10.16.1 Extent of tobacco litter
Cigarette butt litter is more than an aesthetic concern; it has significant environmental and economic impacts. Cigarette butts and cigarette packaging are littered onto roadways, pavements, beaches, parks and other green spaces, and can be carried into water systems.1,2
Cigarette butts are one of the most collected single items of rubbish by environmental organisations in Australia and globally. Clean Up Australia’s National Litter Report FY2024 reported that cigarette butts made up 20.1% of all rubbish collected by volunteers and were the second most collected item after soft plastics in the 2024 financial year.3 Keep Australia Beautiful’s National Litter Index lists cigarette butts as the most frequently identified litter item nationally in 2019-20, at an average of 15 butts and cigarette packaging per 1000m2.4 The Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup 2025 report similarly found that cigarette butts are the most collected litter item by volunteers during coastal clean-up events globally, with 1.2 million butts collected in 2024.5
10.16.2 Environmental impacts
The majority of cigarette filters in discarded butts are composed of cellulose acetate, a synthetic polymer made up of cellulose, acetic anhydride, acetic acid and plasticisers (for further detail, refer to Section 12.8 Construction of cigarettes and cigarette filters). Cellulose acetate is photodegradable but degrades at a slow rate6 meaning that exposure to sunlight will eventually break the filter down but the source material remains in the environment and becomes diluted in water or soil.7,8 Filters disposed on soil surface take an estimated 14 years to disintegrate and even then persist as microplastics and nanoplastics.9,10 Residual tobacco in discarded filters has been found to contain nicotine, nitrosamines, metals, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, arsenic, lead, copper, chromium, cadmium, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).11-16 Among these, arsenic, cadmium and lead are on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) list of 10 chemicals of major public health concern.17 Sixteen PAHs found in cigarette butts,13 which are mutagenic (capable of causing genetic mutations), teratogenic (able to disturb the development of an embryo or fetus) and bioaccumulative (tending to build up in the tissues of living organisms over time)chemicals,13,18 are designated by the US Environmental Protection Agency as priority pollutants.19 Experiments have shown that cigarette butts leach heavy metals (such as lead, cadmium, chromium, zinc, copper, and nickel) and other toxic compounds like phenols into the environment, with the extent of release influenced by factors such as time, rainfall, and water type.20,38
Waterpipe tobacco waste also contains metals and hazardous chemicals such as benzene and toluene, which can leach into water systems upon disposal.21-24
The eco-toxicity of butts is highest immediately after smoking, but can remain toxic after five years of decomposition, underlining the long-term hazards of cigarette butts disposed of in the environment.25 The extent of chemical contamination from cigarette butts remains difficult to quantify. One study estimated that the quantity of freshly smoked butts discarded globally in a year could release up to 7,065 tons of nicotine into aquatic environments within a single month.26 Another study found that a single cigarette butt rendered 250 litres of seawater toxic within 24 hours, with the affected volume increasing tenfold after 96 hours.27
Cigarette butt litter is a known point source of contamination in soil and water systems. High concentrations of cigarette butts have been found on beaches around the world,28-36 including in Australia.37-39 These accumulations are driven by the popularity of beaches, especially during holiday seasons, and their proximity to urban areas, where cigarette butts can be transported via drainage systems runoff and wind.8,40 This litter poses a threat to local flora and fauna, with estuarine and marine species such as gram-negative bacteria, algae, tide pool snails, crustaceans, fish, and freshwater invertebrates showing vulnerability to the chemicals leached from cigarette litter.8,41-51 The nanoplastics in cigarette butts also have toxic effects on soil organisms like earthworms.52 When disposed of in landfills alongside other municipal waste, cigarette butts increase the concentration of heavy metals in landfill leachate and raise the overall hazard rating.53
The leaching of chemicals and microplastics from cigarette butts poses a risk to human health through potential contamination of drinking water and bioaccumulation in the foodchain.1 Microplastics have been found on the sea floor and may be ingested by marine animals, creating another pathway for human exposure through seafood consumption.54 Experimental studies have shown that exposure to smoked cigarette waste in water can lead to the accumulation of tobacco alkaloids in edible fish species like rainbow trout.55
Discarded cigarette butts also pose ingestion risks to animals and infants. For example, butts have been found in the digestive tracts of two species of sea turtles off the northeast coast of Brazil.56
10.16.3 Costs
Globally, plastic pollution from cigarettes is estimated to cost governments US$25.7 billion annually, with US$21 billion attributed to marine ecosystem losses and US$5 billion to waste management. Over 10 years, these losses could amount to US$186 billion when adjusted for inflation. This figure is conservative, as it does not account for the broader ecosystem and human health costs caused by chemical and metal pollutants leaching from tobacco waste.57
Estimates and small-scale studies suggest that tobacco product waste clean-up creates significant costs for municipal-level governments. An estimate of associated costs in Australia put the figure at a “conservative” AUS$73 million in 2014–15.58 A 2020 study of butt clean-up in the thirty largest U.S. cities found that costs ranged from US$4.7 million to US$90 million annually; the annual mean per capita cost was US$6.46 million across the cities, and the combined total was total TPW cost for all 30 cities combined was US$264.5 million per year.59 Other cost estimates for butt clean up include £40 million (US$ 55million) in the United Kingdom;60 €225 million (US$ 260 million) in Germany;61 and €100million (US$ 115 million) in France.62
Residential and bush fires cause further economic costs and loss of life around the world.63 An estimated 7% of all bushfires in Australia were caused by discarded cigarette butts and matches for 1976-77 to 1995-96,64 and despite a 2010 regulation that requires all cigarettes sold to incorporate reduced fire risk design features (see InDepth 12D),65 discarded cigarettes continue to be an ignition source for house fires, bushfires and other fires. In 2014–15, it was estimated that cigarettes were responsible for 4,558 fires in Australia, and a cost of $80.8 million (which excludes the cost of bushfires).58
10.16.4 Public perceptions
Despite the robust literature on the environmental impacts of discarded butts, changing public perceptions has been slow. A US survey of adults who smoke conducted in 2018 found that 71% of respondents, regardless of smoking status, were not aware that plastic was used in cigarette filters and 20% believed filters to be biodegradable.66 US research has also found that participants who believe cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them.67 A 2020 New Zealand study similarly reported that 20% of people who smoke thought that butts were biodegradable, but that only 13% of non-smokers shared this belief,68 while a study of people’s knowledge conducted in Germany reported in 2021 that 64% of those interviewed (including 57% of people who currently smoke) were unaware that cigarette filters are primarily composed of synthetic material.69
10.16.5 Tobacco industry response to tobacco litter
Cigarette manufacturers have been concerned for more than three decades that aesthetic and environmental concerns related to cigarette butt litter could contribute to the growing social unacceptability of smoking, promote advocacy by tobacco control and environmental organisations, and lead to regulation that holds cigarette manufacturers responsible for litter disposal. A range of strategies have been considered in response.
