INC-5 Day 4: UN Plastic Pollution Treaty Negotiations

Guest Contribution:

The Filter Myth: Widespread Misconceptions Among INC5 Attendees Could Undermine Efforts to Ban Cigarette Filters in the Global Plastics Treaty 

Geoffrey T. Fong, OC, PhD, FRSC, FCAHS
University Professor of Psychology and Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo
Senior Investigator, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research

Shannon Gravely, PhD
Research Assistant Professor, ITC Project, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo

A key goal of the ASH team in Busan is to ensure that cigarette filters are included in the list of banned plastics. Cigarette filters, made of the plastic cellulose acetate, are emblematic of plastic pollution: each year, 4.5 trillion filters are discarded into the environment, making them the most pervasive form of environmental plastics. The harm caused by cigarette filters is compounded by the toxic chemicals from cigarette smoke that they leach into the environment when discarded.

Although the environmental costs of cigarette filters are well-known and driving the push to ban filters, there is a common misconception about filters that may be acting as a barrier against even stronger support for a filter ban: the belief that filters reduce the harmfulness of cigarettes. The truth is that filters do little to reduce the harms of smoking; indeed, filters may actually increase those harms.

The cigarette filter is a product feature that was promoted by the cigarette companies in the 1950s and 1960s in response to the growing research evidence that cigarettes were harmful. Filters were a strategy of deception to lessen the fears of those who smoke, and brand advertising often highlighted the technology of filters. Cigarette companies competed against each other, claiming that their own filter design was better/safer than those of their competitors.

However, decades of research have demonstrated that filters do very little to reduce the harmfulness of cigarettes—but very much to keep worried smokers from quitting, now comforted that because of the filter, their cigarettes are not as harmful.

But the deception of filters was expanded in a second more insidious way. The filter created a platform that the cigarette companies could build on to increase the deception. From the filter, they created the “light” cigarette, in which tiny holes were punched in the filter, allowing for the smoke being taken in by a smoker’s puff to be diluted since the tiny holes would let in more air into the puff, creating the sensory illusion of “lightness”, which many studies have demonstrated is interpreted by smokers as being less harmful, when in fact there is simply no impact on health.

After decades of epidemiological studies, it is now established that this second deception of filter ventilation/light cigarettes created greater harm by increasing and deepening inhalation, increasing cigarette consumption, leading to greater exposure to tobacco carcinogens. The deeper inhalation increased the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma, a particularly deadly form of lung cancer.

Admittedly, the concept of “the filter” is compelling. Filters play a vital role in improving our quality of life: they reduce harmful chemicals in our drinking water, shield our eyes from UV damage with sunglasses, and protect us from the rising threat of air pollution through HEPA filters. But the benefits of filters in those other domains simply do not apply in the case of cigarette filters.

Unfortunately, a great majority of people perceive cigarette filters as having the same benefits as other types of filters. The International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project), a global tobacco research program based at the University of Waterloo in Canada, just published an article last week reporting that among adults who smoke in Canada, the United States, England, and Australia, 82% of them believed incorrectly that if filters were removed from cigarettes, that would make the cigarettes more harmful.

We also found that those who believed the myth that filters provide a health benefit were significantly less likely to support a filter ban. This is understandable: if filters are perceived to reduce the harms of smoking, why would anyone want to ban them?

Our study was conducted among adults who smoke, making their views on a filter ban purely hypothetical—they would never find themselves in a position to make such a policy decision.

Here in Busan, the context is markedly different. INC5 attendees are individuals tasked with directly deciding whether cigarette filters will be included on a list of banned plastics. If these decision-makers hold the same misconceptions as those revealed in our surveys of people who smoke within the general population, such misunderstandings could reduce their willingness to support a filter ban during the treaty’s development.

So we had to find out: do INC5 attendees hold the same misperceptions about the purported health benefits of cigarette filters?

On Day 2 of INC5, we conducted a very short survey, based on the question in the study just published, among delegates and other attendees of the INC5 negotiations. (this study was submitted to the University of Waterloo Research Ethics Committee and was cleared for ethics). We found that 78% of INC5 attendees believed incorrectly that removing filters from cigarettes would make them more harmful—a percentage that was very similar to the 82% of our published study among adults who smoke.

The high percentage of INC5 attendees who believe in the filter myth may well be one of the reasons why it has been challenging to convince some delegates that they should be banning cigarette filters (“why should we ban something that is actually a health measure?”).

The INC5 study demonstrates the need to inform the environmental community gathered in Busan that there are NO health benefits to cigarette filters. Exposing the myth that cigarette filters are beneficial is an important communication strategy to support the objective of including filters on the list of banned plastics in the Global Plastics Treaty.

For decades, the tobacco industry has leveraged the concept of filters to perpetuate smoking, a tactic that Stanford historian Robert Proctor has described as the “deadliest fraud in the history of human civilization.”

In these final days of negotiations, we must ensure that this “deadliest fraud” does not extend its reach by failing to include cigarette filters on the list of banned plastics in the Global Plastics Treaty.

Updates from the Floor

November 28, 2024 – Following a tense plenary session on Day 3, the Chair requested that three of the four Contact Groups work in parallel sessions for the entire day and into the evening. This brought reservations and criticism from many Member States with small delegations, raising capacity issues because they cannot participate in multiple sessions simultaneously.

Contact Group 1 made significant progress on many items on their agenda, notably on definitions, exemptions, product design and supply. Contentious Article 3 (Plastic Products and Chemicals of Concern) and potential Annexes remain at large. The Chairs indicated that several informal discussions have taken place with various groups of Member States working toward revised and possibly new proposals. As a reminder, this is where cigarette filters (made from plastic) and single-use vapes remain on several Annex lists in proposals. We understand that there is support from some Member States as well as the African region for the inclusion of such lists/Annexes in the treaty/instrument text. It’s still too early to tell.

Contact Group 4 discussed Article 19 – Health – during the afternoon/early evening session. Most Member States support a dedicated provision for health in the treaty, while others feel that health components are necessary throughout the text. Unfortunately, others feel that a health provision has no place in the treaty at all and are calling for its removal. We are pleased to see support from many Member States for consultation with WHO in the text

The evening session of Contact Group 1 resulted in negotiations of a paper put forward by Brazil and Korea on plastic products.

Many countries insist on lists and Annexes in the text being negotiated this week.  This could be positive as the support is coming from influential states. So far, no products have been raised on the floor, they have only been mentioned in the written proposals as we reported earlier this week.

In many respects, the Chair has lit a fire, and today we saw a frenzy of fruitful negotiations. We still have a way to go.