Plastics and Coronavirus - should bans be reconsidered?

[VandVsmama]

Honestly, everyone staying home is doing a wonder for the environment right now.

This is a bit tongue-in-cheek and meant to be ironic & silly, so read the following with that perspective in mind....

BEFORE corona virus:
"I only use paper straws, reusable grocery bags, and green/organic cleaning products so I can save the planet. And I bring my own to-go containers to restaurants so I don't use any plastic."

AFTER corona virus:
"Screw the tupperware. I'm stocked up for 2 years now on Clorox wipes and hydrogen peroxide. I wash my hands in bleach and Lysol. I use 25 plastic gloves every day. I've thrown all of my organic cleaning products in the compost bin. And you better back the heck away from me if you know what's good for you."

 

[AurumPunzel]

Honestly, everyone staying home is doing a wonder for the environment right now.

This is a bit tongue-in-cheek and meant to be ironic & silly, so read the following with that perspective in mind....

BEFORE corona virus:
"I only use paper straws, reusable grocery bags, and green/organic cleaning products so I can save the planet. And I bring my own to-go containers to restaurants so I don't use any plastic."

AFTER corona virus:
"Screw the tupperware. I'm stocked up for 2 years now on Clorox wipes and hydrogen peroxide. I wash my hands in bleach and Lysol. I use 25 plastic gloves every day. I've thrown all of my organic cleaning products in the compost bin. And you better back the heck away from me if you know what's good for you."

Even emissions are going down, thanks to lockdowns. Now that's saying something.

 

[1lilspark]

My employer is still encouraging the use of reusable bags and I’ve already gone through most of my hand sanitizer stash from squirting my hands after each bagging especially when customers are wearing masks/coughing/outright say they are sick

 

[Starwind]

A number of the chain grocery stores near us were allowing customers to use their own reusable bags if the customer bagged their own bag. And they had stopped the $0.05 per bag fee for plastic bags.

However, in the last couple days many of those same chains have now announced they will no longer allow reusable bags to be brought into the store, or will strongly discourage customers from doing so.

 

[AurumPunzel]

My employer is still encouraging the use of reusable bags and I’ve already gone through most of my hand sanitizer stash from squirting my hands after each bagging especially when customers are wearing masks/coughing/outright say they are sick

A number of the chain grocery stores near us were allowing customers to use their own reusable bags if the customer bagged their own bag. And they had stopped the $0.05 per bag fee for plastic bags.

However, in the last couple days many of those same chains have now announced they will no longer allow reusable bags to be brought into the store, or will strongly discourage customers from doing so.

I can't see the forcing or encouragement of reusable bags lasting, even after the coronavirus crisis is over. Nor can I see bag bans continuing. If they do, I can see a relapse in infections happening, which would further validate what researchers have been saying for years in terms of reusable bags being possible vectors for disease transmission.

Imposing something that involves a great burden of trust on the person to properly clean their reusable bags after use, in the name of conspicuous conservation, is dangerous - how exactly are the stores going to know if the customer's bag is clean or not? Yet proponents keep pontificating about how we should reduce what is actually just a negligible amount of plastic waste, while more focus needs to be on litterers and poorer countries that don't have proper waste management, as well as recycling systems. I prefer people to just think for themselves and decide what is right for them, not have them being forced to do what higher powers tell them, based on emotional moral panic and dubious evidence.

 

[Suger Mag]

I dont throw out my clothes every day, just because I used them and they are now dirty... I WASH them. Why is that so hard to translate to reusable bags.

I love my reusable bags, stronger, dont break, and the cold insulted bags are great for keeping my stuff cold until I get to my fridge. Considering how many diapered baby butts are placed in a shopping cart... how many kid shoes are all over the carts ... you should never assume your cart is clean. Give them a spray of lysol, or wipe them down. Besides almost everything you buy is packaged or wrapped, not like I am putting a bare loaf of bread into my bag with a wedge of cheese.... the bread is in a bag... then put in my reusable;le bag. I shop at Aldi's and pack my own groceries

Massachusetts just rescinded their plastic bag bans in the face of Covid. No reusable bags allowed for the time being.

 

[AurumPunzel]

I dont throw out my clothes every day, just because I used them and they are now dirty... I WASH them. Why is that so hard to translate to reusable bags.

I love my reusable bags, stronger, dont break, and the cold insulted bags are great for keeping my stuff cold until I get to my fridge. Considering how many diapered baby butts are placed in a shopping cart... how many kid shoes are all over the carts ... you should never assume your cart is clean. Give them a spray of lysol, or wipe them down. Besides almost everything you buy is packaged or wrapped, not like I am putting a bare loaf of bread into my bag with a wedge of cheese.... the bread is in a bag... then put in my reusable;le bag. I shop at Aldi's and pack my own groceries

Massachusetts just rescinded their plastic bag bans in the face of Covid. No reusable bags allowed for the time being.

It's good that you're maintaining hygiene of your reusable bags, which in an ideal world, everyone should. But when you consider pathological research into reusable bag hygiene, a shocking majority doesn't do that, and having reusable bags forced upon people with that in mind and no places to sanitise them when you're out and about is a deadly concoction.

