Firm Adjusted Nicotine in Cigarettes, Affidavits Say

Three former Philip Morris officials have declared that the tobacco company, well aware of nicotine’s addictive nature, was preoccupied with manipulating the nicotine level in cigarettes to hook people on its products, according to affidavits released Monday by the Food and Drug Administration.

The statements support a growing body of similar accounts by former industry insiders that contradict the companies’ public statements, and could bolster the FDA’s efforts to regulate tobacco. The agency has proposed curbing teenagers’ access to cigarettes and restricting advertising, saying it has authority under its drug and medical device statutes.

In one of the affidavits, Ian L. Uydess, who worked 11 years for the company before leaving in 1989, said that “nicotine levels were routinely targeted and adjusted by Philip Morris in its various products. . . . “

“Philip Morris wanted to know everything there was to know about nicotine,” Uydess said. “Nicotine has always been an important consideration to Philip Morris in the design, development and manufacturing of cigarettes.”

The affidavits were given to the FDA within the last several weeks as part of the agency’s investigation. The FDA claims jurisdiction over cigarettes because of the addictive properties of nicotine, saying nicotine is a drug and cigarettes are drug delivery systems.

FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler said the affidavits contain “information that we believe the public should know. These documents shed light on the role of nicotine in the design and manufacture of cigarettes.”

The tobacco industry is fighting the agency’s moves in the courts and elsewhere.

In responding to Uydess’ claims, Philip Morris issued a statement Monday saying: “We have not been given the courtesy of having the opportunity to review the affidavit, and therefore cannot comment on it.” The statement also noted that “these allegations are similar to those made by others in the past.”

The company added that nothing in the statements indicated “that people can’t quit smoking if they want to, which is a key argument in the litigation. . . . Historically, when documents that are sensationalized in the press find their way into the courtroom, juries have failed to find them to be evidence of wrongdoing.”

The affidavits contradict sworn testimony given by the chief executives of the nation’s major tobacco companies before Congress in 1994. All said nicotine was not addictive, but insisted that their comments reflected their own opinions.

Among other things, the Justice Department has been investigating whether these executives committed perjury when testifying before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health.

William Campbell, president of Philip Morris USA at the time, told the subcommittee, then chaired by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), that his company “does not manipulate nor independently control the level of nicotine in our cigarettes.”

A nationwide class-action suit also is pending, charging that the industry lied to the public about the addictive nature of nicotine. Liggett Group Inc., the smallest of the major tobacco firms, settled its part of that suit last week. The other companies have said they intend to fight the action.

Uydess said that “impact” was the in-house term used by company officials to describe the physiological effects that nicotine produced in smokers; while top company officials insisted publicly that nicotine was not addictive, “a number of scientists like myself believed differently,” he said.

“Smokers have told Philip Morris [via test panels, for example] that there is no ‘impact’ in a cigarette that lacks nicotine,” he said.

Uydess also described what he called an “inner company” within Philip Morris that “appeared to conduct research outside of normal channels”--focusing on studies that would obtain information about how its products could affect human genetics, behavior and the brain.

This group was planning and coordinating studies “that could potentially impact the health and well-being of the public [smokers],” he said.

Scott D. Ballin, a member of the steering committee of the Coalition on Smoking OR Health, commended Uydess “for taking a bold step in letting the public know the truth about how the tobacco industry has irresponsibly conducted its business activities for the last several decades.”

William A. Farone, who was the company’s director of applied research from 1976 to 1984, agreed in a separate affidavit that the company “applied considerable effort and manpower to the study of nicotine in order to understand this relationship between nicotine and the smoker’s needs.”

Company scientists, Farone said, “promoted the need to provide adequate levels of nicotine in the product, and to maintain adequate levels of nicotine in order to keep smokers satisfied.”

Moreover, “cigarette manufacturers have invested enormous financial resources to achieve the desired level of control over nicotine and tar in their products,” he said, adding that the industry tried several techniques, including altering the cigarette filter, “in order to increase nicotine delivery.”

A third Philip Morris employee, Jerome Rivers, who worked for the company for 23 years in numerous positions, said that as shift manager for its blended leaf plant in Richmond, Va., he was responsible for ensuring that nicotine levels were maintained in tobacco production.

“For instance, if the byproduct sampling indicated a downward trend in the nicotine content of byproducts from Bright tobacco, we might be instructed to add more Burley byproducts to the blend,” Rivers said in his statement describing the process. “Burley byproducts contain more nicotine than Bright byproducts.”

The FDA said it would extend the public comment on its proposals for an additional 30 days because of the new material.

* SELL-OFF: Philip Morris stock tumbles. D1