Category: Filters

Researchers Urge Ban on Cigarette Filters

Photo: bumbumbo
The public health and environmental health communities should unite to ban cigarette filters for the benefit of both people and planet, according to the authors of a study from the University of Bath that was published in Tobacco Control.
Introduced in the 1860s to prevent tobacco flakes from entering the smoker’s mouth, cigarette filters were later marketed as tool to reduce the health risks from smoking. Research shows that filters do not reduce those risks, however, and may even increase them by enabling smokers to inhale more deeply, according to the authors.
In addition, filters are an environmental hazard. Every year, an estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette filters are deposited into the environment. Discarded filters are commonly made of cellulose acetate—a plastic losing on average only 38 percent mass in two years of decomposition—and contain toxic substances that may leach into the environment.
The study’s authors are skeptical about industry efforts to develop biodegradable filters, which they say would still leach harmful chemicals into the environment if discarded improperly.
What’s more, biodegradable filters could be used to promote smoking and improve the tobacco industry’s image. “It is likely that the tobacco industry will use biodegradable filters as both a corporate social responsibility and marketing opportunity,” the authors write.
It is likely that the tobacco industry will use biodegradable filters as both a corporate social responsibility and marketing opportunity.
Study “The Filter Fraud Persists”
The researchers also take issue with innovations such as recessed filters and “crush” filters, which they say are designed to make cigarettes more appealing and help tobacco companies circumvent advertising restrictions.
According to the study’s authors, the EU Single Use Plastics Directive missed a crucial opportunity by excluding cigarette filters from its upcoming ban on single-use plastics. “In the U.K., the tobacco industry’s new responsibility for smoking-related litter clean-up has already been used as an opportunity to have in-person interaction with the government, thereby exploiting this as a loophole in the WHO FCTC treaty,” they write.
This study was carried out by Karen Evans-Reeves, Kathrin Lauber and Rosemary Hiscock and supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products project funding.
Tobacco Reporter covered filter manufacturers’ efforts to meet new environmental requirements in its March issue (see “Keeping Pace“).
April 27, 2021
Industry Should Pay for Cleaning Cigarette Litter

Photo: Pixabay
The United Kingdom is considering a plan to force big tobacco companies to pay the annual cost of cleaning up discarded cigarette butts.
The move comes after fresh evidence reveals that cleaning up littered cigarette butts currently costs U.K. local authorities around £40 million ($55 million) per year. Despite smoking rates being at their lowest recorded level, cigarette filters continue to be the most littered item in England.
Among the options being looked at by ministers is a regulatory extended producer responsibility scheme for cigarette butts in England, a new power currently being legislated for in the environment bill. This would require the tobacco industry to pay the full disposal costs of tobacco waste products, ensuring the sector takes sufficient financial responsibility for the litter its products create.
“Cigarette butts are a blight on our communities, littering our streets or ending up washed down the drain and polluting our rivers and oceans,” said Environment Minister Rebecca Pow in a government press note. “We must all take action to protect our environment. We are committed to making sure that the tobacco industry plays its part. That is why we are exploring how cigarette companies can be held fully accountable for the unsightly scourge of litter created by their products.”

We must all take action to protect our environment. We are committed to making sure that the tobacco industry plays its part.
Rebecca Pow, U.K. environment minister
“We are making excellent progress in our ambition to be a smoke-free country by 2030, with smoking rates at a record low,” said Public Health Minister Jo Churchill. “While this is making a substantial impact on the public health of the country, the environmental impact of smoking due to cigarette butt and package littering is still a major issue.”
According to Keep Britain Tidy research, smoking-related litter is the most prevalent form of litter in England, making up 68 percent of all littered items and found on around 80 percent of surveyed sites.
Most cigarette butts are single-use plastic and contain hundreds of toxic chemicals once smoked. Littered cigarette filters can persist in the environment for many years and release these chemicals to air, land and water, harming plant growth and wildlife.
According to the Litter Strategy for England, the most effective way to tackle smoking-related litter is by reducing the prevalence of smoking in the first place. The government is committed and will publish a new tobacco control plan for England later this year to deliver its ambition of a smoke-free country by 2030.
The environment bill will allow the government to legislate for extended producer responsibility schemes, which could be applied to tobacco products. Cigarette and tobacco product packaging is already covered by the proposed packaging producer responsibility scheme, which is currently undergoing a second phase of consultation.
At the September roundtable on smoking-related litter, Pow encouraged parties to consider whether a nonregulatory producer responsibility scheme could be developed for tobacco waste products. Having considered further evidence, the government has decided that a regulatory approach may be required to ensure that the industry takes sufficient financial responsibility for the litter created by its products and to prevent them from undermining public health policy.
In August, Pow threatened the tobacco industry with tough action unless it did a better job of controlling cigarette litter.
March 31, 2021
Keeping Pace

