90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals(scienceswitch.com) |
90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals(scienceswitch.com) |
Edit-I wish store items could be bought in reusable containers made from such materials. It would make groceries heavy and the cost of the containers might need to be “leased” some way (like old milk jugs were perhaps). But I’d do it.
It is important to know how much PFAS they contain, whether those amounts are higher than the wood feedstock (i.e., are PFAS being added), whether the amounts are medically relevant, and whether the amounts are more than the alternative. (And lets not kid ourselves, stainless steel straws are not a viable alternative.)
Effectively, paper straws are really really bad when it comes to recycling. Since paper doesn't have the right qualities for a straw (it will soak up all the liquids pretty fast), they are usually coated inside. That makes it problematic for recycling since you somehow need to reverse that coating. Besides, recycling paper costs a lot of water. Plastic on the other hand doesn't need coating and is pretty easy to recycle (a bit harder if it's colored). The reason why this doesn't happen is simply that new plastic is much cheaper than recycled one. I'm afraid with the de-icing of Greenland this trend will continue with all the new sources of oil.
We survived the first 600 million years of multicellular life without straws, and we can last a few more.
People are at each other's throats over nothing. We could've been a type 2 civilization by now if we spent as much time researching energy extraction as we do talking about straws. </hyperbole>
But for the sake of devil's advocate: putting your lips directly against a piece of plastic or glass is one of the easiest ways to expose oneself to a myriad of germs and bacteria. a wrapped straws solves many problems about cups in public outings that you cant fully control. and it leaves non-disposable cups just a bit cleaner.
It's also a big factor for the elderly or disabled to prevent spills or worse.
The article linked out to this related article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/26/water-re...
He can only drink out of a cup using a straw due to the trembling and shakes.
Also, straws are fun.
Edit: the prototypical stainless steel is Cr/Ni 18/10 with 18% chromium and 10% nickel, aka V2A or 1.4301
For $2000-4000, you can buy real stainless steel grills that are warrantied to last 15+ years, not 1 year.
I bought a set of those IKEA bamboo straws, said to be 100% natural, and indeed I don't see why pfas would be needed on those; solid bamboo.
[0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-00064...
the bigger issue than that is that disposable straws, even after that order-of-magnitude increase in impact, are an absolutely insignificant issue in ecological terms and yet have somehow become a political issue and spawned new laws and ridiculous greenwashing marketing
Do we as a society even need straws?
I never use a straw at home.
The only time I would consider wanting one would be for a milkshake maybe, due to its thickness making it hard to sip otherwise.
I am not anti-straw, just think it is sort of a weird thing for our society to use when I stop to think about it.
They are harmful imo as they detract from the ideal and usually attainable solution of reducing consumption.
> usually attainable solution of reducing consumption.
Hell no.
I'm a real life example of this "unicorn" — someone so utterly uninterested in acquiring material things that I spent an average of €1131 per month on everything combined in the last six months. Rent, travel, food, new laptop… and I'm not even trying to be frugal, this is with a lot of eating out and organic groceries.
If everyone did what I did, not only would we still have wasteful straws (why were they in my mango lassis?), but also the economy would collapse immediately.
If everyone cuts back as far as I can when I last tried seriously, the economy breaks much harder.
> PFAS are sometimes used as a water-resistant coating [on "paper" straws]
Surprised Pikachu that paper isn't water resistent (though then why do they melt in your mouth? Are those straws the pure paper variant?). What we need is for people to be able to reuse the things. Return the reusable straw to any McDonald's worldwide for dishwashing and reuse, for example, if we can't get people to bring it from home (the latter is my solution atm). Single use paper straws isn't more greenhouse gas efficient than single use thin plastic straws anyway, that was never going to be the answer even if it alleviates a decimal of a fraction of plastic trash issues
> PFAS were detected in almost all paper-based straws, with highly variable concentrations between brands, ranging from < LOQ(level of quantification) to 7.15 ng/g (Figure 1). PFOA was the most frequently detected component. Specific concentrations can be found in Supplementary Table A3. In the other types of straws, more often all PFAS were below the LOQ. In bamboo straws, PFAS were detected in the range < LOQ to 3.47 ng/g in four out of five brands. In glass straws two brands showed concentrations above the LOQ, ranging from < LOQ to 6.65 ng/g, while the concentrations for the other brands were found to be below the LOQ. In the stainless steel straws, no PFAS concentrations above the LOQ were observed in any of the brands. Finally, three out of four plastic straw brands contained quantifiable PFAS concentrations, ranging from < LOQ to 0.924 ng/g. There was a significant variation in PFAS profiles between straws from the same materials. This variation, in combination with the relatively small dataset, made it impossible to compare statistically the materials and continent of origin (CO) for each PFAS individually. Therefore, we used the ΣPFAS concentrations instead.
