Banning Straws and Bags Won’t

Solve our Plastic Problem

by Mathy Stanislaus - August 16, 2018

Print

More than 8 million tons of plastic waste wind up in the ocean every year.
Photo by Trocaire/Flickr
It seems to be the summer of plastic bans. Starbucks, Hyatt, the city of
Seattle and others have all committed to phase out plastic straws. Stafford
Township in New Jersey passed a plastic bag ban just last month, joining
dozens of other American cities and states imposing taxes or bans on single-
use plastics.
But is this a good thing?
Not if that’s all we do.

The Case for Banning Plastic

Use of single-use plastics (think wrappers, straws and bags) has skyrocketed
over the last few decades. But as I explained recently, our ability to recycle
these plastics at scale remains poor. Globally, 8 million metric tons of plastic
trash leak into our natural spaces each year, harming wildlife, mucking up the
ocean and jeopardizing people’s livelihoods.

A dolphin swims through plastic bag pollution. Photo by Jedimentat44/Flickr

So it’s understandable why bans are becoming popular. The beaches of New
Jersey, for example, bring in billions of tourism dollars each year, creating
jobs and funding local municipal needs. These sprawling, sandy spaces and
the busy boardwalks that line them are an important part of local life. There
are clear personal and economic incentives to keep these beaches clean, which
make plastic bans politically palatable despite the inconvenience.
Monmouth County, New Jersey, which earned nearly $2.5 billion in tourism
revenue in 2016, adopted what Clean Ocean Action called the most
comprehensive plastic ban in the United States. The law was passed in May
2018, just before the start of beach season, and prohibits local businesses from
distributing plastic bags, straws and Styrofoam containers. Local coverage of
the ban indicates that it was well-received by residents and business
owners. Monmouth Beach Mayor Sue Howard explained that, “If you live on
the Shore, and you walk on the beach, and you see plastic straws and
Styrofoam containers, you know what the damage is.”

Where Plastic Bans Fall Short

It’s encouraging that local governments are focusing on passing laws to fight
plastic litter. Unfortunately, while these laws may reduce the most visible
form of plastic pollution, it could be at the expense of other environmental
impacts. That’s because, somewhat ironically, disposable plastic bags require
fewer resources (land, water, CO2 emissions, etc.) to produce than paper,
cotton or reusable plastic bags—by a wide margin.
For example, Denmark’s Ministry of Environment and Food found that you
would need to reuse a paper bag at least 43 times for its per-use
environmental impacts to be equal to or less than that of a typical disposable
plastic bag used one time. An organic cotton bag must be reused 20,000
times to produce less of an environmental impact than a single-use plastic
bag. That would be like using a cotton bag every day for nearly 55 years. (Note
that these figures aggregate the bags’ impact on water use, CO2 emissions, land
use and more, but they do not include their impact on plastic pollution.)
Banning plastic straws is also increasingly popular. Starbucks
recently announced that it would phase out use of plastic straws by the year
2020. Straws don’t provide as much utility as bags, so for many this is an easy
adjustment.
But these bans leave the impression that they solve the plastics pollution
problem without much discussion of systematic solutions. As a society, we
should think holistically about the products we use and their impacts. We
can’t just ban bad products—we must invest in alternatives.
Many cities, states and businesses have banned or taxed single-use plastic bags. Photo by Zainub Razvi/Flickr

