Logo

The Filter Fraud: Debunking the Myth of “Safer” as a Key New Strategy of Tobacco Control

Alan Blum MD: Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society, University of Alabama School of Medicine, Tuscaloosa, AL, United States of America ablum@ua.edu   csts.ua.edu   205.348.2880

Thomas E. Novotny, MD MPH: San Diego State University, Cigarette Butt Pollution Project, San Diego, CA, United States of America tnovotny@sdsu.edu cigwaste.org   cigwaste.org   619.206.3656

This page is a digital reproduction of the original Filter Fraud: Debunking the Myth of “Safer” as a Key New Strategy of Tobacco Control poster produced to accompany a summarized version featured at the 52nd World Conference on Lung Health in 2021 

Background

Although efforts have been made to eliminate the use of misleading descriptors such as “low tar,” “lights,” and “mild” from cigarette marketing, the elimination of the cigarette filter—which is on 99.7% of cigarettes (sold in U.S) has been largely overlooked as a tobacco control strategy. The 2014 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on the Health Consequences of Smoking and the 2001 U.S. National Cancer Institute Monograph 13 report that the near-universal adoption by smokers of filtered cigarettes since their introduction in the 1950s has not reduced these consumers’ risks for cancer and other diseases (1). Moreover, the non-biodegradable filter is the source of significant environmental tobacco product waste..

Ninety Years of Filter Fraud

  1. In the 1950s, confronted with declining cigarette sales after the publication of research studies linking smoking to lung cancer, tobacco companies began producing filter tipped brands that were claimed to remove certain components of the smoke, which manufacturers never acknowledged to be harmful. This included use of charcoal, asbestos, and other materials. Kent “Micronite” filters marketed in 1950s contained asbestos (3).
  2. Lower machine-measured tar and nicotine yields were thought by smokers to reduce cancer risks; “light,” “low tar,” and “mild” became key advertising messages despite growing evidence of increased risks for lung cancer. (These fraudulent terms are now banned from use in the USA) (2).
  3. Machine-measured machine yields were due to ventilated filters—i.e., holes in the filter that may create deceptive filtration results and that may be occluded by smokers to compensate for less ‘flavor’ or nicotine dose (2,3).
  4. Of note is that throughout the 1970s the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and most major health organizations promoted the concept of a “less hazardous” cigarette in the belief that most people who smoke would not or could not stop.
  5. All major medical journals (JAMA, NEJM, BMJ, The Lancet, and many state medical journals) continued to accept cigarette advertising well into the 1960s.

Du Maurier Virginia Filter-Tipped Cigarettes

Advertisement for Peter Jackon’s du Maurier filtered cigarettes in a 1931 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

New King-Size Viceroy Gives You Double-Barrelled Health Protection

Advertisement for Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co’s Viceroy cigarettes in an October 12, 153 edition of TIME Magazine.

Reduced Carcinogens. Premium Taste.

Advertisement for Vector Tobacco’s Omni in The National Enquirer from February 5, 2002.

Damning Evidence the Filters are a Health Hazard

  1. Like flavorings such as menthol, filters facilitate nicotine addiction and make it easier for youth to start smoking and discourage smokers from quitting. The tobacco industry encouraged consumer complacency and false security about the ‘safety’ of the filter.
  2. Lung cancer risks among smokers have doubled for men and increased by almost 10 times for women from 1960-1980; relative risks for adenocarcinoma increased from 4.6 to19.0 among men and from 1.5 to 8.1 among women (6).
  3. The use of ventilation in cigarette filters has also failed to make them safer and more than likely has made them more harmful (2, 3). Smokers who switched to low-tar cigarettes employed compensatory smoking, whereby they inhale more frequently and more deeply to maintain nicotine dosing. Such compensatory behavior offsets any theoretical benefit of ventilated filters and results in increased inhaled carbon monoxide and increased cardiovascular risk.
  4. The tobacco industry has known for decades that the filter does not provide protection from the adverse health consequences of smoking (7).

