plastic waste is an ever-expanding problem, with approximately 380 million metric tons of new plastic added to the world every year. but what if there was an alternative material that could replace petroleum-based plastics? there is one possibility: mycelium, the white, root-like structure that grows beneath mushrooms.

mycelium collects, stores and sends information to other plants and trees via its branching networks under the forest floor. it performs a network function, not unlike the internet, “an underground information highway that speeds up interactions between plants,” said zhao qin, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at syracuse university.

“mycelium consists of massive branching thread-like hyphae, which is stretched and split into substrates,” mycologist ajay singh writes in his paper, “development of sustainable myco-material from fungi.”

mycelium has a physical structure that gives it strength and durability that can replace single-use plastic packaging. that means it could be part of the solution to some of the world’s most pressing problems.

the united states alone creates more than 35 million tons of plastic in a year, according to the environmental protection agency. only an estimated 5% to 6% percent of plastic waste in the united states is recycled; the rest is sent to landfills or incinerated.

faced with a broken recycling system, some companies are making alternatives to petroleum-based plastics, creating products that are biodegradable or compostable.

ecovative tapped into the mycelium market—or myco-material market—over a decade ago. its core product is a replacement for single-use plastic such as styrofoam, commonly used in shipping and packaging products.

“we’re growing full sheets of mushroom tissue, which end up being the mushroom packing,” said ecovative chief marketing officer andy bass. “the mycelium packaging can be thrown in your garden and then decompose in 45 days.”

mycelium grows and thrives on agricultural waste by-product such as wood chips or decaying tree branches, shrinking agriculture waste streams.

“ecovative grows its mushroom on corn stalk, hemp hurd, and wood chips,” bass said.

like fungi on the forest floor, mycelium likes dark and damp growing conditions. humidity above 98% and temperatures between 24 and 25 degrees celsius (75 to 77 degrees fahrenheit) are ideal, says qin.

when mycelium grows on waste, the structure grows out and down. the hemp hurd substrate and mycelium are mixed in molds to form large sheets.

in addition to tackling the compounding issues of plastic pollution and agriculture waste, ecovative is also using mycelium to make meat alternatives. mycelium-based meat is the latest myco-market the company hopes to capitalize on. “we just cut the ribbon on our largest farm to date,” bass said.

in this case, ecovative’s “growth chamber” mimics this vertical mushroom farm, growing “in an aerial style,” said lacey davidson, ecovative’s marketing director. ecovative declined to show videos of its growth chamber out of concerns for their intellectual property.

“it looks like a dutch-style mushroom farm,” davidson said. “we have reconfigured this model to grow mycelium instead of mushrooms. instead of mushrooms popping up it looks more like one giant interconnected fluffy marshmallow growing a few inches above its feedstock.”

the 78,000-square-foot vertical farm in upstate new york can grow 3 million pounds of fungus-based meats per year. “we will be able to replace up to 1 million pounds of bacon,” bass said. as of july, 2022, mybacon is available in three health food stores, but the company has ambitious plans for expansion.

substituting plant-based alternatives for meat and other animal products can dramatically reduce society’s carbon footprint, mitigate climate change and improve human health, according to the latest findings from the united nations’ intergovernmental panel on climate change.

meanwhile, in the netherlands, innovators are focusing their myco-attention on furniture and building insulation. “mycelium-based foam and sandwich composites have been actively developed for construction structures,” qin said.

while these ancillary household goods do not pose the same threat to climate and the environment as plastic packaging or animal agriculture, the toxins commonly found in common construction materials do pose a risk to human health and do not exist within a closed-loop system, eventually ending up in landfills.

“even if eps [expanded polystyrene, commonly used for insulation] is disposed of correctly, it can take thousands of years to degrade, evidently making it extremely difficult to properly contain,” writes owen robertson in a report, “fungal future,” for the technical university of denmark. “this has resulted in bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals in food webs across the planet.”

ecovative’s licensed partner in the netherlands, grown bio, is working on a bio-composite, mycelium-based insulation product to replace expanded polystyrene.

the last hurdle to market success is convincing buyers that mycelium-based products are just as durable and reliable as plastic. “proving that these new bio-based materials have the same performance characteristics as the traditional materials is a challenge,” bass said.

this is a multifaceted problem, as the environmental protection agency (epa), states that these tiny particles come with a variety of characteristics including size, composition, and are of different densities within our environment.  this invasion of microplastics doesn’t just damage the quality of our oceans, it festers and grows in the air we breathe, our food and drinks, and the products we use. it is so pervasive that, according to science direct, a recent study showed that this army of microplastics has marched its way into people’s bodies, including our bloodstreams.

the result of this study showed that 80% (17 out of 22) of the study’s subjects contained these life-threatening particles in their bloodstreams, which suggests that microplastics are in fact commonplace in most people’s bodies. the damage is outlined in another study from rovira university, which states that microplastics can stretch the membranes of red blood cells to the point where the transportation of oxygen in our circulatory system is affected.

how do microplastics get inside of us?

some people may never consider where the objects in the recycling bins actually end up or if those objects are actually being recycled. according to upstream solutions, only 6% of plastics are recycled and more than one-third of plastic packaging finds its way into the environment. when plastics are left alone in the ocean or on land, they break down into microplastics that can be smaller than five millimeters, resembling the size of a sesame seed. the united nations clean seas campaign found that there are approximately 51 trillion microplastic pieces in the ocean alone.

a handful of these particles may seem harmless, but since they are hydrophobic, meaning of a substance that repels water, an accumulation of them can cover many surfaces and absorb various organic pollutants including pesticides and industrial chemicals. according to the national library of medicine, once these harmful chemicals are ingested by organisms, they can easily accumulate in their systems and threaten their gastrointestinal tract. these particles are often transferred from one organism to another through ingestion, and have been able to reach humans. this common process is known as trophic transfer.

