{"doi":"10.1111/add.70200","title":"Banning cigarette filters in the United Kingdom: Time to correct misperceptions of harms","abstract":"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least half of the time [8, 9], and 82% of those who use hand-rolled cigarettes add filters at least some of the time (unpublished data [9]).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 ","journal":"Addiction","year":2025,"id":547670,"datarank":0.0,"base_score":0.0,"endowment":0.0,"self_citation_contribution":0.0,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.0,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":1,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":0.9483,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":true,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":"2025-01-01","fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":1066906,"name":"Eve Taylor","orcid":"0000-0003-3987-4760","position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":425619,"name":"Ann McNeill","orcid":"0000-0002-6223-4000","position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":304697,"name":"Shannon Gravely","orcid":"0000-0001-5224-9105","position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1066909,"name":"Laura Bunce","orcid":"0009-0008-3114-8485","position":4,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1440485,"name":"Hazel Cheeseman","orcid":"0009-0007-6119-6405","position":5,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":653593,"name":"Katherine East","orcid":"0000-0001-9083-2131","position":0,"is_corresponding":true}],"reference_count":15,"raw_metadata":null,"created_at":"2026-07-19T02:53:53.962932Z","pmid":"41089041","pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}