How Consumers, Governments and

Businesses Can Beat Plastic Pollution
That same Danish study suggests that the most eco-friendly bag option for
consumers is polyester, reused at least 35 times. This keeps plastic pollution
out of our natural spaces and reduces the per-use environmental impacts of
the bag to the lowest-possible levels. However, it will take a lot more than
reusable bags to solve the plastics pollution problem. Right now, only about 9
percent of plastics are recycled globally.
As of January 1, China refused to import most recyclable materials from the
United States and other developed countries, claiming the materials exceeded
acceptable contamination levels. This has backed up the flow of disposed
paper and plastic, causing serious problems for local waste management
companies. However, there may be an ironic upside to China’s decision. For
too long, the easy option of shipping excess recyclables to China has resulted
in underinvestment in in optimizing plastics, maximizing their recovery and
reducing waste.
Governments at the state and federal levels need to team up with private
industry to address more systemic issues. We need to invest in redesigning
plastics so that they can be readily broken down into their molecular units and
remanufactured into new plastics of the same quality, the essence of a closed
loop system. We need better recycling technology that can address the major
obstacle of recycling plastics: about 25 percent of plastics collected are
contaminated and therefore unusable. We need to reinvest government
budgets in the infrastructure and associated policies needed for these systemic
solutions. Once these technologies are deployed at a large scale, we can start
recapturing the economic value of plastics, incentivizing their recovery and
recycling, while minimizing plastic pollution and overconsumption of natural
resources.
We need a wider array of smart public policies, a recycling infrastructure
that’s right-sized for the problem, better recycling technology and new
business models. Banning single-use plastic bags and straws without
significant further action is putting a finger on a spigot at a time when we need
to suppress the tidal wave.
TAGS: circular economy, business, oceans, pollution

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/banning-straws-and-bags-wont-solve-our-plastic-problem

03-19-2019

Fact Sheet: Single Use Plastics

EARTH DAY 2018 | END PLASTIC POLLUTION

Fact Sheet: Single-Use Plastics

The billions upon billions of items of plastic waste choking our oceans, lakes, and rivers and piling up on
land is more than unsightly and harmful to plants and wildlife. Plastic pollution is very real and single-
use plastics are small but have a large impact.

The following 9 facts shed light on how single-use plastic is a large problem that most people are a part
of. To learn more about the threat and impact of plastic pollution and get tips to reduce your plastic
consumption, download our Plastic Pollution Primer and Toolkit today!
 In 2016, world plastics production totaled around 335 million metric tons.[1] Roughly half of annual
FACT #1
plastic production is destined for a single-use product.[2]

FACT #2 Humans buy about 1,000,000 plastic bottles per minute in total.[3] Only about 23% of plastic bottles
are recycled within the U.S.[4]

FACT #3 Americans purchase about 50 billion water bottles per year, averaging about 13 bottles per month for
every person in the U.S.! That means by using a reusable water bottle, you could save an average of
156 plastic bottles annually.[5]

It is estimated that 4 trillion plastic bags are used worldwide annually. Only 1% of plastic bags are
FACT #4 returned for recycling.[6] Americans throw away 100 billion plastic bags annually. That’s about 307
bags per person! All that waste can be eliminated by switching to reusable shopping bags.[7]

Half a million straws are used in the world every day.[8] Refusing straws is becoming a trending
FACT #5
practice!

500 billion disposable cups are consumed every year.[9] Americans alone throw away 25
FACT #6 billion styrofoam coffee cups every year. Styrofoam cannot be completely recycled. Most of the
Styrofoam disposed of today will still be present in landfills 500 years from now.[10]

The main cause for the increase in plastic production is plastic packaging. Plastic packaging was 42% of
FACT #7
all non-fiber plastic produced in 2015, and it also made up 52% of plastics thrown away.1

Single-use-plastics frequently do not make it to a landfill or are recycled.[11] A full 32% of the 78
million tons of plastic packaging produced annually is left to flow into our oceans; the equivalent of
pouring one garbage truck of plastic into the ocean every minute. This is expected to increase to two
FACT #8
per minute by 2030 and four per minute by 2050. By 2050, this could mean there will be more plastic
than fish in the world’s oceans.[12] Choosing to buy products with less packaging or no packaging
altogether makes a big difference.

