A blog set out to explore, archive & relate plastic pollution happening world-wide, while learning about on-going efforts and solutions to help break free of our addiction to single-use plastics & sharing this awareness with a community of clean water lovers everywhere!
Showing posts with label Plastic: A Toxic Love Story. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Plastic: A Toxic Love Story. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

L.A.'s Plastic and Paper Bag Ban is Built on Past Mistakes

posted on www.kcet.org May 21, 2012 by Aja Dang

The wind blows a plastic bag around the beach near the Manhattan Beach Pier | Photo by David McNew/Getty Images
The wind blows a plastic bag around the beach near the Manhattan Beach Pier | Photo by David McNew/Getty Images
 
The area is naturally susceptible to flooding. Its low-lying geography, which lies beside the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Meghna rivers, is suitable for its agriculture sector but inconvenient during monsoon season. Natural flooding and heavy rain are a characteristic of Bangladesh, but the 1998 floods were particularly devastating.

Due to unusually high monsoon rains and melted water from the Himalaya Mountains, the converging rivers spilt over: more than 1,000 lives were lost, 300,000 homes gone, and 30 million Bengali people homeless. After the water subsided, it was discovered that humans helped cause the flood that covered more than 75 percent of the country. From deforestation to poor flood protection methods, it was obvious that the flood didn't have to be as destructive as it was. However, there was one man-made culprit that caused so much outrage that it was banned four years later.
The plastic bag.

In 2002, the Bangladesh government was the first in the world to ban the use of plastic bags. The year prior, 9.3 million plastic bags were dumped in the country's capital, Dhaka, every day, which contributed to blocked drains and waterways, causing flooding.

Since then, myths of a plastic bag island swirling in the Pacific Ocean and images of sea mammals with plastic particles in their digestive systems have bombarded the human psyche into thinking that plastic bags are more environmentally destructive than car emissions and burning of fossil fuels.
Residents in the suburban flooded Keraniganj area shout for aid as a relief team for the 1998 flood arrives. | Photo: MUKTAKANTHA/AFP/Getty Images
Residents in the suburban flooded Keraniganj area shout for aid as a relief team for the 1998 flood arrives. | Photo: MUKTAKANTHA/AFP/Getty Images
 
While foreign countries like Bangladesh, China, and England have taken the lead in banning or levying plastic bags, American cities are finally following suit on both coasts. Now, Los Angeles, the second biggest city in the U.S., will soon vote to ban both plastic and paper bags, in what is the strictest bag ban to be proposed to date.

Although the paper industry struggled in the early 2000s, plastic bag bans have given this floundering industry a well-needed boost as more than 40 local jurisdictions in California have either banned plastic bags are in talks to, leaving the market open for paper companies to claim. While the plastic bag has become the poster child as the environmental devil, paper bags have seemed to slip under the radar even though they are worse for the environment.

At face value, banning plastic bags looks like a simple and rational step towards a better environment, but what is often overlooked is that the hidden costs of such a ban are a greater detriment. Through interviews with environmental experts, industry insiders, and research from various government documents and independent studies, it is clear that by only banning plastic bags, communities increase their use of paper bags, which wastes more energy in the manufacturing and delivery process, uses more toxic chemicals, which contributes to air and water pollution, and fills up landfills at a greater rate than plastic bags.

The Los Angeles initiative follows bans by San Francisco, Malibu, Los Angeles County, and most recently Hawaii. These actions come after AB 1998, a statewide bill seeking to ban plastic bags, was defeated by an Assembly vote in 2010.

While environmental groups and proponents of the plastics industry have been vocal about their positions, one group has been shockingly absent from city meetings and political discussions. The paper bag industry has grown in the face of plastic bag bans and while the L.A. initiative would prohibit paper bags from reaching millions of customers, the industry will still remain profitable by leaning on the plastic bag bans already in place.

It is admirable that the government has taken the steps they believe necessary to protect the environment, but bans and levies can only do so much in a society of waste. Laws for or against certain environmental actions only work to a certain extent until people stop caring. Society needs to be cognizant of the fact that no law can reverse the country's environmental issues until everyone can commit to a total lifestyle change toward a greener way of living.
While neither plastic or paper bags are healthy for the environment, city councils, and governments around the world have been acting irresponsibly by ignoring the consequences of paper bags. Luckily, Los Angeles is working on a solution that corrects the inaccuracies of previous bans.

L.A.'s Proposed Bag Ban, Explained
On Wednesday, May 21 the L.A. City Council will vote on a major step in the process of banning single-use bags. Here's what it proposes to do, according to the office of Councilmember Paul Koretz, who proposed it:
  • Ban Plastic Bags: Once the law goes into effect, there's six-month grace period before they disappear from big retailers, followed by small retailers after another six months. 
  • Ban Paper Bags: Once the law goes into effect, there's six-month grace period before big retailers can charge 10 cents per bag. After another six months, small retailers can charge that, too. And a year after that, paper bags would disappear from those stores.

