Design Characteristics and Tobacco Metal Concentrations in Filtered Cigars

Abstract

Introduction:

While U.S. cigarette consumption has declined, cigar use has steadily increased, for reasons including price compared to cigarettes and the availability of filtered varieties resembling cigarettes, and flavors that have been banned in cigarettes (excluding menthol). Little published data exists on the design characteristics of such cigars.

Methods:

A variety of filtered cigar brands were tested for design characteristics such as whole cigar weight, ventilation, and per-cigar tobacco weight. Cigar sticks were then sent to the University of St. Andrews for metal concentration testing of As, Pb, Cr, Ni, and Cd.

Results:

Large and small cigars were statistically different between cigar weight (p ≤ .001), per-cigar tobacco weight (p = .001), rod diameter (p = .006), and filter diameter (p = .012). The differences in mean ventilation (overall mean = 19.6%, min. = 0.84%, max. = 57.6%) across filtered cigar brands were found to be statistically significant (p = .031), and can be compared to the ventilation of the average of 2013U.S. Marlboro Red, Gold, and Silver packs at 29% ventilation. There were no significant differences for metal concentrations between cigar types (p = .650), with Pb and As levels being similar to U.S. 2009 cigarette concentrations, Cd cigar levels being slightly higher, and Cr and Ni levels much lower than cigarette levels.

Conclusions:

With cigar use rising, and filtered cigars displaying substantial similarities to filtered cigarettes, more research on product characteristics is warranted. Future plans include testing tobacco alkaloid and more observation of cigar weight for tax bracket purposes.

Introduction

Tobacco use, particularly cigarette smoking, remains the leading preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States.^1,2 While cigarette use has declined, annual sales and consumption of cigars have steadily increased over the past 20 years.^3–7 In 2012–2013, it was found that 7.3% of adults in the United States currently used cigars.⁸ Other data indicate that in 2012, 8.4% of youth aged 9–17 were current cigar users (21% lifetime use), with particularly high prevalence seen in non-Hispanic Black High School students (17%).⁹ Cigar use prevalence encompasses a broad array of products—three cigar types most commonly sold in the United States are large cigars, cigarillos, and little/small cigars. Large cigars can contain anywhere between 5 and 20g of tobacco, while cigarillos are typically smaller with around 3g of tobacco on average.¹⁰ Recent data indicate that about 20% of cigar users reported using little filtered cigars, with the remainder using premium cigars or cigarillos.⁸ Large cigars and cigarillos may be offered in various packaging sizes, from singles, to 5-packs, to boxes of 60. While most cigars are composed primarily of a single type of tobacco (air-cured and fermented), with a tobacco wrapper, cigarettes have non-fermented tobacco filler and a nontobacco wrapper.¹⁰ Cigars and cigarettes have different kinds of tobacco filler¹⁰ and therefore may have different toxicant levels in the products (e.g., nitrosamines, metals).

The observed growth in cigar use may have multiple causes. First is a common misconception that cigars are less harmful than cigarettes^5,11–17; but in fact, cigar smoke contains the same toxic and carcinogenic compounds as cigarettes,¹⁰ and cause diseases such as oral, esophageal, laryngeal, and lung cancers,¹⁰ with risk increasing with consumption (i.e., number of cigars smoked) and depth of inhalation.¹⁸ Second, since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibited certain characterizing flavors in cigarettes (excluding menthol),^19–21 smokers may be turning to cigars to obtain flavored products.²² The higher percentage of adolescent cigar smoking may be due to the availability of flavored cigars, which may be easier to use and more appealing to youth,^20,23–27 similar to the observation that menthol flavoring in cigarettes eases initiation and progression to smoking and reduces success in smoking cessation.^20,28 Indeed, a recent study found preference for flavored cigars was highest for youth, young adults, females, blacks, cigarette smokers, and daily cigar smokers.²² Moreover, some data suggest that flavored little cigar use may be associated with lower intention to quit tobacco use than non-users (59.7% vs. 49.3%).²⁰

