Y1 (tobacco) 4557653 220114885 2008-06-18T10:22:15Z Giggy 2006904 italics for newspapers (in refs) per [[MOS:ITALICS]] (and kudos on the work done on this one... it's improved a lot since it was mentioned you-know-where ;-)) '''Y1''' is a strain of [[tobacco]] that was [[cross-breeding|cross-bred]] by [[Brown & Williamson]] to obtain an unusually high [[nicotine]] content. It became controversial in the 1990s when the United States [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA) used it as evidence that [[tobacco industry|tobacco companies]] were intentionally manipulating the nicotine content of [[cigarette]]s.<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/settlement/interviews/kessler.html|title=Inside the Tobacco Deal - interview with David Kessler|publisher=[[PBS]]|date=2008|accessdate=2008-06-11}}</ref> Y1 has also been investigated by the [[Pan American Health Organization]] (PAHO).<ref name="paho">{{cite web|url=http://www.paho.org/english/ad/sde/ra/Opas_March_2007_PhaseI_report.pdf|title=The Tobacco Industry Documents: What Do They Tell Us About The Industry in Brazil?|publisher=[[Pan American Health Organization]]|date=May 2007|accessdate=2008-06-11}}</ref> ==Development and use== Y1 was developed by tobacco plant researcher James Chaplin,<ref name="obs">{{cite news|title=Tobacco giant bred high-nicotine crop in attempt to keep smokers hooked|last=Pringle|first=Peter|publisher=''[[The Observer]]''|date=1998-02-22}}</ref> working under Dr. [[Jeffrey Wigand]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030504edroddy04p1.asp|title=Smoke Gets In Your Ire|publisher=''[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]''|date=2003-05-04|accessdate=2008-06-11}}</ref> for [[Brown & Williamson]] (then a subsidiary of [[British American Tobacco]]) in the late 1970s.<ref name="future">{{cite web|url=http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/12700/12752/|title=The Future of Y1|publisher=[[University of California, San Francisco]]|date=1990|accessdate=2008-06-11}}</ref> Chaplin, a director of the [[USDA]] Research Laboratory at [[Oxford, North Carolina]],<ref name="chron">{{cite web|url=http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_bw/566628820-8821.html|title=Chronology of Significant Y1 Events|publisher=[[Brown & Williamson]]|date=1995-06-26|accessdate=2008-06-12}}</ref> had described the need for a higher nicotine tobacco plant in the trade publication ''World Tobacco'' in 1977,<ref name="obs"/> and had bred a number of high-nicotine strains based on a hybrid of ''[[Nicotiana tabacum]]'' and ''[[Nicotiana rustica]]'',<ref name="chron"/> but they were weak and would blow over in a strong wind. B&W tested five strains on a farm in [[Wilson, North Carolina|Wilson]], [[North Carolina]] in 1983. Only two grew to maturity; Y2, which "turned black in the drying barn and smelled like old socks," and Y1, which was a success.<ref name="obs"/> B&W brought the plants to [[California]] company [[DNA Plant Technology]] for additional modification, including making the plants [[Cytoplasmic male sterility|male-sterile]], a procedure that prevents competitors from reproducing the strain from seeds.<ref name="obs"/> DNA Plant Technology then smuggled the seeds to a B&W subsidiary in [[Brazil]].<ref name="Seper">{{cite news|last=Seper|first=Jerry|title=Justice uproots 'crazy tobacco'; Prosecutors target high-nicotine leaf|publisher=''[[The Washington Times]]''|date=1998-01-08|page=A4}}</ref> A 1991 industry document analyzing the potential of Y1 reported that it had been successfully grown in Brazil, [[Honduras]] and [[Zimbabwe]] but not [[Venezuela]], and that it was both difficult to [[Tobacco#Curing|cure]] and susceptible to [[Ralstonia solanacearum|Granville wilt]].<ref name="future"/> Brown & Williamson initially attempted to [[patent]] Y1 in the United States in 1991; this was denied. A year later, B&W attempted to patent Y1 in Brazil; this was also denied. An appeal against the US patent denial was rejected in 1994, and later that year all patent applications were withdrawn.<ref name="chron"/> Y1 has a higher nicotine content than conventional [[Tobacco#Curing|flue-cured]] tobacco (6.5% versus 3.2&mdash;3.5%),<ref name="bmj">{{cite web|url=http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/8/4/433|title=The Low Tar Lie|publisher=[[British Medical Journal]]|accessdate=2008-06-11|date=1999}}</ref> but a comparable amount of tar, and does not affect taste or aroma.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/10700/10744/|title=Evaluation of Y1 Tobacco|publisher=[[British American Tobacco]]|date=1991-11-21|accessdate=2008-06-11}}</ref> British American Tobacco (BAT) began to discuss the trialling of Y1 tobacco in 1991,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/11600/11658/otherpages/allpages.html|title=Note for Tobacco Strategy Review Team|publisher=[[British American Tobacco]]|date=November 1991|accessdate=2008-06-11}}</ref> despite it not being approved for use in the United States.<ref name="future"/> One ex-employee of BAT stated that Y1 tobacco started to be widely used in [[cigarette]]s in the US in 1993. Tobacco company executives initially denied intentionally manipulating nicotine levels in cigarettes, but eventually acknowledged blending Y1 into brands including Raleigh, Prime and Summit in order to maintain the flavor and nicotine level of the product while lowering the tar content.<ref name="Raja">{{cite news|last=Mishra|first=Raja|title=Despite pledge, cigarette still include high-nicotine tobacco/Brown & Williamson's CEO said four years ago the practice would stop. Newly released papers also indicate he misled Congress.|publisher=''[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]''|date=1998-03-07|page=A3}}</ref> B&W continued to insist that Y1 was not used to raise nicotine levels, stating "the brands that use Y1 deliver essentially the same nicotine as the products they replaced."