“i would assume living in a place where you’re around a lot of people, you’d probably increase your exposure (to microplastics),” said laura markley, a ph.d. candidate studying plastic pollution at syracuse university. “i think it would really depend on where you live.”

living in a populated city like syracuse, new york, it’s no surprise that most of the residents produce plastic waste. in today’s world, plastic is an ubiquitous staple of grocery shopping that consumers of all ages have a hard time avoiding. “it’s very difficult for an individual to reduce their production when the system is kind of made to produce that way,” markley said.  

shopping bags are not the only significant way that we come into contact with plastics. when we store our leftovers from previous meals or have a craving for the remainder of our takeout, the most convenient way of storing and reheating our food is by microwaving it in plastic containers.

according to markley, there are many processing agents and chemicals that give plastics desirable characteristics, but when those plastics are exposed to certain conditions such as high temperatures, as significant amount of those harmful chemicals within the plastic can leach out into the food we consume. one way this problem occurs is by using the same plastic container over and over again which eventually leads to parts of the plastic shedding off into the food we look forward to eating.

markley also emphasized that leached chemicals can mimic estrogen, the hormone key to the female reproductive system. according to  breastcancer.org, bisphenol-as (bpa) is an industrial chemical commonly found in plastics such as water bottles and sold in stores, that mimics estrogen which can lead to various kinds of cancer in women. markley went on to say, “that was just crazy to me because i was like, how can something i’ve used my entire life, be the source of these toxic chemicals!” 

going to the source

i also spoke with marcus eriksen, ph.d., scientist and co-founder of the 5 gyres organization, who emphasized how recycling contributes to plastic pollution. eriksen mentioned how many of us have been fooled into believing that participating more in this process will solve this world crisis. in reality, more needs to be done than just tossing single-use plastics into the recycling bin.

many materials such as plastic utensils and take-out containers are placed in landfills or end up in our oceans because they can not be recycled.

in our interview, eriksen said that cleaning up a patch of trash in the ocean and on land will not fix the entire problem. rather, it will take strategies to address the source of the issue, such as creating better designs for products and implementing source reduction without plastic. 

at the individual level, we certainly can aim to reduce our use of plastics. but the microplastics issue also needs to be addressed at a higher, larger level – through laws and policies. organizations similar to 5 gyres collaborate with policymakers to form agreements that hold companies accountable for their plastic production and aim to reduce the consumption of plastic. this ongoing world crisis can only be improved by working at its source to truly see a positive difference in our future. 

our government has the choice of acting on this worldwide issue, we just have to push our politicians. this task is easier said than done. but if we, as individuals, begin to hold our own usage of plastics accountable and communicate the dangers of microplastics to our representatives, there is hope that broader change is yet to come.

christmon is a fourth-year ph.d. candidate conducting research within the university of maryland’s department of entomology where she studies the parasites of honeybees in dr. dennis vanengelsdorp’s lab. she earned her previous degrees at the university of west hungary and the university of exeter in the united kingdom. she became involved in combating pollution through the surfrider foundation, a national group with whom she began organizing cleanup events and witnessing the effect of pollution on local waterways.

when the college of agriculture and natural resources tasked students with repurposing out-of-service poultry houses for the fall 2020 agenterprise challenge, christmon entered with a proposal for washing-sorting-recycling facilities for used plastics. her idea of establishing agro-plastic recycling plants won first prize, followed by projects involving a hydroponics farm and an aquaponics farm.

she now runs repurpose farm plastic llc with benjamin rickles, the company’s cto and fifth year ph.d. student in umd’s neuroscience and cognitive science program. while his background is in psychology —he studies neural processes in reading comprehension —rickles joined christmon out of commitment to his long-term goal to build a plastic recycling machine. according to his biography on the repurpose farm plastic website, he has a collection of napkin sketches depicting cleaning machines.

increasing the value of recycled agro-plastic to further sustainable farm practices is listed as the company’s forefront mission, and repurpose farm plastic llc notably aligns itself with the united nations’ sustainable development goals —particularly goal 12: responsible consumption and production. the pillar is described as one that encourages reducing, reusing, and recycling at the workplace —exactly what repurpose farm plastic llc aims to do on behalf of plastic consumers in agriculture.

“when it comes to plastic, the united states —and everything in the united states —has to adapt to be ahead of the curve,” said christmon. “it’s interesting to look to international rules for some sort of guidance.”