Now that bag bans are being suspended, it should force a huge rethink into bans in general, since it's already clear that they're not having the positive outcome it ought to have, and too many bans yield unintended consequences, such as increasing the chance of infection through a lack of hygiene, and even increasing plastic waste through usage of thicker, dedicated single-use bags for lining waste bins.

As for cleanliness of carts, I think the crisis is going to also lead to a rethink of hygiene, and perhaps make sanitisation regimes more rigourous, which could possibly mean a tightening of health and safety law, and an end to bag bans permanently.

 

[godisney14]

In some cities near me, all plastic has already been banned. No plastic bags, no plastic straws, no plastic utensils. Must be paper or some type of compostable.

 

[AurumPunzel]

In some cities near me, all plastic has already been banned. No plastic bags, no plastic straws, no plastic utensils. Must be paper or some type of compostable.

Did those cities conduct a lifecycle analysis, or did they just buy into the emotional hysteria?

 

[godisney14]

Did those cities conduct a lifecycle analysis, or did they just buy into the emotional hysteria?

Not sure.
But Berkeley and San Francisco have always been far (very, very far) ahead of the rest of the US in trying to reduce waste and natural resources.

 

[AurumPunzel]

Not sure.
But Berkeley and San Francisco have always been far (very, very far) ahead of the rest of the US in trying to reduce waste and natural resources.

They may be, but research has found a lot of negative unintended consequences. In San Francisco, research carried out by a university in Pennsylvania found a link between the imposition of the ban and an increase in hospital admissions due to food poisoning caused by pathogens carried in reusable bags, which has become more relevant in the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic.

 

[godisney14]

They may be, but research has found a lot of negative unintended consequences. In San Francisco, research carried out by a university in Pennsylvania found a link between the imposition of the ban and an increase in hospital admissions due to food poisoning caused by pathogens carried in reusable bags, which has become more relevant in the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic.

Link to that research please.

 

[AndreaA]

Link to that research please.

https://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0313/gaz04.html
There are several other studies as well.

 

[AurumPunzel]

https://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0313/gaz04.html
There are several other studies as well.

You beat me to it.

 

[godisney14]

https://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0313/gaz04.html
There are several other studies as well.

I’d be happy to read these “other studies.”
But, this opinion piece written by a lawyer is not is not something I will take as credible research.

It was hard for me to take in after reading this:
“At the end of the day, we have a scientific basis that suggests this is a plausible idea,” Klick says. “That leads us to be fairly confident of these results.”
The scientific basis he refers to is an issue with correlation. Did he look into any other factors? No.

Now, if a real scientist or epidemiologist has done real research, sure I’ll believe it. Until then I’ll continue to use my reusable bag and continue regularly washing it along with other items. So no marginal cost in washing.

 

[AurumPunzel]

Now, if a real scientist or epidemiologist has done real research, sure I’ll believe it. Until then I’ll continue to use my reusable bag and continue regularly washing it along with other items. So no marginal cost in washing.

Here's the evidence: https://www.researchgate.net/public...on_of_Food_Products_by_Reusable_Shopping_Bags

Again, just because you're doing it right, it doesn't mean everyone will, and based on those risks found by the University of Arizona and Loma Linda, it's become basis for discouraging reusables during the crisis, and I'd expect it'll lead to a rethink about the reusables culture, and lawmaking that forces it upon the public.

Feel-good moves forced by powers are no substitute for self-initiative; if a person wants to use reusables on their own accord, than that's fine by me. What I'm not okay with is when it's forced - it undemocratises choice, and imposes an opinion that's already been challenged by research that not only highlights risk of spreading diseases, but also questions efficacy, particularly in lifecycle of reusable tote bags vs paper vs plastic (lightweight and 2.25mil+), and sales of binliners to replace the lightweight plastic bags in the event of a ban. Google has a wealth of research, PRAs and op-eds that inform about this

When the whole anti-plastic hysteria began with Blue Planet II, I viewed it with scepticism, because the way it apportioned the blame on us consumers failed to take into account where the plastic waste was actually coming from, and research in Germany actually found that 90% of it came from Asia and Africa, out of just 10 rivers. And even if the waste did come from Western imports, then it shows that more investment in recycling facilties at home is needed. Instead of bans, those municipalities should be looking to the plastic recycling industry for solutions. There are successes already found in dedicated plastic bag recycling facilties: many of them recycle old bags into wood-plastic composites and roads.

Banning simply isn't the answer, and it'll only lead to more problems like potentially spreading coronavirus, increased plastic waste, and even greater climate change. Not to mention inconvenience.

 

[godisney14]

Here's the evidence: https://www.researchgate.net/public...on_of_Food_Products_by_Reusable_Shopping_Bags

Again, just because you're doing it right, it doesn't mean everyone will, and based on those risks found by the University of Arizona and Loma Linda, it's become basis for discouraging reusables during the crisis, and I'd expect it'll lead to a rethink about the reusables culture, and lawmaking that forces it upon the public.

