1 of 4
Like all filters in Filtorna’s ECO range, the ECO Sensation uses biodegradable materials. Photo credit: Filtrona
2 of 4
The carbon footprint of Filtrona’s ECO Cavitec Sensation is four times lower than that of a conventional CAT filter. Photo credit: Filtrona
3 of 4
Hugo Azinheira, Filtrona’s global director of innovation and ESG. Photo credit: Filtrona
4 of 4
Dmytro Korchahin, senior legal analyst at global research firm Tamarind Intelligence. Photo credit: Tamarind Intelligence
Government and international initiatives could spell doom for CAT filters. But is the industry ready for a switch?
Over the decades, tobacco manufacturers have proven extraordinarily adept at quickly adjusting to ever changing legislature. This perhaps holds truer than ever today, as governments worldwide – but with particular panache in the European Union (EU) and the US – concoct an unending stream of laws and regulations apparently designed to rein in a once freewheeling industry.
Cellulose acetate tow (CAT) has reigned supreme for well over half a century as the filter plug material of choice for cigarettes due to its ease of handling and excellent filtering properties, but also because it has been in plentiful supply and cheap, at least until recently. However, faced with legislation such as the European Union’s Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD), as well as increasing consumer awareness and calls for replacing the environmentally unfriendly material, CAT is under pressure. As a result, another round of adaptions already is in full swing among cigarette manufacturers.
Cigarette industry is adept at adapting
“The tobacco industry has been around for a long time and is used to regulatory changes. It’s nothing new,” said Hugo Azinheira, global director of innovation and ESG at Singapore-based specialty filter manufacturer, Filtrona. “As always, the industry will continue evolving and adapting to those changes, with companies even seeing it as an opportunity to differentiate themselves in the market.” Regulations such as the SUPD, but also customer expectations, will lead the cigarette industry to seriously consider alternative materials that are more sustainable, biodegradable, and plastic-free. “This will result in a significant increase in demand for filter manufacturers that make plastic-free filters, including Filtrona,” pointed out Azinheira.
CAT alternatives are still far and between
Non-woven materials are currently the most viable alternatives for replacing CAT, according to Azinheira. However, he also cautioned that some of these materials make sustainability claims that haven’t been scientifically substantiated yet. Others have turned out to lack the superior filtering efficiency that CAT does provide, thus they may not be the ideal replacement. Into that latter category could fall cardboard tubes whose filtering material consists of crimped and tightly packed paper, an alternative with which some cigarette brands are reportedly experimenting. “It’s too early to tell if [this type of] cardboard filters will become more accepted by manufacturers, considering they have a lower filtration efficiency [when compared to conventional CAT plugs],” cautioned Azinheira. “That said, we are actively working on this field, already having IP published under Filtrona.”
A world-leading manufacturer that pours enormous resources into r&d, Filtrona already has its own sustainable CAT-free solutions at hand, of course. In 2020, the company introduced its ECO range of plastic-free filters. To date, the range comprises more than a dozen different types of non-plastic, biodegradable filters with a four times lower carbon footprint and the ability to degrade considerably more rapidly than CAT products.
In 2023, Filtrona even established a Centre of Excellence in Budapest, Hungary, to specifically manufacture plastic-free filter solutions. “It features multiple advanced filter manufacturing machines for producing plastic-free filter solutions by leveraging our expertise in innovative filter design, processing methods, and knowledge in biodegradable materials,” explained Azinheira. “The facility also allows us to upscale production of plastic-free filters to meet the regulatory requirements of our customers,” he asserted. That timing was perfect, too, as the SUPD and by association the various extended producer responsibility (EPR) legal tools in which it is enshrined is already in force in most EU member states, though many seem to have issues with specifying the fees for their EPR obligations.
EU countries slow at specifying EPR fees
EPR in the context of plastic-containing filters works on the principle that manufacturers that use these materials in their products must pay certain fees for the pollution and ensuing cleanups they cause, whereas each EU country is free to devise its own fee structure and collection system. EPR provisions were required to be transposed by January 5, 2023, and most of the EU member states have met this deadline, with only a couple of instances diverging. For example, some bills are still in the pipeline to implement EPR requirements in Spain and Belgium, the main issue being with specifying the fees.
Meanwhile, Poland has begun levying a fee on cigarette filters as of January 1, 2024. Germany, while having officially adopted EPR measures as of January 1, 2023, said fees will only have to be paid for the first time from spring 2025 onward. And although member states such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, and Hungary have communicated their respective fee structures, it is not clear at this point if they also have started collection that year. Then there is France, which has devised a fee scheme that is so extraordinarily complex that critics doubt if it can be implemented without running into massive administrative problems. And there still are further EU countries that have troubles setting their respective fees altogether. “As of the end of 2023, many member states have not specified or communicated the current costs of their EPR obligations to us,” Dmytro Korchahin, senior legal analyst at global research firm Tamarind Intelligence told Tobacco Asia during an interview.
