Jump to content

Talk:Y1 (tobacco)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

Clarification needed

[edit]

The last sentence of the first section reads "Prior to this, BAT exported seed from South America, genetically modified the seed, re-imported and grew the modified plant[1], despite this being illegal at the time.[5]" One exports to and imports from, but I am hesitant to modify as it isn't clear to me from the reference text which way the seeds were actually going. The best I can figure here is that the process was as follows:

  1. BAT imports a seed from South America to the U.S.
  2. The seed is genetically modified (GM) in the U.S.
  3. There is some trial growth in the U.S. of the GM plant
  4. The GM seed is subsequently exported from the U.S. to South America
  5. Plants are grown from the GM seed in South America

Is that correct? Risker (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my take. The Brazilian ministry source seems to corroborate that sequence best (some of the other sources aren't quite as crisp). ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also my take based on the various sources I dug up. I fear I have gone cross-eyed from writing this, and now can't figure out a better way to explain it - feel free to rewrite the sentence to make the sequence more explicit. Neıl 龱 15:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just use Risker's list :) Source every item in it separately. ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try this wording: "Prior to this, BAT exported seedstock from South America to the US, genetically modified the seedstock in the US, producing sterile hybrids, and re-exported the resultant hybrids to South America where farmers grew the modified plant<ref name="paho"/>, despite aspects of this being illegal at the time." ... because you can't genetically modify seeds themselves in situ (at least not yet), you manipulate things during some part of the plant lifecycle to result in modified offspring. In this case they produced offspring seeds that were sterile but had the increased nicotine producing characteristic. Citing all that will be a bit of a chore but that's what I gathered. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No.
  1. Seeds developed in the US, tested in North Carolina. Modified in California to make a male-sterile variety so that competitors could not steal it. (It is not clear to me how the plant was grown in Brazil if the seeds were male-sterile--they would grow but not produce seeds of their own. Perhaps they are propagated by cuttings or rootstock.)
  2. Exported to Brazil at a time when exporting tobacco seeds was illegal.
  3. Y1 tobacco re-imported to the US and UK for blending with other tobaccos to create a low-tar high-nicotine product.

Only #2 was illegal at the time, although #3 might be viewed as immoral and contradicts the tobacco execs testimony to congress about their business practices. Thatcher 19:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I note a minor factual error in the first sentence under the paragraph "Development and Use", which states that "Y1 was developed by tobacco plant researcher James Chaplin,[3] working under Dr. Jeffrey Wigand[4] for Brown & Williamson (then a subsidiary of British American Tobacco) in the late 1970s." According to the Wikipedia article on Jeffrey Wigand, Dr. Wigand did not start working with B&W until January 1989, so any work on Y1 prior to 1989 would not have been done under him. 194.46.228.30 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

New source, via lexis/nexis. The Observer 22 Feb 1998, "Tobacco giant bred high-nicotine crop in attempt to keep smokers hooked: Peter Pringle follows a trail that leads from the fields of North Carolina to city streets" by Peter Pringle. Notes:

  1. Bred by traditional cross-breeding, not genetic modification as that term is currently understood. (We barely knew what DNA was in the 1970s and certainly could not produce plants to order)
  2. Developed by tobacco plant researcher James Chaplin
  3. Chaplin had bred a number of high-nicotine strains but they were weak and would blow over in a strong wind. Cross-bred with other strains to make a sturdier plant still with high nicotine.
  4. Tested on a farm in Wilson, North Carolina.
  5. One of five strains survived (Y1).
  6. A company called DNA Plant Technology modified the plant to be male-sterile, so competitors could not grow plants from seeds. (This is also not "GM" as is currently understood today but is old-line traditional plant breeding technology)
  7. These male sterile seeds somehow made it out of the country.
  8. Until late 1991, it was illegal to export tobacco seeds from the US (not related to modified status or nicotine content, just a blanket prohibition against export)
  9. B&W and BAT used this tobacco in cigarettes to maintain high nicotine levels while reducing tar, despite telling congress they were not.
  10. According to B&W there was an "agreement" among US tobacco companies not to breed high nicotine tobacco.
  11. The only actual illegal part of the story seems to be the export of the seeds. Blending tobaccos from different sources is not illegal, and using high-nicotine tobaccos are not illegal (although it may be immoral and may contradict tobacco execs sworn testimony).