Is this a lot? What do these levels mean? "Detectable" isn't really a useful threshold for many chemicals. Also, how much of these chemicals am I likely to ingest? Does it depend on the type of drink, it's temperature and chemistry?
maximum contaminant level [MCL]. Straw weighs around .42 grams. I am not to concerned about the upper end of 7.15 ng/g contamination. By all means worry about PFAS if you wish, but straws really don't look like the problem.
Paper is just not very good at resisting water.
there are probably a lot of other alternatives that i'm not thinking of
fluorocarbons work better, are less toxic, and consume less resources because you can use less of them, but they aren't essential
Soda cans are aluminum cans with a LAYER OF PLASTIC inside. We literally can't get far enough away from plastic. That shit's everywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIVONw9Pr4w
Solution: We used to have bottling plants everywhere, and the loop was "local city glass bottling-> sold drinks-> return bottle -> sanitize bottle -> repeat". Low waste, no plastic crap, and REUSE (of the 4 R's). But nope, it's cheaper to consume new material and throw it "away" AKA: our children or their children to deal with. Its not like they can vote to stop us.
And those are not fit for blended drinks.
Even with the order of magnitude increase in resources used it’s still insignificant, as you touch on.
What’s not insignificant is that in the contexts where straws are used.. fast food and coffee shops and such, they’re all too likely to be just thrown out into nature rather than being properly disposed of.
Any material in that category needs to be biodegradable. That’s just a hard requirement in my opinion. So plastics is just not a suitable material.
Yes, there are other sources of plastic pollution that are much worse in volume. Though they tend to end up in other places. We need to work on all the sources of plastic pollution in parallel.
(Unless we go the other route and do massive bioengineering of microorganisms to let them break down plastics)
sand, glass, metal, and rust aren't biodegradable either, but i don't think we should ban mountains because they throw sand out into nature when they erode
plastic straws are generally polypropylene, which is photodegradable to relatively nontoxic materials
Even if that’s not the case, “resource usage” is not the right metric to optimize for, this cost-focused mentality is exactly how we ended up with plastic [literally] everywhere.
Hundreds of billions of plastic straws are thrown away every year, this is a massive problem even if its only a few % of the total.
the hsu analysis is wrong because it's omitting the energy consumed by growing the trees; it rates "craft paper" as 12.6 kJ/g, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_chemical_rea... burning wood produces 18 MJ/kg = 18 kJ/g, which is to say, more energy than that is still available in the end product, without even taking into account the "embodied" energy dissipated in processing
the energy consumed by the tree in growing is about 20× larger than this, 300–400 kJ per gram of wood, which is close to 700 kJ per gram of paper, because about half the tree is lignin, which is digested in the papermaking process and then discharged into waterways
it does give a reasonably plausible (if misleadingly precise) figure of 95.4 kJ/g for the polypropylene straws
also, it incorrectly compares 200-mg polypropylene straws against 200-mg paper straws. but paper straws are, as everyone knows, enormously thicker than polypropylene straws of the same level of durability; even with the accounting error of omitting the embodied energy of the paper, its conclusion presupposes the opposite of my premise above, which you should have mentioned in your comment (but presumably could not because you had not actually read the study you were citing)
in fact, a typical 6-mm-diameter paper straw made from 330 gsm paper at a length of 200 mm weighs some 1250 mg, roughly 6× as much as the hsu study's 200-mg estimate. a 200-mg paper straw would be 53 gsm; that's like tracing paper. it would collapse immediately if you tried to suck on it
finally, it is not correct that hundreds of billions of plastic straws are thrown away per year, and those that end up in landfills (which is the vast majority) are not a problem at all. nor are they a few % of the total, as you say, but 100× less than that; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_straw#Environmental_i... says, 'In total, they are less than 0.022% of plastic waste emitted to oceans.'
For my wife, because it ruins her lipstick less than a lid with a hole in it.
I've heard some people say they do it because they think it reduces the effect of the soda/coffee/whatever staining their teeth.
I think it just increases consumption because you don't feel it filling your mouth as much as when you drink from the rim of a cup.
The ethics of straws just won't move the needle.
I mean this only mostly in jest. Iced coffee drinks really are to me a particular indicator of overconsumption.
