Where To Buy Cigarette Filters Chicago Near Me

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009 May; 6(5): 1691–1705.

Cigarettes Butts and the Case for an Environmental Policy on Hazardous Cigarette Waste material

Received 2009 Apr two; Accepted 2009 May xix.

Abstract

Discarded cigarette butts are a form of not-biodegradable litter. Carried equally runoff from streets to drains, to rivers, and ultimately to the bounding main and its beaches, cigarette filters are the unmarried nigh collected item in international beach cleanups each year. They are an ecology blight on streets, sidewalks, and other open areas. Rather than existence a protective wellness device, cigarette filters are primarily a marketing tool to help sell 'rubber' cigarettes. They are perceived by much of the public (especially current smokers) to reduce the wellness risks of smoking through technology. Filters have reduced the machine-measured yield of tar and nicotine from called-for cigarettes, only there is controversy as to whether this has correspondingly reduced the disease burden of smoking to the population. Filters actually may serve to sustain smoking by making it seem less urgent for smokers to quit and easier for children to initiate smoking because of reduced irritation from early experimentation. Several options are bachelor to reduce the ecology impact of cigarette butt waste, including developing biodegradable filters, increasing fines and penalties for littering butts, monetary deposits on filters, increasing availability of butt receptacles, and expanded public education. Information technology may even be possible to ban the sale of filtered cigarettes birthday on the basis of their adverse environmental impact. This option may be attractive in coastal regions where beaches accumulate butt waste matter and where smoking indoors is increasingly prohibited. Additional research is needed on the diverse policy options, including behavioral research on the impact of banning the auction of filtered cigarettes altogether.

Keywords: cigarette litter, waste product, butts, smoking, filters, surround

1. The History and Function of Cigarette Filters

The cellulose-acetate filter was added to cigarettes in the 1950s in the wake of increasingly convincing scientific evidence that cigarettes acquired lung cancer and other serious diseases [i]. Filters were found to reduce the machine-measured yields of tar and nicotine in smoked cigarettes, and at start this seemed to be a healthy technological improvement in the cigarette product. In 1966, a review by the US Public Health Service concluded that, "The preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggests that the lower the 'tar' and nicotine content of cigarette smoke, the less harmful would be the effect." Post-obit this report, both Government and tobacco industry scientists conducted studies of cigarette manufacturing and tobacco cultivation that could lead to lower "tar" and nicotine yields. Cigarette manufacturers promoted such products, especially filtered cigarettes, through ad that included an implied wellness claim for 'safer' cigarettes. Some epidemiological studies have alluded to reduced health impacts attributable to lower tar- and nicotine-yielding cigarettes [ii,3]; in fact, the sales-weighted averages of these constituents in cigarettes has dramatically declined over the last fifty years. Nevertheless, smokers who switched to these depression-yield brands did not substantially alter their exposure to tar and nicotine considering of compensatory smoking (deeper and more frequent puffing, plugging ventilation holes on filters, etc.) and the changes in the way cigarettes were manufactured. To address this confusion, the National Cancer Institute undertook a comprehensive review of low-tar and depression-nicotine yielding cigarettes' potential health benefits. Its 2001 Monograph 13, Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine, [4] concluded that "Epidemiological and other scientific evidence, including patterns of bloodshed from smoking-caused diseases, does not betoken a benefit to public health from changes in cigarette design and manufacturing over the terminal 50 years." In addition, a 2006 US Department of Justice ruling against the tobacco companies, at present stayed and pending appeal, "bans terms including "low tar," "light," "ultra light," "mild," and "natural" that have been used to mislead consumers nigh the health risks of smoking and prohibits the tobacco companies from conveying whatsoever explicit or implicit wellness bulletin for any cigarette brand" [5]. Over the terminal 50 years, smokers switched almost entirely (99%) to filtered cigarettes (Effigy ane), and virtually all of these sold in the United States are made of cellulose acetate, a plastic production [6].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is ijerph-06-01691f1.jpg

Marketplace share and sales of filtered and non-filtered cigarettes in the U.s., 1925–1993.