If approved this week, the process of banning bags does not begin just yet. Wednesday's motion would set off a series of steps including drafting an Environmental Impact Report and, later, the actual ordinance language. All of that must be approved by the city council and mayor. When all is said and done, it could be another year before bags start disappearing from some 7,500 businesses, primarily supermarkets and grocery and convenience stores. - Zach Behrens
 
"We have the vision to make a change now," said Los Angeles Board of Public Works Commissioner Steve Nutter. "The evidence on the use of paper bags is that the environmental cost is too high. There is no need to pay that cost anymore."
Almost fifty years ago, plastic bags grew in popularity as the newly introduced sandwich bag helped moms around the country pack a messy free lunch. Seen as a more environmentally-friendly and sanitary alternative to paper bags, the plastic bag was introduced to grocery stores after being brought from Sweden to the U.S. by ExxonMobil in 1976.

Made of high-density polyethylene, plastic bags are cheap to produce, flexible, durable, waterproof, and chemically resistant. They can hold up to 1,000 times their own weight, are easy to clean, and rarely break.

According to the book, "Plastic: A Toxic Love Story", the need to eliminate single-use plastic bags initially began with paper bag manufacturers who saw plastic bags as a threat. Then the cause was taken up by environmental group after environmental group until Captain Charles Moore came upon a stretch of floating plastic debris in the Pacific Ocean in 1997. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which was claimed to be the size of Texas, caused an uproar as the dangers plastic had on sea mammals finally hit the mainstream media.

Although there is some debate as to the size of the "Garbage Patch," the Algalita Marine Research Foundation has stated that this huge island of plastic trash is an exaggeration as the patch is actually an area of floating plastic particles.

From there, foreign countries started banning plastic bags due to the massive amount of litter it caused. Then in 2007, San Francisco made headlines when it became the first U.S. city to ban plastic bags. The city blamed the "white pollution" for littering streets and choking marine life and believed the measure would be the first step towards a greener city. Since then, governments and retailers around the country have moved from plastic to paper and, in total, more than 200 anti-bag measures have been introduced in the U.S.

It is easy to understand why plastic bags have become an environmental target. The plastic bag industry is seen by many to be the manipulating, greedy, manufacturing counterpart to the tobacco industry. Plastic bags are stuck in trees, floating in rivers, and matted on beaches. The Guinness World Records named it the most "ubiquitous consumer item in the world," and it's so durable that it could outlive the average person.

"There are a lot of facts that came out about plastic bags that made people more passionate in trying to get rid of them," said Leslie Tamminen, Ocean Program Director of Seventh Generation Advisors.
Tamminen, who also works as a facilitator for the Clean Seas Coalition, explains that her organization and others like it have pushed for plastic bag policies because they believe it could have a greater effect on the environment by making people more environmentally aware in their everyday lives.

"We feel that plastic bag bans, in particular, could cause a consumer behavior change on a life scale," she said. "Once people get used to using a reusable bag, it's amazing how many people start expanding that consciousness to other consumer products."
While plastic bags aren't good for the environment, they certainly aren't the environmental menace they are made out to be.

Commonly referred to as an urban tumbleweed, single-use plastic bag ban proponents claim that plastic bags fill our landfills, litter streets and beaches, kill sea mammals, use foreign oil, and are impossible to recycle.

According to a 2004 report published by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, only .04% of the state's waste is from plastic grocery and other merchandising bags. Plastic bags also fill up little space in landfills because they can be tightly compressed unlike paper, which occupies almost half of overall landfill volume.

Environmental groups also argue that plastics don't biodegrade in landfills. While this is true due to the chemical make-up of the bag, modern landfills make it nearly impossible for anything to biodegrade. Slate, an online magazine, explains that landfills are lined on the bottom with clay and plastic to prevent waste from seeping into the soil and are constantly covered to reduce the smell. This means that garbage in landfills receive little sunlight, air, and water, making it difficult for even the most degradable objects to decompose.
A surfer passes trash and debris from the run-off of storms near the mouth of the San Gabriel River as another storm moves in on January 26, 2010 in Seal Beach, CA. | Photo by David McNew/Getty Images
A surfer passes trash and debris from the run-off of storms near the mouth of the San Gabriel River as another storm moves in on January 26, 2010 in Seal Beach, CA. | Photo by David McNew/Getty Images
 
When plastic bags don't make it to the landfill, they are either littered or taken to recycling facilities. While plastic bags are the most common pieces of litter people see, it is not the most common item that litters our streets and beaches.

"You do see plastic bags from time to time; it's noticeable," said John Picciuto, President of Western Plastic Association. "But take a closer look and most of litter is from bottles and cigarette butts."

A 2009 national study conducted by Keep America Beautiful found that tobacco products are the most prevalent aggregate litter item, which is roughly 38 percent of all litter in the United States. This includes, cigarette butts, cigars, and packaging. The second largest type of litter are paper products like newspapers and paper bags with almost 22 percent. Plastic items did round out the top three with approximately 20 percent of the country's trash, but plastic trash consisted mostly of plastic bottles, containers, and other plastic packaging besides bags.

