City staff, citing the status of state legislation as well as concerns from the business community, recommended the council delay final policy direction at this time, until the results are known of the currently active state legislation for a statewide ban on the use of single-use carry-out bags.
“Thereafter, staff would return to City Council seeking final City policy direction,” the consent item’s staff report advised.
The mayor added that this multifaceted approach would put the plastic bag discussion into a somewhat broader context.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk had previously suggested. “It makes sense at this point that we table the discussion of this ordinance at least at the council level and task the NRC at its next meeting in September to come up with its priorities and a schedule for the coming year.”
As Mayor Krovoza noted, staff recommended waiting until the legislation settles down, “but that may settle down in two weeks.”
“We are suggesting the staff recommendation,” the staff said, “let the state legislation play out, as soon as we have clarity on what the state policy is, come straight back to council and assess you of the state policy and seek direction on the process. I assume at that point we go back to the NRC with your direction on proceeding.”
City Attorney Harriet Steiner noted that the Natural Resources Commission’s plan is draftable, but was still in need of environmental review. The city would have to do a “low-grade” CEQA process on it.
There are 49 jurisdictions in California that have acted on it, with a CEQA process and a local ban.
“A lot of them have gotten active opposition from the industry,” Ms. Steiner said.
“Just so we’re clear [why] we’re here tonight is because of the impending state legislative action that will tell us what the direction would be,” staff said. “So if we’re before you with our own ordinance that would be effected by whether or not there’s a state legislative policy that we have to follow.”
Staff’s reasoning was therefore find out what the state policy will be, and act accordingly. However, a number of other jurisdictions have acted without waiting for state direction.
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs noted both that he had not seen the specific ordinance yet, as well as the fact that a number of communities have come up with alternatives to outright bans of plastic bags, such as fees, and therefore suggested that the council come up with a range of alternatives for consideration in addition to a ban.
“AB 298 is the plastic bag ban bill,” Councilmember Frerichs said.
Assemblymember Brownley has introduced AB 298, co-authored with Assemblymembers Wes Chesbro, Roger Dickinson, Jared Huffman and Fiona Ma. The Senate co-authors are Senators Kevin De Leon and Noreen Evan.
According to information in the Legislative Digest: “This bill would prohibit a manufacturer from selling or distributing a reusable bag, as defined, in this state if the bag is designed or intended to be sold or distributed to a store’s customers, unless the guidelines for the cleaning and disinfection of the bag are printed on the bag or on a tag attached to the bag.”
Back in 2010, Julia Brownley, an Assemblymember from Santa Monica, sponsored a bill that failed in the Senate, 21 against, to 14 in favor. One of those opposing it was Davis’ Senator Lois Wolk.
“This is a sad day for California,” Assemblywoman Brownley said. “Communities across the state were waiting for the state to adopt a uniform, statewide ban on single-use bags before they adopt their own ordinances. The state failed them. But, this is an environmental movement that won’t be stopped, even by big-money interests like the American Chemistry Council. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when consumers bring their own bags and become good stewards of the environment.”
“There does not seem like there’s enough votes to get it through the process this year,” Councilmember Frerichs noted, as he added that the legislative calendar ends on August 31.
Alan Pryor, a member of the NRC and a chief proponent of the ban, told the council he was stunned to learn of the decision.
“I have often complained that past elected leaders of Davis never lost an opportunity to proclaim from the dais their environmental bona fides,” he said in a comment on the Vanguard this week. “The truth, however, is that our City has become an across-the-board also-ran in implementing progressive, environmental policies.”
He added, “As in the case of building efficiency standards, waste diversion goals, climate action plans, and landscaping water conservation standards, Davis has simply waited until the State imposed a law and then we blindly followed it like a dog on a leash. But yet our leaders have simultaneously brashly proclaimed ourselves environmental leaders even though we only meekly follow the state’s minimum environmental mandates in most cases.”
“Why has Davis lagged so far behind so many other communities in so many areas?” Mr. Pryor asked. “I think Councilmember Frerichs hit it on the head when he spoke about his views on Integrated Pest Management in Davis in the Sierra Club questionnaire completed by all candidates before the last election.”
