In an article published in the columns of the New York Times, the Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance recalls the damage caused by the tobacco industry on the environment, in particular in terms of plastic pollution. The Alliance discusses the need to consider banning filters for tobacco products, and banning flavors for new nicotine products[1].
The tobacco industry exploits corporate responsibility in an image strategy
The impact of the tobacco industry on the environment is an established fact. From cultivation, drying, transport to consumption, tobacco contributes significantly to the depletion and pollution of soils and waterways, to water overconsumption, to deforestation, and to climate change. . Despite this, the tobacco industry is increasing corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts, simultaneously aiming to renormalize smoking and its industry. For these reasons, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which posits the existence of a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the tobacco industry and those of public health, compels Parties to implement a comprehensive ban on tobacco , including social accountability strategies.
Putting the environmental cost on the tobacco industry
A growing number of jurisdictions now consider that the management of the environmental impact of the tobacco industry cannot be achieved by voluntary policies of self-regulation on the part of manufacturers, but framed according to the binding principle of “polluter pays”. . As the Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance points out, one hundred million dollars are devoted each year by the tobacco industry to CSR activities. Such a sum, a priori impressive, remains to be put into perspective with the nine billion dollars invested each year by manufacturers in .
Moreover, these hundred million dollars are far from covering the environmental damage caused by the activity of the sector: according to a report Tobacco’s Toxic Plastics: A Global Outlook, the financial cost of environmental pollution from the tobacco industry is at least $2.1 billion. In France, while the public authorities have sought to integrate this imperative of the polluter-pays on the issue of tobacco through the establishment of an eco-organization, the lack of independence of the latter with regard to the manufacturers of tobacco has been criticized in particular by public health.
The filter, an invention of the tobacco industry harmful to public health and the environment
Part of the environmental pollution generated by the tobacco industry comes from cigarette butts, the quantity and toxicity levels of which make them particularly polluting, invasive and non-recyclable waste. However, these butts are mainly composed of a filter, yet demonstrated as unjustified from a health point of view. Indeed, the presence of filters leads the smoker to take deeper and longer puffs, and, by making the smoke less acrid, participates in facilitating the initiation to smoking.
The filter is also an innovation brought by the tobacco industry, aiming at three objectives. First, to reassure the consumer regarding the risks of his tobacco consumption, by making him believe in a reduction of the risks, and thus to dissuade him from initiating a smoking cessation. Then, avoid direct contact between the tobacco and the mouth of the consumer, considered unpleasant by the latter. Finally, reduce costs for manufacturers, by replacing part of the tobacco in cigarettes with plastic, which is cheaper to produce. The generalization of the filter has resulted in a deterioration of the health situation, with the appearance of an increased risk of adenocarcinoma, a more aggressive type of lung cancer.
The flavors facilitate the initiation of adolescents to nicotine
Finally, the Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance underlines the danger posed by the success of electronic cigarettes among young people on public health. In particular, the multiplication of flavors is pointed out as part of a strategy aimed at targeting younger generations, and facilitating their introduction to new nicotine products as early as possible. Thus, while manufacturers claim that flavors are inducing factors for smoking cessation, the data currently available tend to show that they are more gateways for adolescents and pre-adolescents to nicotine consumption.
In the United States, 85% of college and high school students who use electronic cigarettes use flavors, mostly fruity and sweet. In France, 56% of teenagers from 13 to 16 years old having already consumed a disposable electronic cigarette (puff), the tastes, original and fruity, represent the first argument having pushed them to consumption. It is precisely because of their role in the nicotine initiation of the youngest that the National Committee once morest Smoking (CNCT) has called on the public authorities to ban flavorings, as more and more European countries have already done. (Denmark, Finland, Netherlands).
Tags: Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance, New York Times, Plastic
©Tobacco Free Generation
FT
[1] The New York Times, Uncovering the Truths Behind the Tobacco Industry’s Deception02/21/2023, (accessed on 02/22/2023)
National Anti-Smoking Committee |
