# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many packaging materials are only used once before being recycled or sent to landfill. However, plastic, rather than other materials, is typically attached to the term 'single use' in the media. In an ideal world, plastic would not be thought of in this way because it would always be recycled into another product, reducing our dependence upon virgin material.

78% of plastic packaging is recovered in the UK, 46% is recycled and the UK is ranked 7th in Europe. All plastics can be recycled but there are currently technical barriers to recycling some types of them on an industrial scale, although work is being done around the world to overcome these.

Why do we need single-use plastic in the first place?

When food or other products are packaged in plastic, they are protected and in the case of fresh goods, they remain fresher for longer.

Keeping food from spoiling reduces food waste, which helps reduce the strain in the planet's resources and keeps costs down. This is partly why pre-packaged goods are often cheaper than loose goods.

Because plastic packaging is so good at protecting and preserving fresh goods, it means we are able to eat a wide variety of fresh foods year-round rather than seasonally, expanding the range of foods we can enjoy.

Plastic packaging is extremely hygienic, keeping food and other products insulated against any air-borne germs. It also prevents germs from being spread by people handling goods intended for consumption.

It is an extremely versatile material that in many cases is resealable and helps present goods in convenient sizes, bundles or portions.

As well as presenting the product in an attractive way, it helps convey key information such as use-by dates, allergen information and recycling information.

It should also be remembered that single-use plastic such as blood bags and syringes helps modern healthcare remain affordable for all and helps provide a safe and hygienic environment in hospitals.

Stringent regulations are in place to protect consumers of all ages.

What about single-use plastics that cannot currently be recycled?

Where you live influences the range of materials that can be recycled because there are 39 different sets of rules across the UK, something the plastics industry and recycling industry would like simplified.

Most rigid plastic packaging can be recycled right across the UK and recycling rates have been improving for over 20 years.

Flexible packaging formats are less commonly recycled, although the technology exists to do so.

If you consider the overall environmental impact of the products packaging protects - which includes energy use, water use, land use and CO2 emissions - there remains a case for using resource efficient single-use plastics, even in a more difficult-to-recycle format.

In these cases, the energy should be recovered via an Energy From Waste facility until developments in technology allow for them to be recycled at scale.

Plastic remains the most resource efficient material in these cases - more than alternatives - as it typically uses less water, land and energy to manufacture and keeps CO2 emissions down during during transportation because it is very lightweight..

Based on the evidence, the BPF believes...

There remains a case for single-use packaging as it reduces food waste and cost, minimises the risk of contamination and increases the range of products we are able to buy.

It is sensible to package goods early in the supply chain to keep them fresh and protected for as long as possible.

Food that benefits from plastic packaging will ultimately last longer on its journey from farm to fridge, keeping costs down because less food spoils.

Plastic packaging typically uses far less resources than the products it protects. For example, a 330g steak generates 7.5kg of CO2 on its journey from farm to fridge; the plastic tray protecting it increases shelf life notably and is responsible for just 80g.

Moving away from single-use packaging may mean food and other products are more likely to be exposed to germs either through the air or by being handled.

Technologies currently exist that mean every type of plastic can be recycled. Work is being done around the world to scale this technology up so that it can serve communities on an industrial scale.

Producers of plastic packaging contribute to society's recycling and waste management costs via their EPR obligations. During 2019 these are being reviewed and updated.

Single-use plastics will continue to have a role to play in modern society and everyone has a role to play in ensuring as much material is recaptured for recycling as possible.

Published on 21 May 2019

...

Are You Interested in Learning More About Plastic Packaging?

The BPF has created short e-learning courses that cover plastic packaging. If you're interested in learning more, you can access our CPD approved e-learning courses on sustainable plastic packaging here.

Understanding the Environmental Issues

Contact a Plastics Packaging Supplier

If you do not wish your enquiry to appear in the secure BPF members' area, please submit your enquiry here instead.

Fill out my online form.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many packaging materials are only used once before being recycled or sent to landfill. However, plastic, rather than other materials, is typically attached to the term 'single use' in the media. In an ideal world, plastic would not be thought of in this way because it would always be recycled into another product, reducing our dependence upon virgin material.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to Thomas Insights - every day, we publish the latest news and analysis to keep our readers up to date on what's happening in industry. Sign up here to get the day's top stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Plastic pollution is one of the most pressing environmental issues. The increased production and disposal of single-use plastics, in particular, continues to overwhelm the world's ability to deal with them. Research shows plastic pollution to be as prevalent in the global environment as other, more infamous pollutants like lead.