“a lot of what’s going on, i feel like, is like we’re relying on a lot of altruism,” added rickles. “the purpose of our company is to develop technologies and good systems for recycling. we’re trying to meet that point where sustainability is both ecological and cost-effective.”

the recycling and repurposing processes that the company is considering after the research they’ve conducted so far, he said, seems to decrease energy expenditure. not only is this good for the environment, but it’s important for keeping the price of recycled plastic down. part of the current urgent concerns for repurpose farm plastic llc is education and outreach for agricultural plastic consumers, especially in cases where farmers still burn their plastics as a cheap means of discarding waste.

“what happens in some cases is, farmers burn the plastic, and those gasses and chemicals that are released — unfiltered — add to the greenhouse emissions and cause climate change,” explained christmon. “repurposing is the best option.”

with thousands of farmers in the eastern shore, the university of maryland extension (ume) has provided repurpose farm plastic llc with networks of county agents who connect them to farmers interested in participating in repurposing initiatives. the challenge, rickles explained, is offering their services to farmers while also managing expectations.

“part of the difficulty has been to talk to farmers in a way to get information about what they need, what they’re interested in, but not to promise them that we have a solution for them just yet,” he said. “so the ones that we’ve partnered with are very intimate relationships. saying ‘hey, this is what we’re doing — we just want to do experiments.’”

christmon and rickles’ status as students have benefited the company’s development in several ways — not only are more people willing to speak to them because they are students, but many of the university’s resources have proved valuable in building the company’s network and presence in maryland.

“one thing about being students is that we’re able to partner with the university education centers,” rickles said. “the university has research farms all around the state. and because we’re students, we’re able to connect with them, they’re letting us use some property. and that’s the kind of thing that wouldn’t be available to us if we had graduated.”

while they admitted that launching a business as a student has as many benefits as setbacks — emphasizing the importance of making time for sleeping and eating well — these available resources have made for a successful first year for repurpose farm plastic llc.

“it was actually a perfect time for us,” rickles said. “the university has given us the training wheels, and we can branch off.”

as they look toward what’s next for the business, christmon feels her academic trajectory has enhanced her business tactics so far, and will continue to complement her abilities as she runs the company.

“how to gather data, how to do the research, how to network — all the skills are transferable to this business,” she explained. “and (with) what i learn in the business now, for example, going out and meeting people and presenting my research… i feel like i have better confidence and also better able to network in that setting. they build on each other and add to each other.”

rickles hopes he’s able to mesh his research and passions in a similar way, balancing his future in neuroscience with his future in the business.

“i feel like i get to measure the impact of what my neuroscience work would have on the world, versus what this recycling project has on the world. and i’m excited to see which one would be better.”

in june of 2020, the george washington university announced an initiative to eliminate single-use plastics on campus. as the first campus in the district of columbia to implement a policy of this kind, i wanted to dig deeper into the specifics of it. what are the specific logistics of the policy? what challenges has gw encountered implementing it? what do students think of gw’s efforts? after interviewing a director of sustainability at gw and surveying students, i got to the bottom of the story. 

microplastics are a form of microfibers –– fibers under 5 mm in diameter or just a little larger than a headphone jack. over time, through washes and wears, our clothes’ synthetic fibers like polyester, nylon, and spandex break down and release microplastics into our water systems or enter waste facilities and are then used as fertilizer and absorbed by our produce. the amount of microplastics released is significant. domestic washes alone contribute up to 35% of microfiber pollution in the atmosphere. this is a concern because of how pervasive microplastics are. they’ve been found in our drinking water, in produce such as apples, in markets across the us selling seafood, and even in pregnant women’s placentas. institutions like universities however are more focused on getting rid of visible plastic waste and are neglecting to prevent this major form of pollution now found even in the deepest parts of the oceans. 

in an effort to curb the amount of unnecessary plastic waste the school creates, the george washington university administration issued a single-use plastics ban in the spring of 2021. the decision has the expected (and debatably impactful) restrictions on plastic utensils and bottles at university events but fails to regulate another significant source of plastic pollution that it’s profiting from: synthetic fibers. it is encouraging to see the university switch from synthetic plastics to bioplastics in their kitchenware, but there needs to be a massive change in the school store as well. to begin, here are three suggested edits for the school’s online and in-person store. 

1. no more synthetic knitwear 

out of the 70 designs offered for women’s sweatshirts on gw’s bookstore site, only two sweatshirts are fully made from natural fibers, both being cotton crewnecks. the remaining 70 sweatshirts are between 20-100% polyester. the sweatshirts that are fully fleece are of major concern. researchers found that, on average, synthetic fleece jackets release 1.7 grams of microfibers each wash, which is the mass of about two pen caps. additionally, out of the ten beanies offered, only one was fully made with cotton; the rest were 100% acrylic.

solution: since two sweaters are already made from 100% cotton, gw can reduce its stock of microplastics-shedding sweaters and offer more designs with primarily natural fibers.  

