The tobacco industry is a threat to the environment

From its cultivation to waste management, including the manufacturing and sale of its products, the tobacco industry is characterized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a threat to the environment. Article 18 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (CCLAT) provides: “ In carrying out their obligations under the Convention, Parties agree to have due regard, in respect of the cultivation of tobacco and the manufacture of tobacco products in their respective territories, to the protection of the environment and human health in relation to the environment. ".

In a report prepared for the WHO in 2017 on the environmental damage caused by the tobacco industry[1], the authors concluded that tobacco " poses a significant problem for sustainable global development " and that " Tobacco can no longer be classified only as a health threat - it is a threat to human development as a whole ".

(Translation and adaptation of the document “Tobacco industry and the Environment” by STOP (Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products) produced by the National Committee Against Smoking (CNCT) for Generation Without Tobacco (GST).

To download the file in PDF

Summary

I. Background: The impact of the tobacco industry on the environment 1. Key figures and data on environmental damage caused by the tobacco industry A. The tobacco industry generates significant quantities of waste B. Pollution of soil, coasts and water C. Tobacco cultivation and production II. In what ways does the tobacco industry undermine environmental protection and ecosystem restoration efforts? 1. Through CSR and public relations initiatives that divert attention from the devastating environmental consequences of tobacco 2. By blaming consumers for environmental damage 3. By encouraging tobacco production and opposing diversification strategies, reinforcing the dependence of growers 4. Through front groups 5. By refusing to pay for the environmental damage it causes

Key points

- Tobacco cultivation and processing are among the most environmentally destructive agricultural practices in low- and middle-income countries.

- The life cycle of a cigarette takes a heavy toll on the environment, from tobacco cultivation to the disposal of butts and packaging.

- Grown in monoculture, tobacco plants are vulnerable to many pests and diseases. Therefore, tobacco farmers use large amounts of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that can be dangerous for the farmer as well as the environment.

- The tobacco industry generates significant amounts of waste: 4,500 billion cigarette butts are thrown away each year worldwide. They are the main human-made contaminant in all oceans.

- Through instrumentalized public relations strategies and CSR activities, the tobacco industry distracts attention from the real environmental damage caused by its activity.

- The tobacco industry uses CSR to promote its new products and position itself as a reasonable and legitimate player.

- Although the industry admits that cigarette butts are the most common waste in the world, it shifts the blame onto consumers and refuses to pay for its environmental damage.

- It opposes the diversification of activities towards economically viable alternative crops and restricts tobacco producers to silence through front groups that it imposes in the debate.

The tobacco industry, through studies it conducts, largely underestimates the reality of its environmental impact. For example, estimates by tobacco multinationals on the consumption of firewood used in tobacco production are extremely low, estimating the Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) index at 7.8 kg of wood per kg of tobacco compared to previous estimates of 100 kg to 230 kg of wood/kg of tobacco.[2]. Furthermore, the annual global impact of deforestation, estimated at 5 %, but which could reach 30 % in some countries, has only been revealed in independent studies.[3].

1. Key figures and data on environmental damage caused by the tobacco industry

Tobacco consumption represents a major problem for human health and the environment. It is estimated that 4.5 trillion cigarette butts end up in the environment each year, representing the largest single form of litter in the world. In addition, these wastes generated by cigarettes and other tobacco products can release chemical components and are particularly toxic in the environment, causing pollution of soil, water and air.

A. The tobacco industry generates significant quantities of waste

• 4,500 billion cigarette butts are thrown away each year worldwide, generating nearly 800 million kilos of toxic waste each year[4];
• 2 million tonnes of solid waste from cardboard and packaging[5];
• 40% of the total waste collected in the world's ocean cleanup is cigarette butts[6];
• According to a US study, cigarette butts are the most common type of waste found in shopping areas, sewers, logistics loading platforms, construction sites and recreational areas.[7].

B. Pollution of soil, coasts and water

Cigarette butts, plastic filters and other remains of smoked cigarettes pollute soils, beaches and waterways. Studies show that cigarette waste poses a threat to wildlife.

