Go gentler on the planet with these grocery store swap outs

Doing right by the planet can make you happier, healthier, and—yes—wealthier. Outside’s Head of Sustainability, Kristin Hostetter, explores small lifestyle tweaks that can make a big impact. Write to her at [email protected].

Confession: I love bougie lettuce. You know, the stuff that comes in plastic clamshell packaging, costs about 20 cents per leaf, and always has the words “organic” and “baby” on the label. I’d eat a pile with every meal if I could, dressed in a squeeze of lemon and a little olive oil.

But the packaging kills me. I feel pangs of guilt every time I toss one in my grocery cart, knowing that I’m supporting a company who uses plastic packaging and that plastic recycling rates in the U.S. are only around six percent.

lettuce in a grocery story display
Guilty pleasure: The convenience and taste of these pre-washed greens are hard to resist. (Photo: Kristin Hostetter)

Oftentimes, though, to make up for my fancy lettuce habit, I choose more humble, naked greens–like the bland head of red leaf or green leaf lettuce or a head of cabbage dressed up with some chopped herbs or kale.

It got me thinking about all the choices I make in the grocery store and the packaging of every item I place on the check-out conveyor belt. As someone who’s trying to live more sustainably, should I buy my ancho chili powder in a plastic bottle or a glass one?

Like most things in the world, the devil is in the details.

“Less packaging is always better for the planet,” says Cory Connors, host of Sustainable Packaging Podcast. “By choosing products that are package-free or sustainably packaged, you’re voting with your wallet and telling companies that you won’t buy stuff that’s excessively or irresponsibly packaged.”

But it’s over-simplistic to think that all packaging is evil. “There’s nothing sustainable about rotten or damaged food,” says Connors. “If a company has to package something in a multilayered plastic container in order to get it to the consumer in an edible state, that’s more sustainable than not using packaging if it results in rotten, unusable food.”

“We can all be part of the solution when it comes to sustainable packaging,” says Connors. “The key, says Connors, is to only buy products that are packaged in material that you are certain that you can recycle in your community or, better yet, that you re-use indefinitely, like glass jars. Confirm with your local material recycling facility (also known as a MRF, which rhymes with surf) what is actually getting recycled. Then share what you know in your community.”

Connors is encouraged by systemic shifts he’s seeing, like more stores adopting drop-off recycling centers and communities expanding recycling services to accommodate things like soft plastics and textiles.

In the average grocery store today, we’re faced with choices on literally every shelf, so Connors and I took a virtual stroll, aisle by aisle, to talk about the most sustainable choices we can make at the grocery store.

Fresh and Refrigerated Stuff

1. In the produce department, skip the plastic produce bags. Just wash those fruits and veggies.

2. Buy loose carrots, potatoes, and onions, rather than the pre-bagged options.

3. Choose cardboard egg cartons, not plastic or styrofoam. You can put them in the recycle bin or repurpose them as seed starters for the garden or DIY fire starters with melted candle scraps and sawdust or dryer lint. Egg cartons also make a great substitute for packing peanuts or you can tear them up and add them to the compost heap.

eggs in a grocery store display
An easy choice: Not only is cardboard the better for the planet than plastic or styrofoam, it protects eggs better, too, as you’ll see in this highly scientific experiment. (Photo: Kristin Hostetter)

4. If you’re stopping by the deli counter, bring your own containers, and skip the plastic bags and cups. “It takes guts to bring your own packaging into a typical store,” says Connors. I can attest to this. Most deli workers raise their eyebrows when I ask them to put the sliced provolone in my silicone bag, but they do it. “Ten years ago people, it was radical to bring your own reusable grocery bags to the store,” says Connors. “But now it’s commonplace, thanks to bag bans and bag taxes. Maybe the same will be true for deli bags and containers in the future.”

Chicken and cheese at the deli inside reusable bags
It might feel weird to BYO containers to the deli or meat counter, but if we start doing it, some day it could become as commonplace as bringing your own reusable shopping bags. (Photos: Kristin Hostetter)

5. If you’re buying a cut of meat that is sold both at the butcher counter and in prepackaged portions, opt for the former. You can use the strategy listed above—bring your own re-usable containers. Note that if your purchase comes wrapped in butcher paper with a plastic coating, that won’t be recyclable. Be brave! If someone questions you, take the opportunity to tell them that you’re trying to avoid single-use plastic packaging.

6. Avoid black plastic (often found in the prepackaged meat department) trays at all costs. They are not recyclable. Anywhere. Putting it in your bin is wishcycling.

Dry goods

7. If your store has a bulk aisle, shop there for staples like rice, grains, nuts, and pasta. Bring your own containers!

8. “When we think about things like spices, sauces, and condiments, whatever container you will wash and reuse when it’s empty has the lower carbon footprint,” says Connors. “If you reuse glass bottles, for instance, that’s the best choice. If you don’t plan on reusing the container, just be sure that whatever you buy is recyclable where you live.”

9. Kick the bottled water habit. Just do it. In the U.S., we’re fortunate to have perfectly drinkable tap water just about everywhere. Invest in a good water bottle and refill it often.

10. Wean yourself off plastic wrap. I was hooked for many years, but I kicked the habit when I realized that my roll of plastic is nice to have, but not a need. Now, when I really need to wrap something, I opt for tin foil, which is recyclable as long as it’s clean. Just collect it in a ball until you have one that’s about three inches in diameter so it will get sorted properly in the recycling center and not fall through the cracks of the machinery.

11. Instead of liquid or plastic pod-encased dishwasher soap, buy the powder in cardboard boxes (Cascade is a classic, old school option that works great). “All liquid cleaners are 90 percent water,” says Connors. “Buying water-based products for use in a room that produces water (like the kitchen, bathroom, or laundry room) is pretty silly. Especially because there are so many powdered and concentrated cleaners available today. And the carbon footprint of concentrates is so much lower, because it requires less packaging and is lighter and smaller to ship and transport.”

12. Order laundry strips or pressed powder tablets to avoid the pods (they’re wrapped in plastic that becomes microplastic when it dissolves) and the big plastic jugs. I love Tru Earth. The strips work great, smell nice (unscented is also an option), and take up a fraction of the space in my laundry room.

13. Skip the dryer sheets (which are made from single-use plastic in the form of polyester) and opt for dryer balls. They last for more than 1,000 loads, so you’ll save money, too. I use Tru Earth Wool Dryer Balls and love them.

14. Stop wasting money on zipperlock bags. Even if you wash and reuse them, eventually they give out. Not so with my new favorite bags by Joie. I love these supple silicone pouches, which come in a variety of sizes, are easy to clean, easy to seal (some silicone bags are stiff and fussy) and freezer safe.

Personal Care

15. Skip the plastic shampoo bottles and discover the wonder of shampoo bars. They do a fantastic job and last forever as long as you don’t let them sit in a puddle of water. They’re great for travel, too, which means you can reject the little plastic bottles in your hotel room.

colorful shampoo bars nestled in brown confetti
Shampoo and conditioner bars are a fabulous alternative to plastic bottles. They cost about 12 bucks each, last for several months, and ship in sustainable packaging. (Photo: Kristin Hostetter)

16. And say goodbye to plastic conditioner bottles full of watered down product, too. After trying a slew of conditioner bars that leave my long hair feeling dry, waxy, and tangly, I finally found one by Dip that kicks ass.

One last thing: If you’re frustrated by the excessive plastic packaging at your local grocery, write a letter and tell them so! I used this handy template from nonprofit Beyond Plastics, and about a week later received a phone call from the store manager. We had a meaningful discussion, and while he defended the need to package bulk-bought spinach in clamshell plastic packaging, he listened, and conceded that there are some items in the store that could do with less packaging, and promised to look into it.

Kristin Hostetter is the Head of Sustainability at Outside Interactive, Inc. and the resident sustainability columnist on Outside Online.

The chemical menace inside glaciers and icebergs

Inscribed in any chunk of Antarctic snow, Crispin Halsall will tell you, is a story about how humans have treated the planet. Over the years, each round of precipitation at the South Pole has brought down the atmospheric detritus of the day: pollen; volcanic ash; and of particular interest to Halsall, human pollution. Antarctic pollution can originate as far away as the northern hemisphere, with volatile chemicals floating in the wind to arrive at the South Pole in a matter of days. “Those layers of snow become an environmental record of contamination, going back decades,” says Halsall, who is a chemist at Lancaster University in the UK. 

The world’s icy landscapes also foretell our environmental future. As icebergs and glaciers melt, pollutants trapped inside are released back into seas, waterways, and the air. Melting ice can unleash harmful molecules that damage ecosystems, deplete the ozone layer, or mess with the weather. And due to rising global temperatures, more and more of the world’s frozen landscapes are thawing. In the Alps and the Himalayas, “we are seeing the rerelease of old contaminants that have been locked up in ice for many decades,” says Halsall. It’s vital to know what’s being emitted.

But interpreting what’s trapped in Antarctic snow is more complicated than previously thought. Researchers have discovered that the frozen water at Earth’s poles—contrary to conventional wisdom—is a hotbed of chemical reactions. What’s trapped within may transform over time.