Toxic Tobacco Product Waste

  1. Most filters are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic material which, as discarded waste, are the single most common waste item picked up over the last 30 years on beaches and urban cleanups worldwide (4).
  2. The leachates produced by soaking butts for 96 hours in fresh or salt water have been found to have a LD50 for test fish of one cigarette butt/liter. According to this U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Protocol, cigarette butts should therefore be considered toxic hazardous waste and regulated as such (5*).
  3. 5.6 Trillion Smoked Each Year, 2/3 dumped into environment.

Filter Waste Compared to Other Pollutants

  • Rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • Item
  • Cigarettes / filters
  • Wrappers / food containers
  • Caps, lids
  • Cups, plates, knives, forks, spoons
  • Beverage bottles (plastic)
  • Bags (plastic)
  • Beverage bottles (glass)
  • Beverage cans
  • Straws / stirrers
  • Rope
  • Number of Debri Items
  • 52,907,756
  • 14,766,533
  • 13,585,425
  • 10,112,038
  • 9,549,156
  • 7,825,319
  • 7,062,199
  • 6,753,260
  • 6,263,453
  • 3,251,948
  • Percentage of Total Debris
  • 32%
  • 9%
  • 8%
  • 6%
  • 6%
  • 5%
  • 4%
  • 4%
  • 4%
  • 2%

Famous Microonite Filter

Advertisement for Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co.’s Kent cigarettes in MD from 1960.

If You Could Put Tareyton’s Charcoal Filter On your Cigarette, You’d Have a Better Cigarette.

Advertisement for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co’s Tareyton cigarettes in Massachusetts Physcian from 1969.

The Smoke Comes Clean with Garrick Filter Tips

Advertisement for Garrick’s filter-tipped cigarettes in The Medical Journal of Australia from February 10, 1940.

New Improved Marlboro Filter

Advertisement for Philip Morris Inc.’s Marlboro cigarettes circa 1960.

What Can Be Done?

Policy Options to Eliminate the
Filter Fraud		 Rationale Jurisdiction Likely Outcome
Product Labelling (8) Increases smoker awareness of filter risk National Modest impact on smoker behavior
Litigation (9) Cost recovery for environmental damage, nuisance Local, State, National

De-normalization smoking, internalization of environmental and health costs
Extended Producer
Responsibility (10)		 Takeback & waste product stewardship Local, State, National Higher costs of distribution
Banning Sale of Filtered Cigarettes (3) Corrective action on fraudulent product, upstream waste management Local, State, National

De-normalizes smoking, reduced consumption
Public Education (1) & Counter-Advertising (11) Change perceptions through effective direct messaging National

Increased public awareness of fraud

Conclusion

  1. There is sufficient evidence that cigarette filters are a fraud, primarily acting as a marketing tool with which the tobacco industry has deceived the public into believing there is some ‘health benefit’ from smoking filtered cigarettes compared with unfiltered cigarettes.
  2. The cellulose acetate filter comprises the bulk of tobacco product waste, which can be considered a toxic hazardous waste product and therefore further regulated as such by local jurisdictions.
  3. Banning the sale of filtered cigarettes is likely to reduce cigarette consumption, further denormalize smoking, and result in fewer children starting to smoke.
  4. Policy makers and health providers need to reinforce the fact to all who still smoke cigarettes that the filter does not confer any health protection whatsoever.
  5. Further research is needed on the health and behavioral impact of removing filters from the global cigarette market, but banning

Conclusion

  1. There is sufficient evidence that cigarette filters are a fraud, primarily acting as a marketing tool with which the tobacco industry has deceived the public into believing there is some ‘health benefit’ from smoking filtered cigarettes compared with unfiltered cigarettes.
  2. The cellulose acetate filter comprises the bulk of tobacco product waste, which can be considered a toxic hazardous waste product and therefore further regulated as such by local jurisdictions.
  3. Banning the sale of filtered cigarettes is likely to reduce cigarette consumption, further denormalize smoking, and result in fewer children starting to smoke.
  4. Policy makers and health providers need to reinforce the fact to all who still smoke cigarettes that the filter does not confer any health protection whatsoever.
  5. Further research is needed on the health and behavioral impact of removing filters from the global cigarette market, but banning

