Single-Use Bag Laws

Single-Use Bag Laws in the U.S.

Carrie M. Skuzeski

Linfield College

1

Single-Use Bag Laws

Table of Contents

Preface……………………………………………………………………………………………..3

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………....8

Essay……………………………………………………………………………………………....9

Introduction………….…………………………………………………………………….9

Where single-use bag policies have been enacted in the U.S.…………………………...10

Various policy options to reduce plastic-bag use …………...………………..…………10

Plastic-bag bans …………...…………………………………..………………...10

Single-use bag fees …………...…………………………..……………………..11

Plastic-bag recycling programs.…………...……………………………………..12

The plastics industry’s opposition.…………………………….…………………….…..14

A national plastic-bag ban and 10-cent paper-bag fee is the solution………………..….15

Conclusion………………………………………………...……………………………..18

References………………………………………………………………………………………..20

2

Single-Use Bag Laws

Preface

It was a sunny day in late August. I was sitting in the Renshaw media lab, unaware that in

the not so-distant future it would become my second home, surrounded by the other students in

my colloquium group. My advisor was none other than Professor Thompson and my student-

advisor was the lovely Louise Winsnes. It was our very first day of college, so Professor

Thompson left the lab to let us curious 18-year-olds interrogate Louise. After we transcended the

“What’s Linfield’s party scene like?” questions, we navigated toward speaking about the Mass

Communications major. After all, we were placed in that colloquium because we expressed

interest in majoring it. Except for a few random people, including myself, who had no idea what

they wanted to do. When Louise finished confessing what she thought was the most difficult

class was in the major, she peeked around at us to see if she had accidentally scared us and

caused us to want to march outside to Renshaw Ave., start running away from Linfield and never

look back. Maybe we were too nervous to look like sissies. Or perhaps people were pleased that

Louise had honestly answered, “There are people to party with if that’s what you want to do,”

but we all stayed glued to the cushioned office chairs. Louise had explained what Information

Gathering was. And the moment she finished, my exact thoughts were: There is no way I am

majoring in Mass Communications.

As sad as it may have been, that I almost let one class ruin the idea of a major, my

terrified thought stuck with me. I came from a high school that had pushed me a minimal

amount. The longest paper I ever wrote was 16 pages, which at the time I thought was tough.

Therefore, when I heard “100 pages,” come from Louise’s lips, the deal was sealed. Until I took

Introduction to Mass Communications with Professor Sivek that following January term. And

the more I looked into media studies, the more I contemplated majoring in it. After speaking with

3

Single-Use Bag Laws

various professors and sizeable amount of deep thought, I discovered I was passionate and

curious enough about mass communication to pursue a major in it. But I carried the instilled fear

of Information Gathering with me.

When I was visiting a friend in Alaska this summer we went on a boating excursion led

by Mrs. Peevey. She was the mother of Katrina Peevey a Mass Communications major who

graduated from Linfield in 2010. When I explained to Mrs. Peevey what my major was and

which classes I was taking the next year, she proceeded to gush about Katrina’s experience in

Information Gathering. Her gushing wasn’t comforting, but a letter that Katrina emailed to her

mother that same night to give to me, was. Katrina had taken it upon herself to write me a 3-page

information-gathering survival guide. It was a gracious thing to do, and it ended up giving me the

confidence to confront the class without fear. And that feeling lasted, for a bit. Information

Gathering is one of the most notorious classes on campus. Truly the bark of this class is worst

than the bite. I wish I hadn’t given into the hype of the big, bad, scary Info Gathering before the

semester. Regardless, here I am. I made it. I’m officially an Information Gathering survivor. In

hindsight, I don’t think about it as a class. A better word for it, in my opinion, is a

metamorphosis. Cheesy, but true in a writing sense.

Starting to write a paper is usually one of the hardest parts about the entire process.