10.16.5.1 Biodegradable filters
US firms Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, and RJ Reynolds have invested in research into biodegradable filters, but prototypes have been unpopular in consumer testing.7 The industry has determined that biodegradable filter design has, to date, been unmarketable and is likely to result in more littering,70 and its research has shown that the biodegrading process would still deposit disintegrated components into the environment.7
Biodegradable filters have been described as “palliative”, as reducing the residence time in the environment of a filter would not resolve any of the problems associated with butt leeching and pollution and would, in fact, accelerate the process.8,42 There are also concerns that seemingly safer filters would reduce users’ guilt about and potentially encourage littering and provide the tobacco industry with new opportunities for marketing and to improve its reputation through related corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives.8,71
10.16.5.2 Anti-littering campaigns, clean up and recycling initiatives
Other responses to tobacco product litter, such as organising anti-litter campaigns and distributing portable and permanent ashtrays,72 have relied on an underlying strategy of shifting responsibility for butt disposal onto consumers, despite industry beliefs that people who smoke were not open to anti-litter efforts.73 Major cigarette manufacturers have also developed alliances with environmental advocacy organisations such as Keep America Beautiful, the UK and Canada to co-sponsor anti-littering campaigns, street butt collection bins and clean up events. Media coverage that mentioned Keep America Beautiful was more positive in its reporting of the tobacco industry, despite partnership programs achieving no significant change in levels of cigarette butts discarded.74
While largely ineffective, industry pronouncements on butt litter and clean up initiatives provide important corporate social responsibility opportunities which have been characterised by selective use of information that is assessed by external firms that have an interest in maintaining commercial relationships with the companies funding them.75 Reporting, therefore, “may be opportunistic both in the scope of data reported and presentation, highlighting sustainability success while omitting data on environmental damages or increased emissions due to manufacturing that do not hew to the desired progressive narrative arc of reducing ecological pollution.”75
The major cigarette companies in Australia; British American Tobacco Australia (BATA), Imperial Tobacco Australia (ITA) and Philip Morris International (PMI) have participated in anti-litter campaigns. In 2003, BATA established the Butt Littering Trust, committing AU$2.8 million over four years to education campaigns.76 The company later reported that “direct financial contribution to the Trust and other butt litter reduction initiatives” had exceeded AU$5 million between 2002 and 2012.77 In 2009, the Trust was rebranded as Butt Free Australia, which describes itself as a tobacco industry “product stewardship organisation”.78 The renamed organisation has continued to focus on educational campaigns that highlight the environmental impact of butt littering through social and behavioural research, awareness-raising initiatives, resource development, and on-the-ground projects that were summarised by its ‘Not a Good Look’ motto.78 BATA continued to provide the majority of funding, and remained the organisation’s key stakeholder until it was acquired by KESAB environmental solutions in 2012.78
There is little evidence that suggests Butt Free Australia’s programs have been effective. In 2006, the New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation noted that activities and projects funded by cigarette manufacturers had ‘not translated into widespread reduction of cigarette butt litter. The impact of current activities funded by cigarette manufacturers has not delivered a reduction in butt littering’.79 Arguably, the real aim of the Butt Littering Trust has been to support the tobacco industry strategies to focus on community education campaigns and downplay the role of cigarette manufacturers as the source of butt litter.
ITA and PMI80 have also sponsored butt littering reduction programs with Keep Australia Beautiful and KESAB environmental solutions. Support predominantly centred on funding litter surveys, advertising and educational campaigns, butt bins, posters, stickers and personal ashtrays.
The three companies also formed the Tobacco Industry Product Stewardship initiative, which in 2014 funded cigarette butt recycling projects with the Australia branch of the international recycling organisation Terracycle. This initiative encouraged the public to collect and send cigarette butts to Terracycle, using post-paid labels. The organisation would then donate two cents (per kilogram of butts) to the school or charity of the donor’s choice. Industry funding was withdrawn without explanation in December 2015.81
In their respective 2025 reports to the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), both BATA and ITA reported ongoing participation in the Tobacco Industry Product Stewardship Group. However, neither company reported any specific actions or initiatives undertaken through the group.82,83
APCO is a voluntary initiative involving government and industry that describes its vision as “a collaborative packaging value chain to keep packaging materials out of landfill and retain the maximum value of the materials, energy and labour within the local economy.84” Membership of the three major cigarette manufacturers in the market provides it with opportunity to publicise its sustainability programs, primarily through its Annual Reports and Action Plans. In 2025, all three companies emphasised their commitment to meeting recycling targets and use of renewable materials in production facilities and offices.
10.16.6 Policy response
Article 18 (Protection of the environment and health of persons) of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) obliges Parties to give due regard to environmental protection and the health of individuals in relation to tobacco cultivation and manufacture. Governments have pursued a range of policy measures to address the environmental impact of tobacco, including public education campaigns, regulation of smoke-free outdoor areas, mandatory packaging messages, recycling initiatives, extended producer responsibility and liability schemes, and proposals to ban plastic cigarette filters. However, despite its potential to support robust interventions such as bans on single-use filters, litigation to recover environmental damages, and strengthened regulatory enforcement,1 Article 18 remains one of the least successfully implemented provisions, as highlighted in the 2023 Global Progress Report.85 Tobacco industry interference continues to undermine progress in this area.