Filters likely discourage many smokers from making the quit endeavor considering they yet cling to the conventionalities that filtered cigarettes are protective of their health; thus, filters may accept overall a detrimental event on population wellness. Filters are a rod of most 12,000 fibers, and fragments of this textile become separated from the filter during the manufacturing process and may exist released during inhalation of a cigarette. It has been reported in tests on 12 popular brands that fibers are inhaled and besides ingested, and filter fibers have been reportedly found in the lung tissue of patients with lung cancer [7]. Furthermore, consumer preference for filtered cigarettes may have been associated with a histological shift in predominant lung cancer blazon from squamous jail cell to the more ambitious adenocarcinoma cell type [8].

Currently, cigarette manufacturers are contemplating and test marketing boosted "reduced impairment" products, including new types of filters that may reduce toxic constituents in cigarette smoke (these new filters also contain cellulose acetate as well equally new filter materials) [ix]. Nonetheless, filters continue to be primarily a marketing tool to help sell cigarettes.

2. The Environmental Problem of Cigarette Butts

Any their direct health impact on or benefit to smokers, cigarette filters pose a serious litter and toxic waste disposal problem. Cellulose acetate is photodegradable just non bio-degradable. Although ultraviolet rays from the sunday will somewhen break the filter into smaller pieces under platonic environmental conditions, the source material never disappears; it essentially becomes diluted in water or soil [10,11].

While the environmental touch on of a unmarried disposed cigarette filter is minimal, there were 1.35 trillion filtered cigarettes manufactured in the United States in 2007, and of these, more than 360 billion were consumed here [12]. Well-nigh 680,000 tons of cellulose acetate was used in the production of these filtered cigarettes. With 5.6 trillion filtered cigarettes consumed worldwide in 2002, and 9 trillion expected by 2025, the global environmental burden of cigarette filters is besides significant [thirteen]. Information technology is estimated that i.69 billion pounds (845,000 tons) of butts wind up as litter worldwide per yr [14].

Most attending has been given to the cigarette barrel waste problem because of the filters that terminate up on beaches. The annual Ocean Conservancy'southward International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) reports that 'cigarette butts have been the single most recovered particular since collections began' [15]. Although volunteers nerveless 1,684,183 cigarette butts (33.six% of all debris) in the 2007 US Cleanup (Figure two), these data probable underestimate full discarded filters. For example, a comprehensive cleanup in Orange Canton, California, yielded 20 times more butts than the estimated ICC total for that beach for the same year [xvi].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is ijerph-06-01691f2.jpg

Cigarettes and Cigarette Filters Collected in the U.s.a. in the International Littoral Cleanup, 1996–2007. Source: Body of water Conservancy 2007.

The cigarette butts recovered from beaches are not necessarily due to cigarettes that are smoked on them. Butts are dropped on sidewalks or thrown from moving cars; they and so move to the street drains, and thus to streams, rivers, and the oceans. In addition, since the early 1980s there has been increasing concern about the health consequences of passive smoking, and thus more smoking occurs outdoors, likely contributing to this chain of events. As a consequence, cigarette butts become unsightly and hard-to-remove waste in multiple locations, including streets, storm drains, streams, and beaches. In a review of litter cleanup projection reports, the Keep America Beautiful Campaign reported that cigarette butts comprise from 25 to 50 percent of all collected litter items from roadways and streets. One report from a higher campus estimated the cost of cigarette litter cleanup at $150,000 for a single, two-week-long try. No other economic bear on studies have been reported [17]. Their not-biodegradability means that they also increase landfill demands, add together costs to municipalities' waste material disposal programs, and create environmental blight in public spaces.

