Government

The unintended consequences of plastic bag bans are… well, gross

Environmental activists have fought long and hard to get plastic shopping bags banned in many urban areas across the country, claiming that such bans would mean less pollution.  The plastic bag industry says the production of plastic bags supplies jobs for 30,000 Americans.  Unfortunately for the rest of us, there are many other consequences from such laws — and I’m not just talking about a shortage of liners for bathroom waste baskets.  

The unintended consequences of plastic bag bans are... well, gross

NRO’s Ramesh Ponnuru explains, via Bloomberg:

Most alarmingly, the industry has highlighted news reports linking reusable shopping bags to the spread of disease. Like this one, from the Los Angeles Times last May: “A reusable grocery bag left in a hotel bathroom caused an outbreak of norovirus-induced diarrhea and nausea that struck nine of 13 members of a girls’ soccer team in October, Oregon researchers reported Wednesday.” The norovirus may not have political clout, but evidently it, too, is rooting against plastic bags.

Warning of disease may seem like an over-the-top scare tactic, but research suggests there’s more than anecdote behind this industry talking point. In a 2011 study, four researchers examined reusable bags in California and Arizona and found that 51 percent of them contained coliform bacteria. The problem appears to be the habits of the reusers. Seventy-five percent said they keep meat and vegetables in the same bag. When bags were stored in hot car trunks for two hours, the bacteria grew tenfold.

That study also found, happily, that washing the bags eliminated 99.9 percent of the bacteria. It undercut even that good news, though, by finding that 97 percent of people reported that they never wash their bags.

Ew.  Sounds bad, right?  It gets worse:

Klick and Wright estimate that the San Francisco ban results in a 46 percent increase in deaths from foodborne illnesses, or 5.5 more of them each year. They then run through a cost-benefit analysis employing the same estimate of the value of a human life that the Environmental Protection Agency uses when evaluating regulations that are supposed to save lives. They conclude that the anti-plastic-bag policies can’t pass the test — and that’s before counting the higher health-care costs they generate.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Comments (3)

  • Mapache
    Posted on February 5, 2013 at 12:08pm

    As Obama would say: “If we can save just ONE life….” we should ban reusable shopping bags…I liked paper better.

    Report this comment

    Mapache  
  • SocialistSlayer
    Posted on February 5, 2013 at 11:29am

    People carrying around their own shopping bags to save the world is about as gross and stupid as all those idiots walking down the street with bags of Dog poop swing at their sides !

    Report this comment

    SocialistSlayer  
    • georgesgirl
      Posted on February 5, 2013 at 11:54am

      I have two dogs and I think it is only right to not inflict my dogs doo on people’s private property or in the parks people play in. I also use plastic grocery bags to clean out my cat’s litter box nightly. I get these bags from the grocery store even though I also use reusable bags. Who in their right mind doesn’t use plastic to cover their meat/produce purchases? I love the reusable because I can load them up with the stuff from the “inside lanes” of the grocery store. The “outer lanes” need plastic or they will grow bacteria on the reusable. Common sense is lacking these days.

      Report this comment

      georgesgirl  

Comments are closed.