THE SEARCH for man-made materials that could substitute, wholly or in part, for the tobacco in cigarettes has been going on for almost two decades, but only in the last few years have such products commanded serious attention.1-3
The reasons for this interest are twofold: these products, at least in their latest formulations, promise to reduce the toxic effects of smoke and offer the allure of potential economic advantage over the use of natural tobacco.
At present, however, the manufacturing of artificial tobacco substitutes (ATS) being offered commercially is sufficiently expensive to push their price range into the upper quartile of international tobacco prices (US patent 3,545,448; UK patents 1,113,979 and 1,244,441; Canadian patents 895,112 and 931,851). Consequently, a more evident advantage is that ATS can be supplied to suit a particular production schedule and, therefore, do not require the expensive storage procedures of tobacco. Furthermore, ATS
Gori GB. Artificial Tobacco Substitutes. JAMA. 1975;234(5):489–490. doi:10.1001/jama.1975.03260180029017