Test your preliminary knowledge!
Before reading this information booklet on the impact that tobacco has on the environment, we ask you to answer a short questionnaire.
The answers will be collected anonymously and will be analyzed for scientific purposes only by the UNITAB team - Tabaccology Unit of Sapienza University of Rome, under the supervision of Prof. Maria Sofia Cattaruzza.
By continuing, you accept that anonymous data will be collected for statistical analysis for the purpose of publication in scientific journals.
By continuing, you accept that anonymous data will be collected for statistical analysis for the purpose of publication in scientific journals.
Scan the QR CODE, or click on the link: https://forms.gle/sZg3gfhRJydZBg4aA
Loading...
Tobacco: the "invisible" threat to the environmentLoading...
Interuniversity project by:Loading...
Martedì 31 Maggio 2022Loading...
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases - Sapienza University of Rome- Department of Health Sciences - University of Genoa
- Hygiene Unit, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences - University of Bologna
Loading...
World No Tobacco Day 2022Loading...
A global issueLoading...
by Dr. Martina Antinozzi and Maria Assunta DonatoWelcome dear readers,
this little newspaper talks about tobacco and how it is a daily threat to our planet and to all creatures, of every species, that populate it.
The occasion for the dissemination of this booklet is the World No Tobacco Day 2022, whose theme this year, chosen by the World Health Organization, is "Tobacco as a threat to the environment". The issue of smoking, with the request to countries for a 30% reduction by 2030, is also included among the 170 goals to be achieved according to the Sustainable Development Agenda (program of 17 objectives, signed and launched in 2016 by the Organization of the United Nations, which acts as a global reference framework for the national and international commitment aimed at finding common solutions to the great challenges of the planet, to lead the world on the path of sustainability).
To talk about such a vast topic, it seems appropriate first of all to introduce a concept that underlies the rediscovered interest of the entire scientific world for the environment, namely the concept of One Health. This term refers to a health model based on the integration of different disciplines. This is based on the recognition that human health, animal health and the health of the entire ecosystem are inextricably linked.
One Health is officially recognized by the Ministry of Health and the WHO as a relevant strategy in all sectors that benefit from collaboration between different disciplines (doctors, veterinarians, environmentalists, economists, sociologists, etc.).
Considering the entire planet and all the species that inhabit it as a single indissoluble entity, makes us actively responsible for our choices in terms of global repercussions, not only on human life, but on the well-being of the Earth in the round.
Hence the need to increase awareness about the negative impact that tobacco and all the products deriving from it have on us and everything around us, in the hope that this small collection of texts can stimulate reflections on the topic and the development of more incisive policies in this area, so as to lead to a reflection that is only the starting point for a change in human behavior with a view to greater respect for ourselves, for all the species that inhabit this planet and for the Earth that kindly hosts us.
Loading...
Loading...
Poster by WHO for World No Tobacco Day 2022Loading...
by Dr. Martina Antinozzi and Maria Assunta DonatoThe World Health Organization estimates that every year, worldwide, more than 8 million people die from tobacco consumption. While, on the one hand, the deleterious effects of cigarette smoking on human health are well known, the consequences that tobacco products have on the environment are still poorly understood and have only recently been arousing interest in the general population, also thanks to the work of raising awareness of NGOs and environmentalists.
Just think of waste products such as cigarette butts: every year 5,000 billion cigarette butts are scattered around the world, containing more than 7,000 toxic chemicals.
Chemicals are not only harmful to the smoker, but also have repercussions on the health of other people, on animal, plant and environmental health, therefore for all forms of life that populate our planet.
Loading...
What does a cigarette contain?Loading...
Loading...
BibliographyTobacco’s Impact on the Environment FACT SHEET https://tobaccofree.ku.edu/
Tobacco & Flora Threat
Editorial: The environmental effects of tobacco production
by Dr. Nicola Calcavecchia, Dr. Giulia Gatti and Dr. Raffella Sibilio
The tobacco supply chain has an important impact on terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, the cultivation of tobacco takes place on a massive scale on our planet, involving 125 countries (out of the 195 recognized globally, ie about 64%) and occupying 4.3 million hectares of agricultural land (1). Scientific evidence shows that tobacco is much more aggressive in its impact on the ecosystem of forests than crops such as corn or grazing (2).
In recent decades, in order to lower production costs, tobacco multinationals have shifted the cultivation of this plant from high-income to low-income countries, where about 90% of global production is now concentrated (3). China, Brazil and India are the largest tobacco producers in the world (4).
Use of chemicals
Tobacco is often grown intensively, without rotation with other plantations, and this exposes the tobacco plants themselves to diseases and pests, and impoverishes the quality of the land (5). Tobacco plants also absorb more nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium than other species, further reducing soil fertility in a very short time (6). For these reasons, the cultivation of tobacco requires the frequent identification of new fertile areas, and the use of large quantities of chemical agents (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and pesticides) and growth regulators (6-8). Many of these substances, capable of also polluting groundwater, are so harmful both to the environment and to the health of farmers that they are now banned in many countries.
Studies show that pesticides banned in Europe are still used in Cuba (9), Kenya (10) and Pakistan (11).
Consumer concerns about the use of these chemicals have prompted some tobacco companies to prepare plans for the development of sustainable crops, but little has been done on the use of pesticides and fertilizers (12-14).
From internal documents of some tobacco companies it is clear that they have continued to fight to maintain the right to use some pesticides, even trying to influence regulatory processes in some countries (15).
