2nd June 2017, Volume 130 Number 1456

Scott Metcalfe, Peter Murray, Carsten Schousboe

Could New Zealand’s response to our tobacco challenge1 be furthered by targeting tobacco product waste?

Delany et al in the Journal in recent months have proposed a new smokefree legislative framework that could progress Aotearoa New Zealand to being smokefree by 2025.2 The authors outlined a number of aspects of tobacco control that this proposed legislation would address, including a focus on the product and on the need to visually denormalise smoking.2 We think the targeting of tobacco product waste (TPW), concentrating on cigarette butts in particular, could provide a novel strategy to address these dual aims and also reduce an environmental nuisance.

Regulation of TPW has received modest attention in the tobacco control space.3 However, it is an issue, with claims of 4.5–5 trillion cigarette butts littered worldwide each year.4,5 Cigarette butts are a common (possibly the most common) item collected during urban litter surveys.6 This waste is not inert; rather it contains a myriad of noxious chemicals, many posing environmental4,5,7 and direct health hazards.8

Like secondhand smoke exposure, TPW on our streets, bus stops, parks and beaches is a visible reminder of tobacco use.9–12 For smokers, the exposure may serve to normalise further the already ritualised nature of TPW disposal.13–15 Unsurprisingly, the tobacco industry has long been concerned that public resistance to TPW would negatively impact the acceptability of smoking and be a target for anti-tobacco policy.9 In response the industry has funded/supported a number of strategies to address this risk to their business.9

A number of policies have been proposed/implemented internationally to reduce TPW and which may be relevant to New Zealand, including:3,5,9,13,16–19

  • a fee/tax on TPW;
  • designated TPW littering fines;
  • product stewardship frameworks for tobacco products (modelled on examples like the mandatory take-back policy in the European Union for electronics);
  • legislating for extended producer responsibility, eg, a Model Tobacco Waste Act;13
  • cigarette pack or cigarette butt deposit schemes (similar to other products,16 and as trialled in Vancouver for cigarette butts9,17,18);
  • cigarette butt collection/recycling,5,9,13,16–18 eg, as tried recently in Vancouver19 that creates new products and composts the residual tobacco;
  • using bags or pouches for collecting TPW (for an example, see Figure 1).

Adopting similar strategies in New Zealand may also serve to further highlight the hazardous nature of tobacco products and reduce an environmental nuisance. As a corollary, they could, in a small way, help simultaneously progress towards the Smokefree 2025 goal1,2 and improve our street and recreational environments. Such an approach could be supported through greater local government action in addressing TPW.

None of this of course lets tobacco companies off the hook. Any strategy aiming to address TPW needs to primarily target the product and industry, not the individual who smokes. In fact, the tobacco industry has a long history of denying its role in TPW generation and management, preferring to shift the debate to one of individual responsibility and on blaming smokers for littering.9

So now imagine the following scenario, using cigarette butt pouches as a way to collect TPW:

"As a tobacco company, I have to pay to insert a pouch into each cigarette packet and have to pay the 10 dollar TPW levy to central government. I may decide to charge extra for each cigarette packet, to defray costs."

"As a smoker, I may be paying more for my cigarettes (or not, depending on whether the tobacco company decides to increase the cost). I have to collect my cigarette butts and put them into a pouch supplied in the cigarette pack. I’m facing the need to collect and carry around my used cigarette butts. To get a portion of the levy back, I have to take a full pouch to a pharmacy or my general practice and swap the pouch for a cheque and smoking cessation advice."

"As a pharmacy or general practice, I’m pleased to be involved with this health issue. I have the opportunity to, in the short-term, gain some revenue (I receive $4 of the levy for every full pouch collected) while promoting health and supporting people to quit. Every two weeks I send the collected and sealed pouches to a central depot that processes the litter in a safe and environmentally sound way. I’m engaging more often with my patients who smoke than I used to, and this is a great opportunity to help them."

The disagreeable nature of the task could actually be its most redeeming feature. It would internalise an externality–where the fact that people who smoke do not then want to do the transaction, simply highlights the cost borne by others who do not smoke. We will know that the pricing is right once we no longer see cigarette butts in the streets. Requiring all smokers to receive smoking cessation advice/support within this process may also help quit attempts and long-term quit success,20–22 thereby further contributing to the Smokefree 2025 goal.

Figure 1: Example of a cigarette butt collection bag or pouch.

c 

However, there are caveats and cautions that will need thought. To start, with any TPW collection scheme, there would need to be due safeguards (including hygiene and safe collection)—albeit exchange programmes have been workable, effective and safe in New Zealand in the past (eg, needle exchange).23–27 Compensation for collectors would need to be enough to be financially viable, and we cannot, perversely, have windfalls to cigarette manufacturers from monies not uplifted by consumers and collectors—in effect, ‘bonds’ that go uncollected (which may inadvertently and paradoxically raise the profitability of tobacco).

