Abstract
Data sources: A company product website (www.eclipse.rjrt.com) summarising scientific studies of various versions of Eclipse, and the published review of these studies by an expert panel convened by RJR, an independent study comparing the smoke yields of major carcinogens from Eclipse and two low yield "ultralight" brands (Now and Carlton), and an analysis of the levels of these compounds in Eclipse and Premier (its predecessor) over time.
Analysis: The overall doses and effects of toxins in the aerosol from Eclipse are smaller than those from most conventional cigarettes on a per mg basis. However, two tests that compared Eclipse on a per cigarette basis revealed that Eclipse was as or more toxic than an ultralight cigarette. Studies show that consumers smoke Eclipse (like they do cigarettes) at puff volumes and puff frequencies far higher than those used for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) test. RJR's test results, which are based on aerosols generated under FTC conditions, may not reflect actual human dosing, since the operating temperature of Eclipse is highly dependent on these puffing parameters. Even under FTC/International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard measures, Eclipse smoke carcinogen yields were higher than Now, but similar to Carlton. The yields of carcinogens from Premier and different versions of Eclipse have increased over time. Furthermore, the human studies reviewed by the RJR expert panel do not offer compelling evidence of reduced harm, as they have not been conducted in smokers who have adopted Eclipse.
Conclusion: There is as yet unsatisfactory evidence that Eclipse is less harmful than conventional cigarettes. Eclipse appears to be at least as toxic as some commercially available cigarette brands. Consumers may be misled by RJR's health claims into believing that Eclipse is a safer alternative to conventional cigarettes, underscoring the need for regulatory intervention.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (235.0 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Byrd G. D., Davis R. A., Caldwell W. S., Robinson J. H., deBethizy J. D. A further study of FTC yield and nicotine absorption in smokers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1998 Oct;139(4):291–299. doi: 10.1007/s002130050720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pauly J. L., Lee H. J., Hurley E. L., Cummings K. M., Lesses J. D., Streck R. J. Glass fiber contamination of cigarette filters: an additional health risk to the smoker? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998 Nov;7(11):967–979. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rickert W. S., Robinson J. C., Young J. C., Collishaw N. E., Bray D. F. A comparison of the yields of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide of 36 brands of Canadian cigarettes tested under three conditions. Prev Med. 1983 Sep;12(5):682–694. doi: 10.1016/0091-7435(83)90226-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Slade J. The tobacco epidemic: lessons from history. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1989 Jul-Sep;21(3):281–291. doi: 10.1080/02791072.1989.10472169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]