Alan Blum, MD – The Filter Fraud (1:30)

Thomas E. Novotny, MD MPH – The Filter Fraud (1:28)

References

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2014.
  2. Song M, BenowitzNL, Berman M, et al. Cigarette Filter Ventilation and its Relationship to Increasing Rates of Lung Adenocarcinoma. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2017;109 (12), 1 December 2017, djx075, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx075
  3. Blum A. In, DeVitaVT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA. Cancer Principles and Practice of Oncology, Lippencott-Raven Publishers, 1997. Cancer Prevention: Preventing tobacco-related cancers. pp 545-557.
  4. Novotny TE, Slaughter E. Tobacco Product Waste: An Environmental Approach to Reduce Tobacco Consumption. CurrEnvirHealth Rep 2014;1(3):208–216. DOI 10.1007/s40572-014-0016-x
  5. Davidson B. New hope for cigarette smokers: Crash effort for a safer cigarette. The Saturday Evening Post. April 18, 2964.
  6. Thun MJ, Heath CWJr. Changes in mortality from smoking in two American Cancer Society prospective studies since 1959. PrevMed . 1997;264:422–426
  7. Harris B. The intractable cigarette ‘filter problem’. TobControl. 2011 May;20 Suppl1:i10-6. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.040113.
  8. Hammond, D, “Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review,” Tobacco Control , published online May 23 2011.
  9. WitkowskiJ. Holding cigarette manufacturers and smokers liable for toxic butts: Potential litigation-related causes of action for environmental injuries/harm and waste cleanup . Tulane Environmental Law Journal Winter2014;23 (1):1-36.
  10. Curtis C, Collins S, Cunningham S, Stigler P, Novotny TE. Extended Producer Responsibility and Product Stewardship for Tobacco Product Waste. IntJ Waste Resources 2014;4:157. doi: 10.4303/2252-5211.1000157
  11. Blum A. Medicine vs. Madison Avenue: Fighting smoke with smoke. JAMA 1980;243(8):739-740.

The Filter Fraud: Debunking the Myth of “Safer” as a Key New Strategy of Tobacco Control

Logo

Alan Blum, MD

Professor,
Department of Family Medicine
Gerald Leon Wallace, MD, Endowed Chair in Family Medicine
College of Community Health Sciences
Director, Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society
The University of Alabama

Thomas E. Novotny, MD MPH DSc (hon)

Professor Emeritus, School of Public Health
San Diego State University
Chief Executive Officer, Cigarette Butt Pollution Project
cigwaste.org

Web Design by Kevin Bailey, MA

Collection Manager and Digital Archivist
Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society
The University of Alabama

For More…

Visit the collections and exhibitions here on our website csts.ua.edu, or click below to learn more about filters made from tobacco and other cancer-causing materials, and the myth of safer cigarettes that persists into the 21st century.

A Filter Made of Tobacco Itself

As concerns about the health effects of cigarettes mounted in the mid 20th century, Brown and Williamson introduced a novel way to combat fears about tobacco… more tobacco…

Lorillard’s KENT Micronite Filter Asbestos and the Quest for a Safer Cigarette

In 1952, using the popular new medium of television, the P. Lorillard Co. sponsored “scientific” demonstrations to show the efficacy and implied health benefits of its KENT Micronite filter. The campaign also featured advertisements in medical journals. Although the ads did not disclose the composition of “Micronite,” the material that Lorillard touted as “so safe, so effective …

“Safer Cigarettes” in the 21st Century Contemporary Health Claims of “Safer Cigarettes”

At the close of the 20th century tobacco makers began to introduce “safer” cigarettes, by introducing light cigarettes and alternatives to combustible cigarettes that would be among the forerunners of electronic cigarettes…

© Copyright - The Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society