This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David J. Doolittle, PhD; John H. Reynolds, PhD; John H. Robinson, PhD
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co Winston-Salem, NC

JAMA. 1987;257(4):483-484.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

In the recent article by Benowitz et al¹ entitled "Reduced Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Exposure While Smoking Ultralow- but Not Low-Yield Cigarettes," the authors suggest that "tar exposure" may be quantitatively measured as urine mutagenicity. Neither the literature^2-4 nor the authors' own data support this assumption.

The authors state that relative tar exposure was "estimated by urine mutagenicity," simply assuming that urine mutagenicity offers a predictive measure of tar exposure. The validity of this assumption is called into question by the authors' own data. The authors state that "group 1 smokers tended to be heavier smokers, based on higher admission blood levels of cotinine... and plasma thiocyanate." Yet, when the mutagenic activity of the two groups when smoking their usual brand of cigarette is compared, the urine of the heavier smokers is substantially less mutagenic (Table).

Differences in urine mutagenic activity can be due . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?