Myths vs. Facts
- Isn’t it wasteful to use PE carrier bags?
- Wouldn’t it be preferable to use plastics that are made from renewable resources, e.g., corn, rather than PE?
- Isn’t it true that plastic shopping bags have been taxed or even banned in some places?
- Isn’t the re-useable grocery bag the obvious environmentally preferred replacement for the PE shopping bag?
1. Isn’t it wasteful to use PE carrier bags?
No it isn’t, for the following reasons:
a) It requires much less energy to make PE bags than to make paper bags.
b) More air pollution and water pollution is caused by making paper bags.
c) Transportation costs are much higher for paper bags.
d) Paper bags do not have good wet strength.
e) If plastic packaging were eliminated and replaced with more conventional materials, it has been estimated that that the volume of packaging waste would increase by over 250%, the weight would increase by more than 400%, the energy consumption by over 200%, and costs by more than 200%.
2. Wouldn’t it be preferable to use plastics that are made from renewable resources, e.g., corn, rather than PE?
No, it would not, for the following reasons:
a) All plastics require energy inputs from fossil fuels for production, fabrication, transportation and the like. Some hydro-biodegradable plastics (so-called renewable plastics) are blends or mixtures with polymers that derive from petroleum sources. Some hydro-biodegradable plastics are made entirely from petroleum products. Those plastics that are made from crop derivatives require the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and the like as well as energy for fermentation, separation and polymerization.
b) Those so-called bio-plastics, made from renewable resources such as food crops, are in competition for food of which there is already a shortage in the world, and for which prices are already too high for tens of millions of people.
c) Those so-called bio-plastics that derive from food such as corn are now in competition also with input for the manufacture of bio-fuels such as ethanol. Long term pricing and supply problems are inevitable. Projections to the time when non-edible green plants can be used for bio-plastics and bio-fuels are not helpful since already vast additional forested areas are being cleared to grow edible crops because lands currently used for agriculture are utilized for growing more corn and palms for bio-fuel.
d) The use of more nitrogen-based fertilizer to grow more corn will increase the amount of N2O, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere.
e) Post-consumer plastics other than the polyolefins (PE, PP) cannot be recycled with the existing plastics recycling stream. Any contamination of that stream by a so-called renewable bio-polymer, including especially the ones containing starch would render the stream useless. This would be a significant waste of resources.
f) In order to obtain different shelf-life/service-life performances for bio-plastics, a different resin would need to be synthesized for each product.
With EPI’s technology, the same resins are used for a range of performance criteria, only the additive package needs to be adjusted.
3. Isn’t it true that plastic shopping bags have been taxed or even banned in some places?
Yes, that is the case, but these short-sighted political maneuvers have produced no recorded benefits but some detrimental effects.
a) In Ireland, a tax on plastic shopping bags was imposed, apparently to reduce waste and address a litter problem. It was announced after the first year that the use of plastic carrier bags was reduced by about 90%. It was not widely publicized but noted anyway that the consumption of bin liners (plastic bags not subject to the tax) had increased by about 90%. People need something in which to bring home their purchases, and something in which to put their kitchen waste.
b) Proposed legislation in California aims to allow the use only of those plastic bags that are compostable according to ASTM Standard D 6400. The lobby pushing for the acceptance of hydro-biodegradable bags that meet this Standard appears to have succeeded in convincing the authorities that only these bags should be allowed even though they cost more than oxo-biodegradable bags, they cannot be recycled in the existing recycle stream and they, for the most part, will not be collected for composting after use.
4. Isn’t the re-useable grocery bag the obvious environmentally preferred replacement for the PE shopping bag?
No, it isn’t for a number of reasons.
a) The multiple-use bags that are commonly available now are considerably more expensive to make than are PE bags, and much heavier to distribute from the manufacturer. They need to be cleaned regularly for health reasons because they will become contaminated with food. They represent a formidable litter problem if discarded carelessly, and they’re too expensive to use as receptacles for garbage.
b) Those who ban or restrict the use of polyolefin shopping bags need to be reminded that consumers require something in which to bring home their purchases plus something to put their kitchen waste in. For the reasons described already the shopping bags of choice are those made using EPI’s TDPA™ technology
c) A typical use pattern for PE shopping bags bringing home the purchases (several times from those stores that deduct a bit from the bill for each used bag), then other uses around the house such as carrying shoes, books etc. and finally in the kitchen for holding food waste before “binning” and transport to the landfill. Any used bags surplus to the waste collection function can be returned to the store for recycling.
It has been explained above that the polyolefin bags made using EPI’s TDPA™ technology are just as versatile and useful as ordinary PE bags. They can be used, re-used and recycled just like ordinary PE bags, but they do not accumulate in the environment after being discarded. They are, after all, oxo-biodegradable.