Several people this week have reported having been a bit depressed by the course of the plastic bag ban debate that has occurred on this site and in the community. I would respond, as I have in the past, that this is as much about educating the public as it is about the fact that people tend to respond most when they disagree with a proposed policy as opposed to when they agree with one.
Education matters, after all, as there was a time people were not very conscious about the health hazards of smoking or other forms of pollution and they bought into the industry rhetoric that environmental regulation would harm the economy. Over time, people have recognized that environmental impact is as much a public health issue as anything else.
“The study raises the concern that garbage, as it works its way through the food chain, could be ingested by humans,” the article continues.
Does this raise the possibility that we may be harming ourselves, in addition to the destruction to ecology? It does.
There have been a number of different approaches to attacking the issue, each of them fundamentally flawed.
Rich Rifkin argues that it is unlikely that waste would enter into the ocean from Davis.
He writes on Wednesday, “If it is an issue at all, it is a coastal issue.”
He continues, “It’s entirely possible that in San Francisco or Santa Monica, plastic bags could pose some small danger to some creatures. But here in Davis it is just a part of the bigger lie that the banners have invented to ban bags in Davis. They have not one whit of proof for this wildlife claim in Davis.”
Of course, that would be a reason to ban bags more globally, which would be preferable to only a local Davis ban. The California legislature had a chance to do just that, but fell well short of a majority. That time will come, but local communities like Davis will have to lead the way, in my view.
His argument against banning plastic bags ultimately fails because he is simply shifting the locus of action to a higher authority. I tend to agree that it is not enough to ban bags in Davis, but it would seem to be a good starting place.
The freedom issue is really my favorite, as though we have a God-given right to destroy the natural environment.
I’m not a particularly big fan of government intruding into the private lives of citizens. However, I do think that government has an appropriate role as a regulator of commerce, protection of the environment, and regulator of health-related concerns and byproducts of industry.
Part of the problem with the market-based approach is that we have not weighed true costs of environmental degradation into our supply-demand driven market models. We do not account properly for externalities, for the external damage to the environment that results from the use of certain products.
In other words, if we had a market-driven way to account for environmental degradation by incorporating within the cost of the product the cost of clean up and other environmental effects, we might be able to rely on the market to fix the issue.
Short of that, we are looking at some sort of governmental or extra-governmental based approach. If we don’t like the idea of an outright ban, then let us at least work toward creating incentives for people to switch to reusable cloth bags.
Along the same lines, I find it somewhat comical the approach that some people take when confronted with an issue like this.
Writes one individual, “What, are the greenies going to send storm troopers down residential streets looking in trash cans? Are garbage men going to have to actually get out of their trucks and inspect the contents of the cans before they dump them? Like many have been saying on here, plastic bags are just the tip of the iceberg.”
Obviously, that is not how such an approach would need to work, as one simply deals with it at the supply end and there is little need to enforce at the consumer end.
Moreover, I think banning grocery bags is in fact the first step of many that need to be done to change our wasteful consumption that we have grown accustomed to. We live in a world where we can no longer afford to have the same practices as we have always had. If do not change our consumption, then we will increasingly harm our pattern and the quality of life of our very direct descendants. We are already seeing the impact of some of our past practices and that will only increase into the future.
I laugh when people say this isn’t a priority. Our fiscal health will not matter one iota if we irreparably harm the planet in the next twenty years or even the next hundred years.
The individual later adds, “Did you ride your horse to work? Don’t worry, the world will do fine without cars. We’ve come a long way baby.”
The argument here is obviously that if we do not cut out every source of pollution, that we should not cut back on one source. So obviously we should not ban dumping waste in water ways because we continue to drive cars and pollute the air – is that really the argument this individual is trying to make?
That sense is bolstered with their next retort, “You have no plastic in your house, you don’t buy anything wrapped in plastic, you don’t drive a car, your dwelling was made of all environmentally-friendly materials, you don’t draw any power from your local utility, nothing you use in your life ends up as waste or is toxic?”
Again, the fallacy of imperfection arises here, as in this argument, if one does not live a zero-waste lifestyle, one cannot work to cut down on any sort of pollution. It is an argument without logical foundation and the implications are troubling.
The bottom line is that we would have no environmental regulations if people had to live a zero-waste lifestyle in order to advocate for regulation and reform in current practices. The argument is based on some fallacious reasoning and ultimately fails under the weight of its own absurd impracticality.
Then there is the Bob Dunning approach, which is basically a filibuster approach. This must be the only issue in Davis, as he has now written four straight columns on it and six columns in all since March 3. This is a guy who has yet to write about unfunded liabilities.
Here are few highlights. First he argues, “Why write an ‘ordinance’ when you can craft a novel?” Nevermind that the issue has not even gotten a full hearing at the commission level let alone the council, he is already dissecting a proposed ordinance.
He writes, “I figured the ordinance would be one short paragraph along the lines of ‘You can no longer use plastic bags for groceries in the city of Davis.’ Turns out it was a bit longer than that. Like a thousand times longer.”
The problem is that you cannot have an ordinance unless you define what a plastic grocery bad is. This guy has legal training, right? He should at least know how laws have to be written so as to not be too vague or too specific.
The reason we should oppose this ordinance, according to this logic, is obviously that it is too wordy.
Then he argues, “If you were with me yesterday, you know we had barely scratched the surface of the proposed plastic bag ban here in the City that Knows Better. But we did learn there’s apparently a huge difference as far as this ordinance is concerned between a plastic bag with handles and a plastic bag without handles.”
This is one of my favorite techniques. He pokes fun of the City of Davis, calling it “The City that Knows Better,” ignoring the fact that many other cities have already banned plastic bags and, in fact, the state legislature took up this issue last year and will likely do so again.
The bulk of the second column is of course a comparison between bags with handles and bags without handles. He argues that the difference is absurd and ultimately he engages in the flawed reasoning of one of the commenters, which is basically if we do not ban everything all at once, we can ban nothing.
Third article is “Does Davis really need this intrusive ordinance?” Nevermind that he doesn’t establish how switching from plastic grocery bags to reusable bags is intrusive.
“All stores,” it says, “shall provide or make available to a customer only recyclable paper carryout bags or reusable bags for the purpose of carrying away goods or other materials from the point of sale.”
And then he adds, “Any store that provides a recyclable paper carryout bag to a customer must charge the customer 25 cents for each bag provided.”
Finally adding, “No store shall rebate or otherwise reimburse a customer any portion of the 25-cent charge required.”
I am failing to see what the problem is here, but obviously it offends Mr. Dunning’s sensibilities. He writes, “So now they’re telling Nugget and Safeway and all the rest of our grocers exactly what they must charge for an item and specifically prohibiting any rebates or other incentives to the customer.”
The problem is that he does not seem to get the issue here which is to create a true cost for the environmental impact and give people incentives to use more ecologically-friendly means for carrying out their groceries.
Mind you that this is a proposed ordinance that has not been vetted by either a commission or the city council, and he’s parsing words to get people to oppose the ordinance as opposed to, say, modify it and improve upon it.
Finally he asks, “You can carry your groceries in your own bag that you brought from home … you can carry your groceries in a large cardboard box that you brought from home … you can rig your bicycle basket so it easily attaches and detaches and have the clerk pack your groceries straight into the basket … and, if all else fails, you can carry your lesser purchases to the car with your own bare hands.”
Because once at a store there is no way to get a reusable bag to carry one’s groceries. I find it simply amazing that Bob Dunning has found nothing better to write for four straight days than this.
