Your Cigarettes May be Killing YouQ: Does the filter on your cigarette really make it safer?Most people mistakenly believe that smoking a filtered cigarette is safer than smoking an nonfiltered cigarette. This is false. Show
Health studies show that smoking filtered cigarettes do not keep you from getting sick. Filters do not protect you from bad chemicals and, in some ways, they may be more dangerous than nonfiltered cigarettes.
What cigarette manufacturers will not tell you:Tobacco industry documents show that they have known about filter fiber fallout since at least the 1950s."Carbon particles were released from all cigarettes tested. In some studies, the particles released from cigarette filters were described as: "..too numerous to count." "He said
when [a filter] plug is cut ...there always remains a few loose, hard particles of filament. These loose, hard pieces of material are then sucked down into the lungs of the smoker." Key Points
More than 90% of cigarettes sold worldwide have a filter.12 These filters are typically made of a plastic called cellulose acetate,3 and are not biodegradable.4 History of industry marketing‘Safer’ and ‘healthier’Cigarette filters have been referred to as the “deadliest fraud in the history of human civilisation”.5 Filters were initially used from 1860 to 1920 to prevent particles of tobacco entering the mouth. The first major filtered cigarette, called Parliament (Brown and Williamson), was introduced in the USA in 1931. Viceroy cigarettes (also Brown and Williamson), introduced in 1936, were the first filter cigarette sold at a popular price.1 During the early 1950s, evidence demonstrated causal links between smoking and lung cancer.67 The tobacco industry responded by introducing filters to reassure smokers that it was taking action to make cigarettes safer,2 and to promote an alternative to quitting.8 In 1950, cigarettes with cellulose acetate filters were introduced, capturing 1% of the market share.1 Many new filters were launched between the mid 1950s to mid 1960s. Industry spending on advertising increased from over US$55 million in 1952 to approximately US$150 million in 1959.8 In 1964, the US Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health concluded that smoking caused lung cancer.9 Philip Morris (PM) claimed that this report missed an opportunity to promote the health benefits of filters. In 1966, PM conducted market analysis for a ‘health cigarette’, which concluded that “the illusion of filtration is as important as the fact of filtration”.8 ‘Light’ and ‘mild’ cigarettesIn the 1970s, with more studies confirming the damaging health impact of smoking, tobacco companies started introducing ‘light’ and ‘mild’ cigarette brand variants.8 Japan Tobacco International was the first tobacco company to introduce a cigarette with ‘mild’ in the brand name.10 Such cigarettes, which initially were supported by public health,11 had perforated filters.2 Industry research using standard smoking machine tests found that filter ventilation reduced tar and nicotine concentrations,12 as well as making cigarettes taste lighter and milder.1314 However, real-life cigarette use in smokers differs from machine use. Smokers engage in ‘compensatory smoking’; they take more frequent and deeper puffs to satisfy nicotine cravings,15 and cover the ventilation holes with their fingers.1617 Advertising slogans for such cigarettes referred to “miracle filter tips”.8 There was a switch from regular products to new products, such as filtered cigarettes, particularly among female and older smokers. However, overall smoking rates stayed the same across this period.8 Health impact and consumer perceptionNo benefit to healthFilters have been marketed as a means to reduce smoking-related health risks,2 although there is no evidence to support this claim. Despite common perception, research has shown that cigarette filters do not offer any health benefit and filtered cigarettes are not less harmful than unfiltered cigarettes, for either smokers13 or passive smokers.18 In addition, the 2014 US Surgeon General’s Report on smoking and health concluded that cigarette filter ventilation, found in ‘light’ brand variants, has caused an increase in lung adenocarcinomas (cancers found in peripheral areas of the lungs) among smokers, due to altered puffing and inhalation associated with ventilated filters.19 This means smokers inhale carcinogens more deeply into the lungs13 and small particles in tobacco smoke are increasingly deposited in small airways.19 There is also a risk of smokers inhaling fibres from filters.20 ‘Lighter’ thought to be saferSmokers and non-smokers incorrectly perceive that ‘lighter’ brand variants are less damaging to health. Malboro Gold (previously ‘light’) smokers are more likely than Malboro red (‘full strength’) smokers to rate their cigarettes as weaker, and lower in nicotine and tar, as well as less harsh and mild tasting. However, this is not demonstrated by evidence on biomarkers of exposure.21 The evidence on filters also shows that:
Global RegulationThe World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) recommends that countries ban misleading and deceptive tobacco advertising, including descriptors such as ‘light’, ‘ultra-light’, ‘low tar’, and ‘mild’.30 The WHO also recommends the extension of tobacco product sale regulation and tax policy to include single-use cigarette filters.4 As of January 2021, 93 countries worldwide have banned or restricted misleading packaging and labelling.31 Descriptors of ‘light’ and ‘mild’ on cigarette packs have been banned in the European Union and Brazil since 2003. Similar policies have been in place in Australia since 2005, Canada since 2007 and the USA since 2009. Consequently, misperceptions about ‘light’ cigarettes reduced between 2002 and 2009 in smokers across Canada, the UK, and Australia.3233 The tobacco industry continues to use filter ventilation to imply that filtered cigarettes are safer, by using packaging to indicate ‘light’ or ‘mild’ cigarettes, despite the introduction of bans on misleading packaging and labelling. This deceptive marketing is typically not regulated by plain packaging legislation.3233 To evade this legislation, the tobacco industry is exploiting loopholes by:
Figure 1: Slide from BAT Investor Day 2015 presentation on marketing strategy. (Source: British American Tobacco) Innovations in filtersThe tobacco industry uses product innovation as a tactic to grow sales and circumvent legislation. Flavour capsulesSince being introduced in 2007, cigarettes with flavour capsules in the filter have grown exponentially worldwide. In 2017, the market share of capsule cigarettes was greatest in Chile (36%), followed by Peru (34%), Guatemala (32%), Mexico (22%), and Argentina (17%).37 (More details on the capsule market can be found on Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco and Menthol Cigarettes: Industry Interference in the EU and UK.) Filters can contain one or two different flavour capsules, with flavours including mint, fruit, or those that imitate drinks, including cocktails. In 2014, flavour capsules were also introduced for roll-your-own cigarettes in the UK and Korea. These types of filters enable tobacco companies to market and differentiate their brands, despite regulations on plain packaging and health warnings.37 Capsules in cigarette filters are strategically marketed to consumers, through a ball and/or power button symbol, coloured images (blue or green), and phrases such as “activate” and “pop it”.38 The evidence shows that cigarettes with flavour capsules are associated with misperceptions of harm39 and increased attractiveness among young smokers.40 Recessed and firm filtersSince plain packaging legislation was introduced in Australia in 2012, the tobacco industry has undermined the legislation by introducing recessed filters and firm filters. Recessed filters have a hollow section at the mouth end, whereas firm filters look similar to standard filters but have a firmer feel. Recessed and firm filters reduce perceptions of harm and increase appeal.41 Packs labelled with these new filters have mostly replaced the common products in leading brands.42 As the UK prohibits tobacco advertising and point of sale display, and enforces plain packaging legislation,33 the tobacco industry uses the retail trade press to promote tobacco products to retailers rather than use traditional marketing. This includes adverts claiming improved filters (see Figures 2-4). Before and around the introduction of plain packaging legislation in the UK, tobacco companies introduced filter innovations such as recessed filters.36 The retail trade press advertised British American Tobacco’s Lucky Strike with a recessed filter (see Figure 2);43 and Imperial’s JPS Triple Flow with a recessed filter in 2016 (see Figure 3);44 and PMI’s Malboro with a firmer filter in 2015 (see Figure 4).45 Figure 2: BAT advert for Lucky Strike. (Source: Retail Newsagent, 2016) Figure 3: Imperial Tobaccco advert for JPS Triple Flow. (Source: Retail Newsagent, 2016) Figure 4: PMI advert for Marlboro. (Source: Retail Newsagent, 2015) Environmental impactCigarette filters are among one of the top ten most common plastic’s in the world’s oceans, representing a major environmental hazard. 4.5 trillion cigarette butts (used filtered cigarettes) are deposited into the environment each year. It has been estimated that cigarette butt waste will increase by 50% in 2025.46 Cellulose acetate filters are photodegradable, as ultraviolet rays from the sun reduces the filter to smaller pieces.47 However, they are not biodegradable because they are made of acetyl molecules.4 They only lose an average of 38% of mass in two years of decomposition48 and contain multiple toxic substances which infiltrate the environment.4950 Cigarette filters affect the microbial diversity of coastal sediment51 and the mortality of animals.52 Single use plastics were banned across the EU in 2019,53 although this does not cover plastic cigarette filters. As of 2021, tobacco companies must increase awareness of the plastic in cigarette filters and contribute financially to dealing with cigarette butts.54 However, these measures were resisted by the tobacco industry.55 Multiple options have been suggested to reduce the environmental impact of cigarette filters, including:
Biodegradable filtersGiven the high environmental cost of cigarette filters, there is growing concern about the need to develop alternatives to current methods of disposal57 and increase the biodegradability of filters.58 The tobacco industry is using growing environmental concern to exploit a loophole in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and as a tactic: to justify and enable interaction with the UK government.59 This is a greenwashing tactic used by the tobacco industry. Tobacco companies’ promote their environmental campaigns and activities, in order to increase sales and divert attention away from the health and environmental harms of cigarette filters. The tobacco industry may see biodegradable filters as a method to combat the social unacceptability of smoking and improve the industry’s public image.6061 However, biodegradable filters still have negative impacts; they would still leach harmful chemicals into the environment if not discarded properly.49 The tobacco industry’s primary motive is to rehabilitate its reputation.60 Partnerships between public health and environmental advocates could increase pressure on tobacco companies to take responsibility for the environmental and health harms of cigarette filters,6061 and increase support for regulation.62 TobaccoTactics Resources
Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) research
For a comprehensive list of all TCRG publications, including research that evaluates the impact of public health policy, go to TCRG publications. References
CategoriesAre cigarette filters harmful?Many people mistakenly believe smoking filtered cigarettes are safer than smoking non-filtered cigarettes. Filtered cigarettes are no safer than non-filtered. Filters do not protect you from bad chemicals and, in some ways, they may be more dangerous than non-filtered cigarettes.
How many chemicals are in cigarettes filters?Cigarette smoke contains at least 69 carcinogenic compounds, including arsenic, benzene, and polyvinyl chloride. They make up the more than 250 harmful chemicals in cigarettes.
What are the 3 harmful chemicals in cigarette?Tobacco smoke contains:. nicotine.. carbon monoxide.. toxic chemicals such as benzene, arsenic and formaldehyde.. Is there rat poison in cigarette filters?Cigarette filters don't contain only plastic, but also a cocktail of toxic substances: arsenic (rat poison!), lead, nicotine and pesticides. As the filter disintegrates, the chemicals seep into the soil or the water.
|