Environment, Politics, Society

Study: Reusable Bags Must Be Used 131 Times To Overcome Environmental Costs

220px-Trash_bin_in_ParisThere is an interesting study by the U.K. Environment Agency that challenges the view of banning plastic bags is clearly better for the environment. Sometimes green measures can have hidden carbon costs or negative externalities. The study suggests that a cotton reusable bag commonly used for groceries must be used at least 131 times to overcome their costs and be a net positive for the environment. Los Angeles recently added its name to the list of cities banning free polypropylene bags. Customers must pay 10 cents a bag or bring a reusable bag.

Conversely, a polypropylene bag must be used 11 times to overcome their costs, though that would seem unlikely. Yet, many of the reusable bags are made in China or Vietnam and subject to fuel costs and pollution in transporting them to customers. They are “energy intensive materials” to manufacture.

I still see the value of limiting single use bags which have adverse effects for marine ecosystems, solid waste management, global resource consumption and litter. Only 5 percent of these bags are recycled. Paper bags of course result in huge use of trees that can be avoided with reusable bags.

While I love the convenience of plastic bags, I have been trying to limit my use of the bags. The important thing about this study, however, should not be ignored. Sometimes green measures can be satisfying but actually can raise environmental costs.

45 thoughts on “Study: Reusable Bags Must Be Used 131 Times To Overcome Environmental Costs”

  1. Squeaky – that’s what I use the free plastic bags for, too! I think just about every cat owner does. Now we have to buy them.

    Why do these measures always end up with us paying more money?

  2. I enjoy using re-usable shopping bags. They are sturdy and insulate better than thin plastic bags. I have a collection with pretty designs. However, since I had an interest, I learned about them. You have to scrupulously clean them after each use, or risk contamination from putting produce in the same bag in which you carried meat. You really should designate a specific bag for raw meat, regardless of how often you clean them, just as you do cutting boards.

    The ubiquitous plastic re-usable bags can be a pain to clean. You simply put a cloth bag into the laundry. However, that uses water resources, and unless it’s organic, the cotton was grown using pesticides, or the polyester uses petroleum products.

    And this is the other problem with environmentalism – it can lead to neurosis. You can drive yourself crazy calculating environmental costs of each product you use.

    I also oppose making it against the law for a store to provide a plastic bag if it wants to. Not only does it actually increase environmental cost, but it’s the store’s business if it wants to give its customers anything. Customers end up getting irritated at the store for charging them for the bags that were previously free, when it’s not their fault. In addition, such lifestyle charges disproportionately affect the poor. They cannot afford the really good, expensive bags. In addition, people upon whom this is forced may have no idea they have to clean them, which will create a health hazard.

  4. “The second study was conducted by the Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science at the University of Arizona in Tucson; in conjunction with the School of Public Health, Loma Linda University in Loma Linda, California.

    This study included a sampling of 84 reusable bags. The study included interviews of bags users to
    determine a profile of bag usage. The following are some of the statistics from the study:

     49% used the bag once per week; 22%, twice per week; 18%, three times per week; 11%
    more than three times per week
     70% used the bag solely for groceries; 30%, for other uses
     75% did not use separate bags for meats and vegetables; 25%, did
     55% transported bags in the automobile trunk; 45% in the back seat
     55% stored bags in the home; 45%, in the automobile
     97% did not wash bags; 3% did

    The fact that 97% did not wash their bags; that 45% stored bags in the car; that 75% did not use
    separate bags for meats and vegetables; and that 30% used bags for other uses, are all factors that lead
    to high bacteria counts and the potential for cross-contamination. The bacteria counts that were
    identified in this study included the following:

     Most used bags showed some level of bacteria
     51% of bags had Coliform bacteria
     12% of bags had Escherichia Coli (E. Coli)

    The bags containing Coliform bacteria indicate the bags were contaminated by raw meats or other
    uncooked food products and the presence of E. Coli indicates fecal contamination. The presence of
    these bacteria demonstrates that bags do become contaminated and that food borne pathogens do
    exist on the bags.

