HC Deb 05 February 1974 vol 868 cc267-72W
Sir D. Renton

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now able to make known revised tar and nicotine yields of brands of cigarettes on sale in the United Kingdom.

Sir K. Joseph

On 11th April last year, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich. South (Dr. Stuttaford)—[Vol. 854, c.307–10]—I published for the first time the tar and nicotine yields of brands of cigarettes on

Tar Group Tar yield mg/cig Brand Filter or Plain Nicotine yield mg/cig
Low Tar Under 4 Embassy Ultra Mild F Under 0.3
Under 4 Player's Mild De Luxe F Under 0.3
Under 4 Player's Mild Milford F Under 0.3
Under 4 Silk Cut Extra Mild F Under 0.3
8 Bristol F 0.3
8 Piccadilly Mild F 0.5
8 Player's No. 6 Extra Mild F 0.5
8 Rothmans Ransom F 0.5
9 Silk Cut King Size F 0.7
10 Player's Special Mild F 0.7
Low to Middle Tar 11 Benson & Hedges Vogue F 0.8
11 Buckingham F 0.7
11 Embassy Extra Mild F 0.8
11 Pall Mall Long Size F 0.7
11 Silk Cut No. 3 F 0.8
11 Silk Cut F 0.7
12 Player's York Mild F 0.8
12 Rembrandt Filter De Luxe F 0.7
13 Consulate Menthol F 0.8
13 Gallia F 0.5
13 Kensitas Mild F 0.8
13 St. Moritz F 0.9

sale in the United Kingdom. I have now received from the laboratory of the Government Chemist the tar and nicotine yields which were obtained from samples obtained during June to November 1973. For each of the 105 brands, 150 cigarettes were sampled from packets obtained in each of the six months of the sampling period from the manufacturers' warehouses at the place of manufacture or in the case of imported cigarettes from the bonded warehouses at the places where the cigarettes arrived in this country.

The figures set out below for tar and nicotine yields are rounded averages of the sample tested. The brands are listed in order of tar yield—figures in the left hand column. Those with the lowest tar yield are at the top of the list. Where more than one brand have the same figure for tar yield the brands are in alphabetical order. Differences between brands of up to 2mg of tar can generally be ignored.

In order to make it easier for smokers to understand the position of their own brand within the table, and to select a brand with a significantly lower tar yield, I have divided the table into five groups according to the tar yield of the brands, with each group having a group description as follows: low tar (0–10 mg/ cig), low to middle tar (11–16 mg/cig), middle tar (17–22 mg/cig), middle to high tar (23–28 mg/cig) and high tar (29 and over mg/cig):

