Good things done wrong – Combatting smoking

By Dr. Ranjith Dias (Retired)

A recent article quoted National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol (NATA) Chairman Dr. Ananda Rathnayaka, stating that 50 persons die daily from tobacco use. With an annual total of 18,250 then, in a country that records around 175,000 deaths every year, the projection of 10 percent of deaths in the country occurring due to tobacco use posed an interesting and confusing discussion. In summary, the numbers don’t add up. 

More alarmingly, it also quoted Dr. Rathnayaka saying cigarette filters provide no protection to consumers. The statement gives credence to a suggestion that filters could be done away with and this was more concerning than the numbers in question.

Filters causing plastic pollution

Cigarette filters contribute towards litter and this is a global problem. The NATA Chairman revealed over 10 million cigarette filters are discarded daily in Sri Lanka and there is room for better communication and action to address this problem. On the grand scheme of things, cigarette filters are a minute part of the pollution problem in Sri Lanka. The widespread use of plastics across the country has drawn the attention of the government resulting in the Cabinet approval to amend the National Environment Act to curtail the plastic problem in the country, a more prudent and practical step on the journey to minimise pollution.

Impact of prohibition 

It is a widely known fact that filters are necessary to reduce harm to smokers. Standard cigarettes use barely visible perforations in their filters that enables air to mix with smoke, whereby smokers receive air and progressively less smoke, tar and nicotine. This is not merely a design preference but a safeguard for smokers. 

Independent clinical data, including a comprehensive study published in JAMA Internal Medicine (2019), suggests that smokers of unfiltered cigarettes are nearly 40 percent more likely to develop lung cancer and face twice the risk of mortality compared to those using filtered products. Removing this component would effectively strip away a layer of protection, forcing consumers toward a significantly more toxic inhalation profile. Therefore, cigarette filters will very likely reduce the impact from smoking. 

Notwithstanding that the argument to retain filters outweighs doing away with them and it is gravely concerning that authorities could adopt a different view. Public health must sit at the centre and this matter requires much closer review. It is perhaps for this reason that no country in the world has prohibited filters in cigarettes.

Supporting smugglers

Prohibition of the filter of cigarettes may sound like a heroic grand gesture, however the only gainers of this claim are the smugglers. Smokers will merely resort to utilising cigarettes that they are familiar with that are smuggled into the country. This will result in costing the government revenue but also defeat the public health objective that the NATA seems to be seeking to achieve. 

A deeper look at the data presented by the Chairman established acceptance of the already high prevalence of illegally smuggled cigarettes in the country. If 10 million cigarette filters are discarded a day in Sri Lanka, that would mean that 3.65 billion cigarettes are smoked a year in the country. The 2024 annual report of the legal cigarette manufacturer in the country reported sales of 1.91 billion for the year. Based on this data, according to the NATA Chairman himself, 1.74 billion cigarettes consumed in the country are illegal - nearly half of the cigarettes smoked.  With such a rampant problem in the country, banning filters will only aggravate an already bad problem. 

We must consider the unintended economic consequences. This shift not only undermines the public health objectives by providing unregulated, non-compliant products but also drains over Rs.100 billion in potential tax revenue—funds that are vital for the development of national infrastructure. What can be good for some driving short-sighted, ill-informed decisions, is not necessarily what maybe the best solution.