Scapegoating the plastic grocery bag

Whole Foods stopped providing plastic bags to shoppers at the beginning of this month. As many pointed out, it was misconceived: many of us recycled those bags for household garbage, but now will have to buy plastic bags instead. And now, the Times of London points out that much of the demonization of plastic bags is based upon a misreading:

Scientists and environmentalists have attacked a global campaign to ban plastic bags which they say is based on flawed science and exaggerated claims . . .

The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds [birds are now mammals? -- D.], were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.

Fifteen years later in 2002, when the Australian Government commissioned a report into the effects of plastic bags, its authors misquoted the Newfoundland study, mistakenly attributing the deaths to "plastic bags".

The figure was latched on to by conservationists as proof that the bags were killers.

Apropos of my Whole Foods thoughts, the article's last line notes:

John Lewis added that a scheme in Ireland had reduced plastic bag usage, but sales of bin liners had increased 400 per cent.

Posted by David on March 10, 2008 8:53 PM