Planning the structure, knowing which direction to take the paper, etc., are always daunting

obstacles I wrestle with. This is one reason I am grateful for my experience in Information

Gathering. It proved to me that writing is a learning process. You have to research and find the

various pieces to the puzzle. Then, the only way to assemble those pieces is to start assembling

them. When Professor Thompson says “You never know what you think until you write it,” I

completely agree. I only knew which direction my research would take my paper until I wrote it

4

Single-Use Bag Laws

in front of me. Also, before the class, I was not familiar with APA or AP style. I would not say I

am an expert on using them, but pretty close as a sophomore college student could be.

It’s truly a strange bond that the others in my class developed over the semester. All we

needed to do was exchange glances in the library, and it wasn’t necessary to have to verbalize:

“Yes, I have no life. And neither do you.” But it was the positivity and support of my classmates

that helped me survive the semester. The countless hours I spent in the library or in Renshaw

were usually not alone. I had my mini support squad with me nearly at all times. That squad

typically consisted of the other students involved with The Linfield Review, but I worked with

every other student in the class at some point. Whether it was editing each other’s papers or

asking how to cite a government document, we all helped each other. I never encountered

someone unwilling to help. It was heart-warming how every one looked out for each other and

offered advice. I must offer a sincere thank you to all of the other students in the class.

Particularly, I must thank my best friend Sarah Jo Mason. I do not mean to play favorites, but

without her unrelenting assistance and love these past three months it would have been a much

rockier road.

On that same accord, I would like to send inordinate amounts of gratitude toward my

other friends, roommates and family. After my immeasurable refusals to hang out, I am surprised

I still have friends left. However, I seem to have chosen the right friends because they are still by

my side and celebrating my ascent from the info-gathering hole. My parents never failed to give

excellent advice when I carped about my woes. My roommates were so understanding this

semester, that they loved me even when I forgot to do the dishes or take out the trash. All of my

loved ones gave me perspective on my situation, and reminded me who I was even when I was

so sleep-deprived I nearly forgot my own name.

5

Single-Use Bag Laws

Undoubtedly, Professor Thompson and Susan deserve many thanks for their help

throughout Information Gathering. One could argue that it was unfair for them to make me write

100 pages about plastic bags. Yet I strongly beg to differ because their instruction allowed me to

grow tenfold as a person, student and writer. Each class period I tried to be a sponge and soak up

every bit of the knowledge they offered. Admiring and wanting to learn from those wiser than

myself are inherent characteristics of mine. Therefore, I never hesitated to appreciate the advice

or information they provided during class. I learned so much more about the world, in a

professional sense and many others, in addition to researching and writing techniques.

A very long, enthusiastic round of applause should be directed to Information Gathering

survivors from years’ past. I am extremely grateful for previous students’ examples of various

assignments. It was useful and enlightening when students who took the class last year visited

ours to discuss their experience. I cannot count how many times I asked random questions about

AP style and time management to such students. Many were willing to edit and email copies of

their warm-ups to me. Most importantly, these students gave me advice and confidence when I

needed it most. Cassidy Davis, Sara Miller, Jerry Young, Shelby and, most of all, Kelsey Sutton:

I am not sure I’ll ever be able to properly repay you.

Finally, the writing center, the library and even campus public safety deserve mass

amounts of appreciation. I am surprised our class did not force all of the writing-center

employees to quit. Yet the degree to which we ran their services dry, was how willing they all

were to be helpful and supportive. The library is full of workers who helped me find books, log

on to computers, use research databases and fix the printer. Namely Courtney Terrey, Justyne

Treist and Shelby (again) must be thanked. It amazes me how willing people are to help.

I do not mean to sound dramatic. This class was by no means horrific. It was very doable,

6

Single-Use Bag Laws

it just pushed me to new limits. Because of it I feel prepared to take on any class Linfield has to

offer, except the math and science courses because I am studying communications for a reason.

And now I, along with the group I fondly regarded this spring as my “fellow info-gather-ers,”

can breathe a little easier. Most importantly we can carry the mass amount of skills and

knowledge we acquired this semester with us. We can write confidently knowing the rules of

grammar, punctuation and AP style. We can feel proud of our expertise on diverse subjects

ranging from GMOs, violent video games and many more. No longer will the requirement of in-

depth research leave us shaking in our boots. And when our professors assign us 10-page

papers, we can look at the hand-out prompt and chuckle (in the privacy of our own rooms,

respectfully). Now we have evolved into beautiful, researching and writing butterflies; and can

fly out into the warm air to enjoy the most anticipated summer of our young lives.