There could be other risks too, with potential unintended consequences. Although there are reviews highlighting issues around implementing policy,28 local and international research or evaluation evidence to support such a TPW collection scheme (eg, around acceptability, likely interest, impact, costs, etc.) is sparse—albeit similar deposit/return schemes have been successful with other waste products (eg, glass bottles in Oregon and South Australia16). Clearly we have not begun to assess costs of administration or exactly how the supply chain for collection bags would work. Such practicalities need to be thoroughly considered.

Likewise, although any TPW collection also imposes a cost on tobacco companies, might arguably smokers bear the greatest burden, and thus does this approach implicitly support the ‘individual responsibility’ argument the tobacco industry relies on so heavily?9,16,29 Would such levies risk being passed onto smokers and create other problems, given the increasing resentment of existing excise tax increases?30

Alternatively, the tobacco industry could be made more directly responsible for its producing a product component (the filter) that offers no benefit in reducing the harm from smoking and creates a considerable environmental menace. Might a better strategy in fact be to simply impose a direct cost on tobacco companies (pro rata by market share) and recoup the costs of TPW collection and disposal?13 Funds could be used to meet costs currently borne by local authorities (and rate payers) and could also be used to support more direct cessation services.

We will need to assess evidence of wider impacts elsewhere (eg, shifts in attitudes towards smokers, tobacco industry or changes in smoking behaviours) where TPW management has been introduced, including accompanying costs and risks. It is too early to answer such questions; to date evaluations are still happening, eg, the City of Vancouver continues to evaluate its pilot project to recycle cigarette butts31—albeit meantime with reports there of barriers, although those obstacles have apparently been political rather than practical.32

So in short, we do not have answers yet. But we want to at least encourage the New Zealand health sector as a whole to start thinking about ways of developing solutions and undertaking robust costings. Regardless of options and their costs, the earlier these conversations happen, the better. Perhaps now it is time for us to begin to consider such novel approaches locally?

Summary

Tobacco consumption remains a major public health issue in New Zealand. It also generates a lot of waste. Cigarette butts are commonly seen on our streets and are an environmental hazard. Seeing this waste in our outdoor spaces is a visible reminder of tobacco use. Action to reduce this waste may reduce this hazard and support a smokefree Aotearoa New Zealand.

Abstract

Tobacco consumption is a significant national public health issue. The waste it generates—tobacco product waste (TPW)—is also an environmental hazard. Targeting TPW through novel policies/regulations—such as a cigarette butt deposit scheme—may serve the dual purposes of reducing an environment nuisance and progressing Aotearoa New Zealand to its goal of being smokefree by 2025.

Author Information

Scott Metcalfe, Public Health Medicine Specialist, Wellington; Peter Murray, Advanced Trainee in Public Health Medicine, Wellington; Carsten Schousboe, Senior Health Economist, Wellington.

Acknowledgements

The Journal’s reviewers provided helpful comments on an earlier draft, some of which we have integrated into this viewpoint article.

Correspondence

Scott Metcalfe, Public Health Medicine Specialist, 16 Chatham Street, Wellington 6023.

Correspondence Email

scott.metcalfe2@gmail.com

Competing Interests

Nil.

