Perceptions About the Impact of Cigarette Filters on the Environment and Smoking-Related Behaviors

Protecting public health and the environment: towards a general ban on cellulose acetate cigarette filters in the European Union

After the establishment of a causal relationship between tobacco use and cancer in the 1950s, cellulose acetate filters were introduced with the claim to reduce the adverse health impact of unfiltered cigarettes. Often perceived to be more pleasant and healthy, filters encouraged smoking. However, filtered cigarettes are more deeply inhaled to obtain the same nicotine demand while altered combustion releases more tobacco-specific nitrosamines. The increasing use of cigarette filter ventilation is associated with a sharp rise in lung adenocarcinomas in recent decades. While not preventing adverse health effects, a global environmental problem has been created due to the non-biodegradable filter litter, causing ecotoxicological effects and the spread of microplastics. Recently, the Belgian Superior Health Council advised policymakers to ban cigarette filters as single-use plastics at both national and European levels. This article outlines the arguments used to justify this plea (human health and environment), the expected effects of a filter ban, as well as the public reception and reactions of the tobacco industry. The specific context of the European Union is discussed including the revision of the Single-Use Plastics Directive, affording a new opportunity to ban plastic filters. This perspective article aims to fuel the momentum and cooperation among member states for this purpose.

Switching people who smoke to unfiltered cigarettes: perceptions, addiction and behavioural effects in a cross-over randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Behavioural research is needed to inform a ban on sales of filtered cigarettes that could reduce plastic waste due to discarded filters. This study reports on differences in perceptions, nicotine dependence and behaviour among participants in a cross-over randomised trial of filtered compared with unfiltered cigarettes.

METHOD

This proof-of-concept study involved 43 people who smoke filtered cigarettes (41.9% women, mean age 36.7 years). Participants were provided 2 weeks' supply of filtered cigarettes, 2 weeks of the same brand of unfiltered cigarettes and randomly assigned to starting conditions. Measures included the Modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire; single-item cigarette perception questions; Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence; 7-day cigarette consumption, urinary cotinine and intention to quit. Analyses included linear and ordinal repeated measures mixed-effects models and paired t-tests.

RESULTS

Filtered cigarettes were perceived as better tasting, more satisfying, more enjoyable, less aversive, less harsh, less potent and less negatively reinforcing than unfiltered cigarettes. Filtered cigarettes were smoked at a higher rate during the trial than unfiltered cigarettes (p<0.05). There was no difference in cotinine, dependence or intention to quit between filtered versus unfiltered cigarette conditions (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

People who smoke perceived unfiltered cigarettes as having greater nicotine effects and less desirable sensory effects than filtered cigarettes, and they smoked fewer of these during the trial. Although cotinine, dependence and intention to quit were similar for smoking unfiltered and filtered cigarettes in this small trial, results suggest that banning the sale of filtered cigarettes might make smoking less attractive overall to people who smoke.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03749876.

Illusion of filtration: Evidence from tobacco industry documents

INTRODUCTION

We compared the design features of popular filtered and non-filtered cigarettes sold in the United States between 1960 and 1990, to assess the relationship between cigarette filter and tobacco weight.

METHODS

We analyzed data on the design features of six popular filtered and three non-filtered cigarette brands sold in the US including the weight of tobacco used provided in the Cigarette Information Reports produced by Philip Morris Tobacco Company between 1960 and 1990. We also collected information on other design features such as stick length and circumference, the percentage of reconstituted tobacco in the blend, among other product parameters. We used joinpoint regression to test for trends in outcome variables for each brand assessed between 1960 and 1990.

RESULTS

In all years, filtered cigarettes had less tobacco by weight compared to non-filtered cigarettes. The lower average weight of tobacco found in filtered cigarettes appears to be due to a combination of factors including stick and filter length, and the amount of reconstituted tobacco in the blend. The average percentages of total alkaloids and expanded tobacco increased over time but were similar between filtered and non-filtered brands.

CONCLUSIONS

While various design features of popular filtered and non-filtered brands changed between 1960 and 1990, the observed reduction in tobacco weight among filtered brands was perhaps the most salient in terms of disease risk. Less tobacco in a filtered cigarette calls into question the presumed exclusive role of cigarette filter tips in the reduced health risks of filtered versus non-filtered cigarette smoking.

