Report calls out plastic deplorables, suggests ‘better alternatives’

Four non-profit conservation organizations—The 5 Gyres Institute, Clean Production Action, Surfrider Foundation and Upstream—have launched the Plastics BAN (Better Alternatives Now) List, which identifies the most harmful plastic products sold in California as well as readily available alternatives. The report is the first compilation of four datasets detailing the types of plastic pollution found in the state’s environment and determines the top 15 offenders, including food wrappers and containers, plastic bottle caps and plastic bags. The report supported Proposition 67, which passed on Election Day and effectively bans single-use plastic bags in the state.

“The Plastics BAN List is yet another important report detailing the hazards and high cost to society and nature of single-use plastics,” said Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz, author of the city’s own plastic bag ban. “We need to rethink and redesign products and their use to stop wasting our increasingly fragile planet. Voting yes on 67 . . . and shopping with reusable bags statewide is an excellent next step.”

The latest figures on California’s Proposition 67 show that it passed with 52.09% (Yes) compared to 47.91% (No). The American Progressive Bag Alliance, an opponent of the measure, led the “no” campaign to repeal SB 270, a statewide ban on plastic bags signed into law in 2014 that was put on hold after opponents of the ban gathered enough signatures to force a referendum on the law. Yes on 67, a coalition of environmental groups, grocers and others led the “yes” campaign to uphold SB270. (Read “Sacramento says goodbye to plastic bags in 2016” for more background information.)

According to the ballot summary on the California Secretary of State’s website, “A yes vote prohibits grocery and certain other retail stores from providing single-use plastic or paper carryout bags to customers at point of sale. It also permits the sale of recycled paper bags and reusable bags to customers at a minimum price of 10 cents per bag.”

Another measure relating to grocery bag consumption, Proposition 65, appeared on the ballot, as well. The measure would allocate revenue generated from the sale of disposable carryout bags, specifically paper bags, to the Wildlife Conservation Fund. If the measure receives more “yes” votes, this allocation would supersede Proposition 67’s allocation provision.  

It’s interesting that the report from these four non-profit groups lists the plastic items themselves as the “offenders,” as if the plastic wrappers and containers, plastic bottle caps and bags could intentionally cause harm in and of themselves. It takes a human being with the intention of disposing of these items improperly to create the problem, but no mention is made of any human interaction in the pollution problem. (Remember, it has been determined that “intention” is what counts when indicting someone.)

“Annually, eight million tons of plastic escape collection systems to end up in the ocean, where it contributed to the 5.25 trillion particles of plastic smog that choke our marine ecosystems,” said Anna Cummins, co-founder and Global Strategy Director of 5 Gyres. “Eliminating single-use disposable plastics must be a priority.”

I say we need some policing here! Chase down and capture those plastic escapees and put them in the recycle bins where they belong!

The BAN List also incorporates for the first time an overview of the toxic threats posed by single-use plastic products. “Most plastic products are made with highly hazardous chemicals, but their toxic lifecycle doesn’t stop there,” added Bev Thorpe, Consulting Program Manager for Networks and Advocacy at Clean Production Action. “We now know that plastic debris floating in the oceans is accumulating toxic pollutants from the surrounding air and water, creating an ongoing delivery system of toxins to ocean life.”

The organizations that devised the BAN List also trumpet the good news that there are “functional and material alternatives that could replace the use of current single-use disposable products” that are safer and more sustainable. “What we need now is for industry and government to take action and phase out the worst offenders in favor of better alternatives,” said Matt Prindiville, Executive Director of Upstream.

The organizations say that more recycling will not solve plastic pollution because “nearly all of the 15 products on the BAN List have no economic value in today’s recycling systems. Additionally, many of the BAN List products are manufactured with toxic chemicals, and none of the plastics used are examples of green chemistry, notes the release. For example, “Many of the products are made from polystyrene, a probable human carcinogen. Other plastics contain harmful additives like PET, which uses a toxic heavy metal—antimony—as a catalyst in the production process.”

Well, that’s not quite true. According to the PET Resin Association website, very small amounts of antimony compounds are used in the production of PET as well as glass. Antimony oxide (not the metal itself) is typically used as the catalyst in making PET, which is chemically bound into the polymer at very low levels of 200 to 300 parts per million. Global health agencies have confirmed these very small amounts, averaging less than 1 part per billion, pose no health concerns.

The American Progressive Bag Alliance, a project of SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association, put a total of $6,144,383 toward defeating Prop 67, but to no avail. It will take a lot more than money to bring reason, common sense and scientific understanding to the public.

In a statement from SPI President and CEO William Carteaux, released after the election of Donald Trump, Carteaux said, “For America’s plastics industry, the policy priorities most important to promoting growth and innovation continue to include the . . . effective implementation of revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). At the state and local levels, the plastics industry urges legislative and regulatory forbearance when policymakers face proposals to ban or restrict consumer access to important industry products.”

Read Carteaux’s letter here in its entirety.