The tobacco supply chain has an important impact on terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, the cultivation of tobacco takes place on a massive scale on our planet, involving 125 countries (out of the 195 recognized globally, ie about 64%) and occupying 4.3 million hectares of agricultural land (1). Scientific evidence shows that tobacco is much more aggressive in its impact on the ecosystem of forests than crops such as corn or grazing (2).
In recent decades, in order to lower production costs, tobacco multinationals have shifted the cultivation of this plant from high-income to low-income countries, where about 90% of global production is now concentrated (3). China, Brazil and India are the largest tobacco producers in the world (4).
Use of chemicals
Tobacco is often grown intensively, without rotation with other plantations, and this exposes the tobacco plants themselves to diseases and pests, and impoverishes the quality of the land (5). Tobacco plants also absorb more nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium than other species, further reducing soil fertility in a very short time (6). For these reasons, the cultivation of tobacco requires the frequent identification of new fertile areas, and the use of large quantities of chemical agents (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and pesticides) and growth regulators (6-8). Many of these substances, capable of also polluting groundwater, are so harmful both to the environment and to the health of farmers that they are now banned in many countries.
Studies show that pesticides banned in Europe are still used in Cuba (9), Kenya (10) and Pakistan (11).
Consumer concerns about the use of these chemicals have prompted some tobacco companies to prepare plans for the development of sustainable crops, but little has been done on the use of pesticides and fertilizers (12-14).
From internal documents of some tobacco companies it is clear that they have continued to fight to maintain the right to use some pesticides, even trying to influence regulatory processes in some countries (15).
Big Tobacco's hands on deforestation
Photo credits: https://zapping2017.myblog.it/2017/11/15/multinazionali-ecco/
Photo credits: https://zapping2017.myblog.it/2017/11/15/multinazionali-ecco/
Deforestation
Another consequence of the intensive cultivation of tobacco is the deforestation to the detriment of very large areas which causes an increase in CO2 emissions and thus contributes to climate change (16). Furthermore, this destruction and fragmentation of natural habitats leads to a significant loss of biodiversity (17-19). Moreover, the intensive exploitation of the soil causes erosion, reduction of fertility and productivity, finally having repercussions also on the water cycle.
Besides the cultivation, the tobacco drying process is also a direct cause of deforestation (20), in fact, about 11.4 tons of wood are burned annually for this purpose (21). Added to this is the consumption of wood related to the production of other material related to the use of tobacco (e.g. maps, packaging).
The scale of the problem is such that up to 4% of global deforestation appears to be attributable to tobacco cultivation, with even higher percentages in countries such as China (around 18%), Zimbabwe (around 20%), Malawi (around 20%). 26%) and Bangladesh (about 30%) (22). (continues)
Another consequence of the intensive cultivation of tobacco is the deforestation to the detriment of very large areas which causes an increase in CO2 emissions and thus contributes to climate change (16). Furthermore, this destruction and fragmentation of natural habitats leads to a significant loss of biodiversity (17-19). Moreover, the intensive exploitation of the soil causes erosion, reduction of fertility and productivity, finally having repercussions also on the water cycle.
Besides the cultivation, the tobacco drying process is also a direct cause of deforestation (20), in fact, about 11.4 tons of wood are burned annually for this purpose (21). Added to this is the consumption of wood related to the production of other material related to the use of tobacco (e.g. maps, packaging).
The scale of the problem is such that up to 4% of global deforestation appears to be attributable to tobacco cultivation, with even higher percentages in countries such as China (around 18%), Zimbabwe (around 20%), Malawi (around 20%). 26%) and Bangladesh (about 30%) (22). (continues)
Tobacco & Flora Threat
Editorial: The environmental effects of tobacco production
by Dr. Nicola Calcavecchia, Dr. Giulia Gatti and Dr. Raffella Sibilio
In the first half of the 2000s, in the Urambo district, Tanzania's largest tobacco growing area, annual forest loss rates were 10 times higher than Africa's total deforestation rate, as a result of '' extension of the area of cultivation and extraction of wood for drying (23-25). In the eastern regions of Tanzania, between 1908 and 2000 intensive plantations, including tobacco, displaced 74% of the forest area (26).
In Brazil, the cultivation of tobacco in the southern areas has substantially contributed to the reduction of the surface of the forests to less than 2% of their original extension (27).
From the mid-1990s to today, more than half of the 120 tobacco producing countries (low and middle income) have suffered the loss of approximately 211,000 hectares of woodland per year (28). Although the phenomenon is widely known for its dramatic effects on ecosystems, the production trend is in any case constantly increasing (29), so that the consequences would now seem irreversible.
Greenhouse gas emissions
The processes of deforestation and cultivation lead to greenhouse gas emissions, a further mechanism of damage to the ecosystem (30). In fact, measures to prevent deforestation, such as the use of coal instead of wood in drying processes, are ineffective in limiting greenhouse gas emissions, as observed in Zimbabwe and China (31). It is estimated that the entire tobacco production cycle is the cause of the release into the atmosphere of about 84 million tons of CO2 equiv. in one year, equal to 0.2% of the global total (32).
Water consumption and pollution of groundwater
Tobacco production leads to enormous water consumption. In fact, it is estimated that over 22 billion tons of water are needed to sustain global annual production. For processing and manufacturing processes alone, 60 megatons of fresh water are consumed, resulting in 55 megatons of wastewater (33-35).
The impact on the pollution of aquifers and water courses is very important and is determined by the fertilizers and pesticides used during cultivation (which permeate the soil) (36), by toxic substances contaminating the waste water of manufacturing (nicotine, heavy metals, etc.) (37) and from cigarette butts that contain plastic and up to 7000 different toxic substances (38)
In the first half of the 2000s, in the Urambo district, Tanzania's largest tobacco growing area, annual forest loss rates were 10 times higher than Africa's total deforestation rate, as a result of '' extension of the area of cultivation and extraction of wood for drying (23-25). In the eastern regions of Tanzania, between 1908 and 2000 intensive plantations, including tobacco, displaced 74% of the forest area (26).