Another potential motivation for the growth in cigar use is price relative to cigarettes. While cigarettes are generally treated uniformly for tax purposes and taxed highly, cigar taxation is more variable, based on size.^29,30 Currently, cigar products whose entire weight across 1,000 finished sticks is 3 lbs or less (approximately 1.36g per stick) are classified as small cigars ($1.01 per pack of 20), while those weighing more than 3 lbs per 1,000 are considered large cigars ($0.4026 maximum per cigar).³¹ In the early 1970s, tax structure differences, coupled with a new ban on broadcast cigarette advertising, provided incentives for R.J. Reynolds to design and market the Winchester little cigar for cigarette smokers.³² A second surge in filtered little cigars occurred in the mid-2000s, when cigarette excise tax increases in numerous states resulted in a doubling of the average cigarette tax (includes state and federal) in the United States.³² The federal excise tax increases of 2009 to fund the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) equalized federal taxes on little cigars and cigarettes, but preserved the small/large cigar dichotomy and the overall lower tax rates on cigars.¹⁹ In response to the SCHIP tax change, many little cigar manufacturers converted much of their portfolios to “large” filtered cigars to avoid the higher tax.^33,34 Indeed, users of little filtered cigars are more likely than other cigar users to report daily use (36% vs. 13% for cigarillo and 3% for premium).⁸

Published data on the characteristics of filtered cigar brands are sparse compared to what is known about cigarettes. The current study explores filtered cigar physical design characteristics such as tobacco weight, filter density, and filter ventilation, which are known to impact standard machine yields of toxicants^35,36 and user behavior/perceptions^37,38 from a selection of U.S. brands. We also examined tobacco rod metal concentrations between different types of cigars, and compared concentrations to regular cigarettes. Collecting more data of this type may be increasingly important as the FDA moves toward encompassing other forms of tobacco, including cigars, under its regulatory authority.³⁹

Methods

We purchased products representing seven filtered cigar brand families in June 2013 from a retail website (TobaccoGeneral.com). Our brand choices were largely determined by availability, however, we ensured that several popular filtered cigar brands would be included (e.g., Swisher Sweet, Cheyenne, Santa Fe). Where possible, an unflavored (60.9%) and flavored (39.1%) version of each product was purchased for comparison, which included 17.4% menthol packs overall, 17.4% grape, and 4.3% cherry. This resulted in a total of 23 cigar sub-brands. Packs were conditioned for a minimum of 48hr at 22±2.0 °C and 60±2.0% relative humidity in an environmental chamber prior to testing. Two packs of each brand of cigar were tested for cigar design characteristics such as tobacco length, tipping paper length, rod/filter length and diameter, tobacco moisture content, and pressure drop/ventilation.^40,41 Pressure drop is defined as the amount of suction used to draw smoke through the filter.⁴² Ten individual cigars of every brand were also weighed gravimetrically in whole to determine the weight of the finished cigar.

Testing of the metal content of the cigar tobacco was performed at the University of St. Andrews (Scotland, United Kingdom). The tobacco filler from each of 20 cigars was removed, dried, pulverized to powder, and pressed into pellets.^43,44 Polarized energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence was used to measure concentrations of 25 elements (Mg, Al, Si, P, Cl, S, K, Ca, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Br, Rb, Sr, Zr, Nb, Cd, Sn, Ba, and Pb).^43,44 In this article, we focus on the most toxic elements, Arsenic (As), Lead (Pb), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr) and Nickel (Ni), expressed in μg/g of tobacco. Four of these metals and metalloids, namely As, Cd, Ni and Pb, have been identified by a World Health Organization expert panel as giving rise to particular concern.⁴⁵ We elected not to examine the wrapping paper of the cigar for metal content, and focused only on the filler tobacco, to facilitate comparison with cigarettes.

Basic descriptive statistics, independent t tests and analysis of variances were performed using SPSS Version 21.0 for differences in cigar design characteristics and metal content between different flavors, sizes, brands, and manufacturers of cigars.

Results

Flavored Versus Unflavored Cigars

No statistically significant differences were found between flavored and non-flavored versions in any of the major cigar design characteristics (p ≥ .125; except for per-cigar tobacco weight [p = .035]) or metal concentrations (p ≥ .566), so results from this point are presented in the aggregate (Supplementary Table 1).