For a long time, scientists assumed the opposite: that frozen pollutants remain inert. “Most of the time, if you freeze something or make something colder, it slows things down,” says chemist Amanda Grannas of Villanova University in the US. Molecules move slower in solid ice and snow compared to liquid water, which means they collide less, leading to fewer opportunities to participate in chemical reactions. It’s why freezing raw meat keeps it from spoiling. It’s also why the bodies of several woolly mammoths, some 30,000 years old, have emerged preserved from frozen ground as it thaws.

But in laboratory experiments, scientists have found that many pollutants—illuminated using bright light simulating the sun—break down faster in ice than in liquid water. In 2020, a team at the University of California, Davis observed that guaiacol, a molecule found in woodsmoke and consequently in bacon and whiskey, broke down into smaller compounds faster in ice than in liquid water. In 2022, they saw that the same applied to dimethoxybenzene, another molecule produced in smoke. This February, Halsall and his colleagues found that pollutants in car exhaust fumes—known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—also degraded faster in ice than in water.

Researchers attribute this flurry of chemical activity in ice to a phenomenon known as the “freeze concentration effect.” As water cools to form ice, its constituent molecules line up in hexagonal crystals. “The stuff dissolved in the water gets forced out of that ice crystal structure,” says Grannas. “To the naked eye, it looks like a frozen ice cube. But microscopically, there’s these little pockets of liquid where the other chemicals get concentrated. The reactants have been shoved into this tiny volume together, and that makes the chemistry go a lot faster.”

Ultraviolet light, found in sunshine, then triggers that chemical breakdown in the concentrated pollutants. Without it, the compounds remain relatively inert, like the food in your freezer. But under UV illumination, “by and large, we see faster rates of decay in ice than we do in water,” says Halsall. These accelerated decay rates may play out more noticeably in ice at the poles, where “you can have 24 hours of sunlight at certain portions of the year,” says Grannas. “That drives a lot of chemistry.”

Microplastics, fragments of plastic less than 5 millimeters long, also break down faster in ice than in water. Chemists at Central South University in China found that over 48 days, microplastic beads less than a thousandth of a millimeter in diameter deteriorated in ice to the extent they would over 33 years in the Yangtze River. “Microplastics take hundreds of years, if not thousands, to break down,” Chen Tian of Central South University in China told WIRED, in Chinese. “We didn’t have that long, so we studied just the first step of degradation. But we think that the entire degradation process should be faster in ice.”

Plastic waste is the most common form of marine debris—around 10 million tons of plastic ends up in the ocean every year, much of which breaks down into microplastics—so ice at the poles may be churning through the stuff. This might be good news, as it could help scientists figure out methods to break microplastics down faster, Tian and her colleagues point out in their paper. But by breaking microplastic down into ever smaller pieces, ice may also be making it an ever more pervasive pollutant. The smaller plastic fragments get, the deeper into organisms they penetrate. Microscopic plastic particles have been found in the brains of fish, causing brain damage.

For Halsall, whose research aims to track human activity in Antarctic ice, the degradation of pollutants makes life more difficult. He’s particularly interested in perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. These “forever chemicals” persist in the environment and are found in nonstick pans, engine oils, and all sorts of consumer products. In 2017, Halsall’s collaborators cut into the Antarctic to extract a 10-meter-long cylinder of packed snow that had accumulated since 1958. Specimens like this reveal climate and human activity, much as tree rings do in more temperate latitudes. The deeper the snow sample, the further back in time you go.

Many chemical companies pivoted away from using “longer-chain” PFAS around the year 2000. In the snow deposited that year and after, Halsall’s team found less of that pollutant and more of its replacement compounds, “shorter-chain” PFAS. “We can spot in that snow core when industry changed,” says Halsall. But to accurately understand what was being used when, Halsall also needs to consider how much pollutants have degraded, as this may help explain differences in the chemicals found at various depths. 

These ice-borne reactions have impacts for the rest of us too. As glaciers at the poles melt, the sunlight-processed pollutants are released into the environment. “You might think, ‘We’re degrading a pollutant. That’s a good thing,’” says Grannas. “In some cases it is. But we’ve found, for some pollutants, the products they turn into can actually be more toxic than the original.” For example, Grannas and her colleagues found that the chemical aldrin, historically used in pesticides, could transform more readily into the even more toxic chemical dieldrin in ice. (Farmers also widely used dieldrin in pesticides in the 20th century, and the use of both chemicals is banned in most countries.)

On a more optimistic note, Grannas says that studying how ice degrades pollutants will help researchers evaluate new substances. “We’re introducing new chemicals into our agricultural systems, pharmaceutical products, and daily use—laundry detergents and fragrances and personal products,” says Grannas. “We want to understand up front what will happen if we use this on a massive scale and emit it into the environment.” Some of those pollutants will end up frozen in glaciers or at the poles, and tracking the evolution of chemicals in ice gives researchers a more accurate sense of their potential environmental impact. At Earth’s poles, the inside of an ice cube is a tumultuous place.

‘It would survive nuclear Armageddon’: should plastic grass be banned?

My lawn is a disaster. To be honest, it’s not really a lawn at all. Any green is mostly moss, the rest is mud. More no man’s land than bowling green. The reasons for this are: small London garden (I know I am lucky to have one); not a lot of sun (stolen by the neighbour’s overhanging apple tree); two footballing boys (even though, now banned for life, they have to go to the park). And possibly also inexpertise on the part of the groundsman, though he has tried – I’ve turfed, and seeded, aerated, watered, fed, scarified, sung to it. I’m about ready to give up.

There is an obvious solution: artificial grass. Beautifully, uniformly verdant all year round, low maintenance, no mowing required, no mower required, no watering, no mud. I might even let the boys back on to it. Or not.

I’m not alone in thinking of faking it. A survey last year by Aviva found that 10% of UK homeowners with outside space had replaced at least some of their garden’s natural lawn with artificial grass, and a further 29% plan to or would consider making the swap. During the pandemic, when everyone was thinking about the outdoors, searches for “artificial grass” jumped 185% from May 2019 to 2020, according to Google Trends.

My own search finds dozens of firms offering artificial grass, seducing me with pictures of lawns that look like the green baize of snooker tables. And promises – no mud, no sweat, no tears. And no guilt either – here’s one that says it’s “better for the environment” – because you don’t have to water, mow or fertilise. Well, that’s a relief, though we’ll return to this later.

I might miss the smell of summer: freshly cut grass. What, I don’t have to? I can brush in artificial grass cleaner with that very fragrance? Happy days. Soon I have a quote for supply and installation, 40 sq metres of a mid-range product: £2,900 plus VAT. Ouch. But you can just buy the stuff for as little as £7 a sq metre – how hard can it be to DIY?

Artificial grass was invented by James M Faria and Robert T Wright at Monsanto and first installed on a recreation area of a school in Providence Rhode Island in 1964. It hit the headlines a couple of years later when it was laid in the Astrodome in Houston, Texas, and became known as AstroTurf.

‘Artificial turf for sport has become increasingly controversial.’

Artificial turf for sport, now produced under different brand names by other companies, has become increasingly controversial, most seriously after being potentially linked to the deaths of six professional baseball players in Philadelphia, who had the same rare form of cancer. It often uses rubber granules from recycled tyres, which can contain heavy metals, benzene and other carcinogens. Artificial grass for domestic use and landscaping, which began to be a thing in the 1990s, is normally made from polypropylene or nylon (polyamide) and doesn’t often contain rubber granules. The global artificial turf market (including sports use and domestic use) grew 8.4% in the past year to $4.87 bn (£3.95bn) and is expected to reach $6.83 bn (£5.6bn) in 2027. No wonder so many companies want to put plastic over your garden.

Before I take the plunge, I ask Guardian readers to share their experiences of artificial lawns. Some are positive. Several, including Don in Fife and Wayne in Worcester, mention their dogs digging up the old grass. And Alex in Surrey’s greyhounds used to bring mud into the house. Not any more. As well as dogs, children come up. “It’s been wonderful, and the grandchildren love it,” says Charles in Berkshire. And when it comes to croquet, in-house knowledge of the small bumps and inconsistencies in the surface allows them “to win against all comers”. Home advantage – I like it.

Phil in Weston-super-Mare did it for his son to play football on – just a little bit in the goalmouth, “so it didn’t become a mud bath”. It was the same for Genevieve in Kent: her kids turned the garden into a quagmire, so they put down fake grass. “It was the most successful thing – they just played football all the time. It was brilliant to have a party on too – people put their fags out on it and it was fine. I think it would survive nuclear Armageddon.”

This was a while back, in the 00s, when her family were pioneers of artificial grass. They’ve moved house since then: “We wouldn’t get artificial grass now.” Not just because the kids have grown up. “Because of all the reasons we now know we shouldn’t have it.”

‘I can’t stand plastic grass!” bellows the naturalist Iolo Williams, who presents the BBC’s Springwatch, speaking from his home in mid-Wales. “It is hugely damaging to the environment on several levels. First of all it takes away the natural habitat from a whole host of species, notably invertebrates like earthworms, valuable in their own right but also a valuable food source for all kinds of birds and mammals.”

Last year’s WWF Living Planet Report found that globally, wildlife populations have plunged by 69% over the past 50 years, with the UK one of the most nature-depleted countries in Europe. This is not the time to be destroying natural habitats and breaking up food chains.