7

Single-Use Bag Laws

Abstract

Plastic bags have been praised for being cheap, thin and durable since they were introduced in

the U.S. in 1976. Consumers in the U.S. use an estimated 102 billion plastic bags every year.

Such heavy consumption poses countless threats to the environment. It has inspired

environmental groups, especially those determined to reduce ocean pollution, to solve such

issues. These groups have encouraged local governments to implement laws reducing the use of

single-use bags. These laws’ requirements differ from one another and are randomly located in

the U.S. The policy options commonly include bans, fees and recycling programs. There are

varying perspectives regarding these policies. Consumers have become accustomed to using free

single-use bags at retail stores. The owners of retail stores do not wish to inconvenience

customers or experience increased costs from implementing the policies. The plastics industry

has used its role in the economy and abundant resources to fiercely oppose plastic-bag policies. It

has prevented governments at the national, statewide and municipal level from enacting such

policies. Regardless, the consumption of single-use plastic and paper bags must be decreased in

the U.S. A national plastic-bag ban and 10-cent paper-bag fee would provide a uniform law for

all consumers and retailers to follow. It significantly reduces the environmental impact of single-

use bag consumption. It also promotes other sustainable policies and changing the disposable

culture in the U.S.

8

Single-Use Bag Laws

Introduction

Traditional plastic shopping bags are products of the petrochemical industry. They are

made from high-density polyethylene and were introduced in the U.S. in 1976. Plastic bags are

so cheap and easy to produce that they have become the most heavily used consumer item in the

world. Between 500 billion and 1 trillion bags are used every year throughout the world. U.S.

citizens consume approximately 102 billion plastic bags annually (Doucette, 2011). Such heavy

plastic-bag consumption has created grave environmental issues.

Plastic-bag production in the U.S. requires nearly 12 million barrels of oil or natural gas

each year. The lightweight, aerodynamic structure of plastic bags allows them to be easily

carried by the wind to become litter. Such litter threatens to clog storm drains and pollute land

and water resources. It also harms wildlife that become entangled in the bags or mistake the bags

for food (Romer, 2007). The terrible truth to plastics, including plastic bags, is that they never

biodegrade. After approximately 1,000 years, plastic bags photodegrade into minuscule pieces

that remain in the environment forever (Clapp & Swanston, 2009). The consequences of plastic-

bag use have triggered environmental activists to wage war against the bags. San Francisco was

the first city in the U.S. to ban plastic bags in 2007. Since then, countless local governments have

followed suit and sought to eliminate single-use bags (McCarter, 2008).

This paper will review where single-use bag laws have been implemented in the U.S. It

will also examine the various types of single-use bag policies that have been adopted. It will

discuss the plastics industry’s role in campaigning against such policies. This paper will

conclude that a national policy reducing single-use bag consumption must be adopted. The U.S.

government should implement a national plastic-bag ban and 10-cent paper-bag fee that includes

an education campaign about single-use bag waste and encourages the use of reusable bags.

9

Single-Use Bag Laws

Where single-use bag policies have been enacted in the U.S.

The U.S. government has not addressed plastic-bag consumption as a national issue.

Many believe there are more pressing federal concerns to resolve (Scafa, 2013). The plastics

industry is an important part of the economy and provides many jobs for U.S. citizens. It has

engaged in a fierce campaign to thwart single-use bag laws. Its strong structural presence has

prevented national or statewide bans from being implemented (Clapp & Swanston, 2009).

Therefore, city and county governments have imposed single-use bag policies. There are more

than 200 of these policies enacted throughout the U.S. (Doucette, 2011).