While several countries have begun pushing legislation to ban the use of single-use plastics, the medical industry remains heavily reliant on this material.

The Importance of Single-use Plastics in the Medical Sector

Hygiene and infection control is a top priority in any hospital or medical facility. In this regard, single-use plastics perform a vital role in the medical industry by preventing the spread of bacteria and infectious diseases.

Disposable medical tools, such as syringes, drug tests, bandages, and gloves (all of which are typically made from plastics), are a necessity when handling bodily fluids. In the medical research field, plastic pipettes, vials, and sample bags, are also common. Since many of these instruments cannot be reused due to the risk of cross-contamination, single-use plastics are ideal for these applications.

In addition to their strength, resilience, and safety, single-use plastics are also preferred due to cost-effectiveness. In an industry where products are tossed out frequently, it is economically feasible to use items made from the cheapest available materials.

The Problem with Medical Single-use Plastics

Healthcare facilities in the U.S. alone generate 3,500 tons of waste every day, accounting for more than 25% of their total daily generated waste.

One of the challenges with addressing plastic waste in the healthcare world is treating the material after use. Recycling single-use medical plastics is currently not possible due to the risk of cross-contamination and infection; for medical devices, destruction by incineration is typically preferred.

Furthermore, the chemical composition of some plastic products makes it impossible to recycle them using traditional methods.

Due to stringent sterility safety requirements, there are a limited amount of materials that can be used in the medical industry. While other alternatives, such as glass and stainless steel, have been proposed, they present challenges regarding decontamination and transportation. Additionally, these alternative materials have significantly higher manufacturing costs, which can have an adverse effect on the cost of private and public healthcare.

The Future of Plastic Use in the Medical Industry

As pressure continues to mount on the healthcare industry, researchers are seeking ways to minimize the environmental impact of single-use plastics. One of the solutions is to gradually eliminate the use of PVC (one of the most environmentally damaging plastics) in the medical industry.

Studies show that polyolefin-based elastomer provides better environmental performance in terms of energy used during production and emissions released during incineration. The proposed solution, therefore, is not to abandon plastics totally, but change the types of plastic being used. This solution maintains the benefits of single-use medical plastics while minimizing adverse impacts on the environment during end-of-life treatment.
Image Credit: al7 / Shutterstock
More from Engineering & Design

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Single-Use Plastic Scrutiny Reaches Medical Industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Thomas Insights - every day, we publish the latest news and analysis to keep our readers up to date on what's happening in industry. Sign up here to get the day's top stories delivered straight to your inbox. Plastic pollution is one of the most pressing environmental issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Senate report this week recommended a ban on single-use plastics such as takeaway food containers and plastic-lined coffee cups by 2023.

This week will see Australians take a significant step towards that plastic-free future, with major supermarkets turning their backs on throwaway plastic bags, and an outright ban on free plastic bags at shops in Queensland and Western Australia.

Read more: Plastic-free campaigns don't have to shock or shame. Shoppers are already on board

It is remarkable how far we have already come in the effort to reduce our plastic pollution. We are rapidly reaching the point at which the relevant question is not "which plastics can we do without?", but "which single-use plastics do we genuinely need?"

Legitimate uses

Most of us will get along just fine without throwaway plastic in our daily lives. But there are nevertheless many legitimate applications for single-use plastics.

Take medicine, for example, where single-use plastics are a key part of infection control. Having a blood test requires gloves made from plastic, a plastic syringe, and a plastic vial, all of which are single-use to control contamination and infection. While glass is often suggested as an alternative, this introduces challenges in cleaning, transport and availability, particularly in emergency situations where resources may be limited.

Single-use plastics also play a role in scientific research. Many scientists cringe as they look at their waste bin at the end of a session in the lab. Typically, it will be filled with pipettes, gloves, vials, sample bags, and the list goes on.

These items are used for their strength and resilience, and because they prevent cross-contamination of sampling. As with medical applications, many substitute materials do not provide the protection or stability that single-use plastics do.