<ref name="Rhodes">{{cite news|last=Rhodes|first=Tom|title=Tobacco chiefs who 'lied' to Congress could be charged|publisher=''[[The Times]]''|date=1994-06-24}}</ref> B&W promised in 1994 to stop using Y1, but at that time they had 7 million pounds of inventory, and continued to blend Y1 into their products until 1999.<ref name="Raja"/> Y1 was also shipped to BAT's cigarette plant in [[Southampton]], England and to subsidiaries in Germany and Finland, but whether it was used in commercial production is unclear.<ref name="obs"/> ==Legal controversy== Beginning in 1990, the United States [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA), under Commissioner [[David Aaron Kessler|David Kessler]], conducted an investigation into the tobacco industry, including charges that cigarette manufacturers intentionally manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes to keep their customers addicted. In early 1994, B&W told the FDA that there was an agreement among US cigarette manufacturers not to manipulate nicotine levels in tobacco.<ref name="obs"/> However, FDA investigators discovered a Brazilian patent describing a tobacco plant with an unusually high nicotine content, which led them to B&W and Y1. In testimony before Congress on [[June 21]] [[1994]], Dr. Kessler accused B&W of knowingly manipulating nicotine levels in some of its cigarettes. B&W chairman [[Thomas Sandefur]] rejected the claim, stating that "the brands that use Y1 deliver essentially the same nicotine as the products they replaced" and accusing Dr. Kessler of "grandstanding" for political purposes.<ref name="Rhodes"/> Several members of Congress suggested that this proved that tobacco executives had committed [[perjury]] when they denied knowing smoking was addictive in their April 1994 testimony before Congress.<ref name="Rhodes"/> Y1 became an important piece of evidence in ''[[FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.]]'', a lawsuit in which the FDA attempted to exert its authority under the [[Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]] to regulate tobacco products. Dr. Kessler argued that because Y1 had been manipulated to raise its nicotine level, it was subject to FDA regulation as a pharmacological product, and therefore its importation and sale in the US without the proper FDA approval was illegal.<ref name="pbs"/> The FDA also targeted DNA Plant Technology, charging that it had illegally smuggled the Y1 seeds out of the United States. The Justice Department charged DNA Plant Technology with one [[misdemeanor]] count of [[conspiracy]] to violate the Tobacco Seed Export law, prohibiting the export of tobacco seeds without a permit (a law which was repealed in 1991).<ref name="usa">{{cite web|url=http://www.tobacco.org/resources/documents/980107usavdnap.html|title=United States of America v. DNA Plant Technology Corporation|publisher=US District Court for the District of Columbia|date=1998-01-07|accessdate=2008-06-12}}</ref> <ref name="kleiner">{{cite web|url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721171.900-the-dragnet-closes-in--tobacco-sleuths-have-put-a-biotech-company-in-the-dock.html|title=The dragnet closes in - Tobacco sleuths have put a biotech company in the dock|last=Kleiner|first=Kurt|publisher=''[[New Scientist]]''|date=1998-01-17|accessdate=2008-06-12}}</ref> DNA Plant Technology pled guilty in 1998 and agreed to cooperate with further investigations of B&W.<ref name="Seper"/> However, the Supreme Court eventually ruled in March 2000 that the FDA did not have the authority to regulate tobacco as a drug.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=529&page=120|title=Food and Drug Administration et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. et al|author=[[United States Supreme Court]]|publisher=[[FindLaw]]|date=2000-03-21|accessdate=2008-06-12}}</ref> The discovery of Y1 fueled allegations that B&W intentionally used Y1 tobacco to increase the [[addiction|addictiveness]] of its products, resulting in a number of lawsuits.<ref name="paho"/><ref>{{cite book|title=Smoke & Mirrors: The Canadian Tobacco War|last=Cunningham|first=Rob|url=http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-28826-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html|isbn=155250025X|publisher=International Development Research Centre|year=1996|accessdate=2008-06-11}}</ref> The state of [[Minnesota]] heavily referred to Y1 tobacco in its 1997 trial against the American tobacco industry (''State of Minnesota et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al''),<ref>{{cite web|title=State of Minnesota Plaintiff Trial Exhibits|url=http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/litigation/cases/mn_trial/index.html|date=2005|publisher=Tobacco Resource Center|accessdate=2008-06-11}}</ref> a trial which took place prior to the inception of the [[Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement]] in November 1998.<ref>{{cite news|publisher=''[[Wall Street Journal]]''|title=Forty-Six States Agree to Accept $206 Billion Tobacco Settlement|date=1998-11-23|last=Geyelin|first=Milo}}</ref> ==References== {{reflist|2}} ==Further reading== *{{cite web|title=Prying Open the Door to the Tobacco Industry's Secrets About Nicotine: The Minnesota Tobacco Trial|url=http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/13/1173?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Y1+tobacco&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT|publisher=[[JAMA]]|date=October 1998|accessdate=2008-06-11}} *{{cite book|title=A Question of Intent: A Great American Battle with a Deadly Industry|last=Kessler|first=David A.|author link=David Aaron Kessler|publisher=Public Affairs|year=2001|isbn=1586481215}} *{{cite book|title=Cornered: Big Tobacco At the Bar of Justice|last=Pringle|first=Peter|publisher=Henry Holt & Company|year=1998|isbn=080504292X}} [[Category:Tobacco]]