2. no more synthetic bedding

similar to knitwear, the majority of gw-themed blankets offered are made at least partially with synthetic fibers. only one blanket out of five is fully made from cotton, while another is fully polyester, and the rest are a mix between cotton and either polyester or acrylic. like a fleece jacket, the fluffiest and coziest blankets unleash the most amount of fiber when they’re thrown around in the washing machine and dryer. additionally, the 12 bed sheet sets offered on the website are all made out of 100% microfiber which is a synthetic blend between polyester and nylon. while the benefits of these $20 sets are that they are cheap and soft, they imported from an unnamed manufacturer and will inevitably release microplastics. 

solution: again, gw already offers an option for blankets that is made with natural fibers. if the students are unaware of microfiber pollution and mitigation techniques, the school should step in and not even produce and profit from the synthetic alternatives. additionally, it might be worth piloting a cotton sheet rental program, like a hotel, as students only live in dorms with xl twin mattresses for a few years and this would offer a sustainable and cheaper alternative to buying new sets of synthetic bedsheets freshman year. 

3. offer filtration systems for athletic wear 

gw signed a 5-year contract with adidas in 2019 to supply its team and fan merchandise. adidas’ catalog all has 100% recycled polyester items. while some would be intrigued to see the basketball teams don some wool jerseys, gw could account for the polyester items by upgrading the microplastic-catching technology across campus. institutions have the power to contain microplastic pollution, proven by france that has adopted a law that makes microplastics filters a requirement for new washing machines after 2025. gw could push forward a similar agenda by adding microplastic filters to its laundry rooms’ washing machines. for student-athletes living off-campus, the school could also provide microplastic-catching mesh bags to reduce the microplastic release. additionally, to replace general synthetic athletic wear offered to all students at gw’s bookstore, biodegradable options could be introduced from companies such as tripulse and pangaia. to match the growing demand for sustainable options, particularly by gen z-ers, these sustainable apparel companies use tencel, a light breathable biodegradable fabric made from wood pulp, along with roica v550, a biodegradable replacement for the typical petroleum-based elastics. 

solution: gw should add microfiber filters to laundry machines on campus and provide microplastic-catching mesh bags to athletes as there are no other team sports-appropriate alternatives. additionally, the school store could print and display infographics of care tips on how to mitigate microplastic pollution. 

––

you may be asking why we should be so fussed over synthetic fibers when cotton and wool fibers also may pass through water treatment facilities. the two main concerns are ingestion and biomagnification. first, scientists are already finding synthetic fiber-filled gastrointestinal tracts in small fish, which is preventing them from eating and digesting actual food. second, because of these fibers’ porous and hydrophobic properties along with their chemical-heavy production, we put carnivores at most risk of biomagnified chemical poisoning as the chemicals accumulate up the food chain. 

gw’s single-use plastics ban just focuses on the more visible plastic waste, but more attention needs to be directed at the issue that’s unknowingly made it into our own bodies. according to polling in 2020, approximately 60% of us consumers have never heard of microplastics before, so it falls on gw as an educational institution to inform its students and the public on the issue. gw’s current disposable plastics ban is a great statement against a well-known issue, but there’s a truly remarkable opportunity for the school to be the first to recall at least part of its school merchandise due to unsustainable and harmful materials. while the university may not have much say over what packaging third-party food vendors on campus offer (as noted in the plan), gw has full control over the designs of the merchandise it orders. if the school and its students are committed to eradicating disposable plastics, they should also consider the microplastics they unknowingly dispose of every time they do their laundry. 

in february 2021, while gw classes were held remotely due to covid-19, the university implemented a policy to eliminate single-use plastics on gw property. the policy guide states university affiliates should refrain from using university funds to purchase single-use plastics for which there are available alternatives.

the switch to reusable water bottles saves an average of 156 water bottles per person in the united states per year, according to earthday. the market for reusable water bottles was valued at 8.38 billion usd in 2020, according to grand view research, and is expected to grow in years to come.

the increase in popularity can inspire students to find stickers to encapsulate their personality, leading every water bottle to look different from the next. this act of personalization allows students to take ownership of their collective step towards more sustainable living.

liam macdermott, a senior at george washington university, said the personalized element to water bottles encourages students to make the switch. i asked him if he has seen a visual change on the gw campus since the plastics ban. 

“i have definitely seen a concerted effort to use recyclable or sustainable utensils in gw restaurants,” he said. “that was not happening my freshman year.” 

as a senior, macdermott’s perspective on the plastics ban is quite different than most; around half of the undergraduate students on gw’s campus this fall had not taken an in-person class prior to this semester, due to the switch to remote learning during the pandemic, and so have no reference point for the visible changes the university has made.

paige valego, a junior at gw who was on campus for a semester and a half prior to the single-use plastics ban, said she hadn’t seen many plastic changes on campus, though she may have noticed a change more significantly if the campus had a traditional dining hall.

indeed, gw’s dining plan poses a challenge in regard to the ban on single-use plastics. the university lacks a traditional dining hall on its main campus in foggy bottom and utilizes a “dining partner network” through which students use gw dining dollars at independent restaurants, grocery stores, and food trucks on campus. the university’s plastic elimination plan acknowledged the campus dining partners, and stated that the university will collaborate and encourage dining partners on or near campus to offer alternatives to single-use plastics.  

