Those of you who have been following this blog for awhile know I am NOT a fan of single-use plastic. My feeling is that solving one simple problem (getting something home from the store or restaurant) and creating a much more difficult problem (polluted air, water, land!) is really insane. Last week my friend George sent me a link to this NPR episode:
How Big Oil Misled The Public Into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled
I highly recommend reading or listening to the entire thing but the sad takeaway is summarized in this quote from the segment: "Yet the industry spent millions telling people to recycle, because, as one former top industry insider told NPR, selling recycling sold plastic, even if it wasn't true."

If you are like me you have been watching in horror as the Pandemic has brought a resurgence of single-use plastic. (My own local grocery store still won't let me use a reusable fabric bag.)  Then today I read this article:
Reusables Can Be Safe to Use During a Pandemic
and once again it is the oil industry shoveling misinformation for their gain and our collective loss. It makes me very sad.  Sorry. I just needed to vent.

My friend Nancy showed me this packaging today.  As you may know by now, I am NOT a fan of single-use plastic packaging.  In fact, it makes me a bit crazy but this one, this one. . . well, let's just take a look shall we.  (If you can't tell from the picture it is a plastic container.)  In big words:  "84% Less Packaging".  That sounds great, right?  Well, let's take a closer look at the fine print, shall we . . .

"Than glass jar by weight".  REALLY?!  Plastic weights less than glass?  Incredible.  Or do they think we are incredibly stupid?  If this isn't a prime example of "green-washing" I don't know what is. 

It is my opinion that this advertising crosses the line set by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission)
Part 260 -- GUIDES FOR THE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING CLAIMS
(c) Overstatement of environmental attribute: An environmental marketing claim should not be presented in a manner that overstates the environmental attribute or benefit, expressly or by implication. Marketers should avoid implications of significant environmental benefits if the benefit is in fact negligible.

The FTC offers this example:

Example 1:A package is labeled, "50% more recycled content than before." The manufacturer increased the recycled content of its package from 2 percent recycled material to 3 percent recycled material. Although the claim is technically true, it is likely to convey the false impression that the advertiser has increased significantly the use of recycled material.

I think advertising that a plastic single-use packaging is 84% Less Packaging (by weight than glass) although I am sure technically true (duh!) qualifies as an overstatement.  If you feel likewise (and inspired to do so), you can file a complaint with the FTC by visiting this web site or calling: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).  It takes about 5 minutes.

Planters, as far as I am concerned you can plant this ad campaign where the sun don't shine.  I'll take bulk (zero packaging) peanuts over this nonsense any day of the week.  Shame on you. 

You may have heard about the recent study that found lead residue in those reusable non-woven-polypropylene bags that are sold at grocery store check outs.  In my own town they sell these "re-usable" bags for 99 cents.  Seriously cheap.

Now, I am NOT a big fan of these petroleum based bags.  They don't last all that long -- according to my friend Jane with regular use and washing (to avoid contamination) they start to deteriorate in less than 6 months.  This is better than the single-use plastic bags which are used for an average of 12 minutes before being discarded.  However, most non-woven-polypropylene bags are made in China - which means a big carbon footprint in transportation.  Frankly, I am not surprised or shocked to hear there is lead being found in these bags. 

BUT... when a study like this comes out and the message from their Senior Research Analyst J. Justin Wilson is:  “Environmental activists are trying to have it both ways. They’ve spent decades campaigning against lead in paint, toys, and even packaging, but when it comes to their own sacred cow, they seem willing to ignore the issue.”  Concluded Wilson: “In the end, retailers shouldn’t have been goaded into selling these bags in the first place. They were merely doing their best to respond to environmental activists’ demands.”

I BEG TO DIFFER!  I do not and never have wanted to replace one short sighted idiotic solution with another equally stupid one especially when there is a MUCH better, easy solution!

A cotton fabric bag (preferable made out of reused material) will last MANY years, decompose at the end of its life, NOT contain lead, NOT pollute our land and water and can be fun and stylish.  Don't replace a bad solution with another bad one, please.

Anytime I see a "study" that implies reusable bags are "bad" I get suspicious.  This was NO exception.  My first question is always, who funded this study.  (The last one you may remember about the tainted bags was paid for by the plastic industry.)  This one comes to us from the Center for Consumer Freedom.  Well that sounds good, right?  Wrong... it didn't take much diggin' to discover that this positive sounding group was actually, a non-profit American lobby group.  A lobby group?  For whom? 

The Channel 7 expose: Lobbyists Hide Behind Non-Profit Fronts calls the CCF  part of the "non-profit front groups to push their corporate messages".

"Berman set up the Center for Consumer Freedom and a number of other tax exempt educational organizations. And those educational non-profits all seem to support messages that dove tail nicely with the food beverage and tobacco industries that have hired Richard Berman."

I looked at the CCF's 2005 990 tax return (most recent one I could find) and found that their revenue was close to $3.5 million dollars with Richard Berman only being paid $18,000 for his services as executive director and president but $1.3 million being paid to Berman and Company for managing services (of which Richard Berman is the sole owner and president) and did I mention both share office space too.  The bulk of the other monies appear to be spent on "educational advertisements, press releases, opinion editorials," etc.  Some of the other website gems that CCF runs are: obesitymyths.com and fishscam.com just to name a couple.   I think CCF should stand for Center for Confusing Facts.

Wilson from CCF says,  “As an advocate for consumer choice I believe consumers should have the option of using lead-free plastic and paper bags when they’re bringing home their groceries.”

I say, "As an advocate for clean oceans and land I believe consumers should be smart enough to use lead-free, plastic-free, paper-free fabric bags when bringing home their groceries."  

ok... I'll jump off my soap box now.  Sheesh.

To end this long post on a positive note, "Yesterday, the Marin County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ban single-use takeout bags."  You can read the article in the local paper here.  Three Cheers for Marin!

This picture was taken by one of my favorite artists/activists, Chris Jordan.  It was not staged or altered in any way.  You can see more of his pictures from the gyre on his web site.  Big thanks to Laura of Meadowsweet Organics for emailing me this link. 

The video for the week is another Chris Jordan moment from TED.  It's 11 minutes long and, in my opinion, well worth the time.  Chris is as eloquent with his words as he is with his photos.  Credit and thanks for the video link goes to The Green Bag Lady, who by the way, is currently running another bag giveaway.  (Deadline is midnight Wednesday so better get over there quick and get your free bag.)

The California state Senate failed to pass AB 1998 (ban on single-use plastic bags).  I am crushed.