Banning cigarette filters in the United Kingdom: Time to correct misperceptions of harms

In 2025, only a quarter of adults in Great Britain accurately perceived that cigarette filters do not reduce smoking harms. Under the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the United Kingdom Government will have unique powers to regulate cigarette product design so could ban filters in the interests of public health and the environment. Since the inception of filter-tipped cigarettes, followed by ventilated filters (i.e. ‘light’ cigarettes), tobacco companies have promoted cigarettes with filters as ‘safer’ than unfiltered cigarettes [1, 2]. However, an established, industry-independent, body of evidence has shown that filters and filter ventilation do not reduce toxicant exposure from smoking [1, 2]. Rather, filter and ventilation holes increase palatability, reduce the perceived harshness of smoking and alter inhalation patterns because of compensatory behaviours, meaning that people inhale deeper and for longer to acquire the same level of nicotine, therefore, exposing them to more toxicants [2-5]. Cigarette filters can also result in people inhaling cellulose acetate fibres and microplastics, which can become embedded in the lungs [2, 6]. In combination, these factors mean that the introduction of filters have led to an increase in deadly lung adenocarcinoma [5]. In addition to health risks, cigarette filters are also among the largest global sources of plastic waste [7]. Globally, over 90% of factory-made cigarettes are manufactured with a filter and adding a filter to hand-rolled cigarettes is common in some countries. In England, hand-rolled cigarette use is increasing [8]. In 2024, approximately 60% of adults who smoke used hand-rolled cigarettes at least half of the time [8, 9], and 82% of those who use hand-rolled cigarettes add filters at least some of the time (unpublished data [9]). The tobacco industry has specifically marketed cigarettes with filters toward women, reinforcing ideas of elegance and lightness [1, 10]. They have also been marketed as more smooth and less irritating, therefore, being easier to initiate smoking with and likely increasing appeal to youth. Many people mistakenly believe that cigarette filters protect their health [3, 11-13], despite evidence to the contrary [1-3, 5, 6]. The latest data from Action on Smoking and Health United Kingdom (ASH UK) highlights these pervasive misperceptions. ASH UK conduct surveys annually, with the 2025 survey comprising 13 314 adults across Great Britain. The data are weighted to be nationally representative. ASH 2025 data show that only one in four adults (25.4%) correctly understand that cigarette filters offer no protection from the health risks of smoking and 19.9% were unsure. Among adults who currently smoke, misperceptions were higher, with only 16.6% accurately perceiving that filters offer no protection from the health harms of smoking and 16.4% being unsure. Perceptions of the health risks of cigarette filters in the ASH UK survey also differed by age group, gender and education level. Among adults who currently smoke, accurate perceptions that cigarette filters offer no protection were higher among those age 35 to 44 years (23.9%) and older adults (45–54: 16.0%; 55–64: 17.8%; 65+: 18.4%) and, compared to 35 to 44-year-olds, were lower among younger adults (18–24: 12.7%; 25–34: 10.8%). Females who smoke also more commonly reported that cigarette filters offer no protection than males who smoke (20.0% vs. 14.2%), despite ‘light’ cigarettes (cigarettes with filter vents) historically being heavily marketed to, and more commonly used by, women [10]. Adults with low education levels who smoke more commonly reported that cigarette filters offer no protection than those of medium and high education who smoke (21.4% vs. 14.5% and 13.6%). This contrasts with misperceptions of nicotine and vaping [14] and warrants further exploration. Perceptions that cigarette filters offer no protection were overall similar among those who smoke and identified as White (16.8%), Black (13.3%), Asian (10.2%) or other/mixed (18.3%) ethnicity. The overall misperceptions of cigarette filters identified in the ASH 2025 survey are broadly consistent with studies from over two decades earlier [12, 13] and data from the 202211 and 20249 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation (ITC) Project Smoking and Vaping Survey, an online cohort (with replenishment) study of adults who currently/formerly smoke and/or vape. In ITC in 2022, only 8% of adults who smoke in England correctly believed that removing cigarette filters would not make cigarettes more harmful [11], and these beliefs were similar in Australia, Canada and the United States (US) [11]. In ITC in 2024, this question was reworded although again a minority of adults who smoke in England believed there would be no difference in harms (20%) [9]. These data demonstrate the widespread and persistent misperceptions of the health harms of cigarette filters. They are also consistent with wider misperceptions of the specific causes of smoking-related harms (e.g. misperceptions of nicotine [14] and the process of combustion [15, 16]). The World Health Organization has recommended banning cigarette filters because they do not protect against health harms and are unnecessary single-use plastics [17]. A filter ban has yet to be implemented in any country although is recommended by some (e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands). Santa Cruz (in the United States) finalised a bill banning cigarette and cigar filters in October 2024, set to be the first globally, and this is planned for 2027. Cigarette filter bans may protect public health through making smoking less palatable, therefore, encourage quitting and reduce uptake, reducing compensatory behaviours and hence, exposure to toxicants and reducing exposure to cellulose acetate fibres and microplastics [2, 6]. Given the last strategy on tobacco ran until 2022, the forthcoming UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill [18] provides a unique opportunity to further regulate tobacco products. The Bill will give the UK Government the power to regulate the components of tobacco products and tobacco ‘devices’. [18] As such, there is potential for UK Government to use these powers, following consultation and further regulations, to further regulate cigarette filters and change widespread misperceptions about filters, encouraging people who smoke to switch away from smoking. Given the high level of hand-rolled tobacco use in England [8, 9], a ban should comprehensively cover filters within manufactured cigarettes and those that can be bought separately (i.e. for hand-rolled cigarettes). It should cover all filters given the development of non-plastic filters and widespread health misperceptions, which would be exploited by industry. Limiting restrictions to plastic filters only would leave misleading products on the market, limiting any impact on smoking behaviour. The powers in the Bill enable the UK Government to go further than banning only plastic filters (which could be done already using environmental legislation) and prohibit all filters to maximise impact. Any ban of cigarettes with filters and filter accessories should be accompanied by public education campaigns to dispel misperceptions about cigarette filters [19]. Public education campaigns are crucial for tobacco control efforts and can be effective in reducing initiation and increasing cessation [20, 21]. For filters specifically, campaigns could dispel the myth that cigarette filters protect against the health harms from smoking, including highlighting how industry has manipulated cigarettes to provide false comfort to people who smoke [19], therefore, potentially improving public support and adherence if a ban were to be implemented. In conclusion, there are persistent misperceptions about the health harms of cigarette filters. With the passage of the UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill [18], the UK Government could ban filters in the interests of public health and the environment. Katherine East: Conceptualization (equal); formal analysis (lead); investigation (equal); writing—original draft (lead). Eve V. Taylor: Conceptualization (supporting); investigation (equal); writing—review and editing (equal). Ann McNeill: Conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); writing—review and editing (equal). Shannon Gravely: Conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); writing—review and editing (equal). Laura Bunce: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); project administration (equal); writing—review and editing (equal). Hazel Cheeseman: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); writing—review and editing (equal). None. The data that support the findings of this study are available from ASH UK and the ITC Project. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used for this study. For ASH data, please contact [email protected]. For the ITC Project, data request forms are available at https://itcproject.org/request-data-form/.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.