The west is also responsible for producing and glamorizing extremely wasteful lifestyles. We could have bulk food grocery stores where you can bring re-used glass jars but instead everything is wrapped in multiple layers of plastic meant to be tossed as soon as the product is consumed. The USA has pushed an extremely materialistic lifestyle that has driven the mass manufacture of plastic waste. Western countries need to take responsibility for the waste we produce instead of sending it “away” to be somebody else’s problem.
Edit: Just expanding on glass jars - I started saving all of my glass jars about a year ago. My shelf of jars is overflowing now, and they have many uses. I use peanut butter jars to hold my daily smoothie. I make candles with the jam jars.
We know the plastics industry pushed disposable products hard. And to me it speaks to a broader problem with US business logic - lie cheat and steal at any cost and that is "good" for society. There may be unseemly actions down the waste stream but we are responsible for the culture that produces so much trash.
Re-used containers means reduced food-life after buying it or more preservatives, and higher chance of contamination. That will increase probability of food-poison. More wastage, more food needs to be produced, more environmental impact
On the topic of reusing bags, I wish it were as simple as stopping using single-use plastic bags. The most "environmental-friendly" alternative seems to be reusable-bags made of polyester PET(recycled), but you still have to reuse them on average more than ~35 times in order to have less environmental impact. graph: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental...
"In fact, studies have shown that when we compare environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions, energy, water and resource use, plastic packaging tends to have a net positive impact. The impact of plastic production and handling is lower than the impacts which would result from food waste without packaging."
Similar situation when ditching plastic or composites for glass bottles. You need a large number of reuses of the glass container (break-even at around 30-50 reuses) or you will actually end up with a net increase in emissions. Recycling glass should be a last resort, as it requires a lot of energy (compared to e.g. recycling PET bottles). Because glass is so much heavier than plastic packaging, transport distances also need to be kept low (good in general). If transport distance exceeds something like 500 km, a glass bottle will always result in higher net emissions than a tetra pack, even if reused a billion times.
But it's not just about emissions. Throw glass in a hedge, and it's pretty inert: a shiny rock. Throw plastic in a hedge, and it'll drift and get stuck around something, or get eaten by something that really shouldn't be eating it, or break up into tiny pieces and poison the entire food chain… likely all three, and more.
The biggest issue with plastic stuff in the wild is that things get stuck in it, especially marine wildlife, and birds and some other animals getting digestive problems when tearing it apart and eating it.
On the flip side, most plastic packaging (mainly PE and PP) is non-toxic and biology doesn't really interact with it at all, even if you reduce it to microplastics. Yeah, that stuff is pretty much everywhere - but it's not really doing anything.
> On the flip side, most plastic packaging (mainly PE and PP) is non-toxic and biology doesn't really interact with it at all, even if you reduce it to microplastics. Yeah, that stuff is pretty much everywhere - but it's not really doing anything.
We're just starting to understand the harms plastics are causing to our health as we increasingly find plastics in places like our blood, our stool, and in our unborn children. There are already plenty of concerns about plastics resulting in hazardous exposure to endocrine disruptors. It's pervasive across the food chain as well. The idea that "it's not really doing anything" requires a dismal of all the harms we know about already and a remarkable level of optimism about what we will or wont find out in the future.
No. Like I said, PE and PP - which are the vast majority of plastic packaging, especially for foods, because the materials you are referring to are not food-safe in the first place - are biologically inert.
In fact, the monomers of PE and PP (ethylene and propene) are also not toxic, which is uncommon (compare with e.g. PVC: vinylchloride is toxic in all sorts of ways, polystyrol: styrene is also toxic in a few ways and damages DNA, teflon: it's monomer is also a carcinogen). This is important, because making plastics generally leaves precursors in the finished product: the more the worse the process control is, which costs money and requires know-how.
See e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23862761/ for a study looking at whether these are EDC; they're not: "There were no significant differences between test and control groups in vagina or uterine weight. Data suggest that effluents from plastic food containers do not appear to produce significant adverse effects according to Hershberger and uterotrophic assays."