He added, “In that questionnaire he discussed how the City of Arcata transformed its IPM program from non-existence to a successful showcase almost overnight. How did they do it? According to Councilmember Frerichs, “The real key in getting all the new changes implemented in Arcata? All the long-time city staff (that was resistant to innovative changes), retired. New city staff was much more amenable to trying out new ideas.”
Council voted unanimously to bring the issue back up when state direction is more clear – however, it seems more likely that state direction will not be clear at that point.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There’s a simple solution to this, let the do-gooders have their plastic bag ban BUT LET STORES GIVE OUT FREE PAPER BAGS. If this is truly about getting rid of plastic bags then this should make the bag banners happy.
Since what this is truly about is minimization of waste, why not charge for every bag provided by the store. A set fee for every bag. No fee if you provide your own bag. That preserves choice , and prevents those of us who do not favor single use bags from indirectly subsidizing those who prefer single use ? The money raised in this fashion could be used against the cost of the bags and environmental clean up.
To those who feel that this is all about some leftist wanting to tell others what to do, I disagree. I am no more interested in telling others what type of bag to use, than I am in having some politician decide what medically safe and legal procedure my patients can choose.
Most of the communities banning plastic bags are coastal cities. So, let’s wait until global warming raises the sea level and moves the shoreline closer before we do the same. Until then, VIVA LA BOLSTA DE PLASTICO!
Given the disease carrying potential of cloth reusable bags this issue requires more consideration.
I suspect you did not read Medwoman’s assessment of that issue in the other story from a few days ago. I think it’s an overblown concern.
[quote]He added, “In that questionnaire he discussed how the City of Arcata transformed its IPM program from non-existence to a successful showcase almost overnight. How did they do it? According to Councilmember Frerichs, “The real key in getting all the new changes implemented in Arcata? All the long-time city staff (that was resistant to innovative changes), retired. New city staff was much more amenable to trying out new ideas.”[/quote]
Is it being suggested to fire “old” city staff and bring on “new innovative” city staff to implement change? I’m assuming this was just an interesting observation by Council member Frerichs. The problem here is that there are countervailing interests that need to be considered…
[quote]I suspect you did not read Medwoman’s assessment of that issue in the other story from a few days ago. I think it’s an overblown concern.[/quote]
I cited 3 different sources, all indicating reusable bags need to be washed, bc they can carry food borne diseases, to which comment medwoman never responded. It is quite clear that never-used plastic bags distributed at stores are more sanitary than reusable bags.
[quote]Since what this is truly about is minimization of waste, why not charge for every bag provided by the store. A set fee for every bag. No fee if you provide your own bag. That preserves choice , and prevents those of us who do not favor single use bags from indirectly subsidizing those who prefer single use ? The money raised in this fashion could be used against the cost of the bags and environmental clean up. [/quote]
A set fee for every bag means the low income will get stuck with less sanitary reusable bags that they must wash regularly, while the wealthy can just keep doing what they’ve always done – use plastic bags. Make no mistake, this will be a heavier burden on low income…
It’s also clear using latex gloves to open doors is more sanitary as well that does not mean we should use them.
“A set fee for every bag means the low income “
As I understand it, there is already a set fee.
Again, this is not a “[i]plastic bag ban[/i].” It is a proposal to ban plastic bags and regulate paper bags.
I’m not following Don…
medwoman wrote:
> Since what this is truly about is minimization of waste,
> why not charge for every bag provided by the store.
> A set fee for every bag. No fee if you provide your own bag.
> That preserves choice , and prevents those of us who do not
> favor single use bags from indirectly subsidizing those who
> prefer single use ?
If you want to really preserve choice (I’ve always said I’m pro choice on everything) you will let each business decide what they want to do.
I’m probably the only guy under 60 that actually carries a handkerchief in my pocket but it has never occurred to me to call Squaw Valley and ask for a discount on my lift ticket since I am “subsidizing those skiers who prefer to use the single use Kleenex they have at every lift line”.
> To those who feel that this is all about some leftist
> wanting to tell others what to do, I disagree. I am no
> more interested in telling others what type of bag to use,
> than I am in having some politician decide what medically
> safe and legal procedure my patients can choose.
