was checked by recovery of actual material added and by emissionspectroscopy .Charley Keith reported work on filter efficiency, which work was more fully charactized in Keith and Derrick (Journal Colloid Science, 15, 340-356, August 1960) . acopy of which is attached. These data are new to me in the form given, althoughthe conclusions ve equivalent to prior discussion going back to Wiederhorn's dataof 1954. 3 X10 particles of smoke are presen per cc. with a distribution from0 .1 to 1.0 .-peaking at about 0.2,., diameter . Aging shifts the peak frequencyto J.S. in several minutes in dilute smoke . Concentrated smoke aerosols condensemore rapidly . Side stream smoke has more particles of small size ranging fpm0.03 to 0.5 wth the peak a 0.15 diameter. infiltering from3 1 10"particle per cc. loss of 0.5 X 100 particles per cc . occurs by coagulation andJ.j 1 10 particles per cc. by mechanical filtration . The filtering removes morelarge particles than small ones, but the small particles coagulate . These aretighter daa(see reprin) thanbefore, but they are essenially the same storylager ?hilippe reported on the presence of CH SNO (methyl thionitr;ta) incigarettesmoke at 10'' 2 . X. per cigarette or 0. _0131 10-2 volume percent of cigarett esmoke. 2500 pyirolysis produced 22 ., . ;< per cigarette . The Compound formed a redliquid at 250 C. with a sulfur garlic and onion odor . This compound is snalagousto 3110NOpreviously reported by Philippe and Hackney, derived from 0M3CH and "C,,

The pavers from R. J. Reynolds on composition of cigarette smoke listed the presencof saturated hydrocarbons, phytadienes, neophytadienes,--(-tocopherol, isomericsqualenes, solanesyl and phytosteryl esters, solanesol and phytosterols ; quantitatiestimates were given; no great variation between cigarettes of different tyypes .Three papers interested me in their analyses for chlorogenic and neochlorogenic,rutin, caffeic acid and scopoletin. These phenolic components were related to leaf(government grade) quality where nigh quality had 1.3 times the chlorogenic acidof low quality leaf . (High and low quality can come from the same plant, degandingon where the leaves are taken .) These "safe" papers on natural phenolic materials

Z ~eneBdg/Room151?1- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .From . . . . .. HLG0044840


3/4

M E M O R A N D U M

To : C:GenslerCase: De:Pge3W . LothropP.Thayer SubecTobacco Conference Continued4 . Parsremind me of Pars' work of July 11, 1958, on the condensation of complex phenolsto substituted classes of P . N. A. hydrocarbons. To me it is time to reviek. thisconcept for ways of understanding the-consistent differences between tobacco andcellulose. Should the totally extracted cigarette be relooked a short term'uestioning of Samfield indicates that the NH 3-treatment sits on the shelfwating, if it is needed; the short term resuIta are an improvement? Durham hasnot treated tobacco under pressure or with steam under pressure, although thedycould bleed through live steam 25 psi or higher . The essenial limt of 100 C,however, leaves open as area whi@h we have entered via the Snyder samples and viaTom Hall's pressure bomb 235-245 C. and about 2000 C. into differen treamensfor short term. This high pressure treatment is less a commercial process thanaspeculaive experimen, but it coninually poins to the issue tha if nauralphenols are present, how can these be reacted by heat and pressure to removetheir conributianto the PN. A. H. processes during smoking? Thus, how canwe reduce the activity of tobacco to that of cellulose without going to a natural,exclusively cellulose material to begin with? This seems to me worthy of study,elaboration, and patent claim development .

From . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A .. ..u . . . ..'diner , am. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ..Bdg/Room . .. . . . . .1 5 .1 .2 .1 .^ .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .LG0044841


4/4

2rtl)ur ZI . 3Uttle,4ln &t;UN r fId0,LIMITEDL&M -3-

17 . Other reagents including cobalt compounds are essentially without major interestingeffect .18. Nitrates added to tobacco are not commercially attractive .19 . The making of a C.T.S. cigarette is commercially acceptable and perhaps economi-cally competitive with normal tobacco .20. Are we not on the march to a "disassembled" tobacco cigarette that we "reassemble"via the C.T.S. process to minimize the biological effect . If this is true, what abothe patent situation? AM .F. has the strongest position. L & Mhas a position

with C.T .S. if it is with tobacco and with their own "loop-hole" binders .But what about C.T.S. with only fractions of tobacco and with a base of cellulose,e.g., solka floc? Are we not already late in the concept sense?There are two patent emphases :

L) patent a C.T.S . assembling process where the assembling has theentire range of freedom and where the concept is controlled ,2.)patent ways of doing it, of getting in binders, making bindersin the process of treatments, e.g. pressure, explosion, etc., and all the little

details that hold an entre but may not make it exclusive.21. What are the flavor problems if a C.T.S. assembly process is possible that

reduces biological activity?22. Can't this approach be introduced as a part composition with normal tobacco aswell? Like, 50% regular C.T .S. and 507. solka floc C.T .S. with "safe" additive tobe equivalent to the nitrate added product currently experimental long term?23 . What about 22. but nitrating the regular tobacco only to give ED 's in the range

of 40-60 in comparison to the current controls of 15? The 1/3 to01/4 activitywould be a good claim

24. Is it possible tha the above reduces the activity of all but the high-temperaurelittle-molecule effects? What do nitrate cigarettes do long term when the smokecondensate is obtained from the Durham 700 C-1000 C pyrolysis ?

25. Isn't the above the most optimistic view of the possibilities for this productsince 1954?

26 . Howcan we plan to "mush" at an accelerated rate to tie down these concepts?

LG0044842

Documents

AD little and L&M 1960