Illustration: Essentra
Filter manufacturers prepare to meet new environmental requirements and consumer preferences.
By George Gay
A major challenge for the cigarette filters industry this year, and, by extension, for the cigarette manufacturing industry, will involve the phasing-in of titanium dioxide-free (TiO2-free) acetate tow. In an email exchange in January, Georgi Zisov, sales director at the Bulgaria-based cigarette filters and print house company Yuri Gagarin, said that, initially, the requirement that cigarettes were manufactured with TiO2-free filters would apply only to those destined for sale in the countries of the EU where the requirement was due to come into force in October. But, he added, it would prove inefficient for tow producers, filter manufacturers and end users to deal simultaneously with both traditional and TiO2-free tow, so, starting this year, there was likely to be a push for the adoption of filters made with TiO2-free tow across all markets, something that would probably be achieved within a few years, allowing those involved once again to enjoy economies of scale. Yuri Gagarin, Zisov said, had already started trials with TiO2-free tow for a number of customers both within and without the EU.
TiO2, which is used as a bleaching agent to make tow appear whiter, is considered to be harmful to health, something that, to my mind, raises a number of questions, not the least of which has to be why, therefore, is it used in some food products and toothpaste? OK, perhaps the form used in these products is different to that used for bleaching, though, having said that, TiO2 was banned from foodstuffs in France last year.
Nevertheless, I think it is worth asking if it is believed that the health concerns raised by the addition of TiO2 to filters—where it is presumably heated but not burned during the consumption of a cigarette—is separate from or merely part of the “deadly” risk posed by inhaling the smoke from the combustion of the tobacco rod and paper? If it is considered to be part of the overall risk, it would seem to me, admittedly somebody untrained in chemistry, that the argument for removing it from the health equation does not stack up, at least at the level of the individual smoker. In this case, it would seem likely that the removal of TiO2 could be said with any degree of certainty only to change the health risk because, due to the complex chemistry involved, it would surely not be known whether that risk had been lowered or raised. There would, of course, be a better argument for removing TiO2 if it presented a known separate and additional risk, though it is difficult to understand how such a separate, additional risk could be demonstrated at this time, if ever.
And there is a side issue here. The undesirability of raising the risk is obvious, but lowering it could suggest to consumers that cigarettes were now less risky than they were previously, leading to a surge in consumption.

Georgi Zisov (right) and Onik Arabyan (left) of Yuri Gagagrin
No quick fix
None of this is to suggest that removing TiO2 is not a good idea. It probably is, but I feel that it is necessary to try to understand our motives, even if we have to admit that they are based on a gut feeling. I buy unbleached coffee filters on the basis of a vague idea that not bleaching the paper used in their manufacture might extend by a millisecond the date at which the earth’s ecosystems finally collapse under the weight of human indifference.
But perhaps that’s not fair. Asked what the main factors were that drive the global market for cigarette and roll-your-own (RYO) filters manufactured by specialist suppliers, Seng Keong Low (SK), global marketing manager at Essentra, told me that these comprised consumer preferences legislation and customer demand.
“For example, single-use plastics legislation, particularly in the EU, has brought sustainability to the forefront of consumers’ minds,” he said in an email exchange. “Due to the pending restrictions on plastic filters and the evolving consumer preferences for a more eco-friendly option, paper-based and other nonwoven alternative materials will be the future of the industry. As such, Essentra has invested our innovations efforts in finding a more sustainable option and recently launched three new plastic-free filters in our ECO range” (see sidebar).

Advertisement
But things are not as simple as they might sometimes seem to be. “There has also always been an incongruous relationship between the tobacco industry and environmental, social and corporate governance initiatives,” said SK. “Despite this, we at Essentra believe in being the pioneers to drive the industry to go green by launching nonplastic alternatives to address the issue right from the source.
“However, we are also very cognizant of the fact that while providing a nonplastic alternative is a step in the right direction, it will ultimately come down to the consumers’ willingness to make the right choices as well. Based on positive indications from our own consumer research, we expect a slow start, but as more momentum and positive sentiment builds up, a snowball effect will rapidly accelerate the shift toward a green alternative.
“In the end, there is no quick-fix solution, and the initiative to educate and convince consumers will require the cooperation of and collaboration between regulators, cigarette manufacturers and tobacco products manufacturers, and we at Essentra are proud to be the ones to take the first step in this journey.”
One problem here is that consumers are not necessarily the good guys. Whereas industry players have a role to play in improving the environmental credentials of cigarette filters and in consumer education, it is only consumers who can stop discarding filter butts in an anti-social manner. The gains made by switching to more environmentally friendly filter materials are undermined if butts containing the toxic materials filtered from tobacco smoke are thrown away thoughtlessly, allowing those materials to leach out.
Legislation is one of the other issues driving change, and it must be said that there are few factors as powerful as new laws in ensuring change takes place within a reasonable time. Zisov told me that the recycling costs associated with cigarette butts containing plastic materials comprised one of the main factors that drove filter and cigarette manufacturers to look for more environmentally friendly filter materials. Currently, the amount that had to be paid to companies that recycled such butts was increasing each year, and, recently, those costs had doubled in Bulgaria.
That was one of the reasons why there was currently a lot of interest in cigarette filters formed from crimped paper, Zisov said. The filtration properties of crimped paper were not as good as those of acetate tow, but they were being improved.

