Plastic pollution could make much of humanity infertile, experts fear

Since the start of the 2020s, humanity has faced worldwide calamity after worldwide calamity, all of them raising questions about our survival as a species. The COVID-19 pandemic has already claimed millions of lives and not yet finished its rampage. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has raised the specter of nuclear holocaust, which many assumed has subsided with the end of the Cold War. Even as these problems worsen, climate change continues to quietly creep along in the background, overheating the planet for future generations.
Yet what if, on top of all these things, there is an even more dystopian crisis in the offing — one in which humans are no longer able to reproduce without artificial help because we have filled the environment with chemicals that have altered our bodies?
Scientists believe this is not only possible, it is likely to happen within our lifetimes.
Understanding why involves three statistics: First, that a human male who has fewer than 15 million sperm per milliliter is considered infertile; second, that in the 1970s sperm counts in Western countries (where there is available data) showed an average of 99 million sperm per milliliter; and third, that this number had dropped to 47 million sperm per milliliter by 2011. Scientists agree that plastic pollution is a likely culprit.
The trailblazer here has been Dr. Shanna Swan, a professor of environmental medicine and public health at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, whose most famous book has a conveniently self-explanatory title: “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race.”
The main culprit is believed to be chemicals within everyday plastics known as endocrine disruptors. These chemicals, including a range of phthalates and bisphenols, are literally inescapable. They can be found in the dishware, food cans and containers from which you eat your food, and in the water bottles and other plastic receptacles from which you drink. They are in virtually all of your commonly used household electronics, your eyeglass lenses, your furniture and even on any commercial receipts that come from a thermal printer. Because endocrine disruptors are in pesticides, they have also entered the foods that we eat thanks to the agriculture industry. Even without pesticides, though, we would still wind up eating these endocrine disruptors. Microplastics — that is, plastic particles which are five millimeters or less across or in length — have entirely covered the planet. Animals accidentally eat microplastics all the time and plants regularly absorb them through their roots. Humans themselves ingest the rough equivalent of a credit card’s worth of plastic each week.

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.

“First society needs to identify and agree we have a very serious problem; this takes time like climate change,” Bjorn Beeler, international coordination at IPEN — International Pollutants Elimination Network — told Salon by email. “Scientists knew in the 1970s/80s climate change was coming due to [greenhouse gas] emissions, and now we are discussing adaptation and climate crisis 40+ years later (late). So to curb the threat, we need to define the problem, then turn off the toxic chemical tap.”
Even if that happens, however, there is so much plastic everywhere that humanity simply cannot escape at least some of the consequences from this constant exposure. Swan told Salon by email that federally funded assisted reproduction technology — something currently provided in only one country, Israel — will help in making sure that people impacted by this pollution can still have children.
“Disadvantaged communities are more highly exposed to risky chemicals and they are more affected (on average) by the same level of exposure,” Swan wrote to Salon. “So, it’s a ‘triple whammy’ for these communities.”
John Hocevar, the Oceans Campaign Director for Greenpeace USA, explained to Salon by email that “reduced sperm counts and other reproductive ailments disproportionately impact low income communities and people of color. Poor communities are more likely to be located closest to incinerators and landfills, as well as refineries. Access to expensive treatments to compensate for reproductive health issues are not equitable today, and even with an optimistic view of the US political landscape it is clear that this problem is not going to go away any time soon.”
Not surprisingly, the plastic industry and others that rely on these chemicals dispute that the endocrine disruptors are responsible for the drop in sperm counts. As Beeler pointed out, they will provide alternate data just like industries do when they dispute the validity of climate science. Hocevar added that plastic companies also have an advantage because plastics are so pervasive that “it is difficult to design controls where plastic can be excluded as a factor. The plastic industry uses this terrible situation to try to claim that we don’t have enough evidence to be sure that these chemicals are dangerous.”
And, to be clear, there are other factors that no doubt contribute to fertility issues for both men and women: Obesity, smoking, binge drinking, stress. Still, the science about endocrine disruptors is clear.
“Chemicals in plastic (phthalates, bisphenols and others) as well as pesticides, lead and other environmental exposures are linked to impaired reproduction including sperm count and quality,” Swan told Salon. “Some, like phthalates and BPA, have a short half-life in the body (4-6 hours), so it is possible to reduce the body’s exposure if we can stop using products containing these.” At the same time, society will have to exercise collective will and make sure that the most vulnerable among us are not left behind.
“Low-income communities can’t afford to ‘buy their way out’ of the problem by purchasing organic, unprocessed foods, safer cosmetics etc. (which are more expensive),” Swan explained. “But the ‘mass infertility scenario’ is a threat to everyone (not just the disadvantaged).”
Read more on plastic pollution:

Choking our oceans

A newly-hatched sea turtle encounters its first, perhaps fatal, obstacle as it tries to reach the sea. PHOTO COURTESY OF FLORIDA NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, BROWARD COUNTY SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION PROGRAM
LET’S FACE IT. YOU CAN’T escape plastic waste. Grocery bags tumbling across parking lots or caught on a nearby bush, beverage bottles lying in street culverts or scattered on the beach, plastic cups, discarded plastic knives and forks, packaging materials, food takeout wrapping — one, or more, or all are likely to be encountered in any 24-hour period of our daily lives.
Plastic waste is so ubiquitous that it’s easy to let your eyes gloss over it as an expected, all-too-familiar part of the landscape.

Striking images of plastic pollution in the Mediterranean

As part of Monaco Ocean Week, the Ramoge Agreement presented an awareness-raising video on the impact of marine litter, entitled “Frisson dans les abysses” (Chills in the depths)  »The images are startling. Plastic waste, as far as the eye can see, in the heart of the Monaco canyon, 30km off the Principality’s coast. The images were shot in 2018, but are practically unchanged, four years later.

[embedded content]

The Ramoge Agreement is an intergovernmental cooperation agreement between the French, Italian and Monegasque States for the preservation of the marine environment signed in 1976. The organisation wanted to highlight once again the seriousness of plastic pollution for our oceans by unveiling this shocking video, which shows exploration campaigns carried out in the underwater canyons.

Images captured by a remote-controlled robot more than 2,000 metres down.

The images, captured by a remote-controlled robot (ROV) off Monaco, show the impressive amount of plastic waste accumulated at depths of over 2,000 metres. Waste from the land, dumped in the countryside, carried by rivers to the sea, then by the current to the Monaco canyon.

SEE ALSO: COP26: Prince Albert II calls for a real commitment to the protection of the oceans

As Monaco Ocean Week, a unifying event about ocean preservation, is being held in the Principality since Monday, this video could well feature in the different conferences planned throughout the week.