    The study showed that no bacteria were found in plastic carryout bags or new reusable bags.
    The study also evaluated the potential for bacterial growth when reusable bags were stored in the trunk
    of car for two hours resulting in a 10-fold increase in bacteria.”

  5. “Two different studies have been conducted by microbiologists to determine if any health hazards exist with the use of reusable bags to carry groceries and other food items. The first study, also known as the Summerbell Study2, was conducted by Dr. Richard Summerbell in Toronto, Canada. The study tested 49 “used” reusable shopping bags which revealed the following:

     64% of bags tested had some level of bacteria
     30% of bags tested had elevated bacterial counts
     24% of bags tested showed presence of mold
     20% of bags tested indicated the presence of yeast
     12% of bags tested had an unacceptable coliform count

    The study concluded that “reusable grocery bags can become an active microbial habitat and a breeding
    ground for bacteria, yeast, mold, and coliforms.” The study also noted that the presence of yeast and
    mold may be of concern for people with compromised immune systems or allergies. In addition the
    study concluded that the use of reusable bags as a multi-purpose tote is a cause for concern particularly
    if used to transport gym clothes or dirty diapers. The study also recommended that reusable bags be
    periodically replaced to prevent bacteria buildup. In addition, the study showed that plastic carryout
    bags and a brand new reusable bag showed no evidence of bacteria, mold, yeast, and total coliform.”

  6. Reusing bags has another risk, due to of the ability of bacteria to contaminate these bags, and survive for long intervals.

    “Bacteria can easily transfer from different types of reusable bags to the hand and back again. What is more, using the same bag over and over for different purposes increases the risk of contaminating the bag with a whole host of bacteria.”

    Laboratory experiments revealed that:
    **1 million cells of Staphylococcus aureus, the bacteria commonly found on the hands but which can cause illness, survived over 8 weeks and took 16 weeks to disappear completely
    **1 million E. coli cells, known to cause diarrheal infection, survived 48 hours before becoming undetectable – enough time to cause illness

    Handles would normally be found to have bacteria that is found on the skin…. Inside bags, however, there is typically a much more diverse range of bacteria, some which are associated with human disease.”

  7. Jonathan: you missed an interesting point. If you really want a lot of trees, you must need so many that you need to raise them. Example consider any plant that is heavily consumed, e.g. corn, wheat. Or, chickens, for that matter. Why are they so plentiful? Because they are consumed in huge quantities. So, you want trees? Use more lumber, paper, etc.

  8. slohrss29

    Hemp is only one of many plants that can be rotated through planting cycles to return nutrients to the soil. Crop rotation used to be the way to go but then with chemicals it was phased out. Now it is being rediscovered. The bottom line is that we could easily afford to pay ten to twenty percent more for our basics and use the money to clean this pig pen up. Countries like Denmark treat their waste as an industry and yes stuff costs more but they produce vastly less waste that cannot be recycled or used as fertilizer. The reason is that they didn’t have the wide open spaces in which to dump their sh*t. It is perhaps human nature that when there are wide open spaces one finds a convenient place to dump stuff; out of sight, out of mind.

    It would be so easy to catch it now when a crap tax on twinkles, booze, and other garbage would easily pay for our medical and waste problems. Somehow Americans still think they are back in the 1600’s where none of these problems existed. Actually they did but instead of fixing the polluted air and water in Europe, they came to NA. Immigrants, what are you gonna do?

  9. TGANN, that sure is a lot of plastic. Plus once those bags outlive their usefulness as bags, they can become rags, and have a long second life. Then they become biodegradable in the end. That’s a big impact.

  10. If we are talking about the sturdy cotton bags, 131 times is completely realistic. I have lots of reusable bags from health fairs, library give-aways, etc. that are a cheaper material and I am not sure they would last 100+ times. However, I have 4 sturdy cotton bags that I bought at a grocery store in 1990 when I went away to college. These sturdy bags hold at least as much as 2 or 3 plastic bags do. My conservative estimate is that I have re-used each of these 4 bags 1,000 times over the last 26 years — just for groceries. That’s a LOT plastic and paper bags not needed. I know I have used these cotton bags to tote library books, haul things to and from the pool, send things to school with the kids, etc. They wash well and are no where near the end of their usefulness.

