Right: All over the world, campaigns are aimed at discouraging the use of lightweight plastic bags in favour of the 'reuseable' kind ... but is this really environmentally friendly?.
Arguments against banning plastic bags
1. Plastic bags are much less prone to bacterial contamination than reusable carry bags Reusable carry bags have been persistently linked with a number of diseases as the bags are believed to be prone to bacterial contamination. A 2011 study conducted by the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University found only 3% of shoppers with multi-use bags said they regularly washed them. The same study found bacteria in 99% of bags tested; half carried coliform bacteria while 8% carried E. coli, an indicator of faecal contamination. The researchers found that bacteria thrived and multiplied on bags stored in the trunks of cars. A separate study published in 2012 traced a norovirus outbreak among a girls' soccer team from Oregon to a reusable bag stored in a hotel bathroom used by an ill team member. On October 27, 2013, The Telegraph quoted Hugh Pennington, emeritus professor of bacteriology at Aberdeen University, who has chaired two major enquiries into E. coli. Professor Pennington stated that re-using grocery bags could result in 'an increase in the number of cases of food poisoning'. Professor Pennington warned, 'We have to be careful about being too strict in forcing people to re-use bags. There are some bags you should only use once... Any bag that's carrying meat, wrapped or unwrapped, shouldn't be used again. I would be very surprised if many people washed bags and even if they do they won't necessarily get rid of all of the bugs. The bag may look clean but you can still easily find these bugs.' Professor Kofi Aidoo, a leading expert on bacterial toxins and food-borne diseases at Glasgow's Caledonian University, has claimed that bags would 'have to be cleaned and disinfected on a regular basis to avoid the risk of food poisoning.' Professor Aidoo further stated, 'The warm environment of cars make them the worst place as far as bacteria is concerned. One bacteria cell will quickly become thousands. If people are going to have to pay for bags and re-use them my concern is we're creating a high risk of food poisoning. At the very least people have to be given advice to clean these bags every time they use them.' It has been claimed that these issues do not arise with single-use plastic bags. Because single-use plastic bags are not re-used to carry food shopping, bacterial contamination acquired after their first use does not contaminate any subsequently purchased foodstuffs. Critics of plastic bag bans note that the consequences of food contamination can be fatal. In 2013, Pennsylvania University Law Professor Jonathan Klick and Joshua Wright of George Mason University's Law School conducted a study of deaths due to food poisoning following San Francisco placing a ban on single-use plastic bags. Their study suggests that hospitalizations and deaths from food-borne illnesses like E. coli nearly doubled. 2. Banning plastic bags will have a negative impact on some businesses and on consumers on low incomes It has been claimed that requiring customers to use their own reusable bags will have a negative impact on some businesses. A small business lobby group in the United States claimed, 'If a customer has reusable bags it takes additional time for them to organize and hand them to the cashier. They are also typically at the bottom of their basket, which takes additional time. Add to that the situations where they do not have enough bags and then need to argue or discuss with the clerk if the bags can be repacked, some items can be hand carried, or if they will purchase bags.' The same lobby group also argues that businesses are likely to lose sales because of a ban on single-use plastic bags. It states, 'The very inconvenience of customers hurts small businesses. Customers buy less if they "forget" their reusable bags.' Further, it has been claimed that consumers on low incomes will be disproportionately affected by a ban on single-use plastic bags. Single use plastic bags are currently free in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. It has been claimed that requiring shoppers to purchase their own heavier weight reusable bags will be an unfair imposition on the poor who will find this more difficult than do those on higher incomes. When California banned single-use plastic bags in 2016 Industry groups such as Hilex Poly and Formosa Plastics criticised the ban as an unnecessary tax on low-income shoppers that, they claimed, would have little impact on reducing overall pollution. It has further been suggested that banning plastic bags will hit those on low incomes harder because they are the group least likely to own a car and therefore the group most likely to have to carry their groceries some distance. The need to carry groceries makes it more important that the lowly paid have access to cheap or no-cost carry bags. The United States Stop the Bag Ban lobby group has stated, 'Let's face it, any time an ordinance forces people to spend more money on something, it affects the poor in a more significant manner. But aside from just the cost to go out and purchase a large number of "reusable" bags, the fact is that the poor are more reliant