The last straw
In 2001 and 2014, the Environmental Chemistry Group organised one-day scientific meetings on PVC and Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Environment (1) and Plastic Debris in the Ocean (2). In 2015, a picture of an entangled turtle was the inspiration that later led to the 2017 anti-straw campaign against the single use plastic items. The subsequent success of the campaign has sparked some controversy. This article explores its progression and pitfalls.
The public would claim they are motivated by environmental concerns, but there is reason to be sceptical – the decision to boycott plastic straws has broken no camels’ backs. It has had little or no impact on the majority of individuals and, although making one small change might inspire another, there is also the potential to promote inactivity elsewhere. For example, making dietary changes such as reducing meat and dairy intake has been shown to be the most impactful change an individual can perform when it comes to environmental protection (3). Those who feel the environmental “motivation” is simply virtue signalling have suggested that an alternative motivation may instead be to safeguard a human food source (fish).
Are straws a big problem?
Boycotting straws empowers ordinary people – but to what extent? Data models are largely based on a mixture of aerial images of plastic waste in the ocean and a broad scope of different collection methods, such as measuring the volume, number or mass of plastic debris. These measurements are complicated by variations in transport and accumulation on a seasonal and annual basis (4), and the contribution of plastics less dense than seawater (~60% of all plastic debris) may be overrepresented (5). In this respect, the visibility of plastic straws is magnified because they float and are washed up on beaches, whereas more dense fishing nets are notoriously difficult to spot. Yet nets are estimated to comprise 46% of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, by mass (6).
The public would claim they are motivated by environmental concerns, but there is reason to be sceptical – the decision to boycott plastic straws has broken no camels’ backs. It has had little or no impact on the majority of individuals and, although making one small change might inspire another, there is also the potential to promote inactivity elsewhere. For example, making dietary changes such as reducing meat and dairy intake has been shown to be the most impactful change an individual can perform when it comes to environmental protection (3). Those who feel the environmental “motivation” is simply virtue signalling have suggested that an alternative motivation may instead be to safeguard a human food source (fish).
Are straws a big problem?
Boycotting straws empowers ordinary people – but to what extent? Data models are largely based on a mixture of aerial images of plastic waste in the ocean and a broad scope of different collection methods, such as measuring the volume, number or mass of plastic debris. These measurements are complicated by variations in transport and accumulation on a seasonal and annual basis (4), and the contribution of plastics less dense than seawater (~60% of all plastic debris) may be overrepresented (5). In this respect, the visibility of plastic straws is magnified because they float and are washed up on beaches, whereas more dense fishing nets are notoriously difficult to spot. Yet nets are estimated to comprise 46% of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, by mass (6).
Straws are only a tiny part of the plastic waste problem, comprising a maximum 1,800 tonnes of the annual 8 million tonnes of plastic going into the oceans each year – or 0.02% (7). Indeed, removing plastic straws from the marketplace could increase the use of disposable plastic. Starbucks, for example, are replacing straws with spouted nitro lids that contain a relatively larger volume of plastic. Such a myopic focus on straws may serve only to disadvantage individuals who rely on these items. Moreover, paper, wood, glass or metal alternatives are frequently ineffective and may even cause injuries (8). They are also more expensive, and disabled people are disproportionally represented amongst those most socially disadvantaged by the substitution.
Big players in the plastic waste problem On the other hand, abandoned, lost or discarded fishing equipment, known as ‘ghost gear’, accounts for around 640,000 tonnes of ocean pollution annually – or 8% of the total (9, 10). They make up as much as 70% of floating macroplastics (11), endangering 17,257 species of marine wildlife from whales, fish and turtles to seabirds and marine mammals such as seals (12). Rampant equipment abandonment of ghost gear undercuts the sustainability of fisheries, killing large numbers of sea life in the open ocean. |
Microplastics account for 8% of the plastic debris located in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (6). These small pieces of plastic debris are often derived from the breakdown of larger items, and formed a key focus of our 2014 symposium (1). They are a crucial vector for the transport of the key environmental contaminants called persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The solubility, reactivity, hydrophobicity and volatility of POPs causes serious environmental problems. POPs include species such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), halogenated flame retardants, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) (2). These lipophilic chemicals readily accumulate in plastics and, when swallowed, migrate into the body fats of animals. POPs are also known to bioaccumulate up the food chain.
