Back to previous page
Data Reported to Massachusetts Department of Public Health Show No Nicotine Yield Increases for Marlboro Cigarettes from 1997 to 2006
RICHMOND, VA (January 17, 2007) - Data reported to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) by Philip Morris USA show that nicotine yields for Marlboro cigarettes were the same in 2006 as they were in 1997, the Company said in response to the release of a report by the Harvard School of Public Health.
The company's complete reports to the state from 1997 through 2006 are available on
www.philipmorrisusa.com in the "Product Facts" section. Data reported to the state from 1997-2006 reflect that there are random variations in cigarette nicotine yields, both upwards and downwards, and that variations are not consistent in either direction across reporting years. The reported yield for Marlboro cigarettes for both 1997 and 2006 was 1.86 milligrams per cigarette.
No trends for measures the authors believe are related to cigarette design and increased nicotine yield were observed for Marlboro cigarettes, including puffs per cigarette, nicotine content per cigarette or nicotine concentration in the tobacco rod.
Philip Morris USA agrees with the authors that cigarettes are addictive and harmful and that "relatively minor changes in nicotine yield may not significantly alter the product's addictive properties."
The company continues to support legislation introduced by Senator Kennedy and former Senator DeWine and Congressmen Waxman and Davis in 2005 to grant the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory authority over cigarettes. This legislation would grant the FDA authority to mandate changes in the design of tobacco products, including regulating nicotine. Philip Morris USA believes FDA regulation would play a significant role in reducing the harm caused by tobacco.
Since the release of a similar report from the MDPH in August, Philip Morris USA has requested the opportunity to meet with the MDPH and other interested parties to discuss its analysis. We will continue to seek to better understand these analyses and how the authors of both reports reached their conclusions.