“If you want to see blackbirds and song thrushes, you’ve got to have grass full of invertebrates,” says Williams. “People are lamenting the decline of a lot of these birds, but if you stick down plastic grass, what do you expect? You reap what you sow. I would love to see plastic grass banned once and for all. It makes me very angry. I absolutely detest it.”

Lynne Marcus, co-chair of the Society of Garden Designers, also underlines the fact that artificial lawns are no-go zones for wildlife. “People may say butterflies or bees can land around it, on the strips of soil we have with a few plants, but it’s like if you put a motorway down the middle of a forest. The animals can’t get from one side to the other to procreate.”

With support from the Royal Horticultural Society and the Landscape Institute, the society has launched a campaign on this issue. It wants people to say no to fake grass. The charge sheet is a long one: artificial lawns destroy natural habitats and soil; they contribute to carbon emissions during manufacture and transport, whereas real grass absorbs CO2; they overheat in the summer and contribute to urban heat islands; they cause flooding as they absorb less than 50% of the rain that falls on them; they pollute waterways, as over time the plastic breaks down into microplastics, which is washed into our drainage and discharged into rivers and the sea; they are neither biodegradable nor recyclable, and after their life cycle (typically up to about 15 years) they go into landfill where they will continue to pollute.

In short, they are an environmental nightmare, green in colour only. “Every time you put one down, you’re saying: ‘I know we’re all worried about climate change, but guess what, I’m going to contribute to it,’” says Marcus, before adding that she doesn’t want to blame people. “It’s about public engagement with the issue, informing and educating.”

She rejects any idea that they are maintenance-free, explaining that over time they accumulate a buildup of excrement and urine from birds, mice, foxes, cats and dogs, and have to be regularly cleaned and disinfected.

“You can’t get a plastic bag, yet you can cover your garden in plastic,” says Marcus. “It seems to me there should be something illegal about that.” And she thinks that in years to come we’ll look back at it in the same way as we now look back at driving without seatbelts or smoking next to babies. “Oh my God, can you believe it, we used to lay plastic lawns!”

The tide does seem to be turning. The Chelsea Flower show banned fake grass last year. Ed Horne of the RHS, which runs the event, said: “Fake grass is just not in line with our ethos and views on plastic. We recommend using real grass because of its environmental benefits, which include supporting wildlife, mitigating flooding and cooling the environment.” The housing secretary Michael Gove plans to prevent developers from laying fake grass in new housing schemes.

The mood is reflected in some more of our reader responses. In Somerset, JP put down a plastic lawn because it was a tiny patch and grass wouldn’t grow. “Within months it started stinking of urine due to the dog toileting on it. About six months ago we’d had enough and I ripped it out. I regret the waste of plastic. We now have a sedum lawn, which loves poor soil and is fantastic for pollinators. I wish we’d done that all along.”

In South Ayrshire, Dennis inherited a plastic lawn when they moved to their place. “It was filthy, and had faded to a light insipid green.” So they removed it, and the gravel underneath, imported topsoil and compost, and planted butterfly- and bee-friendly shrubs and flowers. “Our garden, lifeless before, is now full of life.”

Barbara Samitier, a French garden designer working in London, thinks that the need for a perfect green lawn may be a peculiarly British thing. “You can’t imagine a garden without it. I think it belongs to the kind of imagery maybe from cricket, Wimbledon, this green and pleasant land. It’s what people in this country have been raised to see as nature.”

There are alternatives that aren’t plastic, even if you have a small, north-facing city garden and children. “You can do a little woodland, make it more a sort of exploratory playground. A family garden doesn’t need to be about an expanse of lawn – there are different ways to engage children outdoors.”

‘A family garden doesn’t need to be about an expanse of lawn, there are different ways to engage children outdoors.’

Even if you have a lawn, it doesn’t have to look like Centre Court on the opening day of Wimbledon. “If I look at a perfect lawn, it doesn’t make me feel relaxed,” says Samitier. “I’m thinking it uses a lot of water, requires a lot of cutting, also chemicals to keep it weed-free and to keep it going in spite of the changes in weather. Whereas if I look at a less perfect lawn with maybe some long grass, areas that haven’t been mown, I know there is a lot of life in there, insects and pollinators. For me, that looks a lot more beautiful.”

It’s about accepting the seasons. “It doesn’t have to be perfect all the time, so in the winter it gets muddy, in the summer it’s dry but that’s fine: it comes back when it rains. I think in England a lot of gardens are about ego and controlling, making everything do exactly what you want, the grass needs to be perfect and all of this. But now we see the beauty of letting go a bit and accepting we don’t have to control everything.”

Artificial grass makes Samitier’s heart sink. “Don’t do it! You’ll regret it,” she warns me.

But it’s OK, because I’m already moving away from plasticking over my scruffy little urban patch and trying to see it in a new light. Not mud and mess, but life and beauty … well, let’s not carried away. Not no man’s land, though, nor no beast’s land. There is birdsong. And right on cue, almost as if it was paid, a dunnock shuffles on to my not-lawn and starts hopping around, hunting for breakfast.

Plastic Waste Alternatives: 6 Best Reusable Cups with Straws

As single-use plastics fill our landfills and waterways with non-biodegradable waste, many are looking for alternatives to reduce their personal plastic consumption. Plastic drink containers are a major source of plastic pollution, with 38 billion disposable water bottles filling US landfills, and coffee cups and other single-use drink containers not far behind. Single-use straws also add to global plastic waste and can have severe effects on marine wildlife.

That’s why we’ve compiled a list of the best reusable cups with straws to help you find the best alternative for you! These reusable cups are great for any kind of on-the-go drink and have reusable straws, so you can ditch single-use plastic straws for good. The right one could last you years, negating the need for any more single-use plastic cups.

How We Chose the Best Reusable Tumblers

We reviewed all of the following products to find the best reusable cups for you, making sure our recommendations are sustainable, durable, ethically produced, and affordable!

Materials

We made sure that all our top picks are made without toxic chemicals like BPA, BPS, and phthalates. We also opted for sustainable materials to avoid more plastic consumption, and chose products made of:

  • Stainless Steel: Stainless steel is tough, easy to clean, and recyclable. Cups made of this material are built to last and are great for insulating hot or iced drinks,
  • Glass: Glass is a sustainable, recyclable material that many reusable cups are made of. This material is durable and dishwasher-safe, and when borosilicate glass is used, it’s nearly impossible to shatter.
  • Plastic: While plastic cups are far from the most sustainable material, they’re still better than single-use plastics. Reusable plastic cups are usually still recyclable and will last a long time, and won’t have you worrying about the price.

Quality and Durability

There’s no point in buying a reusable cup if it’s not going to last. Our top picks are durable, making sure you don’t have to worry about breaking or damaging your cup.

Sustainable and Ethical Practices

We recommend products that were made with ethical practices. Our top picks are made with safe and equitable conditions in their factories and supply chains, and we searched for companies with strong sustainability efforts.

Design

For some people, a cup is just a cup, but for others, it’s part of the outfit! Everyone has their own style, so we searched for cups that offer a wide variety of styles, colors, and patterns.

The Best Reusable Cups with Straws

To give you the best options, we’ve organized our list into several categories, helping you pick the best reusable cup for you.

Glass

  1. Kodrine
  2. Tronco
  3. Kytffu

Stainless Steel

  1. bubba Brands
  2. Klean Kanteen

Plastic

  1. Kensal

Top Picks

  1. Most Leak-Proof: Tronco
  2. Most Durable: Klean Kanteen
  3. Best Variety of Styles: Klean Kanteen
  4. Most Affordable: bubba Brands
  5. Best Overall: Klean Kanteen

1. Kodrine Glass Tumbler 

  • Cup materials: Glass cup, bamboo lid
  • Straw material: Plastic
  • Current price: $15.99
  • Capacity: 20 fl oz
  • BPA-free: Yes
  • Get this product: Amazon
kodrine - reusable cup with straw

Source: Ka’lena/Amazon

Kodrine’s glass tumbler comes with a natural bamboo lid with a silicone leak-proof seal. These reusable cups are easy to clean and dishwasher safe, so long as you remove the silicone sleeve!

The narrow design allows you to comfortably fit your cup in just about any cupholder, and you can save money by buying in pairs.

Pros

  • The lid comes with a leak-proof silicone plug for the straw to ensure you never spill.
  • Kodrine offers a variety of colors for their protective sleeve so you can choose the one that best fits your style. 
  • The cup comes with a silicone sleeve to give you a better grip.

Cons

  • Some customers note that the glass bottle and bamboo lid are prone to breaking.

2. Tronco Glass Cup

  • Cup materials: Glass cup, bamboo lid
  • Straw material: Plastic
  • Current price: $15.99
  • Capacity: 20 fl oz
  • BPA-free: Yes
  • Get this product: Amazon
tronco - reusable cup with straw

Source: Sandra Breceda/Amazon

Tronco’s reusable glass cup comes with a silicone sleeve that gives you a great grip on your cup and comes in a variety of colors. Be careful when choosing one with glitter or patterns, as we noticed they can fade or scratch off over time.

These cups come with two straws, so you don’t have to worry about losing one! However, we noticed they are a bit brittle and more easily breakable than some. Luckily, Tronco sells sets of stainless steel straws, which come with silicone sleeves to protect you from burning your mouth with hot beverages.

