Department of Economic and Health Policy Research, American Cancer Society, Inc., 250 Williams St, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA.
Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, 1518 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
J Public Health Policy. 2018 May;39(2):131-142. doi: 10.1057/s41271-018-0124-1.
This paper investigates the fate of the Capillary Aerosol Generator (CAG), a nicotine aerosol device resembling modern e-cigarettes, developed by Philip Morris (PM) in 1994. A debate has emerged as to why this product never made it to market. In Donovan et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., the sides presented opposing views in their arguments. To explore the reasons for CAG abandonment, we searched the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents database for key terms including 'Capillary Aerosol,' 'Project LEAP' (the project under which the CAG was housed), and 'Tony Howell' (CAG inventor). The results show that regulatory, legal, and political concerns deterred CAG development. A lack of progress even after these concerns had abated seems to reveal a larger reluctance to innovate non-tobacco products-perhaps due to concerns about competing against tobacco cigarettes. We also explored additional explanations such as technological barriers and lack of consumer interest.
本文探讨了 1994 年菲利普莫里斯（Philip Morris）公司开发的一种类似现代电子烟的尼古丁气溶胶装置——毛细气溶胶发生器（CAG）的命运。人们对这款产品为何未能推向市场产生了争议。在多诺万等人诉菲利普莫里斯美国公司一案中，双方在辩论中提出了相反的观点。为了探究 CAG 被放弃的原因，我们在真相烟草行业文件数据库中搜索了包括“毛细气溶胶”、“LEAP 计划”（CAG 所在的项目）和“托尼·豪厄尔”（CAG 的发明者）等关键词。结果表明，监管、法律和政治方面的担忧阻碍了 CAG 的发展。即使在这些担忧消除后，项目也没有取得进展，这似乎表明他们更不愿意创新非烟草产品——也许是因为担心与烟草香烟竞争。我们还探讨了其他一些解释，如技术障碍和消费者缺乏兴趣。
