Plastic Straw Ban And Its Unintended Consequences

In recent years, the no straw campaign has been a growing public issue worldwide. Global corporate giants such as Starbucks, Coca-Cola and Nestle are jumping onto the bandwagon. Starbucks announced on July 2018 that they will be eliminating single-use plastic straws in place of strawless lids with a sippable protrusion and provide alternative-material straws. Koufu at Singapore Management University became the first food court in Singapore to join the no-straw initiative. Fast-food chain KFC Singapore also announced in June 2018 that it will no longer provide plastic caps and straws with drinks at all of its outlets. Consumers welcomed and were receptive to this growing trend. Through the growing coverage by social media platforms, the no straw ban has brought to light the bigger issue of massive systematic plastic pollution that is devastating the environment. I warmly embrace the no straw ban, especially in Singapore. I must admit that I only found out about the no straw ban when KFC introduced their single-use plastic reduction initiative. Plastic straws have fallen out of favor lately as they are rarely recycled due to their size and light weight which causes them to be mechanically sorted out during the recycling process and ending up in landfills or the oceans.

Whenever I purchase drinks, I strive to make a conscious effort to not use a straw and drink directly from it. Although I possess a set of metal straw, it is cumbersome to bring around a set of metal straw and brush and washing it after usage. Sometimes, due to the design of cups such as those of bubble tea with sealed tops or simply by habit, I would take and use straws that are displayed openly. The research and readings that I have done on the no-straw ban brought me to knowledge of the crippling scale of plastic pollution that humans are generating. It is estimated that 500 million straws are used and then thrown away daily in America alone. Yet, straws only make up a mere 0. 03 percent of the 8 million tons of plastic estimated to enter the ocean annually. Global annual plastic consumption has reached over 320 million metric tons, and a significant amount of it serves an ephemeral purpose – with an average lifespan of 12 minutes for single-use plastic. In comparison, plastics takes years to centuries to break down in the natural environment such as landfills and the ocean. When companies turn to greener alternatives, such as the no-straw ban, there may be unforeseen and unintended consequences. To mitigate the impact of the no-straw ban, Starbucks introduced new strawless lids with a sippable protrusion. This move to decrease single-plastic usage ironically led to the usage of more plastic as the new lids weigh up to 0. 88 grams more than their old counterpart.

In defense, Starbucks does not dispute that the new lids use more plastic but iterated “the strawless lid is made from polypropylene, a commonly-accepted recyclable plastic that can be captured in recycling infrastructure, unlike straws which are too small and lightweight to be captured in modern recycling equipment. ” This highlight some prominent problems and unintended consequences that society is facing. Consumers are not doing their part to recycle. Research have found that only 9% of all plastic waste are recycled and close to 80% accumulates in landfills or the natural environment. Switching to biodegradable plastics (bioplastics) will not achieve the goals of the no-straw ban if consumer behavior does not change. It is futile and counterproductive to switch to an alternative which might produce more plastic waste. Efforts should be made to ensure that materials are reused and recycled at a product’s end of life. Straws might seem like a non-essential and trivial item for able-bodied and healthy individuals like most of us. Often, we overlook the needs of minority groups, in this instance, the sick or disabled. This group of people may not have the luxury of living a plastic-straw free life. They may require straws that can bend and suitable in size to prevent choking or become difficult to keep in their mouth. It must also be able to handle drinks, including medication at all temperatures. Straws made from alternative materials like paper, bamboo, or metal are not flexible or able to withstand different temperatures. An outright ban on straws will cause it to become a special medical item, unintentionally discriminating against this minority group whom writer and disability rights activist Penny Pepper also denounced, are “fed up with being labeled special. ”