Discarded cigarette butts are not only unsightly; they are also toxic in and of themselves. Environmental groups have expressed business organisation for marine creatures that ingest littered filters [18,19]. A 2006 laboratory written report institute that cigarette butts were constitute to be acutely toxic to a freshwater cladoceran organism and a marine bacteria (microtox) and that the main cause of toxicity was attributed to nicotine and ethylphenol in the leachates from cigarette butts [twenty]. A 1997 report from the Rhode Island Section of Health reported 146 cases of cigarette butt ingestion among children < 6 years sometime; of these, approximately one-3rd displayed transient nicotine toxicity [21]. Even if properly disposed, cigarette butts are hazardous solid waste. It is unknown as to how many must be consumed to cause adverse health effects in marine animals such equally birds or mammals.

3. The Tobacco Industry Response

In the 1990s, marketplace enquiry prompted cigarette manufacturers to recognize that environmental concerns about discarded butts might become more of import to consumers and policymakers. A 1992 Philip Morris USA internal memo identified cellulose acetate filters every bit not-degradable textile and reported that Eastman Chemical Products Company and Celanese Fibers Company were conducting research on cellulose acetate degradation [22]. Alternatives to the cellulose acetate filter were too pursued by Brownish & Williamson Tobacco Visitor [23] and RJR, whose 'Degradable Team' reported in the minutes from an April 4, 1996, meeting that it had tested five biodegradable filter prototypes in sensory evaluation tests. However, these filters were found to be unacceptable to smokers: "all products had greater artificial lit smell, less tobacco taste, more bogus taste, more than generic gustatory modality, less sweet, more biting, less tobacco palatableness, greater bitter, not-tobacco aftertaste and greater drying."[24]. In 1998, RJR scientists filed a United states patent on a "degradable smoking commodity" that utilized dissociable cigarette parts to advance disintegration by increasing exposure of surface areas to "natural elements". However, their inquiry plant that the disintegrated filter components were still deposited in the environment every bit small particles [25].

CORESTA, the tobacco industry's international research organization, formed a 'Cigarette Butt Degradability Task Force' in the early 1990s to "develop a examination to determine the rate of degradability of a complete cigarette barrel" [26]. The task strength's membership of cigarette makers, filter suppliers, paper manufacturers, and agglutinative companies displayed all-encompassing involvement in biodegradability research. If a biodegradable filter were marketable, these industries would reap significant financial benefits through a new marketing tool that would help smokers place themselves equally environmentally friendly. Notwithstanding, the task force's final study stated that their objective "was made more difficult by the fact that most of the available reference work supported efforts to enhance stability not degradability, and were applied to single component products, non systems equanimous of dissimilar types of materials". The task force disbanded in 2000 after CORESTA found that it was "unlikely that the level of interest could justify the calibration of the effort", which would require more information drove and the development of instrumentation to establish a standardized test for cigarette filter degradation [27].

In 2000, Philip Morris' consumer research on cigarette litter found that the issue was not "height of heed" for smokers, that at that place is ritualized behavior in the disposal of cigarette butts, and that "adults who choose to smoke demand convenient alternatives to cigarette disposal" [28]. As a event of this research, Philip Morris proposed distribution of convenient disposal receptacles and direct communication with smokers to encourage them to dispose of butts in an environmentally conscious manner. Subsequently, Phillip Morris became one of the major supporters of the Continue America Beautiful Entrada ([KAB] a non-profit, grass roots arrangement), which encourages individual responsibility for proper butt disposal and other wastes [29]. However, there are no evaluation data on the effectiveness of such campaigns in reducing barrel litter. It may be that Philip Morris' interests lie primarily in shifting the responsibility for butt waste to the consumer; KAB's efforts focus on public pedagogy and increasing availability of butt receptacles, including mitt held ashtrays; its campaigns support Philip Morris' corporate social image [30]. In 2007, it received a $iii million grant from Philip Morris U.s. for its butt litter campaigns [31].