Advertisement
New opportunities
While the challenges posed by complying with new cigarette and filter regulations are considerable, these regulations also present opportunities. Zisov said that while the annual, global demand for the filters supplied by specialist manufacturers was currently falling, Yuri Gagarin’s volumes during the past four years had been stable and were expected to remain stable in the foreseeable future. In part, the reason for this optimism was that the company had dramatically increased its product portfolio during the recent past so while demand for its monoacetate offerings had fallen, this fall had been more than offset by increased demand for complex filters, such as hollow and dual charcoal products.
Another reason is that as cigarettes become more expensive year on year, interest in RYO cigarettes grows and with it demand for RYO filters. And while it was true that, since price was the main driver of the RYO market, demand for special RYO filters was still relatively low, interest in different specification filters was increasing tremendously in some markets, said Zisov. The suppliers of these filters to the retail market were looking for varying segment diameters, lengths and hardness along with, for instance, flavor and charcoal applications.
Of course, the existence of such diversity within what is still a relatively small volume plays into the hands of specialist filter manufacturers. Meeting such a demand takes a lot of resources and requires a skilled workforce, so the suppliers to the retail market are drawn to using specialist suppliers and thus avoiding the fixed costs of manufacturing. There is a downside to this, however, because it implies considerable investments in new technology and knowhow for the specialist filter manufacturer, and, given that such investment is being made at a time when volumes are merely stable, profits are likely to be squeezed.
While not ignoring the fact that the traditional cigarette industry has been under pressure for many years and will continue to decline, Essentra, too, sees opportunities. It predicts, for instance, an increase in demand for slimmer cigarettes and, therefore, slimmer filters in Africa with the uptake there of smoking among increasing numbers of women. In other markets such as China and South Korea, Essentra has identified an increasing demand for innovative new flavors, a demand that called out for “exotic flavored filters to cater to those evolving taste profiles.”
At the same time, demand for super slims and shaped filters was growing in China, and tobacco manufacturers were using more specialized filters to provide differentiation within their premium ranges and unique smoking experiences for their consumers.
Meanwhile, as smoking regulations become stricter around the world, opportunities were arising in respect of heated-tobacco products. “Tobacco-heated products are also becoming increasingly popular,” said SK, “with the current pandemic situation accelerating the switch from traditional smoking as consumers become increasingly health conscious. With such a potential growth opportunity available in this segment of the market, we have also invested our innovations efforts into filters that can cater to tobacco-heated products.”
George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.

March 1, 2021
Acetate Market to Reach $5.67 Billion
Photo: Tobacco Reporter archive
The global market for cellulose acetate is expected to grow from $4.31 billion in 2020 to $5.67 billion by the end of 2025 at a compound annual growth rate of 5.66 percent, according to a new report offered by Research and Markets.
The report categorizes the cellulose acetate to forecast the revenues and analyze the trends in each of the following sub-markets:
Based on type, the cellulose acetate market is examined across fiber and plastic.
Based on application, the cellulose acetate market is examined across cigarette filters, photographic films, tapes and labels, and textiles and apparel.
Based on geography, the cellulose acetate market is examined across Americas, Asia-Pacific and Europe, Middle East and Africa.
January 14, 2021
Essentra Launches Biodegradable Filters

Image: Essentra
Essentra Filters has launched three new proprietary products—ECO Cavitec, ECO Sensation, and ECO Cavitec Sensation, delivering a plastic-free, 100 percent biodegradable alternative while maintaining the unique sensorial attributes, performance and quality characteristic of Essentra Filters.
“Although recent trends have brought the topics of single-use plastics and sustainability to the forefront of the conversations, Essentra Filters has always been committed towards a sustainable future,” says Seng Keong Low, global marketing manager at Essentra Filters.
“We have continuously been innovating new, high quality, eco-friendly products, with existing offerings such as our paper-cellulose acetate mix Bitech Filter to single-segment paper filters such as Myria and Ochre Filters. In the latest step of our sustainability evolution, our new ECO Cavitec, ECO Sensation and ECO Cavitec Sensation filters offer a plastic-free, 100 percent biodegradable alternative with unique sensorial attributes and quality performance, a true revolution in filters technology.”
The ECO Cavitec Filter is a proprietary, patent-filed, eco-friendly filter with unique sensorial attributes, reducing the efficiency of a typical paper filter to allow for a fuller flavor delivery. Manufactured using Essentra’s market Cavitec technology, the design is customizable and can be combined with any other segments, in addition to customization for the size, cavity length, number of cavities, pressure drop and constructed material, i.e. paper or other nonwoven materials.
The ECO Sensation Filter is a proprietary, eco-friendly filter option to engage the consumer with his or her senses. A capsule is embedded in the paper material during manufacturing and can be crushed at any point, giving consumers control of their taste experience. In addition to customization of capsule type, cavity size, or use of colored plugwraps, ECO Sensation Filter can be manufactured using different paper types, combined with other end segments, or make use of Essentra’s Infused technology to achieve additional sensory benefits.
A proprietary patent filed filter, ECO Cavitec Sensation is an eco-friendly filter with three unique sensorial attributes, combining the properties of non-woven materials with the Essentra’s Cavitec technology. As the capsule is free to move within the cavity, consumers can hear the capsule rattle within the cavity while feeling the vibration through the fingers.
The capsule can be crushed at any time, providing consumers flavor on demand. As with all offerings from Essentra Filters, the design of ECO Cavitec Sensation is customizable and can be manufactured using different paper types, combined with other end segments, or make use of Essentra’s Infused technology, in addition to customisation of capsule type, cavity size, or use of colored plugwraps.