Even when single-use plastics are sent to landfills (there are 3,091 active landfills in the U.S. alone),
they aren’t harmless. Landfill liners can leak harmful pollutants into the watershed and plastics on the
FACT #9
tops of landfills can be carried away by the wind.[13] The best way to curb single-use plastic pollution
is to reduce your personal plastic consumption!3

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/282732/global-production-of-plastics-since-1950/

[2] https://plasticoceans.org/the-facts/

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/07/26/million-plastic-bottles-minute-91-not-
recycled/#1804e92f292c

[4] https://www.banthebottle.net/bottled-water-facts/

[5] https://www.aiga.org/case-study-watershed
[6] http://www.wmnorthwest.com/guidelines/plasticvspaper.htm

[7] https://www.worldwatch.org/node/5565

[8] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-straws-on-request-20180116-story.html

[9] https://www.studyinaustralia.gov.au/news/global-shot-at-a-greener-coffee-cup

[10] http://www.carryyourcup.org/get-the-facts

[11] Plastic Pollution Primer and Action Tookit, Earth Day Network, 2018

[12] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/every-minute-one-garbage-truck-of-plastic-is-
dumped-into-our-oceans/

[13] https://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/how-plastic-is-harming-animals-the-planet-and-us/

3-19-2019

https://www.earthday.org/2018/03/29/fact-sheet-single-use-plastics/

NEW YORK STATE PLASTIC BAG TASK FORCE REPORT: An Analysis of the Impact of Single-Use Plastic
Bags Options for New York State Plastic Bag Legislation 1/13/20

https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/dplasticbagreport2017.pdf

Consumer Intention toward Bringing Your Own Shopping Bags in Taiwan: An Application of Ethics
Perspective and Theory of Planned Behavior Sheng-Hsiung Chang * ID and Ching-Hsien Chou
Department of International Business, Tamkang University, New Taipei City 251, Taiwan; csherry

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1815/pdf

Skipping The Bag Assessing the impact of Chicago’s tax on disposable bags

https://urbanlabs.uchicago.edu/attachments/store/.../I42-1033_BagTaxPaper_final.pdf

https://urbanlabs.uchicago.edu/attachments/store/3a763ff7774ea3a6547be38d253c958248bcfb0573c
436cc5409d4b82f69/I42-1033_BagTaxPaper_final.pdf

ADVERTISEMENT

 Home

 / LGUs

 / NCR
‘Enforce plastic bag law in Manila’

posted August 07, 2017 at 12:01 am by Manila Standard

http://manilastandard.net/sunday-lgu-section-pdf/ncr/243787/-enforce-plastic-bag-law-in-manila-.html

A waste and pollution watch group has asked Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada to enforce the city’s
dormant plastic bag ban ordinance.

“Almost five years have lapsed since Mayor Estrada’s predecessor signed City Ordinance 8282 and
Manila is still wallowing in plastic garbage due to its lack of enforcement. The ordinance is sadly
gathering dust,” stated Daniel Alejandre, Zero Waste campaigner, EcoWaste Coalition.

Then Mayor Alfredo Lim signed City Ordinance 8282 on Sept. 3, 2012, which prohibits the use of plastic
bags for dry goods and regulates their use for wet goods.

“The unbridled sale, use and disposal of plastic bags in Manila is evident everywhere and we could not
help but wonder why Ordinance 8282 was not implemented at all,” Alejandre said, noting “consumer
demand for plastic bags continues to thrive without hindrance and the streets and esteros are forever
strewn with plastics and other litter that ultimately pollute Manila Bay.”

As the problem is not only with the sheer volume of plastic trash that is visible to the naked eyes as
shown in the waste audits conducted in Manila Bay by the EcoWaste Coalition and its partner groups in
2006, 2010, 2014 and 2016, the group for the second time purchased plastic sando bags to screen them
for their toxic content.

The group bought 35 packs of assorted brands of yellow plastic sando bags on July 29 to August 1 from
plastic wholesalers and retailers at Divisoria, Paco and Quiapo, Manila and screened them for lead, a
toxic chemical, using an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) device.

As per Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order 2013-024, also
known as the Chemical Control Order for Lead and Lead Compounds, the use of lead in the production
food and beverage packaging, particularly for packaging that comes directly in contact with food, is
prohibited.