vallego explains that in efforts to live more sustainably on campus, she carries around a reusable water bottle and participates in sustainable gw’s student-led composting program. 

violet radmacher-willis, a sophomore, arrived on campus for the first time this fall. she finds being environmentally conscious at gw more complicated than at home in oregon, where she said an effort to live sustainably is common. she said that although using a reusable water bottle is probably the most popular environmentally-friendly effort shared by students, it is challenging to find refill stations. 

according to kimberly williams, interim senior associate at gw’s office of sustainability, the university aims to install refill stations in every residence hall and academic building. currently, there are 67 water bottle filling stations around campus. williams noted that she understands the lack of resources makes it hard to participate in this sustainable culture shift, so is hopeful that the investment in resources that the university is making is helpful to make that culture shift happen quickly and broadly.

radmacher-willis echoed this sentiment, saying, “i have hope that, because people are becoming more aware of the benefits of reusable material, that both gw and members of the community will turn to more sustainable practices.”

it takes an estimated 450 years for a simple object, like a plastic water bottle, to decompose. now imagine all the plastic in your starbucks cup, lid, takeout box from your local cafe, and the utensils. uh oh. 

in place of that, here’s three ways to enjoy breaking-your-fast while being environmentally friendly.

1. bring your coffee cup with you

an estimated 16 billion single-use coffee cups go to waste every year, but there’s no need to keep contributing to that. although stores like starbucks and whole foods stopped allowing the use of personal cups for pandemic sanitation reasons, peet’s coffee has reinstated the practice. 

stylish cups are more fun… but be sure to pick a durable one that isn’t also made of plastic. the typical reusable cup must be re-used an estimated 20-100 times to be worth the energy used to make it in the place of a disposable cup, so be sure to get one that you will love for years to come! options like the frank green cup ($29.95 for the 12 oz) that is made of recycled material and can be recycled (and only needs to be used 15 times according to the brand’s website). you can also try a huskee cup ($22 for travel cup) that is made from “coffee husks” (a waste material produced in coffee production) and has a nice minimalist aesthetic.

2. make tea at home

not a fan of lugging around a reusable cup? not a coffee-lover? if you want to try a tea that’s good for you and the planet, swap out those staples and extra material-using tea bags for loose tea! when you buy big-brand tea bags you’re throwing away the pointless bags and potentially ingesting microplastics. a recent study by researchers at mcgill university found that steeping a single plastic tea bag at brewing temperature releases about 11.6 billion minuscule particles known as “microplastics” and 3.1 billion even smaller “nanoplastics” into each cup. microplastics are each around as thick as a human hair, and each nanoplastic is about 1,000 times smaller, so you cannot see them even as you gulp them down.

there are microplastic-free options, though! arbor tea is a brand that sells loose-leaf tea enclosed in compostable packaging. so, you can compost the tea leaves and package with no waste and not have to swallow the microplastics that come from a tea bag! arbor teas also has a solar-powered packaging facility and transports packages by truck and sea freight to avoid shipping by plane to lower carbon emissions.

suspicious of greenwashing? the arbor teas backyard compostable packaging was awarded the gold award in sustainability by the flexible packaging association in march of 2021. if you want to try other brands, make sure to check out the ethical consumer rating site which ranks companies that you should order from and others that you should really stop buying from, like lipton and twinings. 

3. make a plastic-free meal from home

there’s something so fulfilling about a breakfast that you get to make yourself (an accomplishment before noon?). according to a recent study by science advances, over 40% of all demand for plastic is generated by single-use plastic products, which often end up in toxic landfills. if you don’t want to add to that, stop opening little plastic packages of pop-tarts  and go for that classic veggie omelet! not only is it healthier for you, but you can avoid creating waste by choosing cardboard cartons for eggs and bringing your own mesh bag to your grocery store or farmer’s market for the vegetables, instead of using a plastic produce bag. the cotton bags from package free shop are a nice choice.

if you’re more rushed and feeling some toast, you can bring your own bag to a local bakery, even chain ones like tatte, and buy a loaf there. stores like whole foods also offer a “bulk section” that includes an option to bring your own jar for some delicious nut butter as your topping. more sustainable, natural, and delicious!

––

it’s fun and simple to cut back on plastic early in the day; it could inspire you to spend the rest of your day waste-avoidant, too. shopping with ethical brands and encouraging earth-friendly business practices can be a great way to use your consumer power. how about that as a morning burst of energy?

more are likely to follow—and with good reason.

in the u.s. alone more than 100 billion plastic bags are used each year. these bags take centuries to degrade and remain toxic long after, polluting waterways, oceans and cities.

still, there’s plenty of confusion and debate around plastic bans on both the political and practical level. it’s easy to get lost in the logistics of it all—but, at the heart of it, there’s one question: 

are bag laws effective?

plastic bag bans are often regarded as a low-hanging fruit in the grand scheme of plastic waste. everyone has seen plastic bags rolling across the street, caught in trees or floating in rivers. given that it is such a visible form of pollution, it is an easy target for plastic policies; and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

as mark murray, executive director of californians against waste, explained, it is exactly this visibility which makes banning bags a powerful symbol against plastic pollution.