Chemical recycling: ‘Green’ plastics solution makes more pollution: Report

The plastics industry claims that ‘chemical recycling’ or ‘advanced recycling’ technologies, which use heat or solvents to convert waste plastic into chemical feedstocks that can potentially be further processed into new plastics, are a green alternative to mechanical recycling.But according to a new report, five out of eight U.S. facilities assessed use chemical processes to produce combustible fuel, not new plastics. In addition, facilities are disposing of large amounts of hazardous waste which in some cases includes benzene — a known carcinogen — lead, cadmium and chromium.Critics say the chemical recycling industry’s multi-step incineration processes are polluting and generating greenhouse gases without alleviating virgin plastic demand. Environmental permits for six U.S. facilities allow release of hazardous air pollutants that can cause cancer or birth defects.A new UN framework to fight global plastic pollution could offer nations flexibility over how they meet recycling targets, potentially allowing the industry to lobby for policy incentives and regulatory exemptions for plastic-to-fuel techniques — policies that may threaten the environment and public health, say experts. A host of cutting-edge plastics processing technologies, known collectively as ‘chemical recycling,’ are releasing large quantities of toxic and hazardous substances into the environment. But the majority — while making fuel and chemicals — are producing no recycled plastic, according to a recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
With over 240 million metric tons of new plastics generated every year, a growing global mountain of plastic waste now threatens to destabilize Earth’s operating system,  potentially closing the habitable window of climate and biogeochemical conditions that human civilizations have relied upon for survival over the past 12,000 years.
The United States is one of the world’s top plastic producers, but less than 9% of what it makes is currently recycled, mostly through the established process of mechanical sorting and shredding. Plastic industry representatives claim that so-called cutting edge ‘chemical recycling’ or ‘advanced recycling’ technologies, which use heat or solvents to convert waste plastic into fuels or chemical feedstocks, are the best recycling solution. But environmental groups, including NRDC, have raised concerns over the greenhouse gas emissions and toxic pollution generated by these processes.
Over 240 million metric tons of new plastics are generated planetwide every year, but only a small fraction is being recycled. Together with other novel chemical pollutants, plastic waste and its impacts threaten to push Earth outside of the habitable zone for humanity. Image by EFRH on VisualHunt.
Chemical recycling creating pollution?
The NRDC investigation collated publicly available data in the summer of 2021 from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) databases and state environmental permits for chemical recycling facilities across the United States. They identified eight sites that were either already operating or expected to become operational in the near future.
EPA records revealed that several of these recycling facilities were disposing of large amounts of hazardous waste, containing chemicals such as benzene — a known carcinogen — as well as lead, cadmium and chromium. State-level environmental permits for six facilities allow for the release of hazardous air pollutants, including chemicals that can cause cancer or birth defects.
“The facilities were releasing or permitted to release a variety of hazardous air pollutants,” said NRDC Senior Scientist and report author Veena Singla. “That’s certainly of concern for the communities in direct proximity.” Those communities, the report found, were disproportionally low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. About 380,000 people live within 3 miles of the eight facilities and may be impacted by their toxic emissions.
Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics, a not-for-profit project based at Bennington College in Vermont, and a former EPA regional administrator, described NRDC’s investigation as “invaluable,” adding that, “every elected official who’s thinking about supporting [chemical recycling] facilities should read the report first.”
Less than 9% of U.S. plastic waste is recycled, the majority of which is sorted and shredded mechanically before being processed into recycled plastic pellets. Mechanical recycling of plastic has proved difficult to scale-up because of the wide variety of plastic types and sources of contamination present in household and commercial waste, challenges that have also besieged emerging plastic-to-plastic chemical recycling technologies. Image by Tony Webster on Flickr.
Plastics production continues to soar leaving the world with the difficult problem of how to process and reuse waste. Image courtesy of Our World in Data.
However, Plastics Industry Association Vice President of Government Affairs Matt Seaholm, accused the NRDC report of utilizing “cherry-picked examples, incomplete data, and unsubstantiated claims.” He said that “Attacks on advanced recycling technologies tend to follow the same pattern: ignoring the advancements and investments from many different companies, making unrealistic calls to end plastics production, and ignoring industry positions on waste-to-fuel recovery. NRDC’s report is no different.”
Singla invited the industry to provide substantiation for Seaholm’s claims: ”If they are aware of additional data on more facilities, or for these facilities, we’d be very happy to look and do an updated analysis.” She noted that the investigation included all publicly accessible data available at the time of analysis.
The American Chemical Council and the World Plastics Council did not respond to Mongabay’s request for comment.
Plastic-to-fuel conversion: Greenwashing incineration?
Chemical recycling is being marketed as an alternative to mechanical recycling that can meet the growing demand for recycled plastic and reduce the volume of waste being incinerated or ending up in landfills. However, chemical plastic-to-plastic recycling projects have been besieged by problems as they attempt to scale-up from promising laboratory studies into commercially viable enterprises, and five out of eight facilities identified in the NRDC report were instead converting waste plastics into combustible fuel.
“Producing fuel from plastic is not a circular process,” said NRDC’s Singla. Based on the data their investigation obtained, “this is not a solution for a circular, non-toxic materials cycle for plastic.”
Technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification degrade plastics in high-temperature chambers, often in low-oxygen conditions, to produce a liquid or gas that can be further processed into fuel or chemicals. Although the industry claims these processes can be used to generate new plastic, the NRDC report found no evidence that this is happening in practice. And since the low-grade fuels and chemical waste produced are ultimately burned, critics argue these techniques are simply multi-step incineration processes, generating greenhouse gas emissions and hazardous waste without alleviating consumer demand for virgin plastics.
Despite these concerns, pressure is mounting on politicians and policymakers to classify chemical recycling — including plastic-to-fuel processes — as a manufacturing technology and not solid-waste incineration. Sixteen U.S. states have already passed  recycling legislation that redefines chemical recycling facilities as manufacturers, exempting them from stricter reporting requirements imposed on solid waste recyclers, and similar bills have been advanced in other states including New York.
“That’s really concerning,” commented Singla. “There’s already a lack of transparency and reclassifying [of chemical recycling facilities] would narrow that further,” she said.
The EPA is currently evaluating how to regulate pyrolysis and gasification technologies under the Clean Air Act, with industry lobbyists fiercely campaigning to prevent these high-temperature degradation techniques from being classed as incineration.
As the demand for oil used for energy decreases, petrochemical companies, like these facilities seen here in Houston, Texas, are ramping up their plastic production which will increase the demand for green plastic waste disposal solutions. Image by Louis Vest via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0).
Could chemical recycling hurt global efforts to curb plastic pollution?
Chemical recycling is coming under the global spotlight just as the world comes together to acknowledge and address the plastic crisis. In early March, 175 countries agreed on a UN framework to fight global plastic pollution from cradle-to-grave, reigniting optimism among campaigners. However, environmentalists warn that flexibility in the framework over how individual nations meet recycling targets could leave the door open for exploitation by industry lobbyists seeking policy incentives and regulatory exemptions for plastic-to-fuel techniques.
Some experts say that chemical recycling, and particularly technologies that generate combustible fuel rather than new plastics, are not the plastic-waste solutions the world is so desperately seeking. “I was really disappointed with what we found [in our report], because the plastic waste crisis is so visible and so imminent and I wanted there to be some additional solutions. Unfortunately this isn’t it,” Singla concluded.
Chemical recycling is “a public relations attempt used by the petrochemical industry to try to hold back actual solutions to the growing plastic pollution problem,” said Enck. She encouraged state lawmakers in the U.S. to introduce legislation prohibiting chemical recycling facilities, extending producer responsibility to discourage unnecessary plastic packaging, and incentivizing plastic bottle return programs.
Citation:
Singla (2022) Recycling Lies: “Chemical Recycling” of Plastic Is Just Greenwashing Incineration (Issue Brief).
Banner image: Plastic waste being dumped in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Plastics production exploded after World War II, and its pollution of water, land and air is now a global crisis. Image by Ted Auch/FracTracker Alliance.
FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.
Plastics can take hundreds of years to fully decompose. The United Nations met in March to begin developing a cradle-to-grave global plastics production and waste treaty. The plastics industry will likely be lobbying heavily over the next two years for chemical recycling to be included in national action plans. Image by Ivan Radic on Visualhunt.com.