If I wrote on the same story for four straight days, I would hear the boo-birds pretty quickly. And I write multiple articles a day.
Bottom line, there is nothing that Bob Dunning has poked fun of that could not be tightened up or fixed upon a full hearing. But he avoids the key points and never once addresses the core issues.
At the end of the day, will it really matter if it is the City of Davis or the State of California that bans the bags? It will happen, it is only a matter of time. It is time for us to stop using products that are disposable. We need to become much more sustainable in our lifestyle, unless we do not care what future generations inherit from us.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It’s very disengenuous of you David to refer to my posts out of context of the total conversation that had taken place. My post was a sarcastic response to another ban you said you would like to see imposed at some time in the future:
rusty49:
I use mine twice, so if the plastic grocery bags are banned everyone will then have to buy the thicker heavier ones to line their under the sink trash cans. Where’s the good in this?
David Greenwald:
But obviously we will need to find a way to deal with trash without plastic bags at some point as well.
Rusty49:
What, are the greenies going to send storm troopers down residential streets looking in trash cans? Are garbage men going to have to actually get out of their trucks and inspect the contents of the cans before they dump them? Like many have been saying on here, plastic bags are just the tip of the iceberg.
David:
What Dunning, Rifkin and others are really objecting to are environmentalists’ claim to moral superiority and certitude and imposing these views on others when it makes little difference (e.g., in my opinion wood burning unless it truly is harming a neighbor with breathing issues in which case it can be dealt with in other ways besides a total ban).
The problem is that there are environmental issues that are overplayed and then there are environmental issues than really really really matter. Global warming presents an existential threat to our planet–that is not just what lefty environmentalists are telling us–its what most of our best scientists are telling us. If we don’t act now we are in trouble. Big trouble. But that means we need to get the big things right (e.g., AB 32) and cut greenhouse gases and not focus on trivia that might make some people feel better but does almost nothing.
Our oceans are also being assaulted on many fronts: overfishing, pollutants like mercury which stay in the food chain for enormous spans of time and acidification–which is a direct consequence of increased CO2 levels. Acidification of our oceans essentially eats away at calcium skeletons of many species in our ocean as well as coral reefs.
Plastic bags also pose a serious threat to marine life and the form factor matters as well–not all plastic is alike. I’ve been fortunate to see a number of presentations by some pretty eminent people on this topic and became convinced its a real issue, not a pseudo-issue. Unfortunately I am not a marine biologist and cannot summon all the evidence at my fingertips, but I would suggest you heed the advice of ERM and Mr Rifkin who strike me as reasonable people even if I don’t always agree with them. And Rusty’s point concerns what some call “the law of unintended consequences” which states that sometimes environmental legislation makes things worse. (The most researched example is the Endangered Species Act which a number of studies show has lead to clear cutting of the red-cockeded woodpecker’s habitat.) Thicker reusable plastic bags might very well make things worse. It warrants study and thought, not ridicule.
I do think Davis could make a difference here, but we need to take the matter seriously and have a serious discussion. Unfortunately I see two side accusing the other of bad things.
So while I tend to agree with you on this issue (though only on the marine life issue–the other arguments are bogus imho), I’d respectfully suggest less preaching (even if it is Sunday) and more facts. And I’d suggest the same for the chorus of other folks chiming in. I’m on your side, so why do I feel that if I had a beer with all of you I’d feel dirty after.
“Then there is the Bob Dunning approach, which is basically a filibuster approach. This must be the only issue in Davis, as he has now written four straight columns on it and six columns in all since March 3.”
LOL, the pot calling the kettle black? I can count at least four pro-ban plastic bag articles you’ve written just recently.
As a righty environmentalist, I see things differently from Dr. Wu. My position is a lot like David’s: let’s ban plastic bags in Davis and present a model to other California cities and to the state. While I’m not an ornithologist it took less than one minute to come up with information on the Red-cockaded woodpecker more optimistic than Dr. Wu’s…
The birds “have increased in number range-wide in response to recovery and management programs, from an estimated 4,694 active clusters in 1993 to 6,105 in 2006. Management plans have been developed for federal and state agencies with recovery populations. On private lands, more than 40 percent of the known red-cockaded woodpeckers are benefiting from management approved by the Service through Memorandum of Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements, and Habitat Conservation Plans.”
http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/
Let us be a model… for participatory governance… put the proposed ban up to a vote of the people…
[quote]As a righty environmentalist, I see things differently from Dr. Wu. My position is a lot like David’s: let’s ban plastic bags in Davis and present a model to other California cities and to the state.[/quote]
This sounds exactly like my position–so why do I get the feeling you are so hostile? If you can’t even get along with those who agree with you, how are you going to persuade those who don’t agree?
Dear Dr. Wu: Hostile? I love birds and am exhilarated by what the Endangered Species Act has done for them. As well, the act is all that stands between extinction and a couple of fish species in the Delta. Same story for multiple other species. I am the opposite of hostile to a plastic bag ban for the reason that without much if any real cost to our way of life in Davis we can set an example of one means of reducing plastic pollution, which is a serious global problem.
dmg: “…this is as much about educating the public as it is about the fact that people tend to respond most when they disagree with a proposed policy as opposed to when they agree with one.”
Who needs the “education” here? Who has “tended to respond most when they disagreed with …a policy [of letting people decide for themselves]?
This article is replete w unsubstantiated, emotional, purported “facts”, but does not address the cogent points I have made in a previous article, to wit:
The Irish gov’t instituted a plastic bag tax. The result was an INCREASE in plastic usage (the sale of purchased plastic bags went up 700%) and brown bag usage (which is harsher on the environment than plastic bags). Why? Because the populace needed something to line their trash cans with; and something for disposal of wet garbage and dog poop. (The problem of undisposed dog poop also increased and became a problem in Ireland.) The plastic bags citizens had to now purchase contained more plastic in them than the disposable bags at the grocery store. Ironically, the amount of plastic in Ireland’s land fills actually INCREASED. So ultimately the tax on plastic bags in Ireland INCREASED PLASTIC USAGE which made the problem WORSE, not better. Also, the plastic bag ordinance in Washington, D.C. had a DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON THE LOW INCOME PEOPLE. Twice now I have cited this information, and twice the Vanguard has chosen to ignore this research bc it is an inconvenient truth.
Secondly, it turns out all the hype about killing marine life was a miquote from a 1987 Canadian study (I believe I have the country and year correct – you can check in the research I cited in the previous article on this subject), that noted it was plastic fishing nets that were the cause of the marine life dying. The report never said one word about plastic bags. In fact it is estimated that 1/3 of the pollution in the oceans is a result of illegal dumping off Merchant ships. And I agree w Rich Rifkin’s assessment – any plastic bag usage in Davis has nothing to do with plastic bags found in the Pacific Ocean. Another inconvenient truth.
Thirdly, it makes far more sense to encourage the development of truly biodegradable plastic; or recycle plastic at destination (at the land fill), if the use of plastic is such a concern. Another inconvenient truth.
Fourthly, as Don Shor has mentioned, other cities that have instituted plastic bag bans have incurred city staffing costs. That is an extra and unnecessary cost Davis cannot afford in the current abysmal economic climate.
dmg: “I’m not a particularly big fan of government intruding into the private lives of citizens….It is time for us to stop using products that are disposable.”