Pros

  • These bottles come in a variety of styles and colors, and even have options for larger straws for those of us that enjoy boba tea!
  • We’ve found that this is one of the most leak-proof cups available, with a durable silicone seal that’s made to last.

Cons

  • Most Tronco cups come with plastic straws that are fairly brittle and low quality, though Tronco sells steel straws as an alternative.
  • The silicone seal on the lid can accumulate mold over time, so make sure you clean it properly!

3. Kytffu Glass Tumbler 

  • Cup materials: Borosilicate glass cup, bamboo lid
  • Straw material: Plastic
  • Current price: $24.99
  • Capacity: 32 fl oz
  • BPA-free: Yes
  • Get this product: Amazon
kytffu - reusable cup with straw

Source: Brittany W/Amazon

Kytffu’s glass tumbler is made of borosilicate glass, which is designed to be far more durable than traditional glass. Both shatterproof and resistant to thermal shock, you can be sure that this reusable cup will last. If for some reason it doesn’t, Kytffu offers a one-year warranty that will give you a free replacement.

This cup also has a much greater capacity than our other top picks, with a curved base that makes sure you can still fit it into cupholders. It also comes with both a stainless steel and a flexible plastic straw to fit your preference.

Pros

  • The wide straws give you options for drinks, smoothies, or boba.
  • This cup comes with a plastic and steel straw, along with a straw cleaner, so you can enjoy your drinks both hot or iced.
  • The silicone sleeve comes in a variety of colors.

Cons

  • It’s a bit top-heavy, so be careful when you set it down, as it’s prone to tipping over.
  • We noticed that the glass sweats quite easily with cold drinks, even through the sleeve.

4. bubba Brands Straw Envy 

  • Cup materials: Stainless steel cup, plastic lid
  • Straw material: Plastic
  • Current price: $13.99
  • Capacity: 18 to 32 fl oz
  • BPA-free: Yes
  • Get this product: Amazon
bubba brands - reusable cup with straw

Source: Mackenzie J/Amazon

The bubba Brands reusable cups are designed with every occasion in mind. They offer a wide variety of sizes, styles, and colors to match your tastes, with available options ranging from water bottles to cups to jugs, and even options for kids.

We’ve noticed that their reusable cups with straws are not as high in quality as their insulated water bottles, but customers have noted that bubba’s support staff are quick to respond to any and all complaints, and even replace damaged products.

Pros

  • Multiple colors and styles to choose from.
  • Bubba Brands offers a lifetime guarantee, ensuring you can always replace your cup if it gets damaged.
  • This cup comes with an easy-sip lid, so you can enjoy your drink without the straw if you prefer.

Cons

  • We’ve found that these cups don’t hold temperature very well. Iced and hot drinks will reach room temperature fairly quickly compared to other insulated cups.
  • While the cup itself is built to last, the lids may be another story. We’ve noticed that the lids will wear down after a few weeks, with less insulation and in some cases a loose fit.
  • The gap between the lid and the straw may leave room for spillage.

You can also get this product at the bubba Brands store.

5. Klean Kanteen 

  • Cup materials: Stainless steel, plastic lid
  • Straw material: Stainless steel, silicone
  • Current price: $26.94
  • Capacity: 16 fl oz
  • BPA-free: Yes
  • Get this product: Amazon
Klean Kanteen - reusable cup with straw

Source: Amazon Customer/Amazon

Klean Kanteen prides itself on its lowered environmental impacts from reducing the need for single-use plastic cups and bottles. Their vacuum-insulated tumbler is great for any kind of drink, keeping your beverages hot or iced for extended periods of time, with no sweating or leaking from the cup. The cup is coated with a chip-resistant finish and the stainless steel straw has a silicone coat so you don’t burn yourself with hot drinks.

Reducing your personal plastic consumption is an important step in global sustainability, and Klean Kanteen is taking it even further. They’ve been entirely carbon neutral since 2019 and release annual reports of their environmental efforts and impacts, holding themselves accountable with total transparency.

Pros

  • Klean Kanteen offers a recycled steel collection, with both cups and straws made of 90% recycled steel.
  • A wide variety of patterns, colors, and styles are available, with styles and sizes for kids as well.
  • Every time you make a purchase, Klean Kanteen donates $1 to sustainability efforts around the globe, with over $3.7 million already invested!

Cons

  • More expensive than most brands, with some cups costing over $40.

You can also shop for this product on the Klean Kanteen website.

6. Kensal Reusable Iced Coffee Cup 

  • Cup materials: Plastic cup and lid, stainless steel straw
  • Straw material: Stainless steel
  • Current price: $17.99
  • Capacity: 16 – 24 fl oz
  • BPA-free: Yes
  • Get this product: Amazon
Kensal - reusable cup with straw

Source: Kara Deiana/Amazon

The Kensal reusable cup is a simple, modern design that comes in clear plastic with a reusable stainless steel straw. This cup is completely leak-proof, with a silicone buffer between the straw and the lid, making sure you don’t waste a drop of your favorite drink!

The material is dishwasher-safe and shatter-resistant, so you can be sure you’ll use this reusable cup for years! 

Pros

  • The lid comes with a silicone plug so you can take your drink on the go without liquid spilling from the straw.
  • The double insulation lets you drink hot and cold beverages without condensation or losing temperature.

Cons

  • No options for other colors.
  • Plastic is not as durable or sustainable as other available options.
  • The durable plastic enables you to fill your cup with hot and cold drinks, but the stainless steel straw lacks a silicone cover, so you might burn yourself with hot drinks.

Top Picks

Still can’t make up your mind? Let our top picks help you out.

Most Leak-Proof: Tronco

If you tend to spill, Tronco is the cup for you! Their leak-proof lid comes with a silicone seal to protect you from leaks from the cup and the straw.

Most Durable: Klean Kanteen

Klean Kanteen’s cups are built with stainless steel and a scratch-proof coating to give you grip, style, and prevent condensation. These reusable cups will last you years!

Best Variety of Styles: Klean Kanteen

If you’re not sure exactly what you’re looking for, check out Klean Kanteen’s wide variety of cups! They have cups of all different styles and sizes, with dozens of colors and patterns to choose from.

Most Affordable: bubba Brand

On a budget? bubba Brand cups don’t sacrifice quality for price, so you can get a reusable cup with straws in a variety of colors without breaking the bank.

Best Overall: Klean Kanteen

We loved Klean Kanteen’s durable materials, many options of styles, and impressive sustainability efforts! While they’re not the cheapest brand, you can be sure that this will be the last reusable cup you ever need!

Looking to reduce your plastic consumption? Here are a few other eco-friendly options:

West Coast MP wants Ottawa to ban plastic foam causing a wave of pollution

Light, buoyant and cheap, polystyrene foam is commonly used for docks, buoys, pontoons at marinas and other water activities throughout Canada.

But the plastic, oil-based product is causing a wave of pollution in oceans and waters across the country, says B.C. NDP MP Rachel Blaney.

The federal government needs to ban the use of expanded polystyrene (ESP) and extruded polystyrene (XP), commonly known as Styrofoam, in floating structures in both freshwater and saltwater, said Blaney, the MP for North Island-Powell River.

Polystyrene foam never breaks down, but degrades into thousands of small puffed plastic fragments that travel long distances and are extremely hazardous to aquatic environments, she said.

“It’s just so harmful to our beaches, fish in the ocean and to wildlife on the shores,” Blaney said, adding polystyrene foam is a top complaint from communities in her riding involved in coastal cleanups.

“As it breaks into those smaller and smaller microbeads, it’s absolutely impossible to clean up,” she said.

“It’s crazy to think in this country that we’re putting foam into the water purposefully — we shouldn’t be doing that.”

What people are reading

B.C. NDP MP Rachel Blaney has tabled a motion to ban polystyrene foams when building aquatic infrastructure to prevent a tide of plastic pollution. Photo submitted

Blaney has tabled a motion to ban the use of polystyrene foams to build floating structures and phase out their use in existing ones and has partnered with ocean conservation groups, including Surfrider Canada, on a letter-writing campaign supporting the ban.

The federal government included Styrofoam takeout containers when it launched the phaseout of six single-use plastic items in December, Blaney noted.

Polystyrene foam is a #plastic blight on beaches and waterways and is harmful to birds, fish and other marine creatures, says #NDP MP Rachel Blaney, who’s tabled a motion for the federal government to ban its use in floating structures.

“But there’s just so much more that they could do,” she said, adding it’s not just a coastal issue.

“It’s everywhere. Communities across Canada that are inland are having their lakes, rivers and waterways being polluted.”

After Blaney submitted a petition to Parliament in the summer calling for a ban, the federal government said it wasn’t looking at prohibiting polystyrene foam in marine ecosystems. However, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault noted Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) had new regulations obliging shellfish growers to encase any foam floats in hard plastic shells.

Blaney said while the government doesn’t see the need for further action, coastal communities do.

“We see the need,” she said. “I see it all the time in my constituency on the beaches and in the water, so that doesn’t work for me.”

Banning foam floats a ‘no-brainer’

Even if community volunteers remove large chunks of polystyrene foam from beaches, the most destructive microplastic puffs remain. Photo by Quadra Island Beach Clean Dream Team

Banning the use of polystyrene foam in aquatic infrastructure is a quick and relatively easy way to make a positive impact on marine ecosystems, said Peter Ross, senior scientist and director of water pollution at the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

“It’s an easy fix, especially when there are alternative materials available. It should be a no-brainer,” Ross said.