Chemicals, Environment, Environmental Law, Environmental Policy, Global Environmental Crisis, Green, Health, Microplastics, Ocean Crisis, Oceans, Plastic, Pollution, Public Health, Research, Toxicology, United Nations, Waste, Water Pollution
Print

Plastic pollution cuts power in DR Congo

Among rolling hills around the southern tip of majestic Lake Kivu, huge layers of plastic waste ride the water and block the turbines of the largest hydroelectric plant in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Ruzizi dam is polluted by thousands of bottles, cans and other objects thrown into the lake, which stretches 90 kilometres (56 miles) along the border between DR Congo and Rwanda.
“Since the lake flows towards the Ruzizi River, all the waste thrown into it comes here little by little,” Lievin Chizungu, production manager at the dam’s power station, told AFP.
The mountainous terrain and rainy climate around lakeside Bukavu, capital of South Kivu province, do not help.
“The rainwater carries the waste into the lake and then into the river,” Jovy Mulemangabo, an engineer for the national electricity company (SNEL) in south Kivu, told AFP.
Chizungu says piles of waste can “reach a depth of 14 metres” (almost 46 feet). Divers clean the river bed to keep debris from clogging the turbines. If waste gets trapped, towns in the area are deprived of power.
Other employees clean the surface, using barges.
“I have been doing this job for 13 years,” Byunanine Mubalama told AFP. “Every day there is garbage I have to clean up.”