on the convenience of plastic bags than anyone. They take public transportation or walk in much greater numbers. They shop at smaller stores, and buy a few items more often. Are they expected to walk around with handfuls of reusable bags all the time? The proponents always try to portray someone putting a bunch of bags in their car (oh yea, we meant Prius...) and driving down to Safeway and buying $100 worth of pre-planned groceries. They don't think about the poor person on public transportation, or walking on the street picking up a few items at the store on their way home. The poor are the most affected by bag bans.' It is also noted that the poor are more likely to make use of supposedly 'single-use' supermarket bags for other purposes - to wrap household garbage, to scoop up pet droppings, as lunch bags, storage bags, toiletry bags and to carry small amounts of clothing. It has been claimed that those on low wages will now have to buy purpose-specific plastic bags and other carry bags where currently they are able to use no-cost plastic bags supplied to them when they shop. 3. The extent of the pollution problem posed by single-use plastic bags has been exaggerated Defenders of single-use plastic bags claim that these carry bags contribute relatively little to the overall pollution problem. On February 27, 2017, Facility Management Magazine published a comment by Tiffany Paczek which stated, 'Australians use an estimated five billion single-use plastic bags per year. This sounds like a lot but this represents only about 20,000 tonnes of plastic or 0.04 percent of the waste generated in Australia per year. If all of these plastic bags go to landfill they represent just 0.1 percent of waste to landfill.' The Keep Australia Beautiful Litter Index for 2013/14 similarly showed that plastic bags constituted a small amount of the litter collected. The Index report stated, 'Australia wide, lightweight plastic shopping bags make up around 1.6% of litter based on the number of items.' These two sets of figures suggest that, based on both total weight and numbers of items, plastic bags make a small contribution to Australia's total litter problem. A similar situation has been claimed to exist in Canada where the pro bag lobby group All About Bags has stated, 'The 2011 City of Toronto Waste Audit confirms that plastic shopping bags are only a tiny fraction 0.6% of Toronto's total solid waste stream. This compares to glass at 7%, and paper at 9%.' It has been argued that claims made about plastic bags blocking drains and waterways are generally an exaggeration. Referring to the United States situation, one United States pro plastic bag lobby group, Stop the Bag Ban, has noted, 'What plastic bag ban proponents do not tell you is that storm drain catch basins are maintained on a regular basis where all trash is removed from catch basins and trash excluder devices and properly disposed of in the landfill.' It has also been claimed that plastic bags do not constitute a major problem in landfill. In an opinion piece published by the lobby group Fight the Plastic Bag Ban, Anthony van Leeuwen stated, 'Proponents of plastic bag bans claim that plastic carryout bags take up space in landfills. Plastic carryout bags used as trash bags or to dispose of litter take up less space than traditional plastic garbage bags. Plastic carryout bags that are empty should have been recycled rather than discarded in the landfill. Also, paper bags and reusable bags take up more space and landfill volumes than the plastic bags they replace and by a factor of more than 4...' A similar point has been made by the Canadian pro bag lobby group, All About Bags, which has stated, 'Because they are so lightweight, plastic bags represent a very small fraction of landfill-less than 1% (by weight and when compacted, they occupy very little landfill space).' 4. Banning plastic bags will do little to preserve the marine environment Many of the claims made about the impact of plastic bags on marine life and birdlife inhabiting oceans and waterways have been disputed. It has been claimed that many of the assertions made about the impact of plastic bags on marine life and birdlife are exaggerated. Pro bag lobbies frequently cite the Ocean Conservancy 2010 Report. This report does not claim to present a total picture of wildlife deaths through plastic entanglement; however, it does claim to be the world's largest survey of the problem and to offer a representative snapshot of what is occurring. The Report states a total of 336 wildlife animals were found entangled in Marine Debris worldwide in 2010. Out of these 336 entangled animals, 49 or 14.6% were entangled by plastic bags including 6 amphibians, 19 birds, 11 fish, 6 invertebrates, 6 mammals, and 1 reptile. According to the Report's summary of its findings, the volunteers who conduct the survey found 138 birds, entangled in marine debris (that is, waste associated with shipping or fishing). Fishing line and nets were some of the most dangerous items, trapping over 200 animals. Thus, defenders of plastic bags argue that these carriers' impact on marine wildlife is minor relative to that of other waste products. A similar point was made in a comment and analysis written by Matthew Franklin and published in The Australian noted, 'Questions have ...emerged over the accuracy of a