• Each cigarette contains nearly 4,000 chemical substances, around a hundred of which are toxic and even carcinogenic., such as phenols or heavy metals. These harmful substances mostly end up in the sewers and end up in water treatment networks that are not equipped to treat them.^[8]-[9]-[10];
• Cigarette filters are made from cellulose acetate which only degrades under specific biological circumstances. It takes up to 12 years or more for it to completely degrade;
• Cigarette butts pollute by being thrown on the ground, and by runoff reaching sewers and from there, rivers, beaches and oceans;
• A laboratory study found that cigarette butts can be a source of water contamination by heavy metals, harmful to local organisms; A single cigarette butt can pollute up to 500 liters of water[11];
• Tobacco is among the top ten crops that require the most fertilizer. Chloropicrin, among many pesticides used, is a lung-damaging agent. These pesticides also leach into soil and waterways, contaminating drinking water supplies and food chains.[12]-[13];
• New tobacco and nicotine products contain batteries and other hazardous, non-biodegradable materials[14];

C. Tobacco cultivation and production

In 2011, approximately 4,200,000 hectares of land were devoted to tobacco cultivation, representing less than 1,100,000 hectares of the world’s total arable land; however, in several low- and middle-income countries, the percentage of arable land devoted to tobacco cultivation has recently increased. For example, it has nearly doubled in China, Malawi and Tanzania since the 1960s. Deforestation for tobacco cultivation has many serious environmental consequences, including biodiversity loss, soil erosion and degradation, water pollution and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

• Tobacco cultivation causes 5% of global deforestation (up to 30% of deforestation in tobacco-producing countries)[15];
• Tobacco cultivation causes the loss of 200,000 hectares of woody biomass each year (trunk, bark, branches, twigs of trees, living or dead, and shrubs and undergrowth, excluding stumps and roots)[16] ;
• Land clearing for tobacco production, especially virgin land, leads to deforestation and damages forest reserves[17]
• Current tobacco growing practices are unsustainable. Overexploitation of soils for tobacco cultivation leads to continued deforestation[18]-[19];

• In some countries the tobacco industry does not enforce standards requiring modifications to filters that allow the cigarette to extinguish itself when the user stops puffing, known as reduced ignition propensity (RIP) cigarettes. An estimated 10% of the world's wildfires are caused by improperly extinguished cigarette butts, destroying nearly 40 million hectares each year.[20]-[21];
• Research has shown that tobacco cultivation contributes significantly to deforestation and environmental degradation, particularly in developing countries;
• Land used for subsistence farming in low- and middle-income countries is being sacrificed in favour of tobacco cultivation, which is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as more profitable.
• Farm workers, often without any protection, especially children, are exposed to nicotine toxicity (green tobacco disease), caused by handling tobacco leaves during harvesting and processing.

II. In what ways does the tobacco industry undermine environmental protection and ecosystem restoration efforts?

The tobacco industry is considered one of the most polluting industries in the world.[22] but continues to communicate about its transformation and its new products that it claims are more environmentally friendly. It highlights the distinctions and awards received in connection with sustainable development issues and good practices[23], and affirms that it respects the duty of elementary precaution in environmental matters[24].

Through sustained public relations strategies, the tobacco industry diverts attention from the real environmental damage caused by its activity. Furthermore, through this image communication, it opposes and weakens solutions that are the subject of consensus within the international community. Finally, it shifts the blame onto consumers in order to escape its responsibility.

Through their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, tobacco manufacturers want to establish themselves as responsible companies, legitimate in supporting a virtuous cause. In doing so, they seek to divert attention from the fact that tobacco production is not an activity like any other. Tobacco products provide no health or social benefits; They cause 8 million premature deaths a year worldwide and cost the global economy £1,400 billions each year[25]-[26]. In environmental matters, as has been mentioned, it is the cause of major damage and contributes, through its activity, to global warming by 0.2% (the equivalent of CO2 emissions from countries like Peru or Israel).

Communication associated with manufacturers' CSR activities represents a form of tobacco advertising and it confers undue legitimacy on the tobacco industry.[27]. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) requires that the tobacco industry be strictly regulated by public authorities. This international treaty, which includes environmental issues in the obligations of the Parties, recalls that the interests of the tobacco industry and those of the general interest are irreconcilable and warns of the risks of any form of self-regulation at the initiative of manufacturers. According to the WHO implementation guidelines, based on good practices, are recommended adapted regulation protected from the lobby of this industry, the carrying out of independent studies on health and environmental issues and a diversification of activities on a structural level.[28].