Many countries have improper waste management systems. A bulk of developed countries such as the US, UK and Germany, export more than half of their plastic waste to Asian countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, and most notably China which receives the main bulk of all the plastic wastes. These Asian countries lack waste management and processing systems because the technologies may be prohibitory expensive and bioplastics end up being mixed with regular plastics during the recycling process. The extra time and resources spent on separating the contaminants will decrease the efficiency and hence profits of recycling facilities. Bioplastics that are filtered out are of no value and make their way into landfills and oceans. The production of bioplastics threatens food security. They are produced from renewable biomass feedstocks such as cassava, corn, and sugarcane. Asia is the hub of bioplastic production, accounting for about 56% of bioplastics produced in 2017. A predominantly agricultural country in Asia, Thailand export rice as their main crop. It is also one of the top ten sugarcane and cassava exporters. Governments can also influence farmers, such as the ten-year plan to build a bio-economy hub focusing on the bioplastic industry in Thailand. The increase in demand for bioplastics will entice farmers to shift their focus to grow renewable biomass feedstocks as there are increasing profits to be made. There will be direct competition for land, water, and manpower to grow essential crop such as rice, a staple food in many countries. At a glance, it may not seem to cost much more to switch to a non-plastic alternative. Analysis suggests that it costs $0. 01 more to produce glass to plastic bottle[20]. Yet, many companies admit that they are concerned of the costs affecting their bottom line. The weight of a glass bottle is more than 10 times that of a plastics bottle and requires 40% more energy for transportation. This produces more carbon dioxide and increasing transport costs by up to five times.

For giant corporations such as Coca-Cola who sells more than 110 billion drinks globally, these differences add up to hundreds of million or even billions of dollars of revenue. A dilemma is faced in many instances whereby plastics are more beneficial for the environment that its alternatives. Fortunately, more governments around the world are adopting stricter legislation aimed at reducing single-use plastic materials. In accordance to a report by the United Nations’ International Environmental Technology Centre,[23] governments can adopt a combination of regulatory measures such as total bans and economic instruments such as levies or taxes on suppliers and consumers. There are concerns, however, that the increased transportation or production costs mentioned earlier, and penalties imposed by governments on polluting companies like carbon tax may pass on as costs onto consumers. Companies will need to analyze their triple bottom line - economic, social and environmental impacts and decide if they should fulfill their corporation social responsibility or maximize profits. When extra costs are inevitably passed onto consumers, businesses are also concerned that customers will be deterred from patronizing. Boston Tea Party (BTP), a small coffee chain in United Kingdom decided to ditch the use of disposable, single-use cups in their establishments.

Customers can only drink in-house using a China mug, use their own or rent a reusable cup or purchase a $4. 25 bamboo cup. The financial impacts were immediate. Takeaway sales plunged 24% in one month. Some customers simply want to buy a cup of coffee and when they hear someone (BTP) talking to them about saving the planet, they would just go somewhere else. “Some people just don’t want to hear it”, head barista of BTP Birmingham Hannah Brown commented. Choosing to save the environment may come with a significant impact to a business’ revenue, position in the market and could be unsustainable for companies. Consumer behaviors can be shaped and encouraged to change through social awareness and education to become more receptive to greener alternatives and measures. Public pressure may also rise for governments and companies to reduce plastic use. It was heartwarming to read about the efforts of 17-year-old Ang Zyn Yee who painstaking drafted multiple emails, Facebook messages and even mail to various cafes, restaurants, and schools to push her opinions on going straw-free. Her petition to get Changi Airport to go straw-free garnered over 14,000 signatures but the Airport have taken a quiet stance.

Fortunately, her perseverance was not in vain as several establishments responded positively to her, working with her to tackle this issue. To address reservations some consumers had, she took a softer approach and created stickers designed to convince consumers give up plastic straws. Her movement also sparked waves of similar initiatives by like-minded individuals who used social media as their main mode of advocacy. The increased awareness coupled by peer influence ignited the sense of social responsibility in the community and successfully provoked changes in companies. With rising consumer awareness, it may be hard to distinguish a company’s efforts to be environmental friendly purely a fulfillment of their corporate social responsibility or furtive window dressing. An interesting viewpoint that I came across was the appeal to the eco-consciousness of consumers could also be virtue signaling by businesses. [26] Many multinational companies such as Walmart, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Unilever and Nestle have pledged to reduce and ensure their packaging is either reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025. Starbucks pledged that it would make 100% of its cups reusable or recycle by 2015 due to growing complaints a decade ago, but that have yet to been fulfilled by the company. In other words, initiative like no-straw ban might be adopted by businesses because it could garner support and approval from consumers and investors who may perform social screening rather than companies taking responsibility and choose to make ethical decisions.