“i’m not going to pretend that banning single-use plastic bags is going to be a major reduction in plastic pollution, but the fact that they are so visible is part of the reason to target them,” murray said. “it’s easy for people to grasp that this is a wasteful product and it’s also pretty easy for people to see that there are alternatives.”

another advantage is that implementing bag laws can serve as a gateway to other plastic policies down the road. the district of columbia for instance, was a front-runner to the bag ban bandwagon, imposing a five-cent fee on all plastic and paper bags back in 2009. since this law was passed, the washington, d.c., government has been at the forefront of other plastic initiatives, becoming the second major u.s. city to ban single-use plastic straws in businesses and organizations selling or serving food or drinks.

lillian power, environmental protection specialist in district’s department of energy and environment (doee), said that implementing these additional policies has been easier thanks to the initial bag tax. 

“it really prepared a baseline as something to build off of, which has really helped us in our outreach campaigns for all these expanded regulations and requirements,” she said. “what it did was prepare these businesses for upcoming future changes and really realize that this is not the end of the line, it is just the beginning,” 

untangling the web

keeping track of different bag bans and taxes can be confusing. as discussed, washington, d.c., has a tax on both paper and plastic bags. in contrast, california passed a ban on single-use paper and plastic bags and began requiring stores to sell reusable grocery bags or recycled paper bags at a minimum of 10-cents per bag. meanwhile, new york state has a ban on plastic bags and a five-cent fee on paper bags. unlike washington, d.c., the money does not go directly to the government and subsequent plastic clean-up programs. the five cent charge is a fee, not a tax, so the proceeds go directly to the businesses instead. all of these regulations can be even more varied on the local and municipal level. 

the fact of the matter is that there isn’t a one-size fits all approach to bag laws. each type has its own advantages and disadvantages––and having a variety of structures to choose from means states and cities can choose a method that best suits their needs.

an outright ban can be a sweeping change with a powerful message, but it can also be difficult to implement in the face of plastic bag lobbyists and manufacturers who may be inclined to sue. enforcement also becomes an issue when a ban is implemented on a state-wide scale. 

a tax, on the other hand, might seem like a half-measure—but it is actually extremely effective at changing consumer behavior by making customers more mindful about their bag usage. the money collected from the tax can also be used for plastic cleanup as illustrated in washington, d.c., where revenue from the tax is put into a fund to clean up the local anacostia river, as well as purchase and distribute reusable bags to low-income and eldery populations in the district. 

murray noted that ultimately both bans and taxes are successful at reducing plastic bag use because it causes the consumer to consider their own bag usage with every purchase. 

“i think that having that charge upfront whether it’s in the form of a d.c. bag tax or in the form of having to buy a reusable bag … is causing people to reduce the number of bags that they generate,” he said. “both you and the checker at the store are conscious of the fact that these aren’t freebies. there’s no such thing as a free bag, it was never a free bag.”

these assertions are backed by numerous studies. in california, a report by calrecycle, a department within california’s environmental protection agency, found that six months after the ban was implemented, 86% of customers brought their own reusable bag or opted for no bag. consequently, there was an 85% reduction in the amount of plastic bags grocery stores provided to customers. washington, d.c.’s 5-cent charge has led to a 60% drop in overall single-use bags and significant reduction in plastic bags found in the anacostia river. thanks to the tax, the bag law has generated more than $19 million in revenue to use toward cleanup and education efforts over the past decade.

tips for success

in the wake of bag law successes in places like california and washington, d.c., many states and cities are eager to implement their own practices. however, gaining support for such a movement can be a daunting political challenge. 

tommy wells, director of d.c.’s department of energy and environment and the creator of washington, d.c.’s bag tax shared his advice on making people more accepting of bag laws.

wells explained that when he was first considering implementing the tax, businesses feared customers would become angry with them and assume the tax was another way to make money. as a result, wells implemented an extensive educational campaign to ensure people knew the tax was the government’s doing.

“we put ‘skip the bag, save the river’ stickers all over the bus and stores and we made it clear to everyone that the government was doing this,” he said. “people just get it now. it’s part of living here. some people will still grumble but there’s not enough out there for any politicians to say they would repeal it.”

powers added, “it does require really deliberate action on getting the word out … (the stickers) are one of those eloquently simple solutions where the cashiers are just pointing to the stickers and saying ‘call the doee, it’s not our fault.’”

the statistics back this claim with a survey commissioned by the doee showing 83% of dc residents and 90% of d.c. businesses support the bag law or are neutral towards it.

looking back at his work advocating for the legislation of california’s single-use bag ban, murray recommended gaining support and implementing laws on a local level. california was the first state with a uniform state-wide plastic bag reduction law, but that all began with cities like san jose and san francisco first implementing their own local laws to significant success. san francisco, in fact, was the first major us city to ban single-use plastics.

in terms of tangible steps, murray suggested reaching out to a local recycling coordinator, who can be an ally and resource for further political action.

