Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada: A new global treaty on plastics -- and why it is important for tobacco regulation

Earlier this year, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) began the process to develop a global treaty on plastics. This week formal negotiations are underway in Punta del Este (Uruguay). This post provides background to this meeting and what it could contribute to reducing tobacco use in Canada.

A framework convention on plastics

The first session of the International Negotiating Committee is focused on laying the ground work for the treaty, using procedures agreed to this past summer. These sessions are being closely observed by industry, NGOs and researchers, whose participation in the event included a structured interaction with delegates which took place this weekend.

Three dozen countries have grouped themselves in the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution of which Canada is a founding member. The stated vision of this group of nations is to end plastic pollution by 2040. Among their deliverable goals is the elimination of problematic plastics, including by bans and restrictions. As of thsi date, however, none of these countries includes cigarette filters in their restrictions on single-use plastics.

The treaty that emerges from these negotiations could end the human and environmental damage caused by cigarette filters. Or it might not. The difference may well come down to the extent that the tobacco industry is allowed to influence decision-making at the treaty and the extent to which governments like Canada's work to stop that happening. Notably, Canada has not yet responded to calls to protect this process from tobacco industry interference.

Photo courtesy of ASH.org

Canada has recently accelerated efforts to reduce plastic pollution ...

Federal efforts to address plastic pollution have accelerated in recent years and in June federal regulations to ban six single use plastics were finalized. By the end of next year, plastic checkout bags, cutlery, foodservice ware, stir sticks and most straws will no longer be permitted for sale in Canada. (The government is also developing recycled content regulations and rules for recycling and composting.)

... but has not yet developed a plan to address plastic waste from tobacco products

Cigarette filters were exempted from Canada's federal bans on single-use plastics, even though the federal government had been advised to include them by Parliamentarians, the Zero Waste Coalition, environmental organizations and the public. In the background statement to the regulations, the government acknowledged that cigarette filters were a problem, that they were among the top 10 most commonly littered items in Canada, and that two-thirds of Canadians polled thought they should be included in a plastics ban. Decisions on cigarettes were postponee: "Currently, cigarette filters are being assessed by the Department to determine whether they are plastic pollutants of concern, and the result of this assessment could be reflected in future Government action."

There are 21 billion reasons for Canada to ban cigarette filters in order to protect the environment...

Most cigarettes are made with acetate (plastic) filters, which are non-biodegradable. The microplastics and tobacco-toxins which leach into the environment from discarded cigarette filters are harmful to plants and aquatic animals.

The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that world-wide, cigarette filters result in 766.6 million kilograms of toxic trash each year. This will include the portion of the 21 billion cigarettes smoked in Canada last year that were tossed away instead of being disposed of safely. Municipal litter audits and shore-line cleanups continue to report cigarette butts are a leading source of discarded waste.

The recent marketing of inexpensive cartridge-based and disposable electronic cigarettes has added to the complexity and burden of tobacco industry waste. (With toxic liquids and lithium batteries, this toxic e-waste is another pressing challenge.).

... and to reduce the harm to individual smokers and to public health

Cigarette filters were introduced by the tobacco industry as a harm-reduction product, and the "less harmful" messaging was heavily promoted. One legacy of these campaigns is that many consumers and regulators wrongly continue to think that filters offer some health benefit.

In fact, as the World Health Organization confirms "despite tobacco industry marketing, there is no evidence that filters have any proven health benefits.”

Instead, filters add to the harms of combustible cigarettes. Because they make cigarettes more attractive and diminish concerns about the health consequences of smoking, filters help the tobacco industry recruit and addict new customers. Because the ventilation holes in them facilitate deep inhalation, they increase the risk of one type of lung cancer (adenocarcinoma).

No country has yet implemented an fully effective strategy to address tobacco and vaping waste...

In recent years Canada and countries in Europe have advanced restrictions on the use of single-use plastics. In addition to prohibiting certain items, these policies also require manufacturers to accept the financial or physical responsibility to dispose of waste (Extended Producer Responsibility, EPR).