The tobacco manufacture has considered this problem farther with some of their own research on filter degradability. Philip Morris documents described "Project Natural" at the 1990 Philip Morris International Marketing Meeting, where the litter outcome and the problems with filter degradability were discussed. The presenter stated: "to avoid this problem, the simplest solution would be to eliminate the filter! But this of form would defy consumer preference and brand information technology difficult to control tar and nicotine levels" [32].

In a 2006 Stakeholder analysis and response project, RJR described these internal and industry-sponsored programs as mainly to develop test methods that ascertain the photograph, water and biological degradability of existing and new materials. RJRs final bulletin to stakeholders was, "Our stance is that the current state of the art in textile technology has non produced a textile that is commercially feasible. While some degradable materials have been identified, they are unsuitable because of poor sense of taste, short shelf-life and physical instability during smoking, manufacturability and/or fabric variability. The company is standing to expect at all technological solutions to biodegradability" (emphasis added) [33].

Currently, at that place is no bear witness that the industry has developed a marketable, degradable filter. However, ane biotech visitor (Stanelco) has developed a food-starch-based filter and has appointed Rothschild International, to develop and exam this device for possible widespread adoption [34]. Starch used in the filter is essentially a saccharide polymer institute in foods such as potato and rice. The biodegradability of such filters could theoretically reduce the environmental impact of butt waste past being compostable. Stanelco has touted this filter as not only eco-friendly but 30 to 50% cheaper than cellulose acetate filters at bulk prices. Compared with cellulose acetate filters, the visitor claims that starch-based filters may also have health effects because smokers volition non exist exposed to "fall-out" of cellulose acetate fragments inbound the lung through inhalation [35]. Even with starch-based composition, these filters may take two months to biodegrade, and they would nevertheless release toxic filtrates into the environs when they do then.

4. Community and State Response

In response to the outcome of cigarette butt litter, some municipalities have banned smoking on beaches, including in Chicago, San Diego, and other areas (Tabular array 1). These bans are widely seen as a proficient starting time stride to controlling butt waste, only because of the runoff from streets to waterways to sea, they volition not eliminate them from beaches. Butts despoil these heavily used public spaces, which then become the responsibility of the land and local regime to clean up. In California, a law that would ban smoking on all 64 state-run beaches and State Parks in California failed by two votes in 2004 in the country Senate and is currently under consideration again [36]. There appears to be considerable interest in embankment smoking bans, mainly at the local level, where responsibility for cleanup resides. Detailed cost analyses and affect assessments on such bans are as notwithstanding lacking.

Table 1.

Smoking bans on beaches by State and Municipality, Usa, 2008.

Land	Municipality
California	Albany, Belmont, Calabasas, Capitola, Carmel, Carpinteria, Del Mar, El Cajon, El Segundo, Encinitas, Hayward, Hermosa Beach, Regal Embankment, Laguna Embankment, Colina Linda, Los Angeles, Los Angeles Canton, Manhattan Beach, Monterey, Morro Bay, Novato, Oceanside, Pacific Grove, Pacifica, Palos Verdes Estates, San Diego, San Mateo County, Sand City, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, Seal Beach, Torrance
Florida	Jupiter Isle
Hawaii	Hawaii County
Iowa	Des Moines, Johnson County
Illinois	Chicago, Highland Park, Lake Forest, Wilmette
Massachusetts	Abington, Braintree, Grafton, Holliston, Sharon, Tyngsborough, Upton, Westford
Michigan	Grand Haven Township, Howell, Ottawa County
Minnesota	Battle Lake, Bloomington, Buffalo, Fergus Falls, Hennepin Canton, Hoffman, Ramsey County, Washington County
New Hampshire	Gilford, Windham
New Jersey	Brick Township, Dover Township, Lavallette Borough, Mount Arlington Borough, Seaside Park, Ship Bottom Borough, Surf Metropolis Civic
New York	Kingston
Puerto Rico	Puerto Rico
Rhode Isle	Westerly
South Carolina	Surfside Beach
Utah	Davis County
Washington	Lake Stevens
Wisconsin	Madison