“every community typically has a local recycling coordinator or a staff person for the city or county that works on these issues, whose task is to reduce waste and increase recycling,” he said. “not only can they help in terms of giving you a little bit of history, like if anyone tried this before, but they can also tell you who are the champions on the city council or on the board of supervisors…” 

murray said californians against waste employed this exact technique during their efforts to pass the single-use carryout bag ban. now as the organization looks to expand the scope of the ban––extending the policy beyond single-use plastics and beyond non-food retailers––they have continued efforts at the local level and remained in contact with recycling coordinators.

the future of plastic

when it comes to continued action after plastic bag bans, there are many routes to choose from. as californians against waste has demonstrated, one option is to expand upon bag law requirements, such as petitioning for a plastic ban beyond just single-use. another option is to ban other types of plastic, like washington, d.c., did with single-use straws. 

however, an increasingly important focus in the bag ban debate is the idea of “extended producer responsibility,” or epr for short. while most of the existing bag laws seek to change existing consumer behavior, epr legislation seeks to stop plastic waste at its source by taxing the producers of the plastic bags in the first place.

while this is certainly harder to implement in the face of huge plastic bag companies and lobbyists, this type of taxation requires plastic manufacturers to take responsibility for their actions, meaning at the end of the day, the polluter is the one that pays.

as jackie nuñez, program advocacy manager for the plastic pollution coalition, explained, advocating for this type of legislation is necessary because big companies will not reduce waste by their own accord.

“there is a place for it because historically time and again businesses won’t self-regulate themselves,” she said. “they need those parameters, you need those boundaries … the people who make this stuff should be responsible for it in life.”

while the task may seem intimidating, powers insisted this could be done from the local side.

“you just need to get resident support and you gotta pass the laws,” she said. “you’re not going to get these behemoths of industry to make these changes on a closed time scale unless they are 100% forced to.”

this is easier said than done, but epr laws are gaining traction in the u.s. in july of this year, maine became the first state in the u.s. to pass an epr packaging law requiring big corporations and manufactures to pay for a portion of the recycling costs of the packaging material (typically plastic) that they put into the market. oregon followed suit with a similar law in august. 

it hasn’t been so easy in california, where murray said californians against waste has been trying to implement epr laws for years, with little success. he added that while epr might be the right policy to implement, it’s not necessarily the easiest.

“sometimes the ban is the easier policy for policy makers in the public to wrap their arms around and understand,” he said. “we don’t always get to do the best thing when we’re advocating these policies.”

despite the hurdles, murray remains optimistic as more people become open to bag laws.

“at the beginning … we would pass one or two of these policies every few years and now policymakers are really seeking us out and seeking out these policies,” he said. “really, for the first time we talk about circular economy and producer responsibility and they know what we’re talking about … i feel like policymakers are getting it.”

––

editor’s note: this story is part of the planet forward series “so long, single-use?” check back over the next several weeks for more stories about how communities and individuals can––and are––reducing single-use plastic waste.

the entire city of st. pete has implemented an ordinance banning plastic drinking straws. gina driscoll, vice chair of the st. petersburg city council, was one of the founders of the “no straw st. pete” campaign which ultimately led to the ban being passed in 2018. 

“it was never really just about plastic drinking straws,” driscoll said. “it was starting with that one simple object that grew into a bigger conversation about making better choices for the environment.”

an estimated 6300 million metric tons (mt) of plastic waste had been produced between 1950, when the large-scale production and use of the material began, and 2015, according to a study from that year. of that 6300 mt, a mere 9% has been recycled. another study showed that in 2010 alone, 275 mt of plastic was produced in 192 coastal countries. somewhere between 4.8 and 12.7 mt entered the ocean that same year. st. petersburg’s proximity to the florida gulf coast pins the municipality at the front of these issues. 

passionate about the environment and sustainability, driscoll wanted to figure out how st. petersburg could “lead the way” in getting rid of single-use plastics. during her first year on city council, driscoll came across an article about a ban on plastic straws in fort myers. 

“sometimes we find great ideas by looking at what other cities are doing,” driscoll said. 

this led to the formation of a campaign called “no straw st. pete,” which worked in collaboration with local organizations like “i love the burg” and suncoast rise against plastics coalition, even including the national bank ozk. businesses could pledge to go “straw free” and join the campaign, getting them a sticker on their door and more credit among environmentalists. by december 2018, the campaign had demonstrated that banning plastic straws could be viable. 

the suncoast rise against plastics (rap) coalition is composed of 17 institutions and environmental groups including tampa bay watch, st. petersburg audubon society, clearwater marine aquarium, and national groups like oceana. 

oceana field representative for the florida gulf coast, hunter miller, was involved with the st. petersburg straw ban from early on, meeting with the suncoast rap coalition and members of the st. petersburg city council. 

miller acknowledged that the coalition means more than just passing laws. volunteers work hard during beach clean ups and other events throughout the area, but the pollution problems still linger. 

“what we’ve found is, and what volunteers have found, is that those individual things are important, but they’re not going to get us to where we need to be,” miller said. “and that’s what really kind of brought the coalition together.” 

nevertheless, volunteers were a driving force behind this campaign, according to miller. after the “no straw st. pete” campaign started in early 2018, volunteers from the st. petersburg community went door-to-door to businesses to propose the straw ban and try to rally support. 

