Filters and harm
Despite being labelled the “deadliest fraud in the history of human civilisation”,1
filter tips now feature on almost every mass-produced cigarette smoked across the
globe.2 After filters first appeared in the 1860s as an attempt to protect against
tobacco flakes entering the mouth,3 the tobacco industry introduced modern cellulose
acetate cigarette filters in the 1950s to alleviate public concerns about smoking-related
lung cancer.4 Filters and innovations to filters have been consistently marketed as
a means to reduce smoking-related health risks,5 with the very name ‘filter’ suggesting
reduced harm.6 For instance, filter perforations introduced in the 1970s and 1980s
to create ‘light’ and ‘mild’ cigarettes produced lower machine-tested yields of tar
and nicotine. When smoking, however, the perforations are blocked by smokers’ fingers,7
8 serving to increase rather than decrease harm as smokers take more frequent and
deeper puffs to satisfy nicotine cravings.9 The overwhelming majority of independent
research shows that filters do not reduce the harms associated with smoking7–9—a fact
understood by tobacco industry scientists in the 1960s.4 In fact, filters may increase
the harms caused by smoking by enabling smokers to inhale smoke more deeply into their
lungs.8 Furthermore, toxic fibres shed from the cut end of the filter are inhaled
and ingested by smokers.3 A recent research letter reporting a study with contradictory
findings10 has been criticised for a non-representative sample11 and failing to take
into account confounding factors such as socioeconomic status.12
In addition, cigarette filters are an environmental hazard and are among the 10 most
common plastics in the world’s oceans. Every year, an estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette
filters are deposited into the environment. Discarded filters are commonly made of
cellulose acetate, a plastic13 losing on average only 38% mass in two years of decomposition,14
and contain a number of toxic substances which may leach into the environment.15 16
In 2019, many single use plastics were banned in the EU. However, early proposals
for Member States to reduce plastic waste from cigarettes by 50% by 2025 and 80% by
2030 were rejected in favour of weaker measures.17 Instead, tobacco companies must
help raise public awareness of the plastic in their cigarette filters and contribute
to the costs of clean-up, collection and waste treatment of disposed filters.18 Even
these measures were resisted by the tobacco industry and its associates.19
Now tobacco companies are exploring the possibility of biodegradable filters. However,
this should be regarded with caution. First, biodegradable filters would still leach
harmful chemicals into the environment if discarded improperly16 and second, it is
likely that the tobacco industry will use biodegradable filters as both a Corporate
Social Responsibility and a marketing opportunity. The potential unintended consequences
would be reputation rehabilitation and consumers and non-consumers alike believing
that filtered cigarettes are less harmful without plastic in their filters. Given
that we know that tobacco companies are already marketing their filter innovations
to retailers in a way that connotates health benefits, biodegradable filters are likely
to be no exception and the filter fraud will be enabled to adapt and persist once
more.
Exploiting regulatory loopholes
To reduce misperceptions about the relative harm of tobacco products, EU and UK tobacco
packaging and product legislation prohibits the use of words such as smooth (light
and mild have been prohibited in the UK since 2002) or any descriptors of taste or
health (eg, natural, organic) from cigarette packs and all characterising flavours
are banned.20 21 However, filter designs and innovations have been largely omitted
from the legislation (with the exception of flavour features such as capsules). The
tobacco industry is exploiting these loopholes by further innovating cigarette filters
in order to differentiate its products and promotes these strategies to investors
(figure 1).