The most important and passionate area of concern for people are the beaches, which California has over 1,000 miles of, attracting millions of tourists every year.

It has been estimated that 100,000 sea mammals and birds are killed by plastic bags every year. While it is true that turtles, seabirds, fish, and plankton have been known to ingest smaller plastic particles, The Times UK revealed in 2008 that most deaths were caused by fishing gear, ropes, and strapping bands as most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag.

"I've never seen a bird killed by a plastic bag," Professor Geoff Boxshall, a marine biologist at the Natural History Museum, said in the article. "Other forms of plastic in the ocean are much more damaging."
A plastic grocery bag is seen in the Los Angeles River on November 17, 2010 | Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images
A plastic grocery bag is seen in the Los Angeles River on November 17, 2010 | Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images
 
The Environmental Impact Report conducted by the city of Santa Monica to analyze the city's proposed ban ordinance even states that banning plastic bags won't have a significant effect on coastal and marine habitats.
The biological impacts associated with the proposed Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not be significant and would not contribute to any cumulative impacts to regional biological resources. - Section 4.2-9
The only accurate arguments that plastic bag ban proponents have is that plastic bags are made from oil and they are hard to recycle. More than 1.6 billion gallons of oil are used each year to make plastic bags, a harsh reality for a society trying to wean off oil. But some local plastic bag manufacturers are recognizing that there needs to be a shift towards using renewable resources.

"Everyone is cognizant that plastic bags have a bad reputation. The market is forcing us to do something more," said Cathy Browne, General Manager at Crown Poly.

Crown Poly, a plastic bag manufacturer located in the city of Vernon, Calif., has moved away from oil and only uses domestic natural gas or raw materials in its plastic bag manufacturing process. While natural gas still produces greenhouse gases, it is to a less extent than oil and relatively benign when accidentally released into the environment.

Unfortunately, whether made from foreign oil or domestic natural gas, plastic bags are rarely recycled. According to California's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, the 2009 statewide recycling rate for plastic bags is about three percent. Bags that are placed in recycling bins are still a headache to recycle because the feed must be clean, meaning what goes through the recycling process must only be high-density polyethylene grocery bags and they must not be contaminated by food products. Recycling machinery is also not ideal as plastic bags readily gum up the machines making it necessary to constantly clean them.

Most consumers believe paper bags are a better option than plastic bags because of its high recycling rate. The Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation states that 21 percent of paper bags are recycled statewide, which is due to increased education and convenience. According to a 2007 American Forest & Paper Association Community Survey, 87 percent of the U.S. have access to some form of community recycling program, either through curbside collection or drop-off programs. With plastic, consumers have to go to the drop-off bins at large grocery chains, if they are even aware it is there. Unfortunately, this belief is misguided as paper bags are still more harmful for the environment than plastic.

Paper bags are made from trees. The statement should be obvious, but the environmental consequences might not be. A 2008 article from the National Cooperative Grocers Association states that each year, the United States consumes 10 billion paper grocery bags, requiring 14 million trees. Cutting down trees is incredibly harmful for the environment because forests are a major absorber of greenhouse gases. Trees remove carbon and release oxygen into the atmosphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, deforestation could account for up to one-third of total carbon dioxide emissions.

Not only are greenhouse gases a result of cutting trees, but manufacturing of paper bags produces even more greenhouse gases. According to a 2007 study conducted by Boustead Consulting & Associates, it takes almost four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag and uses more fossil fuel as does a plastic bag. The same study also reveals that paper mills use twenty times as much fresh water as plastic.

Paper bag plants also use a heavy amount of toxic chemicals during the manufacturing process. According to Resueit.com, the majority of paper is made by heating wood chips at high temperatures in a chemical solution. The use of these toxic chemicals contributes to air and water pollution.

After paper bags are made, they must be transported to its location. According to the Environmental Literacy Council, it takes seven trucks to transport the same number of paper bags that can be transported by a single truck full of plastic bags. This is due to plastic bags' light weight and compact nature. Transportation, in of itself, creates additional emissions. This is important because there are no paper mills in California and these transportation modes have to cross state lines, greatly increasing emissions.

So what is the best solution? People on both the environmental and plastic industry side believe that applying a levy to both plastic and paper bags is a fair solution.

"A ban is not the right answer," said Browne, Crown Poly's General Manager. "Consumers have the right to choose what they want, while the government has to educate consumers as to what a better choice is."

While no other city in the world has attempted to ban both paper and plastic bags, only one city in the country has decided to levy both. In 2010, Washington, D.C. passed a bill that placed a 5-cent tax on all paper and plastic bags, with the goal of raising $3.5 million from the tax to clean up the Anacostia River. According to the Wall Street Journal, after nine months, it was estimated that the city saw a 60 percent reduction in all bags handed out.
People walk with groceries in plastic bags in Chinatown on March 28, 2007 in San Francisco | Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images
People walk with groceries in plastic bags in Chinatown on March 28, 2007 in San Francisco | Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images
 
San Francisco, which only banned plastic bags, recently expanded its current ordinance by applying the plastic bag ban to retailers citywide, instead of just large supermarkets and pharmacies, and imposing a minimum 10-cent fee on paper bags.

