WHY I COULD NOT FULLY AGREE WITH THE PLASTIC STRAWS BAN

Actually I’m not planning to write in details about this one, I was just going to compile this into a thread on twitter. But I think that would take more effort so I’m just going to do this as a quick update ya.

Why plastic straw bans just don’t do it for me?

Firstly, the reason being plastic straws are banned was because they are said to affect marine wildlife adversely. There was a video circulating on the internet whereby a group of divers were trying to pull out a plastic straw from a turtle’s nose.

HOWEVER, based on several scientific studies, plastic straws are actually one of the least contributors to wildlife endangerment. In fact, it is actually on the 18^th out of 20 spot on the list of debris that are lethal to wildlife, the first one being balloons, followed by beverage bottle caps, cans, cigarette butts (?!), cups and plates (?!), fishing buoys, etc etc. Below is an excerpt from a journal published by Marine Policy on the rank of the lethal debris:

Letters are ordered according to expected impact level, with outcomes ranked as lethal>potentially lethal>sub-lethal>none, and specificity ranked by the level of the population expected to be affected 75–100>50–75>25–50>0–25. Indexes are: (1) Balloons, (2) Beverage bottle caps, (3) Beverage cans, (4) Cigarette butts, (5) Cups and plates, (6) Fishing buoys, traps and pots (including attached rope), (7) Fishing line (monofilament), (8) Fishing nets (including netting, float lines and rope), (9) Food packaging/wrappers, (10) Glass beverage bottles, (11) Hard plastic containers (detergent bottles, motor oil bottles, etc.), (12) Other Expanded Polystyrene Packaging, (13) Paper bags, (14) Plastic bags, (15) Plastic beverage bottles, (16) Plastic Food and Beverage Lids, (17) Plastic utensils, (18) Straws and Stirrers, (19) Takeout/away food containers, (20) Unidentifiable plastic fragments.

Meanwhile, The Great Pacific Garbage Patch comprises 46 percent fishing nets, which kills way more aquatic wildlife than plastic straws. These debris are actually more harmful; effects of one of these items alone outdo the effects of all plastic straws combined. Furthermore, even though the plastic straw cause great inconvenience to the wildlife, it could never do enough to kill them as compared to other items on the list.

I mean come on, just ban cigarettes already. That thing is pure evil. It even earned its spot on the lethal list, even when nothing was left of it but a cigarette butt.  

This brings me to my 2^nd point, why do we start at plastic straws when there were literally dozens of items that are more harmful than a mere plastic straw? The banning of plastic straws to save the environment is akin to banning motorcycles because they emit greenhouse gases, when there were lorries, cars and airplanes that emit more, but hey, we gotta start at somewhere right? So why not start small?

You see, plastic straws do not only pose minimal effects to the environment, they are somewhat actually useful to some. People with health disorders, such as muscle dystrophy, wheelchair-bound patients who could not otherwise drink, relies heavily on this small invention. It also could help small kids to drink to avoid spilling. 

Furthermore, the use of plastic straws could help reduce tooth damage. We all know that high sugar drinks cause teeth decay. One of the ways to reduce the effects is by reducing the contact of the drink to the teeth, and plastic straws is an excellent solution to that. By using straws, drinks could be sucked (err) directly to the back of the mouth, ceasing all contacts with the teeth. 

“The ban is only on plastic straws, not on straws made from other materials!” some would say.

But firstly, the environmental effects of producing one plastic straw is lower than say, producing one metal straw, as one might suggest. Apart from that, using a straw multiple times would cause bacterial growth on the inside of the straws, which would mean it requires a thorough cleaning. Cleaning process itself requires detergent and water, which poses their own risk to the environment, and also your time, which is actually counter productive as opposed to utilizing a single use, you guess it, plastic straw. Bringing along your metal straw everywhere itself is tedious.

Remember those disabled people who could only drink with straws? Who would wash their straws for them? Their caretaker? It puts unnecessary stress on them and on their caretakers as well. Some more, the materials might be too hard and not suitable for their consumption. (say, they are bedridden and only steel straws are available, but a bendable plastic straw would do the job excellently)

Apart from that, several companies, such as Starbucks, have produced new cup lids as substitute to plastic straws. But guess what? The lids use more plastics than a single plastic straw. And container lids are actually a bigger lethal debris in environment, as stated in the list above (it’s on the 16^th spot, while plastic straws are on 18^th). 

 Just like the use of recyclable shopping bags, which positive impact could actually only be fully realized if it’s used like 50 times, metal straws must be used multiple times before it could outweigh the environmental cost of producing it. As we all know, you could lose it even before the 10th time you use it, and you might as well forget to bring it along just like you forgot all those recyclable bags every time you went shopping.

In addition, biodegradable plastics itself is a controversial substance. It is a well-intentioned creation, but just plain wrong - rephrasing Jacqueline McGlade, chief scientist at UN Environment Programme's opinion on biodegradable plastics. For instance, it would only breakdown when the temperature is 50 degree Celsius, which is a temperature that is almost impossible to reach in the ocean environment. Even if it does breakdown, it will not be fully degradable, only small enough to be undetected by the naked eye - and this gives rise another environmental disaster that we call microplastics.

Microplastics are small plastics that are so small, even humans are ingesting it without our knowledge. Recent studies by different researches around the world has shown that table salts sold in the market contain microplastics. Microplastics can come from different sources, but one thing for sure, biodegrading plastics accelerate greatly the rate of creation for these microplastics.

Besides, creating a biodegradable plastics with the intention of making it more easily broke down would create a substance that is almost impossible to recycle. 

Using paper straws is also tricky. Naturally, paper would absorb water and it becomes soggy. To combat this problem, additives and chemicals are added to these straws to create a sturdy, strong substance that could be used as straws that won't get soggy. But once the paper straws are discarded, the additives and chemicals added are released together into the environment during the process of breakdown. This itself is a strong reason why it is not a substitute for plastic, and we haven't even discuss the environmental costs of producing it.     

Apart from that, instead of plastic straw bans, substantial effort in plastic waste management as a whole is a more demanding sector to be considered. The UN itself states that the main solution to plastics in the ocean is better plastics collection and recycling, particularly in the developing world. Banning a small plastic straw and patting your back for a job well done is surely not the way to go. This is a good symbolism move, well-intentioned, but all things considered, is just a sloppy and rushed decision with no guarantee of success. And even worse, banning and replacing it might make things even worse.

So peeps, I would not say I disagree with the banning of plastic straws, but I just don’t think it is the best step as of now. It might look like a good policy, but some data has told otherwise. Proceed with caution, is what I would strongly suggest. You get what I’m saying (ban other things first, then we’ll talk!)

Till then. XOXO