Groceries: Would you like to pay more to avoid plastic packaging?

I fear that I have a controversial answer here.

I will summarize it (and abuse my [Math\\latex [/math Skills]

[math\\boxed {\\text {Plastic is not the problem!}} [/math

Don’t misunderstand me.I also find this terrible.

16 pictures which show the devastating impact of plastic on animals and the oceans

But can we please tell a nuanced story!

I fully agree that in Western society the ecological footprint is far too high and we have to adapt ourselves well.

And I want to go along with the story that we use too much plastic and that we can do with less.

But what I totally disagree with is that we have to ban plastic.In Many cases plastic is the most ecological solution. I agree to training a polychrome mist I am perhaps biased. But you shouldn’t believe me. There are quite a few studies that actually come to the same conclusion, e.g. take this Danish study that compared 18 different shop pouches. [1 (the study is from the Danish environmental company, i.e. not from some lobbying group.)

Without going into detail but the regular PE bag came by far the best from the equation.After all, these sachets are light strong and without producing and transporting too much energy.
A paper bag you have to reuse 43 times to get the same impact and a cotton bag you have to reuse 20000 times.Cotton is a very environmentally damaging crop. To put everything into perspective: you need to reuse a cotton bag for more than 25 years at least 2 times a day to achieve the same environmental impact than the so-maligled single-use PE pouch. This does not mean, of course, that you have to give away the plastic pouch for free. You have to make the consumer aware that they have to be judiciously wrapped with nature.

But a small edge marking.The Danish study did assume that the plastic neatly ended up in the waste container and not along the road or in the river. They also mention that you ideally use the PE bag more than once and that at the end of the ride you can be used as a vuisnisbag holder.

In other words, the problem is not with the PE pouch, the problem is in the wrong behaviour of the consumer.But wouldn’t it be better for our politicians to commit to error behaviour? For my part, they may put very high fines on the landfill.

And if our politicians think it all right, they would be better at spending a much bigger problem outside Europe.95% of all the plastic in our oceans comes from only 10 rivers and they are all rivers in Asia and Africa.

If they really mean it and really want to tackle the plastic soup, they have to try to do something about it at first.But I suspect that stopping money in projects outside of the home country is not a message where they can win a lot of lapers.

95% of plastic in oceans comes from just TEN rivers

M. A. W we focus on the wrong part of the story.

Single use pouches are not the real problem and certainly not if we are going to replace them with other pouches that are in fact much worse for the environment. Those fancy cardboard pouches in clothing stores with their logo in 4 color printing and a sisal handle are apparently no problem for anyone. Cotton Idem ditto. But Europe is going to ban the straws and roadwork bags in 2021?

I was probably not going to school long enough to understand the logic behind it.

But again I have no problem at all that we need to educate the consumer, but as far as I am concerned plastic is not the real problem and the story is somewhat more complicated.

Yes, though it is not necessary.

Colruyt has recently abolished the plastic bags for fruit and vegetables.From now on, customers are only using reusable cotton bags. If you do not include the purchase price of those bags -which is negligible -there is no difference in price.

The same goes for stores that offer products such as pasta or rice in bulk, where you can fill your own jars.Also here it is not more expensive.

In some supermarkets and butchers you can also have your own pots filled.Also here it is not more expensive.

The same also applies to bottles of soda, where you can choose glass bottles instead of plastic bottles.

I could still go on, but it really doesn’t have to be more expensive.

Yes, because plastics in the environment come back as a boomerang in our body.

We get all that plastic inside through the groundwater, food and even the air (combustion).

We do not want to end.

No, because without plastic the price of the packaging can be deducted, which makes the product cheaper. Making unpackaged goods more expensive is illogical, counterproductive and kwatsj…

No, because paying extra we do better to follow other cheaper alternatives.

No, but most certainly do to make the return flow of plastic much better, so that it is no longer waste, but a raw material for the next round.

As we have been doing with paper for decades.

And GFT (which was then called only different: the Peel farmer)

It’s about not having waste anymore, but raw material.So it wont cost, gives money for the return flow, as with bottles. Of course that comes on top of the price when you buy something, you pay for it yourself, but so you make sure that if someone throws something away, another picks it up and delivers it.

No, why do I have to pay more for something to be avoided.Something in a pack should be just more expensive so that more people choose to buy things separately. There are examples of supermarkets where most products are sold separately, you can also use glass pots or cardboard or paper as containers. The customer weighs himself. This should be used more. So I paste the receipt bv. Also just on the bunch of bananas, I don’t need any extra plastic pouch. I would like to see paper pouches coming again. Wherever possible, I just use a cardboard box instead of a plastic bag.

Leave a Reply