XRF screening revealed that 18 brands of yellow plastic bags, including five brands of oxo-biodegradable
plastic bags, contain lead from 116 to 3,012 parts per million (ppm), way above the permissible limit
under the European Union (EU) Packaging Directive.

Article 11 of the EU Packaging Directive provides a limit of 100 ppm by weight for the sum of four
restricted metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium in packaging or packaging
components.

The brands with total lead content exceeding 1,000 ppm are Mercury with 3,012 ppm, Capricorn 2,745
ppm, Sunshine 1,861 ppm, Pinoy Brothers 1,092 ppm, Royal Jade 1077 ppm and Tulip 1,033 ppm.

The other brands with varying levels of lead more than 100 ppm are: Astig, Batang Pinoy, Centrum,
Crown, Flipper, JB, Lupin, Mang Junior, Mr. Divisoria, Serv, Sonic and Star Bucks.
Lead was not detected in 17 brands, namely, Bizon, Cheetah, Donewell, Global, Gold Star, JR. Jumper,
Poker, Saturn, Sea Lion, Shure Ultra, Snowbird, Speed, Star Bag, Sun Moon, Tamaraw and Winner.

While lead was not detected in the said 17 brands, the EcoWaste Coalition emphasized that the
unchecked use of single-use plastic bags, which are mostly made from petroleum, contribute to natural
resource depletion and pollution that drives climate change, while reinforcing the ever-growing throw-
away culture.

The group stressed the need for Manila to enforce its plastic bag ban, and for Congress to enact a
national law banning plastic bags, including the so-called oxo-biodegradable bags.

The group further emphasized the need for the government to adopt a legislation that will limit, if not
remove, toxic metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium in packaging materials
to protect public health and the environment.

Topics: Mayor Joseph Estrada , Daniel Alejandre , EcoWaste Coalition , Plastic bag law

Batangas town bans use of plastic bags,

styrofoam
By Gladys Pino February 20, 2018, 4:38 pm

Share

NASUGBU, Batangas -- The Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Batangas (legislative council) has

approved a proposed ordinance from the local government of Nasugbu which calls for a total ban on
the use of styrofoam and plastic bags for dry goods in the locality.

The ordinance, aimed to promote cleanliness for the welfare of its local residents, also includes the
regulated use of plastic materials for wet goods.

During its fifth Regular Session, the council’s Committee on Environmental Protection, chaired by
(2nd District) Board Member Wilson Leandro T. Rivera, reviewed and thoroughly discussed the
proposed Municipal Ordinance No. 79 Series of 2017 of the local government of Nasugbu.

The ordinance was submitted for the council’s comments and recommendation, which subsequently
got the unanimous approval of the provincial legislative council.

In its committee report, the implementation of the said ordinance will be within the jurisdiction of the
local council in Nasugbu, per local government code of 1991.

Rivera said the municipal ordinance should be in accordance with the locality’s implementing rules
and national environment laws, including the corresponding penalties to protect the
environment. (PNA)

http://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php/articles/1025843

MARINE LITTER IN THE ASEAN REGION AND PHILIPPINE RESPONSE AS A MEMBER STATE

http://eascongress2018.pemsea.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/S2.2-1.-Marine-Litter-in-the-ASEAN-
Region-and-PH-Response-as-a-Member-State_MOsorio.pdf

Using Plastic Bags and Its Damaging Impact on Environment and Agriculture: An Alternative Proposal

www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijld/article/download/4137/3583
Oct 26, 2017

The environmental toll of plastics

The amount of plastic manufactured in the first ten years
of this century eclipses the total produced in the entire last
century
Douglas Fischer

Editor's note: This is an unformatted reprint of a post we first published in 2009. We lost
the original URL as we switched to a new platform in October, 2017. But we found
readers still referencing the piece, so we dove into our archives. Thanks for reading us.