Cigar Design Characteristics

The sample included 23 filtered cigars, consisting of 26% small cigars and 74% large cigars. Statistically significant differences were seen between cigar types in cigar design characteristics including mean overall cigar weight (large, M = 1.31g, SD = 0.1094; small, M = 1.13g, SD = 0.0866; p ≤ .001), mean per-cigar tobacco weight (large, M = 1.06g, SD = 0.0877; small, M = 0.9033g, SD = 0.0870; p = .001), mean rod diameter (large, M = 7.66mm, SD = 0.138; small, M = 7.45mm, SD = 0.151; p = .006), and mean filter diameter (large, M = 7.59mm, SD = 0.164; small, M = 7.39mm, SD = 0.093; p = .012).

Differences within filtered cigar brands were both statistically significant and varied for ventilation (p = .031) and pressure drop (p = .022), with a sample size of 22 packs (Swisher Sweets Filter Tip cigars were too wide for the Borgwaldt-KC apparatus). Ventilation mean ranged from 3.6% for Double Diamond (SD = 1.35), 12.8% for Remington (SD = 18.15), 13.8% for Phillies (SD = 16.57), 16.3% for Cheyenne (SD = 23.20), 17.1% for Swisher Sweets (SD = 30.55), 21.2% for Muriel (SD = 0.37) and 52.5% for Santa Fe (SD = 3.66). Double Diamond, Muriel, and Santa Fe were among cigar brands that were less varied in ventilation than Remington (min. = 2.2%, max. = 33.8%), Cheyenne (min. = 1.44%, max. = 43.04%), Phillies (min. = 2.1%, max. = 25.5%) and Swisher Sweets (min. = 0.84%, max. = 62.9%). Pressure drop among cigar brands was more varied than ventilation; Double Diamond (M = 125.0 mmH₂O, SD = 29.1), Remington (M = 223.7 mmH₂O, SD = 65.8), Cheyenne (M = 205.6 mmH₂O, SD = 46.7), Muriel (M = 167.9 mmH₂O, SD = 19), Phillies (M = 248.1 mmH₂O, SD = 58.6), Santa Fe (M = 138.8 mmH₂O, SD = 12.9), and Swisher Sweets (M = 156.9 mmH₂O, SD = 45.7).

Cigar design characteristics were also analyzed by manufacturer, which included A & T Tobacco Imports, Good Times Tobacco, Cheyenne International, LLC, Altadis USA (Imperial Tobacco), and Swisher International, Inc. Pressure drop was found to be statistically different (min. mean = 125.0 mmH₂O, max. mean = 223.7 mmH₂O; p = .023), as well as tipping paper length (min. mean = 29.9mm, max. mean = 35.2mm), tobacco length (min. mean = 68.6mm, max. mean = 89.3mm), filter weight (min. mean =0.0772g, max. mean = 0.2413g) and filter length (min. mean = 11.0mm, max. mean = 29.5mm; p < .000).

Whole Cigar Weight and Nominal Tax Classification

As a next step in examining the physical characteristics of cigars, we sought to distinguish small cigars from filtered cigars classified as “large cigars.” Nominal tax groups were based on what was written on the pack; if the words “little cigars” were written on the pack, the product was treated as a small cigar; if not, the product was treated as a large cigar. Given the tax line at 3 lbs per 1,000 sticks distinguishing large from small, an individual small cigar would therefore need to weigh ~1.36g (3 lbs = 1.36078kg) or less. Fifteen cigar brand styles, on the basis of mean stick weight, fell outside their nominal classification, all in the same direction (i.e., weighing <1.36g on average but classified as large; Table 1). A cigar pack’s manufacturer did not have any significant association with whether the pack would be correctly classified as a large or small tax classification (x ² = 2.134, p = .771). One out of 3 packs manufactured by A & T Tobacco Imports were classified within their tax bracket, as well as 0 out of 3 manufactured by Good Times Tobacco, 1 out of 3 manufactured by Cheyenne International, LLC, 1 out of 10 manufactured by Swisher International, Inc., and 2 out of 4 manufactured by Altadis USA.

Table 1.