The most prominent organizations opposing plastic bags are those seeking to diminish

marine debris. Some of these groups are Heal the Bay, the Clean Seas Coalition and the Surfrider

Foundation. Plastic bags are a known contributor to the “Pacific garbage patch,” which is an area

in one of the five ocean gyres that has collected more than 3 million pounds of trash (Freinkel,

2011). During the 2009 International Coastal Cleanup, there were 1,126,774 plastic bags

gathered. Additionally, the cleanup discovered 49 marine animals entangled or trapped by the

bags (Romer & Foley, 2012). Concern for the ocean has caused these environmental groups to

help campaign for the passing of single-use bag laws in local governments.

Various policy options to reduce plastic-bag use

Plastic-bag bans

After San Francisco implemented a ban on plastic bags, many other local governments in

the U.S. considered enacting a ban (Doucette, 2011). Bans effectively decrease the

environmental impact of plastic bags. Bans decrease litter, landfill waste and the consumption of

resources. Reduced plastic-bag litter decreases ocean pollution and threats to marine life. It also

benefits governments that are forced to clean up litter using costly efforts (ICF International,

10

Single-Use Bag Laws

2010). Bans are ideal because they are simple to implement within governments and

straightforward enough that consumers easily understand how to comply (Brendle Group, 2012).

The major drawback of plastic-bag bans is that they inadvertently cause consumers to use

paper bags, which are worse for the environment than plastic bags. After San Francisco enacted

its 2007 ban, the consumption of paper bags quadrupled to 85 million (Freinkel, 2011). Plastic

bags use less fossil fuels and 1.8 to 3.4 percent less energy to produce than paper bags. Paper

bags emit more greenhouses when they are manufactured and contribute more to the solid waste

stream than plastic bags (Chaffee & Yaros, 2007). Many consumers consider bans inconvenient.

Bans prevent consumers from using plastic bags for secondary uses such as lining trash bins or

picking up pet waste. Many shoppers also consider them an impediment on personal freedom.

Numerous retailers oppose bans because they want to allow customers to choose which bag they

desire. Bans also increase costs for retailers that are forced to buy paper bags for consumers,

which are more expensive (Thompson, 2013). Consumers often avoid shopping at stores with

enacted bans and will drive to areas without any laws regulating plastic bags (Richtel, 2012).

Single-use bag fees

Several local governments learned from the shortcomings of outright bans and chose to

place a fee on either plastic bags, paper bags or both. A fee on both plastic and paper bags

provides many environmental benefits because it prevents paper-bag use in addition to plastic-

bag use (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2008). A fee’s ability to reduce plastic-bag

consumption is demonstrated by Ireland’s “plastax.” In 2002, Ireland placed a fee worth nearly

21 cents on plastic bags. It decreased the country’s plastic-bag use by 90 percent (McCarter,

2008). A fee offers more financial benefits than other policy options. The fee’s revenue is

usually returned to retailers to offset increased costs created by implementing the fee. Revenue

11

Single-Use Bag Laws

can also be used fund government projects promoting environmental sustainability (City and

County of San Francisco Office of Economic Analysis, 2011). Washington D.C. imposed a 5-

cent fee on plastic and paper bags that decreased consumption of the bags by 80 percent. It also

collected approximately $1,068,100 in revenue within the six months of its enactment, which

was used to clean up the Anacostia River and fund other environmental projects (Romer &

Foley, 2012).

Retailers and consumers harbor similar complaints about fees that they have about bans.

Shoppers often complain that fees prevent them from making choices they feel entitled to. Fees

place a financial burden on consumers who are forced to pay the fees or buy reusable bags (City

and County of San Francisco Office of Economic Analysis, 2011). Some retailers deem fees

impolite because customers are required to pay money in addition to the items they purchase.

Many retailers worry that fees create a hostile work environment or deter customers from

shopping at local establishments. A paper-bag fee can increase costs for retailers. It prevents

retailers from giving out free paper bags and working the bags’ costs into prices of merchandise

(Richtel, 2012). Retailers must train employees and administer a system to coordinate with

single-use bag fees and keep business running smoothly, which costs additional money (Brendle

Group, 2012).