While Tamminen from Seventh Generation Advisors agrees that levying both bags is the best solution she emphasizes that it isn't plausible right now.

"I think that putting some kind of fee on bags is ideal because you internalize the cost," said Tamminen. "That has been proven to be more successful [than bans] but we don't have that option in California due to AB 2449."

Passed in 2006, AB 2449 is a pilot program requiring large grocery stores to create an in-store recycling program for the collection and recycling of plastic bags. Plastic bag manufacturers are required to work with grocery stores to ensure plastic bags are properly collected and recycled. AB 2449 also prohibits cities from levying plastic bags, which has essentially helped create the bans we currently see in California.

"It is interesting to see the industries' efforts, in a way, is backfiring on them now," said Kirsten James, Director of Water Quality at Heal the Bay. "Now municipalities are just going with the more aggressive route."

The Los Angeles city ban would include all single-use bags, including plastic, paper, biodegradable, and compostable bags. The proposal would apply to at least 7,500 retailers and failure to obey the ban would cost businesses $250-$500 a day.

"The time is now," stated James. "The city of L.A. has a chance to be a true leader in one of the most progressive policies we have ever seen before us."

Even when AB 2449 ends on January 1, 2013 and the option to levy plastic bags can be apart of the discussion, a bag fee might not be the best solution. While placing a levy on bags is the most convenient proposed solution to the litter problem, the bag tax has been subject to, what a Beacon Hill Institute Impact Report called, the "rebound effect." After the initial shock of the tax wears off, consumptions of bags continues to increase.

Ireland, which imposed a 15-cent per bag levy in 2002, saw this happen after an initial bag reduction of almost 90 percent. However, the country saw the sale of heavy-gauge garbage bags and other plastic bag products increase by 400 percent as people started using these bags as trash liners and pet cleaners to replace grocery bags. A "rebound effect" soon followed as people decided it was cheaper and easier to pay the 15-cent fee for a plastic grocery bag they could use multiple times. In 2007, to reverse the trend, Ireland increased bag taxes to 22 cents per bag.

While the fate of the Los Angeles bag ban initiative will soon be decided, one thing everyone can agree on is that there needs to be a solution to this problem on a statewide level. Having municipalities with different bag laws is difficult for businesses and confuses consumers.

"Because L.A. is a huge population center in the state, I'm hoping that if this passes, it will push the statewide effort so there is consistent policy on a state level," said James.
Reusable grocery bags made from neither paper nor plastic sold at a Whole Foods Market in Pasadena, CA in 2008 | Photo by David McNew/Getty Images
Reusable grocery bags made from neither paper nor plastic sold at a Whole Foods Market in Pasadena, CA in 2008 | Photo by David McNew/Getty Images
 
Whether the city decides to ban both plastic and paper, only ban plastic or levy one or both, the end result is to ultimately switch to reusable bags. There are many companies in California, like Project Greenbag, that make lead-free, machine washable canvas bags.

Although the battle of the bag is a step in the right direction, a healthier environment cannot be achieved until society commits 100 percent to reducing waste, at all levels. The "rebound effect" that plagued Ireland's initial success is proof of this: In the end, consumers will do what is easiest for them.

"It's hard to ask people to change their daily routine," said Tamminen. "But hopefully people will start to understand the gravity of our environmental situation and commit to a greener lifestyle."

While decomposing last night's leftovers or trading in that V8 for a hydro-electric-solar powered mini car might not be easiest transition to make, there are baby steps that can be taken for a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle. Bring a coffee mug to Starbucks, recycle take-out containers, walk to the corner store, and yes, leave a couple reusable bags in the car. Just follow the rule that was taught in middle school: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

As for Bangladesh, after banning plastic bags the country has seen a dramatic shift towards reusable bags. While the area is still susceptible to flooding the government has been spending millions in trying to remove something else from the drains. The main culprit now?

Mud.

Monday, September 19, 2011

The Plastic Bag Wars

posted in the Rolling Stone July 25th by Kitt Doucette

The world consumes 1 million plastic shopping bags every minute - and the industry is fighting hard to keep it that way

plastic shopping bags
Sea of Waste: A massive landfill in Shanghai overflows with single-use bags.
Alessandro Digaetano/Polaris
 
–American shoppers use an estimated 102 billion plastic shopping bags each year — more than 500 per consumer. Named by Guinness World Records as "the most ubiquitous consumer item in the world," the ultrathin bags have become a leading source of pollution worldwide. They litter the world's beaches, clog city sewers, contribute to floods in developing countries and fuel a massive flow of plastic waste that is killing wildlife from sea turtles to camels. "The plastic bag has come to represent the collective sins of the age of plastic," says Susan Freinkel, author of Plastic: A Toxic Love Story.