— ’The impact is huge’ —But it is not enough. One of the four units in the plant was damaged by debris at the end of January, and it is still down.
“The impact is huge. We have a deficit of 6.3 megawatts out of 30 total MW that we must produce not only for South Kivu, but also for neighbouring North Kivu province and for Burundi,” Chizungu said.
Garbage also caused an alternator to fail at the Ruzizi 2 power plant about 25 km south of Bukavu. With the damage at both plants, they are 20 MW short, Chizungu said.
This has provoked “many power outages in Bukavu and Uvira”.
Nicole Menemene, 29, collects plastic waste on the lake’s shores to make baskets, flowerpots, stools and nightstands.
She runs a private company called Plastycor that transforms trash into “beautiful and useful” objects.
“We do the work by hand,” Menemene said.
The company has 10 employees, but her goal is to “industrialise” their work. With her project and other local efforts, Menemene hopes to see a “90 percent reduction of Lake Kivu’s pollution”.

— ‘We have to teach people’ —Education is a crucial first step in reducing the lake’s plastic pileup, Chizungu said.
“First, we have to teach people that they cannot dump waste in the lake,” he said, adding that authorities should crack down on people tossing garbage in the waters.
But for some local residents, it is not so simple.
“Our houses are crammed together on small plots. There is no way to manage garbage,” Mathilde Binja said. “I have no choice but to throw it into Kawa river, which dumps into the lake”.
The city does offer garbage collection and disposal services for $3 to $5 (2.70 to 4.50 euros) per month, Malgache Malyanga, director of Bukavu Household Waste Management Program (PGDM), told AFP.
“Many inhabitants prefer to throw their garbage out on the road at night or in the lake,” Malyanga said.
This could be either from ignorance or lack of funds to pay for waste removal services, he added.
To combat the plague of plastic waste filling the world’s lakes, oceans and lands, the United Nations launched negotiations in March in Kenya for a global treaty against plastic pollution.

Toy libraries help families save money and cut waste as cost of living soars

As a mum of three on a single-income budget, Melissa Beeton is determined to make every household purchase count. Key points:There are more than 280 toy libraries across the countryMelissa Beeton says her toy library saved her $5,000 in a yearInterest is expected to grow as families try to manage growing household costs “I pretty much just got sick of buying toys,” she said.”There’s not a whole lot of disposable income for us to spend on stuff that’s not going to be used all the time.”For the past year, Ms Beeton has been a member and volunteer at her local toy library in Townsville in north Queensland, which allows her to rent from a large collection of toys each month for a subscription fee.”In the last 12 months, it says that I’ve saved approximately $5,000 just with borrowing toys,” she said.

Journey yields sad truth about Earth's oceans

In just 45 minutes, Reid Harlocker and his team collected 18 pounds of trash from the northern Pacific Ocean. “It’s awful,” he said, seated in his Hayden home Friday morning. “The pollution, it’s there.” Harlocker returned from his ocean voyage with Pangea Exploration on March 8. He and the crew spent a month in the …

Fines for flouting plastic bag ban coming soon, Philadelphia warns

Changing ClimateIn-depth coverage of our changing climate and environmental issues

Philadelphia

Fines for Flouting Plastic Bag Ban Coming Soon, Philly Warns

The ban, which was passed in 2019 but delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, prevents stores from giving customers single-use plastic bags or non-recyclable paper bags