5. Policy Options to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Cigarette Barrel Litter

Our previous report [37] established the environmental externalities of smoking, focusing on the enormous number of butts reported in international beach cleanups and on the hazardous wastes resulting from cigarette manufacturing processes. There is precedent for enacting state and local regulation to protect the environs from non-biodegradable solid waste from consumer products; we propose several models for possible action against cigarette butt waste product.

five.1. Labeling

Some products carry warnings printed on them advising consumers not to litter the packages or the product (aluminum cans, bottles, plastics, etc). This has never been proposed equally a means of warning smokers almost the non-biodegradability of filters (or of packet litter). A warning label of sufficient size could exist required every bit role of the proposed FDA regulatory authorisation that simply states: "Cigarette filters are non-biodegradable hazardous waste matter. Disposal of filters should be in accordance with state law" (with appropriate state police force requirements included on each package sold in the each state). These could go on to describe potential human toxicity, methods for safe handling, etc.

5.2. Deposit/Return

In the 1970s, Oregon and several other states introduced "canteen bills" as a mode to reduce the hazards, clean-upwardly costs, and waste of discarded drinking glass containers (by and large from beverages). Deposit/recycling laws accept been implemented around the world, in fact. These laws mandate that consumers pay a deposit when they purchase specified items which will be returned when the container is returned. The Oregon law is credited with reducing litter and increasing container recycling, with render rates of upwardly to 90%. The Oregon Department of Environmental quality reports that discarded items covered past the laws were reduced from 40% of roadside litter collected to half dozen% [38]. In Due south Australia, there has been like success with bottle bills and electronics [39]. Similarly, cigarettes could be sold with a "barrel deposit" to be refunded when the pack is returned to the vender with the butts. As with bottles and cans, this could spark both more intendance on the part of smokers and provide income to others who retrieve whatsoever butts that smokers discard. It would besides increment the opportunity costs of smoking, thus perhaps having a salutary consequence on reduced cigarette consumption.

five.iii. Waste Tax

Concern nigh toxic waste resulting from technology products such as computers, telephones, and televisions, has given ascent to legislation implementing a consumer funded Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF); this is assessed at the betoken of purchasing electronic products [xl]. These fees are intended to pay for the costs of recycling the item and disposing properly of any non-recyclable material. The fees are minimal (compared to the cost of the products), ranging from $half dozen to $10. Of note, this system functions with consummate support of the manufacturers themselves, with cadre principals calling for shared responsibility. Adding a waste product fee to cigarettes is another possibility, and the funds collected could exist used to mitigate ecology consequences and to fund research on butt waste material. A fee or taxation has the added advantage of increasing costs of cigarettes, thereby reducing consumption. Such fees would accept to exist supported past careful litter audits and economic costs of cleanup studies.

5.four. Litigation

To date, most litigation against the tobacco industry has focused on the health costs that others (individuals, insurance companies, states) end up paying as a issue of cigarette consumption. Similarly, the industry could be held responsible for environmental impacts associated with the sales of their product. In improver, although the tobacco industry has nevertheless to produce a commercially viable biodegradable filter, information technology may be that there is a technological solution which has and so far not met economic requirements. Litigation may change that equation.

Litigation has been pursued against manufacturers of products that damage the environment. In fact, entire communities have filed class activity lawsuits to sue polluters, and these cases are typically based on 2 tort theories: negligence and nuisance. Negligence is a tort theory that permits someone who is injured by some other'due south unreasonable bear to recover money damages. The primary element of a successful negligence case is proof of the defendant'due south wrongful conduct, or failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm. Nuisance is a tort theory that protects someone's right to use and enjoyment of their real property [41]. Settlement of these cases sometimes requires abatement besides as restitution. Interesting to note is that the responsibility of hazardous waste matter abatement may include the waste product generator who is in function responsible for the waste handler's deportment. Thus, if the handler does a poor task and pollutes the environment, the generator may be responsible for cleanup. One could imagine beach communities in detail resorting to litigation to concord accountable the waste generator (in this case the cigarette manufacturers) for the action of the waste handler (the smoker).