Anyone that wants a “law” telling people what kind of bag to use is “interested in telling others what type of bag to use”. Unfortunately it is not “leftist” to want to tell others what to do, since as you noted people on the “right” have no problem telling people what medical procedures they can choose.
I have no desire to tell others what to do as far as the plastic bag ban issue goes. If you want to take your reuseable bags to the store then go for it, and in turn if I want my free plastic or paper bags then you should stay out of my business also.
Siegel:
The ordinance contains a mandate for retailers to track and report the use of paper bags.
Such clauses are not included in all similar ordinances, such as the one passed in San Luis Obispo County, which does not require reporting for paper bags.
Here is the relevant portion of the current (03/2012) proposal:
“32.05.03 Recycled Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through.
On and after January 1, 2013, except as provided in 32.05.04 an Applicable Store may only provide a Recycled Paper Bag to a customer if it collects a Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through from the customer for each Recycled Paper Bag provided.
(a) The Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through shall be the actual average cost for a retailer to provide a Recycled Paper Bag, which has been determined to be not less than 10 cents.
(b) No Applicable Store collecting a Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through pursuant to this Section shall rebate or otherwise reimburse a customer for any portion of this pass-through.
(c) All Applicable Stores shall indicate on the customer transaction receipts the number of Recycled Paper Bags provided and the total amount of the Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through.
(d) When requested by the Public Works Director or designee, Applicable Stores required to collect a Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through shall report to the City, on a form prescribed by the Public Works Department, a summary of all payments of Paper Bag Cost Pass- Throughs received. The form shall be signed by a responsible officer or agent of the Store who shall swear or affirm that the information provided on the form is true and complete.
(e) Applicable Stores shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the purchase of any Recycled Paper Bag by the Applicable Store for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase, which records shall be available for inspection at no cost to the City during regular business hours by a City employee authorized to enforce this Chapter. These records may be kept at the corporate level.”
There is reason for concern that the provision “at no cost to the City” will result in a fee being assessed to retailers for staff costs, much as local businesses pay to have their annual fire inspections.
Don wrote:
> There is reason for concern that the provision
> “at no cost to the City” will result in a fee
> being assessed to retailers for staff costs,
> much as local businesses pay to have their annual
> fire inspections.
It is amazing how “just a few minutes of staff costs a day” can add up…
Yolo County requires that every public pool has the water checked daily (365 times a year). Having a pool service with former councilmember Souza or one of his employees checking it two to three times a week (100 to 150 times a year) is just not good enough…
If you have an employee with total compensation of $20/hour checking the pool water costs ~$5/day or close to $2K a year (when you add in the cost of the chemicals and test kits you need to buy to check the pool water), this is on top of the almost $1K you pay Yolo County for a pool “permit” and the close to $3K a year you pay someone like Stephen to service and clean the pool.
I had dinner last week at Dos Coyotes in the Oakshade Center and close to half the retail spaces were vacant. Things are tough enough for a small business today without the city of Davis tacking on the task of daily bag tracking and reporting to the city.
[quote]Things are tough enough for a small business today without the city of Davis tacking on the task of daily bag tracking and reporting to the city. [/quote]
LOL Those pesky “countervailing interests” keep popping up…
I think the chance of the tracking portion of the ordinance being retained is nill.
Elaine
[quote]I cited 3 different sources, all indicating reusable bags need to be washed, bc they can carry food borne diseases, to which comment medwoman never responded. It is quite clear that never-used plastic bags distributed at stores are more sanitary than reusable bags.[/quote]
Actually, I did respond. My response noted that the examples that you gave were those of isolates of bacteria from reusable bags. This is not the point in dispute. Yes, it is possible to grow bacteria from reusable bags. It is also possible to grow bacteria from one’s hands as anyone who has ever done the high school experiment in which you wash your hands for as long as you like, using as much soap as you want, and then place your hand on a petri dish.
All of the petri dishes will grow out a wealth of bacteria of many different types. The ability to grow out bacteria may indeed make the bas “less sanitary” but does not mean that the use of these bags is any more likely to be dangerous to one’s health.
To prove that they are indeed dangerous would require epidemiologic studies comparing bacterial related illness in populations using reusable bags vs those using only disposable bags. This was the study that you claimed did not need to be done. I strongly disagree. Just as I do not think that policy regarding smog or climate change should be based on a few small studies, I also do not believe that environmental policy regarding plastics should be based on small or anecdotal evidence. My background very strongly leads me to want conclusive evidence before one makes decisions about policy.