1. Through CSR and public relations initiatives that divert attention from the devastating consequences of tobacco on the environment

Tobacco industry CSR programs in the environmental field[29]-[30] such as tree planting, beach cleaning[31], etc., have been assessed as a means for manufacturers to distract from the real problems[32] related to their activity. Their real responsibility relates in particular to the damage caused by their products throughout the cycle, in particular due to the use of toxic agrochemicals, their pressure concerning the planting of tobacco on fertile land which could have supported foodstuffs, the working conditions imposed on the people working for them in the crops[33]-[34].

While claiming to have complied with environmental regulations in developed countries, tobacco companies have largely shifted manufacturing to low- and middle-income countries where most tobacco is grown and produced, to evade the regulations of more environmentally vigilant countries and to evade their environmental responsibilities as well. [35]-[36]-[37]. Tobacco represents 2 million tons of solid waste per year and environmental damage is exacerbated in low- and middle-income countries due to poor waste management, polluted water systems and deforestation[38]-[39]-[40].

The tobacco industry's communication around these CSR activities and the development of its new products presented as "sustainable" undermine real solutions to protect the environment and restore the ecosystem. The tobacco industry's initiatives do not support any of the policy options commonly adopted at the international level to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco on the environment.

These policies provide, in particular, for the synergistic implementation of Articles 17 (provision of support for economically viable alternative activities) and 18 (protection of the environment and human health) of the WHO Framework Convention. These provisions mainly refer to diversification policies and programmes that are farmer-focused, sustainably financed and protected from tobacco industry interference.[41]-[42]-[43]. The measures taken are intended to combat, among other things, deforestation, land degradation and child labour. For example, the practices of switching from tobacco to tomatoes or bamboo[44] have promoted positive land use, reduced carbon emissions and increased land profitability, while supporting biodiversity.

2. By shifting the blame for environmental damage onto consumers

Tobacco companies admit that cigarette butts are the most common type of litter in the world, with 4 to 5 trillion of them thrown away each year and taking up to 12 years to decompose.[45]-[46]In response, occasional ocean cleanups are funded by manufacturers with a reminder that consumers are responsible for the waste; without taking responsibility for the toxins that continue to be released into the environment as their products decompose.

The tobacco industry's CSR strategy to combat environmental damage focuses on communication operations involving clean-up campaigns or the marketing of its new products, while "raising awareness" of the problem of cigarette butts by providing single-use ashtrays. Through these actions, the industry conveys the message that it is not responsible for this waste but that it acts as a company responsible for the public good. It presents itself as contributing to a solution through the information provided to consumers. This positioning actually aims to hide the fact that the waste is due in particular to the cigarette filter, designed by tobacco companies, without any established health reason.

In addition, experts also call for the improvement and effective enforcement of environmental regulations regarding tobacco. These regulations may refer to the concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR)[47] provided that manufacturers are not considered as partners with the risk of recovery by the latter. Also recommended are the launch of legal proceedings and the use of taxation in order to make manufacturers participate in the costs induced by their products and/or oblige them to compensate the community for the environmental damage caused. Finally, regulations are also recommended to eliminate plastics via single-use filters. In view of all these recommendations, the tobacco industry's scattered CSR initiatives do not meet any of these solutions.

3. By encouraging tobacco production and opposing diversification strategies, reinforcing the dependence of planters

As part of its business, the tobacco industry strives to appear concerned about tobacco growers and associated communities, thus offering so-called CSR initiatives for technical and financial support for agriculture.[48]. However, encouraging tobacco cultivation goes against the very idea of diversification, which represents the sustainable solution to combat the harmful effects of tobacco on health and the environment.[49].

The financial arrangements put in place by the tobacco industry are structured to keep farmers dependent on tobacco farming. Some of the incentives provided by the industry, such as loans, are designed to keep tobacco farmers in the business, particularly through farmer loan and debt mechanisms.[50]-[51].

4. Through front groups

According to international recommendations, the diversification of activities towards economically viable substitute crops must come from the planters and farmers themselves without involving tobacco manufacturers. However, they are very poorly represented. [52]-[53].

This situation is made worse by the fact that tobacco companies have created and funded front groups like the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA) to lobby on their behalf. Under the guise of misrepresenting farmers' socio-economic arguments[54] , they are radically opposed to anti-smoking measures such as tax increases[55]-[56].

