Elizabeth A Smith1, Patricia A McDaniel. 1. University of California, San Francisco, Social and Behavioral Sciences, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA. libby.smith@ucsf.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cigarette butt litter is a potential target of tobacco control. In addition to its toxicity and non-biodegradability, it can justify environmental regulation and policies that raise the price of tobacco and further denormalise its use. This paper examines how the tobacco industry has managed the cigarette butt litter issue and how the issue has been covered in the media. METHODS: We searched the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/) using a snowball strategy. We analysed data from approximately 700 documents, dated 1959-2006, using an interpretive approach. We also searched two newspaper databases, Lexis/Nexis and Newsbank, and found 406 relevant articles, dated 1982-2009 which we analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: The tobacco industry monitored and developed strategies for dealing with the cigarette litter issue because it affected the social acceptability of smoking, created the potential for alliances between tobacco control and environmental advocates, and created a target for regulation. The industry developed anti-litter programs with Keep America Beautiful (KAB) and similar organisations. Media coverage focused on industry-acceptable solutions, such as volunteer clean-ups and installation of ashtrays; stories that mentioned KAB were also more frequently positive towards the tobacco industry. Among alternative approaches, clean outdoor air (COA) laws received the most media attention. CONCLUSIONS: Cigarette litter, like secondhand smoke, is the result of smoker behaviour and affects nonsmokers. The tobacco industry has tried and failed to mitigate the impact of cigarette litter. Tobacco control advocates should explore alliances with environmental groups and propose policy options that hold the industry accountable for cigarette waste.
BACKGROUND: Cigarette butt litter is a potential target of tobacco control. In addition to its toxicity and non-biodegradability, it can justify environmental regulation and policies that raise the price of tobacco and further denormalise its use. This paper examines how the tobacco industry has managed the cigarette butt litter issue and how the issue has been covered in the media. METHODS: We searched the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/) using a snowball strategy. We analysed data from approximately 700 documents, dated 1959-2006, using an interpretive approach. We also searched two newspaper databases, Lexis/Nexis and Newsbank, and found 406 relevant articles, dated 1982-2009 which we analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: The tobacco industry monitored and developed strategies for dealing with the cigarette litter issue because it affected the social acceptability of smoking, created the potential for alliances between tobacco control and environmental advocates, and created a target for regulation. The industry developed anti-litter programs with Keep America Beautiful (KAB) and similar organisations. Media coverage focused on industry-acceptable solutions, such as volunteer clean-ups and installation of ashtrays; stories that mentioned KAB were also more frequently positive towards the tobacco industry. Among alternative approaches, clean outdoor air (COA) laws received the most media attention. CONCLUSIONS: Cigarette litter, like secondhand smoke, is the result of smoker behaviour and affects nonsmokers. The tobacco industry has tried and failed to mitigate the impact of cigarette litter. Tobacco control advocates should explore alliances with environmental groups and propose policy options that hold the industry accountable for cigarette waste.
Authors: Daniel R Brooks; John H M Austin; Robert T Heelan; Michelle S Ginsberg; Victor Shin; Sara H Olson; Joshua E Muscat; Steven D Stellman Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Elli Slaughter; Richard M Gersberg; Kayo Watanabe; John Rudolph; Chris Stransky; Thomas E Novotny Journal: Tob Control Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Jennifer C Morgan; Michelle Jeong; Jennifer Mendel-Sheldon; Seth M Noar; Kurt M Ribisl; Noel T Brewer Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-11-23 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Jessica M Rath; Rebecca A Rubenstein; Laurel E Curry; Sarah E Shank; Julia C Cartwright Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 3.390