Banning the filter is the only way to reduce cigarette butt pollution

March 6, 2023

Par: National Committee Against Smoking

Dernière mise à jour: August 6, 2024

Temps de lecture: 13 minutes

Interdire le filtre est le seul moyen pour réduire la pollution liée aux mégots

According to a commissioned study[1] According to Dutch Environment Minister Vivianne Heijnen, only a total ban on cigarette filters would solve the problem of cigarette butt pollution. Ms Heijnen's goal is to reduce the amount of discarded filters by 70 % by 2026 in the Netherlands. According to the results of the study, a reduction of only 15 % could be achieved with the measures currently in place or new measures being considered, such as national awareness campaigns for smokers or the deployment of smoke-free areas. More and more countries around the world are also positioning themselves in favour of a filter ban.

Five possible measures were considered in this study, but none achieve the proposed reduction target of 70 % by 2026. Existing policies lead to a maximum reduction of around 15% by 2026, and new measures cannot be introduced before 2026, or would not result in a sufficient reduction rate.

The environmental impact of cigarette butts

There is little quantitative data on the number of cigarette filters that end up in nature in the Netherlands, and estimates vary. The range varies between 0.2 and 7.1 billion cigarette butts per year, depending on the study.

Worldwide, an estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette filters out of the 5.5 trillion cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry each year end up being discarded in nature. These filters, which contain cellulose acetate, take up to 12 years to decompose. Each filter can pollute up to 500 liters of water. All of these filters end up in aquatic and urban environments and harm marine organisms, mammals, birds and plants. Approximately 40% of the total waste collected during the global ocean cleanup is cigarette butts.

Cigarette butts are highly toxic waste and there is currently no sustainable recycling solution for this waste: even when they are thrown in trash cans, cigarette butts are incinerated. In addition, the presence of filters does not reduce the risks for smokers. They were introduced by manufacturers mainly for marketing purposes, in response to consumers' concerns about their health. In addition, by partially masking the harshness of the products, filters make it easier to start smoking.

The measures currently in place in the Netherlands are insufficient

Two strategies exist in the country to reduce waste related to tobacco consumption. First, direct environmental measures such as the extended producer responsibility (EPR) channels applied to the tobacco industry, in place since 2023 in the Netherlands. According to the "polluter pays" principle, producers are thus required to finance an eco-organization. In this regard, the authors of the study recall that in the area of tobacco products, it is necessary to exclude tobacco manufacturers from the governance of the system, in accordance with the obligations arising from the international treaty, the WHO Framework Convention for the fight against tobacco which prohibits any interference by the tobacco industry in public policies.

At the beginning of July 2021, the Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUP) was transposed in the Netherlands. Cigarette filters are among the single-use plastics covered by the text. Tobacco manufacturers are now required to place an environmental warning on the packaging to indicate that the product contains plastic, that it poses a risk to the environment and that it should be thrown in the trash.

The authors of the study doubt the effectiveness of these measures alone, particularly under their current conditions of implementation.

Regarding environmental warnings on packets, in 2020, the European Commission commissioned a study on the effectiveness of different types of environmental warnings on cigarette packets. This study showed that among the selected warnings, there was no significant difference between groups of people exposed to a packet with a warning compared to a group of people not exposed.

Furthermore, if the tobacco industry is responsible for the eco-organization as is the case in France with Alcome[2], the device is not only contrary to the provisions of the treaty ratified by the country, but also appears counterproductive as such. The interest of the tobacco industry is, in fact, in no way to reduce the number of waste. If it is given the opportunity to communicate, its strategy will be to improve its image through so-called socially responsible corporate communication, assimilated to advertising, and likely to strengthen its weight and its activity and thereby the major problem of waste from its products.

The second strategy to reduce tobacco-related waste is the implementation of tobacco control policies that aim to reduce consumption and therefore its waste. These measures in place in the Netherlands stem from the National Prevention Agreement (2018), one of whose objectives is to achieve a tobacco-free generation by 2040.

Among the public health measures is an increase in taxes on tobacco products. In the Netherlands, prices of tobacco products will be increased gradually from 2023, to reach 10 euros per pack in 2024, thanks to further increases in excise duties.

The second measure is the reduction in the number of points of sale in the coming years. In 2022, all vending machines have been removed, and the sale of cigarettes has been banned in the hospitality sector. In 2023, the online sale of tobacco will be banned, and in 2024, tobacco products will no longer be able to be sold in supermarkets. The measures planned until 2024 will result in the removal of around 12,000 points of sale out of the current 16,000.

The National Institute of Public Health and the Environment has conducted an analysis of the expected impact of these measures. This analysis shows an estimated decrease in the number of smokers of 14.8% between 2022 and 2026. However, reducing the prevalence of smoking does not have a clear effect on the number of cigarette butts thrown into nature. Indeed, the extent of this relationship depends on several factors. It is also necessary to take into account smokers' consumption and the distribution of cigarette butts thrown "correctly" and the others. The authors therefore consider that a decrease of approximately 14.8% in the number of cigarette butts in nature could at most be achieved. Anti-smoking measures are therefore effective in reducing the number of cigarette butts but they would not, on their own, make it possible to achieve the target of 70 % set by the Minister of the Environment.