Single-use plastics are often used to package food and water. While this is unnecessary in most settings, certain situations do require single-use packaging to ensure food and water safety. Domestic food aid, emergency responses, and international aid efforts all require food and water that can be stored without refrigeration and distributed when and where it's needed. Often this means packaging it in lightweight, single-use plastics.

While the proposed bans on single-use plastics should be recognised and applauded as an important step forward in the global fight to prevent plastic pollution, we should ensure that we have thought through all the scenarios where single-use plastic may be a legitimate necessity.

Consider the case of someone with a disability who can only eat with the aid of a flexible plastic straw. Without appropriate exemptions, a federal legislative ban on single-use plastic straws could prevent people in need from accessing a basic medical aid.

Mass plastic begone

There is no doubt that single-use plastics are a major source of pollution. Recent research has shown plastic pollution to be as ubiquitous in the global environment as the more familiar pollutants like lead. Plastic has been found at the deepest depths of our oceans and the greatest heights of our mountains. No country on Earth is immune to plastic pollution, from tropical islands to deserts. All of this pollution has happened in less than a century.

As a society we are realising the damage that single-use plastic is doing to the environment. That's why a carefully legislated ban on almost all single-use plastics is a good idea. From throwaway food containers, to drinking straws, to coffee cups - we can live without almost all of it.

If you take a stroll down a busy city block today, you will see a people clutching reusable coffee cups, or eating food wrapped in brown paper, or carrying a drink bottle that they can refill at a free public water station. We as a society are changing.

We are also seeing a shift in governance and policy. Earlier this year, the European Union announced a ban on single-use plastic products with readily available alternatives. Seattle has been on a path to ban single-use plastics for many years, with the latest efforts aimed at banning plastic utensils, straws and cocktail picks. The move away from single-use plastics has even been adopted by McDonald's, which will trial plastic-free straws later this year.

Read more: How 'nudge theory' can help shops avoid a backlash over plastic bag bans

Amid these trends, we need to ensure that we have the right strategy to accommodate those who still depend on single-use plastics. This would include thinking seriously and developing single-use products that have a reduced environmental impact and can be used in these applications.

For the rest of us who need to kick our single-use plastic addiction, you can start today (if you haven't already) by saying no to plastic straws and taking a reusable cup to your favourite coffee cart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There are some single-use plastics we truly need. The rest we can live without

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Senate report this week recommended a ban on single-use plastics such as takeaway food containers and plastic-lined coffee cups by 2023. This week will see Australians take a significant step towards that plastic-free future, with major supermarkets turning their backs on throwaway plastic bags, and an outright ban on free plastic bags at shops in Queensland and Western Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two weeks ago a video popped up on my Facebook feed titled "What if plastic was never invented?" As I watched it, I found myself experiencing several conflicting thoughts at once. With the plastic free, zero waste, and low impact movements gaining traction, plastic has become vilified, but plastic isn't really the problem.

T oday, around 100 elephants are killed each day for their ivory, and their populations have dropped by 62% over the last decade. Without plastic, that number would be immensely higher. We may not even have elephants today were it not for plastic.

In 1955, LIFE magazine published an article titled Throwaway Living , praising disposability. Until this time, disposability was absurd. Products were designed to last. The idea of using something once and throwing it away simply made no sense. But the article celebrated this new lifestyle. "No housewife need bother" doing the dishes anymore - just throw them in the bin instead! Suddenly, disposability was cool.

Image credit: LIFE magazine, 1 August 1955
This is the power of manufactured demand. Throwaway Living is credited with launching our disposable society.

Yes, plastic is choking our oceans. But it's not really the plastic's fault. By only addressing the plastic problem, we ignore the root cause.

Our Relationship with Stuff

If we get rid of plastics, we'll simply replace it with something else. Perhaps glass, aluminum, or cardboard. All of which are highly recyclable, and even food-soaked cardboard can be composted. This sounds great in theory, right? But glass, aluminum, and cardboard still require resources to create, and are not always recycled. Producing more glass, aluminum, and cardboard will still strain our environment. It may not entangle seals or cause starvation in birds, but we'll still extract valuable resources from the earth, harm habitats and ecosystems, and send a lot of perfectly usable resources to landfill.

I saw an Amazon product review praising a product for being "sturdy enough to use again if I feel like it, but cheap enough I can just throw it away and buy more if I want."

is the problem. We are habituated to buy products with the sole intention of throwing them away.