Many countries have instituted tough new rules to curb the use of plastic bags. Some, like China, have issued outright bans. Others, including many European nations, have imposed stiff fees to pay for the mess created by all the plastic trash. "There is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere," the United Nations Environment Programme recently declared. But in the United States, the plastics industry has launched a concerted campaign to derail and defeat anti-bag measures nationwide.

The effort includes well-placed political donations, intensive lobbying at both the state and national levels, and a pervasive PR campaign designed to shift the focus away from plastic bags to the supposed threat of canvas and paper bags — including misleading claims that reusable bags "could" contain bacteria and unsafe levels of lead.

"It's just like Big Tobacco," says Amy Westervelt, founding editor of Plastic Free Times, a website sponsored by the nonprofit Plastic Pollution Coalition. "They're using the same underhanded tactics — and even using the same lobbying firm that Philip Morris started and bankrolled in the Nineties. Their sole aim is to maintain the status quo and protect their profits. They will stop at nothing to suppress or discredit science that clearly links chemicals in plastic to negative impacts on human, animal and environmental health."

Made from high-density polyethylene — a byproduct of oil and natural gas — the single-use shopping bag was invented by a Swedish company in the mid-Sixties and brought to the U.S. by ExxonMobil. Introduced to grocery-store checkout lines in 1976, the "T-shirt bag," as it is known in the industry, can now be found literally every­where on the planet, from the bottom of the ocean to the peaks of Mount Everest. The bags are durable, waterproof, cheaper to produce than paper bags and able to carry 1,000 times their own weight.

They are also a nightmare to recycle: The flimsy bags, many thinner than a strand of human hair, gum up the sorting equipment used by most recycling facilities. "Plastic bags and other thin-film plastic is the number-one enemy of the equipment we use," says Jeff Murray, vice president of Far West Fibers, the largest recycler in Oregon. "More than 300,000 plastic bags are removed from our machines every day — and since most of the removal has to be done by hand, that means more than 25 percent of our labor costs involves plastic-bag removal."

The initial resistance to plastic bags came from manufacturers of paper bags, who saw them as a major threat. Environmentalists took up the cause of eliminating single-use bags in the 1990s, but they made little headway until a sailor and researcher named Charles Moore passed through the North Pacific Gyre in 1997 and drew international attention to the vast flood of plastic trash polluting the world's oceans.

The first nationwide ban was enacted a decade ago in Bangladesh, after plastic bags clogged storm drains and caused massive floods. China issued a top-down order banning plastic bags in June 2008 — just two months before it hosted the Olympics — in an effort to reduce the amount of "white pollution." Even though the ban is openly flouted by street vendors, it has still made a tremendous impact: In the first year alone, China decreased its use of plastic bags by two-thirds, eliminating some 40 billion bags — a move that saved the energy equivalent of 11.7 million barrels of oil.

The Indian city of Delhi boasts some of the world's most aggressive legislation on plastic bags, not only fining individual users and businesses that hand out the bags but also threatening jail time for offenders and plastic-bag manufacturers. This year, Italy became the first European country to issue a nationwide ban on plastic bags, while Ireland places a 15-cent fee on every bag — a move that reduced usage by 90 percent in the first three months. All told, 25 percent of the world's population now lives in areas with bans or fees on plastic bags.

While other nations have effectively cracked down on plastic bags, the U.S. government has left local communities to fend for themselves. In 2007, San Francisco became the first American city to ban plastic bags, and Washington, D.C., has imposed a five-cent fee per bag, cutting monthly use from 22.5 million bags to barely 3 million.

Unlike attacks on plastic products such as Styrofoam, which were orchestrated by well-known environmental groups, the fight against plastic bags has been led for the most part by community organizers and concerned citizens who put pressure on their local businesses and governments. In recent years, a growing number of U.S. communities — from 30 townships in Alaska to the Outer Banks of North Carolina — have introduced some 200 anti-bag measures.

The widespread mobilization against plastic bags has sparked a counterattack by the plastics industry, which was slow to react to the rising tide of negative sentiment among consumers. Leading the charge to protect the plastic bag is the American Chemistry Council, an industry group whose members include petro-chemical giants like ExxonMobil and Dow Chemical.

With 125 employees and more than $120 million in annual revenues, the ACC and its members are using their deep pockets and extensive political connections to overturn bans on plastic bags, cast doubt on legitimate scientific studies and even file lawsuits against anti-bag activists.

The council, which spent $8 million on lobbying alone last year, has also put together a front group called the Progressive Bag Affiliates, made up of top bag manufacturers like Hilex Poly, Superbag and Unistar Plastics.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Disturbing drift on a duck trail

published July 30th by Judith Ireland in the Canberra Times

Dangerous: Little ducks like this one look super cute, but they can be ingested by marine animals - and then, possibly, by all of us.
Dangerous: Little ducks like this one look super cute, but they can be ingested by marine animals - and then, possibly, by all of us. 
 