January 7, 2021
Snap-On Filter Targets Secondhand Vapor

Photo: Philter Labs
Philter Labs launched its Phreedom filtration device that allows users to inhale and exhale into the same mouthpiece, eliminating up to 97 percent of secondhand vapor and smell.

The filter is designed to work with 80 percent of the existing cartridges on the market, and it attaches to all 510 cannabis and CBD cartridges.

“The Phreedom represents a massive step toward a vaping culture free of exhaled vapor, pollutants and best of all, its associated shame,” said Philter Labs’ chief technology officer and inventor, John Grimm, in a statement.
“We wanted to provide a product that respects a person’s right to vape. The Phreedom is exactly that, with seamless integration for the majority of vape cartridges on the market and an enhanced experience focused on protecting people’s health, the health of the environment and the quality of the consumer experience.”

The Phreedom uses Philter’s patented Zero-5 technology to help eliminate secondhand vapor.

Philter offers other filtration devices, but the Phreedom is the first to allow users to inhale and exhale through the device.
Philter Labs was profiled in Tobacco Reporter‘s September issue.
October 13, 2020
Philter of the Future

The Philter Labs Phlip

The Philter Labs Pocket
Philter Labs has developed portable systems to eliminate secondhand smoke and vapor.
By Marissa Dean
For years, public health officials have warned that secondhand smoke is just as dangerous as smoking, if not more so, and more recently, elusive “thirdhand” smoke—the residual nicotine and other chemicals left on indoor surfaces by tobacco smoke—has been a topic of concern. And with the creation of vapes came the controversy of how harmful exhaled vapor may be, especially with the current pandemic at hand.
With all that in mind, Philter Labs, a technology company in San Diego, California, USA, created two products—one that eliminates secondhand smoke from cigarettes and secondhand vapor from vaporizers and another that removes secondhand vapor from pen and stick vapor products.
Philter Labs was co-founded in 2014 by Christos Nicolaidis, a veteran entrepreneur and CEO of Philter Labs, and John Grimm and Yuval Shenkel, product engineers with decades of experience designing innovative medical components for Fortune 500 companies. After seeing how vaporizers were changing the way people consumed nicotine, they wanted to find a way to get rid not only of traditional secondhand smoke but also of secondhand vapor.
The company’s goal, according to its website, is to allow “adult vapers and nonvapers to socially coexist … while eliminating secondhand smoke and protecting their personal right to vape or smoke.” A bonus comes in the form of environmentally friendly clean air, void of the pollutants that are found in secondhand smoke and vapor.

Advertisement
As people have become more health-conscious, concern about secondhand smoke and vapor has increased accordingly. “Our surveys have found that 67 percent of people who smoke and vape are concerned with secondhand smoke [and vapor] and how it affects the environment around them,” writes Nicolaidis. This shift toward more responsible vaping and smoking has led to a higher demand for Philter’s environmentally conscious filter technology, leading to a sales increase for the company and a more than 20 percent customer return rate. Naturally, the Covid-19 outbreak has affected this as well—many users are looking for ways to continue to vape without putting those around them at risk. It’s still unclear exactly how vaping and smoking aid in the spread of the virus, but it has been suggested that vapor and smoke clouds can suspend the virus in the air and spread it to others. Using Philter devices would help prevent this.
When asked in an email exchange how Philter’s technology works, Nicolaidis said, “It’s important to first point out that our products are designed to preserve users’ normal smoking or vaping experience, so we never interfere with the inhale. But upon exhale, the user has the option to blow their smoke back into our Philter instead of the air. Inside the Philter, a proprietary combination of filtration mediums and airflow algorithms work together to capture 97 percent of airborne particulates, pollutants and VOCs [volatile organic compounds] down to a particulate size about 30 times smaller than the width of a human hair.” The products do not capture the smoke emitted by the lit ends of combustibles, however.
“Our Philter is the first in the nanofiltration space for vaping that has been validated as EN 1822 HEPA compliant by a globally recognized independent particulate testing laboratory,” Nicolaidis added.

