Compensatory Puffing
Nicholas Hopkinson
Negotiations to develop a global treaty to end plastic pollution have resumed in Geneva. They follow a resolution by the UN Environment Assembly in 2022 to forge a legally binding international agreement that addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.
Plastics have transformed the way we live – from clothing and packaging to cookware, construction materials and electrical equipment – but producing them is energy intensive and a huge quantity is discarded into the environment every year. The waste breaks down to microplastics (particles smaller than 5mm in diameter) and nanoplastics (less than 1 micron), which contaminate ecosystems as they are ingested into the food chain or inhaled. The burning of plastic waste also releases toxic chemicals and particulates.
Plastic pollution is ubiquitous. It has been identified on mountain summits and at both poles. Across the planet, plastic is also increasingly accumulating in the human body. Post mortem studies show that ever greater quantities of plastic are being deposited in our livers, kidneys and brains over time. The plastics themselves are toxic, and other toxic chemicals are transported on the surface of nanoparticles across blood vessel walls and into cells, interfering with immune function and cellular repair.
Single-use plastics are a clear focus for action to end pollution, and policies are already in place to discourage the use of plastic bags, stirrers and drinking straws. One target for the upcoming treaty must be an end to the production of cigarette filters. The main component is a plastic, cellulose acetate, and trillions of butts are discarded into the environment every year, making cigarette filters the most common single item of plastic pollution. Each filter contains more than twelve thousand strands of cellulose acetate, which break down into microfibres and particles. Toxic chemicals from discarded cigarette butts, including nicotine, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals leach out, polluting rivers and seas and harming vertebrates, invertebrates, micro-organisms and plants.
There is no possible mitigation strategy for plastic waste from tobacco products. Clean up programmes, a form of greenwashing for the tobacco industry, collect only a trivial proportion of the trillions of discarded butts. The material is too toxic to be reused or recycled.
In any case, cigarette filters are a fraudulent product, providing no protection to people who smoke, while giving the false impression that they are doing something to reduce the risk. International survey data suggests that around three-quarters of smokers believe erroneously that filters make smoking safer.
Tobacco industry documents make clear that they knew filters didn’t work in the 1950s, when they introduced them along with ‘low tar’ brands to give false reassurance to smokers who were anxious in the face of growing evidence that smoking causes lung cancer. Some material accumulates in the filter, but smokers tend to adjust the way they inhale so they receive the same effective dose of nicotine. This compensatory puffing may explain the shift in the pattern of lung cancer prevalence, from squamous cell carcinoma in the larger airways to adenocarcinomas deeper in the lung.
Cigarette filters are clearly a problematic single-use plastic – a high-volume item, providing no benefit but instead promoting substantial human harm. Action on smoking, as outlined in the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, has already been identified as an accelerator for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
In October 2024, Santa Cruz, California became the first jurisdiction to ban the sale of filtered cigarettes. It is to be hoped that negotiations in Geneva will deliver global action to eliminate them completely.
Comments
What I find particularly annoying about this article is the absence of any corroborating evidence, the promotion of Santa Cruz as a pathfinder and the vilification of a rapidly declining number of people who smoke. Above all this is nothing but virtue signalling. If cigarette butts are a part of plastics pollution there is no point casting the blame simply on smokers. The green media tries to make us all feel guilty: a few may change their ways but the majority are sick to death of being told what to do. Change can only come from above with a recycling system that actually works, a switch to reusable and most critically international acceptance of a slow and cumbersome process to reduce plastic waste - just like the climate change issue.
"international acceptance of a slow and cumbersome process to reduce plastic waste" - except here we are clearly dealing with an entirely useless product, or element of a product, that could be banned within a year and nobody would suffer except, possibly, the cigarette companies who have deceived you. If we can't do that then there's no hope at all and we should just not bother. And yes, it's the big companies with their anti-littering and recycling campaigns who have always tried to place the guilt on the individual, turning the heads of environmentalists.
thanks for the data on the filters. L Avnon MD