By Rudy Chinchilla •

Published March 17, 2022 •
Updated on April 1, 2022 at 7:55 am

> > IF YOU PLAN TO SHOP THIS > > > IF YOU PLAN TO SHOP THIS WEEKEND, DONu2019T FORGET TO BYOB. WE MEAN BRING YOUR OWN BAG. IF LAW HAS BEEN ON THE BOOK SINCE JULY BUT ENFORCEMENT BEGINS TODAY. BEGINS TODAY. BUSINESSES THAT DONu2019T COMPLY WILL GET WARNINGS TILL APRIL 1stth. AFTER THAT, THEYu2019LL GET A TICKET. > > Reporter: THIS WAS LONG > > Reporter: THIS WAS LONG DELAYED DUE TO THE PANDEMIC. AS OF TODAY, ITu2019S OFFICIAL. THE SINGLE USE CINKLY PLASTIC BAGS NOW BANNED IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. INSTEAD YOU HAVE TO USE THIS OR A PAPER ONE. WAWAu2019S HANDING OUT FREE ONES TO WAWAu2019S HANDING OUT FREE ONES TO THEIR FIRST 100 CUSTOMERS. THE BAN WAS RESULTING FROM THE BAN WAS RESULTING FROM PLASTIC POLLUTION. THEY GET CLOGGED IN STORM DRAMS, BLOWING IN THE WIND. A BILLION OF THESE BAGS ARE USED EVERY YEAR IN THE CITY. THEYu2019VE BEEN A STAPLE. ITu2019S GOING TO US FROM STRAIGHT FOLKS. WHILE OTHERS THINK IT IS LONG WHILE OTHERS THINK IT IS LONG OVERDUE. > > Iu2019VE BEEN BRINGING BAGS TODAY AND I WAS ABLE TO PURCHASE THEM FOR UNDER A DOLLAR. > > I DONu2019T LIKE IT BECAUSE PLASTIC BAGS ARE SOMETIMES BETTER. > > Reporter: THE CITYu2019S NOT GOING TO ENFORCE WITH FINES UNTIL APRIL OF NEXT YEAR. HOWEVER, ITu2019S LIKELY YOU WONu2019T HOWEVER, ITu2019S LIKELY YOU WONu2019T FIND ANY PLASTIC BAGS ANYWAYS, SO YOU WANT TO PACK ONE WITH YOU THE NEXT TIME YOU GO SHOPPING.”,”video_id”:”1957431363659_218″,”video_length”:”94195″,”video_provider”:”mpx”,”short_video_excerpt”:””,”mpx_download_pid_mobile_low”:”xxvtTi0iC5b7″,”pid_streaming_web_mobile_low”:””,”mpx_download_pid_mobile_standard”:”qKroLwK3wHDn”,”pid_streaming_mobile_standard”:”TUc2md6WrVM9″,”alleypack_schedule_unpublish”:””,”feed_remote_id”:”mpx_1957431363659″,”feed_thumbnail_url”:””}” data-livestream=”false” data-title=”Philadelphia Plastic Bag Ban Officially in Effect” data-vidcid=”1:12:2978338″ data-vidurl=”https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/philadelphia-plastic-bag-ban-officially-in-effect/2978338/” data-islead=”true” data-catnames=”{“440″:”U.S. & World”,”282048″:”News”,”285018″:”Changing Climate”,”441″:”Local”}” data-tagnames=”{“304729″:”changing climate”,”6″:”Philadelphia”,”327284″:”plastic bag ban”,”126″:”Randy Gyllenhaal”}” data-customdata=”{“ContentPartner”:”None”,”Source”:”WEBFM”,”SyndicationAllowed”:”true”,”mSNVideoCategories”:”MSN Video v4 Connector-most watched news”,”mSNVideoContentSupplierID”:”NBC_Local”,”mSNVideoCountry”:”us”,”subtitle”:”nosubtitle”,”uploadedByTeam”:”1″,”youtubeChannel”:”None”}” data-autoplay=”true” data-cplay=”true” >

NBC Universal, Inc.

Warnings no more: in two weeks, businesses that don’t comply with Philadelphia’s plastic bag ban can expect a fine.

In a press release, the city made clear to businesses that its monthslong warning period will come to an end starting April 1. 

“As we approach the April 1 enforcement deadline, we urge businesses to make the necessary arrangements to avoid any financial penalties. And we urge shoppers to bring reusable bags to do your shopping,” Mayor Jim Kenney said in a written statement in which he also underscored the importance of reducing single-use plastic waste to curb the effects of climate change.

The ban, which was passed in 2019 but delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, prevents stores from giving customers single-use plastic bags or non-recyclable paper bags. Businesses that are not complying will only be given a warning through April 1, at which point full enforcement – meaning fines starting at $150 per violation and possible further action in court – will begin.