Philter products, made for use with tobacco, cannabis and CBD, differ from existing solutions in three ways, according to Nicolaidis. The first notable difference is that Philter products do not simply mask secondhand smoke and vapor—they capture it and eliminate the harmful elements. Philter’s science-based filtration processes have been granted three utility patents with several others pending.
The second difference is in size. Nicolaidis describes Philter products as “small, discrete and sophisticated” while stating that most other products are “oversized and impractical to carry.” The two products promoted on the company’s website—which are available for purchase online, on Amazon or at a variety of brick-and-mortar stores throughout North America—the Pocket and the Phlip, offer users options for carrying their products; the Phlip works in coordination with pen and stick vapor products, allowing users to carry one product. The vapor product inserts into the allotted space on the filter, and users inhale from the vape then flip the device around to exhale into the filter. The Pocket, on the other hand, requires users to carry two devices, but it can be used with combustibles as well as vapor products. Instead of inserting the device or combustible into the Pocket, users exhale into the Pocket after inhaling from their vape or combustible as normal. The Pocket captures the secondhand smoke or vapor rather than it being released into the air. Each filter is good for 150 exhales. While both products require you to carry an additional piece, neither is much bigger than the products they are used in conjunction with.
The third difference focuses on brand marketing. “Our brand messaging is positive and inspirational,” Nicolaidis writes. “Philter use provides an opportunity for people who vape and people who don’t to safely share the same space without the fear or stigma of secondhand smoke. It’s truly a win-win for everyone involved.”
The goal of keeping the products small and efficient created a few hurdles in development; it took more than four years and 20 prototypes before Philter Labs created a version that was ready for commercialization. The chief technology officer used his experience working on cardiac and spine-related medical devices to help create a miniature microfiltration system “roughly the size of a tube of lipstick.” Engineers also had to consider airflow and exhale to make them feel as natural as possible, realizing each user’s physiology and exhale capacity is different.
The company is also working on new technology: “The ‘Moonshot’ for our industry would be a device that captures and eliminates all smoke [including that emitted by the lit end] from a traditional cigarette. While we can’t divulge any details at this time, I can say that Philter’s brilliant minds are hard at work on a Moonshot product, and we expect liftoff in late 2021.” On top of that, Nicolaidis notes that the company is “about to announce a new cutting-edge product that will allow for widespread adoption of [Philter’s] patented filtration technology. It’s a product that’s been in the works for several years and will bring accessibility, ease of use and a high-quality experience to consumers. This is not only a game-changer with respect to the future of vaping and the opportunity to finally begin normalizing vape use in public settings but will also have a positive impact with regard to public policy and how political leaders can offer a solution that protects individuals’ rights while preserving the freedom of people who do not vape or smoke in virtually ‘any’ setting.” Helping to move these projects forward is a recent $1 million funding investment to support corporate growth, which includes new product launches and research and development. In 2018 and 2019, the company also received $2 million in seed financing from Bravos Capital, Explorer Equity and a global Private Equity Fund.
The future of filters is changing, and Philter Labs seems to be at the forefront of innovation. Time will tell how its technology will change the vapor industry and the public health landscape—one day soon those clouds of cigarette smoke and vapor may be problems of the past.
Beyond technology
Philter Labs’ work doesn’t stop with its nanofiltration technology. The company recently launched an advocacy division, the Philter Project, to help improve communities throughout the U.S. and abroad. Funds have gone toward planting trees in the Amazon through the One Tree Planted initiative, providing veterans suffering from PTSD with Philter Phlips and supporting cannabis-related criminal justice reforms through the Last Prisoner Project.
Marissa Dean joined Tobacco Reporter in the summer of 2018 as a copy editor.Since that time, she has taken on additional responsibilities, including feature writing.Her skills span the publishing industry from layout and design to copy editing to content creation.

September 1, 2020
Sifting Sands

Does it make sense to ban single-use cigarette filters as lawmakers in New York state have proposed?
By George Gay
Earlier this year, my wife and I took a short holiday in a small village in South Devon, U.K. We had a great time—thank you for asking—but there was one disturbing aspect to the break, so readers of a delicate disposition might want to skip the following sentence and move straight to the next paragraph. On arrival, we discovered that the operators of the village’s only pub, which is renowned for its cask ales and food, had to close it for a month, including during the week we were there!
Consequently, we spent more time than we otherwise might have done fossicking about on the beach, which is three-quarters of a mile (1.2 km) from the village down a gently sloping valley. The beach was small—no more than 200 yards or meters at its widest point at high tide, but I couldn’t help noticing that in with the considerable amounts of seaweed strewn about there was a lot of foreign matter.
Now I have to be careful here. In saying foreign matter, I would not like to give the impression that I have signed up with the Brexit supporters who managed, despite being in a minority, to winkle the U.K. out of the EU, out of what must be one of the most progressive experiments ever undertaken in international cooperation. No, I remain an unrepentant “Remoaner”—or, in the view of some of our more rabid little-Englanders, an “enemy of the people.” When I say foreign matter, I mean matter that shouldn’t, in a well-ordered society, be found on a beach, whether it is local or from other sources.
I was interested in this foreign matter because I often read stories about how cigarette butts make up high proportions (measured in the number of pieces, I think, rather than in respect of volume, weight or mass) of the litter found on beaches and elsewhere, so I took a closer look. In fact, I didn’t see any cigarette butts, and the vast majority of the litter I did see, whether measured in pieces or volume, seemed to comprise flotsam and jetsam. I also looked in the large container at the back of the beach where community-minded villagers place such material and, again, almost all the debris seemed to comprise items thrown or lost overboard by those on commercial or pleasure ships and boats.