In January 1992 in a part of the North Pacific Ocean known as the Graveyard of the Pacific, a Greek-owned, Taiwanese-operated ship hit rough weather. Exactly how rough is not known. But what we do know is that the wind and waves were wild enough to free two columns of containers from the decks of the Ever Laurel and send them crashing into the ocean below.

Among the liberated cargo were 28,800 Chinese-made plastic bath toys, destined for the United States: 7200 red beavers, 7200 green frogs, 7200 blue turtles and 7200 yellow ducks.

No one was supposed to know, but 10 months later, Alaskan beachcombers discovered several dozen of the plastic toys washed up along Chichagof Island. Then, in 1993, a local journalist placed a few phone calls put two and 28,800 together.

As New York author Donovan Hohn writes in his new book, Moby-Duck, this is where the story of the toys should have ended. The case was closed. ''But then something else unexpected happened. The story kept going.''

The ducks kept showing up on north American beaches and people (mostly beachcombers) kept finding them. Like the mysterious travelling ducks, the story also travelled through the pages and airwaves of the world's media.

They leapt into popular culture as children's author Eric Carle published a book Ten Little Rubber Ducks about toy ducks who go missing at sea and the ducks (by now the toys had morphed into one creature) were used in a high-profile advertising campaign for a mobile phone.

Hohn then a high school teacher first heard of the ducks in 2005, when one of his students wrote an essay about their supposed journey as far as the Arctic. Also a writer in his spare time, Hohn wondered what had happened to the toys. What was their journey like? Where were they now?

As soon as he started thinking about the runaway ducks, he realised how ubiquitous toy ducks are in modern culture. They adorn people's bathrooms and work cubicles. And you can't move in a children's ware shop without seeing them on pyjamas, clothing, towels and toys.

''The more I thought about its golden, graven image, the more it seemed to me a kind of animistic god but of what?'' he writes.

Initially, Hohn thought he'd interview a few oceanographers and beachcombers and just write a feature for a magazine. But after he received a map from a Seattle oceanographer, outlining the likely route the ducks had taken, Hohn realised he might have enough for a book. ''That map seemed to me almost like a kind of trail,'' Hohn recalls.

His magazine article turned into a five-year odyssey, which saw him quit his job and leave his pregnant wife (and what then turned into his young family) for weeks at a time, while he chased the ducks around the northern hemisphere.

He talked to beachcombers who collected the ducks and environmentalists who went on crazy coastal clean-up missions. He interviewed oceanographers about the power and whimsy of currents and Chinese manufacturers about cheap, soulless plastic toy production.

The author also spent hours reading textbooks and cornering scientists for ad-hoc tutorials. ''I feel like I completed a degree in oceanography even if I don't have a piece of paper to prove it,'' he says.

Hohn was joyously able to find a duck in the Alaskan wilds, but sadly, didn't find any duck evidence in the Arctic. But as he tracked the toys from their beginnings in a Chinese factory in Dongguan to their possible end point somewhere in the Canadian Arctic, Moby-Duck became as much a story of environmental degradation and plastic waste, as childhood fantasy.

Even though it is illegal in most of the developed world, dumping rubbish in the sea is still a widespread practice in parts of the developing world, he says. And while hard figures don't exist (blame the secrecy of the shipping industry) Hohn says that cargo falls off the back of ships ''all the time''.

The little ducks look super cute, but at a time when we know plastic pollutes our oceans, is ingested by marine animals and then possibly by us, Hohn reasons, they should be handled with care.

Off the coast of Hawaii, the author travelled with renowned oceanographer Charles Moore, who discovered the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in 1997 a gyre (system of rotating currents) of marine rubbish in the North Pacific Ocean, spread out across millions of kilometres. While the extent of the Garbage Patch is contested, Hohn writes, ''on one thing scientists, plastics executives, and environmentalists agree: the amount of plastic in the ocean is increasing.''

As Susan Freinkel notes in her recent book Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, the Garbage Patch is one of at least five gyres around the world. While no one knows how much plastic is in the ocean, estimates range from between 1300 to 3.5million pieces per square kilometre.

''Before the age of plastics, the trash consisted of materials that marine microorganisms could quickly break down. Now the gyres are swirling with stuff that, at best, breaks up into small morsels that are too tough for nature to chew,'' Freinkel writes.

Hohn acknowledges that plastic waste in the ocean is not the most serious environmental problem facing the world today or even the most serious environmental issue facing our oceans.

Climate change, industrial and agricultural waste and overfishing arguably pose more dire threats. But, he says, these serious problems can be difficult to detect without sophisticated equipment and tests. ''I feel like one of the themes through much for the book is about trying to see what's invisible,'' he says. Stories of great, toxic, unsightly amounts of plastic waste circulating in our oceans or washing up on beaches is something that everyone can understand and relate to. ''There is evidence you can see with the naked eye,'' Hohn says.

In turn, getting people enthused about rubbish, or a lack of it, in our oceans, may be a means to get them interested in more complex issues, such as consumption. Although, Hohn notes there's no easy solution to the health of our oceans. ''The sources of the pollution are so numerous,'' he says.