By Jessica A. Knoblauch

Environmental Health News

July 2, 2009

From cell phones and computers to bicycle helmets and hospital IV bags, plastic has
molded society in many ways that make life both easier and safer. But the synthetic
material also has left harmful imprints on the environment and perhaps human health,
according to a new compilation of articles authored by scientists from around the world.
 More than 60 scientists contributed to the new report, which aims to present the first
comprehensive review of the impact of plastics on the environment and human health,
and offer possible solutions.

"One of the most ubiquitous and long-lasting recent changes to the surface of our planet
is the accumulation and fragmentation of plastics," wrote David Barnes, a lead author and
researcher for the British Antarctic Survey. The report was published this month in a
theme issue of Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, a scientific journal.

As the scrutiny of the environmental toll of plastic increases, so has its usage, the
scientists reported.

The amount of plastic manufactured in the first ten years of this century eclipses the
total produced in the entire last century

Since its mass production began in the 1940s, plastic's wide range of unique properties
has propelled it to an essential status in society. Next year, more than 300 million tons
will be produced worldwide. The amount of plastic manufactured in the first ten years of
this century will approach the total produced in the entire last century, according to the
report.

"Plastics are very long-lived products that could potentially have service over decades,
and yet our main use of these lightweight, inexpensive materials are as single-use items
that will go to the garbage dump within a year, where they'll persist for centuries,"
Richard Thompson, lead editor of the report, said in an interview.

Evidence is mounting that the chemical building blocks that make plastics so versatile are
the same components that might harm people and the environment. And its production
and disposal contribute to an array of environmental problems, too. For example:

 Chemicals added to plastics are absorbed by human bodies. Some of these compounds
have been found to alter hormones or have other potential human health effects.
 Plastic debris, laced with chemicals and often ingested by marine animals, can injure or
poison wildlife.
 Floating plastic waste, which can survive for thousands of years in water, serves as mini
transportation devices for invasive species, disrupting habitats.
 Plastic buried deep in landfills can leach harmful chemicals that spread into groundwater.
 Around 4 percent of world oil production is used as a feedstock to make plastics, and a
similar amount is consumed as energy in the process.

People are exposed to chemicals from plastic multiple times per day through the air, dust,
water, food and use of consumer products.
For example, phthalates are used as plasticizers in the manufacture of vinyl flooring and
wall coverings, food packaging and medical devices. Eight out of every ten babies, and
nearly all adults, have measurable levels of phthalates in their bodies.

In addition, bisphenol A (BPA), found in polycarbonate bottles and the linings of food
and beverage cans, can leach into food and drinks. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention reported that 93 percent of people had detectable levels of BPA in their
urine.

The report noted that the high exposure of premature infants in neonatal intensive
care units to both BPA and phthalates is of "great concern."

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs, which are flame-retardants added to

polyurethane foam furniture cushions, mattresses, carpet pads and automobile seats, also
are widespread.

The plastics industry maintains that its products are safe after decades of testing.

"Every additive that we use is very carefully evaluated, not just by the industry, but also
independently by government agencies to look at all the materials we use in plastics,"
said Mike Neal, a consumer and environmental affairs specialist at PlasticsEurope, an
industry trade association, and a co-author of the report.

But some of these chemicals have been shown to affect reproduction and development in
animal studies, according to the report. Some studies also have linked these chemicals
with adverse effects in people, including reproductive abnormalities.

"We have animal literature, which shows direct links between exposure and adverse
health outcomes, the limited human studies, and the fact that 90 to 100 percent of the
population has measurable levels of these compounds in their bodies," said John Meeker,
an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan
School of Public Health and a lead author. "You take the whole picture and it does raise
concerns, but more research is needed."

Shanna Swan, director of the University of Rochester's Center for Reproductive

Epidemiology, conducted studies that found an association between pregnant women's
exposure to phthalates and altered genital development in their baby boys.