"There is no such thing as away. When we throw anything away, it must go somewhere." - Annie Leonard, The Story of Stuff

"Our trash tells a story...a story about what we value." - Andrea Sanders, @bezerowastegirl

Plastic is a non-natural, non-biodegradable, hardly-recyclable material. While it is important that we find a suitable alternative, it is even more important that we rethink, refuse, reduce, and .

What are your thoughts on the plastic problem?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two weeks ago a video popped up on my Facebook feed titled "What if plastic was never invented?" As I watched it, I found myself experiencing several conflicting thoughts at once. With the plastic free, zero waste, and low impact movements gaining traction, plastic has become vilified, but plastic isn't really the problem.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was amended on January 2nd 2020. There are no spelling or grammar errors and the article explains why we can't clean all of the plastic and garbage. This article is from The Guardian in the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The missing 99%: why can’t we find the vast majority of ocean plastic?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What scientists can see and measure, in the garbage patches and on beaches, accounts for only a tiny fraction of the total plastic entering the water

# data[].attributes.body
This article was made in 2020 and has minimal grammatical errors. The article shows how hard it will really be to get rid of all the plastic and trash in the ocean.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pity the much-maligned plastic bag.

Plastic bags are being banned or taxed in cities and counties across America-just this week in Seattle, before that in San Francisco, Portland and Washington, D.C. Beginning in January, Montgomery County, MD, where I live, will impose a five-cent charge for carryout bags at all retail stores. Like most of my neighbors ( median household income in the county tops $92,000) I can afford the extra nickel.

But I'm not persuaded that plastic bag bans or taxes makes sense. Here's why.

They're not based on science. Independent studies show that plastic bags are environmentally preferable to paper. Others suggest that, when they are reused, they are preferable to the reusable plastic or cloth sacks that many of us tote around.

Some of the arguments put forth for the bans don't hold up. That plastic waste waste in the oceans you've probably read about? No, it's not the size of Texas. Nor is it made of plastic bags.

Getting rid of carryout bags won't lead to a long-term solution to the problem of plastic waste. Maybe instead of banning or taxing bags, we should be recycling them. That's the argument being put forth by a company called Hilex Poly, which will recycle tens of millions of pounds of plastic bags, sacks and wraps this year, and would like to do more.

You may disagree but after digging into this subject for a while, I'm certain about only one thing: It's complicated.

The arguments for plastic bag bans or taxes are, by now, familiar. The Montgomery County carryout bag law "is designed to improve our environment by cutting down plastic bags-a significant source of litter-which pollute our streets, streams, and playgrounds, and harm property values." Econ 101 tells you that charging 5 cents for plastic bags creates an incentive for people to use fewer of them, and carry reusable bags instead. Proceeds go to "programs that fight litter and provide stormwater pollution control."

Bill Hickman, who leads the Rise Above Plastics campaign at the Surfrider Foundation, an advocacy group, told me by phone: "We're trying to stop the plastic impact on the marine environment. Plastic doesn't biodegrade in our lifetime...Anything, single use, at the end of the day has negative effects on our environment."

All true, but...

Studies say that plastic bags have a lighter environmental footprint than paper, and in some cases are preferable to reusable bags. A thorough life cycle analysis done in the UK by the government's environment agency in 2006 ( download PDF here) found that HDPE (high-density polyethylene, the typical lightweight plastic bags) are superior to paper because they require less energy and far less water to make and take up less space in landfill. Comparing them to reusable non woven polypropylene (PP) bags-the typical reusable bag, made in China, and sold by grocers-the study found that their impacts depend upon the number of times that plastic bags are reused. Data on this is scarce and controversial-critics of plastic say the bags are typically used just once, but the industry says they are frequently used, often as garbage bags, or to carry kids' lunches to school, or pick up dog poop. (Banning plastic carryout bags means that people may have to buy bags for those purposes.) Focusing on the climate issue, the 120-page-long UK study says:

The paper, LDPE, non-woven PP and cotton bags should be reused at least 3, 4, 11 and 131 times respectively to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than conventional HDPE carrier bags that are not reused.