The degradation of foam, either over time or set loose by stormy weather, is a chronic source of pollution and causes harm to animals that feed along the shore or on the surface of the water, like birds, fish, turtles and even marine mammals feeding or coming up for air, he said. This can lead to starvation or blockages that can eventually kill an animal, he said.

“These microplastics float, which is a little bit different than many other plastics,” he said.

“When you’ve got these tiny white things floating around, many, many species are going to mistake them for food.”

And if the plastic foam beads are “biofouled” — darkened and covered with algae, bacteria, plankton or other organic matter after being in the water for an extended period of time — it’s going to mimic food to an even greater degree, Ross added.

“Then it really starts to resemble, and even taste, like natural food,” he said.

“It really brings up the risk of surreptitious consumption by some poor creature that thinks it’s actually something nutritious.”

Stopping the flow of plastics before they enter waterways and oceans is the most effective way to tackle the scope of the problem, Ross said, adding technology and cleanups can’t keep pace with the amount of pollution entering the ocean.

Foam pollution demoralizing for cleanup volunteers

Members of B.C.’s Clean Coast, Clean Waters beach cleanup in the Discovery Islands collect polystyrene foam for transport. Photo courtesy Spirit of the West Adventures

Quadra Island resident Nevil Hand, who organizes regular beach cleanups in his community, agreed.

Large or small, cleaning up foam is especially difficult, said the retired firefighter who organizes the Quadra Island Beach Clean Dream Team.

In November, community volunteers cleaned up the island’s beaches, and within a month, winter storms had erased any sign the teams had been there, he said.

“This winter, it seemed like an entire marina exploded to the south of us,” he said.

“We’ve got big pieces of dock flotation here this year in amounts we’ve never seen before.”

Clean team volunteers, now holding a spring cleanup contest, have been stacking up foam debris at beach trailheads for pick up, Hand said, adding it’s unsettling to see how much there is.

“Foam is so fragile. It’s disgusting the way it breaks up so easily along our shores,” he said.

Some volunteers just found a 12-foot-long piece of foam that they hope will dry out in the coming weeks so they can remove it.

“The problem is we can only really deal with the bigger pieces,” he said.

“Even then, when we’re handling it, it’s breaking up in our hands and we’re making even more of a mess.”

It’s demoralizing because the small pieces are the most destructive to the environment, he added.

“That’s what the birds and the fish are going to ingest and [it] will harm our wildlife with stomach poisonings and who knows what.”

The environmental costs are high because people and marine industries want to continue using cheap materials, Hand said.

“We don’t want to see it used in the marine environment. It just doesn’t belong here.”

Rochelle Baker / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer

What Is the Carbon Footprint of a Plastic Bag

Carbon footprint plastic bag
Source: Anna Shvets/Freepik

Plastic bags are one of the major sources of pollution in the environment, not only because of their non-biodegradability, which causes them to remain in the environment as litter for centuries, but also because of their significant carbon footprint. 

This article will explain what a carbon footprint of plastic bags is, why we need to reduce the carbon footprint of plastic bags, and how we can all contribute to the solution.

Measuring the Carbon Footprint of Plastic Bags

The carbon footprint of a plastic bag refers to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide, that are released throughout the lifecycle of the plastic bag, including its production, transportation, use, and disposal. 

According to one study, a standard plastic bag weighing an average of 32.5g emits 200 grams of carbon, which is just a bit lower than the amount of carbon emitted from driving 1 km in a gasoline-powered vehicle. This means that 1 kg of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere for every 5 standard plastic bags we use. While this may appear insignificant compared to other common factors that generate carbon, like driving or flying, the collective impact of billions of plastic bags used each day globally is tremendous.

In the United States alone, each person uses an average of 1 plastic bag each day. This is equivalent to a total of more than 100 billion plastic bags used in just one year. Based on the statistics described above, this means that the United States emits around 20 trillion kilograms or 20 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year just by consuming plastic bags. This is equivalent to approximately 300 million flights from New York to LA (a one-way trip).

Factors Contributing to the Carbon Footprint of a Plastic Bag

The exact carbon footprint of a plastic bag depends on several factors. These include:

1. The type of plastic used and its production.

The plastic type and its production can contribute to carbon emissions in several ways. Here are some examples of different types of plastic used in making plastic bags and how their production can contribute to carbon emissions:

  • Polyethylene terephthalate (PET): PET plastics are derived from fossil fuels and require high amounts of energy to produce. PET plastic is the most widely used type of plastic in the world, and it is typically used to make plastic shopping bags, plastic bottles, food containers, and fabrics. Because of its high demand, PET is classified as the highest carbon emitter of all plastic types.
  • Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP), Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), and Nylon (PA): These plastics are typically made from petroleum, a fossil fuel that emits greenhouse gases when extracted and refined. These types of plastic are also commonly used in plastic bags, medical equipment, toys, and automotive parts. The production of these plastics requires a significant amount of energy, which contributes to carbon emissions.
  • Polyvinyl chloride (PVC): The production of PVC uses chlorine, which is typically derived from the electrolysis of salt. PVC is a thicker type of plastic commonly used to make pipes, electrical cables, street signages, and vinyl floorings. This process requires significant amounts of energy, which emits high amounts of carbon. 
  • Polystyrene (PS): The production of PS requires the use of styrene, which is typically derived from petroleum. Polystyrene is commonly used to make disposable cutlery, food packaging, and insulation foams for roofings. Like the other plastic types, the production of PS also uses a significant amount of energy.

2. The transportation emissions from shipping materials and distributing the final products.

Plastics are produced and used all over the world. The transportation and delivery of plastic products can contribute to carbon emissions in several ways:

  • Fuel consumption for transportation: The transportation of plastic raw materials and products requires the use of vehicles such as trucks, ships, and airplanes, which consume fossil fuels. The carbon emissions from transportation depends on the distance that plastic products travel from manufacturing facilities to distribution warehouses, to stores, and to consumers. Plastic products that are imported or exported may have a higher carbon footprint than those manufactured and consumed locally, since they are transported over longer distances.
  • Refrigeration: Some plastic bag products may require refrigeration or cool storage during transportation to avoid deformity and damage. This requires additional energy consumption and can contribute to carbon emissions.

3. The disposal method.

In addition to plastic production and the transportation of products, the disposal of plastic bags is a major contributor to carbon emissions. Because most plastic bags are not biodegradable, they can end up in landfills or the environment for hundreds of years if disposed of incorrectly, releasing methane and other greenhouse gases as they decompose. Each year, the United States alone discards 100 million plastic bags that end up in landfills and the ocean; the damage is equivalent to around 12 million barrels of crude oil released to the environment.

Due to this variety of factors, the carbon footprint of different kinds of plastic bags can vary significantly. For example, the plant-based materials used to create a compostable bag may result in less waste than traditional plastic bags made from fossil fuels, but compostable bags may also require more energy and resources to produce. This makes comparing the actual carbon footprint of various types of plastic bags a challenging issue. Nonetheless, these estimates should be enough for us to take action and contribute to reducing our impacts.

Ways to Reduce the Environmental Impacts of Plastic Bags

Now that we have learned about the carbon footprint of plastic bags, we can better understand the importance of minimizing plastic bags’ impacts on the environment. Here are some ways to reduce the carbon footprint of the plastic bags you use.

1. Reduce plastic bag usage: The easiest and most effective way to reduce the impacts of plastic bags is by reducing their usage. This can be done by using reusable bags made from durable and eco-friendly materials like cotton, jute, or canvas.

  • Choose biodegradable bags: Biodegradable plastic bags are made from natural materials like starch or vegetable oil, which can break down into harmless substances like water and carbon dioxide.
  • Use recycled plastic bags: Recycled plastic bags are made from post-consumer plastic waste, which reduces the demand for new plastic and the energy required to manufacture it. These still contribute to plastic waste if disposed of incorrectly, so make sure you send them to soft-plastic recyclers for disposal.
  • Opt for paper bags: Paper bags are a more eco-friendly alternative to plastic bags. They are biodegradable and can be recycled several times. With this approach, you can significantly reduce your own carbon footprint.

2. Proper disposal: Proper disposal of plastic bags is crucial to reducing their carbon footprint. Make sure to recycle plastic bags in soft-plastic recyclers whenever possible and avoid littering.

3. Support plastic bag bans: Supporting legislation or laws that ban plastic bags can help reduce their usage and encourage the use of eco-friendly alternatives.

Conclusion

Understanding the carbon footprint of plastic bags gives us a better awareness of their impacts on the environment. Taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint can benefit both humanity and our planet’s health. Strategies like reducing the use of plastic bags, replacing them with sustainable alternatives, supporting legal restrictions, recycling or upcycling plastic bags, and raising awareness among consumers can all contribute to reducing their environmental impact. By taking these steps collectively, we can reduce the environmental impacts of plastic bags and build a more sustainable future.

Plastic Bag Alternatives: 5 Best Reusable Silicone Bags

Are you tired of constantly throwing away plastic bags after just one use? Do you want to make a more eco-friendly choice for your daily routine? Reusable silicone bags are a great option for reducing your plastic usage. These bags are one of the best eco-friendly alternatives to single-use plastic bags and are designed to be used multiple times. Better yet, reusable silicone bags are durable, flexible, and safe for storing food and liquids under extreme temperatures. 