Tar Group Tar yield mg/cig Brand Filter or Plain Nicotine yield mg/cig
Low to Middle Tar—cont 13 Vogue Satin Tipped F 0.9
14 Belair Menthol Kings F 0.8
14 Everest Menthol F 0.0
14 Piccadilly No. 7 F 0.8
15 Cambridge F 0.9
15 Kool F 1.0
16 John Player Carlton Long Size F 1.3
16 Kent F 1.0
16 Peter Stuyvesant King Size F 1.1
16 Three Castles Filter F 1.1
Middle Tar 17 Crown Filter F 1.0
17 Embassy Regal F 1.1
17 H B Crown F 0.9
17 Peter Stuyvesant Luxury Length F 1.2
17 Piccadilly Filter De Luxe F 1.0
17 Rothmans International F 1.2
18 Benson & Hedges Sovereign F 1.1
18 Cadets F 1.1
18 Embassy Gold F 1.1
18 Gitanes Caporal Filter F 1.3
18 John Player Carlton King Size F 1.5
18 John Player Carlton Premium F 1.3
18 Kensitas Corsair F 1.2
18 Player's No. 6 Filter F 1.2
19 Benson & Hedges Gold Bond F 1.2
19 Cameron F 1.2
19 Dunhill International F 1.4
19 Embassy Filter F 1.2
19 Guards F 1.2
19 Hallmark F 1.1
19 Kensitas Tipped F 1.2
19 Marlboro F 1.4
19 Nelson F 1.2
19 Park Drive Tipped F 1.3
19 Piccadilly King Size F 1.2
19 Player's Gold Leaf F 1.3
19 Player's Gold Leaf King Size F 1.4
19 Player's No. 6 Kings F 1.2
19 Player's No. 10 F 1.2
19 Rothmans King Size F 1.3
19 Silva Thins F 1.2
19 Sobranie Virginia International F 1.3
19 Weights Filter F 1.5
19 Woodbine Filter F 1.2
20 Benson & Hedges King Size F 1.3
20 Du Maurier F 1.3
20 Embassy Kings F 1.3
20 Embassy Plain P 1.1
20 Gladstone Filter F 1.4
20 John Player Special F 1.2
20 Kensitas Club F 1.2
20 Senior Service Tipped F 1.2
20 Sterling F 1.2
21 Gauloises Disque Bleu F 1.2
21 Louis Rothmans Select F 1.6
21 Park Drive Special F 1.4
21 Player's Filter Virginia F 1.4
21 Player's Mild Navy Cut P 1.5
21 Player's Perfectos F 1.4
21 Solent F 1.2
22 Bachelor F 1.4
22 Gauloises Caporal Filter F 1.2
22 Slim Kings F 1.4
Middle to High Tar 23 Park Drive Plain P 1.6
23 Senior Service Plain P 1.4
24 Gallaher's De Luxe Mild P 1.5
24 Player's No. 6 Plain P 1.5
24 Richmond Filter F 1.6
24 Weights Plain P 1.5
25 Capstan Medium P 1.6
25 Gitanes Caporal Plain P 1.6
25 Kensitas Plain P 1.6
Tar Group Tar yield mg/cig Brand Filter or Plain Nicotine yield mg/cig
Middle to High Tar —cont 25 Richmond Plain P 1.6
26 Player's Medium Navy Cut P 1.6
26 Woodbine Plain P 1.6
27 Craven 'A' Cork Tipped P 1.6
28 Piccadilly No. 1 P 1.7
High Tar 29 Gallaher's De Luxe Medium P 1.9
30 Churchmans No. 1 P 1.9
30 Player's No. 3 P 1.9
31 Gauloises Caporal Plain P 1.6
32 Gold Flake P 2.0
38 Capstan Full Strength P 3.4

During the period June to November 1973, four new brands were introduced but are not listed above as samples were not available to the Government Chemist

Tar Group Tar yield mg/cig Brand Filler or Plain Nicotine yield mg/cig
Middle Tar 19 Ambassador Luxury Length F 1.2
19 Player's No. 6 Classic F 1.1
20 Kensitas King Size F 1.4
21 Benson & Hedges De Luxe Length F 1.6

This information about tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes will be given publicity by the Health Education Council and by others as soon as it can be made available.

There is some evidence that, since the publication of the tar and nicotine yields last April, some smokers have changed to a brand with a lower tar yield than that which they smoked hitherto. There has been a marked increase in the number of brands with low tar yields and a reduction of brands with high tar yields. In part this is because of the introduction and withdrawal of brands but also because manufacturers have reduced the tar yields of many brands, in some cases very considerably. I very much welcome this action by the industry. Of the 90 brands which were in both the previous and the current list, 60 are now shown to have a lower tar yield, while only nine are shown with a higher yield than hitherto.

I hope that the publication of this further information about the tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes will again cause smokers to consider the serious risks they are taking to their health in continuing the smoking of cigarettes. If they are unable to stop the habit I hope that the grouping of brands according to their tar yield will help them to change to a brand with a significantly lower tar yield than the brand at present smoked. However, the potential benefit of switch-

for all of the six months. Estimates by the manufacturers of the tar and nicotine yields for these brands are as follows:

ing to low tar cigarettes may be nullified if more cigarettes are smoked and smokers should observe their smoking patterns to ensure that this does not happen.

The testing of cigarettes is continuing and I expect to be ready to publish a further list in the autumn.