Just as other plastics, cellulose acetate in cigarette butts will photodegrade (physically break down into tiny microplastic bits) but never biodegrade (chemically break down). As a result, the toxic material persists in the environment indefinitely after being littered.

This plastic is uniquely dangerous because it often contains trace amounts of the carcinogenic chemicals from the original cigarette. When the plastic additives, absorbed nicotine, and trace heavy metals (such as lead and arsenic) leach from cigarette butts, they become part of the chemical composition of the surrounding seawater. Once ingested by marine organisms, these microplastics bits pose physical and biochemical risks that can kill marine organisms and/or bioaccumulate throughout the food chain. These adverse effects also impact humans through seafood and drinking water contamination.

“Cigarette butts are a pervasive, toxic and recalcitrant type of marine litter that requires urgent attention from manufacturers, users, authorities and the public to prevent the ingestion of cigarette butts by biota and water pollution from its leachate.” [Environmental Research]

In recent years, traditional cigarette-smoking has been largely replaced by e-cigarettes. “The leading manufacturer, Juul, for example, saw its sales increase nearly sevenfold between 2014 and 2017.” Today, more than 10 million Americans use e-cigarettes.

E-cigarettes are considered hazardous waste and e-waste, have a bulkier plastic exterior, and are becoming a part of mainstream culture. These circumstances only increase the need for responsible management and policy intervention.

Richard Barnes of the University of California stresses the role that regulation should play in ensuring responsible management and mitigation of smoking-related waste. The concepts of “Precautionary Principle”—which states that environmental harm does not have to be proven to justify preventative intervention—and “Extended Producer Responsibility”—which asserts that those who produce a toxic waste product should be held accountable for its cleanup” have been effectively invoked to address concerning waste from other consumer products. [Tobacco Control]

Environmental, aesthetic, economic, and health-related concerns have motivated cigarette smoking bans in a number of public parks and beaches. The first ban of this kind was instituted for Hanauma Bay, Hawaii in 1993. Prohibitions on smoking led by grassroots efforts in Solana Beach, California and Sarasota, Florida have recently engaged a significant number of beach-goers and achieved reductions in coastal pollution. For nearly five years, Sarasota successfully enforced a ban on smoking at its beautiful white sand beaches. However, the preemption was overturned after a “a court decision found only the state could make such laws.”

These cases offer a glimpse at the growing support for cigarette pollution mitigation in coastal communities. Local stakeholders affected by existing bans have emphasized the importance of education and inclusion for municipalities to achieve positive results from similar policies. The general public should be educated on the impacts of cigarette smoking, and smokers’ rights should be upheld in the enforcement of any regulations.

A program similar to the ‘bottle bills’ that have encouraged public participation in responsible waste management through deposit-return systems could be effective for recycling cigarette waste. In Boston, creative receptacles that pose a poll question can be answered by dropping a cigarette butt into one of multiple openings. This has been effective in making the disposal process more engaging and attractive for smokers.

A compulsory take-back policy may also be implemented to reduce cigarette butt waste. This would require for cigarette producers to collect and manage the waste generated from the sale of their products, invoking the principle of Extended Producer Responsibility. The logistics for this type of policy could become very complex and result in inefficient implementation. Policy alternatives are difficult to assess before they have been tried and tested, so it’s important for governing bodies to draw lessons from one another throughout policy adoption and program execution.

Cigarette waste is among the most harmful forms of plastic marine debris. The DFO Team challenges you to abstain from smoking, educate those around you about the impacts of cigarette waste, and advocate for more proactive and preventative mitigation of marine debris. The Butt Stops Here!

The graphic above was taken from case study by 5Gyres, which focused on understanding the performance of bioplastic products and packaging in two realistic settings. These settings—the ocean and a typical backyard compost bin—were established for two years. Twenty different items were placed in each setting. The results show that most bioplastic products persist in the environment like their petroleum-based plastic counterparts.

Bio-based plastics are created from renewable, plant-based biomass and avoid the use of fossil fuels in their production. Oftentimes, consumers assume that plant-based plastics will biodegrade or compost. If there’s a leaf on the packaging, there’s no way it’s bad for the environment, right? Unfortunately, the feedstock (what the bio-plastics are made from) does not determine whether the product is degradable or compostable.

Degradability and compostability are determined by molecular structure. As such, the term bioplastic holds no indication of how the product will perform in the environment and refers only to whether the product was made with a renewable feedstock, as opposed to a fossil-fuel derived plastic.

Now that we’ve used it, how do we get rid of it? In order to avoid greenwashing, it is important to understand the myriad of ways bioplastics can be disposed of.

Recyclable vs. Degradable vs. Biodegradable vs. Compostable

Recyclable: Recycling is often a for profit-based business so, although most items may theoretically be recycled, only a small amount actually are recycled, because the product will only be recycled if someone can make money off of it. Both plant-based and petroleum-based plastics have the option of being recycled. Only bio-plastics can tout the label of biodegradation or compostability. Unfortunately, if the recycling batch is contaminated, then the entire batch is rejected and sent to a landfill, resulting in a wasted recycling effort all together. Contamination occurs when incorrect items (ie. plastic bags) OR correct items that are prepared the wrong way (ie. recyclable food containers that haven’t been properly cleaned) are put into the system.

Degradable: All plastic degrades, but it never disappears. Ocean tides and sunlight break plastic into tinier and tinier pieces – micro plastics –  that persist in the environment forever. Beware the difference between degradable and biodegradable. Plastics photo-degrade, but they do not bio-degrade. 

Biodegradable: Indicates that items will break down naturally in the environment, decomposing in weeks to months.

Compostable: An industrial compost site is needed to support the biodegradation of this product. Unfortunately, most bioplastics on the market won’t break down in the environment like they are advertised to. Many products sporting the “compostable” label are designed to be composted in industrial compost facilities under constant temperatures higher than 50°C (122°F), rather than backyard “cold” composts. Worse yet – all compostable bioplastics that get tossed into recycling bins or trash bins won’t be sorted out and returned to composting facilities. Instead, they end up in landfills or back in the environment, where the conditions don’t match that of an industrial composting facility. So, unless properly returned to an industrial composting facility, most compostable bioplastics are just as pervasive in the environment as their oil-based counterparts.

If this all seems confusing, it’s because it is. While the ideas of recycling and industrial composting are commendable, they require a higher level of understanding to be used effectively as well as an efficient community-based waste management system able to collect, sort, and process these recyclable and compostable products.   

Long story long, while bioplastics represent a step in the right, eco-conscious direction, they should not be confused as a more sustainable alternative to plastic, let alone a solution to the plastic pollution crisis.

At the end of the day, reusable and refillable alternatives will always conquer single-use plastic throwaways, plant-based or not. The hierarchy should always remain: reduce, reuse and refill, and finally, if you must create disposable waste, recycle.

This article was adapted from the 5Gyres report, Plastics BAN List 2.0, which presents a case study of bioplastic degradation as it relates to consumer expectations to answer the question, “Are bioplastics the answer?”