Also, people with the highest exposure to BPA have an increased rate of heart disease
and diabetes, according to one recent study. Animal tests studies of PBDEs have revealed
the potential for damaging the developing brain and the reproductive system.
Yet the effects on human health remain largely unknown. To help shed more light on the
issue, the report recommends more sophisticated human studies.

"It's tough to have a smoking gun with a single animal study or observational human
study," Meeker said. "We need to have different types of studies indicating a consistent
pattern to more definitively determine health effects resulting from these chemicals."

But testing humans for endocrine disruptors can be tricky because phthalates and BPA
pass through the body so quickly. In addition, tests for each chemical cost about $100 a
pop.

Deciding which chemicals to test and at what dose is also an issue. To date, most studies
have addressed single chemicals, and there are limited data on the interactions between
chemicals. Compounding the problem is the discovery that endocrine disrupting
chemicals may have effects at doses lower than those used in the Environmental
Protection Agency's standard toxicity tests.

Swan said the old model of testing should be thrown out and that the new goal
should be tests that mimic real human exposure.

"It's a very complicated picture and the laboratory model of just taking one isolated
chemical and giving it to a genetically pure strain of rats in clean cages, clean air and
clean water and seeing what it does just doesn't come close to mimicking the human
situation," she said.

Many researchers recommend studies that test pregnant women as well as their children.
The National Children's Study will do just that by examining environmental influences
on more than 100,000 children across the United States, following them from before birth
until age 21.

"There are so many questions now with these chemicals in relation to cardiovascular
disease, age and puberty, obesity, developmental disorders," said Swan. "We don't know
what's causing it, only hints, so the beauty of the National Children's Study is that we can
look at all of these endpoints and it should reveal a lot of answers."

Plastic's problems extend beyond the human body, according to the report. More than
one-third of all plastic is disposable packaging like bottles and bags, many of which end
up littering the environment.

Although the image of a bird tangled in a plastic necklace is by now burned into the
public's eye, ingestion of plastic fragments is much more common. Once inside, plastic
can pack a one-two punch by both clogging an animal's stomach and poisoning it with
chemicals that have concentrated in the plastic. Some chemicals are then transferred to
the food web when animals eat them.

More than 180 species of animals have been documented to ingest plastic debris,
including birds, fish, turtles and marine mammals, according to the report.

Unfortunately, collecting data on plasticizers' impacts on wildlife suffers the same pitfalls
as studying human health. Still, there is already evidence that chemicals associated
plastics might harm wildlife.

For example, laboratory studies have shown that phthalates and BPA affect reproduction
in all studied animal groups and impair development in crustaceans and amphibians.

"While there is clear evidence that these chemicals have adverse effects at
environmentally relevant concentrations in laboratory studies, there is a need for further
research to establish population-level effects in the natural environment," according to
the report.

Charles Tyler, a professor at the University of Exeter School of Biosciences in the United
Kingdom and a senior author of the report, said that scientists have shown that "some of
these chemical compounds are getting into the environment and are in some
environments at concentrations where they can produce biological effects in a range of
wildlife species."

Traveling from coast to coast, plastic can endure for thousands of years due to the
reduced UV exposure and lower temperatures of aquatic habitats.

Barnes demonstrates plastic's mobility with his account of a plastic sighting during an
expedition to the Amundsen Sea where he took biological samples, the first there ever.
The Amundsen, located in the Pacific Sector of Antarctica, is the only sea in Antarctica
with no research station on its coast and the nearest urban center thousands of miles
away.

"Even for us, getting in was a challenge because there's so much ice and it's so difficult to
get there," said Barnes. "But even in that remotest of environments, there was plastic
floating on the sea surface.

Plastic also serves as a floating transportation device that allows alien species to
hitchhike to unfamiliar parts of the world, threatening biodiversity. Global warming
further aids the process by making previously inhospitable areas like the Arctic livable
for invasive species, which can be detrimental to local species.
For example, plastic items are commonly colonized by barnacles, tubeworms and algae.
Along the shore of Adelaide Island, west of the Antarctic Peninsula, ten species of
invertebrates were found attached to plastic strapping that was littering the ice.