  11. Does not appear that they made the appraisal to include those that have reusable bags but continue to use the disposable ones for convenience.

  12. Issac, the hemp thing keeps coming back from time to time and seems to have a bunch of positives. I guess it would still take updating existing laws that limit hemp so it could be used more. Don’t know that much about it, but it does seem that it could be a good industry. I doubt any of these environmental solutions will matter too much. The population is still exploding, except for the educated west. If it weren’t for the invention of nitrogen fertilizers, the existing Earth population probably couldn’t be maintained. It will go on and grow, then crash very suddenly. Our government will probably start that cascade though, so we shall see. Karen would have better thoughts on the role of fertilizers and food production.

  13. The essence of the problem of waste is our refusal to pay for our waste. Paper manufacturing does not consume forests. The trees and other cellulose materials are typically farmed for the purpose and maintain the environment. Tree farms do not use pesticides, fertilizers and the like. A farm is logged and immediately after new seedlings are planted. The use of hemp for paper products would also help wean us off of plastic. The paper based products are far better for the environment.

    The recycling of paper, as opposed to allowing the stuff to go back into the earth, utilizes chemicals and other processes that can be harmful to the environment. White paper is far more harmful than unbleached paper. Many governments use a brown envelope to send their mail. That is the color of an environmentally conscious people, non bleached.

    The cost of mitigating our waste footprint on this earth is typically defended against by some perverse perception of freedoms of this or that. The cost that would go a long way to stop and clean up the waste is miniscule.

    Now that we are enjoying gas at half the cost of a few years ago, why not establish a ten percent federal tax to go to cleaning up our sandbox.

    All those against paying a small amount are responsible for this mess.

  14. I have grocery bags I have used for over a decade. I buy good ones. And yes Indy Bob, The fundamentalist Church of Environmentalism has many fanatical members. JT is one of them..God bless him.

  15. During Obama’s 1st term GE made $5 billion in one year, in the US. That year GE didn’t any taxes. GE got a lot of write offs for the “Green Energy” investments that the company made. This “Being Green” has reached the status of being a religion.

  16. How many times do we have to wear a pair of jeans, sit on a chair, use a dishwasher, drive a car, turn on a laptop, open a door, read a book, smell perfume, make coffee in a coffeemaker, fry an egg in a skillet, cosy-up under a blanket, enjoy a meal served on special china, swim in a pool, chop veggies with a Swiss knife, listen to a radio, play a piano, look out a window and ride a bike before all these things overcome their costs and become a net positive for the environment?

  17. I thought someone discovered if the throw-away bags were made with cornstarch they would disintegrate.

    I have fabric bags in my trunk, but sometimes I get my cart and realize I didn’t bring a bag. As I walk through the market I actually am given dirty looks. Are we psyched or what?

    Will fabric bags, recycle everything, have solar panels, and drive high mileage rate cars be enough so 150 years from now everybody lives happily? 150 years ago what did people do that they stopped doing for the good of the planet?

    I would like our government to spend money getting rid of trash whirlpool in the Pacific. They study it a lot so must have some idea of how to get rid of it.

  18. I poop in a paper bag and leave it on the door step of the publisher of the mug shots in our local newspaper. I ring the bell. When he comes out the door he steps on the paper bag, the poop flies out and all over him as he slides down the porch and down the steps. I leave a sign which asks: Paper or Plastic?

  19. “Conversely, a polypropylene bag must be used 11 times to overcome their costs, though that would seem unlikely. ”

    Does the environmental cost of polypropylene bags take into consideration returning the bags to the grocery store for recycling?

    Or maybe a more basic question: is recycling polypropylene bags and environmentally sound alternative?

  20. This is a good article. I am an avid recycler, but I suspect that a lot of recycling uses more energy than the original production. Just FWIW, I use the grocery plastic bags when I clean the cat pan. Then, the little bag and the clay and the cat end product can all go somewhere to make a giant happy mountain! I have often wondered if they could be used for sandbags???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

Comments are closed.