The single most problematic plastic for health purposes is PVC. PVC in its chemically pure form (difficult to do) isn't bad, either. But pure PVC is a hard, brittle plastic, which is not that useful. So most PVC products consist of a large portion of plasticizer; some products (e.g. cables and other types of very soft PVC) are actually more plasticizer than PVC both by weight and volume. Both PVC and toxic paints are a popular choice for all kinds of toys.
It's true that not all plastics are EDC, but that doesn't mean that accumulation of those non-toxic plastics in our bodies is harmless either. There is very little research on this at this time, but studies done in animals (mostly sea critters) suggest that plastics accumulating in their bodies could lead to problems such as metabolic disorders, reduced feeding, energy deficiency, infertility, immune responses and inflammation, oxidative stress, etc.
It's too soon to say what health impacts these plastics in our own bodies are having which makes it far far too early to have any confidence that there are none.
It's a good point to make that something can be inert and non-toxic and still cause issues. And we indeed don't have the data yet to say for certain what the result is, however, what we can tell so far is that there are no overt issues; the article uses asbestos as an example, but we're pretty confident that the effect level isn't anything like that.
Personally it seems far more likely to me that globally observed health issues are caused by the proliferation of chemicals in everyday life that we know are definitely toxic. So IMHO an excellent plastic to blame if you need one is e.g. PVC (and also PTFE because OH BOY WHAT A SMART IDEA TO PUT THAT SHIT ON PANS WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG I HAVE NO IDEA).
(This part made me laugh a little: "Microplastics are plastic fragments less than 5 millimeters in diameter, or about 0.2 inches, barely visible to the human eye. ")
Re-using glass containers is actually an extremely low chance of contamination. We have had easy glass sterilization techniques for a long time (most dishwashers have a sanitization cycle). Further, your shelf life won’t be significantly reduced, unless you just don’t clean your containers.
The underlying argument you were responding to wasn’t really greenhouse gas focused. The discussion was mostly about plastic waste in the oceans and our environment. While it is possible the greenhouse gas budget is better with plastic, this doesn’t address the problem of accumulating forever waste within our environment.
On the topic of bulk grocery shops, it would be really great if more people shop there (I’m in Vienna and we have a few but they’re struggling) but realistically, i don’t think the general crowd is ready to make such a drastic lifestyle change.I would be happy enough if supermarkets at least try and encourage people to go for the packaging free option, or provide incentives in this regard. It’s ridiculous and nonsensical that they charge more for you to buy your groceries loose aka without packaging. It’s like they’re punishing you for not going for the packet of 6 Granny Smith apples all wrapped in plastic and cardboard.
The packaging has a barcode so it can be scanned faster at a checkout. Faster scanning means less checkouts and staff which means lower capital and operating costs.
Same! Or if I have to use one of their bags I put all the fruit and veg in the same bag and all the tags on it. Realistically it’s even less work for the cashier to scan everything all at once on one bag rather than pick up multiple packages and scanning them individually, so they have no excuse, really!
Hahaha I'm sure somewhere out there, someone's opened a packaging and turned the apple around to find it all brown and disgusting on the other concealed side!
At least for fruits an vegetables most things at Billa and Spar are individual items you have to pick yourself and they strongly discourage those plastic bags.
That's, unfortunately, not the case for literally every other item in their stores tho
I could care less about bulk supermarkets, and I don’t really think they’re a great answer. If anything, they may be worse in some ways.
For me, it’s the packaging. Japan is a great example of this.
Think of a banana, or an orange. Perfect package right? Now wrap them in plastic. Then when you buy them, they’re placed in a plastic bag. Sometimes each individual banana is wrapped individually... with plastic.
That’s Japan. That’s a lot of Asian countries, in fact.
Yeah but it’s annoying because I know there are people who would literally buy the package of 6 apples just cos it’s on a special promo. If it’s almost equivalent to the price of 2/3 apples, why not, right? And then they end up binning the rest that they can’t eat. So much food waste it’s crazy. They need to be more conscious in their decisions.
It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world. “A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.
As a father of three American kids, I see this first hand. I read (I think it was in Minimalist Parenting) that the average American kid has something like 40x the number of toys of the Average kid from a developing country. Dunno if it’s true, but I think it’s in the right ballpark.