In Brazil, the cultivation of tobacco in the southern areas has substantially contributed to the reduction of the surface of the forests to less than 2% of their original extension (27).
From the mid-1990s to today, more than half of the 120 tobacco producing countries (low and middle income) have suffered the loss of approximately 211,000 hectares of woodland per year (28). Although the phenomenon is widely known for its dramatic effects on ecosystems, the production trend is in any case constantly increasing (29), so that the consequences would now seem irreversible.
Greenhouse gas emissions
The processes of deforestation and cultivation lead to greenhouse gas emissions, a further mechanism of damage to the ecosystem (30). In fact, measures to prevent deforestation, such as the use of coal instead of wood in drying processes, are ineffective in limiting greenhouse gas emissions, as observed in Zimbabwe and China (31). It is estimated that the entire tobacco production cycle is the cause of the release into the atmosphere of about 84 million tons of CO2 equiv. in one year, equal to 0.2% of the global total (32).
Water consumption and pollution of groundwater
Tobacco production leads to enormous water consumption. In fact, it is estimated that over 22 billion tons of water are needed to sustain global annual production. For processing and manufacturing processes alone, 60 megatons of fresh water are consumed, resulting in 55 megatons of wastewater (33-35).
The impact on the pollution of aquifers and water courses is very important and is determined by the fertilizers and pesticides used during cultivation (which permeate the soil) (36), by toxic substances contaminating the waste water of manufacturing (nicotine, heavy metals, etc.) (37) and from cigarette butts that contain plastic and up to 7000 different toxic substances (38)
The real cost of a cigarette
Photo credits: https://www.quit.org.au/resources/facts-evidence/environmental-costs-tobacco/
Photo credits: https://www.quit.org.au/resources/facts-evidence/environmental-costs-tobacco/
Conclusions
Growing concerns about the environmental impact of these crops have led manufacturers to publish reports and advertise programs that address these problems (39-41). From the analysis of these initiatives, however, it appears that these programs have the sole intent of reducing public pressure on this issue and obtaining greater credibility with political decision makers (41).
In fact, despite technological advances, the increase in legislative restrictions and reforestation initiatives of native plants, the effects of tobacco production are currently unresolved overall (41-47).
In conclusion, the economic benefits for farmers and local communities deriving from these productions are decidedly lower than the environmental and economic repercussions associated with the loss of precious resources such as forests, plants and animal species. Furthermore, also considering the impact that the use of chemicals has on the health of farmers, especially where they do not have the necessary personal protective equipment (48), it is clear that the production model adopted so far is not sustainable.
Growing concerns about the environmental impact of these crops have led manufacturers to publish reports and advertise programs that address these problems (39-41). From the analysis of these initiatives, however, it appears that these programs have the sole intent of reducing public pressure on this issue and obtaining greater credibility with political decision makers (41).
In fact, despite technological advances, the increase in legislative restrictions and reforestation initiatives of native plants, the effects of tobacco production are currently unresolved overall (41-47).
In conclusion, the economic benefits for farmers and local communities deriving from these productions are decidedly lower than the environmental and economic repercussions associated with the loss of precious resources such as forests, plants and animal species. Furthermore, also considering the impact that the use of chemicals has on the health of farmers, especially where they do not have the necessary personal protective equipment (48), it is clear that the production model adopted so far is not sustainable.
Bibliography of the editorial
Editorial: The environmental effects of tobacco production
1 The Tobacco Atlas [website] (http://www.tobaccoatlas.org/topic/growing-tobacco/).
2 Study group on economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing (in relation to articles 17 and 18 of the convention – provisional agenda item 4.8 (who fctc/cop/3/11). Technical report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008 (http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/ cop3/FCTC_COP3_11-en.pdf, accessed 30 January 2016).
3 Cairney P, Studlar DT, Mamudu HM. Global Tobacco Control: Power, Policy, Governance and Transfer. Springer, 2011.
4 Eriksen M, Mackay J, Schluger N, Gomeshtapeh FI, Drope J. The Tobacco Atlas. Number Ed. 5. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 2015 (http://3pk43x313ggr4cy0lh3tctjh.wpengine. netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/TA5_2015_WEB.pdf, accessed 30 March 2017).
5 Lecours N, Almeida GEG, Abdallah JM, Novotny TE. Environmental health impacts of tobacco farming: a review of the literature. Tobacco Control. 2012;21(2):191–196.
6 Golden leaf barren harvest, the costs of tobacco farming. Technical report, Washington DC: Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids: 2001 (http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd51/golden. pdf, accessed 30 March 2017).
7 Arcury T, Quandt S. Health and social impacts of tobacco production. Journal of Agromedicine. 2006:11:71–81.
8 Almeida G. Tobacco: Modern servitude and human rights violations. The British Medical Journal. 2005.
9 Lopez Davila E, Houbraken M, De Rop J, Wumbei A, Du Laing G, et al. Pesticides residues in tobacco smoke: risk assessment study. Environ Monit Assess, 2020; 192(9):615. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32876774
10 Kibwage JK, Othoo CO, and Ndungu C. Environmental Audit and Policy Compliance of Tobacco Farming Practices in Migori County, Western Kenya. Journal of UOEH, 2019; 41(3):259-69
11 Taufeeq A, Baqar M, Sharif F, Mumtaz M, Ullah S, et al. Assessment of organochlorine pesticides and health risk in tobacco farming associated with River Barandu of Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2021; 28(29):38774–91. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33742378
12 Philip Morris International. Good Agricultural Practices. 2018 Available from: https://www.pmi.com/resources/docs/default-source/sustainability-reports-and-policies/good-agricultural-practices-gap.pdf?sfvrsn=2fc091b5_4].