Tobacco farmers feel, to a large extent, that they are being silenced by the manufacturers. This is particularly the case in discussions within the tobacco industry-funded Foundation for the Elimination of Child Labour in Tobacco Farming (ECLT).[57]. Additionally, through the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World's Agricultural Transformation Initiative (ATI),[58] financed by Philip Morris, tobacco manufacturers are imposing themselves in discussions on this theme of diversification and economically viable substitute crops. Through this, they manage to assert their interests which, once again, go against the general interest.

5. By refusing to pay for the environmental damage it causes

Article 19 of the WHO Framework Convention calls for accountability of the tobacco industry, including compensation. Yet the tobacco industry is failing to take responsibility for the environmental damage it causes. To do so, it is moving its operations to countries with less stringent or even lax regulations. For example, in response to complaints about air pollution and calls for stricter tobacco regulation in Uganda, British American Tobacco (BAT) relocated its operations to Kenya.[59].

Despite the extent of the environmental damage caused and assessed, no legal action has been taken against manufacturers to date. Article 6 of the WHO FCTC (tariff and fiscal measures to reduce demand for tobacco) recommends that tobacco manufacturers pay for negative externalities through tobacco taxation. In this regard, some countries already impose surcharges and fees in line with the “polluter pays” principle.[60]-[61]. Tobacco companies have opposed any form of tobacco tax increase, including those that would earmark a portion of the revenue to fund tobacco control programs. Tobacco companies have opposed any policies that would have made them responsible for clean-up costs, particularly in the European Union.[62], In France[63], in Ireland[64], in the United Kingdom[65] and in the United States[66].

To download the file in PDF

©Tobacco Free Generation

[1] Tobacco and its environmental impact: an overview. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

[2] Lecours N, Almeida GEG, Abdallah JM, et al. Environmental health impacts of tobacco farming: a review of the literature. Tobacco Control 2012;21:191-196. Available at: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/191

[3] Ibid

[4] Eriksen, M, et al. The Tobacco Atlas: Fifth Edition. American Cancer Society and World Lung Foundation (2015). Available at: https://ncdalliance.org/sites/default/files/resource_files/TA5_2015_WEB.pdf

[5] Waste generated from cartons and cigarette packaging alone generates 2 million tonnes of solid waste annually. These figures are comparable with 1.83 million tonnes of plastic waste generated annually by plastic water bottles.

See: Novotny, Thomas E et al. “The environmental and health impacts of tobacco agriculture, cigarette manufacturing and consumption.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization vol. 93.12 (December 2015): 877-80. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4669730/

[6] Novotny, TE, Slaughter, E. Tobacco Product Waste: An Environmental Approach to Reduce Tobacco Consumption. Curr Envir Health Rpt 1, 208–216 (May 2014). Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40572-014-0016-x

[7] Keep America Beautiful. National Visible Litter Survey and Litter Cost Study. 2009; http://www.kab.org/site/DocServer/Final_KAB_Report_9-18-09.pdf?docID=4561.

[8] Agency USEP. Chemical Report; TRI Explorer; 2015 Dataset. EPA2017.

[9] Moerman JW, Potts GE. Analysis of Metals Leached from Smoked Cigarette Litter. Tobacco Control. 2011;20(Suppl 1):i30–5.

[10] Discussion Paper: The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: An Accelerator for Sustainable Development. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and United Nations Development Program (26 May 2017). Available at: https://www.who.int/fctc/implementation/publications/who-fctc-undp-wntd-2017.pdf

[11] Moerman JW, Potts GE. Analysis of Metals Leached from Smoked Cigarette Litter. Tobacco Control. 2011;20(Suppl 1):i30–5.

[12] Economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing (in relation to Articles 17 and 18 of

the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) Report by the working group. Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (18 July 2014); FCTC/COP/6/12. Available at: https://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_12-en.pdf

[13] Discussion Paper: The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: An Accelerator for Sustainable Development. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and United Nations Development Program (26 May 2017). Available at: https://www.who.int/fctc/implementation/publications/who-fctc-undp-wntd-2017.pdf

[14] Novotny, Thomas E et al. The environmental and health impacts of tobacco agriculture, cigarette manufacturing and consumption. Bulletin of the World Health Organization [online]. 2015, c. 93, n. 12, pp. 877-880. Available from: https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/93/12/15-152744/en/

[15] Discussion Paper: The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: An Accelerator for Sustainable Development. United Nations Development Program (May 2017). Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/fctc/implementation/publications/who-fctc-undp-wntd-2017.pdf

[16] WHO. Tobacco control, a ‘major component’ of environmental protection efforts (11 September 2018). Available at: https://www.who.int/fctc/mediacentre/ news/2018/tobacco-control-a-major-component-of-environmental-protection/en/#:~:text=Estimates%20show%20that%20tobacco%20farming,da%20Costa%20e%20 Silva%20noted.