If you have a compromised immune system, straws are important part of staying healthy.
If someone is immuno compromised I think this makes sense to extent.
In such an environment, sipping from a straw tends to work significantly better than drinking from the rim of a tilted, open-topped cup.
While smaller drinks might use a lid with a small gap in it, that just isn't a practical option for larger drinks.
(edited to remove claim that straw is no better than secure lid with a small hole, it could be a little better)
(I don't mean this reply to be a defense of the market either. I'm asking you to evaluate what is core to your criticism)
Except for Ad industry and marketing.
My problem is with poor education and critical thinking skills, and the anti-intellectualism on display whenever you see full-grown humans stamping with their fingers in their ears because “I just want what I want!”
“It’s so simple!” -Jim Gaffigan
“Stop it!” -Bob Newhart
Some people need straws (kids, disabled people), but in most cases it's better to bring your own reusable straw to fill that need rather than relying on whatever straws they have at the place you are going to.
My toddler for example will just chew up most types of straws (especially those disgusting paper straws). Bringing a stainless steel, a glass straw, or one of those cups with integrated straw is a much better alternative.
People with movement disorders will probably want something more flexible, so I guess a reusable silicone straw is probably best.
I don't think we need disposable straws.
Very useful for children, old people and those with special needs.
But also useful for things like sensitive teeth, avoiding consuming heavy solids in a drink, or to spit balls of tissue at teachers.
Good for on the go consumption as they can move, and you can avoid hitting your mouth with a cup.
Of course you don’t need straws at home unless you have special needs, because your glass is full of drink not ice with a splash of drink.
Now that you mention it, I did work with a person who had a condition that extremely affected his ability to move and yes, straw usage was essential for him.
It is clear there are some use cases where straw usage is a necessity.
I do wonder if that should just be something people use when they need it.
The analogy would be, some people use mobility scooters at the grocery store, but not everyone uses one, only the people who choose to them (presumably because they need it, but the point stands either way, need or want)
The retort, of course, will be to not drink while driving. Sigh.
It would be a massive step backward to use bottles instead of fountain drinks. Not to mention how much more expensive they are than a fountain drink. And there’s no way you could fill them efficiently from a fountain at the restaurant.
Martensitic stainless steels are less corrosion resistant than austenitic steels and are ferromagnetic, but they're used for good reason. Unlike other types, martensitic steels are hardenable through heat treatment, making them the only suitable choice for many sharp-edged tools or parts subject to severe abrasion. Stainless steel cutlery is most commonly an 18/0 ferritic grade, but premium cutlery may be an 18/10 austenitic. Kitchen knives are invariably martensitic, because ferritic or austenitic grades wouldn't hold a sharp edge.
€7.6 euros per week for food is doable, I think, but last time I really tried to optimise that I was at university, in the UK, and it was 2003. (£0.50/day: Lidl instant noodles that they don't even sell any more, Quaker oats packs that aren't sold here, skimmed milk, dried fruit in the oats; I don't recommend reproducing this, it was a game to see how little I could spend without going hungry).
I recall finance going ballistic on my division at one point because our profit margin dropped by a tenth of a percentage point (and yet was still well above fifty)
Think of the savings of slashing that finance department staff :)
I can’t even start understanding that logic. The whole reason we’re having this discussion is that we know the environment, especially marine life, is being ravaged by plastic waste.
consider the possibility that this is because i have previous knowledge of the area instead of just pasting the first link google throws at me, so my opinions are based on domain knowledge instead of the kind of common sense that tells you the world is flat
if solar energy is free then why do we care about embodied energy
we do not know that the environment, especially marine life, is being 'ravaged' by plastic waste. it is being ravaged by clear-cutting (including for papermaking), by industrial waste effluents (including from papermaking), by agricultural waste effluents, by global warming, by ocean acidification, by habitat destruction from farming (including tree farming), by overfishing, by desertification, and by dumping of toxic waste
there is clearly a problem with plastic waste due to poor waste disposal practices in a few countries (mostly indonesia and the philippines) but in the overall scheme of environmental devastation, it is comparatively small, and plastic straws are an utterly insignificant part of that comparatively small problem
Why are you surprised solar energy is free? We're talking about trees. It's not accounting for the energy consumed in the creation of crude oil either, I'm sure you already know that "embedded energy" refers to extraction + transportation + manufacture, not the mass of the materials.
Straws are especially harmful to animals as it already comes in an easily 'consumable' size, even before it starts degrading. They are nearly always single-use and thrown away at a rate higher than any other plastic product. Research keeps popping up pointing to plastic as a contributor to the death of coral reefs, damage to sea life, and we have no idea about the actual impact of microplastics now found embedded in the tissues of every living being.