Cellulose acetate cigarette filter is hazardous to human health

The World No Tobacco Day 2022 theme emphasised tobacco's adverse environmental effects, including through agriculture, manufacturing, distribution, use and the disposal of tobacco product waste. A main concern regarding this toxic waste is the cigarette filter, which is attached to nearly all commercial cigarettes and is predominantly made from a plant-based plastic (cellulose acetate). Laboratory studies have demonstrated the chemical toxicity of discarded cigarette butts, and there is growing public concern regarding environmental plastic pollution resulting from single-use cellulose acetate filters. Important considerations are whether the filter has any protective role against the harms of smoking and whether it should be regulated as a plastic environmental pollutant. There is persistent misunderstanding among smokers and policy makers about the implied value of the cigarette filter. The cellulose acetate filter is simply a marketing tool that encourages smoking initiation and reduces intentions to quit smoking. This is because it makes smoking easier and implies added safety through the presumed filtration of inhaled smoke. The sale of filtered cigarettes should be prohibited to protect public health and the environment.

Cigarette: an unsung anthropogenic evil in the environment

The world's population is growing steadily, and this trend is mirrored by a sharp rise in the number of people who smoke cigarettes. Instead of properly disposing of their cigarette waste, most people simply toss them aside, leading to serious environmental consequences. According to previous statistics, in 2012 alone, 6.25 trillion cigarettes were consumed by 967 million chain smokers. Past studies have shown that up to 30% of global litter is made up of cigarette waste. These discarded cigarette butts are non-biodegradable and contain over 7000 toxicants such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, nitrosamine ketone, N-Nitrosonornicotine, nicotine, formaldehyde, acrolein, ammonia, aniline, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and various heavy metals. These toxicants have a negative impact on the habitats of wildlife and can cause serious health problems such as cancer, respiratory disorders, cardiac issues, and sexual dysfunction. Although it is still unclear how littered cigarettes affect plant growth, germination, and development, it is clear that they have the potential to harm plant health. Just like single-use plastic, trashed cigarette butts are a critical new rising form of pollution that requires scientific attention for effective recycling and disposal management. It is important to properly dispose of cigarette waste to protect the environment and wildlife, as well as to prevent harm to human health.

The Development of a Web-Based Tobacco Tracker Tool to Crowdsource Campus Environmental Reports for Smoke and Tobacco-Free College Policies: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

College campuses in the United States have begun implementing smoke and tobacco-free policies to discourage the use of tobacco. Smoke and tobacco-free policies, however, are contingent upon effective policy enforcement.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop an empirically derived web-based tracking tool (Tracker) for crowdsourcing campus environmental reports of tobacco use and waste to support smoke and tobacco-free college policies.

METHODS

An exploratory sequential mixed methods approach was utilized to inform the development and evaluation of Tracker. In October 2018, three focus groups across 2 California universities were conducted and themes were analyzed, guiding Tracker development. After 1 year of implementation, users were asked in April 2020 to complete a survey about their experience.

RESULTS

In the focus groups, two major themes emerged: barriers and facilitators to tool utilization. Further Tracker development was guided by focus group input to address these barriers (eg, information, policing, and logistical concerns) and facilitators (eg, environmental motivators and positive reinforcement). Amongst 1163 Tracker reports, those who completed the user survey (n=316) reported that the top motivations for using the tool had been having a cleaner environment (212/316, 79%) and health concerns (185/316, 69%).

CONCLUSIONS

Environmental concerns, a motivator that emerged in focus groups, shaped Tracker's development and was cited by the majority of users surveyed as a top motivator for utilization.

Smoked cigarette butts: Unignorable source for environmental microplastic fibers

The pollution of microplastics and their potential environmental hazards have attracted considerable attention of the public. Cigarette butts, composed of cellulose acetate, are one of the most common plastic pollutants in the environment. Of all the litter that is discarded at will, cigarette butts are the most acceptable. Cigarette butts are dangerous pieces of plastic, but are usually not handled properly and consist of more than 15,000 detachable strands of plastic fiber. Discarded cigarette butts may be carried into rivers and lakes, and finally into the ocean. The plastic fibers will continuously release microplastic fibers into the environment. About 300,000 tons of potential microplastic fibers may enter the aquatic environment from this source per annum. Additionally, toxic substances, such as nicotine, carcinogenic tar, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, have strong toxic effect, which will cause serious damage to aquatic organisms. However, the mechanism and rate of microplastic fibers release from smoked cigarette butts and the joint toxicity of microplastic fibers and toxic pollutants to aquatic organisms are still in the initial stage. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the mechanism of cigarette butts releasing microplastic fibers, the potential impact on the environment and possible measures to reduce the impacts of cigarette butt litter. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the potential sources of smoked cigarette butts as environmental fiber microplastics and the potential ecological effects of the released microplastic fibers on the ecosystem. In addition, some ways which could help to tackle problem of smoked cigarette butts pollution have also been proposed.