The Vanguard seems to have no problem having the gov’t insert itself into the private lives of citizens when it suits the Vanguard’s world view of things. Will the Vanguard feel the same when the gov’t intrudes and the intrustion DOES NOT AGREE w the Vanguard’s world view? In this case the Vanguard’s agenda is to stop the use of all “disposable” products. And what has the Vanguard decided is “disposable”? Plastic pens? Condoms? Plastic syringes? Plastic bottles? Paper products? Gasoline? Define what is “disposable”, and specifically what the Vanguard has decided is right and relevant to ban as “disposable” and why? And w all due respect, who made the Vanguard the arbiter of all things right and relevant anyway, so much so that all the rest of us “uneducated” “mulish” masses need “disposable bans” and “educating” to bring us into line with what is “right” and “relevant” and “proper”?
Bottom line – citizens of Davis have had the opportunity to use disposable cloth bags for some time. That choice is available to everyone in town. Citizens are free to ask for paper bags instead of plastic, and ask that they not be given plastic bags or ask for fewer plastic bags. Why must all citizens now be under an enforced plastic bag ban? Just bc a vocal minority who have personally anointed themselves the “plastic police” have arbitrarily decided all plastic bags should be banned – bc it makes this minority feel as if they have done something that in their view is “good” for the environment (when in fact they very well may make things worse?
I have a couple of observations that differ significantly from Rifkin.
1) I live just outside the city limits and see plastic bags in the ditches and blowing about the fields all the time.
2) I saw bear scat in the Tahoe National Forest consisting primarily of plastic grocery bags on 3 separate occassions last summer. There wasn’t a store within 25 miles of the scat locations. The bags probably didn’t come from Davis, but maybe they did. They definitely came from somewhere, though.
Bags are definitely polluting the environment from many, many sources. Increasing sustainability requires minor behavior modification on many fronts. I’m not prepared to assault the barricades over this issue, but I really don’t follow the outcry from the pro-baggers. What’s the big deal? I seem to have gotten along quite easily before plastic grocery bags became prevalent and I got along quite easily without them when I lived in Europe.
I have a special comment for the pro-baggers raising the personal liberty issue. You must be joking! Our privacy rights have been under massive governmental and business assault these past 20 years and you’re complaining about your right to carry around a plastic grocery bag? Gimme a break! Where’s the outcry against incessant monitoring and intrusion? Plastic bags are small potatoes if you’re concerned about the war being waged against personal liberty.
Here’s my lengthy response to Elaine
Elaine:
“This article is replete w unsubstantiated, emotional, purported “facts”, but does not address the cogent points I have made in a previous article, to wit: The Irish gov’t instituted a plastic bag tax. The result was an INCREASE in plastic usage (the sale of purchased plastic bags went up 700%) and brown bag usage (which is harsher on the environment than plastic bags). “
The cogent point you made appears untrue. At least according to the article that Don Shor posted, the ban in Ireland worked very well.
The point that you then make with regards to brown bag usage is actually a point addressed within the Davis ordinance which would carry a 25 cent surcharge on them. Even assuming a high cost of reusable bags, reusable bags become the dominant force very quickly.
You then used apmbags.com as though they were some sort of neutral site, but in fact, they are an INDUSTRY site for American Plastic Manufacturing, and act as though they are going to provide accurate and unbiased information on the impact of bags that will harm their industry. And you have the gall to accuse me of using unsubstantiated, emotional and purported facts. The points that you made are based on biased industry information that you failed to independently evaluate.
“Secondly, it turns out all the hype about killing marine life was a miquote from a 1987 Canadian study “
Except that there is a study out just in the past week that contradicts that point.
“Thirdly, it makes far more sense to encourage the development of truly biodegradable plastic”
As several people pointed out, truly biodegradable plastic is not the answer and not feasible right now anyway. There are simply better ways to carry out groceries and reusable bags makes for more sense.
“Fourthly, as Don Shor has mentioned, other cities that have instituted plastic bag bans have incurred city staffing costs. “
I’m unsure why that would have to be the case.
“The Vanguard seems to have no problem having the gov’t insert itself into the private lives of citizens when it suits the Vanguard’s world view of things. “
I laid out my worldview, that does not mean you have to agree with it.
“And what has the Vanguard decided is “disposable”? Plastic pens? Condoms? Plastic syringes? Plastic bottles? Paper products? Gasoline? “
This gets back to the point I made in the essay, just because there is other waste out there, does not invalidate efforts to get rid of this form of waste. And yes, at some point we are going to have to change the way we consume because we are destroying the planet that we rely on to live.
“Bottom line – citizens of Davis have had the opportunity to use disposable cloth bags for some time. That choice is available to everyone in town. “
All I’m advocating for is to at the very least make that choice part of a true market based system that will incorporate the costs of consumption into the model. Right now that is an external cost which means that we have to pay for clean up and environmental degradation separate from the cost of purchase of the product. There are lots of ways to do it.
[i]”Fourthly, as Don Shor has mentioned, other cities that have instituted plastic bag bans have incurred city staffing costs. ”
I’m unsure why that would have to be the case. [/i]
So it seems that would be the first question the city council would want staff to answer. You can’t implement any kind of policy change without staff costs, unless you’re not going to include any enforcement mechanism.
ERM
Great post, why don’t you send it to the Enterprise where it can get some real exposure instead of the only 40 or 50 people who might see it here. The public needs to see your valid points.
Rusty: a couple of thousand people typically read these articles, sometimes more than that.
Don: I can see a one-time cost to inform local merchants and stores of the new law, but I fail to see what that is going to include any kind of ongoing enforcement cost.
So if I give someone a plastic bag to carry out their fertilizer, I will be breaking the law but there will be no way for anyone to enforce it? Then you might as well just make it a voluntary policy.
[i]If I wrote on the same story for four straight days, I would hear the boo-birds pretty quickly.[/i]
Just for the record, this is your fourth column on this topic.
You would use one of the banned bags after the city told you not to? I don’t see you doing that. So I just don’t foresee that occurring that often. I guess if it did people could call code compliance just as they would for other such violations.
“Just for the record, this is your fourth column on this topic. “
But not four straight days devoted to only this issue.
I don’t know if anyone has touched on this yet but if the ban gets instituted I know I will probably need 10 to 12 cloth bags as I will need to keep some in both of my cars so I never get caught short and have to pay for a bag. As Mr Dunning has so astutely pointed out we will all be mixing meats, vegetables and all of our other groceries alot of the time in the same bag. With samonella and ecoli being a problem and just the fact that we’ll want to keep these bags clean because what we eat is going into them I’m thinking they’ll probably have to be washed at least once a month. Now 10 bags will equal a full load times 12 times a year equals alot of wasted water, electricty and harmful soap byproducts going into the environment. Has anyone done a study on the trade-offs and is it worth it?
I just thrown mine in with the rest of the load, I don’t do any additional loads because of it.
I reuse plastic bags from grocery stores for people who want to carry out their boxes of fertilizer, pesticides, and small bedding plants. I also provide trunk liners that are made of plastic for their larger plant and bag good purchases. Nursery products are wet and have soil on them.
Carrying this link over from your last thread:
[url]http://www.smmirror.com/?ajax#mode=single&view=31678[/url]
“City staff estimate the initial cost of additional staff and supplies and expenses to implementation of the ordinance will be $60,000. Kubani said this cost will be covered by savings in the current year budget. Funds for implement the ordinance in subsequent years will be requested in future budget cycles. For fiscal year 2011-2012, staff estimates an additional $115,000, and then $75,000 annually in subsequent years.”
The quote is from Dean Kubani, the “director of Santa Monica’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment.”
