Who is actually defending the cigarette filter? The public consultation for the Single-Use Plastic Directive saw an impressive wave of citizen engagement. But while the vast majority called for a ban on cigarette filters, a specific group fought back, explicitly defending the material of the filter; cellulose acetate. Our investigation into these “concerned citizens” revealed a startling truth: Nearly 80% of this input was linked to employees of Cerdia, global leader of filter material for cigarette manufacture. This interference seems to be a cynical attempt by the industry to hijack public policy. If the threat to our environment and health wasn’t so serious, the industry’s attempt to pose as “the public” would almost be funny.
‘Worried citizens’ or industry
As a democratic institution, the starting point for the European Commission with every evaluation of a directive is to provide opportunity for feedback for all stakeholders that are affected, and the evaluation of the SUPD – Single-Use Plastics Directive – was no exemption.The public consultation for the Single-Use Plastics Directive generated 531 responses and one thing is clear: Cigarette filters were a major focus, mentioned in over one-third of all submissions.
Public opinion was overwhelming: 73% of EU Citizens out of 16 countries demanded stricter regulations or a total ban on filters. However, 27% pushed back. While the tobacco industry’s opposition was expected, the real mystery lay with a vocal group of “individual citizens” who argued fiercely against regulation. Their motives seemed vague, their feedback was remarkably similar; large sections of text shared identical structures and writing styles, or were simply just copied. This raised our attention, prompting us to look closer at the individuals behind these messages. What we found wasn’t a grassroots movement, but a calculated corporate strategy.
Connecting the dots
Our investigation confirmed our suspicions. All feedback against a ban on cigarette filters seemed to be centered around the protection of cellulose acetate as the material for filters. A bit peculiar as the future of bioplastic material is not often the worry of a regular worried citizen. We identified 9 of the 22 EU citizens opposing a ban as employees of Cerdia, the leading global producer of cellulose acetate, the bioplastic used in cigarette filters. This material is only biodegradable in very specific conditions, and the cold sea or nature is not one of those which is exactly why cigarette filters persist in our environment. Even under perfect conditions it takes very long to completely degrade.
Furthermore, we found substantial overlap between the feedback from these Cerdia employees and other anonymous citizens opposing a ban. Eight of these anonymous responses were up to 100 percent identical to those of Cerdia employees, with specific paragraphs appearing in thirteen different submissions. In total, we could link 17 out of the 22 ‘anti-ban’ citizens directly to Cerdia.
Additionally, two anonymous organizations submitted feedback nearly identical to the Cerdia-linked individuals. They chose to label themselves as “other” in the consultation, introducing themselves as individual citizens to campaign against the ban. It is clear that Cerdia is doing everything in its power to influence the revision of the SUPD and perpetuate their material for the production of cigarettes.
Why context matters
It is important to add some nuance here as overlap in feedback is inevitable, we also see some overlap from citizens who do support a ban. It usually involves single sentences or common arguments that naturally arise from a shared viewpoint. In any public debate, this type of overlap can be considered as harmless as it reflects a consensus among people who share the same values.
The situation with Cerdia is fundamentally different. This is not a case of independent citizens sharing an opinion. It appears to be a strategic, top-down campaign led by a major producer with a financial stake in blocking the ban. While the overlap among other citizens represents a shared perspective, the responses linked to Cerdia reflect a coordinated effort to steer the conversation.
Defining the deception: what is Astroturfing?
It is important to clearly identify what is happening here. This is what can arguably be called astroturfing. According to the European Commission; astroturfing is the creation of a false impression of widespread, organic support for a policy when, in reality, that support is manufactured by a small group with a financial stake. By using multiple online identities, or in this case, mobilized EU citizens, astroturfers deliberately mislead the public and policymakers into believing that a biased corporate position is actually a common, public view. This practice is inherently deceptive, as it relies on manipulating information to push a specific agenda.