Solutions
Solutions to the plastic waste problem that extend beyond straw avoidance include policy changes in ghost gear monitoring and marking, reporting, and clean-up, community engagement, animal rescue operations, and the development of (and investment in) more sustainable business models. These operations would be assisted by more uniform and better data collection across the sector. On an individual basis, fish-eaters can then make informed sustainable choices.
Chemical analysis of microplastic fragments aims to identify the primary and secondary sources of persistent organic pollutants, their cycling and transportation. Environmental chemists are in a position to advise and implement remediation processes, including atmospheric dilution, burial, occlusion and sedimentation, chemical breakdown, and biodegradable substitutes (2).
In his 2014 Distinguished Guest Lecture on the topic, Professor Richard Thompson recommended a reformation in plastic design to plan for end-of-life biodegradation, recycling and energy recovery (13). In his call for end-of-life reuse and succession planning, he advocated a societal paradigm shift in our attitude to plastics, to which the ripples of the anti-straw campaign may claim some contribution.
References
Solutions
Solutions to the plastic waste problem that extend beyond straw avoidance include policy changes in ghost gear monitoring and marking, reporting, and clean-up, community engagement, animal rescue operations, and the development of (and investment in) more sustainable business models. These operations would be assisted by more uniform and better data collection across the sector. On an individual basis, fish-eaters can then make informed sustainable choices.
Chemical analysis of microplastic fragments aims to identify the primary and secondary sources of persistent organic pollutants, their cycling and transportation. Environmental chemists are in a position to advise and implement remediation processes, including atmospheric dilution, burial, occlusion and sedimentation, chemical breakdown, and biodegradable substitutes (2).
In his 2014 Distinguished Guest Lecture on the topic, Professor Richard Thompson recommended a reformation in plastic design to plan for end-of-life biodegradation, recycling and energy recovery (13). In his call for end-of-life reuse and succession planning, he advocated a societal paradigm shift in our attitude to plastics, to which the ripples of the anti-straw campaign may claim some contribution.
References
- Jones, K. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). ECG Bulletin July 2001. https://www.envchemgroup.com/kevin-jones.html
- Ball, S. and Fletcher-Wood, R. Plastic debris in the ocean — a global environmental problem. ECG Bulletin July 2014. https://www.envchemgroup.com/2014-plastic-debris-in-the-ocean.html
- Poore, J., and Nemecek, T., Science 360.6392 (2018): 987-992.
- Good, T. P., June, J. A., Etnier, M. A., Broadhurst, G. Marine Ornithology. 37, 67–76 (2009) AND Wilcox, C., Hardesty, B. D. Animal Conservation, 19, 322–323 (2016).
- Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Marine debris: Understanding, preventing and mitigating the significant adverse impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity. CBD Technical Series (2016). doi:10.1080/14888386.2007.9712830.
- Lebreton, L., et al., Scientific reports 8.1 (2018): 4666.
- Borenstein, S. Science Says: Amount of straws, plastic pollution is huge (2018) https://phys.org/news/2018-04-science-amount-straws-plastic-pollution.html
- https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/08/retired-jockey-60-died-falling-onto-metal-straw-impaled-eye-10132343/
- Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Cappell, R. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 523, (2009).
- Werner, S. et al., Harm caused by Marine Litter - European Commission. JRC Technical Report (2016). doi:10.2788/690366.
- UNEP. Marine Plastic Debris: Global lessons and research to inspire action. 1–192 (2016). doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
- World Animal Protection. Ghosts beneath the waves. (2018) https://d31j74p4lpxrfp.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/ca_-_en_files/ghosts_beneath_the_waves_2018_web_singles.pdf
- Thompson, R. Plastic debris in the ocean – a global environmental problem. ECG Bulletin July 2014. https://www.envchemgroup.com/richard-thompson.html