13 Japan Tobacco International. Good Agricultural Practices Protocol. Version 5.0. 2020. Available from: https://www.jti.com/sites/default/files/global-files/documents/related-documents/good_agricultural_practices_protocol.pdf
14 British American Tobacco. A Better Tomorrow; ESG report 2020. 2020. Available from: https://www.bat.com/group/sites/UK__9D9KCY.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DOAWWEKR/$file/BAT_ESG_Report_2020.pdf?open&v=1.
15 McDaniel PA, Solomon G, and Malone RE. The tobacco industry and pesticide regulations: case studies from tobacco industry archives. Environ Health Perspect, 2005; 113(12):1659–65. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16330343
16 Chhabra A, Geist H, Houthon RA, Harberl H, Braimoh AK, Vlek PLG, et al. Land-use and land- cover change: local processes and global impacts. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2006;71– 116.
17 Cáceres D. Agrobiodiversity and technology in resource-poor farms. Interciencia. 2005;31(6):403–410 (http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/339/33911703.pdf, accessed 31 May 2017)
18 Motaleb MA, Irfanullah HM. Tobacco cultivation in Bangladesh: Is it a threat to traditional agro-practice? Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge. 2011;10(3):481–485 (http://sa.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Tobacco%20cultivation_0.pdf, accessed 22 June 2017).
19 Moreno-Penãranda R, Kallis G. A co-evolutionary understanding of agro-environmental change: a case-study of a rural community in Brazil. Ecological Economics. 2010;69(4):770– 778.
20 Geist H, Lambin E. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience, 2002;52(2):143–150 (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1641/0006- 3568%282002%29052%5B0143%3APCAUDF%5D2.0.CO%3B2, accessed 1 June 2017).
21 Geist H. Global assessment of deforestation related to tobacco farming. Tobacco Control. 1999;8(1):18–28 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763929/pdf/v008p00018. pdf, accessed 30 March 2017).
22 Lee K, Carrillo Botero N, and Novotny T. ‘Manage and mitigate punitive regulatory measures, enhance the corporate image, influence public policy’: industry efforts to shape understanding of tobacco-attributable deforestation. Globalization and Health, 2016; 12(1):55. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-016-0192-6
23 Yanda P. Impact of small scale tobacco growing on the spatial and temporal distribution of Miombo woodlands in western Tanzania. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment. 2010;2(1):10–16.
24 Mayes M, Mustard J, Mellilo J. Forest cover change in Miombo woodlands – modeling land cover of African dry tropical forests with linear spectral mixture analysis. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2015;165:203–215.
25 Global forest resources assessment 2005 – progress towards sustainable forest management (fao forestry paper 147). Technical report, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization: 2005 (http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0400e/a0400e00.htm, accessed 27 January 2016).
26 Willcock S, Phillips OL, Platts PJ, Swetnam RD, Balmford A, Burgess ND, et al. Land cover change and carbon emissions over 100 years in an African biodiversity hotspot. Global Change Biology2016;74.
27 Geist HJ, Chang K, Etges V, Abdallah JM. Tobacco growers at the crossroads – towards a comparison of diversification and ecosystem impacts. Land Use Policy. 2009;26(4):1066– 1079.
28 Geist H. Global assessment of deforestation related to tobacco farming. Tobacco Control. 1999;8(1):18–28 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763929/pdf/v008p00018. pdf, accessed 30 March 2017).
29 Tobacco Production & Trade GLOBAL INFOGRAPHIC https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/tobacco-hq/globalinfographic-web-feb11.pdf?sfvrsn=827aee77_5 WHO
30 Chhabra A, Geist H, Houthon RA, Harberl H, Braimoh AK, Vlek PLG, et al. Land-use and land- cover change: local processes and global impacts. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2006;71– 116.
31 Geist H. Global assessment of deforestation related to tobacco farming. Tobacco Control. 1999;8(1):18–28 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763929/pdf/v008p00018. pdf, accessed 30 March 2017).
32 Cigarette Smoking: An Assessment of Tobacco’s Global Environmental Footprint Across Its Entire Supply Chain. Maria Zafeiridou et al
33 World Health Organization. Tobacco and its environmental impact: an overview [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255574/1/9789241512497-eng.pdf?ua=1.
34 Zafeiridou M, Hopkinson NS, Voulvoulis N. Cigarette smoking: an assessment of tobacco’s global environmental footprint across its entire supply chain, and policy strategies to reduce it. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Available from https://www.who.int/fctc/publications/WHO-FCTC-Enviroment-Cigarette-smoking.pdf?ua=1&ua=1
35 Zafeiridou M, Hopkinson NS, 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.
36 UBINIG no date (2013): UBINIG policy brief. Impact of tobacco cultivation on agricultural production in Bangladesh. Online: http:// ubinig.org/cpdf/21_52.pdf
37 Zafeiridou, Hopkinson, Voulvoulis 2018: Cigarette Smoking: An Assessment of Tobacco‘s Global Environmental Footprint Across Its Entire Supply Chain. T.E. Novotny, F. Zhao 1999: Consumption and production waste: another externality of tobacco use. Tobacco Control 8, no. 1:75-80. Truth Initiative 2018: Tobacco and the environment. Washington D.C., USA: Truth Initiative. Online: https://truthinitiative.org/sites/default/ files/truth_initiative-environment_fact_sheet-FINAL.pdf
38 Roder Green, Putschew, Nehls 2014: Littered cigarette butts as a source of nicotine in urban waters.
39 Philip Morris International. Protecting the Environment. 2021. Available from: https://www.pmi.com/sustainability/protecting-the-environment.