[17]Lecours N, Almeida GEG, Abdallah JM, et al. Environmental health impacts of tobacco farming: a review of the literature. Tobacco Control (February 2012);21:191-196. Available at: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/191

[18] Mangora, M.M. Ecological impact of tobacco farming in miombo woodlands of Urambo District, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology (December 2005), 43: 385-391. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2005.00603.x?casa_token=iyzW6vIn700AAAAA%3AvLghnpcJRYHivkklpq9Ds1LCPFabAQJBTBGR dzwN2Cxnoj-UjeISFZi-jM4omINy1PbsHIBCRICSeZA

[19] Lecours N, Almeida GEG, Abdallah JM, et al. Environmental health impacts of tobacco farming: a review of the literature. Tobacco Control (February 2012);21:191-196. Available at: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/191

[20] Ibid

[21] Generation Without Tobacco, PIR cigarettes, an essential standard against fires, January 7, 2020, accessed June 10, 2021

[22] Rachel Koning Beals. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Nestlé top '10 worst plastic polluters' of 2020. Market Watch (8 December 2020). Available at: https://www. marketwatch.com/story/coca-cola-pepsico-and-nestle-top-10-worst-plastic-polluters-of-2020-11607465840

[23] FTSE 100 – the 5 highest ESG rated companies. See: Sophie Lund-Yates, Equity Analyst. Hargreaves Lansdown (3 March 2021). Available at: https://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/ftse-100-the-5-highest-esg-rated-companies See also: Philip Morris International Recognized Among World's Top Sustainable Businesses with “Triple A” Score from CDP. BusinessWire India (December 10, 2020). Available at: https://www.businesswireindia.com/philip-morris-international-recognized-among-worlds-top-sustainable-businesses-with-triple-a-score-from-cdp-70732. html

[24] See also: Sustainable supply chain management - Progress in 2019. Philip Morris International. Available at: https://www.pmi.com/integrated-report-2019/operating-with-excellence/sustainable-supply-chain-management---progress-2019

See also: Sustainable Tobacco Program. British American Tobacco. Available at: https://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk medMDAZRHPC.pdf?openelement

9d9kcy.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9QEGXN/$FILE/

See also: Sustainability – Respecting Human Rights. Japan Tobacco. Available at: https://www.jt.com/sustainability/human_rights/index.html

[25] WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization (25 July 2019). License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Available at: https://www. who.int/teams/health-promotion/tobacco-control/who-report-on-the-global-tobacco-epidemic-2019

[26] Goodchild M, Nargis N, Tursan d'Espaignet E. Global economic cost of smoking-attributable diseases. Tobacco Control (2018);27:58-64. Available at: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/27/1/58

[27] Novotny, Thomas E et al. “The environmental and health impacts of tobacco agriculture, cigarette manufacturing and consumption.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization vol. 93.12 (December 2015): 877-80. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4669730/

[28] Policy options and recommendations on economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing (in relation to Articles 17 and 18). Conference of the Parties, sixth session and WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control decision; FCTC/COP6(11) (2014). Available at: https://www.who.int/fctc/treaty_instruments/ Recommendations_Articles_17_18_English.pdf?ua=1%22

[29] Doubtful Campaign Against Stray Butts. The Plastic Soup Foundation (2015) [unofficial translation]. Available at: https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/2015/05/dubieuze-campagne-tegen-zwerfpeuken/

[30] Environmental program VARA gives the tobacco lobby a podium. Tabaknee Netherlands (23 March 2016) [unofficial translation]. Available at: https://www. tabaknee.nl/nieuws/item/847-milieuprogramma-vara-geeft-tabakslobby-podium

[31] KAB funds informational and educational tools on literacy. Its Cigarette Litter Prevention Program includes enforcing litter laws, raising awareness, placing ash receptacles at public places and distributing pocket or portable ashtrays.

