Search

Starting in the 1970s, individuals, businesses and the public have increasingly benefited from policies prohibiting smoking indoors, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars in healthcare expenditures. Smokefree policies to protect against secondhand smoke exposure, however, do not fully protect the public from the persistent and toxic chemical residues from tobacco smoke (also known as thirdhand smoke) that linger in indoor environments for years after smoking stops. Nor do these policies address the economic costs that individuals, businesses and the public bear in their attempts to remediate this toxic residue. We discuss policy-relevant differences between secondhand smoke and thirdhand smoke exposure: persistent pollutant reservoirs, pollutant transport, routes of exposure, the time gap between initial cause and effect, and remediation and disposal. We examine four policy considerations to better protect the public from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke pollutants from all sources. We call for (a) redefining smokefree as free of tobacco smoke pollutants from secondhand and thirdhand smoke; (b) eliminating exemptions to comprehensive smoking bans; (c) identifying indoor environments with significant thirdhand smoke reservoirs; and (d) remediating thirdhand smoke. We use the case of California as an example of how secondhand smoke-protective laws may be strengthened to encompass thirdhand smoke protections. The health risks and economic costs of thirdhand smoke require that smokefree policies, environmental protections, real estate and rental disclosure policies, tenant protections, and consumer protection laws be strengthened to ensure that the public is fully protected from and informed about the risks of thirdhand smoke exposure.

Cigarette butts and other postconsumer products from tobacco use are the most common waste elements picked up worldwide each year during environmental cleanups. Under the environmental principle of Extended Producer Responsibility, tobacco product manufacturers may be held responsible for collection, transport, processing and safe disposal of tobacco product waste (TPW). Legislation has been applied to other toxic and hazardous postconsumer waste products such as paints, pesticide containers and unused pharmaceuticals, to reduce, prevent and mitigate their environmental impacts. Additional product stewardship (PS) requirements may be necessary for other stakeholders and beneficiaries of tobacco product sales and use, especially suppliers, retailers and consumers, in order to ensure effective TPW reduction. This report describes how a Model Tobacco Waste Act may be adopted by national and subnational jurisdictions to address the environmental impacts of TPW. Such a law will also reduce tobacco use and its health consequences by raising attention to the environmental hazards of TPW, increasing the price of tobacco products, and reducing the number of tobacco product retailers.

BackgroundCigarette filters are made of non-biodegradable cellulose acetate. As much as 766,571 metric tons of butts wind up as litter worldwide per year. Numerous proposals have been made to prevent or mitigate cigarette butt pollution, but none has been effective; cigarette butts are consistently found to be the single most collected item in beach clean-ups and litter surveys.MethodsWe searched the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu) and http://tobaccodocuments.org using a snowball strategy beginning with keywords (eg, 'filter', 'biodegradable', 'butts'). Data from approximately 680 documents, dated 1959-2006, were analysed using an interpretive approach.ResultsThe tobacco industry has feared being held responsible for cigarette litter for more than 20 years. Their efforts to avoid this responsibility included developing biodegradable filters, creating anti-litter campaigns, and distributing portable and permanent ashtrays. They concluded that biodegradable filters would probably encourage littering and would not be marketable, and that smokers were defensive about discarding their tobacco butts and not amenable to anti-litter efforts.ConclusionsTobacco control and environmental advocates should develop partnerships to compel the industry to take financial and practical responsibility for cigarette butt waste.

Background: The cellulose acetate filter is a plastic attachment on nearly all commercial cigarettes sold worldwide. It is the main component of discarded cigarette butts, and the most prevalent waste item collected during urban and beach cleanups. This waste leaches toxic chemicals, including nicotine, metals and tobacco-specific nitrosamines and contributes to environmental microplastic pollution. There is growing international interest in reducing plastic waste from single-use, non-essential products such as cellulose acetate cigarette filters. Public health and environmental advocates recommend a ban on the sale of filtered cigarettes to reduce environmental pollution caused by discarded cigarette butts and to discourage cigarette smoking., Research Question: What potential health and behavioural implications might arise among people who smoke if filtered cigarettes are removed from the market., Methods: We conducted a cross-over, randomised clinical trial of 29 people who smoke to evaluate changes in biomarkers for nicotine and tobacco-specific nitrosamine exposure when switching between filtered and unfiltered cigarette smoking., Results: Although unfiltered smoking showed a higher trend in the geometric means of 4-[(methylnitrosamino])-1-[3-pyridyl]-1-butanol (NNAL) compared with filtered cigarettes, regression models for urinary cotinine and NNAL showed no significant differences when switching between filtered and unfiltered cigarettes., Conclusion: This proof-of-principle study suggests there is no increased risk to people who smoke when switching to unfiltered cigarette smoking. Although larger studies might provide more evidence regarding unfiltered cigarette smoking, banning the sale of filtered cigarettes may be an important policy intervention to both reduce hazardous tobacco waste and discourage smoking., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)