10.16.6.1 Measures to change consumer behaviour
All three levels of government in Australia have worked in conjunction with environmental organisations, providing funding and other support for clean-up initiatives and litter awareness and education campaigns to organisations like Clean Up Australia86, as well as organisations with tobacco industry partnerships, including Keep Australia Beautiful and its state-level affiliates,87 and KESAB environmental solutions.88,89
State government anti-litter advertising campaigns have highlighted butt litter. Sustainability Victoria launched the ‘Don’t Be a Tosser - Bin Your Butts’ campaign in 2007 in anticipation of increased volumes of butt litter following the state government’s indoor smoking ban. The campaign focused on education, and venues were responsible for the provision of bins and on-site messaging. Sustainability Victoria stated that all campaign goals were met, including a 50% reduction in butt litter around participating venues.90
Local governments have much of the responsibility for dealing with butt litter; Sydney street cleaners, for example, in 2014 reported collecting 15,000 cigarette butts each day, or nearly 5.5 million annually.91 Responses at this level of government have included education campaigns, fines for littering, and provision of waste management infrastructure such as free portable ashtrays and other receptacles.89,92
Expanding smoke-free outdoor areas could also have a positive impact but would need to be carefully regulated; an unintentional result of extensive smoke-free legislation to date has been to create increased volumes of butt litter outside indoor venues. For further details, refer to Chapter 15: Smokefree Environments.
In the European Union, mandatory package messaging has been introduced to inform consumers that cigarette filters contain plastics and the environmental impact of filter littering. Since 3 July 2021, EU Member States have been required to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/904, which mandates that certain single-use plastic products (including tobacco products with filters and filters marketed for use with tobacco products) bear a specific marking on their packaging or the product itself (see Figure 10.16.1).93 Complementary evidence from a US study suggests that anti-littering messages on cigarette packs can increase awareness of the environmental harms associated with cigarette butt litter and enhance consumer’s intentions not to litter.94 An Australian study also found that messages highlighting the climate, pollution, and social justice impacts of tobacco were perceived as motivating for smoking cessation, particularly among younger adults and those with higher levels of education.95
10.16.6.2 Recycling litter
The possibility of recycling cigarette butts has attracted considerable interest, and research has explored mixing butts into the production of bricks, asphalt and cellulose-based materials, among other uses.96,97 Researchers are also investigating methods to remove heavy metals from the leachate from cigarette butts 98 and accelerate the degradation of cellulose acetate in cigarette waste.99 An Australian group is attempting to train fungi mycelium to digest the cellulose acetate and some toxic compounds in butt litter to create a by-product that can be safely reused.100 However, no practical or safe recycling system currently exists, and the concept remains controversial due to the hazardous materials contained in cigarette waste.56,96,101,102 Past attempts to recycle cigarette butts in South Korea included converting them into plastic and repurposing filters as fertiliser. Both initiatives were terminated after carcinogenic substances were detected, with the latter case linked to cancer clusters in agricultural communities.103
10.16.6.3 Extended producer responsibility and liability schemes
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is increasingly being considered as a policy tool to address the environmental harms caused by tobacco product waste, particularly cigarette butts. EPR schemes are based on the “polluter pays” principle, which holds producers financially accountable for the end-of-life impacts of their products.104 In theory, this approach could shift the burden of cigarette butt clean-up from local governments and taxpayers to the tobacco industry.105 However, applying EPR to tobacco products presents unique challenges due to the industry's long-standing history of undermining public health policy and using environmental initiatives to enhance its corporate image.106
It has been proposed that EPR for tobacco be reframed as Extended Producer Liability (EPL). This terminology shift underscores the legal and financial obligations of tobacco companies, rather than positioning them as partners in sustainability. Under this model, tobacco manufacturers would be required to cover the full costs of waste management, including clean-up, legacy waste, and public education, through mandatory levies paid into independent funds. They would also be prohibited from participating in or publicising any activities related to these obligations.106
International experience shows that without strict safeguards, EPR schemes can be co-opted by the tobacco industry. The EU imposed an extended producer responsibility scheme from 5 January 2023 as part of the Single-Use Plastics (SUP) Directive 2019/904. The Directive requires Member States to ensure producers of ‘Tobacco products with filters and filters marketed for use in combination with tobacco products’ cover costs associated with these products including the clean-up of litter and awareness raising measures.107 The implementation of EPR has differed across EU states. In France, tobacco companies are legally required to fund ALCOME, a producer responsibility organisation established and directed by the tobacco industry representatives, to fulfil their EPR obligations. ALCOME appears to serve the industry's interests by shifting attention away from corporate accountability through public awareness campaigns that focus on consumer behaviour and distribution of pocket ashtrays, measures that fail to eliminate the source of tobacco-related waste. It also promotes its activities and partnerships in ways that enhance the industry's public image, rather than supporting effective environmental or public health outcomes.10, 106 Similar issues have emerged in Italy, Spain, Germany and Slovakia, where tobacco companies have been allowed to lead public awareness campaigns and/or participate in clean-up efforts, often framing these activities as corporate social responsibility.106 This undermines national advertising bans and Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which calls for the protection of public health policies from industry interference.
In contrast, the Netherlands and Finland have implemented EPR schemes that align more closely with WHO FCTC obligations. These models exclude the tobacco industry from direct involvement in campaign design or implementation. Instead, tobacco companies are required to pay into independently managed public funds that cover the costs of clean-up and public education. South Korea has taken a different approach by imposing an advance disposal fee on cigarettes.106 In the US, the city of San Francisco applies a Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee, requiring retailers to pay $1.75 per pack sold to cover cleanup costs.108 Meanwhile, the city of Baltimore is pursuing legal action against cigarette manufacturers to recover expenses related to tobacco product litter.109
Polluter pays models that require the tobacco industry to pay for tobacco control costs, rather than the environmental costs, have also been proposed in the UK110 and implemented in the US since 2009, and in Canada from 30 November 2026.111
In Australia, the federal government’s National Plastics Plan 2021 stated it would initiate an “industry-led cross-sectoral stewardship taskforce” to address cigarette butt litter and consider potential stewardship schemes.”112 This approach has raised concerns, given the tobacco industry’s documented record of manipulating self-regulation schemes and promoting misleading narratives around environmental responsibility. In 2023, the South Australian Greens party introduced a state-level bill requiring cigarette manufacturers to be responsible for cleaning up cigarette butts.113 In a report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund, a consulting firm estimated that a levy of $0.004 per cigarette could generate approximately $71 million annually to cover clean-up costs currently borne by governments and taxpayers.114
10.16.6.4 Bans on plastic filters
Given that plastic filters in cigarettes are responsible for a significant proportion of the products’ negative environmental impacts, proposals have been made to ban plastic cigarette filters in Australia and internationally, but so far have not been realised.
The inclusion of cigarette filters in directives banning single-use plastics offers a regulatory avenue to introduce bans on cigarette filters. The Australian government’s 2021 National Plastics Plan did not include a ban on cigarette filters.115 In October 2023, the NSW Government proposed the introduction of design standards to prevent the persistence of plastic cigarette filters in the environment and working with the Commonwealth for a national approach as part of the NSW Plastics: Next Steps report.116 As of September 2025, the proposal is under review following public consultation.115
Internationally, the European Union (EU) directive banning a number of single use plastic items117 does not include cigarette butts for reasons that are not clear, although attention has been drawn to the significant lobbying by the tobacco industry during negotiations around the EU’s earlier regulation, the Tobacco Products Directive.118 As noted in Section 10.16.6.1, the EU does require tobacco products with plastic filters to be marked with environmental messages.93 Government agencies in Belgium and the Netherlands have recommended bans on cigarette filters.119 In North America, a municipal-level ordinance banning the sale of filtered cigarettes for environmental reasons was approved in the US County of Santa Cruz. The ordinance will come into effect 1 January 2027, or when two other local jurisdictions pass similar policies, whichever is later.120 In Canada, while a national ban on certain single-use plastics has been implemented, cigarette filters were not included despite advocacy groups continuing to push for their inclusion.121 In NZ, a ban on cigarette filters in smoked tobacco products was put forth in the Proposed Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan for consultation in 2021,122 though the measure was not included in the finalised Action Plan.122
Bans on all filters have also been proposed as a strategy to reduce tobacco consumption. Experimental research found participants smoked less using unfiltered cigarettes, finding them less satisfying, less enjoyable and harsher.123 The proposal to ban filters has been unpopular among people who smoke, partly due to the belief that filters reduce the harms of smoking. In a 2022 international survey of people who smoke, more than two-thirds (70.3%) of Australian respondents opposed a ban on filtered cigarettes, with two-fifths (40.7%) believing that removing filters would make cigarettes much more harmful.124 Assessing whether filters do meaningfully reduce harm is complex—see Section 12.8.2.4 for further discussion.
Related reading
Relevant news and research
A comprehensive compilation of news items and research published on this topic
Read more on this topic
Test your knowledge
1. Novotny TE, Bialous SA, Burt L, Curtis C, da Costa VL, et al. The environmental and health impacts of tobacco agriculture, cigarette manufacture and consumption. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2015; 93(12):877–80. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26668440
2. Zafeiridou M, Hopkinson NS, and Voulvoulis N. Cigarette Smoking: An Assessment of Tobacco's Global Environmental Footprint Across Its Entire Supply Chain. Environ Sci Technol, 2018; 52(15):8087–94. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29968460
3. LITTER REPORT FY24 NATIONAL. Clean Up Australia, Available from: https://irp.cdn-website.com/ed061800/files/uploaded/FY24_Litter_Report_-_National_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf.
4. Keep Australia Beautiful National Litter Index 2019-2020. McGregor Tan, 2020. Available from: https://kab.org.au/wp-content/uploads/KAB-x-McGregor-Tan-National-Litter-Index-NLI-2019-20.pdf.
5. International COASTAL CLEANUP '24–25 Report. Ocean Conservancy, 2025. Available from: https://oceanconservancy.org/work/plastics/international-coastal-cleanup/annual-data-release/.
6. Bonanomi G, Incerti G, Cesarano G, Gaglione SA, and Lanzotti V. Cigarette butt decomposition and associated chemical changes assessed by 13C CPMAS NMR. PLoS One, 2015; 10(1):e0117393. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25625643
7. Novotny TE, Lum K, Smith E, Wang V, and Barnes R. Cigarettes butts and the case for an environmental policy on hazardous cigarette waste. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2009; 6(5):1691–705. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19543415
8. Araujo MCB and Costa MF. A critical review of the issue of cigarette butt pollution in coastal environments. Environ Res, 2019; 172:137–49. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30782533
9. Joly FX and Coulis M. Comparison of cellulose vs. plastic cigarette filter decomposition under distinct disposal environments. Waste Manag, 2017. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29153904
10. Tobacco's Toxic Plastics: A Global Outlook. GGTC – Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control, 2022. Available from: https://ggtc.world/knowledge/all-topics/tobaccos-toxic-plastics-a-global-outlook.
11. Rebischung F, Chabot L, Biaudet H, and Pandard P. Cigarette butts: A small but hazardous waste, according to European regulation. Waste Manag, 2018; 82:9–14. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30509599
12. Freire Lima C, Amaral Dos Santos Pinto M, Brasil Choueri R, Buruaem Moreira L, and Braga Castro I. Occurrence, characterization, partition, and toxicity of cigarette butts in a highly urbanized coastal area. Waste Manag, 2021; 131:10–9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34091234
13. Dobaradaran S, Schmidt TC, Lorenzo-Parodi N, Jochmann MA, Nabipour I, et al. Cigarette butts: An overlooked source of PAHs in the environment? Environ Pollut, 2019; 249:932–9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30965545
14. Torkashvand J, Farzadkia M, Sobhi HR, and Esrafili A. Littered cigarette butt as a well-known hazardous waste: A comprehensive systematic review. J Hazard Mater, 2020; 383:121242. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31563043
15. Moriwaki H, Kitajima S, and Katahira K. Waste on the roadside, ‘poi-sute’ waste: Its distribution and elution potential of pollutants into environment. Waste Management, 2009; 29(3):1192– 7 Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18851907
16. Moerman JW and Potts GE. Analysis of metals leached from smoked cigarette litter. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20 Suppl 1(suppl.1):i30–5. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21504922
17. World Health Organization. Ten chemicals of major public health concern 2015. Last update: 2015; Viewed 15 November 2016. Available from: http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/chemicals_phc/en/.
18. Dobaradaran S, Schmidt TC, Lorenzo-Parodi N, Kaziur-Cegla W, Jochmann MA, et al. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) leachates from cigarette butts into water. Environ Pollut, 2020; 259:113916. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32023793
19. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Priority Pollutants 2014. Last update: 2014; Viewed 9 December 2016. Available from: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/pollutants.cfm.
20. Fojtikova P, Troup J, Merta D, and Klementova S. Cigarette butts as a source of phenolic compounds for the environment. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2024; 31(30):43138-51. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38890250
21. Hsieh JR, Mekoli ML, and Edwards RL, Jr. Levels of Chemical Toxicants in Waterpipe Tobacco and Waterpipe Charcoal Solid Waste. J Environ Prot (Irvine, Calif), 2021; 12(11):913-38. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34881071
22. Termeh-Zonoozi Y, Venugopal PD, Patel V, and Gagliano G. Seeing Beyond the Smoke: Selecting Waterpipe Wastewater Chemicals for Risk Assessments. J Hazard Mater Lett, 2023; 4. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38357015
23. Masjedi MR, Arfaeinia H, Dobaradaran S, Keshtkar M, Soleimani F, et al. Post-consumption waterpipe tobacco waste as an unrecognized source of toxic metal(loid)s leachates into aquatic environments. Sci Total Environ, 2023; 879:163207. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37011674
24. Masjedi MR, Dobaradaran S, Arfaeinia H, Samaei MR, Novotny TE, et al. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) leachates from post-consumption waterpipe tobacco waste (PWTW) into aquatic environment- a primary study. Environ Pollut, 2023; 327:121500. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36963456
25. Bonanomi G, Maisto G, De Marco A, Cesarano G, Zotti M, et al. The fate of cigarette butts in different environments: Decay rate, chemical changes and ecotoxicity revealed by a 5-years decomposition experiment. Environ Pollut, 2020; 261:114108. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32044614
26. Dobaradaran S, Telgheder U, De-la-Torre GE, Rockel SP, Mutke XAM, et al. Elucidating nicotine transfer into water environments via cigarette butt remaining parts. Environ Pollut, 2023; 341:122943. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37979652
27. de Souza Rosa H, Moreno BB, Zanardi-Lamardo E, de Aragao Soares Griz J, Moreira LB, et al. Cigarette butt leachates induce alterations in gene expression and damage in health status of tropical oysters. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2025; 215:117858. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40120359
28. Araujo MCB and Costa MF. From Plant to Waste: The Long and Diverse Impact Chain Caused by Tobacco Smoking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019; 16(15). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31357681
29. Dobaradaran S, Schmidt TC, Nabipour I, Ostovar A, Raeisi A, et al. Cigarette butts abundance and association of mercury and lead along the Persian Gulf beach: an initial investigation. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2018; 25(6):5465–73. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29214478
30. Silva MLD, Castro RO, Sales AS, and Araujo FV. Marine debris on beaches of Arraial do Cabo, RJ, Brazil: An important coastal tourist destination. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2018; 130:153–8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29866541
31. de Melo Nobre FS, Santos AA, and Nilin J. What remains on the beach after tourists leave? The case of Abais beach (Sergipe, Brazil). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2021; 171:112700. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34311275
32. Zalewska T, Maciak J, and Grajewska A. Spatial and seasonal variability of beach litter along the southern coast of the Baltic Sea in 2015–2019 - Recommendations for the environmental status assessment and measures. Science of The Total Environment, 2021; 774:145716. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972100783X
33. Katarzyte M, Balciunas A, Haseler M, Sabaliauskaite V, Lauciute L, et al. Cigarette butts on Baltic Sea beaches: Monitoring, pollution and mitigation measures. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2020; 156:111248. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32510390
34. Currie JJ and Stack SH. Getting butts off the beach: Policy alone is not effective at reducing cigarette filter litter on beaches in Maui, Hawai'i. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2021; 173:112937. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X21009711
35. Binetti U, Silburn B, Russell J, van Hoytema N, Meakins B, et al. First marine litter survey on beaches in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, South Pacific: Using OSPAR protocol to inform the development of national action plans to tackle land-based solid waste pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2020; 161(Pt A):111827. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33213857
36. Kungskulniti N, Charoenca N, Hamann SL, Pitayarangsarit S, and Mock J. Cigarette Waste in Popular Beaches in Thailand: High Densities that Demand Environmental Action. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018; 15(4). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29596385
37. World Wide Fund for Nature Australia. Plastic Revolution To Reality A roadmap to halve Australia’s single-use plastic litter. 2020. Available from: https://www.wwf.org.au/ArticleDocuments/353/WWF_NoPlastics_Report%20digital.pdf.aspx?OverrideExpiry=Y.