Stay informed about local news, politics and weather. Get the NBC10 Philadelphia app for iOS or Android and pick your alerts.

The ban includes certain exemptions, including bags used inside stores to package unwrapped food items, flowers, potted plants and dry-cleaned clothing. Bags intended for use as garbage bags or to contain pet waste and yard waste will also be exempt.

Philadelphia uses an estimated one billion plastic bags per year, which litter the streets, waterways and commercial corridors of the city. 

The city maintains other goals of the ban include reducing litter, saving money and keeping staff safe during the recycling process. People often try to recycle plastic bags curbside – which is prohibited – causing the bags to get stuck in the recycling equipment and leading to dangerous conditions for recycling center staff, as well as high costs, according to the city.

Changing Climate
In-depth coverage of our changing climate and environmental issues

Gas Mileage

Apr 1

New Vehicles Must Average 40 Mpg by 2026, Up From 24 Mpg

Technology

Mar 31

Make $87.50 in 3 Minutes: Reporting Idling Trucks in NYC Has Become a Lucrative Side Hustle for Clean-Air Vigilantes

Plastic bags account for more than 150 hours of lost time at the recycling facility, costing $300,000 each year, the city says.

GovLabPHL, an initiative led by the Mayor’s Policy Office, will work with City departments and other research partners to determine the success of the ban. The evaluation will examine what type of bags people use, as well as plastic bag litter and waste across the city.

Correction (April 1, 2022): This article has been updated with the corrected fine for plastic bag violations.

This article tagged under:
Philadelphiachanging climateplastic bag ban

Trending Stories

Schuylkill County

Possible Tornado in Schuylkill County

Donald Trump

Timeline: How the #NeverAgain Movement Gained Momentum After Parkland

Bucks County

Woman Shoots Partner Dead, Pays to Have Hole Dug to Bury Body, Cops Say

Philadelphia

Philly Officer Accused of Giving False Statements After Unlawful Search

Philadelphia 76ers

Ten Sixers’ James Harden Stats You Really Don’t Want to Read

Weather Forecast

New study casts doubt on safety of synthetic turf

In the fall of 2017, a resident of western Albemarle County was surprised to see a caravan of dump trucks making their way up a rural road – into the woods.That’s where contractors for the University of Virginia dumped a mysterious green cargo – 199 tons of synthetic turf. The news alarmed a local parent, Kate Mallek. She knew that turf fields were filled with shredded tires that provide cushioning but contain potentially toxic chemicals.“We don’t allow burning of tires,” she says. “We don’t allow people to simply throw tires into our environment. They have some lead. There are also some carcinogenic substances in them. It’s not something we want in our water.”So-called crumb rubber also contains Per- and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances or PFAS, also known as forever chemicals because they break down slowly over time. Pete Myers, founder and chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences – based in Charlottesville – says PFAS in turf could be dangerous.“Not only are the kids getting stuff on their skin – the tire crumb is all over the, but they’re probably breathing PFAS, which is a real problem,” he concludes.The Consumer Product Safety Commission says studies show no elevated health risk from playing on recycled rubber tires – a claim echoed by the industry.“The materials used in synthetic turf products have been thoroughly reviewed by both federal and state government agencies and are considered to be non-hazardous,” says Melanie Taylor, President and CEO of the Synthetic Turf Council, a group that represents manufacturers of artificial fields. She points to the first part of an EPA report as proof of safety, but the EPA – which reviewed scientific studies – said they were limited, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission said kids who play on surfaces made with recycled rubber should not eat or drink near the stuff and should wash hands and other exposed skin afterward.The EPA is now at work on a second study that will assess risk, and scientists in Europe have just published their analysis of 91 samples from synthetic turf fields around the world.“We are very worried about it,” says Jacob de Boer, a Professor of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology at the Free University of Amsterdam. His team found all of the crumb rubber samples contained hazardous compounds – some exceeding safety standards set by the European Union for cancer-causing chemicals.“In this crumb rubber there are also these P-FAS compounds which have an effect on your immune system, and that effect is much more sensitive than for cancer,” de Boer says.He’s quick to add that risk is likely related to how long and how closely players are in contact with crumb rubber.“It’s not a matter of one game or one day or a week on this crumb rubber, but if you do it regularly, training for years, and you play all your matches there, then it is a problem, so the dose is important.”That said, Holland has now agreed to phase out crumb rubber fields by 2030. Here in the U.S., Melanie Taylor says manufacturers are looking at suitable substitutes for crumb rubber — Infills made of walnut shells or a mixture of coconut husks and cork, known as corkonut.And she predicts continued growth of her industry with as many as 16,000 synthetic fields already installed and up to 1,500 new ones going in every year. In our next report, we’ll talk about what happens when those fields wear out, and why environmentalists want Virginia to put new regulations in place.For more information:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721076208?via%3Dihubhttps://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/federal-research-recycled-tire-crumb-used-playing-fieldshttps://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/rubber-and-leather-material-specific-dataPART TWOWith the return of warm weather, more student athletes will be playing outside, many of them competing on artificial turf. Manufacturers say their product – made with recycled rubber tires – is an environmentally friendly alternative to grass, but with 16-thousand synthetic turf fields already in place nationwide and as many as 15-hundred more going in each year, disposal of worn-out fields poses a problem.