Plastic-bag recycling programs

Some areas within the U.S. have chosen to address plastic-bag waste by increasing

recycling opportunities for plastic bags. Several local governments implement curbside recycling

programs or require retailers to have locations in which consumers can return plastic bags

(Brendle Group, 2012). Other governments have imposed recycling programs funded by the

plastics industry (McCoppin & Keilman, 2012). A recycling program is one of the easiest and

12

Single-Use Bag Laws

most simple single-use bag policies to adopt. Retailers and consumers are not forced to change

habits (Romer & Foley, 2012). The plastics industry supports this policy option. It argues that it

can successfully decrease plastic-bag use if communities are taught to recycle single-use bags

and to shop with reusable bags (Tolinski, 2012). Plastic bags are 100 percent recyclable if not

contaminated. The bags are used to make other materials such as composite lumber. Hilex Poly,

the largest plastic-bag manufacturer in the U.S., has placed 30,000 recycling bins around the

country. It says that the number of recycled plastic bags will increase (Toto, 2013).

Increased recycling efforts have several shortcomings. Most statewide recycling

programs are funded by the plastics industry and prohibit community governments in that state

from enacting other plastic-bag laws. Some environmental groups consider this is an example of

the industry unjustly binding local governments (McCoppin & Keilman, 2012). If it is the

retailers’ responsibility to collect plastic bags, the laws usually apply to large stores and exclude

small stores. This prevents the majority of plastic bags from making it to recycling facilities.

Only 9 percent of plastic bags are recycled annually in the U.S. (Doucette, 2011). Consumers are

not forced to comply with the laws and so many will not recycle plastic bags (Warner, 2010).

Most curbside recycling programs to do not accept plastic bags (Romer, 2007). Even if plastic

bags are properly disposed of in recycling bins, they often fly out of the bins and become litter

because they are so easily carried by the wind. If the bags are transferred to recycling plants, they

frequently break recycling machinery that is not designed to process thin plastic (Frienkel, 2011).

Plastic bags are often reused for other purposes and, therefore, more than 65 percent of plastic

bags are unavailable for recycling (Toto, 2013). Moreover, plastic bags can only be down-cycled

because they cannot be recycled directly into more plastic bags. The majority of recycled plastic

bags end up as plastic pellets that are shipped to China, where they are burned for fuel (Higbee-

13

Single-Use Bag Laws

Sudyku, 2013). The damage resulting from producing and transporting the bags still occurs.

Even if plastic bags were successfully disposed of and recycled they could be recycled only a

finite number of times. All plastic eventually ends up as litter, landfill waste or in the ocean to

exist forever (Murdoch, 2010).

The plastics industry’s role in opposing single-use bag policies

The group most opposed to plastic-bag policies in the U.S. is the plastics industry. It

considers the policies a tipping point in its industry. It fears that if such laws are implemented,

laws restricting the use of other plastic products will ensue (Romer & Foley, 2012). The plastics

industry is the third largest manufacturing industry in the U.S. It provides more than 30,000 jobs

to U.S. citizens in 349 plants (Caliendo, 2012). As the threat of the plastic bags’ disappearance

dawned in 2007, the plastics industry rallied its forces. Funded by the American Chemistry

Council, several industry coalitions developed and are actively opposing the laws today. Among

the strongest are the Progressive Bag Affiliates and the Society of Plastics (Clapp & Swanston,

2009).

The plastics industry has spent millions of dollars litigating against plastic-bag policies.

Nearly every city and county in California with a proposed or enacted plastic-bag ban was sued

by the industry. The industry preyed on the major weakness of plastic-bag bans, which is

increased paper-bag use. It filed lawsuits claiming that the local governments did not fulfill

environmental impact reports. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that such

reports be submitted before environmental policies are implemented. The industry said that an

environmental impact report would have indicated that the environmental drawbacks of banning

plastic bags outweighed the benefits (Romer & Foley, 2012). The American Chemistry Council

gave key legislators money in order to defeat a statewide proposal to ban plastics bags in

14

Single-Use Bag Laws

California (Doucette, 2011). In January 2011, the industry filed suit against a California

reusable-bag company called ChicoBag. It claimed that ChicoBag caused irreparable harm to its

company by criticizing plastic bags (Baker, 2011). It spent $1.4 million on a ballot measure to

defeat a proposed fee on both plastic and paper shopping bags in Seattle in 2009 (Thompson,

2013).