If I understand that correctly, it means that one reusable bag has the carbon footprint of 13 disposable bags that are used just once. If you use the disposable bag twice, you'll need to deploy the reusable bag 26 times before you are ahead in terms of global warming. By the way, this doesn't include the impact of washing the reusable bag in hot water, which is highly recommended because bacteria like E. coli and fecal coliform can thrive in reusable bags, according to this study, which, it must be said, was financed by the plastics industry.

A study from the University of California, Chico, funded by Keep California Beautiful, analyzed the U.K. studies, as well as research from Scotland, Australia and a U.S. consulting firm and found that "reusable plastic bags can have lower environmental impacts than single-use polyethylene plastic grocery bags." But it also found traces of cadmium and lead in the reusable bags. The professor who did the study has consulted for both plastic bag and reusable bag makers. Like I said, it's complicated.

Plastic pollution of the oceans probably isn't as bad as you think. You can find dire stories of plastic pollution, as well as birds being strangled by plastic bags, on the websites of Surfrider and Save the Bay. Oprah Winfrey devoted a television program to the problem, saying:

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch stretches from the coast of California to Japan, and it's estimated to be twice the size of Texas. "This is the most shocking thing I have seen," Oprah says.

Whether Oprah has actually seen the garbage patch is anyone's guess. But Angelicque "Angel" White, an assistant professor of oceanography at Oregon State, participated in one of the few expeditions solely aimed at understanding the abundance of plastic debris in the Pacific. He says the claim that the "Great Garbage Patch" between California and Japan is twice the size of Texas is flat wrong. OSU reports:

"There is no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world's oceans is troubling, but this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists," White said. "We have data that allow us to make reasonable estimates; we don't need the hyperbole.

According to NOAA and others, plastic debris in the oceans comes from many sources, including fishing lines, PET bottles, polyester clothing, detergent bottles, plumbing pipes, drinking straws and toothbrushes. The photo below comes from the website of a group called Heal the Bay, which crusades against plastic bags. Do you see a lot of plastic bags in the picture? Should we tax or ban all plastics because some end up as litter?

Why not recycle? Since we're never going to ban all plastic bags and containers-plastics used to carry fruits and vegetables, plastic newspaper wrappers, styrofoam containers used for carryout food, etc-maybe the answer is to support and develop robust recycling streams for plastic. Like PET bottles, plastic bags are 100% recyclable. The plastic isn't the problem; litter is the problem.

Unfortunately, recycling rates are low, but the good news is that they are climbing. EPA recently reported ( PDF, download) that in 2010 recycling was up from 12% to 15% for polyethylene bags, sacks and wraps. The more plastic bags are recycled and reused, the less their environmental impact, of course.

This argument was put to me by Mark Daniels, who is vice president of sustainability for Hilex, a leading manufacturer and recycler of plastic bags. Hilex pays about $300 to $400 a ton to supermarkets and others for used plastic bags, stretch wrap, the plastic wrap that goes around bottles, etc. They company says it will recycled between 35 and 38 millions pounds of post-consumer plastic bags this year-a tiny fraction of all bags, but still-and it wishes it had more. Hilex does its recycling at a plant in Indiana that it opened in 2005, and doubled in size in 2010.

"It is less expensive for us to collect, purchase, transport and reprocess and redistribute that materials to all of our other plants than it is to purchase virgin material," Mark told me. That's true even though plastic bags are made from natural gas, which is cheap right now.

Hilex does its recycling at a plant in Indiana that it opened in 2005, and doubled in size in 2010. But a robust supply of post-consumer plastic is needed to keep the plant busy. "We can triple our capacity to nearly 100 million pounds," Mark said. "But it's difficult for our company and our board of directors to commit those tens of millions of dollars," without the support of cities, towns, retailers and environmentalists for more recycling. "We should be 100% aligned with environmentalists," Mark said.

The truth is, we don't really have a clear answer to the age-old question of "paper or plastic," now amended to say "paper, plastic or reusable?" Too many variables are at play.

My own answer? I carry several reusable bags in the trunk of my (hybrid) car and bring them into the grocery store when I remember. When I don't, I take plastic and bring it back to be recycled. I don't feel bad about that. Neither should you.
Inline image source: Heal the Bay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pity the much-maligned plastic bag. Plastic bags are being banned or taxed in cities and counties across America-just this week in Seattle, before that in San Francisco, Portland and Washington, D.C. Beginning in January, Montgomery County, MD, where I live, will impose a five-cent charge for carryout bags at all retail stores.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was made on March 8 2020 and gives another solution for the plastic pollution problem.The bug in this article eats plastic and could help solve the plastic problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A solution to the plastic pollution problem might exist within the eating habits and digestive machinations of Galleria mellonella, also known as the 'great wax moth.'