40 Japan Tobacco International. We’re serious about protecting the environment. 2021. Available from: https://www.jti.com/about-us/sustainability/were-serious-about-protecting-environment].
41 Fang J, De Souza L, Smith J, and Lee K. "All Weather Friends": How China Transformed Zimbabwe's Tobacco Sector. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020; 17(3). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31979132
42 Otanez M and Glantz SA. Social responsibility in tobacco production? Tobacco companies' use of green supply chains to obscure the real costs of tobacco farming. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20(6):403–11. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21504915
43 Geist HJ. Tobacco and Deforestation Revisited. How to Move towards a Global Land-Use Transition? Sustainability, 2021; 13(16):9242. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9242
44 Otanez MG, Muggli ME, Hurt RD, and Glantz SA. Eliminating child labour in Malawi: a British American Tobacco corporate responsibility project to sidestep tobacco labour exploitation. Tobacco Control, 2006; 15(3):224–30. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728754
45 McDaniel PA, Intinarelli G, and Malone RE. Tobacco industry issues management organizations: creating a global corporate network to undermine public health. Global Health, 2008; 4:2. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18201375
46 McDaniel PA and Malone RE. British American Tobacco's partnership with Earthwatch Europe and its implications for public health. Glob Public Health, 2012; 7(1):14–28. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21347934
47 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://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30852780
48 Arcury T, Quandt S. Health and social impacts of tobacco production. Journal of Agromedicine. 2006:11:71–81.
1 The Tobacco Atlas [website] (http://www.tobaccoatlas.org/topic/growing-tobacco/).
2 Study group on economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing (in relation to articles 17 and 18 of the convention – provisional agenda item 4.8 (who fctc/cop/3/11). Technical report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008 (http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/ cop3/FCTC_COP3_11-en.pdf, accessed 30 January 2016).
3 Cairney P, Studlar DT, Mamudu HM. Global Tobacco Control: Power, Policy, Governance and Transfer. Springer, 2011.
4 Eriksen M, Mackay J, Schluger N, Gomeshtapeh FI, Drope J. The Tobacco Atlas. Number Ed. 5. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 2015 (http://3pk43x313ggr4cy0lh3tctjh.wpengine. netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/TA5_2015_WEB.pdf, accessed 30 March 2017).
5 Lecours N, Almeida GEG, Abdallah JM, Novotny TE. Environmental health impacts of tobacco farming: a review of the literature. Tobacco Control. 2012;21(2):191–196.
6 Golden leaf barren harvest, the costs of tobacco farming. Technical report, Washington DC: Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids: 2001 (http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd51/golden. pdf, accessed 30 March 2017).
7 Arcury T, Quandt S. Health and social impacts of tobacco production. Journal of Agromedicine. 2006:11:71–81.
8 Almeida G. Tobacco: Modern servitude and human rights violations. The British Medical Journal. 2005.
9 Lopez Davila E, Houbraken M, De Rop J, Wumbei A, Du Laing G, et al. Pesticides residues in tobacco smoke: risk assessment study. Environ Monit Assess, 2020; 192(9):615. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32876774
10 Kibwage JK, Othoo CO, and Ndungu C. Environmental Audit and Policy Compliance of Tobacco Farming Practices in Migori County, Western Kenya. Journal of UOEH, 2019; 41(3):259-69
11 Taufeeq A, Baqar M, Sharif F, Mumtaz M, Ullah S, et al. Assessment of organochlorine pesticides and health risk in tobacco farming associated with River Barandu of Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2021; 28(29):38774–91. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33742378
12 Philip Morris International. Good Agricultural Practices. 2018 Available from: https://www.pmi.com/resources/docs/default-source/sustainability-reports-and-policies/good-agricultural-practices-gap.pdf?sfvrsn=2fc091b5_4].
13 Japan Tobacco International. Good Agricultural Practices Protocol. Version 5.0. 2020. Available from: https://www.jti.com/sites/default/files/global-files/documents/related-documents/good_agricultural_practices_protocol.pdf
14 British American Tobacco. A Better Tomorrow; ESG report 2020. 2020. Available from: https://www.bat.com/group/sites/UK__9D9KCY.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DOAWWEKR/$file/BAT_ESG_Report_2020.pdf?open&v=1.
15 McDaniel PA, Solomon G, and Malone RE. The tobacco industry and pesticide regulations: case studies from tobacco industry archives. Environ Health Perspect, 2005; 113(12):1659–65. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16330343
16 Chhabra A, Geist H, Houthon RA, Harberl H, Braimoh AK, Vlek PLG, et al. Land-use and land- cover change: local processes and global impacts. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2006;71– 116.
17 Cáceres D. Agrobiodiversity and technology in resource-poor farms. Interciencia. 2005;31(6):403–410 (http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/339/33911703.pdf, accessed 31 May 2017)
18 Motaleb MA, Irfanullah HM. Tobacco cultivation in Bangladesh: Is it a threat to traditional agro-practice? Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge. 2011;10(3):481–485 (http://sa.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Tobacco%20cultivation_0.pdf, accessed 22 June 2017).
19 Moreno-Penãranda R, Kallis G. A co-evolutionary understanding of agro-environmental change: a case-study of a rural community in Brazil. Ecological Economics. 2010;69(4):770– 778.