As all good marine lawyers will tell you, it's almost impossible to make individuals, businesses or countries accountable for the middle of the ocean. ''We treat the atmosphere and the ocean as a sort of a global commons,'' Hohn says.

Despite having started work on a new, land-based book, Hohn still thinks about the ducks that first captured his imagination in 2005 and about the thousands that have never been found. ''I suspect that by now most of them have begun to disintegrate,'' he says.

But for him, the ducks have always only been part fact. ''I had this idea that I was chasing both the actual toys that fell off the ship and the mythic duck,'' he says. Ultimately, the author was most enchanted by the incongruity of the childlike duckies lost on the big bad sea. ''It's about as far from a bathtub as you could get.''

Moby-Duck: The True Story of 28,800 Bath Toys Lost at Sea and of the Beachcombers, Oceanographers, Environmentalists and Fools, Including the Author, Who Went in Search of Them. By Donovan Hohn. Scribe. Published August 1, 2011. $35.

Judith Ireland is a staff reporter

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Plastic and Humankind: An Unhealthy Relationship

published April 19th in the Atlantic by Veronique Greenwood

An interview with the author of Plastic: A Toxic Love Story on the origins and uses of plastic—and how it abuses us

plastictoxiclove_wide.jpg













In 1941, imagining the world that plastic would make possible, a pair of British chemists wrote of "a world of color and right shining surfaces...a world in which man, like a magician, makes what he wants for almost every need." Plastic has indeed completely transformed our lives—everything from modern medicine to food safety has been made possible by its fantastic and varied properties.

But we've gradually realized that plastic has a dark side. It leaches chemicals that have been found in our bloodstreams and may cause permanent damage to us and our children, at the same time that it accrues in the oceans with no sign of breaking down.

In Plastic: A Toxic Love Story (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, April 18, $27), writer Susan Freinkel explores the tales of eight plastic objects—the comb, the chair, the Frisbee, the IV bag, the Bic lighter, the grocery bag, the soda bottle, and the credit card—to explore how plastic's fate became so entwined with our own. By turns whimsical and profoundly disturbing, Plastic gives a lucid, comprehensive, and, ultimately, galvanizing account of our past with plastic and what our future may be.

I asked Freinkel about plastic's origins, its dangers, and what we can do to turn this love affair around.

23301v_sized.jpg When the first plastic, celluloid, was developed, it was a solution to a pressing environmental problem: the hunting of elephants to extinction for ivory. What led up to celluloid's development, and what was the contemporary response to plastic?

For most of human history people fashioned the things they wanted and needed from materials of the natural world. But by the mid-19th century, they were starting to recognize the limits of nature's bounty and the physical limitations of natural materials. Those fears about an impending ivory shortage led a New York billiards supplier in 1863 to run an ad offering $10,000 in gold to anyone who could come up with a suitable alternative.

Eventually, this led to the invention of celluloid, which is considered a semi-synthetic because it starts with cellulose derived from plants. People loved it; it was now possible to mass-produce all kinds of consumer goods far more cheaply. An ivory comb would have been beyond the reach of the average shop girl, but she could certainly afford a beautiful faux-ivory one made of celluloid. Indeed, people continued to be enthralled with plastics for decades. Plastics promised abundance on the cheap.

However, our enthusiasm for plastic and the paucity of laws regulating the materials we package food and drink in, wear, sit on, sleep on, and use nearly every second of every day has meant that it's taken us a while to realize that plastic has a dark side, both in terms of the chemicals it leaches and its persistence in the environment. What have been the landmark discoveries that have caused us to start trying to reform this relationship?̢۬

Health concerns about plastic arise from a series of discoveries that have made clear plastics are not the inert, stable substances we once thought. It began in the 1970s with a pair of revelations: one, that vinyl readily leached phthalates, chemicals used to make the plastic soft and flexible, and two, that many people had traces of phthalate in their bloodstreams, thanks to casual contact with various everyday plastic things from cars to toys to wallpaper. Writing about one of the reports, a Washington Post reporter observed, "human are just a little plastic now." What that meant was not totally clear: At the time, experts concluded that it didn't mean much because the amounts that leached out and got into people's bodies were so minute.

Japanese scientist Hideshige Takada added another reason to worry when he reported that these tiny bits of plastic sop up persistent pollutants such as PCBs that are already present in the ocean.
But new findings since the 1990s have made researchers rethink the risks. Animal studies showed that some chemicals in plastics, notably phthalates and Bisphenol A, can mimic and disrupt hormones, with profound long-term effects if the animal was exposed during critical periods of development—in utero, in infancy, or even different points during childhood. Then being even a little bit plastic could potentially have a big effect.

Around the same time the Centers for Disease Control developed new, far more sensitive methods of measuring people's exposure to chemicals, and began producing biomonitoring studies showing that most Americans showed traces of phthalates, Bisphenol A, and other chemicals commonly used in plastics in their blood, urine, and other bodily fluids.