Maybe you could contact him to find out how the arrived at that figure.
Administration
Dean Kubani, Director
(310) 458-2213
dean.kubani@smgov.net
That seems like a lot, even if Santa Monica is larger than Davis.
I see your point with your business, and that would obviously have to be something that gets clarification.
“I just throw mine in with the rest of the load, I don’t do any additional loads because of it.”
Those bags are taking up space in your washer in which other clothes could’ve been washed. So in effect the cloth bags will add more loads to your wash. Now plastic bags don’t have to be washed.
Unless you have completely packed washers for every load, you are not adding loads. I don’t have twelve bags either, I use about four regularly that I rotate. That’s for a family of five.
Cloth grocery bags unsafe?
While reusable shopping bags are being aggressively promoted by some grocery chains as an eco-friendly initiative, new evidence now suggests that these bags may not be so friendly to your health.
The evidence – “A Microbiological Study of Reusable Grocery Bags” – is the first study of its kind in North America. It looked at whether reusable grocery bags become an active bacterial growth habitat and breeding ground for yeast and mold after persistent use and pose a public health risk.
Swab-testing of a scientifically-meaningful sample of both single-use and reusable grocery bags found unacceptably high levels of bacterial, yeast, mold and coliform counts in the reusable bags.
“The main risk is food poisoning”, said Dr. Richard Summerbell, Director of Research at Toronto-based Sporometrics and former Chief of Medical Mycology for the Ontario Ministry of Health (1991-2000), who evaluated the study results. “But other significant risks include skin infections such as bacterial boils, allergic reactions, triggering of asthma attacks, and ear infections.”
The swab testing was conducted March 7-April 10th, 2009 by two independent testing laboratories. The study found that 64% of the reusable bags were contaminated with some level of bacteria and close to 30% had elevated bacterial counts higher than the 500 CFU/mL considered safe for drinking water.
Further, 40% of the bags had yeast or mold, and some of the bags had an unacceptable presence of coliforms, faecal intestinal bacteria, when there should have been 0.
Some of the conclusions of the study are:
· The moist, dark, warm interior of a folded used reusable bag that has acquired a
small amount of water and trace food contamination is an ideal incubator for
bacteria. (see report)
· The strong presence of yeasts in some bags indicates the presence of water and
microbial growth substrate (food). The yeasts are thus a ‘canary in the mine’
confirming that microbes are growing in the bag.
· There is a potential for cross-contamination of food as the same reusable bags are
used on successive trips; and
· Check-out staff in stores may be transferring these microbes from reusable bag to
reusable bag as the contaminants get on their hands.
· In cases of food poisoning, experts are now going to have to test reusable bags in
addition to food products as the possible sources of contamination.
“A growing problem that is of high concern”, added Summerbell, “is possible exposure to the superbug called ‘community-acquired MRSA’ if the reusables are used to transport gym clothes or diapers in addition to groceries.” MRSA (methycillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) is a highly antibiotic-resistant form of a common infectious bacterium. It was first known mainly in hospital settings and demonstrated an ability to spread on contaminated surfaces, such as unwashed hands and items they touched. One worrisome factor about CA-MRSA is that unlike the original S. aureus, it appears to be able to invade skin that has not been wounded and appears to cause a transmissible disease. The bacterium may enter grocery bags if they are re-used to carry athletic equipment. This is concerning because over 50% of the reusables tested in this study were used as multi-purpose totes to carry everything from books to gym equipment and groceries.
The research showed single-use bags and first-use reusables to be the most sanitary and safest options with no evidence of bacterial or other contaminants.
“The presence of faecal material in some of the reusable bags is particularly concerning,” said Summerbell. “All meat products should be individually wrapped before being placed in a reusable bag to prevent against leakage. This should become a mandated safety standard across the entire grocery industry.”
The study has been sent to the federal Sub-Committee on Food Safety currently investigating the safety of Canada’s food system, federal and provincial health ministers and their deputies, as well as medical organizations across the country with a request for immediate action.
The research was conducted by Guelph Chemical Laboratories and Bodycote Testing Group of Montreal. Oversight and evaluative commentary on the results was undertaken by Toronto-based Sporometrics.
This was found at: http://guelphmercury.blogs.com/fuel/2009/05/cloth-grocery-bags-unsafe.html
I will agree if you don’t wash your bags it’s a potential problem.
Here’s an article where they say the bags need to be washed after every use.
Geez, how many loads a year would that translate into?
Wash Reusable Shopping Bags To Eliminate Cross Contamination
The problem is, reusable bags that aren’t washed before reuse are great harbingers of bacteria that can cause foodborne illnesses, like salmonella and E. coli. If reusable bags are not washed before reuse, cross-contamination can occur; that is, if you carry raw meat home in a (clean) reusable shopping bag but it’s not washed before the next person uses it, the juices from that raw meat, with possible contamination from bacteria like E. coli, can transfer to foods the next person carries in that day, such as raw vegetables or another batch of fresh meat. Therefore, contamination from the raw meat gets on the next foods put in the bag, and it may not be entirely possible to wash that contamination away; and that’s if you know the contamination is there. If you don’t know the contamination is there, you can’t do anything about it at all.
Therefore, it’s imperative that if you do use reusable shopping bags, you wash them after every use. That’s important for anyone, but it’s especially important if your household is host to people who have suppressed or less than optimally functioning immune systems, like those with HIV, very young children, or the elderly. And even healthy people can become very, very sick from exposure to these bacteria, with lasting health consequences such as kidney failure, other organ damage, or even death.
Now there’s NO WAY you can tell me that it’s better for the environment that I should have to wash my cloth grocery bags after every use versus using plastic bags.
The killer bug bags must explain why health costs in Germany and Luxembourg, where cloth bags are prevalent, are so much higher than in the US.
[quote]Now there’s NO WAY you can tell me that it’s better for the environment that I should have to wash my cloth grocery bags after every use versus using plastic bags. [/quote]
As I said, I just wash them with my laundry and it doesn’t add to the number of loads I have to do. So I think you have created a red herring argument here.
To dgm: Rather than uselessly go back and forth on this bc pro-environmentalists will never believe that what they propose may have bad unintended consequences, if the plastic bag ban is instituted in Davis, I’ll grocery shop in Woodland as is my right…
You can do that. I don’t think a lot of people will do that. Most grocery sales are non-taxed, so it’s not like it would lead to a huge revenue fall off for the city. It would add gas, time, and car maintenance costs to your purchases.
Don Shor: “I reuse plastic bags from grocery stores for people who want to carry out their boxes of fertilizer, pesticides, and small bedding plants. I also provide trunk liners that are made of plastic for their larger plant and bag good purchases. Nursery products are wet and have soil on them.”
Of course you do as a responsible store owner trying to do what is right for your customer. Without plastic bags from grocery stores, what am I supposed to put dog poop or wet/smelly garbage in – a reusable cloth bag? No, I’ll be expected to PURCHASE plastic bags at the grocery/pet store at a much higher cost and higher plastic content. And this is going to help the environment how?
rusty49: “Great post, why don’t you send it to the Enterprise where it can get some real exposure instead of the only 40 or 50 people who might see it here. The public needs to see your valid points.”
May or may not. What is frustrating to me, more than anything, is how arrogantly dismissive the pro-plastic bag banners are of anyone who has even the possiblity of a differing veiwpoint. Apparently we all must be stupid and uneducated… yet it is these very people who insisted we change from paper to plastic bags in the first place! Now they insist we need to go back to paper or disposable bags. Not once are they willing to allow for unintended consequences of their arbitrary decisions. These people are just not happy unless they can tell us what not to do…
dmg: “The cogent point you made appears untrue. At least according to the article that Don Shor posted, the ban in Ireland worked very well.”
