Ventilated cigarette
[1] These cigarette brands may be listed as having lower levels of tar ("low-tar"), nicotine, or other chemicals as "inhaled" by a "smoking machine".
However, smokers react to the reduced resistance by inhaling more deeply, and tend to cover the holes with their fingers and mouth.
[7] Usage of descriptors such as "light" or "mild" has thus been banned in the European Union, Australia, Malaysia, Philippines, the United States, and other countries.
[10] The 1950s gave birth to numerous scientific studies that proved the link between cigarettes and cancer (see Wynder and Graham, 1950; Doll and Hill, 1952, 1954; Hammond and Horn, 1958).
Most important to the tobacco industry, however, was that light cigarettes produced lower tar and nicotine levels when tested with the FTC's smoking machines.
[4][5][16][17] Numerous scientific studies reveal that the smoker compensates for the lower concentration of nicotine by actively changing his or her smoking habits.
[4][5][18] Due to these compensatory smoking behaviors, smokers of light cigarettes inhale significantly more nicotine and tar than what is measured by the ISO machine-smoking method.
[4][5][19][17] According to the 2004 Surgeon General's report, "Smoking cigarettes with lower machine-measured yields of tar and nicotine provides no clear benefit to health.
"[20] The tobacco industry's own internal documents also reveal that cigarette manufacturers are aware of the difference between machine-measured levels of nicotine and tar, and those actually inhaled by smokers.
According to a USCF article on the study, Benowitz wanted to simulate a societal scenario in which the nicotine content of cigarettes would be progressively regulated downward.
[21] According to a 2013 Washington Post article, the US FDA has backed low-nicotine cigarette research as it weighs its new regulatory power.
[23] Critics of the legislation question whether it will have a significant impact on today's pervasive tobacco market in the United States.
[26] A study on the United Kingdom found that while legislation had a minor impact in challenging misleading perceptions of ventilated cigarettes among smokers in the short term, by 2005 the change in belief had changed no more than in the United States, which at the time did not have any regulation regarding "light" descriptors of ventilated cigarettes.