In this blog, we’ve identified the best reusable silicone bags on the market and explored their many benefits. Say goodbye to wasteful single-use plastic bags and hello to a more sustainable future with our top picks for the best reusable silicone bags.

The Benefits of Switching to Reusable Silicone Bags

A reusable silicone bag is a better alternative to plastic for several reasons:

1. Durability: Silicone is more durable and long-lasting than plastic. It can withstand high temperatures, is resistant to fading, and is less likely to crack or break over time.

2. Non-Toxic: Unlike many plastics, silicone is non-toxic, and it does not contain harmful chemicals like BPA or phthalates. This makes it a safer option for use in products that come into contact with food or drink.

3. Eco-Friendly: Silicone is more environmentally friendly than single-use plastics because it is recyclable and does not release harmful chemicals into the environment when it breaks down.

4. Versatility: Silicone can be molded into many shapes and sizes, and it is flexible, making it an excellent material for reusable bags of all kinds.

5. Easy to Clean: Silicone is non-stick and easy to clean, making it a great material for snack bags, food storage bags, and other products that need to be kept clean and sanitary.

How We Choose the Best Reusable Silicone Bags

We independently reviewed the following reusable silicone bags to ensure that we’re recommending the best products to help you reach your sustainability goals. We evaluate each product based on the following factors: 

Materials

We made sure that our top picks are made of non-toxic silicone material and are free of any dangerous chemicals such as BPA, BPS, and phthalates. All our product recommendations below are made from certified food-grade materials.

Quality and Durability

We picked reusable silicone bags that are durable and made to last. A longer product life means the bag won’t have to be disposed of and replaced as frequently. Additionally, we chose bags that meet several important factors of quality, including:

  • No leakage
  • Large enough capacity
  • Easy to clean

Manufacturer’s Ethical & Sustainable Practices

We recommend products that are made ethically and sustainably. We thoroughly investigated each brand to ensure their products are manufactured with ethical working conditions and that they promote sustainability in sourcing their materials. We also checked if they are actively involved in any environmental efforts or social good programs.

The Best Reusable Silicone Bags

There are many eco-friendly reusable silicone bag brands on the market, each with its own unique features and benefits. Based on our research, the following bags have the highest quality, are most reliable, and are most sustainable.

Reusable Silicone Bags

  1. Durbl Reusable Silicone Bags
  2. Stasher Silicone Reusable Storage Bags
  3. W&P Reusable Silicone Bags
  4. WISELLY Reusable Silicone Snack Bags
  5. Homelux Theory Reusable Silicone Food Storage Bags

Top Picks

  1. Most Leak Proof: Homelux Theory
  2. Most Unique: WISELLY
  3. Most Affordable: Homelux Theory

1. Durbl Reusable Silicone Bags

  • Materials: Platinum silicone
  • Current price: $42.99 for a set of 5 bags in different sizes 
  • Sizes included in set: 1 Half-Gallon bag, 2 Sandwich bags, 2 Snack bags
  • BPA free: Yes
  • Get this product: Amazon
durbl - best reusable silicone bags

Source: Terri Rossi/Amazon

Durbl reusable silicone food storage bags are made with 100% platinum silicone, which is far safer than regular food-grade silicone since it doesn’t contain peroxide. These reusable silicone bags are “durable,” as the brand name implies; they are made to last and can withstand hot temperatures up to 425 F° and extremely cold temperatures as low as -40 F°. This means you can reheat your food in the microwave, as well as freeze food in the freezer using this reusable silicone bag.

These sets of silicone bags are sealed with a zip lock, which is 100% leak proof, allowing you to store liquid without worrying about spillage. We love this silicone bag’s shape and sturdiness, which allows it to stand upright unlike many other silicone zip lock bags on the market. This sturdiness makes it easy to stack these bags in an organized way in the fridge!

Cons:

  • Because of its sturdiness, this silicone bag is not as flexible as the other silicone bags on the market, making it less ideal for on-the-go storage. 

Looking for a different color? Durbl silicone food storage bags are also available in white, yellow, green, grey, and pink. You can also get these silicone food storage bags on Durbl website. 

2. Stasher Silicone Reusable Storage Bags

  • Materials: Platinum silicone
  • Current price: Price starts at $7.99
  • Sizes available (not a set): Half-Gallon, Go bag, Quart, Sandwich, Snack, and different cup sizes. 
  • BPA free: Yes
  • Get this product: Amazon
stasher - best reusable silicone bags

Source: Starr P./Stasherbag

Stasher bags are composed of 100% pure platinum-grade silicone, which is non-toxic, non-reactive, and durable under extreme temperatures. The bags are dishwasher, microwave, and freezer safe, making them perfect for all kinds of food storage and cooking.

One of the unique features of Stasher bags that we noticed is the patented pinch-lock seal, which creates an airtight seal to keep food fresh and prevent leaks. Stasher silicone bags come in two designs that you may choose from depending on your needs: the standard stasher, which is flat like a typical Ziploc bag, and the stand-up stasher, which is made to stand upright. Both, however, are useful for different purposes.

Additionally, Stasher gives 1% of its annual sales to nonprofit environmental organizations to support their projects in protecting the environment. 

Cons:

  • We noticed that the opening of the bag is a bit narrow for the actual size of the bag, making it a little bit difficult to fit larger foods inside.

If you’re looking for a different color, Stasher silicone reusable storage bags are also available in a variety of colors that you can check on their website. 

3. W&P Porter Reusable Silicone Bags

  • Materials: Silicone
  • Current price: Price starts at $8.39
  • Sizes available (not a set): Large, Standard, Storage, Sandwich, and Snack
  • BPA free: Yes
  • Get this product: Amazon
w&p - best reusable silicone bags

Source: The Quality Edit

W&P reusable silicone bags are made with LFGB-certified silicone.  This certification ensures that the bags passed more extensive quality testing than the FDA requires, making W&P Porter silicone bags safer and of higher quality than other silicone bags on the market. 

We noticed that while W&P’s reusable silicone bags are extremely durable and thick, they are still more lightweight than others. These bags are both microwave and freezer safe and come in flat and stand-up versions with round corners to prevent food residue from sticking to the corners, making them very easy to clean.

Cons:

  • W&P reusable silicone bags are a little sticky, which can attract dust.

Want a different color for this bag? W&P reusable silicone bags are available in mint, cream, pink, grey, and black. You can also get these reusable silicone bags on the W&P website.

4. WISELLY Reusable Silicone Snack Bags

  • Materials: Silicone, Tritan plastic
  • Current price: $47.93 for a set of 3 (50 Oz)
  • Sizes available (not a set): 33 Oz, 68 Oz (1/2 Gallon), 102 Oz (4/5 Gallon)
  • BPA free: Yes
  • Get this product: Amazon
wiselly - best reusable silicone bags

Source: WISELLY

WISELLY reusable silicone snack bags are made with 100% food-grade silicone with a Tritan plastic leak-proof clip seal. These silicon bags are dishwasher, microwave, and freezer safe, making them convenient for any food storage use. 

WISELLY reusable silicone snack bags have a no-edge stand-up oval shape that makes cleaning easy; simply turn the bag inside out to wash and dry. We really like the wide opening of these reusable silicone bags, which makes it easy to fit large food in without making a mess. They are extremely durable and more flexible compared to the other silicone bags on our list. Additionally, you can easily roll up these silicone bags when not in use to save space, allowing you to store them easily inside your bag or kitchen cabinet.

Cons:

  • WISELLY reusable silicone snack bags can be difficult to close at first, but after a few uses, they become easier to seal.

If you’re looking for a different color, WISELLY reusable silicone snack bags are available in purple, orange, yellow, turquoise, pink, red, and clear. You can also get these reusable silicone bags on the WISELLY website. 

5. Homelux Theory Reusable Silicone Food Storage Bags

  • Materials: Silicone, Plastic
  • Current price: $32.39 for a set of 6 different sizes
  • Sizes included on set: 2 Large (50 Oz), 2 Medium (30 Oz), 2 Small (15 Oz)
  • BPA free: Yes
  • Get this product: Amazon
homelux - best reusable silicone bags

Source: Amazon

Homelux Theory reusable silicone food storage bags are made from high-quality, food-grade silicone with a detachable plastic sealing slide bar. These reusable silicone bags are resistant to extreme temperatures, making them safe for freezing or heating food. 

Homelux Theory reusable silicone food storage bags feature an adjustable base that allows them to be transformed from ordinary flat silicone bags to stand-up silicone bags. This is quite useful for arranging your packaged food in the fridge in whatever position you like. One feature that distinguishes this reusable silicone bag is the removable sealing slide bar, which provides an additional tight lock that prevents the lid from unintentionally popping up.

Cons:

  • The slide bar can trap grease if not washed properly

Homelux Theory reusable silicone food storage bags are available in different sealing rod colors, such as violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red. They are also available on the Homelux Theory website.

Top Picks

Still can’t make up your mind? Let our top picks help you out.

Most Leak-Proof: Homelux Theory

We chose Homelux Theory for the most leak-proof silicone bag on our selection due to its extra tight lock-sealing slide bar. 