Finally a variety of epidemiological studies have found associations between exposures to these chemicals and various health conditions, such as diabetes, obesity, infertility, asthma, and even Attention Deficit Disorder. All the dots haven't been connected by any means, but their presence on the public health map has ratcheted up concerns.

Awareness of plastic pollution is also fairly recent. Although there have been scattered reports about plastic trash in the ocean going back to the 1960s, two recent developments sparked a new sense of urgency. In 1997, a sailor named Charles Moore took his boat through a rarely traveled area of the Pacific Ocean where converging ocean currents cause debris from Asia and North America to accumulate. Moore was shocked to see a steady stream of plastic debris float by day after day, which became known as the "garbage patch." And if anything testifies to the long and devastating reach of our throwaway culture, it's the presence of things like disposable lighters or toothbrushes or water bottles in the remote stretches of the ocean.

Another landmark was a 2004 study by English scientist Richard Thompson showing an exponential increase over the past several decades in the amount of tiny plastic fibers and fragments in the North Sea. This "microdebris" is what's left after waves and the sun have broken up bigger pieces of plastic trash. Until then people's idea of plastic pollution in the ocean was focused on the big stuff, like six-pack rings or drift nets and the ways those could threaten wildlife. Thompson's work drew attention to these tiny plastic bits, which, it turns out, are suffused throughout all the world's oceans and can never be cleaned up. Meanwhile, Japanese scientist Hideshige Takada added another reason to worry when he reported that these tiny bits sop up persistent pollutants such as PCBs that are already present in the ocean. If fish and other marine animals eat these plastic fragments, as it appears they do, is there risk these toxic chemicals could work their way up the food chain, back to us?

PLASTIC.Freinkel_sized.jpg The people who know intimately about the dangers of plastic—the nurses in the neonatal ward, the researchers who study leaching—what do they do to protect themselves from it?

The one measure everyone recommends is not to cook or microwave food in plastic since that can accelerate the leaching process. Some are cautious about storing leftovers in plastic containers and some only use metal water bottles—or at least take that precaution with their children. Most are careful about not eating too many canned foods, since the lining of cans often contains Bisphenol A. (Indeed, a recent study showed eating fresh fruits and vegetables for just three days could lower people's BPA levels.) Those with kids look for toys and products that are free of phthalates or BPA.

But given the current framework of laws and policies regulating chemicals in the U.S. and the utter ubiquity of plastics, there's only so much an individual can do. U.S. law tends to treat chemicals as safe until proven otherwise. As a result, most of the tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce have been poorly tested to determine their effects on the environment or human health.

In Europe, by contrast, the burden of proof is on safety rather than danger. European regulators act on the precautionary principle, the idea of preventing harm before it happens, even in the face of scientific uncertainty. A new E.U. law enacted in 2007 requires testing of newly introduced chemicals, as well as those already in heavy use, with the burden on manufacturers to demonstrate they can be used safely. To comply with that law, American manufacturers are already selling products in European markets that have been reformulated to comply with the precautionary principle. For instance, a phthalate alternative, DINCH, is being used in vinyl medial supplies sold in Europe. But not here.

When you say our love affair with plastic needs couples therapy, you've nailed the difficulty of the transition we need to make. What kind of change is possible, in terms of regulation? And what kind of reasoned, thoughtful action can an individual take that will actually make a difference?

Making over our relationship with plastic requires change at all levels—from government, industry, and individuals. I don't discount the value of what individuals can do. If we all made more of an effort to reduce our reliance on throwaway plastics (e.g., carry your own bag and bottle), to reuse more of the plastics that come through our lives, and to recycle as much as possible, that would help put a dent in plastic waste and pollution. We also can use our power as consumers to help shape the choices we are offered, making more conscious choices at the store and rejecting over-packaged goods and products that can't be reused or recycled. The power of the purse is why Walmart, Target, and other big box stores stopped selling baby bottles that contained Bisphenol A, even though the chemical has not been outlawed. We can also join forces in political campaigns to press for change. Pressure by the grassroots group Healthcare Without Harm helped persuade many of the country biggest hospital chains and hospital supply purchasers to stop using medical devices made of vinyl.

But individual actions alone are unlikely to bring about the scale of change that we need. The European experience suggests that laws that hold industry accountable for the products it puts into the marketplace can have a powerful effect. The E.U.'s tougher chemical laws have galvanized greater use of "green" chemicals. I'm also impressed by the effect of Europe's extended producer responsibility laws—measures that make companies responsible for what happens to their products and packaging at the end of their useful lives. When companies, rather than taxpayers, have to pay for collecting and disposing of plastic waste, dramatic changes happen: They use less packaging, they use materials that are easily recycled, and overall recycling rates go up.

These are the kinds of policies that could take us to a new level in our relationship with plastics, so we can reap the benefits plastics have to offer without the dangers.

Images (top to bottom): ingridtaylar/flickr, Library of Congress, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt