This month the neighbouring European countries of Belgium and the Netherlands took important steps towards banning cigarette filters.
The Netherlands Environment Minister advocates a ban on filter
Last week Vivianne Heijnen, the Netherlands Minister of Environment, informed her colleagues at the House of Representatives that after reviewing the alternatives, she considered that a ban on cigarette filters was necessary to achieve that country's environmental objectives. (A machine translation of her letter is pasted below).
The report and the Minister's opinion both conclude that the EU context complicates the ability of the Netherlands to impose a unilateral ban, but that the drafting of a new EU Directive is an opportunity to establish national authority for the measure. The Minister stated her intention work with EU colleagues to this effect.
The Belgian High Council on Health recommends a ban on filters
This week the department released the results of a review it conducted at the request of the Belgian Minister of the Environment.
The 49 page report "The Impact of Cigarette Filters on Public Health and the Belgian Environment" is available in English, and the conclusion is summarized in the Council's press release.
The analysis shows that filters in cigarettes do not in fact reduce the harmful health consequences of smoking. From a public health perspective, they do not offer any benefit, while they pollute the environment. The Superior Health Council therefore recommends introducing a general ban on cigarette filters, both at national level and at international, and therefore European, level.
In the report, the Council rejected the concept of filter alternatives: "The Superior Health Council sees no solution in advocating "green" biodegradable filters.
Given that there are no significant health benefits for smokers, people might even be more
prone to throw away cigarette filters in the environment because of the misleading "green"
image."
Letter from Vivianne Heijnen to Tweede Kamer (machine translation)
Dear President,
In my letter to Parliament of 21 April 2022, I promised your Chamber to investigate possible measures to reduce the amount of cigarette filters in litter and to inform your Chamber about the policy options, their expected effectiveness and the feasibility. On 25 January 2023, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Water Management requested that the letter with policy options for reducing cigarette filters in litter be sent before the spring recess. The research report was shared with your Chamber on 21 February 2023, indicating that, due to further policy consideration and coordination with other ministers involved, the substantive appreciation for the circular economy committee debate would be sent to your Chamber on 20 April.
Because the subject of cigarette filters also touches on public health in addition to litter and the environment, I am sending you this letter on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health, Welfare and Sport.
In response to the motion by Member Bouchallikh et al., CE Delft was commissioned by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management to investigate possible policy options. Pending this investigation, Member Van Esch has held up a motion on a ban on plastic in cigarette filters.
This letter contains a brief outline of the scale of the problem, the current measures and a brief summary for each policy option examined, the appreciation and the way in which the policy options are further explored.
Scale of problem and current measures
For the analysis of new policy options, the researchers looked at the scale of the problem and the current measures. Of the estimated 10.54 billion cigarettes smoked in the Netherlands in 2021, it is only possible to say with a wide bandwidth how many filters end up in the environment. This concerns a minimum of 240 million and a maximum of 7.1 billion cigarette filters that end up in the environment in the Netherlands every year.
In addition to the general impact of litter on the environment, a major additional problem in the case of cigarettes is that the filters contain (micro)plastics and chemicals. These substances leach into the environment. The researchers indicate that one cigarette filter releases about 100 microplastics per day and can contaminate up to 1000 liters of water.
It is clear that the scale of the problem is enormous, even if the minimum number of 240 million cigarette filters that end up in the Dutch environment every year is taken into account. The current measures, consisting of litter policy and tobacco control policy, are expected to reduce cigarette filters in litter by up to 15% until 2026.
The analysis of the current measures shows that effective additional measures are needed to achieve the requested reduction of 70%. That is why the researchers in this study have examined five measures in more detail, including the action perspective of the central government and the expected effectiveness and feasibility.
In my letter to Parliament of 21 April 2022, I promised your Chamber to investigate possible measures to reduce the amount of cigarette filters in litter and to inform your Chamber about the policy options, their expected effectiveness and the feasibility. On 25 January 2023, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Water Management requested that the letter with policy options for reducing cigarette filters in litter be sent before the spring recess. The research report was shared with your Chamber on 21 February 2023, indicating that, due to further policy consideration and coordination with other ministers involved, the substantive appreciation for the circular economy committee debate would be sent to your Chamber on 20 April.
Because the subject of cigarette filters also touches on public health in addition to litter and the environment, I am sending you this letter on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health, Welfare and Sport.
In response to the motion by Member Bouchallikh et al., CE Delft was commissioned by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management to investigate possible policy options. Pending this investigation, Member Van Esch has held up a motion on a ban on plastic in cigarette filters.
This letter contains a brief outline of the scale of the problem, the current measures and a brief summary for each policy option examined, the appreciation and the way in which the policy options are further explored.
Scale of problem and current measures
For the analysis of new policy options, the researchers looked at the scale of the problem and the current measures. Of the estimated 10.54 billion cigarettes smoked in the Netherlands in 2021, it is only possible to say with a wide bandwidth how many filters end up in the environment. This concerns a minimum of 240 million and a maximum of 7.1 billion cigarette filters that end up in the environment in the Netherlands every year.
In addition to the general impact of litter on the environment, a major additional problem in the case of cigarettes is that the filters contain (micro)plastics and chemicals. These substances leach into the environment. The researchers indicate that one cigarette filter releases about 100 microplastics per day and can contaminate up to 1000 liters of water.
It is clear that the scale of the problem is enormous, even if the minimum number of 240 million cigarette filters that end up in the Dutch environment every year is taken into account. The current measures, consisting of litter policy and tobacco control policy, are expected to reduce cigarette filters in litter by up to 15% until 2026.
The analysis of the current measures shows that effective additional measures are needed to achieve the requested reduction of 70%. That is why the researchers in this study have examined five measures in more detail, including the action perspective of the central government and the expected effectiveness and feasibility.
Given the scale of the problem, I am working out several policy options at the same time in order to reduce the number of cigarette filters in litter as quickly as possible. Below I explain this in more detail per measure.
A ban on single-use cigarette filters
This policy option prohibits all single-use cigarette filters. This concerns the current standard filters, filters without plastic and biodegradable filters. The research shows that a ban is almost completely effective. It is the most effective measure and therefore the preferred option to reduce the number of cigarette filters in litter. A majority of both smokers and non-smokers are neutral to positive about this policy option.
This policy option prohibits all single-use cigarette filters. This concerns the current standard filters, filters without plastic and biodegradable filters. The research shows that a ban is almost completely effective. It is the most effective measure and therefore the preferred option to reduce the number of cigarette filters in litter. A majority of both smokers and non-smokers are neutral to positive about this policy option.
The introduction of a ban is considered to be the most promising in a European context. This can be done via the European Tobacco Products Directive, via environmental legislation or the Single-Use Plastics (SUP) directive. The researchers indicate that the chances of success through the Tobacco Products Directive are very limited. The first logical possibility of considering such a ban at European level is with the revision of the SUP Directive in 2026. If the ban becomes part of the SUP at that time, it means that the reduction of 70% requested in the motion in 2026 compared to 2022 will only be achieved later. The ban is expected to result in a reduction of more than 70%.
A total ban on single-use cigarette filters seems to be the most effective option to counter the harmful environmental effects of this type of litter. In addition, the effect of single-use cigarette filters is controversial from a public health perspective. There are no proven health benefits to smoking cigarettes with filter.
A total ban on single-use cigarette filters seems to be the most effective option to counter the harmful environmental effects of this type of litter. In addition, the effect of single-use cigarette filters is controversial from a public health perspective. There are no proven health benefits to smoking cigarettes with filter.
Given the obvious impact of this option, it is worked out in two ways. Firstly, preparations are being started to put the ban on all single-use cigarette filters on the agenda of the revision of the SUP Directive in cooperation with other European Member States. Despite the predicted low chance of success, I also include the possibility of a ban in other EU policy frameworks, such as the European Tobacco Products Directive.
