Project XA

This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation.

Project XA was a long-term research project by Liggett to make a safer cigarette. Liggett spent twelve years and $15 million developing a cigarette that its research showed to be significantly less carcinogenic than its conventional cigarettes. Project XA, also known as the Palladium cigarette, incorporated palladium nitrate into tobacco, which made combustion of the tobacco more thorough and complete, resulting in smoke containing less harmful byproducts.

The project was based on the fact that palladium nitrate acts as a catalyst, causing more complete combustion of the byproducts of pyrolysis (burning). The theory is similar to the theory behind palladium spark plugs, which cause gasoline to burn more efficiently. Palladium nitrate was added to cigarette tobacco, which caused more complete destruction of the dangerous byproducts in cigarette smoke.

The project progressed through more than 20 years of R&D, to the point where Liggett started seeking out sources of palladium and stockpiling enough of it to begin commercial production of the cigarettes.

Liggett killed the entire project, though, before marketing the XA cigarette to consumers. According to the United States Proposed Findings of Fact in the case United States v. Philip Morris et al (filed in 1999), Defendant Brown &Willianson threatened Liggett's "very existence" if it marketed the cigarette. B&W also threatened to freeze Liggett out of joint defense agreements and exclude Liggett from the Tobacco Institute. The threat, delivered through B&W's representative on the Tobacco Institute Committee of Counsel, was based on B&W's fear that selling the XA cigarette would be an admission against the interest of all Cigarette Company Defendant. Later, in the late 1980s, R.J. Reynolds told the U.S.FDA that it would not make health-related marketing claims about its Premier cigarette because the tobacco industry maintained that "conventional cigarettes are not unsafe, and that it would never reverse this position." Promoting one cigarette ae "safer" than others "would be an indictment of the tobaceo industry and its long standing position that conventional cigarettes are not unsafe."[1] <tdo>search_term=Project XA</tdo>