Artificial Turf Part Two

With 16,000 synthetic turf fields already installed, some experts wonder where they’ll go when they’re worn out.

Listen • 3:17

A typical turf field comes with a warranty of 8-12 years. When that time is up, the field, which is made from layers of plastic and shredded tires or crumb rubber, is hauled away. Mary Lehman, a delegate from Maryland, heard from a constituent who saw rolls of used turf sitting in a vacant lot.“The concern was that the crumb rubber infill was washing down the hill into a storm drain,” she recalls. “I think everyone can agree we don’t want that happening. We don’t want shredded tires to end up in our waterways, and in Maryland pretty much everything ends up in the Chesapeake Bay.”Because the stuff is bulky, Lehman says landfills in her state don’t accept artificial turf.“We really don’t know where it’s gong. It probably is mostly going out of state to Virginia where they either are land-filling or possibly incinerating the fields or the crumb rubber infill, and there are places in Virginia where they are allowed to burn rubber,” she says.Unscrupulous contractors may even dump turf in rural areas or find property owners willing to store the stuff for less than a landfill might charge.

Artificial turf fields last about ten years. Where they go next is a mystery.

At Prince William County’s Solid Waste Authority, Director Scott MacDonald thinks it’s unfair that cities or counties have to deal with artificial turf and other materials that can’t be recycled.“We didn’t buy the products. We didn’t sell the products, and we didn’t make the profits, but at the end of their life the public looks to us for a solution,” he explains.MacDonald would like to see Virginia join 47 other states that are members of the Product Stewardship Institute, headed by Scott Cassell. He helps write laws making producers of products responsible for their disposal.“There are 124 of these laws on the books for 15 product categories in 33 states – products like pharmaceuticals, medical sharps, mercury-containing products and Maine and Oregon just passed the first two state laws on packaging,” he says.And Cassell claims this approach works in other countries.“These type of systems have been in place in Europe for over 35 years on packaging, over 15 years in Canada and in other places all around the world. Companies will make changes to lower their costs, and these laws give them incentive. It’s really about making products with less material and more reusable and recyclable material.”During the last legislative session, Virginia Delegate Betsy Carr introduced a bill to require that manufacturers accept and properly dispose of or recycle their products. It died in committee.“Sometimes you bring up something new, it’s dismissed summarily the first time,” she observes, “but you know people begin to think about it and talk about it and maybe it takes a couple more years.”Lawmakers did agree to form a task force that would study it.In the meantime, Melanie Taylor with the Synthetic Turf Council notes worn-out fields can be re-used at local driving ranges, band practice fields, pet parks, bullpens and batting cages and equestrian stables.A Danish company says it will soon open a plant in Pennsylvania to recycle synthetic turf, and for now the industry argues it is conserving billions of gallons of water each year and eliminating the need for pesticides, fertilizers and mowing to maintain grass fields.