Editorials

Anybody keeping a list of things labeled as dangerous to peoples' health or the environment, that have eventually been vindicated of such claims, soon might be adding plastic bags as a new item.

Leading scientists are stepping forward and defending the widespread use of plastic bags at supermarkets and other retail outlets, said Bonner R. Cohen in a new article for Environmental News. Cohen is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

A strong effort has been under way in recent years to displace polyethylene bags, usually made from petroleum or natural gas, with more cumbersome paper sacks for carrying items from a store to a home or office.

Most of the public has shown little inclination to opt for paper bags if given the choice, and their continuing presence has drawn the ire of environmental activists and many politicians who claim the "plastic" bags inflict significant harm on the environment, including causing the death of 100,000 mammals and one million seabirds annually.

Cohen notes that the plastic bag scare was based on a 1987 Canadian study that investigated the harm to marine mammals and seabirds from discarded fish nets. For reasons not fully understood, he said, Australian researchers, in a follow-up study 15 years later, mistakenly attributed the death of 100,000 marine animals to plastic bags instead of the "plastic litter" cited in the Canadian research.

"Plastic bags do not figure in entanglement," David W. Laist, an analyst with the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, told the Times of London in a March 8 report. "The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines and strapping bands."

Laist explained that most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag. "The impact of bags on whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals range from nil for most species to very minor for a few species. For birds, plastic bags are not a problem either."

Supporters of the campaign against plastic bags show no inclination to let such findings slow their efforts.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this year announced plans to keep supermarkets in that country from handing out the bags.

"The danger that single-use plastic bags inflict on the environment is such that strong action must be taken," Brown said. "If government compulsion is needed to make the change, we will take the necessary steps."

The BBC recently reported towns throughout the UK are competing to see which will be the first to ban use of plastic bags. Similar efforts are under way in Ireland, Bangladesh, Thailand, Taiwan and South Africa.

In the United States, San Francisco and Oakland last year banned use of plastic bags in large supermarkets and pharmacies and similar measures are under consideration in other cities.

California-based Earth Resource Foundation is leading the charge against plastic bags in the United States, Cohen said. Meshing the separate issues of plastic entanglement (fishing gear) and plastic bags, ERS's "Sea Turtles Don't Shop" campaign claims, "Over 100,000 marine animals die each year from plastic entanglement."

One environmental activist in a 2007 article said: "Plastic bags are killing us. The most ubiquitous consumer item on Earth, the lowly plastic bag is an environmental scourge like none other, sapping the life out of our oceans and thwarting our efforts to recycle it."

Such rhetoric is "far off the mark," said Angela Logomasini, director of risk studies at Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"In our energy conscious age, the attack on plastic bags is perplexing," she said. "Plastic bags have beat our paper bags in the marketplace because they are not only easier to carry and easier to store and transport, but also because they have important environmental benefits that also make them less expensive.

"For example, studies have shown that plastic bags require 40 percent less energy to make than paper bags, and they produce only 4 percent of the waste that paper produces. And if you are worried about carbon emissions, plastic bags produce 60 percent less 'greenhouse gases'."

Activists trying to convince the public to abandon use of products they label "dangerous" often have failed to consider the total picture.

()