The industry has directed extensive public relations campaigns toward consumers. It used

the media to falsely tell consumers that plastic-bag policies cost them extra money (Doucette,

2011). It also said that plastic bags are the best choice of shopping bag for the environment. It

backed such claims using an industry-sponsored study (Chaffee & Yaros, 2007). It also funded a

study concluding that reusable bags are often contaminated with lead or E.coli. The industry

attempts to convince consumers that recycling plastic bags is the best method to address

environmental issues (Doucette, 2011). However, an overriding amount of studies indicate that

recycling does not significantly minimize environmental harm. Many environmental groups

claim that the industry encourages recycling only to alleviate consumers’ guilt about using

single-use bags (Freinkel, 2011). Hilex Poly offered to build a recycling plant in Oregon if state

lawmakers agreed to drop a proposed statewide plastic-bag ban. It would also require the state

government to prohibit any municipal governments from enacting plastic-bag laws. Oregon

officials declined the offer because they thought Hilex Poly was only interested in protecting its

financial welfare (Kost, 2011). The same deal was proposed to Illinois state lawmakers

(McCoppin & Keilman, 2012).

A national plastic-bag ban and 10-cent paper-bag fee is the solution

A national plastic-bag ban and 10-cent paper-bag fee would effectively reduce the

environmental impact of single-use bags, while also being feasible enough for retailers and

15

Single-Use Bag Laws

consumers to follow. It is important that the entire U.S. is governed by one single-use bag policy.

Some environmental groups claim that single-use bag policies will spread from one local

government to the next until the bag completely disappears. However, the consumption of

plastics packaging is steadily rising (Tolinski, 2012). Also, it is clear that certain areas of the

U.S., especially those invested in the petrochemical industry, will not embrace such

environmentally progressive laws (Broshot, 2013). This indicates that a harsher approach must

be taken to slash the harmful effects of plastic-bag use in all locations in the U.S. Consumers and

tourists are often confused because numerous local governments have enacted single-use bag

policies that differ greatly from one anther. Many retail stores are nationwide chains. Such

varying policies in scattered locations make it confusing to manage and operate each chain. Also,

each policy option has varying levels of successfully reducing plastic-bag consumption.

Therefore, areas with single-use bag policies many not be enforcing policies that minimize

environmental impact to the full potential. A national plastic-bag ban and 10-cent paper-bag fee

greatly benefits the environment and provides a uniform law for all retailers and consumers to

follow.

The plastics industry, retailers and consumers have questioned why environmental groups

advocate to ban plastic bags rather than other single-use plastic products. Plastic bags serve as a

good starting point toward eliminating all single-use plastic. This is because plastic bags are the

most heavily consumed item in the world (Higbee-Sudyku, 2013). Also, a plastic bag’s

aerodynamic structure allows them to be littered more frequently than other plastic products. It is

illogical to use resources made over millions of years to produce a bag designed to last only long

enough to carry merchandise outside of a store. The major environmental issue is that plastic

bags photodegrade into tiny nodules that remain in the environment forever (Herrera

16

Single-Use Bag Laws

Environmental Consultants, 2008). Fees and increased recycling methods are not adequate

because plastic bags should be completely eliminated from the environment (City and County of

San Francisco Office of Economic Analysis, 2011).

A 10-cent paper-bag fee is necessary in order to minimize the environmental impact of

paper-bag consumption. Many local governments have adopted a 5-cent paper-bag fee, however,

it is not high enough to discourage customers from using paper bags (Safeway & WinCo Foods,

2013). A 10-cent paper-bag fee also provides financial benefits for retailers and the government.