A very few countries have imposed specific measures to address cigarette waste. Examples of these include mandatory labelling of cigarettes as acontaining plastic (in all EU countries), requiring cigarette manufacturers to pay for waste management (France), and a municipal levy on retailers to recover abatement costs (San Francisco). France's experience in applying EPR to cigarette waste exposed a vulnerability of this approach, as the industry used its "responsibility" for the solution as a lever to influence public and regulator attitudes to tobacco use.

Other measures to address cigarette waste have been proposed but not yet implemented. These include bans on filters or requirements for biodegradable filters, deposit-return systems and greater deterrence for littering.

Some jurisdictions have taken action to address waste from vaping products. California supports public education efforts and the United States Environmental Protection Agency categorizes them as toxic waste. Caledonia bans disposable e-cigarettes, as other governments are considering doing. The French Senate recently proposed a surtax on disposable e-cigarettes of €6 per ml of liquid.

Tobacco companies use greenwashing to avoid meaningful change

Knowing that a filter ban will cause fewer people to start smoking and will help smokers stop, the tobacco industry will encourage governments to adopt less powerful measures to address plastic filter waste. They want the issue to be seen as the result of consumer behaviour, not product design.

Around the world, tobacco companies are using greenwashing public relations campaigns to achieve this.

In Canada, they provide environmental groups with small amounts of money to mobilize volunteers to clean cigarette butts from beaches and other environmentally sensitive areas. These efforts portray smokers as the villains, clean-up crews as the heroes and the industry on the side of the heroes.

Another industry PR effort for false solutions is the encouragement and support for the installation of public ashtrays, and promoting the unrealistic view that filters can be recycled.

The "Sustainability Report" issued this August by Rothmans, Benson and Hedges (the Canadian subsidiary of Philip Morris International) exposes the cynical use of these campaigns.

The company provided a total of $75,000 (one twelve-thousandth of its annual net income of $900,000,000)
600,000 volunteers were engaged in clean up (one for every 7 Canadian smokers).
These volunteers collected three-quarters of a million cigarette butts (one for every 27,000 cigarettes sold in Canada, or one for every 9,000 cigarettes manufactured by Rothmans, Benson and Hedges.)

In short, for less than the salary of a sales person, the company was able to engage volunteer work by more than a half million Canadians to clean up its garbage. Even then, only a slight fraction of cigarette waste was recovered.

France's experience in applying EPR to cigarette waste exposed a vulnerability of this approach, as the industry used its "responsibility" for the solution as a lever to influence public and regulator attitudes to tobacco use.

There is an emerging consensus that a ban on cigarette filters is needed.

Although decades have passed since concerns about the health harm of filters were raised, health authorities have generally avoided developing regulations in this area of cigarette design (other than recommending controls on filter ventilation).

Growing concerns about the environmental impact have recently strengthened the call for an end to the use of filters altogether. This year the World Health Organization set the environment as the theme for World No Tobacco Day. In doing so, it called on governments to “treat cigarette filters the same as any other single-use plastic, and consider banning them, to protect public health and the environment."

Banning cigarette filters was a policy recommendation already supported by a number of Canadian organizations and individuals, including Greenpeace Canada, 15,600 Canadian petitioners, Surfrider, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and theNational Zero Waste Council.

From a series of interviews with members of the tobacco control community in Canada, it appears that banning cigarette filters is considered the best option -- but that getting this accomplished will require thought and resources.

FCTC Article 5.3 is a key issue for negotiations in the plastics treaty.

An important rule for the negotiation process will be measures to prevent the tobacco industry from influencing governments.

This may involve a shift in thinking for some delegations. Policy development in the environmental sector often involves multi-party consultations, with business and civil society given equal voice. There is no strong equivalent to FCTC Article 5.3, where there is understood to be a "fundamental and irreconcilable" conflict of interest between the commercial interests of tobacco companies and public health.

Tobacco control interests will be represented at the Plastics Treaty negotiations by the Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance. You can follow the negotiations through a blog posted by one of the founders of this alliance, the US group ASH.ORG.

And you can show your support by joining this group.