My wife and I have tried to minimize waste. We generally buy used, etc. We have also tried to buy mostly non-plastic toys. But man, is it an uphill battle.
People just love to give us random stuff. For example, my dad rants about “Cheap Chinese crap”, but then turns around and buys my kids “Cheap Chinese crap” even after I’ve made it clear that I want less clutter in our lives.
There is a constant pressure on American parents to give their kids toys / experiences / entertainment. It comes from observing the frenetic activity of other parents, from targeted ads, from everywhere. But the fact is, kids just need to have a childhood. They don’t need their days stuffed with scheduled activities, the latest toys, etc. Just idle time, imagination, and quality attention from loving parents (Just a little attention everyday goes a long way.)
/rant
Anyway, advice on how to exit the American way is very much welcome.
> Anyway, advice on how to exit the American way is very much welcome.
We've made a big deal about giving the kids "experience gifts".
Sometimes it's lessons (my daughter got a week at a horseback riding camp, my son got dirt bike lessons). Sometimes it's a trip (we've taken the kids on 3 separate cross-country road trips with tons of stops at national parks). Sometimes it's a pass to a water park or minigolf place. The kids get involved in the experience they want, so they're emotionally invested and it doesn't feel forced for them. The only rule really is that the thing can't be about electronics (i.e. no going to a video arcade).
Once we established that, we asked that grandparents do the same. Usually this is each set of grandparents taking the kids for a week or more in the summer, but they get creative sometimes.
It's been four years and the kids are much happier with this than the random junk, and have said so.
Ask for books. Tell your family that your children have enough toys, but what they're really missing out on is stories and games to play, and knowledge about the world. Maybe throw in a “computer games and internet are bad” if you think it'll fit your target audience.
The number of toys or things is a misleading metric.
I have a toddler, and she has likely has 50x the number of toys, but 99% of them are recycled gifts that were handed off to us, or obtained through groups like our local BuyNothing, or from neighbors. Her book collection of children's books, and sing-along books is pretty astounding, but we didn't buy a single one.
Much of our toddler clothes, and baby clothes was likewise donated to us from local families that outgrew them, as fast growing children can wear smaller sizes for just a few months. When all of our kids have outgrown them, we plan on sharing them likewise.
Its also somewhat of a "lead by example" situation. Those most capable of implementing solutions should implement every solution they have and show how it can be done and then the rest of the world will follow or at least feel the pressure.
Rather than rich countries with citizens living the most resource intensive lifestyles possible judging people in poverty for not having better than first world waste treatment.
I really think that the « lead by example » thing is understated. Developed countries leading by example and demonstrating that sustainable development is profitable and successful is the only way to transform the current situation into a future in which the « polluting stage of development » is understood as being only a transient phase of development and not an end state.
The "non-west" countries are forced to regularly buy bespoke amount of US goods as official tribute to their suzerain [1].
Other countries might not have much better packaging policies, but if you want a war on plastic waste, US and Europe are some of best places to start it.
A lot of the "plastic" is cellophane which is more or less chemically purified wood and decomposes. We have a problem with disposable containers but I think the attack on grocery store packaging materials misses the point.
A lot of what is commonly called cellophane is sadly not actual cellophane (actual cellophane is kind of crinkly, like old-fashioned clear candy bags). It's been replaced by polypropylene in most use cases as far as I can tell.
Meanwhile, nearly every possible vegetable and fruit is wrapped in plastic when bought at a supermarket in Switzerland. It’s infuriating. They have their own skin and are sold by weight. Why do we need to wrap them in plastic??
No one wants to use glass jars from home and most people think you're strange for favoring such an inconvenient idea so readily. Plastics didn't need to push disposables that hard, they were already better.
Edit: Just expanding on glass jars - I started saving all of my glass jars about a year ago. My shelf of jars is overflowing now, and they have many uses. I use peanut butter jars to hold my daily smoothie. I make candles with the jam jars.
We know the plastics industry pushed disposable products hard. And to me it speaks to a broader problem with US business logic - lie cheat and steal at any cost and that is "good" for society. There may be unseemly actions down the waste stream but we are responsible for the culture that produces so much trash.