20 Geist H, Lambin E. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience, 2002;52(2):143–150 (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1641/0006- 3568%282002%29052%5B0143%3APCAUDF%5D2.0.CO%3B2, accessed 1 June 2017).
21 Geist H. Global assessment of deforestation related to tobacco farming. Tobacco Control. 1999;8(1):18–28 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763929/pdf/v008p00018. pdf, accessed 30 March 2017).
22 Lee K, Carrillo Botero N, and Novotny T. ‘Manage and mitigate punitive regulatory measures, enhance the corporate image, influence public policy’: industry efforts to shape understanding of tobacco-attributable deforestation. Globalization and Health, 2016; 12(1):55. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-016-0192-6
23 Yanda P. Impact of small scale tobacco growing on the spatial and temporal distribution of Miombo woodlands in western Tanzania. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment. 2010;2(1):10–16.
24 Mayes M, Mustard J, Mellilo J. Forest cover change in Miombo woodlands – modeling land cover of African dry tropical forests with linear spectral mixture analysis. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2015;165:203–215.
25 Global forest resources assessment 2005 – progress towards sustainable forest management (fao forestry paper 147). Technical report, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization: 2005 (http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0400e/a0400e00.htm, accessed 27 January 2016).
26 Willcock S, Phillips OL, Platts PJ, Swetnam RD, Balmford A, Burgess ND, et al. Land cover change and carbon emissions over 100 years in an African biodiversity hotspot. Global Change Biology2016;74.
27 Geist HJ, Chang K, Etges V, Abdallah JM. Tobacco growers at the crossroads – towards a comparison of diversification and ecosystem impacts. Land Use Policy. 2009;26(4):1066– 1079.
28 Geist H. Global assessment of deforestation related to tobacco farming. Tobacco Control. 1999;8(1):18–28 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763929/pdf/v008p00018. pdf, accessed 30 March 2017).
29 Tobacco Production & Trade GLOBAL INFOGRAPHIC https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/tobacco-hq/globalinfographic-web-feb11.pdf?sfvrsn=827aee77_5 WHO
30 Chhabra A, Geist H, Houthon RA, Harberl H, Braimoh AK, Vlek PLG, et al. Land-use and land- cover change: local processes and global impacts. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2006;71– 116.
31 Geist H. Global assessment of deforestation related to tobacco farming. Tobacco Control. 1999;8(1):18–28 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763929/pdf/v008p00018. pdf, accessed 30 March 2017).
32 Cigarette Smoking: An Assessment of Tobacco’s Global Environmental Footprint Across Its Entire Supply Chain. Maria Zafeiridou et al
33 World Health Organization. Tobacco and its environmental impact: an overview [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255574/1/9789241512497-eng.pdf?ua=1.
34 Zafeiridou M, Hopkinson NS, Voulvoulis N. Cigarette smoking: an assessment of tobacco’s global environmental footprint across its entire supply chain, and policy strategies to reduce it. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Available from https://www.who.int/fctc/publications/WHO-FCTC-Enviroment-Cigarette-smoking.pdf?ua=1&ua=1
35 Zafeiridou M, Hopkinson NS, 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.
36 UBINIG no date (2013): UBINIG policy brief. Impact of tobacco cultivation on agricultural production in Bangladesh. Online: http:// ubinig.org/cpdf/21_52.pdf
37 Zafeiridou, Hopkinson, Voulvoulis 2018: Cigarette Smoking: An Assessment of Tobacco‘s Global Environmental Footprint Across Its Entire Supply Chain. T.E. Novotny, F. Zhao 1999: Consumption and production waste: another externality of tobacco use. Tobacco Control 8, no. 1:75-80. Truth Initiative 2018: Tobacco and the environment. Washington D.C., USA: Truth Initiative. Online: https://truthinitiative.org/sites/default/ files/truth_initiative-environment_fact_sheet-FINAL.pdf
38 Roder Green, Putschew, Nehls 2014: Littered cigarette butts as a source of nicotine in urban waters.
39 Philip Morris International. Protecting the Environment. 2021. Available from: https://www.pmi.com/sustainability/protecting-the-environment.
40 Japan Tobacco International. We’re serious about protecting the environment. 2021. Available from: https://www.jti.com/about-us/sustainability/were-serious-about-protecting-environment].
41 Fang J, De Souza L, Smith J, and Lee K. "All Weather Friends": How China Transformed Zimbabwe's Tobacco Sector. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020; 17(3). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31979132
42 Otanez M and Glantz SA. Social responsibility in tobacco production? Tobacco companies' use of green supply chains to obscure the real costs of tobacco farming. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20(6):403–11. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21504915
43 Geist HJ. Tobacco and Deforestation Revisited. How to Move towards a Global Land-Use Transition? Sustainability, 2021; 13(16):9242. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9242
44 Otanez MG, Muggli ME, Hurt RD, and Glantz SA. Eliminating child labour in Malawi: a British American Tobacco corporate responsibility project to sidestep tobacco labour exploitation. Tobacco Control, 2006; 15(3):224–30. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728754
45 McDaniel PA, Intinarelli G, and Malone RE. Tobacco industry issues management organizations: creating a global corporate network to undermine public health. Global Health, 2008; 4:2. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18201375
46 McDaniel PA and Malone RE. British American Tobacco's partnership with Earthwatch Europe and its implications for public health. Glob Public Health, 2012; 7(1):14–28. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21347934
47 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://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30852780
48 Arcury T, Quandt S. Health and social impacts of tobacco production. Journal of Agromedicine. 2006:11:71–81.
Tobacco & Fauna Threat
The effect of tobacco on the aquatic fauna
Photo credits:
- https://www.greenme.it/ambiente/mozziconi-sigaretta-inquinamento-oceani/
- https://www.alamy.com/a-graphic-representation-of-the-damage-done-by-the-pollution-of-cigarettes-through-human-activity-image210137433.html
- https://act.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/12651771/sxi:9136805
- https://www.greenme.it/ambiente/mozziconi-sigaretta-inquinamento-oceani/
- https://www.alamy.com/a-graphic-representation-of-the-damage-done-by-the-pollution-of-cigarettes-through-human-activity-image210137433.html
- https://act.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/12651771/sxi:9136805
CAPTION At malesuada nisl felis sit amet dolor. Duis ultrices semper lorem nisl felis sit. At malesuada nisl felis sit amet dolor nisl felis.