Advertisement
Banning single-use filters
Of course, mine wasn’t a scientific survey, and I have little doubt that if I visited the same beach in the summer when people were sitting on it, the result would be different. Indeed, I am keenly aware that carelessly discarded cigarette butts comprise a huge problem that is causing much damage to the environment, and, in this regard, I was interested in returning home to read a report from Jan. 17 in the Democrat and Chronicle about a proposed bill (Tobacco Product Waste Reduction Act) aimed at banning, from Jan. 1, 2022, the sale in New York state of single-use cigarette filters, whether fixed or attachable (and single-use e-cigarettes). According to the story, the central claims made by the bill’s sponsors were that “filters on cigarettes do not make them any safer and only do damage to the environment.” They were said to comprise a polluting form of litter.
Such comments, which have been made many times in the past, cannot be dismissed. In fact, the environmental objections to filters are undeniable, and I think it would be a brave person who is willing to say, categorically, that cigarette filters make smoking tobacco less risky than it would otherwise be. Additionally, it has been argued in the past that filters give smokers a false sense of at least partial protection and therefore undermine attempts at quitting.
In researching this piece, I perused a few scientific papers to which my attention was drawn, but I did not read anything that would lead me to conclude that there was no doubt that the addition of filters to cigarettes definitely improved health outcomes for smokers. I have to add a number of caveats here, however. I am not a scientist, and I did not read the papers from start to finish. In addition, the papers seemed to have been primarily concerned with comparing the toxins in the mainstream smoke of filtered regular and “low-tar” cigarettes. They did not specifically compare unfiltered cigarettes with filtered cigarettes.
Importantly, given the New York state proposal, the papers I read seemed to throw no light on whether the level of risk that an individual smoker faces is determined by the volume of tobacco smoke she inhales over a lifetime of smoking, no matter the tar or constituent level of the smoke she inhales, given the current range of such tar and constituent levels or whether it is determined by the tar or constituent level of the smoke she inhales each time she smokes. Or, put another way, I’m still no wiser as to whether a person who smokes 20 filtered cigarettes daily that each deliver 4 mg of tar faces the same smoking-related risk as another person who smokes five unfiltered cigarettes daily that each deliver 16 mg of tar.
One other point is that I am reliably told that acetate filters are designed and constructed to retain, in respect of given products, specified amounts of the tar and nicotine that would otherwise be delivered as part of the mainstream smoke as measured by standard testing machines. And there can be no doubt that such filters do protect or partially protect smokers from some toxic chemicals. There are, however, at least two problems with this idea, as far as I can see. It seems that because of the complexity of the chemistry of burning tobacco, it is not possible to link lower toxicity with lower risk until, that is, you get down to no toxicity. And there seems to be a tacit admission of this in the multiplicity of filters available. If risk were known to be reduced significantly by using a particular filter that took out certain or certain levels of a known toxin or toxins, all manufacturers would surely use that filter—if not on moral grounds then because of the fear of being prosecuted, notwithstanding competitive pressures.

Advertisement
Counterintuitive
Nevertheless, there is a problem here for those supporting this bill. My overall reading would be that while the science doesn’t support unreservedly the health benefits of filters, it certainly doesn’t support the health benefits to smokers of removing them. Are the bill’s supporters so convinced of the lack of health benefits of filters that they would be willing to ban the sale of filtered cigarettes, something that has been suggested but not acted upon in the past? Without cast iron evidence, surely, as has been said many times before, discouraging the use of cigarette filters is just too counterintuitive; the status quo is just too comfortable. I mean, look at the goo that is present in a filter after a cigarette has been smoked. Surely it is better that the goo remains in the filter and does not pass into the lungs?
Well, I suppose that depends on how you look at things—from the point of view of the individual smoker or society at large. (Those of a delicate disposition might like to skip the next sentence too.) Looked at from the perspective of society in general and the environment in which it exists, it might be better that the goo is filtered only through a human body before being evacuated as part of the smoker’s waste products than held by an acetate filter from which it can presumably leach into the environment directly.
Of course, it is important not to get carried away with the idea that banning cigarette filters would help the environment. With an unfiltered cigarette, the tobacco rod acts as a filter of sorts, and when the end of such a cigarette is discarded, it will also contain leachable goo, though probably not as much as that in a bespoke filter. (There is a way to overcome most of this problem, but I doubt that many lawmakers would try to legislate that smokers should be made to smoke their cigarettes right to the bitter end, holding the last morsel with a clip as is superbly demonstrated by The Dude in The Big Lebowski.)
A more powerful argument against filters, in my opinion, is one that is made less often. Without any evidence, I would suggest that filters, especially those used to help reduce tar deliveries to the low single figures, are complicit in helping young people take up smoking. A first cigarette without a filter must be a vastly different experience to a first cigarette with a filter that delivers only 1 mg or 2 mg of tar. If all that is available to you are unfiltered cigarettes, you really have to work at getting to like smoking, and this, of course, has implications when considering population-wide as well as individual health outcomes.
Responses
This brings us to another couple of points: What would be the reaction of cigarette manufacturers and consumers to the proposed ban, which would apply only to sales in New York state? Presumably, manufacturers would be willing to put on the market only those unfiltered products already available. Given that the major tobacco manufacturers are trying to encourage tobacco users in the direction of smokeless products of various types, they would surely be reluctant to divert investment resources toward putting new unfiltered cigarettes through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) process.
Presumably, while New York state was alone in requiring unfiltered cigarettes, manufacturers would concentrate there on marketing roll-your-own and make-your-own tobaccos, and, more likely, on their next-generation smokeless products. This would presumably open up opportunities for black market operators bringing in and selling filtered cigarettes illegally to the detriment of local retailers and tax revenues. While another business opportunity would be available to anybody who could develop easy to use, multi-use and “effective” filters.
And what would consumers do? Perhaps they would get used to unfiltered cigarettes or multi-use filters, or perhaps the switch to such cigarettes, especially if combined with a switch to low-nicotine tobacco, would be the final straw, and they would quit, in which case the legislation would have been successful in one regard and would be taken up by other states. But they could bring in filtered cigarettes from elsewhere, I suppose, paying the appropriate duties or buy them from black market operators.
What this will come down to, surely, is not the health of smokers because that is in dispute. And it is not primarily about the biodegradability of the filters because the faster they degrade, the faster the toxins they contain will be released. If the environment is to be protected, which is the main concern here, filter butts need to be disposed of properly, at which point biodegradability might become an important secondary issue. I believe that a number of companies are putting considerable efforts into the proper disposal and biodegradability of butts, but those efforts need to be stepped up several gears if this is to remain a voluntary undertaking. It has been a work in progress for too long. I’m certain that it won’t have been missed by the legislators and their advisers in New York state that the idea of developing self-extinguishing cigarettes was always such a work in progress until legislation put a rocket under that project.
George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.