Elaine,
I do agree with you however that charging for the bags would place a burden on the low income. Unless of course, they were provided with reusable bags or some form of mitigation were adopted.
However, anyone who thinks that the bags that are dispensed now from the stores are “free” are kidding themselves. These costs are obviously being passed on to us in other pricing. Therefore, those who bring their own bags are indeed subsidizing the preferences of those who do not. I am frankly surprised that those who are at least while posting, firmly in favor of every one paying their own way, do not seem to mind having others help support their disposable bag preference.
medwoman wrote:
> The ability to grow out bacteria may indeed make
> the bags “less sanitary” but does not mean that
> the use of these bags is any more likely to be
> dangerous to one’s health.
If there was not any health danger in re-using things why is almost everything in a hospital and clinic setting single use? Do you work in a “green” hospital that just cleans your gloves and urine sample cups between patients?
> I do agree with you however that charging for
> the bags would place a burden on the low income.
It would also introduce re-usable bags to a segment of the population that for the most part has not used the bags in the past and does not clean as much as the typical upper income highly educated eco sensitive consumer that uses the bags today (yes I know that some low income people are super clean and that some upper income highly educated eco sensitive people are slobs, but for the most part as a person that has spent more time in “low income housing” than most people there are probably more Romney 2012 bumper stickers in Davis than super clean low income households in Davis).
> Therefore, those who bring their own bags are
> indeed subsidizing the preferences of those who
> do not.
As long as a merchant if free to decide if he wants to give out bags or not there is no “subsidy”. If I invite two friends over and offer them plums from my tree and only one has a bag with them that friend is not “subsidizing” the friend that I give a bag to.
> I am frankly surprised that those who are at
> least while posting, firmly in favor of every
> one paying their own way, do not seem to mind
> having others help support their disposable bag
> preference.
It is a good thing when most people pay their own way, and it is even better when the government lets individuals and business decide when they want to pay someone else’s way. It is a good thing when Nugget is free to give me 10% off when I bring in my re-usable wine bag, but it is a bad thing if the government makes Nugget (and other liquor stores) give 10% off to everyone with a reusable wine bag. In addition to the re-usable wine bags I have half a dozen other re-usable bags in my trunk so I don’t hate them, I just don’t want the government to create a giant “bag bureaucracy” and make life even harder for small business in town.
[quote]If there was not any health danger in re-using things why is almost everything in a hospital and clinic setting single use? Do you work in a “green” hospital that just cleans your gloves and urine sample cups between patients? [/quote]
There is a huge difference between the micro organisms found in a supermarket, on your kitchen counter, in your refrigerator from those found in a hospital. I highly doubt that we would find C.difficile, MRSA, or “flesh eating” bacteria in the former three, but all three can be found in hospitals. There is a limited “health danger” in virtually everything that we do. The point is to determine whether a given danger is significant or not. Namely the cost
benefit analysis that Elaine frequently mentions. Without large scale epidemiologic studies it is not possible to answer this question with regard to reusable bags. This is not something that is amenable to “common sense” as common sense is frequently incorrect in matters of science and medicine.
[quote]As long as a merchant if free to decide if he wants to give out bags or not there is no “subsidy”[/quote]
If the merchant were truly “giving them out” that would be true. If he is adding the cost onto other items in the store and pretending that the bags are “free” because they don’t have a price tag attached, then the “give away” is in fact being subsidized by all who patronize the store.
medwoman: [i]There is a huge difference between the micro organisms found in a supermarket, on your kitchen counter, in your refrigerator from those found in a hospital.[/i]
But those micro organisms found in the supermarket still routinely kill people. Let’s say I purchase some spinach and it goes into my reusable bag with my apples, or later when I shop again my apples come in contact with a spinach-born germ. I wash the spinach, but one of my kids grabs and apple and starts eating it before I can wash it. As I understand death from E.coli is quite agonizing.
Is this war on plastic bags worth that risk?
I am frankly a bit surprised you are on the side of banning plastic bags given your profession and your history of advocating for greater health care and safety. The life of one person would seem to be more than enough to justify an end to this silly pursuit.