5.5. Fines

Fines are levied by local communities for violations of smoking bans on beaches and in enclosed places. Fines for littering may be as high every bit $ane,000 in some states if the littering subject can be observed and cited by government. Fines could also exist levied by states (or municipalities) confronting cigarette manufacturers based on the amount of cigarette waste establish either equally litter or as properly tending waste. These fines would at least partially recoup for the costs of cleaning up and disposing of cigarette waste; they would certainly be passed along to consumers, thus increasing the costs of smoking and reducing consumption.

5.6. Mandatory Filter Biodegradability

Nutrient and Drug Administration (FDA) Regulation of Tobacco products is now beingness considered for authorization under the US Senate Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Command Deed (already passed past the House of Representatives and not canonical in the Senate). If passed, this act would:

Empower the FDA to establish a periodically re-evaluated content standard, and require changes in tobacco products to meet the standard.
Grant the FDA authority to require changes in current and futurity tobacco products to protect public health, such as the reduction or emptying of harmful ingredients, additives and constituents, including smoke constituents.
Empower the FDA to reduce nicotine yields to whatsoever level other than zilch (reserved to Congress). This ways the FDA can reduce nicotine to minimal levels, including levels that do not lead to addiction.
Authorize the FDA to require the reduction or removal of harmful or potentially harmful constituents to protect the public health [42].

Clearly, this legislation would have implications for states that promise to regulate tobacco products in any way, and in that location is concern among tobacco control advocates as to whether such regulation would pre-empt state deportment. However, there is already precedent for state regulation of tobacco projects. Cigarettes are regulated by 22 states to exist burn down safe if sold in a specific country. Canada has become the beginning nation to mandate the sale of burn down-safe cigarettes [43]. State legislation to mitigate a significant non-point-source of ecology pollution may be an effective means of either prohibiting the auction of cellulose-acetate filtered cigarettes or mandating that only biodegradable filtered cigarettes could be sold in the state.

5.7. Ban Disposable Filters

Some products known to be hazardous or decumbent to improper disposal have simply been banned entirely from sales and distribution. For example, pop-tops on aluminum cans [44], which were oftentimes littered and caused injury when stepped on, and plastic tampon applicators, which even when disposed of properly tended to wash up on beaches [45] were regulated by country laws. Thus, States could merely ban the sale of filtered cigarettes if these were to be considered as an environmental trouble. This controversial proposal requires further research to make up one's mind its potential individual and population health impacts. There may in fact be meaning positive behavioral impacts in reducing smoker's consumption of unfiltered cigarettes or reducing initiation among children.

5.eight. Consumer Teaching and Responsibility

There are several grass roots organizations and websites addressing the result of cigarette butt waste, both in the United States and elsewhere effectually the globe (Table 2). These focus primarily on consumer pedagogy and responsibleness to dispose of butts properly. Many, such equally KAB, may be funded by the tobacco manufacture [46]. Nevertheless, it is an accepted notion in health behavior science that man behavior changes only slowly if at all unless there are costs, benefits, and social norms to support these changes. Butt littering is for the most part an ignored beliefs among smokers; it may even be a part of the smoking ritual. Added to this is the now widespread regulation of indoor smoking, which causes smokers to retreat to the street and sidewalk where there may be no butt receptacles. The question arises as to the responsibleness to provide suitable receptacles. Should these be the property owner, the city or county, or should there be requirements for all smokers to carry hand-held ashtrays? If they did carry and use these, how would disposal of the ashtray contents exist regulated or assured?

Table 2.

Environmental Groups Concerned with Cigarette Butt Waste.

