[Un article de The Conversation écrit par Jonathan Livingstone-Banks – Lecturer & Senior Researcher in Evidence-Based Healthcare, University of Oxford & Jaimie Hartmann-Boyce – Assistant Professor of Health Promotion and Policy, UMass Amherst]
More than seventy years later, we know that filters do not reduce risks. In reality, they can even worsen certain risks. By softening smoke and facilitating its deep inhalation, filters can, in fact, increase the risk of lung cancer. In the early 1950s, a very popular type of filter even contained asbestos. Despite this, most of today's smokers continue to believe that the filters make cigarettes safer.
Beyond health risks, cigarette filters are also a disaster for the environment. They are made of plastic called “cellulose acetate”. They do not degrade naturally, but disintegrate in microplasticism which pollute our rivers and our oceans.
And there are many. Cigarette butts are the most widespread waste on the planet. It is estimated that 4.5 billions (4,500 billion) are thrown each year, and around 800,000 tonnes of this plastic waste is found in the environment annually. While, around the world, many legislation has restricted the use of other single -use plastics, such as bottles, bags and straws, cigarette filters have largely escaped this regulation.
Under pressure, some tobacco companies now market so -called “biodegradable” filters, made from new materials. But this is a false solution. Even these filters have no advantage for health and continue to pollute ecosystems. They serve the interests of the tobacco industry, by creating an illusion of environmental responsibility while maintaining the false perception that the filters themselves are harmless or necessary.
Prohibit to dispel illusions
Cigarette filters are thus one of the most harmful -based single -use plastics still in circulation in the world. And unlike many other pollutants, they do not fulfill any essential function. However, the framework agreement of the World Health Organization (WHO) for the fight againstbacco already advises against measures that maintain the idea of a risk reduction, and cigarette filters clearly enter this category.
The ban on cigarette filters would dispel the illusion of safety they convey. It could also reduce the prevalence of smoking, as uncommoned cigarettes are generally older and less pleasant to taste. Such a measure, finally, would also eliminate one of the most common sources of plastic pollution, thus avoiding the production of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of plastic waste each year.
If we can ban plastic straws, as the member countries of the European Union have done so in 2021, we can certainly prohibit cigarette filters. In fact, it has already been done. The County of Santa Cruz (California) voted in favor of the ban on cigarette filters in 2024.
It is high time to follow up on it, while plastic pollution is in the mind of everyone, after the holding last August (Switzerland), of a summit in which world leaders tried to negotiate what could become the first legally binding treaty of the United Nations dealing with plastic pollution, production to elimination. The draft treaty is a rare opportunity to tackle the deep causes of plastic waste worldwide.
The current Treaty project mentions cigarette filters. They are mentioned in Annex X, a category which concerns voluntary or compulsory restrictions, which leaves the possibility of continuing to use them, including so -called “ecological” filters, and does not impose their total elimination. If all the cigarette filters (and not only those in plastic) were listed in Annex Y, they would be subject to a total and compulsory ban.
The negotiations of the month of August did not lead to a final agreement, and they will continue on a later date, which means that there is still time to act.
Health and environment defense groups, including the World Health Organization, Action On Smoking and Health and Stop Tobacco Alliance Pollution, claim firm commitments in terms of cigarette filters. What could be firmer than a pure and simple ban?
Admittedly, the prohibition of filters will not end smoking overnight and will not eliminate plastic pollution. But it would be a significant and symbolic measure to align environmental and health objectives. It would make it possible to withdraw from the market a harmful and deceptive product, to reduce pollution and to make cigarettes more honest.
With an unwavering passion for local news, Christopher leads our editorial team with integrity and dedication. With over 20 years’ experience, he is the backbone of Wouldsayso, ensuring that we stay true to our mission to inform.