claim in a report carried out for the Australian Government in 2002 which said plastic bags were responsible for the deaths of 100,000 animals a year. The report, later amended but widely quoted by environmentalists, actually attributed the deaths to all plastic debris, including fishing nets and equipment.' The 2008 Australian newspaper comment and analysis stated, 'The claim that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals every year is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 animals were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags. However, in 2002, a report prepared for the Australian Government by Nolan-ITU in association with the RMIT Centre for Design and Eunomia Research and Consulting Ltd said the Newfoundland study attributed the deaths to "plastic bags".' A number of environmentalists have been quoted suggesting that plastic bags are not a significant cause of the problem. The Times newspaper in Britain has cited scientists, including David Santillo, a senior biologist with Greenpeace, as claiming that plastic bags pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds. David Santillo, has stated, 'It's very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags. The evidence shows just the opposite. We are not going to solve the problem of waste by focusing on plastic bags. With larger mammals it's fishing gear that's the big problem. On a global basis plastic bags aren't an issue.' A 1997 study titled 'Impacts of Marine Debris: Entanglement of Marine Life in Marine Debris Including a Comprehensive List of Species with Entanglement and Ingestion Records' conducted by David Laist of the Marine Mammal Commission , Bethesda, concluded, 'Plastic bags did not figure in the majority of cases where animals died from marine debris.' Laist has further stated, 'The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines and strapping bands. Most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag.' 5. Banning single-use plastic bags could lead to an increased rate of global warming It has been claimed that the environmental advantages reusable carry bags are said to have over single-use bags are a distortion of the full situation. Critics claim that the alternatives offered to replace lightweight plastic bags will actually worsen global warming. A review conducted for the UK Government's Environmental Agency titled 'Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the bags available in 2006' concluded that the resources used in the bags' manufacture constituted its largest environmental impact and that this was true for all types of carry bag, single use and reusable. The environmental impact being considered here was primarily impact on global warming. The review found that the lightweight single-use plastic bag required the least resources to produce. It concluded 'The conventional HDPE [lightweight, single-use, plastic] bag had the lowest environmental impacts of the lightweight bags in eight of the nine impact categories [considered]. The bag performed well because it was the lightest bag considered. The lifecycle impact of the bag was dictated by raw material extraction and bag production, with the use of Chinese grid electricity significantly affecting the acidification and ecotoxicity of the bag.' Each of the alternative types of carry bag reviewed had to be used numerous times before its impact fell to that of the lightweight, single-use, plastic bag. The comparative figures were: A paper bag had to be used three times before its global warming potential fell to that of a single-use lightweight plastic bag. A bag made from low-density polyethylene had to be used four times before its global warming potential fell to that of a single-use lightweight plastic bag. A heavier more durable bag, often with stiffening inserts made from non woven polypropylene had to be used 11 times before its global warming potential fell to that of a single-use lightweight plastic bag. A cotton carry bag had to be used 131 times before its global warming potential fell to that of a single-use lightweight plastic bag. Regarding cotton bags, The World Wildlife Fund has reported that while only 2.4 percent of the world's cropland is planted with cotton, it accounts for 24 percent of the global market for insecticides and 11 percent for pesticides. Cotton also has very high water demands. It has further been claimed that reusable bags become even more environmentally questionable when the impact of washing them regularly is factored in. It has been noted that frequent washing will reduce the number of times bags can be reused. As the reusable bags have to be used many times before their resource impact per use equals that of single use bags, regular washing may make them even less environmentally sound. Professor Jonathan Klick of the University of Pennsylvania has stated, 'Reusable bags take so many more energy resources to make in the first place that to be environmentally effective they need to be used somewhere between 120 and 170 times. It turns out that if you end up washing your bags every time you use them, there's no way they're going to last for 120 uses.' It has also been noted that frequent washing of reusable plastic bags adds to the resources drain associated with their use. |
Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said.