No, it didn’t. And saying “it did work” over and over again is not going to make it so…
You have no published evidence other than from an industry site to refute the NY Times article.
University of Arizona and Loma Linda University in California study on reuseable grocery bags
http://uanews.org/node/32521
These bags may be friendly to the environment, but not necessarily to you, according to a new report by researchers at two universities.
Reusable grocery bags can be a breeding ground for dangerous food-borne bacteria and pose a serious risk to public health, according to a joint food-safety research report issued today by the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University in California.
The research study – which randomly tested reusable grocery bags carried by shoppers in Tucson, Los Angeles and San Francisco – also found consumers were almost completely unaware of the need to regularly wash their bags.
“Our findings suggest a serious threat to public health, especially from coliform bacteria including E. coli, which were detected in half of the bags sampled,” said Charles Gerba, a UA professor of soil, water and environmental science and co-author of the study. “Furthermore, consumers are alarmingly unaware of these risks and the critical need to sanitize their bags on a weekly basis.”
Bacteria levels found in reusable bags were significant enough to cause a wide range of serious health problems and even death. They are a particular danger for young children, who are especially vulnerable to food-borne illnesses, Gerba said.
The study also found that awareness of potential risks was very low. A full 97 percent of those interviewed never washed or bleached their reusable bags, said Gerba, adding that thorough washing kills nearly all bacteria that accumulate in reusable bags.
The report comes at a time when some members of the California Legislature, through Assembly Bill 1998, are seeking to promote increased consumer use of reusable bags by banning plastic bags from California stores.
“If this is the direction California wants to go, our policymakers should be prepared to address the ramifications for public health,” said co-author Ryan Sinclair, a professor at Loma Linda University’s School of Public Health.
The report noted that “a sudden or significant increase in use of reusable bags without a major public education campaign on how to reduce cross contamination would create the risk of significant adverse public health impact.”
Geographic factors also play a role, said Sinclair, who noted that contamination rates appeared to be higher in Los Angeles than in the two other locations – a phenomenon likely due to that region’s weather being more conducive to growth of bacteria in reusable bags.
The report, “Assessment of the Potential for Cross Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags,” offered the following policy recommendations for lawmakers, as well as tips for consumers who use reusable grocery bags:
•States should consider requiring printed instructions on reusable bags indicating they need to cleaned or bleached between uses.
•State and local governments should invest in a public education campaign to alert the public about risk and prevention.
•When using reusable bags, consumers should be careful to separate raw foods from other food products.
•Consumers should not use reusable food bags for other purposes such as carrying books or gym clothes.
•Consumers should not store meat or produce in the trunks of their cars because the higher temperature promotes growth of bacteria, which can contaminate reusable bags.
“As scientists, our focus was not on the relative merits of paper, plastic or reusable grocery bags,” Gerba said. “Our intent was purely to provide relevant data to better inform consumers and lawmakers about the public health dimensions that could arise from increased use of reusable bags. With this knowledge, people will be in a better position to protect their health and that of their children.”
About the report:
Field research for “Assessment of the Potential for Cross Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags” was conducted according to established scientific methodologies and best practices.
The samples tested included 84 actual consumer reusable bags (25 in Los Angeles, 25 in San Francisco, 34 in Tucson). All but four of those bags were made of woven polypropylene. New reusable bags and plastic bags were tested; none contained any contamination.
The American Chemistry Council underwrote the research project, which was conducted independently of the organization.
Those are good tips on how to mitigate potential health hazards.
DTB: “I have a special comment for the pro-baggers raising the personal liberty issue. You must be joking! Our privacy rights have been under massive governmental and business assault these past 20 years and you’re complaining about your right to carry around a plastic grocery bag? Gimme a break! Where’s the outcry against incessant monitoring and intrusion? Plastic bags are small potatoes if you’re concerned about the war being waged against personal liberty.”
With all due respect, are you telling me that you do not line your trash cans with plastic bags? You do not put wet trash in plastic bags? You do not place dog poop in plastic bags if you have a dog? Without plastic grocery bags, I will now have to buy plastic bags for these purposes (which has a disproportionate impact on low income), and ironically the purchased plastic bags have a higher plastic content than the grocery bags. More plastic ends up in landfills, not less.
“If this is the direction California wants to go, our policymakers should be prepared to address the ramifications for public health,” said co-author Ryan Sinclair, a professor at Loma Linda University’s School of Public Health.
The report noted that “a sudden or significant increase in use of reusable bags without a major public education campaign on how to reduce cross contamination would create the risk of significant adverse public health impact.”
Is this the direction that the City of Davis wants to go? What will the costs be of educating all the citizens of Davis about the possible health risks of using unwashed reuseable grocery bags?
Most of these are common sense things – like don’t leave meat in your trunk?
dmg: “You have no published evidence other than from an industry site to refute the NY Times article.”
What is “published evidence”? And doesn’t the same standard, whatever that is, apply to you? Where is your “published evidence” that a ban on plastic grocery bags will decrease the number of bags that end up in the Pacific Ocean for starters? Or will decrease the amount of plastic that ends up in the Davis landfill? Or will not significantly increase the number of paper bags used in the city? Or…
dmg: “Most of these are common sense things – like don’t leave meat in your trunk?”
LOL Like it was common sense that we go from paper bags to plastic bags?
For the record: I have not changed my views on this topic. But I am tired of it. There are far more serious problems to worry about or to think about. Unless someone says I have Adonis DNA and Tiger’s Blood ([url]http://digital.davisenterprise.com/opinion/letters/heres-how-to-define-rifkin/[/url]), I will opt out of the rest of this thread for the time being.
I am NOT a “pro-bagger”… (nor, a tea-bagger)… I am offended by the arrogance of those who have a world view that conflicts with others, who would try to impose their will on the others by getting 3 votes from a group who meets on every other Tuesday night. I choose to use my “environmentally correct” reusable bags, 98% of the time. This is, ostensibly, a pro-choice city.
Random thoughts:
1. Mr Rifkin is wrong; there is plastic bag problem in Davis. I walk my dog around Nugget fields every day, and it is a rare day when I don’t pick up at least 2 plastic bags.
2. After reading Dunning’s column today, I am less supportive of this particular proposed ordinance although I support the concept in general. It is unnecessarily onerous for the stores and the shoppers. Specifically, I don’t get the twenty-five cent mandated charge for a PAPER bag. How can you require a specific price for an article a merchant is selling?
Rather than a law, which of course requires police action if it is not being followed, why not have a tax/fee on PLASTIC bags that goes to the city’s general fund? That way, we could start funding the firemen’s retirement, but that is another issue.
(David, thanks for making this forum available. It is a hoot!)
So what we have here is:
1. Studies that show the cloth bags can be dangerous for your health
2. Studies that show that cloth bags need to be washed or bleached after every use thereby in my opinion cancelling out any environmental good done by banning plastic bags.
3. The costs to the city of implementing the ban and the costs of educating the public of the possible hazards of using the reuseable bags
[i]”…why not have a tax/fee on PLASTIC bags that goes to the city’s general fund?”[/i]
To reiterate from the previous thread on this topic, it seems that would be considered a tax and would require a 2/3 vote of the public. At least, that is what they concluded in Santa Monica.