Feel-good moves forced by powers are no substitute for self-initiative; if a person wants to use reusables on their own accord, than that's fine by me. What I'm not okay with is when it's forced - it undemocratises choice, and imposes an opinion that's already been challenged by research that not only highlights risk of spreading diseases, but also questions efficacy, particularly in lifecycle of reusable tote bags vs paper vs plastic (lightweight and 2.25mil+), and sales of binliners to replace the lightweight plastic bags in the event of a ban. Google has a wealth of research, PRAs and op-eds that inform about this

When the whole anti-plastic hysteria began with Blue Planet II, I viewed it with scepticism, because the way it apportioned the blame on us consumers failed to take into account where the plastic waste was actually coming from, and research in Germany actually found that 90% of it came from Asia and Africa, out of just 10 rivers. And even if the waste did come from Western imports, then it shows that more investment in recycling facilties at home is needed. Instead of bans, those municipalities should be looking to the plastic recycling industry for solutions. There are successes already found in dedicated plastic bag recycling facilties: many of them recycle old bags into wood-plastic composites and roads.

Banning simply isn't the answer, and it'll only lead to more problems like potentially spreading coronavirus, increased plastic waste, and even greater climate change. Not to mention inconvenience.

First of all, this is not a peer-reviewed science article. This is not even worthwhile of being called a scientific study. The sample size is so low. Only tested 15 paired samples. Really? Come on.

Second, the only possible statistically significant conclusion you can draw from the results is that all bags had some amount of total coliform. But, you should look up what an mpn of total coliform means. It has less significance than the detection of E. Coli. And E. Coli was only found on 3 of the 38 Ag bags and only 1 of the control bags.

Third, the study was not controlled for usage. Even the authors at the end said, “This household use study was a field investigation that had many uncontrolled factors.” Such as how often were the bags used over the 3-5 month period. Were they equally used as directed? For example, did a participant buy 2 packages of everything and place them in the separate bags?

Fourth, and my most critical shortcoming relevant to our discussion, they did not even compare one time use plastic bags to the control and study RGBs. Plastic bags won’t be treated with Ag. So, there’s no reason to assume they will be any different than RGBs, especially when half life of the pathogens will inactivate most by the next shopping trip.

I’ll give you that all bags (as shown even in your study) had detectable levels of coliform. But, this does not show in any remote way that plastic is different from RGBs. How can you argue that plastic is better but not even point to an article with plastic and RGB as test studies.

 

[AurumPunzel]

First of all, this is not a peer-reviewed science article. This is not even worthwhile of being called a scientific study. The sample size is so low. Only tested 15 paired samples. Really? Come on.

Second, the only possible statistically significant conclusion you can draw from the results is that all bags had some amount of total coliform. But, you should look up what an mpn of total coliform means. It has less significance than the detection of E. Coli. And E. Coli was only found on 3 of the 38 Ag bags and only 1 of the control bags.

Third, the study was not controlled for usage. Even the authors at the end said, “This household use study was a field investigation that had many uncontrolled factors.” Such as how often were the bags used over the 3-5 month period. Were they equally used as directed? For example, did a participant buy 2 packages of everything and place them in the separate bags?

Fourth, and my most critical shortcoming relevant to our discussion, they did not even compare one time use plastic bags to the control and study RGBs. Plastic bags won’t be treated with Ag. So, there’s no reason to assume they will be any different than RGBs, especially when half life of the pathogens will inactivate most by the next shopping trip.

I’ll give you that all bags (as shown even in your study) had detectable levels of coliform. But, this does not show in any remote way that plastic is different from RGBs. How can you argue that plastic is better but not even point to an article with plastic and RGB as test studies.

Here's some LCAs as you've demanded:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...achment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf
The Danish one is more recent, and although both reports highlight differences in waste management (waste that isn't recycled gets incinerated in Denmark, and parts of the UK have different ways of dealing with general waste, in the absence of recycling), they both say that conventional plastic has the lowest total impact of all the bags. Most reusable tote bags are made of either the PP type, RPET, polyester or natural fibres such as cotton. And because most are made in Asian countries, they will have higher impacts, in terms of resource extraction, production, and exportation.

The Danish LCA puts organic cotton at a whopping 20,000 required reuses to offset the equivalent of one lightweight plastic bag, so it has to be reused for a very long time. However, that's assuming the bag remains with the owner, and anything can happen between the bag's first use and before the total footprint is minimised, such as the bag getting damaged beyond repair, or the user dying before the bag has zeroed its impact.

And before you ask, these are government LCAs, so they won't have any industry or NGO bias attached to them.

 

[godisney14]

Just wanted to post that I’ll respond at some point as I don’t have time right now to look over a 120-page report. But, that’s a lot of pages so it must have some worthwhile information at least. So, I’ll be sure to read it as I have the time.

 

[AurumPunzel]

https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/b...he-world/?CMP=SOC-DPFY20Q3wo0430200506200003C
Who else thought forcing reusable bags on DCL was a very bad idea? As cruise ships often end up on news reports for disease outbreaks, inviting people to bring their own bags for shopping without considering the hygiene risks highlighted in prior research on reusable bag hygiene and pathology on cruise ship environments, particularly in such a confined environment, is, in my opinion, dangerous. Who thought it was a good idea?