Cigar Brand Label Classifications (Large vs. Small Cigars) Versus Actual Mean Weight and Individual Stick Weight

Cigar brand	Flavored	Cigar label on pack	Label classification	Mean cigar weight	SD	Min. cigar weight	Max. cigar weight
Muriel Sweets	Non-flavored	“20 Filtered Little Cigars”	Small	1.12	0.02	1.08	1.14
Muriel Menthol	Flavored	“20 Filtered Little Cigars”	Small	1.16	0.06	1.04	1.24
Swisher Sweets Grape	Flavored	“Filtered Little Cigars”	Small	1.21	0.04	1.15	1.28
Swisher Sweets Regular 100’s	Non-flavored	“Little Cigars”	Small	1.2	0.03	1.18	1.25
Swisher Sweet Regular 84’s	Non-flavored	“Little Cigars”	Small	1.01	0.02	0.98	1.05
Swisher Sweet Mild	Non-flavored	“Little Cigars”	Small	1.27	0.04	1.23	1.34
Swisher Sweets Filter Tipa,b	Non-flavored	“Filter Tip Cigars”	Large	1.34	0.05	1.26	1.39
Double Diamond Full Flavor 100sa	Non-flavored	“20 Filter Cigars”	Large	1.39	0.09	1.25	1.53
Double Diamond Mildsa,b	Non-flavored	“20 Filter Cigars”	Large	1.19	0.04	1.1	1.24
Double Diamond Grapea,b	Flavored	“20 Filter Cigars”	Large	1.27	0.08	1.17	1.37
Remington Full Flavora,b	Non-flavored	“Filter Cigar”	Large	1.23	0.08	1.07	1.34
Remington Lightsa,b	Non-flavored	“Filter Cigar”	Large	1.29	0.03	1.24	1.33
Remington Grapea,b	Flavored	“Filter Cigar”	Large	1.28	0.03	1.24	1.33
Cheyenne Full Flavor 100sa,b	Non-flavored	“20 Cigars”	Large	1.31	0.04	1.25	1.37
Cheyenne Classics 100sa,b	Non-flavored	“20 Cigars”	Large	1.32	0.03	1.25	1.36
Cheyenne Grape 100sa	Flavored	“20 Cigars”	Large	1.4	0.03	1.36	1.44
Phillies Sweeta,b	Non-flavored	“20 Filtered Cigars”	Large	1.3	0.02	1.26	1.34
Phillies Menthola,b	Flavored	“20 Filtered Cigars”	Large	1.29	0.03	1.23	1.32
Santa Fe Originala,b	Non-flavored	“20 Cigars”	Large	1.34	0.04	1.26	1.39
Santa Fe Whitea,b	Non-flavored	“20 Cigars”	Large	1.31	0.07	1.22	1.41
Santa Fe White Menthola,b	Flavored	“20 Cigars”	Large	1.33	0.04	1.26	1.37
Santa Fe Menthola,b	Flavored	“20 Cigars”	Large	1.26	0.04	1.19	1.32
Santa Fe Sweet Cherrya,b	Flavored	“20 Cigars”	Large	1.34	0.03	1.29	1.38

^aThe weight of at least one individual stick measured was outside of the nominal tax bracket (60.7% of packs fell outside of bracket).

^bThe average weight of the cigar brand was outside of the nominal tax bracket (53.6% of packs fell outside of tax bracket).

Cigar Tobacco Metal Concentrations

Mean metal and metalloid concentrations were also compared among filtered cigars, with no significant differences seen between cigar types for any metal (p ≥ .650). When comparing cigar metal concentrations to mean U.S. cigarette metal concentrations from 2009,⁴⁶ mean cigar metal concentrations of Pb and As were nearly identical to cigarettes (Figure 1). Cigar Cd concentrations were slightly higher than cigarettes, and Cr and Ni concentrations were much higher for cigarettes than for cigars.

Figure 1.

Mean metal concentrations (µg/g) of small filtered cigars, large filtered cigars and 2009 cigarettes.

Metal concentrations were also analyzed by cigar manufacturer, with each Cr, Ni, As, Cd, and Pb showing significant differences between manufacturers (p ≤ .001, p ≤ .001, p ≤ .001, p = .005, and p = .016, respectively; Figure 2). Manufacturers highest for each metal or metalloid were A & T Tobacco Imports for Cr (2.67 µg/g of tobacco), Cd (1.6 µg/g), Pb (0.8 µg/g), and Ni (1.1 µg/g), and Good Times Tobacco for As (0.4 µg/g).

Figure 2.