It was discovered-by accident-that these little guys have the ability to digest polyethylene, the most common type of plastic that's notoriously difficult to break down.

Scientists are hoping that studying G. mellonella might provide insights that could lead to the development of tools and processes that can get rid of plastic pollutants.

It turns out mother nature may have a solution for our massive plastic waste problem. The answer? Galleria mellonella, more commonly known as the 'great wax moth' or the 'honeycomb moth.' What makes these little guys so special? G. mellonella larvae enjoy chowing down on polyethylene, the most common type of plastic which also happens to be incredibly difficult to breakdown.

In 2017, researchers accidentally discovered that wax worms had eaten holes through plastic bags in which they were being stored. Puzzled, Paolo Bombelli and Christopher Howe placed the critters on polyethylene film in a lab and observed them getting to work on the plastic. The results showed that 100 worms were able to ingest 92 milligrams of the material over a 12-hour period. While it's not a massive amount, it's still more than microbes are able to breakdown. What's more, the caterpillars-sometimes called 'plastivores'-actually digest the plastic allowing them to turn the material into energy.

"The answer may lie in the ecology of the wax worm itself. They feed on beeswax, and their natural niche is the honeycomb; the moth lays its eggs inside the beehive, where the worms grow to the pupa stage eating beeswax," say the study's authors. The results were published in the journal Current Biology.

Because beeswax is comprised of "a highly diverse mixture of lipid compounds," the worms have adapted the ability to also break plastic down since some of those compounds are similar in their chemical makeup to polyethylene.

Researchers hope that this breakdown process can be analyzed and reproduced as a "biotechnological solution to managing polyethylene waste."

Even if we wanted to use wax worms in the interim, they can only do so much. According to Discover, wax worms may help offer a solution but they themselves are not the answer. A group of 60 ravenous caterpillars can chomp through a piece of plastic the size of a matchbook. It's not a big solution, but it's a small start.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Plastic-Eating Caterpillar Could Be Key in Fighting an Ecological Menace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A solution to the plastic pollution problem might exist within the eating habits and digestive machinations of Galleria mellonella, also known as the 'great wax moth.' It was discovered-by accident-that these little guys have the ability to digest polyethylene, the most common type of plastic that's notoriously difficult to break down.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was made on january 26 of 2018. Although the article is old it has a lot of facts about plas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic is polluting our oceans, killing wildlife, and damaging our health, and there are widespread calls to get rid of it. But it isn't as simple as wishing the pervasive material away.

If we were to get rid of plastic today, the loss of the primary form of food packaging would make hundreds of thousands of people sick. Millions would be starving or dead within the year. Instead of just focusing on ridding the world of plastic, we need to address the underlying systems that churns it out: a global food production system with deeply skewed priorities driven by consumer demands.

There's no denying that plastic is a major problem for the planet. In 30 years, researchers estimate (pdf) that our oceans will contain more plastic by volume than fish. In 1964, we produced 15 million tons of it. That grew to to 311 million tons in 2014, and that's expected to double in the next two decades. The way we're going, a great deal, if not most, of that plastic will end up on landfills, in turtles' stomachs, or in our bodies. Microplastics end up in animals, and enter the human food chain. Larger plastic gets stuck in animals' stomachs, blocking their digestive tracts and ultimately killing them.

To envision a world without plastic would require us to change the basic fabric of how our societies function.

Late last year, almost 200 countries agreed to monitor and attempt to curb their plastic pollution. But to envision a world without plastic would require us to first change the basic fabric of how our societies function.

A major reason that plastic exists today is because people want affordable and conveniently sourced food on their table. In order to meet this desire, we have developed centralized food supply chains that criss-cross our countries and the oceans. These supply chains are also driven by monoculture crop production, which allows companies economies of scale. This means they can produce larger quantities for fewer inputs, such as water and chemical fertilizers, to offer you cheaper food. Our demand for what these supply chains can deliver has only grown: In terms of world merchandise trade, agricultural products (which is not all food, but a fair portion of it is) were worth $964 billion in 2006, jumping to $1.61 trillion in 2016.