"Raising the temperature just one degree can make the difference between getting to
someplace and actually surviving once you get there," said Barnes.

Plastic is so resilient that even burying it deep within the earth doesn't keep it from
impacting the environment. Currently it accounts for approximately 10 percent of
generated waste, most of which is landfilled. But, as the report notes, placing plastics in a
landfill may simply be storing a problem for the future, as plastic's chemicals often sink
into nearby land, contaminating groundwater.

In addition, production of plastics is a major user of fossil fuels. Eight percent of

world oil production goes to manufacturing plastics.

As plastics grow in volume at a rate of about nine percent each year, the authors
emphasize that tackling its problems means addressing its sustainability.

One solution is to treat plastic as a reusable material rather than as a disposable

commodity that's quickly discarded. That means making plastic more easily recyclable
from the get-go by using fewer materials in the manufacturing process and increasing
recycling facility availability.

"The recycling message is simple; both industry and society need to regard end-of-life
items, including plastics, as raw materials rather than waste," stated the report.

Increasing the availability of biodegradable plastic, which can be made from renewable
materials from plants such as corn and soy, is another option.

"Biodegradable plastics have the potential to solve a number of waste-management

issues, especially for disposable packaging that cannot be easily separated from organic
waste in catering or from agricultural applications," according to the report.

However, currently production capacity for biodegradable plastics worldwide is around

only 350,000 tons, representing less than 0.2 percent of petrochemical-based plastic. In
addition, "most of these materials are unlikely to degrade quickly in natural habitats, and
there is concern that degradable, oil-based polymers could merely disintegrate into small
pieces that are not in themselves any more degradable than conventional plastic," stated
the report.
To help mitigate the potentially harmful chemicals in plastics, the authors recommend
that more studies be conducted on the biological mechanisms that may be affected by
plastic additives and in particular, low-dose chronic exposures.

In the meantime, the report recommends reducing the use of these chemicals and
developing safer alternatives, a strategy known as green chemistry.

"Had this approach been in place 50 years ago it would probably have prevented the
development of chemicals that are recognized as likely endocrine disruptors," the report
said.

The report also suggests that plastic waste can be reduced by using labels that allow
consumers to choose packaging based on a lifecycle analysis that includes all components
of the manufacturing process. For example, if the product were made of mostly recycled
materials, used minimal packaging and could be easily recycled, it would get a green dot.
If the product were made of excessive packaging that used a lot of virgin materials, it
would get a red dot.

"Personally, I feel that's the way to do it, rather than a knee jerk reaction where
legislation says we can't use certain types of plastic," said Thompson. "Having that
information will help drive the system because I think consumers are keen to make the
right choice when provided with all the information."

Neal of PlasticsEurope said consumers, not the industry, are responsible for making sure
plastics don't wind up littering the environment.

"In my view the responsibility is fairly and squarely on the consumer," he said. "People
tend to pick on plastics because perhaps it's the most visible form of litter and because it's
lightweight so it can move around a bit, but actually it's only a small part of the litter
problem."

The authors said that if plastics are made and used responsibly, they can help solve
some environmental problems.

For example, one study found that packaging beverages in PET (a type of plastic) versus
glass or metal reduces energy use by 52 percent and greenhouse gas emissions by 55
percent. And, solar water heaters containing plastics can provide up to two-thirds of a
household's annual hot water demand, reducing energy consumption.

Plastics, if used wisely, "have the potential to reduce mankind's footprint on the Earth,"
Thompson said.
The above work, by Environmental Health News, is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

https://www.ehn.org/plastic-environmental-impact-2501923191.html

Effect of Plastic Grocery Bags on Environment and Its Reuse

Effect of Plastic Grocery Bags on Environment and Its Reuse

https://www.ijariit.com/manuscripts/v3i3/V3I3-1351.pdf