Secondly, I explore the (im)possibilities for a national ban on cigarette filters. It is worth noting that this is a complex route, with a low chance of success, because such a ban restricts the free movement of goods. Nevertheless, I would like to take a closer look at whether and what the possibilities are and I will examine which other European Member States are considering a national ban in order to learn from this where possible or to work together.
Ban on plastic filters
CE Delft has also paid attention to the question of whether the plastics in the filter can be replaced by a biodegradable material. Although this is theoretically possible, a biodegradable filter would only partly solve the problem of microplastics, and not lead to less litter but only to other types of litter. The toxic substances that remain in the biodegradable cigarette filter after smoking still leach into the environment in this way.
The investigation also states that banning plastics in the filter, as proposed by member Van Esch's motion, and banning the filter can be achieved in the same way. So there seems to be no advantage to only tackle plastic filters. The above-mentioned bans, which are being further elaborated, therefore concern all single-use filters.
Deposit on cigarette filters
This policy option looked at a deposit system to be implemented by the tobacco industry. The deposit obligation is laid down by legislation and should only be a financial obligation from the sector. This is because it must not be contrary to the tobacco control policy and smoking must not be promoted in any way. It is also undesirable when a deposit system unknowingly greenwashes the use of cigarettes with filters or smoking in general.
In a deposit system, smokers pay an amount per filter in deposit when purchasing cigarettes and when returning the filters they receive this amount back. Experience with existing deposit return schemes shows that a small financial incentive can greatly contribute to the willingness to hand in residual products. The effectiveness of this measure depends on the characteristics of the deposit system that is ultimately chosen, for example, the financial incentive must be high enough to be effective. Just under 50% of smokers view a deposit system neutrally to positively, for non-smokers this is more than 65%.
The researchers identify a number of disadvantages in the policy option of a deposit system. The most important is that it can make a potential negative contribution to the smoke-free generation. A deposit on all cigarette filters, including those already on the street, can create an unintended positive connotation when using cigarettes with filters or tobacco in general. This can occur when there is money to be made from cleaning up, so that, for example, minors and non-smokers can come into contact with the harmful substances that remain in the filter. In addition, the researchers indicate that the necessary technical systems, the 'deposit machines' for cigarette filters, are not yet available.
Given the snags mentioned, I will not explore the deposit on cigarette filter option any further at this time.
A smoking ban on beaches
This policy option means that it is forbidden to smoke on all beaches along the North Sea and Wadden coast. The research describes that the effectiveness of a smoking ban on beaches probably depends on the extent to which it is enforced. More than 60% of smokers are neutral to positive about this policy option. Among non-smokers, this is almost 90%.
Secondly, I explore the (im)possibilities for a national ban on cigarette filters. It is worth noting that this is a complex route, with a low chance of success, because such a ban restricts the free movement of goods. Nevertheless, I would like to take a closer look at whether and what the possibilities are and I will examine which other European Member States are considering a national ban in order to learn from this where possible or to work together.
Ban on plastic filters
CE Delft has also paid attention to the question of whether the plastics in the filter can be replaced by a biodegradable material. Although this is theoretically possible, a biodegradable filter would only partly solve the problem of microplastics, and not lead to less litter but only to other types of litter. The toxic substances that remain in the biodegradable cigarette filter after smoking still leach into the environment in this way.
The investigation also states that banning plastics in the filter, as proposed by member Van Esch's motion, and banning the filter can be achieved in the same way. So there seems to be no advantage to only tackle plastic filters. The above-mentioned bans, which are being further elaborated, therefore concern all single-use filters.
Deposit on cigarette filters
This policy option looked at a deposit system to be implemented by the tobacco industry. The deposit obligation is laid down by legislation and should only be a financial obligation from the sector. This is because it must not be contrary to the tobacco control policy and smoking must not be promoted in any way. It is also undesirable when a deposit system unknowingly greenwashes the use of cigarettes with filters or smoking in general.