Public information campaigns that involve all stakeholders will exist important no matter what the policy approaches to controlling barrel waste material. Public enforcement of littering regulations will follow irresolute social norms. Increased regulatory activeness at the land and local level will follow raised awareness of the barrel litter trouble. Increased publicity about 'green' beliefs may affect the littering behavior of smokers. Added to this are fines, fees, and other economic disincentives, and smokers may alter behavior even more. One thing is certain, yet: when cigarette consumption decreases as a result of reduced prevalence of smoking, butt waste product decreases. In the last ten years, the per capita consumption of cigarettes declined near 20% in the United States [iv].

six. Discussion

Cigarette butts are undoubtedly an environmental problem causing bane on beaches, streets, sidewalks, waterways, and public spaces. Well-nigh of the policy approaches proposed above would likely have two benefits to wellness and the environment. Get-go, they would likely increment the costs of cigarettes to consumers, as manufacturers would pass along the costs of taxes, fees, litigation, or new production engineering science. Increasing the price of smoking is a well-established way to reduce smoking [47]. Fifty-fifty a returnable deposit, if large plenty, might deter some from starting to smoke, since it would require a larger initial outlay. Reduced smoking rates would in plow lead to fewer discarded butts. The wellness consequences of changing or removing filters from the market altogether are not known. However, the possibilities range from improved population health due to decreased consumption (if smokers were induced to quit by the absence of their preferred cigarettes, and the loss of the psychological "safety" of filters); worse population health (if smokers continued to smoke unfiltered, somewhat more chancy cigarettes); or unchanged population wellness (if new products created in response to these regulations replaced filtered cigarettes, or if filters are confirmed to have no appreciable health benefits). New products might include cigarettes with toxins removed in another way, or the introduction of non-disposable, reusable filters. Under the new FDA regulations that may be authorized by Congress, changes in the tobacco products would need to undergo FDA review.

Second, adoption of these policies would mean no longer allowing the industry to externalize the costs of the cleanup of butt litter. The electric current industry arroyo (as with its historical arroyo to the direct wellness consequences of smoking) is basically to 'blame the victim'. In this context, the smoker is the litterer and thus it is his or her responsibility to take care of the butt disposal. However, it is clear that municipalities, businesses, states, voluntary groups, and other external bodies bear the brunt of near barrel waste product cleanup costs.

Although some aspects of tobacco product policy in the United States are reserved for the Federal government (for case, labeling), others are clearly in the army camp of state or local intervention. For example, states are increasingly requiring that cigarettes sold exist designed for Reduced Ignition Propensity (RIP), to reduce fire risk. Pollution mitigation fees tin can exist charged at numerous governmental levels. It is clear that under current conditions Federal authority is not required to adopt state or local policies aimed at reducing cigarette litter and waste material.

In that location may exist drawbacks or unintended consequences to many the policies to control butt waste. Would biodegradable filters make smoking more acceptable, or allow cigarette companies to tout their products as "green"? Would states or municipalities come up to rely on taxes, fines, or fees, and therefore be reluctant to impose new tobacco control laws that might reduce revenue? Would the negative health consequences of banning or irresolute filters outweigh the behavioral changes anticipated in removing them from the market? Clearly, more research is called for on many of these issues, especially on the behavioral furnishings on smokers and potential smokers, and on the economic bear on of butt waste cleanup.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported a Academy of California Tobacco Related Disease Research Plan Thought Grant, No. 17IT-0014, and in part by NCI Grant CA-61021. The funding agencies had no office in the conduct of the research or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1. US Department of Wellness and Man Services The Health Consequences of Smoking: the Changing Cigarette—A Report of the Surgeon General, 1981DHHS publication no. (PHS)81-50156. Department of Health and Homo Services, Public Health Service; Rockville, MA, USA: 1981 [Google Scholar]

ii. Engeland A, Haldorsen T, Andersen A, Tretli S. The touch on of smoking habits on lung cancer risk: 28 years' observation of 26,000 Norwegian men and women. Cancer Cause. Control. 1996;7:366–376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Tang JL, Morris JK, Wald NJ, Hole D, Shipley M, Tunstall-Pedoe H. Bloodshed in relation to tar yield of cigarettes: a prospective study of 4 cohorts. BMJ. 1995;311:1530–1533. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. National Cancer Institute . Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institutes; Bethesda, Doc, The states: Oct, 2001. [Google Scholar]

v. Tobacco Gratuitous Kids Special Reports: Justice Department Civil Lawsuit (updated 17 November 2006). Available online: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/doj/ (accessed November 8, 2008).