Figure 1
Slide from BAT Investor Day 2015 presentation on marketing strategy.7 26
In the UK, legislation prohibiting all advertising, including pack branding,22 means
that tobacco companies cannot use conventional marketing methods. Therefore, they
promote tobacco products to retailers through adverts in the retail trade press. Many
of these adverts include claims of improved filters. Tube or flow filters, for instance,
have a hollowed or recessed section of filter at the mouth end which distances the
discoloured end of the filter from the smoker’s lips.23
Firm filters are advertised as retaining their shape better than their conventional
alternatives; mineral filters, often described only vaguely, are promoted in connection
with taste improvements. Most recently, cigarettes with crush filters that mimic the
now prohibited capsule filters have been introduced and are being marketed as the
replacement cigarettes for former capsule smokers (figure 2).24
Figure 2
Example cigarette adverts promoting filters as an important feature. Left: Lucky Strike
advert (British American Tobacco),31 middle: JPS Triple Flow advert (Imperial Tobacco
Brands),32 right: Marlboro advert (Philip Morris International).33
Associated marketing slogans convey connotations of cleanliness and reduced risk by
promising improved filtration25 and hygiene,26 ‘cleaner’ stubbing out, ‘less smoke
smell’ and a smoother27 smoking experience (table 1). Tobacco company investor reports
highlight filter innovations as ‘modern’28 and ‘progressive’29 features which improve
brand popularity.
Table 1
Examples of filter innovations in the past 5 years (2015–2020)
Tobacco company
Filter innovation
Year first introduced
Example brands*
Filter description/marketing slogan†
Philip Morris International
Firm filter
2017
Chesterfield (Menthol, Silver, Red, Blue)
“Chesterfield with new premium features: Round corner box, firm filter”34
Firm filter
2015
Marlboro (Red, Gold, Silver Blue, Ice Blast, White Menthol, Touch)35
Marlboro touch: “Quality blend, firm filter. Unbelievable but true”33
British American Tobacco
Tube Filter
2020
Vogue Essence Bleue & Compact Bleue36
“tube filter”36
Tube & firm filter (‘Taste Plus Filter’)
2016
Pall Mall Blue & Silver Capsule37
“Improved Pall Mall range with taste plus filter”38
Imperial Tobacco Brands
Crush filter
2020
L&B Blue, JPS Players
“cool filter”; “For former Crushball smokers”24
Tube & firm filter
2019
L&B Blue39
“bright air filter”39
Firm filter
2018
JPS Real Blue40
“firm filter”40
Tube filter (‘flow channels’)
2018
JPS Silver Stream40
“smooth filter”40
Mineral & tube filter (‘easy draw channels’)
2015
JPS Triple Flow41
“Experience our ultimate smooth. Easy Draw channels, smooth tobacco blend, less smoke
smell paper”42
Japan Tobacco International
Tube filter
2020
Sovereign & Sterling New Dual43
“flow tech”43
*These are illustrative examples which are focused on the UK market and, as such,
do not include all brands covered by the filter innovations listed.
†Marketing slogans are included where a corresponding advert could be identified in
UK trade press (2015–2017: The Grocer, Retail Newsagent, Wholesale News; 2018–2020:
Retail Newsagent).
Conclusions
Filter innovations make cigarettes more appealing, in part by conveying a cleaner
image. This is a disingenuous campaign led by the tobacco industry, considering that
filters may serve to increase rather than decrease harm.8 Both EU and UK tobacco control
legislation have failed to curtail the tobacco industry’s filter deception. Furthermore,
marketing of cigarette filters in this manner is in stark contrast with the polluting
effect disposed filters have on the environment. Although banning them would not only
reduce plastic waste, removing ineffective cigarette filters also has the potential
to support tobacco control efforts by making cigarettes less palatable, the EU’s Single
Use Plastic Directive missed a crucial opportunity by excluding cigarette filters
from its upcoming ban on some single-use plastics.17 In the UK, the tobacco industry’s
new responsibility for smoking related litter clean-up has already been used as an
opportunity to have in-person interaction with the government,30 thereby exploiting
this as a loophole in the WHO FCTC treaty. Given the environmental devastation and
the continued effort of the industry to use filter tips to ‘sanitise’ cigarettes for
consumers, it is time for the public health and environmental health communities to
unite to ban filters for the benefit of both people and planet.