In a deposit system, smokers pay an amount per filter in deposit when purchasing cigarettes and when returning the filters they receive this amount back. Experience with existing deposit return schemes shows that a small financial incentive can greatly contribute to the willingness to hand in residual products. The effectiveness of this measure depends on the characteristics of the deposit system that is ultimately chosen, for example, the financial incentive must be high enough to be effective. Just under 50% of smokers view a deposit system neutrally to positively, for non-smokers this is more than 65%.
The researchers identify a number of disadvantages in the policy option of a deposit system. The most important is that it can make a potential negative contribution to the smoke-free generation. A deposit on all cigarette filters, including those already on the street, can create an unintended positive connotation when using cigarettes with filters or tobacco in general. This can occur when there is money to be made from cleaning up, so that, for example, minors and non-smokers can come into contact with the harmful substances that remain in the filter. In addition, the researchers indicate that the necessary technical systems, the 'deposit machines' for cigarette filters, are not yet available.
Given the snags mentioned, I will not explore the deposit on cigarette filter option any further at this time.
A smoking ban on beaches
This policy option means that it is forbidden to smoke on all beaches along the North Sea and Wadden coast. The research describes that the effectiveness of a smoking ban on beaches probably depends on the extent to which it is enforced. More than 60% of smokers are neutral to positive about this policy option. Among non-smokers, this is almost 90%.
It is labour-intensive and expensive to clean up leftover cigarette filters on the beach and this is therefore rarely done in practice. Cigarettes left on the beaches have a great chance of ending up in the sea and contributing to the problem of marine litter and the plastic soup. An area ban on smoking on beaches can help prevent this.
On beaches in Italy and the US state of California, such smoking restrictions have already been introduced. In the municipality of Noordwijk, a pilot is currently running with smoke-free areas on the beach. The results of this pilot are expected by the end of 2023 and are expected to provide more insight into the effectiveness of such a ban.
On beaches in Italy and the US state of California, such smoking restrictions have already been introduced. In the municipality of Noordwijk, a pilot is currently running with smoke-free areas on the beach. The results of this pilot are expected by the end of 2023 and are expected to provide more insight into the effectiveness of such a ban.
With adequate enforcement, a smoking ban on the beaches can lead to a substantial reduction in cigarette filters left on the beach. The responsibility to enforce lies to a large extent with area managers, in many cases these are the municipalities. They have already indicated to the researchers that they do not have the possibility to monitor compliance with a smoking ban on the beaches within the current capacity. Among other things, I will talk to the Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG) and the Interprovincial Consultation (IPO) to discuss with them the (im)possibilities, the support among municipalities and provinces and the conditions for this support.
Although this policy option is not specifically about this, such a location-specific ban could also be considered in other places where many cigarette filters remain. Local authorities have the possibility, on the basis of their own regulatory powers, to impose local smoking bans in public spaces if they deem this necessary, proportionate and enforceable. In the discussions with the VNG and the IPO, I will also include this possibility.
Location-specific approach
Although this policy option is not specifically about this, such a location-specific ban could also be considered in other places where many cigarette filters remain. Local authorities have the possibility, on the basis of their own regulatory powers, to impose local smoking bans in public spaces if they deem this necessary, proportionate and enforceable. In the discussions with the VNG and the IPO, I will also include this possibility.
Location-specific approach
This policy option means that specific policies are implemented in certain types of locations to reduce the number of cigarette filters thrown on the ground. In this more pilot-like approach, the central government is working together with other parties towards this goal. The effects of this site-specific approach are also mainly local. 36% of the respondents indicate that they will comply with the local approach. For both smokers and non-smokers, more than 85% are neutral to positive about this measure.