March 1, 2020
Lawmakers want filter ban
A group of state lawmakers want New York to outlaw the sale of single-use filters, citing environmental concerns.
The measure, called the Tobacco Product Waste Reduction Act, would also prohibit the sale of cigarettes with attachable single-use filters and single-use electronic cigarettes.
The lawmakers contend that filters do not make cigarettes any safer and damage the environment. They noted that single-use e-cigarettes contain lithium-ion batteries and dangerous liquid nicotine.
State officials said studies have shown that cigarette butts are the most collected item internationally in beach and waterway cleanup programs, with estimates that 845,000 tons of cigarette butts end up as litter annually worldwide.
Nearly all cigarette filters are made of cellulose acetate, which is not biodegradable.
The single-use items would still be legal to smoke in New York but illegal to sell. Unfiltered cigarettes or roll-your-own unfiltered smokes could still be purchased.
If enacted, the measure would take effect Jan. 1, 2022.
January 20, 2020
Rethinking filters
Cigarette filter manufacturers are increasingly focusing on sustainability and new nicotine products.
By George Gay
As you grow older, you come to realize that it is often better to be wrong than it is to be right. There are, of course, exceptions. You want to have been right as you come away from the tote with the Racing Times tucked in your back pocket, and you would want to have been right when you picked which side you were on in a lethal conflict.
But such instances aside, even young people, I think, harbor this idea, though it might only appear occasionally in the periphery of their thought processes. Look at like this: If I say that a thing is A, and you say that no, it is B not A, and it turns out that you are right and I am wrong, I have learned something new, but you have learned nothing. I have gained but you have not. As the Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai wrote, “From the place where we are right / flowers will never grow / in the spring. / The place where we are right / is hard and trampled / like a yard.”
Given this, I am grateful to Seng Keong Low, the marketing manager of Essentra Filters. I had always assumed that the switch by consumers from traditional tobacco cigarettes to electronic cigarettes—but not heat-not-burn cigarettes—meant a complete loss of business for those producing filter materials, but I was wrong. Seng Keong told me in a July email that cellulose acetate tow (CAT), the main material in filter production, can be used in e-cigarettes to prevent leakage of e-liquids.
Market drivers
In my approach to Essentra, I had listed cigarettes, roll-your-own (RYO) products, cigars, heat-not-burn sticks, pipes and shisha as products that used filters of one sort or another and had asked whether there were others. Seng Keong mentioned e-cigarettes and went on to say that Essentra offered a wide variety of filters that can be customized as required for each of the categories.
Especially given the inclusion in the mix of e-cigarettes, it is not surprising that, asked what the main factors driving the markets for the filters that Essentra offers are, Seng Keong described them as the need among tobacco industry customers for innovative products and the evolving regulatory environment. It is often the case that innovation and regulation go hand-in-hand. Regulation will give rise to innovation and innovation to regulation. And this is fertile ground at the moment. The traditional tobacco market is the subject of new and sometimes burdensome regulations while those producing new nicotine products are operating on what are often confusing markets where regulations, for better or worse, are evolving, sometimes at glacial speeds.
“Innovative filters such as capsulated and visually attractive filters are driving the global markets,” Seng Keong added. “Consumers are increasingly demanding new and innovative flavors, leading to opportunities for manufacturers to introduce exotic-flavored filters to cater to the consumers. Specialty filters, such as super slims and shaped filters, are also becoming more popular, especially in China and South Korea. With the rise of tobacco-heating products (THPs), filters catering to THPs will also be a key focus for innovations.”
Turning to regulations and consumer aspirations, Seng Keong said that, currently, biodegradability and sustainability were in the forefront of many consumers’ minds and that these consumers were expecting companies to invest in new technologies and products to address these issues. “Essentra has introduced filters that use paper, hemp and ochre as their base material as well as a proprietary processing technology called ‘BiTech,’ all of which increases the biodegradability factor of filters,” he said. “Essentra’s latest offerings, such as Groove Sensation, Corinthian Sensation, the ground-breaking Fine Wall Filter and the recently unveiled hemp filter, are there to address the constantly shifting market trends.”
Of course, the core questions are whether the markets for these and other filters are expanding or contracting, by how much, and why—to which Seng Keong responded that, according to Euromonitor International, global cigarette consumption in 2018, at 5.5 trillion sticks, was down by 1 percent from the previous year. This decline, he added, was mainly due to the growing demand for alternative tobacco products and next-generation products, which included e-cigarettes and THPs.
Seng Keong wouldn’t be drawn on whether Essentra’s volumes had increased or decreased, by how much, and why, but in response to similar questions about the value of the company’s sales, he said that, as reported in Essentra’s annual report for 2018, revenue had decreased by 6.3 percent (-2.9 percent at constant exchange) to £260 million ($324 million). Good progress had been made with independent customers, notably those in China, India and the Middle East, but this had been offset by the volatile nature of certain projects, which was characteristic of the tobacco industry.
