Scroll through this blog and you will find plenty of entries from smokers complaining about the bad taste and ill effects now their favorite brand has been converted to be fire safe compliant (FSC.)
Why is this……?
Mostly it’s because the fundamental burn characteristics of your favorite smokes have been changed by the addition of FSC or LIP paper. It’s not because something bad has been added. FSC or LIP paper has bands printed on it making the paper’s porosity lower. The lower porosity bands (or zones) make the cigarettte burn slower and if it’s not puffed – it can go out.
Making the cigarette burn slower alters the taste in some cases quite significantly.
Your favorite smokes taste worse because most States and all of Canada now require FSC cigarettes.
11 comments ↓
Because of the FSC paper, the tobacco burns more inefficiently, and that causes it to produce more chemicals that are considered toxic.
It doesn’t just taste bad, it’s much worse for your health.
The irony is that fires have actually increased for smokers in New York, the first state to pass the law.
FSC laws were passed state by state using deception and misinformation. For more information, please read the attached link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-brooks/fire-safe-cigarette-laws_b_519867.html
fsclawrepeal,
Amazing info why are folks not made aware of this in the main stream media.
Jim
I was project leader at a major tobacco company for the chemistry and toxicology research that led to the acceptance of one major brand of LIP cigarette paper. The studies involved detailed smoke chemistry, in vitro toxicology studies, and a subchronic rodent inhalation study on a very well matched pair of products: conventional paper control versus LIP paper test. Except for a small increase in carbon monoxide delivery (and well with the range for comparable competitive products), which is expected with LIP papers, there was no increase in toxicity caused by the LIP papers. The research described above was done almost ten years ago so it may not be reflective of LIP papers currently in use. Research was also presented at a public scientific meeting.
RE: LIP difference in smoke taste
When LIP papers were being introduced, at least some cigarette makers conducted tests to determine what had to be done to their products to maintain smoke quality when LIP papers were used. It was far from a simple matter of just changing the cigarette paper from non-LIP to LIP. Much science went into the change to LIP papers.
This raises an interesting question: What did the smaller manufacturers do when they switched from non-LIP to LIP papers?
Several smokers have posted comments their cigarettes taste bad now they are FSC compliant.
It would be interesting to learn what brands they are smoking – anybody want to let us know??
Jim,
Good question!
Chris,
I smoked American Spirit additive-free tobacco until they had to change the paper. Wound up not being able to breathe. Now, I roll my own.
TobaccoToxDoc,
Are you referring to the Harvard study? That was published on January 24, 2005.
Alternatively, are you referring to Philip Morris’s toxicological characterization of a novel cigarette paper by Patskan G, Hsu F, Meisgen T, et al, from 2000? That was used by Philip Morris to help push through the original legislation in New York.
The problem with that, and all the other toxicology reports on LIP that were used to advance FSC legislation, is that none of the brands would have passed New York’s fairly rigid standards.
In the Harvard study, the three brands that actually would have passed New York standards showed increases in all of the chemical compounds that were measured. Naphthalene rose 15.8% and carbon monoxide 12.6%. Of course, that doesn’t take into account smoker topography, which can take years to study. Forcing mice to smoke tells us nothing.
Your final question answers what may be the reason Philip Morris pushed for legislation. Some smaller manufacturers couldn’t compete.
I would be quite curious to hear any other information you care to offer. Thanks for posting.
The work I reported at a scientific meeting in 2003 was modeled after the PMUSA study reported by Patskan et al. There is no reason to suspect that the PMUSA study used banded cigarette paper that would not have met the NY standard. There is a a more recent journal article by RJRT scientists (Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology
Volume 59, Issue 1, 1 September 2007, Pages 17-27) you may wish to consult. There are many caveats that go into comparing smoke deliveries of Cigarette A versus Cigarette B. The differences you quoted from the Connolly paper are marginally significant at best.
Doing detailed quantitative analysis on cigarette smoke is a hard way to make a living even if you have the best equipment and facilities and have great scientists working with you.
The conclusions on toxicology reported by Patskan et al in 2000 were based on a group of four cigarette types that used different banded paper technology. Only one of those cigarette types (3D) would have passed New York’s standard. The other three would have failed. Yet the toxicological conclusions were based on them as a group.
The RJRT research also went no further than forcing rodents to inhale smoke. It did not address smoker topography, which can take years to study. It’s well established in medical literature that smoking “light” cigarettes carries the same health risks as smoking regular cigarettes because of the way they are smoked.
The only FSC research on actual human beings that I could find is currently being conducted by Roswell Park Cancer Institute. It began September 21, 2006 and should end July 31, 2010. The lead researcher is one of the peer-reviewers of the flawed Harvard study, so I’m going to take any conclusions with a grain of salt.
One of the four brands tested in the Harvard study failed New York’s standard, which they did not acknowledge. An additional caveat is the Harvard study does not consider the synergistic effect of increases in all of the nineteen chemical compounds that were measured. Yet the Harvard study was used to advance FSC legislation.
I am finding these glimpses into LIP technology from an “insider” to be fascinating. I hope you will continue to post.
Fascinating! So why in simple form do folks say the new cigs taste so bad?
Jim,
I do not know how any particular FSC cigarette is made because that is proprietary information.
I have read everything from alginates, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), metal oxides, and asbestos are used. EVA is used as a glue, so I’m sure that would taste horrible when burned.
American Spirit told me an alginate is used. It must be sodium alginate because they tasted salty. Yuck! Didn’t go very well with coffee.
Why Is Electronic Cigarette A Hot Thing?…
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…
Leave a Comment