References

  1. McCool J, Bullen C. Making the next steps the right ones: progress towards the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Goal. N Z Med J. 2016; 129(1439):6–7. http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2016/vol-129-no-1439-5-august-2016/6956 
  2. Delany L, Thomson G, Wilson N, Edwards R. Key design features of a new smokefree law to help achieve the Smokefree Aotearoa. N Z Med J 2016; 129(1439):68. http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2016/vol-129-no-1439-5-august-2016/6963 
  3. Curtis C, Collins S, Cunningham S, Stigler P, Novotny TE. Extended producer responsibility and product stewardship for tobacco product waste. Int J Waste Resour. 2014; 4(3). pii:157. http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/extended-producer-responsibility-and-product-stewardship-for-tobacco-product-waste-2252-5211-157.php?aid=30405 
  4. Moerman JW, Potts GE. Analysis of metals leached from smoked cigarette litter. Tob Control. 2011; 20(Suppl 1):i30–5. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i30.long 
  5. Barnes RL. Regulating the disposal of cigarette butts as toxic hazardous waste. Tob Control. 2011; 20(Suppl 1):i45–8. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i45.long 
  6. Novotny T. Time to kick cigarette butts—they’re toxic trash. New Scientist 2014; 2975. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229750-200-time-to-kick-cigarette-butts-theyre-toxic-trash/ 
  7. Novotny TE, Slaughter E. Tobacco product waste: an environmental approach to reduce tobacco consumption. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2014; 1(3):208–16. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129234/ 
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Ingestion of cigarettes and cigarette butts by children—Rhode Island, January 1994–July 1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46(6):125–8. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046181.htm 
  9. Smith EA, McDaniel PA. Covering their butts: responses to the cigarette litter problem. Tob Control. 2011 1; 20(2):100–6. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/2/100.long 
  10. Patel V, Thomson GW, Wilson N. Cigarette butt littering in city streets: a new methodology for studying and results. Tob Control. 2013; 22(1):59–62. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/22/1/59.long 
  11. Wilson N, Oliver J, Thomson G. Smoking close to others and butt littering at bus stops: pilot observational study. Peer J. 2014; 2:e272. http://peerj.com/articles/272/ 
  12. Oliver J, Thomson G, Wilson N. Measurement of cigarette butt litter accumulation within city bus shelters. N Z Med J. 2014; 127(1395):91–3. http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no.-1395/6159 
  13. Curtis C, Novotny TE, Lee K, et al. Tobacco industry responsibility for butts: a Model Tobacco Waste Act. Tob Control. 2016. pii: tobaccocontrol-2015-052737. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2016/03/03/tobaccocontrol-2015-052737.long
  14. Schultz PW, Bator RJ, Large LB, et al. Littering in context: personal and environmental predictors of littering behaviour. Envir Behav 2013; 45:35–59. http://eab.sagepub.com/content/45/1/35
  15. Hoek J, Ferguson S, Court E, Gallopel-Morvan K. Qualitative exploration of young adult RYO smokers’ practices. Tob Control. 2016. pii: tobaccocontrol-2016-053168. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/19/tobaccocontrol-2016-053168.full 
  16. Novotny TE, Lum K, Smith E, et al. Cigarettes butts and the case for an environmental policy on hazardous cigarette waste. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009; 6(5):1691–705. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697937/ 
  17. CBC News. Cigarette butt deposits proposed for B.C. 17 June 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cigarette-butt-deposits-proposed-for-b-c-1.1359400 
  18. CBC News. North Vancouver mayor pushes plan for cigarette butt deposit. 27 June 2016. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cigarette-butt-deposit-1.3654357 
  19. Vancouver launches world’s first cigarette-butt recycling program. Montreal Gazette, 11 December 2017. http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Vancouver+launches+worlds+first+cigarettebutt+recycling/9156519/story.html 
  20. Aveyard P, Begh R, Parsons A, West R. Brief opportunistic smoking cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare advice to quit and offer of assistance. Addiction. 2012; 107(6):1066–73. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03770.x/full 
  21. Brown T, Todd A, O’Malley CL, et al. Community pharmacy interventions for public health priorities: a systematic review of community pharmacy-delivered smoking, alcohol and weight management interventions. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2016. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK349092/ 
  22. Saba M, Diep J, Saini B, Dhippayom T. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in community pharmacy. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2014; 39(3):240–7. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/jcpt.12131/full 
  23. Sheridan J, Henderson C, Greenhill N, Smith A. Pharmacy-based needle exchange in New Zealand: a review of services. Harm Reduct J. 2005 Jul 12; 2:10. http://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7517-2-10
  24. Lichtenstein B. Needle exchange programs: New Zealand’s experience. Am J Public Health. 1996 Sep; 86(9):1319. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380600/pdf/amjph00520-0137a.pdf
  25. Aitken C. New Zealand Needle and Syringe Exchange programme review. Final report. Auckland: Centre for Harm Reduction, 2002. http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagescm/1026/$File/needlesyringeexchange.pdf
  26. Hagan H, Pouget ER, Des Jarlais DC. A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to prevent hepatitis C virus infection in people who inject drugs. J Infect Dis. 2011 Jul 1; 204(1):74–83. http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/1/74.full 
  27. Arnold BJ, Blackmore TK. Reflections on the evolving role of Infection Services in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2015; 128(1410):9–12. http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2015/vol-128-no-1409-20-feb-2015/6453
  28. Tobacco Control Legal Consortium. Policy tools for minimizing public health and environmental effects of cigarette waste. 2014. http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-guide-cigarette-waste-2014.pdf 
  29. Milberger S, Davis RM, Douglas CE, et al. Tobacco manufacturers’ defence against plaintiffs’ claims of cancer causation: throwing mud at the wall and hoping some of it will stick. Tob Control. 2006; Suppl 4:iv17–26. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563590/ 
  30. Hoek J, Smith K. A qualitative analysis of low income smokers’ responses to tobacco excise tax increases. Int J Drug Policy. 2016; 37:82–89. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395916302754 
  31. City of Vancouver. http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/on-the-street.aspx, accessed 13 February 2017. 
  32. Cahute L. Vancouver campaigners take aim at discarded cigarette butts. The Province, 16 February 2016 (updated 15 June 2016). http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/cigarette-butt-recycling-program/