I still cannot understand what type of argument you're trying to make. Having plastic everywhere is obviously not good for the environment even if paper ones take more resources. Paper is renewable and biodegradable, oil/plastic is not, and we still have several orders of magnitude more energy available.
And in the context of this discussion, you might be asked to prove that straws are used purely because of the manipulations of marketers.
I work in a business that serves a lot of local advertisers. We do take national and agency client business, but the majority of our work is with local businesses. They do it because it works. People hear the ad and foot and digital traffic to their locations increases.
Advertising is just a market. "Advertisers" are just people with a business who want to reach consumers. I'd be far more comfortable with the case that, as a market, it should be policed by some administrative agency, and like most administrative agencies over the past few decades they're likely asleep at the switch and so the market shows obvious signs of abuse.
This is why I, and the other poster, take some umbrage to what seems to be a very simplistic elitist take from you. This is a market. It has benefits, and it has the potential for abuse. Rather than looking at this as a social problem that simply needs basic agency actions to be solved to defend those benefits, the rather radical idealism of destroying the market entirely gets bandied about a little too comfortably.
Maybe not. But I refuse to believe that you asked that question in good faith, because we're obviously going to have all of them. People should be free to live as healthily or as unhealthily as they choose.
Activities high in negative externalities should be prohibitively expensive to help pay for remediation, and the opposite should be positively reinforced, even subsidized. A stitch, in time, saves nine.
Why? Especially in a country with government-subsidized healthcare?
“But then only the rich will get to rot their teeth out!” Good, I guess? So what?
“Poor people will still spend money on sugar water! You’ll drive them deeper into poverty!” Then the price isn’t high enough yet. It needs to exceed the cost of the dental and medical work it will precipitate. Which by definition will price many poor people out of sugar water. Which it should.
Easier: track down illegal sugary drinks is easier that track down at what price a drink is illegally sold.
Healthier: forbid those drinks and all the folks forking for that industry will now work for something more useful the the society instead of trying to find ways to convince people to drink their shitty fluid.
I disagree with the legislative approach, but just think of how much cheap/free labor the war on drugs supplies. A war on sugar would keep those numbers up! Good job boys, promotions all around!
In the more boring dystopia, the disincentivization would lead to poor quarterly financials and cause the same movement in the industry. Nobody is pumping out cola at a loss simply because it's their passion project.
That’s a long way of saying that there are a lot of things we don’t need, but that eliminating them makes relatively little sense. We should instead develop compensating systems based on those needs (such as disincentivizing single-use straws, and normalizing reusable ones in the ways that reusable bottles and bags have been normalized.)
Do you have a source for this claim? It’s not something I’ve read or heard in 36 years.
maybe the actual health of the motherfucking ecosystem matters more than what looks nice on a postcard
common sense is what tells you the world is flat, chemotherapy is bad for you, and lead paint and sassafras are good to eat
I'll note though that biodegradability is not the only consideration, and there are other important advantages to plastic straws.
I don't think that "can be eroded to sand" counts as biodegradable
Reading about this, you're right definition-wise (Glass is not biodegradable), but in practice Glass is degradable to safe materials - and this happens naturally - which is what we really want.
(And in case it isn't clear: I'm entirely for reducing society's unnecessary forms of consumption, especially when it comes to personal modes of transit, wasteful packaging, and unsustainable residential patterns. But abundance is an independent variable.)
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/macron-warns-o...
In a different context it is what happens with dioxins IIRC.
it does photodegrade reasonably fast if exposed to sunlight, in years rather than decades (or millennia as in glass)
because it's so inert, it's pretty harmless when not degraded unless it's been soaking in something more toxic. it's been used in human body implants, for example, but it does cause some irritation in that role (https://theperfectboobs.net/index.php?topic=27773.0 has some nsfw discussion of this and https://everything2.com/title/Polypropylene+string+breast+im... has a safer summary)
implanted soda-lime glass causes irritation in a similar way, by the way; i have a granuloma in my foot right now which is encapsulating a splinter of glass i'm biodegrading. the issue with polypropylene is that it's, believe it or not, more resistant to biodegradation than glass, at least inside the human body
the issue with polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins is not just their persistence; as pointed out above, things like glass, sand, and polypropylene are even more persistent. the issue is that in addition to being persistent, they're toxic—but not acutely so, except in extreme yushchenko-like cases