Environmental impact of tobacco on aquatic fauna
by Dr. Giusy La Fauci
Although the severity of the damage to human health from smoking is now widely known, there is not a complete awareness of its consequences on marine biology.
Of the 5.6 trillion (billions of billions) cigarettes smoked around the world every year [1], 4.5 trillion (billions of billions) of cigarette butts end up in the environment and hence inevitably in the sea. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), cigarette butts alone make up 40% of the total waste in the Mediterranean, representing the most present waste on our beaches, in front of plastic bottles (9.5%), bags of plastic (8.5%) and aluminum cans (7.6%) [2].
Although the severity of the damage to human health from smoking is now widely known, there is not a complete awareness of its consequences on marine biology.
Of the 5.6 trillion (billions of billions) cigarettes smoked around the world every year [1], 4.5 trillion (billions of billions) of cigarette butts end up in the environment and hence inevitably in the sea. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), cigarette butts alone make up 40% of the total waste in the Mediterranean, representing the most present waste on our beaches, in front of plastic bottles (9.5%), bags of plastic (8.5%) and aluminum cans (7.6%) [2].
Currently, the ecological damage of tobacco on the marine ecosystem is much greater than it seems, since it depends on the impact of:
-cigarette butts thrown into the environment ("littering"),
-the cultivation of tobacco and the production of cigarettes,
-the disposal of cigarette packaging materials.
The apparently negligible act of throwing a butt into the environment ("littering") is one of the most important causes of pollution of the marine ecosystem. Waste from tobacco products contains more than 7,000 toxic chemicals (including nicotine, arsenic, heavy metals, ethylphenol, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), so it should come as no surprise to know that their dispersion negatively affects marine life [3; 4]. Most aquatic organisms, being indiscriminate eaters, very easily ingest butts, which end up suffocating the animal or poisoning it [5].
Several studies have shown that cigarette butts in water are toxic to fish, marine bacteria and water fleas. Specifically, with regard to fish, two species were examined in a San Diego study: the marine fish Atherinops affinis and the freshwater fish Pimephales promelas. Evidence shows that cigarette filters smoked with some tobacco residue are lethal at concentrations of 1 butt per liter of water for both saltwater and freshwater fish [2; 6]. In another study, however, the toxicity of cigarette butts on the aquatic ecosystem was proven by discovering that nicotine and ethylphenol play a significant role in causing the death of marine bacteria [7]. Finally, another study showed that cigarette butts can kill water fleas (Daphnia species) in relatively low concentrations [8]. (continues)
-cigarette butts thrown into the environment ("littering"),
-the cultivation of tobacco and the production of cigarettes,
-the disposal of cigarette packaging materials.
The apparently negligible act of throwing a butt into the environment ("littering") is one of the most important causes of pollution of the marine ecosystem. Waste from tobacco products contains more than 7,000 toxic chemicals (including nicotine, arsenic, heavy metals, ethylphenol, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), so it should come as no surprise to know that their dispersion negatively affects marine life [3; 4]. Most aquatic organisms, being indiscriminate eaters, very easily ingest butts, which end up suffocating the animal or poisoning it [5].
Several studies have shown that cigarette butts in water are toxic to fish, marine bacteria and water fleas. Specifically, with regard to fish, two species were examined in a San Diego study: the marine fish Atherinops affinis and the freshwater fish Pimephales promelas. Evidence shows that cigarette filters smoked with some tobacco residue are lethal at concentrations of 1 butt per liter of water for both saltwater and freshwater fish [2; 6]. In another study, however, the toxicity of cigarette butts on the aquatic ecosystem was proven by discovering that nicotine and ethylphenol play a significant role in causing the death of marine bacteria [7]. Finally, another study showed that cigarette butts can kill water fleas (Daphnia species) in relatively low concentrations [8]. (continues)
Tobacco & Fauna Threat
Environmental impact of tobacco on aquatic fauna
by Dr. Giusy La Fauci
In addition, cigarette filters are often assumed to be biodegradable, but this is a false myth. The filter is composed of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that degrades in the presence of UV light into myriads of microplastic particles, which take 2 to 25 years to decompose, severely damaging marine ecosystems [3; 6]. Not only fish, but also turtles and seabirds are at the expense: filter substances have been found in 30% of turtles and 70% of seabirds [9].
At the same time, many chemical products are used during the cultivation of tobacco and the production of cigarettes, including pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides, whose residues can be found in ready-to-eat cigarettes and, after their consumption, in the environment and in the sea [5]. For example, ethylphenol, used in tobacco production as a flavoring agent, was found to be capable of bioconcentration in aquatic organisms [6]. In Bangladesh it has been reported that chemicals used to control a weed commonly found in tobacco fields have been found to pollute aquatic environments and decimate fish stocks [3].