“it takes a village, really, when you want to get something ambitious done,” miller said. “but that strong volunteer legwork and people coming together is what it takes.” 

and businesses really were open to this idea of banning straws. miller said that a survey sent out to businesses after the ordinance was put in place showed “overwhelmingly positive” attitudes from businesses in response to the ordinance, and very few businesses in the st. petersburg area opposed it. 

according to driscoll, businesses were not forced to quit plastic straws cold turkey. there was a “phasing period” that started with straws being available by request only or in drive thrus. now, plastic drinking straws are not allowed anywhere in the city of st. pete, unless by special request due to medical conditions. 

kahwa coffee, a tampa bay coffee chain, is one business in st. petersburg that has been with this from the start in 2018. according to kahwa marketing associate natalie moore, the business is close to “i love the burg,” which is how they got on board with the “no straw st. pete” campaign. 

“we were one of the first to partner with them and start removing plastic straws from the company,” moore said. “also with the production of sippy lids, we kind of stray away from offering straws at all.” 

on behalf of the company as a whole, moore said that they have seen mostly positive attitudes from customers about the straw ban. 

“there always are people who don’t like it, but we do provide the alternative sippy lid so you don’t necessarily need a straw,” moore said. “but honestly, a lot of our customers are local and very involved with the community, and they’re completely on board with the no plastic straws.” 

additionally, kahwa has reusable plastic and metal straws available for sale.

there are 13 kahwa coffee locations across the tampa bay area, and even though straws are only legally banned in the st. petersburg locations, kahwa does not offer plastic straws at any of their locations, according to moore. 

that being said, if you go to a dunkin’ donuts in st. petersburg, you’ll likely be given a blue compostable straw instead of one made from plastic. but if you drive just ten minutes away to the neighboring city of gulfport, you’ll get a plastic straw from the same franchise. 

and that doesn’t just apply to dunkin’ donuts. gulfport also considered banning plastic straws the same time that st. petersburg did; but, the city council voted to table the consideration in 2018. similarly, st. pete beach, a separate township from the city of st. petersburg, lacks a ban on plastic straws. a lot of businesses in st. pete beach and all the beaches close-by do try to stay away from single-use plastic, but there is no law requiring them to do so. 

st. petersburg, gulfport, and st. pete beach are all in the same county. so at a county level, there are no laws against plastics. it’s at the smaller city level that some laws do exist. 

according to associate professor of marine science at eckerd college amy siuda, policy is one of the most impactful ways to reduce single-use plastic pollution. 

“having the codified (ordinance against plastic straws) is much more effective than just asking people to reduce their straw use,” siuda said. “because then it’s just not available. you can just remove those things from the system and people will find other ways to live without a plastic straw.” 

siuda has been at the college for six years and runs the tampa bay microplastics monitoring program with professor of biology and marine science shannon gowans. the program is a part of the larger tampa bay estuary program. 

siuda agrees that single-use plastics are something that can be avoided.

“single-use plastics are mostly unnecessary,” siuda said. “if we can reduce our single-use consumption, then we can reduce, hopefully, a lot of the harm that can be happening in the environment from plastics.” 

siuda and gowans’ monitoring research focuses mainly on microplastics and how these “invisible” plastics can be affecting all sorts of organisms. as a plankton ecologist, siuda has focused her attention on how these microorganisms, or copepods, are interacting with microplastics. gowans, a marine mammalogist, realized that a larger grazer is also being affected by plastics in the bay––manatees. 

while, according to siuda, the majority of plastics are coming from the land and not from river runoff, humans are not always the main transportation of these plastics. when terrestrial animals, like a squirrel for example, get ahold of these plastics while scavenging, they inevitably break those plastics down. 

“they’re dropping microplastics in the process of that, or breaking that thing down physically into smaller pieces that make it into the ocean as microplastics,” siuda said. “the big stuff is harmful to bigger organisms, but the little stuff is kind of harmful to everything.” 

siuda also added that larger plastics are capable of transporting invasive species across water systems, having serious negative impacts on ecosystems. 

this research and monitoring helps to buttress policies, and aids in educating others on the harms of single-use plastics and microplastics. according to siuda, education starts the process of getting support from people, which leads to policies. 

just by choosing not to take one plastic straw, consumers have the ability to limit the amount of single-use plastic going into the system. 

“i know it seems like one person can’t make a difference, but you have to start somewhere,” siuda said. 

the idea of starting somewhere small often leads to a larger-scale change. miller said that this is a driving force for systemic change. 

“what really brought people out to hit the pavement,” he said, “is the excitement to systematically address this problem through policy and knowing that the changes that they’re biting for locally are going to fuel the movement for bigger change at the state level, and the national level.”

––

editor’s note: this story is the first in the planet forward series “so long, single-use?” check back over the next several weeks for more stories about how communities and individuals can––and are––reducing single-use plastic waste.

music courtesy of epidemic sound.
first track: paradigm shift by gavin luke
second track: azoic by max anson