38. Wilson SP and Verlis KM. The ugly face of tourism: Marine debris pollution linked to visitation in the southern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2017; 117(1-2):239–46. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28185651
39. Smith SD, Gillies CL, and Shortland-Jones H. Patterns of marine debris distribution on the beaches of Rottnest Island, Western Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2014; 88(1-2):188–93. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25261176
40. Duttagupta S, Nynas K, Richardot W, Salam SB, Pennington M, et al. Influence of tobacco product wastes in a protected coastal reserve adjacent to urbanization. Mar Pollut Bull, 2023; 199:115929. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38141586
41. Micevska T, Warne MS, Pablo F, and Patra R. Variation in, and causes of, toxicity of cigarette butts to a cladoceran and microtox. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol, 2006; 50(2):205–12. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16328625
42. Slaughter E, Gersberg RM, Watanabe K, Rudolph J, Stransky C, et al. Toxicity of cigarette butts, and their chemical components, to marine and freshwater fish. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20 Suppl 1(suppl. 1):i25–9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21504921
43. Booth DJ, Gribben P, and Parkinson K. Impact of cigarette butt leachate on tidepool snails. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2015; 95(1):362–4. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25913792
44. Lee W and Lee CC. Developmental toxicity of cigarette butts - An underdeveloped issue. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2015; 113:362–8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25531833
45. Green DS, Kregting L, and Boots B. Smoked cigarette butt leachate impacts survival and behaviour of freshwater invertebrates. Environ Pollut, 2020; 266(Pt 3):115286. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32781211
46. Oliva M, De Marchi L, Cuccaro A, and Pretti C. Bioassay-based ecotoxicological investigation on marine and freshwater impact of cigarette butt littering. Environ Pollut, 2021; 288:117787. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34274644
47. Araujo MCB and Costa MF. From Plant to Waste: The Long and Diverse Impact Chain Caused by Tobacco Smoking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019; 16(15):2690. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31357681
48. Dobaradaran S, Soleimani F, Akhbarizadeh R, Schmidt TC, Marzban M, et al. Environmental fate of cigarette butts and their toxicity in aquatic organisms: A comprehensive systematic review. Environ Res, 2021; 195:110881. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33607099
49. Green DS, Kregting L, and Boots B. Effects of cigarette butts on marine keystone species (Ulva lactuca L. and Mytilus edulis L.) and sediment microphytobenthos. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2021; 165:112152. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X21001867
50. Dobaradaran S, Salemi A, De-la-Torre GE, Telgheder U, and Schmidt TC. The role of different remaining parts of cigarette butts in the transfer of phenolic compounds into the aquatic environment and their ecological risk. Sci Total Environ, 2024; 957:177584. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39561900
51. Cho H, Sung SE, Lim H, Chung S, Kim YJ, et al. Toxicological assessment of cigarette filter-derived microplastics in Daphnia magna. J Hazard Mater, 2025; 493:138368. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40280057
52. Bakr Z, Aboulnasr GN, El-Aal MA, Elshimy NA, and Said SM. Ecotoxicological effects of cellulose acetate nanoplastic derived from cigarette butts on earthworm (Allolobophora caliginosa): Implications for soil health. Environ Res, 2025; 284:122189. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40553715
53. Torkashvand J, Godini K, Norouzi S, Gholami M, Yeganeh M, et al. Effect of cigarette butt on concentration of heavy metals in landfill leachate: health and ecological risk assessment. J Environ Health Sci Eng, 2021; 19(1):483-90. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34150252
54. Woodall LC, Sanchez-Vidal A, Canals M, Paterson GLJ, Coppock R, et al. The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. Royal Society Open Science, 2014; 1(4):140317. Available from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsos.140317
55. Richardot WH, Yabes L, Wei HH, Dodder NG, Watanabe K, et al. Leached Compounds from Smoked Cigarettes and Their Potential for Bioaccumulation in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Chem Res Toxicol, 2023. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37827523
56. Araújo MCB and Costa MF. From Plant to Waste: The Long and Diverse Impact Chain Caused by Tobacco Smoking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019; 16(15):2690. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/15/2690
57. Sy DK. Tobacco industry accountability for marine pollution: country and global estimates. Tobacco Control, 2023. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38050153
58. National Drug Research Institute CU. Identifying The Social Costs Of Tobacco Use To Australia In 2015/16. 2019. Available from: https://apo.org.au/node/264631.
59. Schneider JE, Scheibling CM, Peterson NA, Granados PS, Fulton L, et al. Online Simulation Model to Estimate the Total Costs of Tobacco Product Waste in Large U.S. Cities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020; 17(13). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32629929
60. Reuters. UK warns big tobacco firms: You should pay for cleaning up cigarette butts. 2021. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-warns-big-tobacco-firms-you-should-pay-cleaning-up-fag-butts-2021-03-30/
61. Oroschakoff K. Plastic and cigarette litter costs German towns €700M a year. Politico, 2020. Available from: https://www.politico.eu/article/plastic-and-cigarette-litter-costs-german-towns-e700m-a-year/
62. Fullalove E. Tobacco manufacturers to pay for cigarette butt clean-up in France. 2021. Available from: https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Tobacco-manufacturers-to-pay-for-cigarette-butt-clean-up-in-France
63. Zafeiridou M. Cigarette smoking: an assessment of tobacco’s global environmental footprint across its entire supply chain, and policy strategies to reduce it. WHO FCTC Global Studies Series, 2018. Available from: http://www.who.int/fctc/publications/WHO-FCTC-Enviroment-Cigarette-smoking.pdf?ua=1&ua=1.
64. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Year Book Australia, 2004: Bushfires. 2006. Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/CCB3F2E90BA779D3CA256DEA00053977?opendocument
65. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Product Safety Australia. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 11 October 2016. Available from: https://www.productsafety.gov.au/.