It allows retailers to receive part of the revenue from the fees to offset increased costs of

implementing the policies. The other part of the revenue can be distributed to the government to

offset costs of enacting the policies or funding environmental projects. The revenue can also be

used to distribute reusable bags to community members who cannot afford to buy the bags. A

paper-bag fee will initially increase costs for consumers. Many consumers will continue to pay

for single-use paper bags. Most will have to purchase reusable bags or plastic bags for other uses.

However, such costs will eventually be reimbursed to consumers in the form of lower prices. In

the past, retailers incorporated the cost of single-use bags into merchandise prices. A paper-bag

fee prevents retailers from figuring the value of bags into such prices. Retailers can use the fee’s

revenue to further lower merchandise prices (City and County of San Francisco Office of

Economic Analysis, 2011).

The national plastic-bag ban and 10-cent paper-bag fee must include an education

campaign that teaches consumers about the negative impacts of single-use bags. Even though it

is a national policy, it would be most successful if local governments played an active role in its

execution. Conducting information sessions for the retailers affected by the policy would help

them cooperate and support the policies (Scafa, 2013). Local environmental organizations should

17

Single-Use Bag Laws

reinforce public awareness about plastic-bag waste by contributing to the public education

campaigns. Communities will adjust to the laws more willingly if they understand the impact of

plastic bags in their geographic context and around the world. The media coverage of the policies

will have a significant influence on how the community perceives the policies (Murdoch, 2010).

The education campaign must also encourage shoppers to use reusable bags. Reusable

bags are the safest choice of grocery bags for the environment. Some reusable bags are created

with plastic but are made to be durable and last long. The weight of a reusable bag prevents it

from blowing in the wind to cause litter problems associated with lightweight plastic bags. Life-

cycle studies indicate that as long as a reusable bag is used four times, it is better for the

environment than any single-use bag (ICF International, 2010). Some consumers worry about no

longer having plastic bags for uses such as lining trash bins. There are concerns that repeatedly

shopping with reusable bags is unsanitary. However, there are practical solutions to these

problems. Consumers can use bags unregulated by the law, such as newspaper bags or produce

bags, for secondary uses (Scafa, 2013). Reusable bags can be washed to remove harmful residue

from groceries and other merchandise. The majority of consumers who oppose single-use bag

policies say the policies are inconvenient. Although shoppers may not immediately be in the

habit of using reusable bags, over time they will adjust. Reusable bags have become a normal

part of the shopping culture in areas with plastic-bag policies (Richtel, 2012). Single-use bag

policies encourage a movement toward a sustainable future. The policies are meant to encourage

the use of reusable materials and make a statement about the disposable culture of the U.S.

(Romer, 2007).

Conclusion

18

Single-Use Bag Laws

The ubiquity of plastic bags has generated countless environmental issues. In response to

those issues, local governments in the U.S. have proposed or enacted a variety of laws restricting

plastic-bag use. Environmental groups, especially those concerned with protecting the ocean,

have led the movement to eliminate plastic bags. The most commonly adopted single-use bag

policies include plastic-bag bans, single-use bag fees and increased recycling efforts. Each policy

type has strengths and weaknesses in terms of reducing environmental impact and affecting

consumers and retailers. The U.S. plastics industry has aggressively campaigned against plastic-

bag laws in order to protect its financial welfare. It has successfully prevented policies from

being implemented in governments at the national, statewide and municipal level.

Nonetheless, single-use bag consumption desperately needs to be reduced in the U.S. A

national plastic-bag ban and 10-cent paper-bag fee is the best method to solve environmental

consequences of such increased consumption. The ban would completely eliminate plastic bags,

which create severe environmental drawbacks when produced or used. The 10-cent paper-bag

fee would drastically lower paper-bag use and provide financial benefits to retailers and,

ultimately, to consumers. It also provides a uniform law throughout the U.S. for retailers and

consumers to follow. It is important that U.S. citizens receive education about the effects of

single-use bags and be encouraged to use reusable bags. Spreading such knowledge through the

media and education campaigns will improve the public’s outlook on the fee. Local governments

and environmental organizations should promote education campaigns and encourage

communities to embrace the law. This law aims to promote other environmental laws and to alter

the throwaway culture in the U.S.