Product differentiation
So what are the in-demand filters currently, especially those favored in the markets where Essentra is making good progress? “In China, there is a growing trend in specialty filters such as super slims and shaped filters,” said Seng Keong . “Meanwhile, there has been strong performance by flavor-capsule filters in India and Dubai. Cigarette manufacturers are using more sophisticated filters in their premium ranges to provide differentiation and unique smoking experiences for consumers. There is increasingly more variety, such as the recently launched ‘black tea’ flavor, because consumers continue to look out for ever-more new and interesting flavor experiences.”
This is interesting. It has long been speculated that the sorts of cigarette flavors favored in the West are unsuitable for markets where consumers typically consume more spicy foods. Perhaps we are starting to see smoking trends more closely aligning with a nation’s traditional cuisine. Certainly, Seng Keong said that with the presence of specialty filters providing differentiation, monoacetate filters were experiencing a steady decline and were now estimated to account for about 74 percent of the global filters market, again according to Euromonitor International data.
A lot of people will welcome Seng Keong ’s response to a question about what Essentra believes are the up-and-coming filters. “With the rising focus of biodegradability and sustainability, manufacturers are looking into filters with alternative materials to improve on degradability,” he said. “Essentra research and development is focusing on these alternative materials to find a successor to CAT that offers the same value proposition while being more environmentally friendly.”
And, of course, Essentra has shifted some of its innovation focus to emerging smoking product categories. “The market for THPs is on a fast-growing trajectory,” Seng Keong said. “Opportunities for THPs have expanded, and tobacco companies are all aiming for a share of this emerging segment. Increasing innovations into THP heat sticks is expected, and filters will play a significant role in helping to achieve the best consumer experience for THPs.”
Research and development
While some of Essentra’s research and development is outlined above, it is easy to forget that the company has an R&D capability that takes it beyond filters, though filters are still very much its focus, as Seng Keong described. “Essentra continuously experiments with new materials both internally and through high-level discussions with customers to meet their dynamic demands and regulations across different markets,” he said. “In addition to filter research, Essentra is also taking the lead in driving the standards for laboratory testing of tobacco products and coming up with brand new testing methods to meet increasingly strict regulations on tobacco chemical constituents. Essentra offers a complete solution to our partners through research of alternative materials, creative design of filters and cutting-edge laboratory testing of products.”
Still on the question of research, I asked whether any progress has been made in designing filters that might be seen as helping to reduce the health risks posed by tobacco products, but Seng Keong said that Essentra’s focus in filter design remained with alternative materials and tobacco-heating products.
At the same time, the illegal trade in cigarettes is a focus for tobacco manufacturers, and I asked what part filters could play in reducing this trade. “Unique features such as markings can be imprinted on filters, allowing enforcement representatives to easily differentiate an illicit product and a legal cigarette,” said Seng Keong .
And in answer to the vaguely connected question of what part filters can play in boosting brand awareness, Seng Keong said that Essentra’s portfolio included filters that offered visual differentiation through shapes and colors. “By designing filters that represent a specific brand, this enables consumers to identify and resonate with the brand immediately upon opening the pack,” he said.
So the question arises, where are these consumers? Where geographically are the main markets for filters, and where are the up-and-coming markets? Well, with the countries of Asia Pacific accounting for about 3.4 trillion—or about 62 percent—of the 2018 global cigarette consumption of 5.5 trillion, it is not surprising that this is where the main demand for filters is coming from. “China, Indonesia and Japan are within the top five countries for cigarette consumption, accounting for 51 percent of global cigarette sales,” said Seng Keong . “Within Asia Pacific, innovative filters are prevalent in countries such as South Korea and China, which provides for opportunities to develop and market special filters.
“In addition, the growing market for THPs has also opened up more opportunities to new variants. In 2018, the volume of heat sticks was approaching 53 billion sticks, more than double the previous year. The top three markets for heated-tobacco products are Japan, South Korea and Russia, where the Asia region accounts for the majority of volumes—more than three quarters of the global volume.”
Without necessarily expecting an answer, I asked Seng Keong whether Essentra had made any fundamental changes to the way that it manufactured filters, but he did say that with the increasing demand for alternative materials in the market, new proprietary methods to process these materials in a cost effective and efficient manner were in development.
This answer seemed to suggest that Essentra was looking to the future, so how does it see the future for the filters sector? “Although the traditional cigarette industry is under pressure with consumers switching to [next-]generation products and regulations becoming stricter across the world, opportunities abound as tobacco manufacturers shift their focus to THPs and sustainability,” said Seng Keong . “Innovations to support these initiatives through alternative materials and filter design will be the key to success in the future.”
September 1, 2019