The point of bag bans is to remove bags from circulation
Armstrong Williams’ commentary “Are plastic bag bans increasing plastic use?” missed the point of plastic bag bans, which is to remove the bags from circulation in order to decrease litter and environmental microplastic accumulation.
There are two general types of microplastics: primary, resulting from direct release into the environment (from manufacturing processes, laundering synthetic clothing, and microbeads found in personal care products); and secondary, resulting from the breakdown of larger plastic items (single-use bags, utensils, etc). Per National Geographic, primary microplastics make up about 15-30% of microplastics found in the oceans; secondary microplastics make up 70-81%. These products break up, but they don’t break down. A single-use plastic bag persists in the environment for hundreds if not thousands of years. The resulting microplastics are consumed by birds and fish and, ultimately, by humans. The effects of microplastics in animals include strangulation and digestive disruptions that often prove fatal. The study of effects on humans is evolving, but it includes hormonal disruption, fertility problems and cancer.
A 2015 Chesapeake Bay-wide survey found microplastics in all samples (30) tested. Per the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the ban on single-use plastic bags enacted in Washington D.C. in 2010 resulted in a 75% decrease in the number of bags found in trash traps in the Anacostia River. An analysis by the Penn Environment Research and Policy Center and Frontier Group released in January 2024 noted single-use plastic bag bans enacted by jurisdictions in New Jersey; Vermont; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; and Santa Barbara, California, reduced the number of bags by about 6 billion per year.
In jurisdictions where loopholes were included allowing use of slightly thicker bags, misleadingly labeled as “reusable,” people typically used them just once. Paper bags, while less environmentally toxic, still require polluting technology in their production. The best solution has been found to be charging a modest fee for non-reusable bags to encourage use of reusable bags (or no bags). This is a habit that admittedly takes some time to develop (as do most good habits), but the payoffs for our society through reductions in litter and ultimately microplastic pollution seem well worth the effort.
— Kathy Burks, Baltimore
Maryland’s ban on single-use plastic bags is working
The recent commentary by Armstrong Williams was designed to stir up and bolster the sentiments of those who are looking for support in their disdain of plastic bag bans (“Armstrong Williams: Plastic bag bans are supposed to reduce plastic use, but they do the opposite,” Feb. 28). In citing the study from New Jersey, Williams ignores an important difference in the law here. New Jersey has banned paper bags as well. In Maryland, paper is an available alternative purchased by those who don’t provide their own bags much more frequently than the heavier plastic bags that stores sell.
Studies and stats are readily available that support the environmental benefits of phasing out single-use plastic. Single-use plastic bags take at least 20 years to decompose, and likely much longer, even centuries. In the meantime, they are eyesores that abound in trees, on the streets and in our waterways. And the plastic never really goes away. The microplastic material that remains is found everywhere — in marine animals, in the soil and air, in breastmilk, in human bodily organs.
The real problem cited by Williams is that people are not remembering to bring their reusable bags into the store so they are buying heavy gauge plastic ones at a high rate. Remembering to bring in your own bags can be a problem, but a simple internet search reveals dozens of ideas to help this act become a habit.
Maybe The Baltimore Sun could ask its environmentally savvy readers to share their tips.
— Mary Triandafilou, Baltimore
Shining a light on environmentally self-defeating practice
Thanks to Armstrong Williams for shining a light on how the ban on single-use plastic bags is environmentally self-defeating. The article should get us thinking.
Several Maryland jurisdictions and a number of states have put this ban in effect. The less plastic we use, the better off our lives and our planet will be. And who wants to see the single-use bags blown in our bushes and trees and littering the streets? But the ban often results in shoppers buying a thicker, stronger bag of polypropylene plastic, which manufacturers say can be used 100 times before they wear out.
The trouble is, as Williams points out from a study of consumer behavior, people don’t use the poly bags multiple times. On the next shopping trip, they’ll forget that tough plastic bag and purchase another such bag. I’ve seen this occur at checkout where I shop.
Because the poly bag is not biodegradable, uses several times the plastic that a single-use plastic bag does, and results in three times as much plastic going into the environment, the ban defeats its purpose.
So, what to do? Instead of ending the ban, let’s try a campaign using public service directives in the media, on public transport and in schools, such as: “Going shopping? Remember to take your use-again bags to the store. When you’ve unloaded your purchases at home, take your bags back to your vehicle to use next time. You’ll save money — and help to save our earth!”
— Bruce Knauff, Towson
We all need to do our part to minimize impact on Earth
Armstrong Williams’ commentary misses a big point of the bag bans going into effect. Environmentally we should be moving to sustainability by minimizing packaging, reusing materials to lessen impact on our limited earth resources and reducing waste going to landfills. Yes, poly reusable bags use more oil. However, they can be reused for years, and remembering them when going to the store can be a learned habit as you learned to remember your wallet and keys (I have walked back out to my car to retrieve the bags I forgot).
Another problem can be seen as you drive along our roads noticing the thin bags stuck in trees, on the shoulder and floating in state waters. My own Howard County government missed the point, as I can check out and pay 5 cents for a “banned” bag. When spending $50, is a 5-cent penalty really a deterrent to disposable bag use? This policy doesn’t create an incentive to bring your bag with you. We all need to do our part to minimize our impact on our planet.
— Mark Filar, Elkridge
Soon, bringing bags will be the norm, like wearing a seatbelt
I find it very interesting that Armstrong Williams’ commentary on the effects of plastic bag bans relied on only one recent study. He chose to quote that study but failed to mention that it was funded by the American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance. Despite numerous, easily accessible studies produced by non-industry groups, his article is based on conclusions reached by a research company paid by a group advocating for the single-use plastic bag industry.
He goes on to commiserate with the put-upon shopper who is forced to pay for paper or reusable bags. Sadly, the poor shopper has likely forgotten the bags he recently bought and now must buy more bags. As someone who has used reusable bags for years, I will admit that I often forgot to bring them with me into the store. I often made a quick dash to my car to retrieve them before checking out. After a year or so, I developed the habit of grabbing them before entering the store. I have a collection of cloth, plastic and canvas bags, and folding totes, as well as small folding bags that fit in my purse. Some are over 10 years old, having been used hundreds of times.
Recently, after hearing more than one person complain about this huge inconvenience, I realized the simple solution for the bagless shopper. Just as we have done for years at big box stores like Sam’s and Costco, simply place your purchases back in the cart, wheel it to your vehicle and unload into bags, crates or coolers in your car. For shoppers who use public transit this is not an option, but sturdy, reusable bags are often easier to carry than multiple, flimsy single use bags.
As with many previous laws that may create some personal inconvenience while striving to achieve a greater good, we will all get used to this. Despite dire predictions that smoking bans would close all the bars, most establishments saw an increase in business as many customers actually preferred a smoke-free environment. Seatbelt laws were decried as an affront to personal freedom, but most people now consider latching the seatbelt as a routine part of car travel. Unlike Mr.Williams, I have a greater faith in the ability of most people to adapt to necessary changes. Just as fewer and fewer of us remember smoke-filled restaurants and movie theaters and seatbelt-free cars, there will soon be a generation of shoppers for whom bringing your own bags is just a normal part of shopping. And plastic bags hanging in trees and floating in waterways will be pictures from the past.
— Kathleen Tremper, Catonsville