See: Cigarette Litter Prevention Program by Keep America Beautiful.

[32] Greenwashing. Tobacco Tactics (December 21, 2020). Available at: https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/greenwashing/

[33] Forthcoming paper 'Towards Health with Justice 2' by World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean.

[34] Instead of exhibiting authentic CSR, the tobacco companies use such programs, especially in the production sector, to ward-off tobacco control regulations.

See: The environmental externalities of tobacco manufacturing: A review of tobacco industry reporting. Hendlin, YH, Bialous, SA Ambio 49, 17–34 (2020). Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01148-3

[35] Maria Zafeiridou, Nicholas S Hopkinson and Nikolaos Voulvoulis. Cigarette Smoking: An Assessment of Tobacco's Global Environmental Footprint Across Its Entire Supply Chain. Approximately. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 15, 8087–8094 (3 July 2018). Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b01533

[36] Hendlin, YH, Bialous, SA The environmental externalities of tobacco manufacturing: A review of tobacco industry reporting. Ambio; 49, 17–34 (2020). Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01148-3

[37] Low- and Middle-income countries tend to have higher smoking rates as a result of targeting by the tobacco industry, and suffer from systemic inequities, making it harder for them to access healthcare, educational tools and cessation resources. In addition, they have unfair waste management, which can worsen from cigarette butt pollution.

See: Tiny but Deadly: Cigarette Butts Are The Most Commonly Polluted Plastic. The Great Global Cleanup. Earth Day (August 28, 2020). Available at: https://www.earthday. org/tiny-but-deadly-cigarette-butts-are-the-most-commonly-polluted-plastic/

[38] Novotny, Thomas E et al. “The environmental and health impacts of tobacco agriculture, cigarette manufacturing and consumption.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization vol. 93.12 (December 2015): 877-80. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4669730/

[39] Sauer, Johannes, and Jumanne M. Abdallah. “Forest diversity, tobacco production and resource management in Tanzania.” Forest Policy and Economics 9.5 (January 2007): 421-439. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1389934105001255?via%3Dihub

[40] Mangora, MM Ecological impact of tobacco farming in miombo woodlands of Urambo District, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology (December 2005), 43: 385-

391. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2005.00603.x?casa_token=iyzW6vIn700AAAAA%3AvLghnpcJRYHivkklpq9Ds1LCPFabAQJB TBGRdzwN2Cxnoj-UjeISFZi-jM4omINy1PbsHIBCRICSeZA

[41] Policy options and recommendations on economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing (in relation to Articles 17 and 18). Conference of the Parties, sixth session and WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control decision; FCTC/COP6(11) (2014). Available at: https://www.who.int/fctc/treaty_instruments/ Recommendations_Articles_17_18_English.pdf?ua=1%22

[42] T. Lee. Country practices in the implementation of Article 17 (Economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing) of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. WHO FCTC (December 2019). Available at: https://www.who.int/fctc/implementation/publications/country-practices-implementation-article-17-WHO-FCTC.PDF

[43] The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: An Accelerator for Sustainable Development. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and United Nations Development Program (26 May 2017). Available at: https://www.who.int/fctc/implementation/publications/who-fctc-undp-wntd-2017.pdf

[44] Bamboo as an Alternative to Tobacco. Inbar News (June 2017). Available at: https://www.inbar.int/bambootobaccoalternative/

[45] Ocean Conservatory, International Coastal Cleanup Report 2015.; United Nations Development Program. Available at: https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2015-Ocean-Conservancy-ICC-Report.pdf

[46] Slaughter, Elli et al. “Toxicity of cigarette butts, and their chemical components, to marine and freshwater fish.” Tobacco control vol. 20 Suppl 1,Suppl_1 (2011): i25-

9. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3088407/#:~:text=Background,in%20cigarettes%20prepared%20for%20consumption.