Finally, another source of risk to marine life from cigarette consumption is waste from packaging material. Cigarette packets are often still wrapped in plastic. Plastic is widely ingested by marine life, mistaken for a jellyfish or other food, and the environmental damage of plastic waste materials on marine biology has been well documented for decades [3]. Pieces of plastic are continually found in the stomachs of seabirds, fish, whales and other ocean species, and according to a study by the University of Ghent in Belgium, it is estimated that people who consume seafood ingest up to 11,000 small pieces of plastic. per year [10].
In addition, cigarette filters are often assumed to be biodegradable, but this is a false myth. The filter is composed of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that degrades in the presence of UV light into myriads of microplastic particles, which take 2 to 25 years to decompose, severely damaging marine ecosystems [3; 6]. Not only fish, but also turtles and seabirds are at the expense: filter substances have been found in 30% of turtles and 70% of seabirds [9].
At the same time, many chemical products are used during the cultivation of tobacco and the production of cigarettes, including pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides, whose residues can be found in ready-to-eat cigarettes and, after their consumption, in the environment and in the sea [5]. For example, ethylphenol, used in tobacco production as a flavoring agent, was found to be capable of bioconcentration in aquatic organisms [6]. In Bangladesh it has been reported that chemicals used to control a weed commonly found in tobacco fields have been found to pollute aquatic environments and decimate fish stocks [3].
Finally, another source of risk to marine life from cigarette consumption is waste from packaging material. Cigarette packets are often still wrapped in plastic. Plastic is widely ingested by marine life, mistaken for a jellyfish or other food, and the environmental damage of plastic waste materials on marine biology has been well documented for decades [3]. Pieces of plastic are continually found in the stomachs of seabirds, fish, whales and other ocean species, and according to a study by the University of Ghent in Belgium, it is estimated that people who consume seafood ingest up to 11,000 small pieces of plastic. per year [10].
Photo credits: https://www.seagoinggreen.org/blog/nomorebutts-ocean-passports-and-plastic-pollution-an-interview-with-brian
Bibliography
1 https://tobaccoatlas.org/topic/consumption/
2 https://marevivo.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/REPORT-Piccoli-Gesti-Grandi-Crimini-Sorrento-2020-1.pdf
3 https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/
10665/255574/9789241512497-eng.pdf
4 Akhbarizadeh, R.; Dobaradaran, S.; Parhizgar, G.; Schmidt, T.C.; Mallaki, R. Potentially Toxic Elements Leachates from Cigarette Butts into Different Types of Water: A Threat for Aquatic Environments and Ecosystems? Environmental Research2021, 202, 111706, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111706.
5 Novotny, T.E.; Hardin, S.N.; Hovda, L.R.; Novotny, D.J.; McLean, M.K.; Khan, S. Tobacco and Cigarette Butt Consumption in Humans and Animals. Tobacco Control2011, 20, i17–i20, doi:10.1136/tc.2011.043489.
6 Slaughter, E.; Gersberg, R.M.; Watanabe, K.; Rudolph, J.; Stransky, C.; Novotny, T.E. Toxicity of Cigarette Butts, and Their Chemical Components, to Marine and Freshwater Fish. Tobacco Control2011, 20, i25–i29, doi:10.1136/tc.2010.040170.
7 Micevska, T.; Warne, M.St.J.; Pablo, F.; Patra, R. Variation in, and Causes of, Toxicity of Cigarette Butts to a Cladoceran and Microtox. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol2006, 50, 205–212, doi:10.1007/s00244-004-0132-y.
8 http://zen.cobbcountyga.gov/images/
documents/Watershed-Stewardship-Program/spring13.pdf
9 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigarette-butts-are-single-greatest-source-ocean-n903661?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
10 https://www.theguardian.com/
environment/2017/jun/28/a-million-a-minute-worlds-plastic-bottle-binge-as-dangerous-as-climate-change
1 https://tobaccoatlas.org/topic/consumption/
2 https://marevivo.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/REPORT-Piccoli-Gesti-Grandi-Crimini-Sorrento-2020-1.pdf
3 https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/
10665/255574/9789241512497-eng.pdf
4 Akhbarizadeh, R.; Dobaradaran, S.; Parhizgar, G.; Schmidt, T.C.; Mallaki, R. Potentially Toxic Elements Leachates from Cigarette Butts into Different Types of Water: A Threat for Aquatic Environments and Ecosystems? Environmental Research2021, 202, 111706, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111706.
5 Novotny, T.E.; Hardin, S.N.; Hovda, L.R.; Novotny, D.J.; McLean, M.K.; Khan, S. Tobacco and Cigarette Butt Consumption in Humans and Animals. Tobacco Control2011, 20, i17–i20, doi:10.1136/tc.2011.043489.
6 Slaughter, E.; Gersberg, R.M.; Watanabe, K.; Rudolph, J.; Stransky, C.; Novotny, T.E. Toxicity of Cigarette Butts, and Their Chemical Components, to Marine and Freshwater Fish. Tobacco Control2011, 20, i25–i29, doi:10.1136/tc.2010.040170.
7 Micevska, T.; Warne, M.St.J.; Pablo, F.; Patra, R. Variation in, and Causes of, Toxicity of Cigarette Butts to a Cladoceran and Microtox. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol2006, 50, 205–212, doi:10.1007/s00244-004-0132-y.
8 http://zen.cobbcountyga.gov/images/
documents/Watershed-Stewardship-Program/spring13.pdf
9 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigarette-butts-are-single-greatest-source-ocean-n903661?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
10 https://www.theguardian.com/
environment/2017/jun/28/a-million-a-minute-worlds-plastic-bottle-binge-as-dangerous-as-climate-change