Most Unique: WISELLY

We chose WISELLY as the most unique reusable silicone bag on our recommendations due to its unique shape and sealing feature. WISELLY’s unique design has certain advantages; its shape and flexibility make cleaning this silicone bag easier, and its unique wider opening and sealing mechanism makes storing bulky items easier.

Most Affordable: Homelux Theory

Homelux Theory is the most affordable reusable silicone bag in our selection. For $32.39, you can buy a set of 6 reusable silicone bags in different sizes ($5.33 each). With proper care, these bags can last for years.

Plastics cause wide-ranging health issues from cancer to birth defects, landmark study finds

Plastics are responsible for wide-ranging health impacts including cancers, lung disease and birth defects, according to the first analysis of the health hazards of plastics across their entire life cycle – from extraction for manufacturing, through to dumping into landfill and oceans.

Led by the Boston College Global Observatory on Planetary Health in partnership with Australia’s Minderoo Foundation and the Centre Scientifique de Monaco, the review found “current patterns of plastic production, use, and disposal are not sustainable and are responsible for significant harms to human health … as well as for deep societal injustices”.

“The main driver of these worsening harms is an almost exponential and still accelerating increase in global plastic production,” the analysis, published in the medical journal Annals of Global Health, found. “Plastics’ harms are further magnified by low rates of recovery and recycling and by the long persistence of plastic waste in the environment.”

Coalminers, oil workers and gas field workers who extract fossil carbon feedstocks for plastic production, along with plastic production workers, are at particular risk of harm, the report found.

These workers “suffer increased mortality from traumatic injury … silicosis, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer,” the report said.

“Plastic production workers are at increased risk of leukaemia, lymphoma … brain cancer, breast cancer, mesothelioma … and decreased fertility. Plastic recycling workers have increased rates of cardiovascular disease, toxic metal poisoning, neuropathy, and lung cancer.”

Meanwhile, residents of communities adjacent to plastic production and waste disposal sites experience increased risks of premature birth, low birth weight, asthma, childhood leukaemia, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer. The report referred to evidence that infants in the womb and young children are at particularly high risk.

The article recommends a global plastics treaty to control the manufacture and use of plastics, and to reduce the disproportionate health and environmental impacts of plastics on coastal and ocean-dependent communities and those working in high-risk industries. The authors wrote that any treaty should be in accord with the mandate set in March 2022 at the UN Environment Assembly.

Frank Seebacher, a professor in biology at the University of Sydney’s school of life and environmental sciences, agreed that a binding treaty was needed.

“Plastics are on par with climate change in their harmful effects globally, and drive climate change with their need for fossil fuels,” he said.

skip past newsletter promotion

“The call for better management of plastics is an often-repeated refrain in the literature, particularly because most plastic use is unnecessary – for example, single use plastic and packaging – and can be easily replaced. This new paper looks like it is making a very valuable contribution by synthesising the available literatures into a set of concrete recommendations.”

Group leader of the inflammation biology group at the QIMR Berghofer in Brisbane, Prof Andreas Suhrbier, said nearly all humans now consumed “a fair amount of plastic” and it was crucial that more research funding be dedicated to examining its impact.

“This is estimated at a credit card’s worth of plastic per week, usually in the form of microplastics,” Suhrbier said.

“Sadly, the amount of good medical research in this space is very limited. What are the direct detrimental effects on human health of such plastic consumption? What diseases are exacerbated by such plastic consumption? Who in our population would be most vulnerable?

“Questions regarding the health impacts of microplastic consumption are hard to answer without dedicated research funding and some well-constituted studies that establish a causal relationship between microplastic consumption and a disease or disorder.”

How pollution is causing a male fertility crisis

Sperm quality appears to be declining around the world but is a little discussed cause of infertility. Now scientists are narrowing in on what might be behind the problem.

“We can sort you out. No problem. We can help you,” the doctor told Jennifer Hannington. Then he turned to her husband, Ciaran, and said: “But there’s not much we can do for you.”

The couple, who live in Yorkshire, England, had been trying for a baby for two years. They knew it could be difficult for them to conceive as Jennifer has polycystic ovarian syndrome, a condition that can affect fertility. What they had not expected was that there were problems on Ciaran’s side, too. Tests revealed issues including a low sperm count and low motility (movement) of sperm. Worse, these issues were thought to be harder to treat than Jennifer’s – perhaps even impossible.

Hannington still remembers his reaction: “Shock. Grief. I was in complete denial. I thought the doctors had got it wrong.” He had always known he wanted to be a dad. “I felt like I’d let my wife down.” 

Over the years, his mental health deteriorated. He began to spend more time alone, staying in bed and turning to alcohol for comfort. Then the panic attacks set in.

“I hit crisis point,” he says. “It was a deep, dark place.”

Male infertility contributes to approximately half of all cases of infertility and affects 7% of the male population. However, it is much less discussed than female infertility, partly due to the social and cultural taboos surrounding it. For the majority of men with fertility problems, the cause remains unexplained – and stigma means many are suffering in silence.

Research suggests the problem may be growing. Factors including pollution have been shown to affect men’s fertility, and specifically, sperm quality – with potentially huge consequences for individuals, and entire societies.

A hidden fertility crisis? 

The global population has risen dramatically over the past century. Just 70 years ago – within a human lifetime – there were only 2.5 billion people on Earth. In 2022, the global population hit eight billion. However, the rate of population growth has slowed, mainly due to social and economic factors.

Birth rates worldwide are hitting record low levels. Over 50% of the world’s population live in countries with a fertility rate below two children per woman – resulting in populations that without migration will gradually contract. The reasons for this decline in birth rates include positive developments, such as women’s greater financial independence and control over their reproductive health. On the other hand, in countries with low fertility rates, many couples would like to have more children than they do, research shows, but they may hold off due to social and economic reasons, such as a lack of support for families.

There is mounting evidence that pollution may be at least partly behind declining sperm quality and sperm counts (Credit: Yuichi Yamazaki/AFP/Getty Images)

There is mounting evidence that pollution may be at least partly behind declining sperm quality and sperm counts (Credit: Yuichi Yamazaki/AFP/Getty Images)

At the same time, there may also be a decline in a different kind of fertility, known as fecundity – meaning, a person’s physical ability to produce offspring. In particular, research suggests that the whole spectrum of reproductive problems in men is increasing, including declining sperm counts, decreasing testosterone levels, and increasing rates of erectile dysfunction and testicular cancer.

Swimming cells

“Sperm are exquisite cells,” says Sarah Martins Da Silva, a clinical reader in reproductive medicine at the University of Dundee and a practicing gynaecologist. “They are tiny, they swim, they can survive outside the body. No other cells can do that. They are extraordinarily specialised.”

Seemingly small changes can have a powerful effect on these highly specialised cells, and especially, their ability to fertilise an egg. The crucial aspects for fertility are their ability to move efficiently (motility), their shape and size (morphology), and how many there are in a given quantity of semen (known as sperm count). They are the aspects that are examined when a man goes for a fertility check.

“In general, when you get below 40 million sperm per millilitre of semen, you start to see fertility problems,” says Hagai Levine, professor of epidemiology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Sperm count, explains Levine, is closely linked to fertility chances. While a higher sperm count does not necessarily mean a higher probability of conception, below the 40 million/ml threshold the probability of conception drops off rapidly.

In 2022, Levine and his collaborators published a review of global trends in sperm count. It showed that sperm counts fell on average by 1.2% per year between 1973 to 2018, from 104 to 49 million/ml. From the year 2000, this rate of decline accelerated to more than 2.6% per year.

Levine argues this acceleration could be down to epigenetic changes, meaning, alterations to the way genes work, caused by environmental or lifestyle factors. A separate review also suggests epigenetics may play a part in changes in sperm, and male infertility.

“There are signs that it could be cumulative across generations,” he says.

The idea that epigenetic changes can be inherited across generations has not been without controversy, but there is evidence suggesting it may be possible. 

“This [declining sperm count] is a marker of poor health of men, maybe even of mankind,” says Levine. “We are facing a public health crisis – and we don’t know if it’s reversible.”

Research suggests that male infertility may predict future health problems, though the exact link is not fully understood. One possibility is that certain lifestyle factors could contribute to both infertility, and other health problems.

“While the experience of wanting a child and not being able to get pregnant is extraordinarily devastating, this is a much bigger problem,” says Da Silva. 

Individual lifestyle changes may not be enough to halt the decline in sperm quality. Mounting evidence suggests there is a wider, environmental threat: toxic pollutants.

A toxic world

Rebecca Blanchard, a veterinary teaching associate and researcher at the University of Nottingham, UK, is investigating the effect of environmental chemicals found within the home on male reproductive health. She is using dogs as a sentinel model – a kind of early-warning alarm system for human health. 

“The dog shares our environment,” she says. “It lives in the same household and is exposed to the same chemical contaminants as us. If we look at the dog, we could see what’s going on in the human.”

Her research concentrated on chemicals found in plastics, fire retardants and common household items. Some of these chemicals have been banned, but still linger in the environment or older items (read more about this in BBC Future’s story on “forever chemicals”). Her studies have revealed that these chemicals can disrupt our hormonal systems, and harm the fertility of both dogs and men. 

“We found a reduction in sperm motility in both the human and the dog,” says Blanchard. “There was also an increase in the amount of DNA fragmentation.”