In order for this complex and lucrative international food supply chain to deliver your favorite nibbles to your local supermarket, it first needs to be wrapped in such a way that it can arrive-often from another country-pathogen-free and with an increased shelf life. Enter plastic.

Even if your food is only moving within your region or country, just think of the number of people who come into contact with it: from producers, processors, and manufacturers to distributors, traders, and retailers. Now imagine that there was no barrier between your food and them. The globalization of the food supply chain means that pathogens in one country are better able to find their way from one country into another. The "mass packaging of food is an important barrier against microbiological contamination," writes nutrition professor Thomas Sanders in in the British Medical Journal.

"In the early days of agriculture, leaves and animal skin were used as packaging materials to carry food over short distances and to secure them for later use," post-harvest technology professor Linus Opara wrote in a paper published in the African Journal of Agricultural Research. "In modern food systems, the principal functions of packaging have widened to include containment, protection, communication, and convenience."

Once it arrives in the supermarket (hopefully) pathogen-free, plastic also helps keep your food separate from other food products and prevents the ripening effect caused by ethylene, found in plants.

As a result of plastic, you are now able to safely eat food from all over the world for longer periods of time. Once upon a time, it was not possible to live in the United States and eat kiwis from New Zealand, or strawberries from South Africa. Plastic is part of the reason that we now can.

Plastic is huge part of the battle against malnutrition in the developing world.

Beyond serving our own taste buds, plastic is huge part of the battle against malnutrition in the developing world. People in developing countries are less likely to eat enough fruit and vegetables, and according to the World Health Organisation, about 1.7-million deaths worldwide (almost 3% of all deaths) are attributable to low fruit and vegetable consumption. If plastic was not so pervasive for food preservation, more communities could suffer from malnutrition.

If we want to get rid of plastic-and there are many compelling reasons why we should-we need to change the way food production and transportation works, as well as check our desires to have cheap, convenient foods whenever we want them.

One option is to use a different packaging. It might not be as effective as plastic in terms of separating food from people and other types of food, but it would mean that we are reducing the amount of use-once-then-throw-away packaging that is finding its way into oceans and landfills. There are a number of really cool innovations that could be the beginning of this trend, such as bio-nanocomposites and plant-based packaging. But these innovations need investment and battle-testing before they can take on the ease and price of plastic packaging - otherwise more people will be unable to afford the fruit and vegetables that keep them healthy.

Plastic is the symptom. Our centralized food system is the disease.

Another option is to up our recycling game to reuse the plastic that we are producing.

Or, and this is the nuclear option, perhaps we should rather be talking about overhauling the way we produce food. As long as we have centralized food production, we will have plastic. That food production machine wastes, loses, or leaves to rot about 1.3-billion tons of food annually. In fact, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food annually as all of sub-Saharan Africa produces.

So, perhaps we are having the wrong conversation. Plastic is the symptom. Our centralized food system is the disease. To get rid of plastic would quite literally be to change the world-and that is what we should be fighting for. A world in which we phase out plastic, yes. But first, a push to change how we source food (like buying more at local gardens and farmers markets), and a push to make retailers change their food sourcing practices, including supporting permaculture organizations and training.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Think plastic is pure evil? The surprising benefits of the world's most wasteful material

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic is polluting our oceans, killing wildlife, and damaging our health, and there are widespread calls to get rid of it. But it isn't as simple as wishing the pervasive material away. If we were to get rid of plastic today, the loss of the primary form of food packaging would make hundreds of thousands of people sick.

# data[].attributes.body
This video is about how a lady in the philippines is reusing fishing nets to clean the ocean and how she plans to solve the plastic problem.This video was made in 2020 and is from The National Geographic society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Web Producer

other

Last Updated

September 27, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic debris is collecting in every corner of our oceans at a rapid pace and wreaking havoc on sea life. National Geographic explorer Heather Koldewey has a profit-making solution to remove one major offender: discarded fishing nets. She shares practical solutions for cleaning up waterways and motivating the world to take action.

# data[].attributes.body
This cartoon was made in 2016. The drawing was made to show how much plastic is going into the ocean and adds humor to create awareness of this problem.