Further proof that:…”if it is irrelevant, irreverent, or inconsequential, Davis is FOR it!”…
So cloth bags are now PC in Davis, and plastic/paper bags are not*. ____
Earlier I learned that pot smoke is PC in Davis, and tobacco smoke is not. Hopefully, if a Davis citizen can survive three politically correct left turns, he or she will have ultimately turned right and can head away from all of this stupidity.
Another perspective, from someone trained in food safety:
[url]http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/138654/09/05/21/are-reusable-bags-really-food-safety-concern[/url]
This debate has taken a different direction but here are some academic peer reviewed studies of the impact of plastic marine debris on marine wildlife. There is a large amount of evidence that this is harmful:
Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment
David W. Laista
aMarine Mammal Commission, 1625 1 St., N. W., Washington, D.C. 20006, USA
In the past thirty years, the use of plastics and other synthetic materials has expanded at a rapid pace. As new uses for these materials have been developed, applied, and made available to more people, the quantity of plastic debris entering the marine environment has undergone a corresponding increase. Many of these products degrade very slowly. Those that are buoyant remain suspended at the sea surface for a long time, and those that are not, sink and remain on the bottom for years or even decades. The accumulating debris poses increasingly significant threats to marine mammals, seabirds, turtles, fish, and crustaceans. The threats are straightforward and primarily mechanical. Individual animals may become entangled in loops or openings of floating or submerged debrijs or they may ingest plastic materials. Animals that become entangled may drown, have their ability to catch food or avoid predators impaired, or incur wounds from abrasive or cutting action of attached debris. Ingested plastics may block digestive tracts, damage stomach linings, or lessen feeding drives. The deceptively simple nature of the threat, the perceived abundance of marine life, and the size of the oceans have, until recently, caused resource managers to overlook or dismiss the proliferation of potentially harmful plastic debris as being insignificant. However, developing information suggests that the mechanical effects of these materials affect many marine species in many ocean areas, and that these effects justify recognition of persistent plastic debris as a major form of ocean pollution.
The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review
José G. B. Derraik,
Ecology and Health Research Centre, Department of Public Health,Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, P.O. Box 7343, Wellington, New Zealand
Abstract
The deleterious effects of plastic debris on the marine environment were reviewed by bringing together most of the literature published so far on the topic. A large number of marine species is known to be harmed and/or killed by plastic debris, which could jeopardize their survival, especially since many are already endangered by other forms of anthropogenic activities. Marine animals are mostly affected Other less known threats include the use of plastic debris by “invader” species and the absorption of polychlorinated biphenyls from ingested plastics. Less conspicuous forms, such as plastic pellets and “scrubbers” are also hazardous. To address the problem of plastic debris in the oceans is a difficult task, and a variety of approaches are urgently required. Some of the ways to mitigate the problem are discussed.
I agree with the substance of Rich’s comment that, “There are far more serious problems to worry about or to think about.” Nevertheless, I think this thread does have value. It shows how the proponents and detractors talk right past each other without being swayed when one side or the other points out a contradiction, error in logic, or inconvenient fact. Unfortunately, this is how we also debate the “more serious problems”.
So, as I have read the plastic bag ordinance thread here, over the last few days, I have been struck by the volatile, almost knee jerk reactionary, hostility toward any kind of regulation. These commenters sound defensive as they parrot the arguments proffered by the manufacturers who profit from disposability. You might think we were being asked to give up running water or electricity. To those of us who have used cloth grocery bags or baskets in our vehicles to transport our goods, for years, it seems laughable to see the reaction of folks being asked to make one small sacrifice away from total convenience, in the name of planetary survival.
What is being suggested is that the city with the second highest level of education in the U.S.,lead the charge, set an example, for less affluent, less well informed citizens across the country.
In another affluent, well educated county, Marin, I founded Survival Inc., the largest non-profit recycling project in the country, back in 1970 (immediately following the historic San Francisco Bay Oil Spill) Folks told me that I was nuts, that you can’t teach people to care where their garbage ends up. Forty years later we have curbside recycling all over this state. California leads the nation in this area.
Small changes frequently have huge results. Interestingly, one spin off of the Survival project was the delivery of 25,000 recycler’s votes to Barbara Boxers campaign for the Marin County Board of Supervisors, based on her strong environmental ethos. Forty years later Barbara is the seventh most powerful woman on the planet and has the best environmental voting record in Congress. She has single-handedly undone much of the damage promulgated by the disastrous Bush years.
Plastic bags are a very small part of a really big problem we all face. And they are one small change we can make in our carbon heavy lifestyles that will lead to many, many, more changes, that we all know are necessary, if our children are going to live on a planet where they can hope to die of old age.
Solid argument, Roger. What about the concern of some of the pro-baggers that they reuse the plastic shopping bags for other purposes? If PSBs are banned, the reusers will have to purchase other types of plastic bags for these other purposes. The net impact on the environment will be the same. Frankly, this concern seems off the mark to me. I don’t have the statistics, but it seems to me that a very small portion of PSBs are ever reused. Does anyone have the statistics?
Elaine:
[quote]dmg: “You have no published evidence other than from an industry site to refute the NY Times article.”
What is “published evidence”?[/quote]
You made a very specific claim about Ireland. That claim was refuted by the NYT article. You claim that article is wrong. But you have no evidence to substantiate that claim.
Mr. Rusty writes: “So what we have here is:
1. Studies that show the cloth bags can be dangerous for your health”
Yes if you leave meat in your car or fail to wash your bags, it is a potential problem.
“2. Studies that show that cloth bags need to be washed or bleached after every use thereby in my opinion cancelling out any environmental good done by banning plastic bags.”
Which I refuted several times and you ignored. You will not have to wash any additional loads than you do now.
“3. The costs to the city of implementing the ban and the costs of educating the public of the possible hazards of using the reuseable bags”
This is something that we need to explore more. On the surface, the costs that were listed for Santa Monica seem unduly high and I don’t believe we will have to pay anywhere near that amount.
But we have also not factored in the clean up costs or the byproduct of waste costs to current policies.
“[b]More Public Education Clearly Needed on Plastic Bags Issue[/b]” sez the [u]Vanguard[/u]. After being enlightened for a week, I’ve learned more about the “reusable bag” part of the issue. Although they’re the solution, I’m getting nervous.
I’ve just checked out our nearly 20 reusables. Somewhat terrified upon seeing the stuff inside, I immediately tossed our favorites (the most reusable, canvas bags that we’ve had for years) into the machine and am waiting until the “approved” time to start the wash. Yuk!
That leaves me with a wide variety of others–some “cold pacs” covered in plastic, some that appear too flimsy to survive very many washes, some freebies but none that cost more than $3. Most that are designed for grocery shopping incorporate a bottom panel of dreaded plastic (like Whole Foods) or coated cardboard to keep the sides from breaking glass containers.
I fairly sure that all have spend trunk time in the warm California sun as we transported our stuff from Nugget and Long’s over the years. It’s hard to imagine the thickness of the bacterial coating (not to mention the produce chemical residue accumulations) by now. Whew, makes me sick just to think what we’ve been living with since my wife convinced me to reduce our use of plastic and paper bags.
Why do you keep providing a forum for public education on this issue? I don’t think I can handle the truth!
David get a life.
In my opinion we’ve shown that the plastic bag ban will create more problems than any good that might come from it. Forcing people to go to reuseable bags or pay a fee will create other problems. For safety’s sake studies have shown that the bags will have to be washed at least once a week to alleviate any health concerns. Think of all the extra water being wasted, all the electricity it will take and all of the extra soap byproducts and bleach going into our ecosystem. There are also studies that show that many of these reusable bags contain lead.