7. Clean and Light-green - a Better Cigarette Filter is Near; Starch-based filter from Stanelco reduces cancer take a chance and environmental impact. Business Wire. 2005;ix [Google Scholar]

viii. Brooks DR, Austin JHM, Heelan RT, Ginsberg MS, Shin V, Olson SH, Muscat JE, Stellman SD. Influence of type of cigarette on periphereal versus primal lung cancer. Cancer Epidem. Biomarker. Prev. 2005;fourteen:576–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Hon NS. Photodegradation of Cellulose Acetate Fibers. J. Polym. Sci. A-Polym. Chem. 1977;15:725–744. [Google Scholar]

13. Mackay J, Eriksen M, Shafey O. The Tobacco Atlas. 2nd Ed. The American Cancer Society; Atlanta, GA, USA: 2006. [Google Scholar]

14. Carlozo LR. Cigarettes: 1.7 billion pounds of trash. Chicago Tribune. 2008 Jun 18; [Google Scholar]

16. Moore S, Gregorio D, Carreon K, Weisberg S, Leecaster Grand. Composition and distribution of embankment droppings in Orange County, California. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 2001;42:241–245. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Beck RW.Literature Review: A Review of Litter Studies, Attitude Surveys, and Other Litter-Related Literature. Final Written reportKeep America Beautiful, 2007

18. Stanley K, Stabenau E, Landry A. Debris ingestion past sea turtles along the Texas declension. In: Schroeder BA, editor. Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum; Fort Fisher, NC, Usa: 1988. pp. 119–121. [Google Scholar]

20. Micevska T, Warne Thou, Pablo F, Patra R. Variation in, and causes of, toxicity of cigarette butts to a cladoceran and microtox. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2006;50:205–212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. CDC Ingestion of cigarettes and cigarette butts past children–Rhode Island, Jan 1994-July 1996. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 1997;46:125–128. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Wahal S.Proposed Development Program for Dispersible Cigarette Filters/20-488. 26 Jan 1994. Brown & Williamson. Available online: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ibv03f00/

25. Arzonico BW, Dube MF, Creamer GE, Oglesby RL, Ashcraft CR, Wilson RK.United states Patent Degradable Smoking ArticleBachelor online: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hsd30d00/

30. Lamb West. Keep America Beautiful: Grass Roots Not-turn a profit or Tobacco Front Group. PR Watch. 2001;8:3. [Google Scholar]

33. Santa Clara January. Dialogue added to Stakeholder Appointment Section: Public Health Grouping #1 (Due west Coast). Available online: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gxu27a00 (accessed Nov seven, 2007).

34. Stanelco PLC Appoints Rothschild for Sale of Stanelco's Filter Technology. Business concern Wire. 2005 Nov 11; [Google Scholar]

35. Pauly JL, Mepani AB, Lesses JD, Cummings KM, Streck RJ. Cigarettes with defective filters marketed for forty years: what Philip Morris never told smokers. Tob. Command. 2002;11:51–61. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Novotny TE, Zhao F. Production and consumption waste material: some other externality of tobacco utilise. Tob. Command. 1999;8:75–80. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Thompson JL.Environmental Pollution: Today'south lawsuits against polluters are including claims for emotional distress damages Michigan Bar J September2002. Available online: http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article484.pdf (accessed November 9, 2008).

42. Brandt AM. FDA Regulation of Tobacco - Pitfalls and Possibilities. Due north. Engl. J. Med. 2008;359:445–448. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Wellness are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)