Mean metal concentrations (µg/g) of filtered cigars between manufacturers.

Bonferroni results found Cr to be statistically significant at the p < .005 level between A & T Tobacco Imports and Good Times Tobacco, Cheyenne International, LLC and Altadis USA. A & T Tobacco Imports were different from Cheyenne International, LLC and Altadis for Ni, as well as Swisher International from Cheyenne and Altadis. Lastly, Cd was individually statistically different between A & T Tobacco Imports and Swisher International, Inc.

Discussion

Overall, the data from this investigation reveal few substantial differences between filtered small and large cigars, and filtered cigars and cigarettes. The design characteristics differing between small and large cigars were cigar weight, tobacco weight, rod diameter, and filter diameter. No significant differences in heavy metal concentrations between groups of cigars were observed. However, differences across manufacturers were observed, likely because filler tobacco may be obtained from different geographical regions that in turn influence metal and metalloid contents.

When the Tobacco Control Act banned cigarettes from having flavored tobacco, excluding menthol, cigars were not originally covered in the legislation, and so flavors other than menthol, such as grape and cherry, are still permitted. However, no significant differences were seen in cigar design characteristics or metal concentrations between flavored and unflavored cigars. Flavored cigar packaging is colorful, and companies associate flavors with expected colors (i.e., red packs for cherry flavored and purple packs for grape). Since flavored products are particularly appealing to youth, the FDA should consider establishing regulation over cigars, and as they have for cigarettes in the Tobacco Control Act, consider prohibiting characterizing flavors.

Filtered cigars have ventilation and other design features nearly indistinguishable from cigarettes and continue to use descriptors such as “light” and “mild” on packs, which are proxies for ventilation, eliminated from cigarettes in 2010. Our studies found Marlboro cigarettes from 2013 to have recorded ventilations of 15%, 25%, and 48% for Marlboro, Marlboro Gold and Marlboro Silver, respectively, while our 2009U.S. study found mean ventilation (N = 320) to be 29%.³⁸ This variation across the major Marlboro subtypes is consistent with the variation seen for ventilations among cigar packs, and is similar to the variation seen within brand families; another example of similarity of design among filtered cigars and cigarettes. Measured design features such as cigar and tobacco length, rod diameter, filter weight and length, and tobacco moisture were also similar to typical cigarette design characteristics. Many functional similarities exist such that filtered cigars might be best characterized as cigarettes (regardless of weight), and reason for deeming cigars subject to FDA authorities. Because of these many similarities, many cigarette smokers may actually choose to smoke filtered cigars for price reasons, and far more filtered cigar users use them daily than other cigar smokers, bolstering evidence of their substitutability. Recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey exposure data suggest that levels of cotinine and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol are higher in secondary cigar users (that is, current cigars users who formerly smoked) versus primary, though both are lower than cigarette only smokers or dual users.⁴⁷

In examining filtered cigars, we found a number of brand styles that weigh less than would be predicted by their nominal tax classification. All of these differences ran in the direction of classification at a lower tax rate. Obviously, a small-scale study such as this provides only preliminary evidence, but suggests larger scale studies may be needed to examine the extent to which filtered cigar manufacturers may be misclassifying products for tax purposes to maintain price advantage.

This study was limited by the number and varieties of cigars purchased and tested, fundamentally a convenience sample. Cigar paper wrapping could be made up of reconstituted tobacco or leaf material, and in the future, could be analyzed for metal content as an additional potential exposure to the smoker. Future studies with these cigars will hopefully include nicotine content, smoke emissions (e.g., metals, aldehydes, nitrosamines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), and nicotine delivery as well as specific analysis of the wrapping papers, to further observe their characteristics relative to other tobacco products.

The data from this study support that many of these products are very similar to cigarettes in design, calling into question their exclusion from regulation by the FDA. The misconception that filtered cigars are a fundamentally different product than cigarettes is attributed to their varying sizes, different tax classifications, and historical associations. Continued research on this topic should raise awareness of the need for regulation by the FDA with the aim of reducing cigar consumption and initiation, especially among youth.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Table 1 can be found online at http://www.ntr.oxfordjournals.org

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (CA138389).

Declaration of Interests

RJO has consulted for the World Health Organization and Food and Drug Administration on tobacco regulatory issues.