66. Patel M, Cuccia AF, Folger S, Benson AF, Vallone D, et al. Support for cigarette filter waste policies among US adults. Tobacco Control, 2023. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34103418
67. Webler T and Jakubowski K. Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors about Cigarette-Butt Littering among College-Aged Adults in the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022; 19(13). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35805745
68. Hoek J, Gendall P, Blank ML, Robertson L, and Marsh L. Butting out: an analysis of support for measures to address tobacco product waste. Tobacco Control, 2019. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31147475
69. Kotz D and Kastaun S. Do people know that cigarette filters are mainly composed of synthetic material? A representative survey of the German population (the DEBRA study). Tobacco Control, 2021; 30(3):345–7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32300028
70. Curtis C, Novotny TE, Lee K, Freiberg M, and McLaughlin I. Tobacco industry responsibility for butts: a Model Tobacco Waste Act. Tobacco Control, 2017; 26(1):113–7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26931480
71. Evans-Reeves K, Lauber K, and Hiscock R. The 'filter fraud' persists: the tobacco industry is still using filters to suggest lower health risks while destroying the environment. Tobacco Control, 2021:tobaccocontrol–2020–056245. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33903277
72. Bloch B. Drones and AI being used to clean up Bristol, in Bristol Live2022. Available from: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/drones-ai-being-used-clean-6526063.
73. Smith EA and Novotny T.E. Whose butt is it? Tobacco industry research about smokers and cigarette butt waste. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20((Supplement 1)):i2–i9. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i2.abstract
74. Smith EA and McDaniel PA. Covering their butts: responses to the cigarette litter problem. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20(2):100–6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20966130
75. Hendlin YH and Bialous SA. The environmental externalities of tobacco manufacturing: A review of tobacco industry reporting. Ambio, 2020; 49(1):17-34. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01148-3
76. Chapman S. Butt clean up campaigns: wolves in sheep's clothing? Tobacco Control, 2006; 15(4):273. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16885567
77. British American Tobacco Australia. Submission on the Packaging Impacts Consultation Regulation Impact Statement (PICRIS). Submission to the Standing Council on Environment and Water. 2012. Last update: 2012; Viewed 16 November 2016. Available from: http://www.scew.gov.au/system/files/submissions/08131a3d-e461-32e4-ed8d-f151695d5a86/123-british-american-tobacco-aust.pdf
78. Butt Free Australia. About Butt Free Australia. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 11 November 2016. Available from: http://www.notagoodlook.com.au/about-butt-free-australia/.
79. Department of Environment and Conservation NSW. NSW Extended Producer Responsibility Priority Statement 2005-06. Sydney: Department of Environment and Conservation NSW 2006. Available from: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/warr/2005624_prioritystatement2005_06.pdf.
80. Department of Environment Climate Change and Water NSW. NSW Extended Producer Responsibility Priority Statement 2010. 2010. Available from: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/~/media/EPA/Corporate%20Site/resources/waste/101012-epr-priority.ashx.
81. Clean Up Australia. Butt recycling campaign shut down by the tobacco industry. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 30 October 2016. Available from: http://www.cleanup.org.au/au/Whatelsewesupport/recycling-cigarette-butts.html.
82. BAT Australia Limited: Annual Report and Action Plan. Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), 2025. Available from: https://apco.org.au/apco-members-signatories/0014a0000078cddAAA/latest_ar_ap.
83. Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited: Annual Report and Action Plan. Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), 2025. Available from: https://apco.org.au/apco-members-signatories/0014a0000078cmPAAQ/latest_ar_ap.
84. About APCO. Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), Last update: Viewed 02/10/2025. Available from: https://apco.org.au/about-apco.
85. 2023 Global progress report on implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2023. Available from: https://fctc.who.int/resources/publications/m/item/2023-global-progress-report.
86. Government Partners. Clean Up Australia, Last update: Viewed 02/10/2025. Available from: https://www.cleanup.org.au/governmentpartners.
87. Community Litter Grants to Keep Australia Beautiful. Government of Western Australia, 2025. Last update: 07/08/2025; Viewed Available from: https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/Cook%20Labor%20Government/Community-Litter-Grants-to-Keep-Australia-Beautiful--20250807#:~:text=Language,based%20in%20regional%20Western%20Australia.
88. Annual Report 21/22. KESAB environmental solutions, Available from: https://www.kesab.asn.au/simsmm/wp-content/uploads/KESAB_AR_21_22_web.pdf.
89. Wallbank LA, MacKenzie R, and Beggs PJ. Environmental impacts of tobacco product waste: International and Australian policy responses. Ambio, 2017; 46(3):361–70. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27844421
90. Sustainability Victoria. A Climate of Change. Book 1. 2007-2008 Annual Report Year in Review. Available from: https://assets.sustainability.vic.gov.au/susvic/Report-Sustainability-Victoria-Annual-report-2007-08-Book-1.pdf.
91. Donegan J. Dropped cigarette butts used to create 'Yuk' installation to encourage smokers to butt-out in bins. ABC, 2014. Available from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-23/dropped-cigarette-butts-spell-yuk-in-sydney-installation/5752642?pfm=ms
92. New South Wales. Environmental Protection Agency. Identifying effective strategies to reduce cigarette butt litter. Findings from the NSW EPA-led Cigarette Butt Litter Prevention Trial. 2019. Available from: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/litter/19p1840-butt-litter-trial-report.pdf?la=en&hash=D28C9E091A7082F33942BD278C8F8D258637A7C6.
93. European Commission. Marking specifications for single-use plastic products. 2021. Last update: Viewed 27/01/2025. Available from: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/plastics/single-use-plastics/sups-marking-specifications_en.