IVF treatment is offering hope to couples with fertility problems, but it is expensive and not available to everyone (Credit: Alamy)

IVF treatment is offering hope to couples with fertility problems, but it is expensive and not available to everyone (Credit: Alamy)

Sperm DNA fragmentation refers to damage or breaks in the genetic material of the sperm. This can have an impact beyond conception: as levels of DNA fragmentation increase, explains Blanchard, so do instances of early-term miscarriages. 

The findings chime with other research showing the damage to fertility caused by chemicals found in plastics, household medications, in the food chain and in the air. It affects men as well as women and even babies. Black carbon, forever chemicals and phthalates have all been found to reach babies in utero.

Support for men with fertility problems

At his lowest point, Ciaran Hannington found HIMfertility, a male-only online group supporting men with fertility struggles by offering a space for them to share their thoughts and concerns. He now coaches others preparing for fertility treatment: “No one should feel like they’re on their own.”

Climate change may also negatively impact male fertility, with several animal studies suggesting that sperm are especially vulnerable to the effects of increasing temperatures. Heatwaves have been shown to damage sperm in insects, and a similar impact has been observed in humans. A 2022 study found that high ambient temperature – due to global warming, or working in a hot environment – negatively affects sperm quality.

Poor diet, stress and alcohol

Alongside these environmental factors, individual problems can also harm male fertility, such as a poor diet, sedentary lifestyles, stress, and alcohol and drug use.

In recent decades there has been a shift towards people becoming parents later in life – and while women are often reminded about their biological clock, age was thought not to be an issue for male fertility. Now, that idea is changing. An advanced paternal age has been associated with lower sperm quality and reduced fertility.

There is a growing call for greater understanding of male infertility and new approaches for its prevention, diagnosis and treatment – as well as an increased awareness of the urgent need to tackle pollution. Meanwhile,  is there anything an individual can do to protect or boost their sperm quality?  

Exercise and a healthier diet may be a good start, since they have been linked to improved sperm quality. Blanchard recommends choosing organic food and plastic products free of BPA (Bisphenol A), a chemical associated with male and female fertility problems. “There are small things that you can do,” she says.

And, says Hannington, don’t suffer in silence.

After five years of treatment and three rounds of ICSI (Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection), an IVF technique in which a single sperm is injected into the centre of an egg, he and his wife had two children. For people who have to pay for fertility treatments themselves, such a procedure may however not be affordable. In the US, a single round of IVF can cost upwards of $30,000 (£24,442) and insurance coverage for IVF can depend on the state you live in and who your employer is. And Hannington says he still feels the mental toll of his ordeal.

“I’m grateful for my children every day, but you just don’t forget,” he says. “It will always be part of me.”

—

Join one million Future fans by liking us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter or Instagram.

If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called “The Essential List” – a handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Worklife, Travel and Reel delivered to your inbox every Friday.

Plastics are devastating the guts of seabirds

Northern fulmars and Cory’s shearwaters are masters of the sea and air, gliding above the waves and plunging into the water to snag fish, squid, and crustaceans. But because humans have so thoroughly corrupted the ocean with microplastics—at least 11 billion pounds of particles float at the surface, and that’s likely a huge underestimate—their diet now also includes substantial amounts of synthetic poison. 

A study published today in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution shows that those microplastics (defined as particles under 5 millimeters long) might be altering the seabirds’ gut microbiomes, with as-yet-unknown implications for their health. Another recent paper introduced the world to “plasticosis”: severe scarring in the digestive system of birds that had eaten plastic. With plastic pollution increasing exponentially along with plastic production, the new papers are a hint of the suffering to come.

The researchers behind today’s paper dissected 85 northern fulmars and Cory’s shearwaters caught in the wild. (Northern fulmars live around northern oceans and the Arctic; Cory’s shearwaters throughout the Atlantic.) Then the team flushed plastic particles out of the birds’ digestive tracts, looking for bits as small as 1 millimeter, and analyzed the species of microbes in the gut. When the researchers analyzed microplastics in the birds by mass, the greater the mass, the lower the gut microbiome diversity. But when they counted the number of plastic particles, “the more particles there were, the more diverse the microbiome was,” says Gloria Fackelmann, a microbiome biologist at Ulm University in Germany, and lead author of the study. In this case, diversity isn’t necessarily a good thing: The more particles, the more pathogenic and antibiotic-resistant microbes the researchers found in the gut. 

In other words, a shift in the microbiome appears to favor potentially harmful, pathogenic microbes. Significantly, it happened among seabirds that had been eating “environmentally relevant” amounts of microplastics—meaning, what they found in their own habitat. (In previous laboratory studies, scientists have exposed various species to unrealistically high concentrations of microplastic.)

This paper didn’t track whether the birds became sickened by microbial diseases, “so we can’t say the seabirds that had more plastic were unhealthier,” says Fackelmann. But that will be one of the big questions as researchers try to parse what effects the particles might be having. As microplastics break down, they leach out their component chemicals—around 10,000 varieties are used in plastics, many of which are known to be toxic to life. They’re especially prone to leach in a hot, acidic place like a digestive tract. “This all paints a really scary picture,” says Britta Baechler, associate director of ocean plastics research at the Ocean Conservancy, who wasn’t involved in either of the new papers. The gut, she says, is “a very harsh environment—things can be released, and that includes pathogens, bacteria, but also chemical contaminants.” 

As microplastics tumble through the ocean, they accumulate an extremely diverse community of viruses, algae, and even the tiny larvae of animals. (An especially common bacteria that scientists are finding on microplastics is Vibrio, which causes severe illness when people eat raw or undercooked seafood or are exposed to hurricane floodwaters.) This teeming world even has its own name: the plastisphere. When a fish or bird accidentally eats microplastic, it also eats that community of lifeforms. “If a seabird is ingesting more of these particles, and it does act as a vector, then you would have a higher diversity” of gut microbes, says Fackelmann.

This might be why her team got contrasting results in their analysis: The more individual microplastics in the gut, the greater the microbial diversity, but the higher mass of microplastics, the lower the diversity. The more particles a bird eats, the greater the chance that those hitchhiking microbes take hold in its gut. But if the bird has just eaten a higher mass of microplastics—fewer, but heavier pieces—it may have consumed fewer microbes from the outside world.

Meanwhile, particularly jagged microplastics might be scraping up the birds’ digestive systems, causing trauma that affects the microbiome. Indeed, the authors of the plasticosis paper found extensive trauma in the guts of wild flesh-footed shearwaters, birds that live along the coasts of Australia and New Zealand, that had eaten microplastics and macroplastics. (They also looked at plastic particles as small as 1 millimeter.) “When you ingest plastics, even small amounts of plastics, it alters the structure of the stomach, often very, very significantly,” says study coauthor Jennifer Lavers, a pollution ecologist at Adrift Lab, which researches the effects of plastic on sea life.

Specifically, they found catastrophic damage to the birds’ tubular glands, which produce mucus to provide a protective barrier for the inside of the stomach, as well as hydrochloric acid, which digests food. Without these key secretions, Lavers says, birds “also can’t digest and absorb proteins and other nutrients that keep you healthy and fit. So you’re really prone and susceptible to exposure to other bacteria, viruses, and pathogens.”

Scientists call this a “sublethal effect.” Even if the ingested pieces of plastic don’t immediately kill a bird, they can severely harm it. Lavers refers to it as the “one-two punch of plastics” because eating the material harms the birds outright, then potentially makes them more vulnerable to the pathogens they carry.

A major caveat to today’s paper—and the vast majority of microplastics research—is that most scientists haven’t been analyzing the smallest of plastic particles. But researchers using special equipment have recently been able to detect and quantify nanoplastics, on the scale of millionths of a meter. These are much, much more numerous in the environment. (This is also why the finding that there are 11 billion pounds of plastic floating on the ocean’s surface was probably a major underestimate, as that team was only considering particles down to a third of a millimeter.) But the process of observing nanoplastics remains difficult and expensive, so Fackelmann’s group can’t say how many might have been in the seabirds’ digestive systems, and how they too might influence the microbiome. 

It’s not likely to be good news. Nanoplastics are so small that they can penetrate and harm individual cells. Experiments on fish show that if you feed them nanoplastics, the particles end up in their brains, causing damage. Other animal studies have also found that nanoplastics can pass through the gut barrier and migrate to other organs. Indeed, another paper Lavers published in January found even microplastics in the flesh-footed shearwaters’ kidneys and spleens, where they had caused significant damage. “The harm that we demonstrated in the plasticosis paper is likely conservative because we didn’t deal with particles in the nanoplastic spectrum,” says Lavers. “I personally think that’s quite terrifying because the harm in the plasticosis paper is quite overwhelming.”

Now scientists are racing to figure out whether ingested plastics can endanger not only individual animals, but whole populations. “Is this harm at the individual level—all of these different sublethal effects, exposure to chemicals, exposure to microbiome changes, plasticosis—is it sufficient to drive population decline?” asks Lavers. 

The jury is still out on that, as scientists don’t have enough evidence to form a consensus. But Lavers believes in the precautionary principle. “A lot of the evidence that we have now is deeply concerning,” she says. “I think we need to let logic prevail and make a fairly safe, conservative assumption that plastics are currently driving population decline in some species.”