Article needs clean-up and clarification based on this I think. Thatcher 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this - working on it now. Neıl 龱 20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the framing story here is that Y1 is a strain of tobacco with a high nicotine content which became controversial when the FDA used it as evidence that the tobacco companies were intentionally manipulating nicotine levels in cigarettes. Thatcher 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other thing here is that Kessler's crusade to have tobacco treated as a pharmaceutical (the only reason importing Y1 from Brazil without a permit would be illegal) obviously failed. I need to check on sources to verify how this story ended. Thatcher 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Modified tobacco, I think, not any tobacco. I also found this court transcript, which might be useful (CTRL-F search for "Y1"). I will add some bits from this source tomorrow, probably, if nobody else has. Also this, this, this, this. This is a chronology, which may be exceptionally useful. Neıl 龱 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have to be very careful about synthesis, and on relying on biased sources. It is not illegal to try and improve your product; taking the trans-fats out of oreo cookies, for example, is supposedly a good thing. I'm not sure why the B&W docs say that Y1 was not approved for sale in the US, but those were 1991 docs. Was it approved by 1993? I have several more newspaper articles; I'd rather rely on them and use primary docs to flesh out details, rather than synthesizing from primary docs or relying too heavily on the interpretations of heavily biased web sites that have published the primary docs. Thatcher 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great stuff. I think there are actually two competing narratives/framings here... not sure it will be easy to find sources for both, as the first one is more widely accepted at this point, I think.
    • In one, the tobacco companies, by manipulating nic levels upward, were making their product more addictive/dangerous and hooking more people faster.
    • In the other, the tobacco companies, by using something that has more nic for a given tar level, could make "safer" (== exposed to less tar) cigs for people already addicted, by having less tar in the cig. (or requiring less cigs per day to get your fix) ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the stories I have printed out the tobacco companies say they did this to maintain flavor and nicotine while lowering tar. (They don't make health claims related to that.) The story is that this fact was a) at first denied by execs testifying in congress, b) widely seen as an immoral move to keep cigarettes addictive, and c) used by Kessler in his attempt (I should not say crusade) to have cigarettes regulated as pharmaceuticals.
As noted above I am wary of using too many primary sources, I want to read these newspaper articles over more carefully, they are theoretically more balanced. Thatcher 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive save

[edit]

Thanks for clarifying the timeline and steps, Thatcher; what you were able to find on Lexis/Nexis makes a lot more sense. Kudos to you and Neil for an impressive impromptu collaboration to take this article from pretty poor to surprisingly good in only a few hours. By the time you're done, it may well be ready for a GA nomination. (Yes, I know it's a short article, but even still...) --Risker (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think your hook is better, but then the content has changed an awful lot in the intervening hours so that shouldn't be a surprise. Risker (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Thatcher's hook is better; probably because the article is also better (thanks to his hard work). Neıl 龱 01:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fumo louco

[edit]

I saw one document on one of the anti-tobacco web sites Neil linked to that called Y-1 "Fumo louco" or crazy tobacco by the Brazilian farmers, allegedly because you could get a buzz on the smell in the drying shed. Just to note that I found some AP articles by Todd Lewan that discuss this, including " Crazy Tobacco Changes Brazil Town" Dec 20, 1997. For one thing, the article does not mention the buzz, it says its called crazy tobacco because its bigger, taller and matures faster. Farmers who planned their lives (holidays, weddings etc) around the tobacco growing season suddenly found the new stuff grew so fast that it threw off their plans. The article also does not name Y1 specifically and says, Some of these lines were hard to cure, hard to cultivate. They were wild tobaccos. Some were especially high in nicotine. so it sounds like maybe this area is used for many test crops of which Y-1 was probably one. So I'm not confident in including that little tidbit at this time. Thatcher 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, it does talk about the buzz, but still not about Y1 by name, some quotes:


  • Even out in the field, I had a hard time approaching the stuff without getting dizzy because of the plant's high nicotine content, Schneider said. That smell was heavy, felt cold in my lungs. It made the back of my neck crawl.
  • Right around that time, 1990, the company had a number of new tobacco lines coming out that caused a fuss, Some of these lines were hard to cure, hard to cultivate. They were wild tobaccos. Some were especially high in nicotine.
  • But the new tobacco came up a lot quicker, flowering a lot sooner than the old types. "That started throwing off a lot of folks," said Arny de Oliveira, who has cultivated tobacco 20 of his 36 years. "I mean, people would have plans for other crops, family matters and the like, and then all of a sudden there you were, looking at a harvest." Word started getting around that the new tobacco was louco. Crazy. Crazy tobacco.

Thatcher 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising

[edit]

This article is linked to in very few others. I went looking and was surprised to see how poor the articles on tobacco litigation are. See for example Tobacco litigation and FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.. That could be someone's next project. (Probably not mine, though, its too sprawling. I like compact things I can hammer out in a couple of days. Thatcher 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly mine. I've just ordered Kessler's "A Question of Intent" (yes, I order books based on what I've been editing, sometimes, if they look interesting) which would be a useful help. It'll certainly help with this article. Neıl 龱 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Cornered:Big Tobacco at the Bar of Justice by Peter Pringle and Brenden Murphy. I have a review of it that looks good. Pringle is an investigative reporter whoseObserver story we now cite. Thatcher 02:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also on the tobacco litigation, see The New York Times, September 26, 1999, "How Inquiry Into Tobacco Lost Its Steam" BYLINE: By BARRY MEIER with DAVID JOHNSTON. Thatcher 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha

[edit]

While starting work on an article on the DNA Plant Technology Corp (User:Neil/DNAP), I found a lot of stuff - searching for "Y-1" rather than Y1 yields a bonanza: [1], [2]. Neıl 龱 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think New Scientist is wrong about the date. The congressional hearing where Kessler discussed Y1 was in June 1994. I've also quoted the figure of 7 million pounds in inventory, so that does not square with 1.7 million kg. I can possibly get a transcript of Kessler's testimony. Thatcher 14:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it! I knew that, and I set up a redirect from Y-1 (tobacco) to Y1 (tobacco) but forgot to mention that Y-1 is used, here on the talk. Glad you guys caught it! ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.16.5 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Y1_(tobacco)&oldid=1195404616"