Ok… when I shop at Nugget or CVS, I get a discount for my use of re-usable bags. In the “fee per bag” scenario, I see that discount go away (costing me more), AND, if I happen to forget to bring my bag, I’ll be charged on top of losing my discount. I’m not liking this… I’m sure that the cost (to the store) per bag (particularly plastic) is 1 cent or less… charging for bags would be a TAX. Where would the money go? More profit for the store? Paying people to monitor and enforce the ordinance (including salary, overhead, benefits, retirement, etc.)?
These bag banners are trying the false claim that somehow the store will reduce its prices if they are able to charge for bags. We all know that’s bull. Hpierce is right, this is nothing more than an added tax on everyone, even reuseable bag users, if you use his CVS example.
To hpierce and rusty49: Spot on!
To medwoman: I, like Jeff, am quite suprised that you, as a person in the medical profession, would need epidemiological evidence to convince you that reusable bags need to be rewashed regularly to prevent food contamination. Common sense should tell you that, period. It is also perfectly clear single use never-before-used plastic bags are more sanitary than reusable bags, any way you slice it.
Elaine and Jeff
Again, I am quite surprised that both of you are continuing to make a claim that I am not making.
[quote]I, like Jeff, am quite suprised that you, as a person in the medical profession, would need epidemiological evidence to convince you that reusable bags need to be rewashed regularly to prevent food contamination.[/quote]
I have not made the claim that reusable bags should not be washed, nor have I said anything about needing epidemiologic proof that they should be washed. What I have said, and still maintain, is that being able to grow
bacteria off a reusable bag is not the same thing as saying that use of these bags on a regular basis is more likely to be related to illness than is the use of any other bag.
To be more clear, let’s take Jeff’s example. Jeff goes to the store and buys both lettuce contaminated with E.coli and apples which are not contaminated. Jeff chose to use a plastic bag in which to place his lettuce but since he was only buying a couple of apples, did not want to waste a bag and so just put them in the same section of his cart as the lettuce. The apples come in contact with the lettuce which is protruding from the plastic bag. Now the apples have the E.coli on them and we are not even to the check out yet. So it really does not matter whether or not Jeff chooses paper,plastic or has a cloth bag. The e.coli are already out of the barn so to speak. Now, the problem with anecdotal evidence ( and common sense) is that if Jeff happened to use a cloth bag that day, and if an infectious disease investigator comes around to try to find the source, Jeff will still have the cloth bag around so it will grow out E.coli ( unless of course he has already washed it )and be assumed, incorrectly to be the source. If Jeff had used a plastic or paper bag, it is likely that it would have been discarded and therefore not available to be tested even if it also would have been harboring the
E. coli. This is why it is important to have the epidemiologic studies to determine if the use of reusable bags is truly associated with an increased risk of disease, whether individual, or in outbreaks. My point is not to argue that reusable bags are entirely safe, which seems to be what you both are claiming, but rather to say that more information is needed.
Speaking of surprise, I am also surprised that you Elaine, have the patience to wade through massive amounts of studies and expert opinions and information when it comes to the water project, but are willing to rely on three small studies showing the ability to grow out organisms from reusable bags ( a point which I am not at all disputing) and generalize from this that the bags are indeed a major danger.
If we are arguing in this fashion, I would have to propose the following. Since we are also able to grow pathogenic bacteria from our hands regardless of having just washed them, should we then not be touching our food with our hands, but only with single use prepackaged disposable utensils? Obviously this would not be practical, but might result in fewer cases of bacterial induced GI illness. The devil, is, as you have frequently pointed out, in the details.
[i]Since we are also able to grow pathogenic bacteria from our hands regardless of having just washed them, should we then not be touching our food with our hands, but only with single use prepackaged disposable utensils?[/i]
Agree!!! I say we outlaw hands since they pollute the environment!!!
Seriously though… I think this plastic bag ban nonsense is a solution looking for a problem. As the very least I want to fight it tooth and nail just so the environmental wackos are fixated on it and not the next thing they want to ban.