In the research, this policy option mainly focuses on festivals, but CE Delft describes that this policy option can also be used at other locations such as public transport locations, environments just outside smoke-free zones, such as hospitals and schools, and shopping streets. The policy at festivals, or any of the other venues, focuses on behavior change by promoting smoke-free events or the proper disposal of a cigarette filter. The effects are mainly local, but seem positive. The approach is accessible and voluntary, which means that organizers can use it based on their own wishes and preferences.
In 2023, a toolkit will be developed under the Ministerial Regulation on single-use plastic products that will enable area managers to take awareness-raising measures in the field of litter from cigarette filters. An important starting point in the development of this toolkit is that it focuses on the reduction of cigarette filters in litter, but does not promote smoking. The toolkit is currently primarily intended for area managers. I would add the possibility that sectors such as the festival sector can also make use of the toolkit.
Information campaigns from the central government
In this policy option, the central government organizes an extensive media campaign with the aim of creating awareness among smokers about the harmful effects of filters in the environment and to show how the filters can be disposed of properly. The research report states that the effect of information campaigns is expected to be limited. For both smokers and non-smokers, more than 85% are neutral to positive about this measure.
It is important to support other policy options that may be introduced with public information. Apart from the development and roll-out of the toolkit, as described in the previous policy option, I do not intend to launch a separate information campaign on cigarette filters at this time.
In the research, this policy option mainly focuses on festivals, but CE Delft describes that this policy option can also be used at other locations such as public transport locations, environments just outside smoke-free zones, such as hospitals and schools, and shopping streets. The policy at festivals, or any of the other venues, focuses on behavior change by promoting smoke-free events or the proper disposal of a cigarette filter. The effects are mainly local, but seem positive. The approach is accessible and voluntary, which means that organizers can use it based on their own wishes and preferences.
In 2023, a toolkit will be developed under the Ministerial Regulation on single-use plastic products that will enable area managers to take awareness-raising measures in the field of litter from cigarette filters. An important starting point in the development of this toolkit is that it focuses on the reduction of cigarette filters in litter, but does not promote smoking. The toolkit is currently primarily intended for area managers. I would add the possibility that sectors such as the festival sector can also make use of the toolkit.
Information campaigns from the central government
In this policy option, the central government organizes an extensive media campaign with the aim of creating awareness among smokers about the harmful effects of filters in the environment and to show how the filters can be disposed of properly. The research report states that the effect of information campaigns is expected to be limited. For both smokers and non-smokers, more than 85% are neutral to positive about this measure.
It is important to support other policy options that may be introduced with public information. Apart from the development and roll-out of the toolkit, as described in the previous policy option, I do not intend to launch a separate information campaign on cigarette filters at this time.
Summary
In short, I will continue to explore the policy options explored in the following ways:
- Explore the possibilities and start preparations to put a ban on single-use cigarette filters on the agenda in the revision of the TBD or any other relevant European regulations in cooperation with other European member states.
- Explore the (im)possibilities for a national ban on cigarette filters.
- Discussing a smoking ban on beaches and other locations with the VNG and the IPO, as well as the support of municipalities and provinces for this and the conditions for this support.
- Develop and roll out a toolkit to support area managers and other sectors in combating cigarette filters in litter.
- Expanding the toolkit for area managers so that sectors such as the festival sector can also make use of it.
- Explore the possibilities and start preparations to put a ban on single-use cigarette filters on the agenda in the revision of the TBD or any other relevant European regulations in cooperation with other European member states.
- Explore the (im)possibilities for a national ban on cigarette filters.
- Discussing a smoking ban on beaches and other locations with the VNG and the IPO, as well as the support of municipalities and provinces for this and the conditions for this support.
- Develop and roll out a toolkit to support area managers and other sectors in combating cigarette filters in litter.
- Expanding the toolkit for area managers so that sectors such as the festival sector can also make use of it.
I trust that I have informed you sufficiently.
Respectfully
THE STATE SECRETARY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATER MANAGEMENT,
V.L.W.A. Heijnen