[47] Curtis, C. et al. “Extended Producer Responsibility and Product Stewardship for Tobacco Product Waste.” International journal of waste resources vol. 4.3 (2014): 157. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4597783/

[48] The Tobacco Industry And Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): An Overview From South East Asia. South East Asia Tobacco Industry Surveillance and Monitoring Program (SIS), SEATCA (June 2011). Available at: https://seatca.org/dmdocuments/CSR%20fact%20sheet.pdf

[49] Policy options and recommendations on economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing (in relation to Articles 17 and 18). Conference of the Parties, sixth session and WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control decision; FCTC/COP6(11) (2014). Available at: https://www.who.int/fctc/treaty_instruments/ Recommendations_Articles_17_18_English.pdf?ua=1%22

[50] Raw M, Regan S, Rigotti NA, McNeill A. A survey of tobacco dependence treatment guidelines in 31 countries. Addiction. 2009;104(7):1243-1250. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736395/

[51] A survey of tobacco dependence treatment guidelines in 31 countries. Raw M, Regan S, Rigotti NA, McNeill A. Addiction. 2009;104(7):1243-1250 (July 2009). Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736395/

[52] Tobacco Industry Front Groups and Activities. South East Asia Tobacco Industry Surveillance and Monitoring Program (SIS), SEATCA (October 2010). Available at: https://seatca.org/dmdocuments/TI%20front%20groups%20fact%20sheet.pdf

[53] Tobacco Industry Front Group: The International Tobacco Growers' Association. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (November 2011). Available at: https://www. tobaccofreekids.org/assets/global/pdfs/en/IW_interference_ITGA_fact_sheet.pdf

[54] Warner, Kenneth. (2000). The Economics of Tobacco: Myths and Realities. Tobacco control. 9. 78-89. 10.1136/tc.9.1.78. Available at: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/9/1/78.full.pdf

[55] Emma Must. ITGA uncovered: Unraveling the spin – the truth behind the claims. PATH Canada Guide (June 2001). Available at: https://healthbridge.ca/images/uploads/library/itgabr.pdf

[56] Sy, D. Tobacco Industry Interference and Tobacco Taxation. B2B#12. July 2020, University of Cape Town. REEP Back to Basics Policy Brief (July 2020). Available at: https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/taxation/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/09/KH_1pager-12_Tobacco-Industry-Interference-Taxation.pdf

[57] “Our voices are being drowned out by false promises of economic prosperity from cigarette makers and leaf buying companies. Smallholder and tenant farmers in Malawi do not share the same views as the tobacco industry when it comes to our future. In the short term, tobacco companies are interested in profit and the addiction to smoking by our people is in direct opposition to the long-term goal of ensuring safe, resilient livelihoods for smallholder and tenant farmers, as well as the vast majority of the people of Malawi.”

See: Tobacco Tenants and Allied Workers Union Of Malawi (TOAWUM)'s letter to the President of the Replublic of Malawi (10 October 2014).

[58] Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. Agricultural Transformation Initiative (ATI)

[59] Hendlin, YH, Bialous, SA The environmental externalities of tobacco manufacturing: A review of tobacco industry reporting. Ambio; 49, 17–34 (2020). Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01148-3

[60] D.Sy. Tobacco Industry Accountability and Liability in the Time of COVID-19. STOP (July 28, 2020). Available at: https://exposetobacco.org/wp-content/uploads/TI_Accountability_Policy_Brief.pdf

[61] Gail Hurley, Dudley Tarlton. Helping Zambia's farmers ditch tobacco. UN Development Program (May 30, 2019). Available at: https://undp.medium.com/helping-zambias-farmers-ditch-tobacco-19384a54323c

[62] Plastic Oceans: MEPs back EU ban on throwaway plastics by 2021. European Parliament News/Press Release (24 October 2018). Available at: https://www.europarl. europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20181018IPR16524/plastic-oceans-meps-back-eu-ban-on-throwaway-plastics-by-2021

[63] Geert De Clercq. France orders tobacco industry: stub out cigarette butt pollution. Reuters (June 14, 2018) Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/instant-article/idINKBN1JA257

[64] Adam Higgins. No Ifs or Butts- Government considers placing cost of cigarette butt cleanup on tobacco industry. The Sun (December 30, 2019). Available at: https://www.thesun.ie/news/4935971/government-cost-cigarette-butt-cleanup-tobacco-industry/

[65] Guy Faulconbridge. UK warns big tobacco firms: You should pay for cleaning up cigarette butts. Reuters (March 30, 2021). Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-tobacco-idUSKBN2BM1BZ

[66] Heidi Sanborn. Commentary: Big Tobacco and e-cigarette companies should help clean up their mess. Call Matters (May 13, 2019). Available at: https://calmatters. org/commentary/2019/05/toxic-tobacco/

National Committee Against Smoking |