Content uploaded by Thomas E Novotny
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas E Novotny
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 2.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Butt really? The environmental
impact of cigarettes
Cheryl G Healton,
1
K Michael Cummings,
2
Richard J O’Connor,
2
Thomas E Novotny
3
Are cigarette butts more than just an
unsightly litter problem?Do the chem-
icals leached out of them just ‘go
away’dbiodegraded and diluted by our
streams, rivers and oceans so that we can
forget about them?This special supple-
ment of Tobacco Control brings together the
currently known science about cigarette
butt waste and sets the stage for a new
research agenda that can unite the tobacco
control community with environmental
activists who have long been appalled by
the single most commonly collected waste
item found each year on beach clean-ups.
In addition, butts are also reported to
comprise an estimated 25e50 percent of
all collected litter items from roads and
streetsdmaking them a concern for the
quality of urban life. Cigarette butts
contain all the carcinogenic chemicals,
pesticides, and nicotine that make tobacco
use the leading cause of preventable death
worldwide, yet they are commonly,
unconsciously and inexcusably dumped
by the trillions (5.6 trillions and counting)
into the global environment each year.
In this issue, Moerman and Potts
demonstrate the presence of heavy metals
in cigarette butt leachatesdthe toxic soup
produced when butts are soaked in water;
Slaughter shows that only one cigarette
butt will kill half the fish exposed to
leachates in a controlled laboratory
setting; Harris describes the history of
how tobacco companies used filters as
a marketing tool in an effort to allay fears
about the harm caused by cigarettes, even
after the companies knew that filters did
not reduce risk. Smith and Novotny reveal
the tobacco industry’s long-standing
concern about the cigarette butt problem
and how it has responded by shifting
responsibility for the job of cleanup back
to its victims. Schneider et al analyse
tobacco product litter as an economic
issue, with costs of cleanup borne by
communities instead of the tobacco
manufacturers. Barnes describes some
important regulatory and environmental
principles that should underlie efforts to
mitigate cigarette butt waste, including
the Precautionary Principledwhich states
that environmental harm does not have to
be proved to justify preventing potential
exposuresdand Extended Producer
Responsibilitydwhich asserts that those
who produce a toxic waste product should
be held accountable for its cleanup.
To grapple with toxic cigarette butt
waste, we can look for lessons in other
interventions against environmental
pollution:
<‘Bottle bills’, in which states apply
a deposit-return scheme, have greatly
reduced waste from disposable bottles,
cans and plastic containers; the elec-
tronics industry collects a fee on
computers and other equipment to be
used for recycling these devices instead
of simply throwing them into landfills.
Waste fees or a deposit-return scheme
could be applied to cigarettes to recoup
the costs of cleanup in individual
communities.
<Plastic bags have been banned in
a number of communities, and plastic
tampon inserters have been considered
for regulation by several states
as environmental hazards and beach
blight. The plastic (cellulose acetate)
cigarette filter could also be banned
to reduce a huge source of unsightly,
non-biodegradable plastic waste.
<Mandatory take-back policies, such as
in those in the European Union for
electronics or as proposed in San
Francisco for pharmaceuticals that
have expired, may be implemented to
reduce cigarette butt waste, invoking
the principle of Extended Producer
Responsibility.
<Prohibitions on smoking in enclosed
spaces have reduced indoor air pollu-
tion and related health risks for
millions. Certainly, prohibitions on
smoking in outdoor public places,
including parks, beaches and even
outdoor urban areas will prevent some
butt waste flowing into our aquatic
environments. College campuses, as
suggested by Sawdey et al with the
current wave of green consciousness,
should be the vanguards of this
effortdthey should all be smoke free,
healthy environments, with no butts
about them.
We need to determine which chemicals
in combusted cigarette waste kill aquatic
organisms and whether these chemicals
can be detected, much like discarded anti-
biotics and other chemicals are detected, in
our water systems. Researchers should also
examine the social and economic impacts
of cigarette waste, including costs to
localities for butt clean-up and degradation
of urban environments.
While more research would certainly be
helpful to define the scope of the problem,
science-based interventions should now
address what is clearly an unnecessary and
preventable environmental plague in our
communities. If filters on cigarettes don’t
make smoking less hazardous why should
they be used at all?Filters don't make
smoking any safer although most smokers
today would seem to still think otherwise.
Butt really, what is needed now is for
tobacco control and environmental activ-
ists to work together to hold the global
cigarette industry accountable for the
toxic mess they've caused. It is their
products, when used as directed and then
discarded as part of the smoking ritual,
that pollute our environment, not just our
hearts and lungs. Cigarette butt waste is
the last socially acceptable form of
littering in what has become an increas-
ingly health and environmentally
conscious world. We challenge our friends
and colleagues in tobacco control and
environmental change movements to join
forces and find solutions for eliminating
this especially toxic form of trash.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not
externally peer reviewed.
Tobacco Control 2011;20:i1.
doi:10.1136/tc.2011.043729
This paper is freely available online under the BMJ
Journals unlocked scheme, see http://tobaccocontrol.
bmj.com/site/about/unlocked.xhtml
1
American Legacy Foundation, Washington, DC, USA;
2
Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer
Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA;
3
Graduate School of
Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego,
California, USA
Correspondence to Dr Cheryl G Healton, CEO, Legacy,
American Legacy Foundation, 1724 Massachusetts Ave,
NW, Washington, DC 20036 USA;
chealton@americanlegacy.org
Tobacco Control May 2011 Vol 20 Suppl 1 i1
Commentary