This seems to be a calculated tactic from the industry rather than an isolated event, and it is happening again. Recent news articles reveal that during the current revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), Philip Morris International (PMI) have started a campaign motivating citizens to provide input against stronger tobacco regulations. PMI even designed an AI tool to help consumers submit feedback in favor of PMI. Crucially, the campaign is carefully disguised to look like a spontaneous, grassroots citizen initiative. In reality, it is a highly coordinated effort to manipulate public opinion. In response to these tactics, a group of 1,500 doctors together with the smokefree generation movement, has filed a formal complaint with the Advertising Code Commission against PMI’s deceptive AI campaign.
Beyond the deception: what are the rules?
This orchestrated campaign is more than just a dirty trick. By masking corporate lobbying as public opinion, Cerdia and PMI are violating the core principles set by the European Commission and the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).
The European Commission is bound by their Interinstitutional Agreement for the mandatory registration of lobby practices. Transparency and responsibility are the bedrock of the Union’s political, legislative, and administrative processes. This system lets us track what lobbyists are doing and spot when money or sponsorships are being used to influence decisions. The strategic deployment of “citizens” for purposes that exclusively benefit Cerdia as a business deliberately conflicts with these transparency processes.
Especially given the addiction and health risks of smoking, controlled interaction with the tobacco industry, or those acting on its behalf, is not optional; it is a necessity. According to the WHO, there is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health policy. This is exactly why the WHO established the FCTC, which explicitly mandates that institutions ensure all activities of the tobacco industry remain transparent.
As a party to the WHO FCTC, the EC is bound by Article 5.3, which dictates how these interactions must be managed. Cerdia’s interference is a clear attempt to bypass these safeguards and its misleading claims about biodegradability during the SUPD consultation underscore that the industry is not, and cannot be, a legitimate partner in formulating environmental policy. Using citizens as a front to push a corporate agenda is not participation; it is a calculated effort to undermine the transparency rules that protect European policy from vested interests. By allowing this level of interference, we risk letting the industry capture the regulatory process from within.
What now?
The European Commission actively identifies whether consultation responses are part of organized campaigns as a core quality control measure in their evaluation process. The Commission defines campaigns as a large number of responses that are identical or highly similar, frequently driven by pre-formulated templates distributed by organizations, networks, or digital tools.
Among the submissions, the Commission identified four distinct campaigns. One of these was, as expected, our cigarette-filter campaign. The remaining identified campaigns focused on separate industry interests: bioplastics and biodegradable materials in relation to marine biodegradability, and the technical definitions of “plastic” and “chemically modified polymers.”
Although it is unclear whether the Commission’s description of the bioplastics and biodegradability campaign refers to the one we identified from Cerdia, the specific campaign orchestrated by Cerdia and executed by its own employees does not appear to have been explicitly flagged on the Commission’s radar. This is precisely why our campaign, No (Plastic) Filter, must keep it in the spotlight. This oversight underscores how Cerdia and the broader tobacco industry will use every available avenue to resist a total ban and evade measures aimed at reducing cigarette filter pollution.
Moving forward, we will continue to monitor the evaluation and revision of the Single-Use Plastics Directive and track industry maneuvers closely. We remain vigilant and fully committed to ensuring that Cerdia, Philip Morris International, and other industry actors are held accountable, ensuring their astroturfing practices are clearly exposed in both current and future public consultations.
Join the action
What can you do? You can join in on the action and help pressure governments and politicians worldwide to implement an international ban on cigarette filters by:
- Sign the call for a ban on cigarette filters
- Participate in global day of action No Butts Day 2026
- Sign up as National Ambassador within Europe for the No (Plastic) Filter-campaign
- Sign our letter to members of the United Nations
- Send a letter to your municipality asking them to join the campaign
- Make a donation and help to make our work possible
- Follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn to stay up-to-date with our campaign!
Visit our Take Action-page to find more ways to help achieve a ban on cigarette filters!