19

Single-Use Bag Laws

References

Baker, D. R. (2011, June 4). ChicoBag takes on big plastic. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved

from http://bit.ly/WofdqD

Broshot, N. (2013, March, 7). Interview by Carrie Skuzeski. From recording.

Brendle Group Inc. (2012) Triple bottom line evaluation: Consideration of plastic bag options.

Retrieved from http://bit.ly/YovQq6

Caliendo, H. (2012, September 17). Think plastic bag bans are only about bags? Think again.

Plastics Today Blog. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/SuBujs

Chaffee, C., & Yaros, B. M. (2007). Life cycle assessment for three types of grocery bags:

Recyclable plastic; Compostable, biodegradable plastic; And recycled, recyclable paper.

Retrieved from http://bit.ly/ZoGWIX

City and County of San Francisco Office of Economic Analysis. (2011). Check out bag charge:

Economic report. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/zJBtRK

Clapp, J., & Swanston, L. (2009). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: international patterns

of norm emergence with policy implementation. Enviornmental Politics, 18(3), 315-332.

Retrieved from Ebscohost GREENfile.

Doucette, K. (2011, July 25). The plastic bag wars. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from

http://rol.st/mPqZIQ

Freinkel, S. (2011). Plastic: A toxic love story. Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf Press.

Herrera Environmental Consultants. (2008). Alternatives to disposal shopping bags and food

service items, 1. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/YXC4MK

Higbee-Sudyka, D. (2013, March, 28). Interview by Carrie Skuzeski. From recording.

20

Single-Use Bag Laws

ICF International. (2010). Master environment assessment on single-use and reusable bags.

Retrieved from http://bit.ly/ZKgnPE

Kost, R. (2011, March 3). Plastic bag ban: Oregon Sen. Mark Hass says manufacturer offers

recycling center to kill. The Oregonian. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/fY2R6E

McCarter, M. (2008, October 20). The fight against plastic bags: With plastic bag bans starting

to gain a worrying momentum in the U.S., the American Chemistry Council has joined

the battle. ICIS Chemical Business. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic.

McCoppin, R., & Keilman, J. (2012, June 6). Proposal would recycle plastic bags, not ban them.

Chicago Tribune. Received from http://bit.ly/NOGPSS

Murdoch, M. (2010). The road to zero waste: A study of the Seattle green fee on disposable

bags. Environmental Practice, 12(1), 66-75. Retrieved from Ebscohost Environment

Complete.

Richtel, M. (2012, September 28). Paper or plastic? Some communities say neither. The New

York Times. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic.

Romer, J. R. (2007). The evolution of SF’s plastic bag ban. Golden Gate University Law

Journal, 1, 439-465. http://bit.ly/10tXq3v

Romer, J. R., & Foley, S. (2012). A wolf in sheep’s clothing: The plastics industry’s “public

interest” role in legislation and litigation of plastic bag laws in California. Golden Gate

University Environmental Law Journal, 5(2), 377-438. Retrieved from

http://bit.ly/Y1KCk4

Safeway & WinCo Foods. (2013, April 12). Bag choices among shoppers; Corvallis, Ore. From

personal observation and notes.

Scafa, S. (2013, April 12). Interview by Carrie Skuzeski. From recording.

21

Single-Use Bag Laws

Thompson, L. (2013, January 17). Seattle shoppers getting used to reusable bags, stores less so.

Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1047nUm

Tolinski, M. (2012). Plastics and sustainability: Towards a peaceful coexistence between

biobased and fossil fuel-based plastics. Salem, MA: Scrivener Publishing.

Toto, D. (2013, March 12). Hilex Poly continues to emphasize recycled content plastic bag

manufacturing. Recyling Today. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/10xFt2a

Warner, B. M. (2010). Sacking the culture of convenience: Regulating plastic shopping bags to

prevent further environmental harm. The University of Memphis Law Review, 4, 645-680.

Retrieved Ebscohost Academic Search Premier.

22