94. Morgan JC, Jeong M, Mendel-Sheldon J, Noar SM, Ribisl KM, et al. The impact of cigarette pack anti-littering messages. Addict Behav, 2022; 126:107184. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34906881
95. Tabbakh T, Mitsopoulos E, Nuss T, and Durkin SJ. Messages about climate, pollution and social justice harms of tobacco as motivators to quit: an untapped communication opportunity? Tobacco Control, 2024; 33(e2):e225-e30. Available from: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/33/e2/e225.full.pdf
96. Shah G, Bhatt U, and Soni V. A comprehensive review on triple R eco-management strategies to reduce, reuse and recycle of hazardous cigarette butts. Heliyon, 2023; 9(6):e16642. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37292331
97. Fathi Z, Abdulkhani A, Hamzeh Y, Ashori A, Shakeri A, et al. Innovative upcycling cigarette filters into high-performance cellulose nanofiber-epoxy composites. Int J Biol Macromol, 2024; 281(Pt 3):136561. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39401619
98. Farzadkia M, Yavary Nia M, Yavari Nia M, Shacheri F, Nourali Z, et al. Reduction of the environmental and health consequences of cigarette butt recycling by removal of toxic and carcinogenic compounds from its leachate. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2024. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38436848
99. Prabhaharan D, Park H, Choi O, Abraham A, and Sang BI. Enhancing cellulose acetate biodegradability in cigarette filters: an in-depth analysis of thermal alkaline pretreatment, microbial dynamics, and breakdown pathway prediction. Microb Cell Fact, 2024; 23(1):199. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39026314
100. Wheeler M. Fungi eats discarded cigarette filters. 2023. Last update: 08/05/2023; Viewed Available from: https://www.insidewaste.com.au/fungi-eats-discarded-cigarette-filters/.
101. Marinello S, Lolli F, Gamberini R, and Rimini B. A second life for cigarette butts? A review of recycling solutions. J Hazard Mater, 2020; 384:121245. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31585286
102. No authors listed. 3 Myths About Cigarette Filters and the Plastic They Contain, in STOP: A Global Tobacco Industry Watchdog2023. Available from: https://exposetobacco.org/resource/cigarette-filters-plastic/.
103. Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control. Toxic Butts: What the Plastic Treaty’s Negotiating Text Means for Health and Liability. 2025. Last update: 30/06/2025; Viewed Available from: https://ggtc.world/actions/webinars/toxic-butts-what-the-plastic-treatys-negotiating-text-means-for-health-and-liability.
104. STOP. We Need to Make Big Tobacco Pay for Its Environmental Harms, in A Global Tobacco Industry Watchdog2022. Available from: https://exposetobacco.org/news/polluter-pays/?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=bbt.
105. Barnes RL. Regulating the disposal of cigarette butts as toxic hazardous waste. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20 Suppl 1(suppl. 1):i45–8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21504925
106. Sy DK, Momas C, Beguinot E, Arnold D, van Kalmthout D, et al. Turning tobacco Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) into Extended Producer Liability (EPL): critical safeguards for the UN Plastics Treaty. Tobacco Control, 2025. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40796280
107. Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (Text with EEA relevance), 2019: Official Journal of the European Union. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32019L0904.
108. Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee (CIG). Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector, City and County of San Francisco, Last update: Viewed 20/01/2025. Available from: https://sftreasurer.org/business/taxes-fees/cigarette-litter-abatement-fee-cig.
109. Scott B. City of Baltimore Files a First of its Kind Lawsuit Against Tobacco Companies for Cigarette Filter Waste, in City of Baltimore2022. Available from: https://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/news/press-releases/2022-11-21-city-baltimore-files-first-its-kind-lawsuit-against-tobacco-companies.
110. Health and Care Bill. 2022 30/03/2022 [cited Volume 711; Available from: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-03-30/debates/159B83EA-68DF-4A72-AFB7-189970DE9114/HealthAndCareBill.
111. Cunningham R. Canada: Polluter pays – tobacco industry required to reimburse annual costs in government’s national tobacco control strategy. 2025. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2025/05/30/canada-polluter-pays-tobacco-industry-required-to-reimburse-annual-costs-in-governments-national-tobacco-control-strategy/.
112. Australia. Department of Agriculture Water and the Environment. National Plastics Plan 2021. Canberra: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, 2021. Available from: www.awe.gov.au/about/publications.
113. Australian Associated Press. No butts: smoke companies to clean up, in Daily Mail2023. Available from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-11625421/No-butts-smoke-companies-clean-up.html.
114. Equilibrium. Ending Cigarette Butt Pollution. Backgrounder: No Plastics in Nature: World Wide Fund for Nature, 2021. Available from: https://assets.wwf.org.au/image/upload/v1/website-media/resources/pub-WWF-Australia-Ending-cigarette-butt-pollution-3Dec21?_a=ATO2Bcc0.
115. DAWE. National Plastics Plan 2021. Canberra: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, 2021. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/publications/national-plastics-plan.
116. NSW Plastics: Next Steps. NSW Environment Protection Authority (NSW EPA), 2023. Available from: https://hdp-au-prod-app-nswepa-yoursay-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/9016/9828/2472/742_Plastics_Report_FA_WEB_Accessible.pdf.
117. European Union. Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. 2019. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj.
118. van Schalkwyk MCI, Novotny TE, and McKee M. No more butts. British Medical Journal, 2019; 367:l5890. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31645319
119. Callard C. Growing support in Europe for banning cigarette filters, in Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada 2023. Available from: https://smoke-free-canada.blogspot.com/2023/04/growing-support-for-banning-cigarette.html.
120. The County of Santa Cruz. Landmark vote prohibits sale of filtered tobacco products, 2024. Available from: https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/portals/0/county/CAO/press%20releases/2024/TobaccoFilters.10082024.pdf.
121. King S. Dozens of groups join our call to #ExpandTheBan on single-use plastics. Will you?, in Greenpeace2023. Available from: https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/author/sking/.
122. Ministry of Health. Proposals for a Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan: Discussion document. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2021. Available from: https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/2021-04/proposals_for_a_smokefree_aotearoa_2025_action_plan-final.pdf.
123. Pulvers K, Tracy L, Novotny TE, Satybaldiyeva N, Hunn A, et al. Switching people who smoke to unfiltered cigarettes: perceptions, addiction and behavioural effects in a cross-over randomised controlled trial. Tobacco Control, 2023; 32(4):520-3. Available from: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/32/4/520.full.pdf
124. Gravely S, Novotny TE, Cummings KM, East KA, Hyland A, et al. Opposition to banning cigarette filters and the belief that removing filters makes cigarettes much more harmful among adults who smoke: Findings from the 2022 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. Nicotine Tob Res, 2024. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39548748