Even Reusable Bags Carry Environmental RiskBy MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
Published: November 14, 2010
They dangle from the arms of many New Yorkers, a nearly ubiquitous emblem of empathy with the environment: synthetic, reusable grocery bags, another must-have accessory for the socially conscious.
Hiroko Masuike for The New York Times
Shelley Kempner of Queens, who was shopping at Fairway on the Upper West Side on Sunday, said she liked “the idea of not putting more plastic into the environment.”
But the bags, hot items at upscale markets, may be on the verge of a glacier-size public relations problem: similar bags outside the city have been found to contain lead.
“They say plastic bags are bad; now they say these are bad. What’s worse?” asked Jen Bluestein, who was walking out of Trader Joe’s on the Upper West Side with a reusable bag under her arm on Sunday.
“Green is a trend and people go with trends,” Ms. Bluestein said. “People get them as fashion statements and they have, like, 50 of them. I don’t think people know the real facts.”
There is no evidence that these bags pose an immediate threat to the public, and none of the bags sold by New York City’s best-known grocery stores have been implicated. But reports from around the country have trickled in recently about reusable bags, mostly made in China, that contained potentially unsafe levels of lead. The offending bags were identified at several stores, including some CVS pharmacies; the Rochester-based Wegman’s grocery chain recalled thousands of its bags, made of recycled plastic, in September.
Concerns have proliferated so much that Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, sent a letter on Sunday to the Food and Drug Administration, urging the agency to investigate the issue.
Reusable bags have maintained their popularity even amid charges that they become hothouses for bacteria. The recent studies, none of which were conducted by the government, found that the lead in some bags would pose a long-term risk of seeping into groundwater after disposal; over time, however, paint from the bag could flake off and come into contact with food.
Climate-change-conscious shoppers at one of Manhattan’s culinary meccas on Sunday said they were chagrined that yet another good intention had gone awry.
“Bummer! We’re still not doing the right thing,” said Shelley Kempner of Queens, who was looking over the produce at Fairway on Broadway at West 74th Street. She prefers a reusable bag, she said, because she “likes the idea of not putting more plastic into the environment.”
Told of the recent lead findings, Ms. Kempner sighed — “It’s still not good enough” — and wondered if she would have to switch to something else. “Are we going to have to start using string?” she asked.
“There’s always something wrong with everything,” said Barry Lebost, standing outside the Trader Joe’s on West 72nd Street with four reusable bags filled with groceries.
But Mr. Lebost, an alternative energy consultant, did not appear fazed by the revelations of lead. He said his home, in Gardiner, N.Y., had been outfitted with a hydroelectric plant that saved the energy equivalent of 200 plastic bags a day. “It may not be a total solution, but this is a step in the right direction,” he said of the suddenly suspect bags at his feet. “The fluorescent bulbs we have now, they’re no good because they have mercury in them. You look at it as a transition.”
But many shoppers said they would continue relying on the bags until more information came out. The bags are usable for years, they said, and any long-term effects of lead may be offset by the environmental benefits gained by not using regular plastic bags.
“I wasn’t planning on throwing it out, so that’s a positive thing,” said Catherine Paykin, standing by the meat counter at Fairway. “As long as I use it and don’t throw it away, that will be my plan.”
Mr. Schumer’s family also shops at Fairway. A spokesman for the senator said the family planned to bring the issue to the attention of the store to see if the bags there were affected.
dmg: “You then used apmbags.com as though they were some sort of neutral site, but in fact, they are an INDUSTRY site for American Plastic Manufacturing, and act as though they are going to provide accurate and unbiased information on the impact of bags that will harm their industry. And you have the gall to accuse me of using unsubstantiated, emotional and purported facts. The points that you made are based on biased industry information that you failed to independently evaluate.”
I’m assuming what you are saying is that only your sources of information count, and anyone’s sources who oppose your view don’t?
To Dr. Wu: As for plastics in the ocean, most of it comes from PLASTIC FISHING NETS is my understanding from what I have read, NOT PLASTIC DISPOSABLE GROCERY BAGS FROM DAVIS. Furthermore, according the the National Academy of Sciences (I believe that is the correct name), a third of all the ocean’s pollution is estimated to come from illegal dumping off merchant ships.
DTB: “Solid argument, Roger. What about the concern of some of the pro-baggers that they reuse the plastic shopping bags for other purposes? If PSBs are banned, the reusers will have to purchase other types of plastic bags for these other purposes. The net impact on the environment will be the same. Frankly, this concern seems off the mark to me. I don’t have the statistics, but it seems to me that a very small portion of PSBs are ever reused. Does anyone have the statistics?”
In Ireland, when a 15% tax was added to disposable plastic bags handed out at stores, there was a 700% increase in the purchase of plastic bags to line trash cans, dispose of wet garbage and dog poop. There was also an increase (don’t know the percentage) of dog poop left to molder in the sun. The net effect of all this, bc purchased bags have more plastic than the diposable kind, was to INCREASE the amount of plastics that went into Ireland’s land fill.
In CA, where there have been plastic bag bans, there has been a tremendous increase in the use of paper bags. And it turns out paper bags kill trees, and use more energy to be produced and recycled than plastic bags.
Furthermore, a tax or ban disproportionately effects the poor, as it did in Washington, D.C.
So how does a plastic bag ban solve anything? It just makes matters worse… It would seem the better approach, if one really wants to address the perceived problem of plastic bag pollution is w INCENTIVES as follows:
1) Encourage recycling – by recyclying at destination (the land fill)
2) Encourage recycling – by rebating a small amount of money per so many bags, as we do for aluminum cans
3) Encourage recycling – by having groups such as school groups and the like go around asking for used plastic bags from folks as a way to raise money (turning them in to obtain rebates)
4) Encourage recycling – by encouraging the development of truly biodegradable “plastic” bags
WHY IS THE NEGATIVE APPROACH NECESSARY – A PLASTIC BAG BAN, RATHER THAN A POSITIVE APPROACH – REBATE INCENTIVE TO RECYCLE?
dmg: “You made a very specific claim about Ireland. That claim was refuted by the NYT article. You claim that article is wrong. But you have no evidence to substantiate that claim.”
1) NYT is hardly a bastion of unbiased “evidence” – didn’t they have to fire a reporter who made stuff up?
2) I have no evidence you are would ever be willing to believe if it does not agree w your view.
I actually believe plastic pollution is a problem, I just believe in different ways of solving the problem… a plastic bag ban IMHO does not solve anything and may create a bigger problem than before. Remember, it was the envioronmentalists that insisted we use plastic instead of paper bags bc it would be better for the environment. Are you now going to tell me those environmentalists were right?
DT Businessman,
Just came back and found your comment. Personally, I use a pooper scooper to clean up the used dog food. From there, this valuable nutrient goes into a double walled rotating composter, along with chicken manure, lawn clippings, kitchen scraps, leaves etc,etc. After cycling through two more compost bins, where it is turned to avoid anaerobic conditions, it goes into my vegetable garden.
My family has never become ill from eating fresh produce,produced with composted used dog food. Neither have they gotten sick from bringing my grocerys home in a cloth bag. They have something called an immune system that seems to take care of those problems. It amazes me that folks fall for this nonsensical garbage being promoted by bag manufacturers.I think it is a rationalization for failure to take the slightly inconvenient steps necessary to provide their children and grandchildren a planet that will support them. To me it’s just laziness.