Encouraging individuals to adhere to the 3Rs - reduce, reuse and recycle through the no-straw ban will not solve the problem of the massive production and use of plastic and single-use plastic. There has been misdirection in the onus of environmental responsibility from companies to consumers. The numerous campaigns and outreach to educate the influence consumer recycling behavior has psychologically misdirected public support for a legal framework that imposes hefty punitive measures on individuals that litter. [29] Meanwhile the environmental, economic and health hazards caused due to the companies’ irresponsible use of plastic are unchecked and unregulated. Reaping the benefits of globalization, consumers in Hong Kong can taste premium strawberries from Japan or organic avocados from Mexico. Individual premium Kotoka strawberry wrapped in Styrofoam sock sitting in a straw nest enclosed in a plastic-covered paper box and individually plastic-wrapped coconuts in a Styrofoam sock are being sold in Hong Kong supermarkets. This is unfortunately a frequent phenomenon in shelves worldwide. It is understandable that these produce needs to be wrapped to preserve quality, hygiene, and freshness but excessive packaging and the use of plastic needs to be addressed and minimized. Consumers do have a right to exercise their economic power and choose to boycott products with excessive packaging. Unfortunately, they have limited options, and even lesser when it comes to necessity products. The prevalence of plastic packaging on virtually everything is so ingrained into our lives that we are sometimes forced to accept them.

The convenience of plastic also helped to proliferate its current ubiquitous usage. Dining outside would be a contrasting experience compared to our current situation if single-use plastics are outlawed. Consumers does seem to be receptive and willing to accept these changes. A report on plastic straw consumption in Singapore found that 86 percent of consumers felt “positive” or “very positive” towards businesses that make the effort to find alternatives to disposable plastic straws. Among those, 84 percent said they were happy to go without straws and 81 percent said they are willing to use more environmental friendly substitutes. Thus, it is fallacious to automatically assume the fault of consumers who may not have options to buy products that reduces plastic use. We need to hold the producers accountable for their actions. According to a 2016 report by the World Economic Forum, worldwide use of plastic has increased 20 times in the past 50 years. By 2050, plastic production will triple, and plastic will outweigh fish in the ocean. Scientists have found microplastics in 114 aquatic species and research have proven that ingestion of these microplastic causes physical harm to marine animals. Microplastics can also harbor deadly pathogens and toxic heavy metal which could potentially be transferred to humans through our dinner plates. Unsuspecting wildlife such as turtles and birds are also getting trapped or choked to death by abandoned fishing nets and other plastic materials. The breakdown of plastics also releases carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, exacerbating global warming. Plastics’ presence costs approximately $13 billion annually in losses for the tourism, shipping and fishing industries.

The ecosystem of marine life is damaged, and livelihood of fishermen are threatened. The list of issues only increases – heavy economic loss, threats to health and food safety. A report published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on October 2018 emphasized that society would have to carry out massive “unprecedented” changes to keep global temperatures by rising. With the dire straits that the world climate in, the reckless use of plastic by society must be curbed. It would be foolish to live in an illusion that a simple plastic straw ban can stop the rampant production of plastic which is contributing to climate change. The no-straw ban is a perfect opportunity to serve as a stepping stone for businesses, governments and society to address the bigger issue of plastic pollution. Our actions and inactions today will affect the future of humanity and life on Earth. The exponentially growing number of scientific studies and research are all pointing to the urgency and extreme measures that need to be undertaken. It is not too late to change.