On another note, I heard a wonderful story on NPR today about a 10 year old girl and Jamba Juice. The story briefly goes like this. !0 year old goes with her mother to Jamba Juice, buys a smoothy and realizes that it comes in a styrofoam cup which she has learned can be detrimental to the environment. She and her mother write a petition which they put on line and get over one hundred thousand signatures asking Jamba Juice to stop the use of styrofoam. This comes to the attention of management who agree, and have committed to the use of more ecologically friendly containers for their drinks by next year.
If a ten year old can achieve this, what might we be able to achieve if we stopped squabbling over our own individual preferences and were willing to truly work together to achieve the optimal outcome ?
In Dunning’s article this morning another important point was brought up. How about the store clerks health having to put goods in customer’s unwashed reusable bags that possibly are carrying germs or who knows what? These clerks are going to be handling hundreds of different reusable bags per day not fully knowing the possible dangers contained in those bags. Are we going to have to bag our own products? If so, how many store baggers will lose their jobs?
An easy way around the Dunning concern. Have a hand disinfectant on the counter and have the baggers and checkers disinfect their hand between each bagging. This would also eliminate the possibility of transferring E. coli from one shoppers produce to that of the next shopper by the mechanism I discussed in Jeff’s example if we are really that worried about it.
By volume, total energy consumed, etc., the NRC should focus on water bottles rather than bags… the bags are a “litter” problem and will do little to cope with more serious issues.
I think that hpierce makes a very good point. This issue here is not just the bags. I think the far bigger issue is our culture of use and waste. NPR just ran a very brief story on the huge amount of items of food and other products that are wasted because of grocery store outdating. True, some of our excess ends up in food banks and is distributed to those in need in other ways, but a huge amount also makes it into land fills. As a society, one emphasis should be moving away from wasteful excess regardless of the composition of the excess product.
medwoman wrote:
> True, some of our excess ends up in food banks and is
> distributed to those in need in other ways
I also heard the NPR story and it reminded me that most of my friends (that didn’t grow up poor) will toss anything they find in their home even one day past the “sell by” date (even after I explain to them that it is a “sell by” date not a “will kill you after” date)…
I don’t know much about the Davis area food banks, but legal issues have made it harder to donate food. In the Bay Area many food banks will not take anything out of date and a family friend in the grocery business had to work hard to give away a bunch of Dreyers Ice Cream that partially melted and re-froze since St. Anthony’s and ther food banks did not want it because it was not “perfect” (it did have some ice crystals in it, but it was still very good).
Another friend with a McDonalds is now forced by his insurance to pour bleach over all the food left over when they close for the night (vs. giving it to guys at the back door or leaving it for the homeless to take out of a box on top of the dumpster like they did for years). It turns out some homeless guy “allegedly” got sick from eating a Big Mac out of a dumpster and sued the restaurant and won, so now no one gets to eat the leftover food…
[quote]I have not made the claim that reusable bags should not be washed, nor have I said anything about needing epidemiologic proof that they should be washed. [/quote]
I rest my case. It is more sanitary to hand out not-before-used plastic bags. And I would also add, it makes far more sense to worry about trash at destination than origin. Separate trash at destination, and recycle for reuse. For instance, at UCD’s West Village, they are going to take all the food waste from the dorms and put it into a huge biodigester, which will produce methane for further energy consumption. Why can’t we separate garbage/trash at destination as many cities do, and reuse our waste? See [url]http://www.technologyreview.com/news/413606/converting-garbage-into-fuel/[/url]
Elaine
You have chosen to rest your case without addressing my point, which is certainly your right to do.
What your case ignores is a true risk based, cost benefit analysis of the use of the various different kinds of bags. Your preference is valid, it is just that it is just that, your preference, not supported by the kind of evidence that would make your case conclusive.
[quote]Yolo County requires that every public pool has the water checked daily (365 times a year). Having a pool service with former councilmember Souza or one of his employees checking it two to three times a week (100 to 150 times a year) is just not good enough… [/quote]Actually, basic water chemistry is checked much more frequently than that during the hours that it is open to the public. Even way back when I was a lifeguard at my high school pool (which was open to the public during the summer), we checked pH and chlorine levels hourly, and adjusted as necessary. I would not want to swim in public pool that had insufficient chlorine concentration to kill off whatever nasty s**t some of the swimmers might bring in with them.