My meat, by the way doesn’t come from the grocery store, wrapped in plastic. It comes from Montana, wrapped in hide. And we have never gotten sick from eating that either!
I strongly discourage the use of dog or cat manure in any gardening practice. [url]http://www.extension.umn.edu/yardandgarden/ygbriefs/h238manure-dog-cat.html[/url]
Mr Shor, I was thinking the same thing but:
“They have something called an immune system that seems to take care of those problems”
My experience with composting dog poop: You can do it, if you follow a few guidelines:
1. never mix the dog poop with other compostables. It should be in it’s own, partially buried, bottomless container. At the base of the hole you need to place a couple of inches of gravel over your soil;
2. to get the composting process started, you need to mix in some septic starter and you need to keep in moist, as with any compost; and
3. just let that poop-compost work its way throgh the gravel into your soil (where you placed the container). Don’t dig it out and mix it with plants. It will spread disease.
My current dog, Truman, never poops in my backyard. He just holds it until we go out for walks. Hence the great advantage of all those plastic grocery bags. However, my last dog, Moxie, produced a lot of yard poop, and I started composting it (the way I describe above) because I didn’t like my garbage cans to stink.
Note: since the DWR changed to its new, larger, better sealed cans, I probably would not compost the dog waste if I had a source. It’s too much hassle for too little benefit.
I do, nonetheless, compost all of our kitchen waste, leaves, small sticks, grass cuttings and so on. Unfortunately, it has never made financial sense to me to buy my own mulcher/grinder, so I just leave large cuttings out on the street for Davis Waste Removal. They take those green piles and turn them into compost.
“I’m assuming what you are saying is that only your sources of information count, and anyone’s sources who oppose your view don’t?”
I’m saying that your source of information is an industry page put there intentionally to defend the use of plastics and therefore we cannot take the claims at face value.
“1) NYT is hardly a bastion of unbiased “evidence” – didn’t they have to fire a reporter who made stuff up?”
Key point you seem to be missing: they fired them when it came out.
“2) I have no evidence you are would ever be willing to believe if it does not agree w your view.”
I’ve changed my view on things quite frequently based on new or additional information.
dmg: “I’m saying that your source of information is an industry page put there intentionally to defend the use of plastics and therefore we cannot take the claims at face value.”
I’m saying that your source of information is a liberal leaning pro-environmentalist newspaper bought and paid for by the Democratic Party with a poor track record for disseminating the truth to defend the use of its highly biased information and therefore we cannot take the claims at face value.
“I’m saying that your source of information is a liberal leaning pro-environmentalist newspaper bought and paid for by the Democratic Party with a poor track record for disseminating the truth to defend the use of its highly biased information and therefore we cannot take the claims at face value.”
He knows that, he just won’t be sincere and admit it.
Hey Don,
Your cautionary note about using composted used dog food in the vegetable garden brought back memories of gastrointestinal upsets I experienced while living in Nice, France a few years ago. My wife was busy doing research and I was goofing off with my young kids. One of our favorite entertainments was to go swimming/snorkeling in the Mediterranean Sea on warm afternoons. Invariably, after these adventures we would experience a slight gastrointestinal upset over the next couple of days. It finally sunk through my thick skull that Nice has about 400,000 little ankle biter dogs, most of which defecate on the streets and sidewalks. The french are notorious for not picking up after their pets. So all that used dog food washes directly from the gutters into the Med. I should have known there was a reason why the waves had [b]brown[/b] caps!
Of note was the fact that none of the locals, who swam there regularly, ever got sick. And after a couple of months, neither did I. The human immune system is an amazing machine. Each us carry more than five pounds of “friendly” bacteria around in our gut. Of course, in China, they compost human feces and use it to grow food for human consumption.
When My wife gets home I’ll try to get her to find me the link to a peer reviewed scientific paper written by my sister in law, a USDA soil scientist from Fairbanks Alaska, on the benefits and technology of composting pet wastes.
There is a lot of recent research that indicates a link between epidemic asthma in American children and the sterility in which they live. The theory is that a sterile upbringing (too much Lysol, no dirt eating), creates an underdeveloped immune system.
It’s amazing what passes for political discussion on this blog. I love it!
Having dinner at one of these Davis tree huggers houses takes on a whole new meaning when you say “pass the organic salad”.
Yuck
Roger, I think you have me confused with one of the other posters. I have stated in this forum as well as the front page of the Enterprise that I’m in favor of the ban. Maybe composting the dog poop isn’t such a good idea afterall.
DT Businessman,
You posted this:
03/13/11 – 01:16 PM
…
Solid argument, Roger. What about the concern of some of the pro-baggers that they reuse the plastic shopping bags for other purposes? If PSBs are banned, the reusers will have to purchase other types of plastic bags for these other purposes. The net impact on the environment will be the same. Frankly, this concern seems off the mark to me. I don’t have the statistics, but it seems to me that a very small portion of PSBs are ever reused. Does anyone have the statistics?
My point (perhaps not made very clearly), was that we got along just fine before we had recycled plastic grocery bags with which to pick up used dog food. I’m sure we are all bright enough to keep getting the job accomplished without the disposable bags that are so wasteful. My wife suggests picking up the Dog waste with a compostable product, like newsprint, and then just throwing the whole thing into the composter.
I seriously doubt if one in a thousand disposable plastic garbage bags in this country ever get used to pick up Dog waste. The reasoning is just a ploy by the plastic disposable industry to make otherwise intelligent folks believe that they simply can not live without continuing to consume these wasteful products.
Below is a link to a manual written by my sister in law, a soil scientist with the USDA Soil conservation service in Fairbanks AK.on how to compost dog waste, even in cold climates like interior Alaska.
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/AK/…/dogwastecomposting2.pdf
…
I have never had any problem with getting my compost hot enough to thoroughly kill off any parasite eggs. She also makes the point that many more parasite problems are contracted from petting dogs and then eating without first cleansing ones hands than arise from Dog Waste composting. Of course, the best way to avoid injesting parasites from a dog is to keep the dog parasite free with proper preventative care of the animal.
Have a happy change of lifestyle, all you bag wasters.
DTB: “I seriously doubt if one in a thousand disposable plastic garbage bags in this country ever get used to pick up Dog waste.”
My personal experience is that I used every single plastic bag from grocery store to either clean up dog poop or line trash cans for dispose of wet garbage, e.g. chicken carcases. Ireland found a 700% increase in the purchase of plastic bags for these purposes when they placed a tax on what had been free disposable plastic bags.
Elaine,
I,m glad you have figured out how to get at least one more use out of disposable plastic grocery bags. Those of us in Davis who remove tons of perfectly good food that is disposed of by grocery chains, in order to feed the poor, consistently find huge quantitys of plastic bags that were returned by shoppers who were naive enough to think that the grocery chains actually recycle them. The grocery chains want people to keep using those bags because it increases their profits. So they fraudulently advertise to consumers that the bags will be recycled
Personally, I don’t need plastic bags to pick up my dogs used food, and my “wet garbage” goes into a pail in the kitchen and thence into my composting system. Last week I stripped a local lemon tree that was about to loose it’s crop to frost damage. I delivered most of the fruit to the check in at Civic Pool for my fellow DAM swimmers to enjoy. I was able to provide these folks with the plastic bags from my Sac Bee delivery to containerize their lemons. Even though I use cloth grocery bags, I still have more plastic bags hanging around than I know what to do with.
[/Users/rogerbockrath/Desk][/url]