However, Korchahin added that Tamarind Intelligence believed that most countries would be getting around to defining their specific fees in the course of the next few years. “Later in 2024, we will re-submit our queries to national authorities in order to update the current data we currently have,” he said, expressing hopes that the current holes in the research firm’s data table will then be plugged. But Korchahin also made it clear that the “polluter pays fees” levied on manufacturers might eventually be passed on to the end consumer eventually. In other words: cigarettes in the EU will likely become even more outrageously expensive than they presently already are. Korchahin stressed that the SUPD only aimed at imposing EPR obligations on filter manufacturers but does not specifically seek an elimination of tobacco products or filters.
CAT bans already discussed in some EU member states
Korchahin also pointed out that “a couple of individual member states, for example the Netherlands and Belgium, are actually considering banning [CAT] filters at a national level.” In Belgium, the Superior Health Council issued a report in April 2023 on the impact of cigarette filters on public health and the environment, calling for them to be banned nationally as well as at EU level. “The report said analysis shows that filters do not reduce the harmful effects of tobacco on health and have a clear negative impact on the environment as they are very slow to decompose,” elaborated Korchahin. Meanwhile, the Netherlands’ government commissioned an independent research and consultancy organization, CE Delft, to investigate how to reduce the number of cigarette butts on the street after the country’s minister of infrastructure and water management had highlighted the problem surrounding cigarette filters. Korchahin said that the report, presented in March 2023, estimated that between 0.12m and 3.5m kg of butts end up on Dutch streets annually, representing a danger to both nature and humans. The CE Delft researchers proposed several options for reducing that number, including banning them on a European level; introducing a deposit system; and launching a public campaign to raise awareness about filters’ negative impact. In addition, in October 2023, the Dutch House of Representatives requested the government to investigate the possibility of imposing a national ban on cigarette filters. But neither the Belgian nor Dutch calls for banning CAT filters altogether have so far been implemented, of course.
“However, these motions could turn into a global trend that might eventually lead to more proposals to enact filter bans not only in the EU but also at United Nations level,” suggested Korchahin. At the recent international meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) held in Ottawa in April 2024, participant countries “made progress in identifying the types of plastics that should be prohibited globally,” according to Korchahin, who added that “among the items that topped the list were cigarette filters.” Participants Peru, Panama, and Switzerland reportedly advocated for a cigarette filter ban, a call which was also supported by WHO. “It was stated that recycling cigarette filters is not a viable solution, and that it’s essential to focus on human rights and demand a healthy environment.” A definite list of plastics to be banned is expected to be finalized at INC-5, which kicks off on November 25, 2024, in Busan, South Korea.
CAT troubles present opportunity
Of course, if that list should indeed include CAT, or more specifically cigarette filters made from the material, it will likely send a shock wave through the global cigarette manufacturing industry. But Filtorna’s Hugo Azinheira isn’t panicking just yet. “Ultimately, the SUPD is good for tobacco companies, as it will reinforce their ESG strategies and elevate their roles in contributing to a more sustainable environment,” he insisted. “Consumers will also benefit from having the option to make a positive impact on the environment by reducing their carbon emissions.” He asserted that it was “not too late to invest in exploring and researching sustainable materials.” Filtrona, he said, was confident that the earlier the industry made its switch to using alternative, sustainable materials, the faster the technology for manufacturing viable CAT replacements will accelerate.
The European Union’s SUPD and its EPR tools
-
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy tool enshrined in several EU legal instruments, for instance the EU’s Battery Regulation, the Waste Framework Directive, and others. The tool assigns to manufacturers the responsibility for the end-of-life handling of their respective products. However, it is not a standalone directive as such. The only legal instrument that includes EPR requirements for tobacco product filter manufacturers in the EU is the directive (EU) 2019/904, which was enacted by the European Parliament and the European Council on June 5, 2019. That particular directive is commonly known as the “Single-Use Plastics Directive,” or SUPD. It regulates the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, including filters made from plastic materials such as CAT. The directive also prescribes the levying of fees on filter manufacturers for filter waste cleanups in the EU member states. Rather than calling them “taxes,” SUPD describes those fees as “costs of waste management and cleanup of litter,” whereas member states are free to set their individual fee structure.
CAT’s Environmental Impact According to WHO
-
In 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) dedicated its annual World No Tobacco Day to highlighting the environmental cost of tobacco, or rather the impact of littered cigarette butts. According to WHO, around 4.5 trillion (4,500,000,000,000!) butts end up in landfills, on urban roads and sidewalks, in the countryside, in waterways and oceans every single year. CAT filters are not biodegradable in any meaningful sense, taking decades before they even begin breaking down. They finally disintegrate into microplastics, posing a significant threat to public health. WHO recommended that the tobacco industry should take responsibility for the cost of cleaning up the environmental impact of its products; and without being allowed to partake in the decision-making process.