Cigarette filters were widely introduced in the 1950s that seem to make smoking less harmful.
Given the general concern about lung cancer and other tobacco -related diseases, the tobacco industry responded not by safer cigarettes, but by becoming safer. Filters were complete innovation – not for health but for public relations.
Over 70 years later, we know that filters do not reduce damage. In fact, they may exacerbate some risks.
By softening smoke and easier inhalation, filters may increase the risk of lung cancer.
In the early 1950s, a popular filter was even asbestos. However, most smokers still believe that filters make cigarettes safer.
Beyond the deceit of health, cigarette filters create an environmental disaster. They are made of plastic called acetate cellulose. They are not destroyed but decompose to microplastic and pollute our rivers and oceans.
And there are many of them. The cigarette buttons are the only colorful case on Earth.
It is estimated that 4.5 trillion is discarded each year and approximately 800,000 tons of these plastic waste enters the environment annually.
While the rules of single plastics have restricted other jobs such as bottles, bags and straws, cigarette filters have largely escaped such supervision.
Under pressure, some tobacco companies are now marketing “destructive” filters made of new materials. But this is a false solution.
Even the so -called destructive filters do not provide any health benefits and continue to contaminate ecosystems.
By creating the illusion of environmental responsibility, they all serve the industry while the filters themselves are benign or necessary.
So why don’t we completely prohibit cigarette filters?
Cigarette filters are one of the most harmful single -use plastics still in the world. And unlike many other pollutants, they do not offer any basic goals. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Currently advises measures that maintain a understanding of damage reduction, and cigarette filters are fully in that category.
The ban on cigarette filters can cause safety illusions of filtered cigarettes. This can reduce the prevalence of tobacco use, as unconscious cigarettes are generally harder and tasty.
And this destroys one of the most extensive sources of plastic pollution and prevents hundreds of thousands of tons of plastic waste.
If we can ban plastic straws, we can certainly ban cigarette filters. In fact, this has already been done. Santa Cruz in California voted for cigarette filters in 2024.
Now is a good time for action. Plastic is in the world conscience.
In Geneva this month, world leaders negotiated, which could be the first UN legal treaty, which deals with plastic pollution from production to disposal. This treaty is a rare opportunity to deal with the causes of plastic waste worldwide.
The current draft of the treaty includes cigarette filters, but just to some extent. Plastic cigarette filters are listed in Appendix X, a batch related to voluntary or mandatory limitations. This room leaves for continuous use, including the so -called “ECO” filters, and does not require a stage of abroad.
If all cigarette filters (not just plastic) are listed in attach Y, they are set for a complete and mandatory ban. The August negotiations continued without a final agreement and the talks will continue on the next date, meaning that there is still time.
Environmental and environmental groups, including the World Health Organization, are demanding serious commitments to cigarette filters. What could be stronger than an obvious ban?
The ban on filters does not end overnight smoking or does not eliminate plastic pollution. But this will be a significant and symbolic step towards aligning environmental and public health goals.
It removes a harmful and misleading product from the market, reduces pollution and makes cigarettes more honest.
Jonathan Livingstone-Banks is a lecturer and senior evidence of evidence-based health care at Oxford University. Jimmy Hartman is an assistant assistant professor of health and politics in UMASS AMHERST.
This article is originally published by the conversation and is published under the Creative Commons. Read Main article