A set of new measures envisaged to reduce pollution linked to filters

In this study, an inventory was made of possible measures that lead to a reduction in cigarette butt pollution. The selection concerned strictly environmental measures that could be implemented by the Dutch government. They therefore did not include tobacco control measures that would also reduce tobacco-related waste through a reduction in consumption. For each strict environmental measure, the effectiveness, cost and legal feasibility were examined.

The following measures were included in this study:

  • A deposit system on filters;
  • A ban on smoking on beaches;
  • Local approaches during public events (awareness raising, distribution of ashtrays, smoke-free spaces and events);
  • A public awareness campaign emanating from the government;
  • The filter ban.

According to the authors of the study, a deposit system is theoretically possible, but it is currently not put into practice anywhere. Consumer studies show that only a limited proportion of smokers (28 %) declare that they intend to keep and return the filters. The major concerns related to this system are the logistical considerations for the deposit points which require equipment, the respect of hygienic conditions for storage. In addition, the system potentially gives the tobacco industry a role that manufacturers could use to promote themselves and improve their image with the more or less long-term deleterious and counterproductive consequences. The authors also fear that if the collection of cigarette butts is carried out in tobacco sales points, the money from the deposits will maintain the smoker's consumption and dissuade him from quitting.

One possible option is to implement specific local policies, by establishing smoke-free areas: beaches, public places, streets, etc. or smoke-free events: music festivals, fairs, etc.

Globally, more and more countries are implementing smoke-free spaces in outdoor areas to reduce littering. Driven by a national programme for a Tobacco-Free Generation by 2040, the Netherlands has seen a surge in smoke-free spaces in the last two years. To date, 98 % Dutch municipalities (344 out of 352) have multiple smoke-free spaces, although they were previously not particularly involved in tobacco control.[3]. These smoke-free areas have been primarily deployed around schools, children's playgrounds and sports facilities, but also in bus shelters and municipal buildings. The municipality of Noordwijk has currently launched a pilot project for smoke-free areas on the beach. The results of the effectiveness of such a smoke-free area are expected in autumn 2023. Smoking will also soon be banned on beaches along the North Sea and Wadden Sea coasts in the Netherlands. An effective smoking ban on the beach should lead to a substantial reduction in filters found in the sand.

The authors point out that locally specific approaches can have positive impacts at the national level.

We find this example in France with the system Free city without tobacco which intends to give a more structured boost to this movement of implementing real local policies to combat smoking. Led by the Grand Est sans tabac (GEST) association and the National Committee against Smoking (CNCT), this project is explicitly situated in the perspective of a Tobacco-Free Generation in France by 2032. It proposes a set of measures to reduce the consumption of tobacco and nicotine products, protect the environment and make cities more pleasant.

The ban on filters, the only truly effective measure but difficult to implement

As for the outright ban on filters, no country or region in the world has introduced this provision so far. There is therefore no data from the experience of other countries to assess and measure the behaviour of smokers in the event of a ban. The authors of this study agree, however, that banning filters would be the only effective way to substantially reduce the presence of this toxic waste, particularly in nature.

The legal feasibility of a ban in the Netherlands has been studied by lawyers from the Ministry of Health. Two possible paths have been identified to consider such a ban: from the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), or from the Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUP). According to them, from a legal point of view, the European approach is the most appropriate and the next opportunity where such a ban at European level could be considered is the revision of the SUP Directive in 2026.

Filter ban, a measure taken internationally

In 2022, California proposed a bill aimed at banning single-use vaping products as well as cigarette filters, which ended in failure for several reasons:

  • Despite the absence of data demonstrating the protective effect of filters, the belief that they would reduce risks has not allowed for the mobilization of stakeholders involved in the health sector;
  • Furthermore, the ban on single-use products was seen as secondary to the goal of achieving a tobacco-free generation within the next ten years;
  • Finally, the tobacco industry deployed significant lobbying resources to block the introduction of the bill.

On March 2, 2022, 175 member countries of the United Nations Environment Council (UNEC) adopted a resolution to negotiate an international agreement to end plastic pollution by the end of 2024. UNEA Resolution 5/14 mandated an open-ended working group to conduct preparatory work ahead of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) negotiations. The first session of the INC aims to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. France will host the second session of negotiations on the international treaty on plastic pollution in spring 2023.

Several tobacco control groups around the world have been engaged in the negotiations to ensure that cigarette filters are included in any list of single-use plastics to be banned. In addition, in line with Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC, these groups have also lobbied to ensure that the tobacco industry and other private actors with an inherent conflict of interest are not represented as “stakeholders” in the negotiations.

In France, the National Committee against Smoking (CNCT), a member of the Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance (STPA), has already positioned itself in favour of banning filters and is calling on the public authorities to act in this direction.[4].

Keywords: filters, ban, cigarette butts, pollution, environment, Netherlands

©Tobacco Free Generation

AE


[1] Report, Reduce sigarettenfilters in the het zwerfafval, Studies on the problem and analysis of the possible results, CE Delft for the Ministry of Ecology, December 2022, accessed February 28, 2023

[2] Generation without tobacco, Alcome: why the eco-organization for the fight against cigarette butts is problematic, published on March 17, 2022, consulted on February 28, 2023

[3] Generation without tobacco, Success of tobacco-free spaces in the Netherlands, published on November 23, 2022, consulted on February 28, 2023

[4] CNCT, The CNCT is committed alongside the Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance to put an end to plastic pollutione, published February 23, 2023, accessed February 28, 2023

National Committee Against Smoking |

Ces décryptages peuvent aussi vous intéresser